Thursday, December 16, 2010
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Nick Cave - Hallelujah (Live 2001)
...And now, words from another Anglican of a very different stripe, George Herbert - whose words are no less coruscating, no less haunting -
The Foil.
If we could see below
The sphere of virtue, and each shining grace,
As plainly, as that above doth shew;
That were the better sky, the brighter place.
God hath made stars the foil
To set off virtues; griefs, to set off sinning.
Yet in this wretched world we toil;
As if grief were not foul, nor virtue winning.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Dispatches From Elsewhere # 2: Paul Helm
More on Packer and ""Fundamentalism" and the Word of God" here:
http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2008/03/fundamentalism-and-word-of-god-fifty_01.html
This link will take you into the blog of Paul Helm, Calvinist philosopher and theologian extraordinaire. This a cracking blog by a very stimulating and helpful contemporary Christian thinker, full of weighty and wonderful things. Paul Helm is currently a Teaching Fellow at Regent College in Vancouver, Canada.
Signing off -
The Scribbling Apprentice
http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/2008/03/fundamentalism-and-word-of-god-fifty_01.html
This link will take you into the blog of Paul Helm, Calvinist philosopher and theologian extraordinaire. This a cracking blog by a very stimulating and helpful contemporary Christian thinker, full of weighty and wonderful things. Paul Helm is currently a Teaching Fellow at Regent College in Vancouver, Canada.
Signing off -
The Scribbling Apprentice
Homage รก Packer: Fundamentalism and the Word of God
The following is a review (written some time ago and edited for clearer reading) of one of Packer's very influential little volumes, "Fundamentalism" and the Word of God. Although quite short and published over half a century ago, it remains a sharp and lucid vindication of the evangelical doctrine of Biblical revelation. Packer takes liberalism to task for misunderstanding and ultimately forfeiting the meaningful witness of the Biblical texts for the sake of what appears to be enlightened rationalism. As Packer shows, however, such a tack trades a rich inheritance for a mess of pottage. Of course, a critical reading of ""Fundamentalism" and the Word of God" in the context of the dizzying advances of critical theory and postmodernity shows up some of the short-comings of this work. However, in terms of a deft and clear exposition of the central matters at stake in the on-going debate over Biblical authority, Packer's work can hardly be bettered.
""Fundamentalism and the Word of God" (Eerdmans, 1958) by J. I Packer: A Review
Packer’s treatment of the topic of “fundamentalism” and the Bible opens up into a comprehensive engagement with the evangelical doctrine of Scripture and the contrasting trends of liberalism, which effectively rob Scripture of its authority and internal coherence. He shows up the often unexamined assumptions that underlie so much seemingly “scientific” criticism of Scripture and the inconsistencies bound into the liberal stance on the place and authority of Scripture.
Early on, Packer disregards the term “fundamentalism” as being unhelpful insofar as it is a term often used to convey and cover up opposition to the evangelical stance on the authority of the Bible. It is more often than not bound up in rhetoric and thus encourages emotional responses as opposed to clarity. Moving on from this point, Packer identifies authority as the main issue underpinning so much debate on the nature of Scripture. Essentially, he writes, there are only three possible views of the Bible; the evangelical, traditionalist and subjectivist viewpoints. Only the evangelical approach coheres with the texture of Scriptural authority and is thus in accord with apostolic tradition and Christ’s own view of the Scriptures. Scripture, on the basis of the evangelical view, is the rule of faith and life. The theological method Christ demands of the church must conform to the pattern of the Scriptures themselves; reason and human thought is thus to be shaped by the authority and witness of Scripture.
This is in direct contrast to the subjectivist approach to the Bible (the only real alternative to the evangelical standpoint) which is based primarily on the acceptance of the conclusions of nineteenth century critical Bible study. Such a viewpoint demands that Scripture errs at various points and must therefore be interpreted effectively by discerning scholars. Therefore, only Scripture that is pruned by human reason remains authoritative and not necessarily Scripture itself. The supreme authority is human reason; critical rationalism becomes the conduit of divine revelation. This approach underpins the subjectivist project, which is the staple methodology of liberalism.
In response to such a viewpoint, Packer unfurls a properly Biblical view of Scripture. He fleshes out the meaning of the term theopneustos (“breathed out by God”) from 2 Timothy 3.16. Through careful exegesis Packer shows the Bible to be the product of God’s inspiring activity working through the various Biblical writers’ cast of mind, outlook, temperament, interests, literary habits and stylistic idiosyncrasies to bring about the textual revelation of Scripture. God is sovereign over (what Packer calls) this “concursive” process and so is in no way frustrated by the sinfulness and humanity of the Biblical authors. Scripture is thus fully human and fully divine. Providence and the free agency of man harmonise to produce the revelation of Scripture. A denial of this truth is primarily rooted in a stunted, limited doctrine of God that is built on a deistic conception of his deity. The god of rationalistic liberalism is an anaemic, weak deity or “super-force” who cannot address human kind or intervene in the mechanics of world-events. Because such a god cannot speak or act, the Scriptures are seen as purely human constructions; the distilled reflections of man’s religious genius and nothing more. If God cannot act and if God cannot speak, the Biblical witness is human, all too human. It is little more than compelling and enigmatic literature.
This idea that Scripture is an entirely human construct built on merely human reflection and speculation on experience is a major tenet of liberal Protestantism. But, as Packer writes, no amount of human speculation could ever make real sense of Jesus Christ the Man (to pick a single example; the same applies to any major event of revelation in the Bible). The Bible is thus more properly understood as an inspired record of history; God’s actions in history being bound up with the words he inspired to interpret them.
Scripture is a complex, self-interpreting organism containing every conceivable literary genre. Packer asserts that only an evangelical viewpoint of revelation can properly do justice to the wealth of Biblical literature and revelation. Far from cramping exegetical style, the evangelical hermeneutic should liberate it, for only the standpoint of evangelical tradition enables Scripture to speak with suitable authority. The evangelical hermeneutic encourages a posture of obedient listening to the text of Scripture. Thereby, spiritual change in human hearts is brought about. The end result is dynamic transformation; individual lives and whole communities are transformed as the Word of God is heard.
In contrast, liberalism places the ultimate emphasis on the role of unaided human reason (separated from believing faith) as the sole interpreter of Scripture. The intellectual schema of the detached “objective” cogito ascertaining “pure facts” defined the scholarly project of modernity (which in turn under-girded the development of theological liberalism.) Ironically however, our human reasoning faculties are loaded with undetected prejudice and bias. As has been indicated time and again, the idea of pure intellectual detachment yielding objective truth through unaided reason is a mere myth. Instead of guiding people into a deeper grasp of the Biblical truth, unaided human reason more often than not merely ends up emasculating it and shaping it according to the fashionable intellectual whims of the age. The end result is an all-out silencing of the voice of Scripture; the gagging of God.
As I read “”Fundamentalism” and the Word of God” I particularly admired Packer’s ability to so effortlessly unmask the presuppositions bound into the liberal project of Biblical interpretation. So often, evangelicals are castigated for holding to a blinkered and prejudiced approach to Biblical interpretation. In fact, however, as Packer reveals, the evangelical hermeneutic is more properly “catholic” in orientation and far more loyal to the tradition of the church. It is not a recent fashion that emerged after the Enlightenment as a defensive response to the emergence of historio-critical approaches to Scripture (as many suppose). Every major Christian theologian through the ages has held to what might be identified as an evangelical approach to Biblical interpretation. As such, as Packer reveals, it is actually the liberal project which is the anomaly, having sprung up in its modern form during the nineteenth century.
Furthermore, at heart, liberalism revolves on a faith bias insofar as its advocates spurn the Bible’s own witness to itself as God’s authoritative revelation. Rather than trust the witness of Scripture and accept it as God’s revealed Word, liberalism puts its faith in autonomous human reason (exalted over humble, believing faith and the veracity of the Biblical record.) The result is a multitude of different theologies and systems of interpretation that ultimately fog up the Biblical accounts under various trends of philosophical thought. As Packer writes, reason must be put to the service of believing faith. Otherwise, it becomes irrational. This insight rings true of so many liberal trends of Biblical interpretation. Packer builds up to a damning indictment of liberal theology, claiming it works with a stunted rationality that actually weakens the intellectual life of the church.
Following on from this critique of liberal trends of interpretation, Packer encourages an approach to Scripture that springs from “reasoning faith”. I was heartened by Packer’s plea for careful and constructive thought that applies Biblical truth to the whole of life. Such an enterprise is crucial. The duty to effectively communicate God’s truth involves the duty to think hard. This involves reasoning (Paul provides a good example in Acts 17.16-33 when he preaches in Athens[1]) in an effort to get across Biblical concepts in a language that is comprehensible within contemporary culture and yet does not deny the gospel. After all, Biblical revelation is predominantly given in terms of near Eastern culture and thought forms; it is necessary to do the work of translating it into the thought patterns of contemporary culture.
Packer writes, “…it is through the ferment of thought created by such interaction that theological insight is deepened and the relevance of the gospel more fully grasped” (p. 135). I heartily agree. Indeed, since the publication of “”Fundamentalism” and the Word of God” (1958), the term “fundamentalism” as a by-word for anti-intellectualism has to some extent been superseded by the term “evangelical”, at least in my experience. Bibliolatry, bigotry, unthinking dogmatism and shallow theology are conflated under the term “evangelical” – at least, it was by some of my university peers. I believe that on some level this is a justified critique. Quite simply, the hearty and vibrant thought and reflection Packer calls for, the kind of thinking that relates Biblical truth to every aspect of social, cultural, historical, political, philosophical and scientific reality (as well as to the arts) is lacking in a good amount of contemporary evangelical life and thought.[2] Packer admits recognition of this trait in the evangelical circles of his own period. The pairing of evangelicalism and anti-intellectualism is an unhealthy and unwarranted development that is ill-at-odds with a thoroughly Biblical Christian witness in the world.
As Packer suggests, a vibrant faith (and reliance on the Bible as the Word of God) does not necessarily negate or undermine vibrant, vital thinking and critical reflection. If any tradition can claim intellectual credibility, it is evangelicalism. The theological ancestry of evangelicalism is rooted in the thought of giants like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Jonathan Edwards and John Wesley. Evangelical thought (because it springs from the Reformation revolution) has properly resolved the dual role of reason and faith and how they ought to compliment one another on the basis of prior divine illumination. This complimentary relationship between reason and faith is fostered only by a proper understanding of Biblical revelation. Liberalism on the other hand is “wedded to axioms which represent a lapse into unbelief” (p. 142) and therefore estrangement from God. As such, it must (and inevitably does) lapse into intellectual short-falls and error.
Overall, I was encouraged by Packer’s estimate of the vitality of the evangelical tradition, which despite so many protestations to the contrary, is in fact a treasure trove of so much formative and ground-breaking thought. To be thoroughly evangelical, then, does not demand a wholesale abandonment of contemporary thought and culture, but the opposite; a robust engagement that seeks to redeem it for the glory of Christ.
Accordingly, the evangelical opposition to liberalism is absolutely not based on irrationality or lack of intellectual depth. Rather, the opposite is the case. It is precisely because evangelicalism contains a deeper, truer and more rational estimate of Scripture, that it must stand against liberal trends of interpretation. Packer helped me to see that. Indeed, a thorough-going liberalism collapses under itself; by evacuating Scripture of its historical veracity and theological truth, it leaves only a single option for the basis of belief – a will to “leap into the dark” without any basis on evidence. Such is a true abdication of the use of the mind.
Finally, Packer helped me to realise that repentance follows through on the intellectual level. It is possible to be in intellectual revolt against the God of the Bible. Such a stance is embodied in an unnecessarily sceptical and wise-ass approach to Biblical truth, which seeks to force it into a prior mould borrowed from agnostic trends of contemporary thought. I know that I have been guilty of this although I have often conveniently ignored it. At root, as Packer makes clear, all intellectual pride emerges from a prior flouting of God’s authority, a refusal to submit both the heart and mind to Christ in willing obedience and love. If our thinking is to be properly and truly doxological, we must first submit to the God who is there: the God who has spoken and revealed himself through his Word.
[1] Jesus himself, according to Bernard Ramm (The Pattern of Authority, Eerdmans, 1957, pp.51) – cited by Packer on pp. 93 – appealed to logic: “With reference to logical forms our Lord used analogy, Luke xi.13; reduction ad absurdum, Matt. xii.26; excluded middle, Matt. xii. 30; a fortiori, Matt. Xii. 1-8; implication, Matt. xii. 28; and the law of non-contradiction, Luke vi. 39.”
[2] Perhaps this is an overstatement: there is much in the way of evangelical engagement with critical thought and contemporary culture in the work of a long list of writers and scholars like D A Carson, Tim Keller, N T Wright, John Frame, William Lane Craig, William Alston, Alvin Plantinga, Kevin Vanhoozer, Stephen N Williams…to name but a few working in different realms of thought.
""Fundamentalism and the Word of God" (Eerdmans, 1958) by J. I Packer: A Review
Packer’s treatment of the topic of “fundamentalism” and the Bible opens up into a comprehensive engagement with the evangelical doctrine of Scripture and the contrasting trends of liberalism, which effectively rob Scripture of its authority and internal coherence. He shows up the often unexamined assumptions that underlie so much seemingly “scientific” criticism of Scripture and the inconsistencies bound into the liberal stance on the place and authority of Scripture.
Early on, Packer disregards the term “fundamentalism” as being unhelpful insofar as it is a term often used to convey and cover up opposition to the evangelical stance on the authority of the Bible. It is more often than not bound up in rhetoric and thus encourages emotional responses as opposed to clarity. Moving on from this point, Packer identifies authority as the main issue underpinning so much debate on the nature of Scripture. Essentially, he writes, there are only three possible views of the Bible; the evangelical, traditionalist and subjectivist viewpoints. Only the evangelical approach coheres with the texture of Scriptural authority and is thus in accord with apostolic tradition and Christ’s own view of the Scriptures. Scripture, on the basis of the evangelical view, is the rule of faith and life. The theological method Christ demands of the church must conform to the pattern of the Scriptures themselves; reason and human thought is thus to be shaped by the authority and witness of Scripture.
This is in direct contrast to the subjectivist approach to the Bible (the only real alternative to the evangelical standpoint) which is based primarily on the acceptance of the conclusions of nineteenth century critical Bible study. Such a viewpoint demands that Scripture errs at various points and must therefore be interpreted effectively by discerning scholars. Therefore, only Scripture that is pruned by human reason remains authoritative and not necessarily Scripture itself. The supreme authority is human reason; critical rationalism becomes the conduit of divine revelation. This approach underpins the subjectivist project, which is the staple methodology of liberalism.
In response to such a viewpoint, Packer unfurls a properly Biblical view of Scripture. He fleshes out the meaning of the term theopneustos (“breathed out by God”) from 2 Timothy 3.16. Through careful exegesis Packer shows the Bible to be the product of God’s inspiring activity working through the various Biblical writers’ cast of mind, outlook, temperament, interests, literary habits and stylistic idiosyncrasies to bring about the textual revelation of Scripture. God is sovereign over (what Packer calls) this “concursive” process and so is in no way frustrated by the sinfulness and humanity of the Biblical authors. Scripture is thus fully human and fully divine. Providence and the free agency of man harmonise to produce the revelation of Scripture. A denial of this truth is primarily rooted in a stunted, limited doctrine of God that is built on a deistic conception of his deity. The god of rationalistic liberalism is an anaemic, weak deity or “super-force” who cannot address human kind or intervene in the mechanics of world-events. Because such a god cannot speak or act, the Scriptures are seen as purely human constructions; the distilled reflections of man’s religious genius and nothing more. If God cannot act and if God cannot speak, the Biblical witness is human, all too human. It is little more than compelling and enigmatic literature.
This idea that Scripture is an entirely human construct built on merely human reflection and speculation on experience is a major tenet of liberal Protestantism. But, as Packer writes, no amount of human speculation could ever make real sense of Jesus Christ the Man (to pick a single example; the same applies to any major event of revelation in the Bible). The Bible is thus more properly understood as an inspired record of history; God’s actions in history being bound up with the words he inspired to interpret them.
Scripture is a complex, self-interpreting organism containing every conceivable literary genre. Packer asserts that only an evangelical viewpoint of revelation can properly do justice to the wealth of Biblical literature and revelation. Far from cramping exegetical style, the evangelical hermeneutic should liberate it, for only the standpoint of evangelical tradition enables Scripture to speak with suitable authority. The evangelical hermeneutic encourages a posture of obedient listening to the text of Scripture. Thereby, spiritual change in human hearts is brought about. The end result is dynamic transformation; individual lives and whole communities are transformed as the Word of God is heard.
In contrast, liberalism places the ultimate emphasis on the role of unaided human reason (separated from believing faith) as the sole interpreter of Scripture. The intellectual schema of the detached “objective” cogito ascertaining “pure facts” defined the scholarly project of modernity (which in turn under-girded the development of theological liberalism.) Ironically however, our human reasoning faculties are loaded with undetected prejudice and bias. As has been indicated time and again, the idea of pure intellectual detachment yielding objective truth through unaided reason is a mere myth. Instead of guiding people into a deeper grasp of the Biblical truth, unaided human reason more often than not merely ends up emasculating it and shaping it according to the fashionable intellectual whims of the age. The end result is an all-out silencing of the voice of Scripture; the gagging of God.
As I read “”Fundamentalism” and the Word of God” I particularly admired Packer’s ability to so effortlessly unmask the presuppositions bound into the liberal project of Biblical interpretation. So often, evangelicals are castigated for holding to a blinkered and prejudiced approach to Biblical interpretation. In fact, however, as Packer reveals, the evangelical hermeneutic is more properly “catholic” in orientation and far more loyal to the tradition of the church. It is not a recent fashion that emerged after the Enlightenment as a defensive response to the emergence of historio-critical approaches to Scripture (as many suppose). Every major Christian theologian through the ages has held to what might be identified as an evangelical approach to Biblical interpretation. As such, as Packer reveals, it is actually the liberal project which is the anomaly, having sprung up in its modern form during the nineteenth century.
Furthermore, at heart, liberalism revolves on a faith bias insofar as its advocates spurn the Bible’s own witness to itself as God’s authoritative revelation. Rather than trust the witness of Scripture and accept it as God’s revealed Word, liberalism puts its faith in autonomous human reason (exalted over humble, believing faith and the veracity of the Biblical record.) The result is a multitude of different theologies and systems of interpretation that ultimately fog up the Biblical accounts under various trends of philosophical thought. As Packer writes, reason must be put to the service of believing faith. Otherwise, it becomes irrational. This insight rings true of so many liberal trends of Biblical interpretation. Packer builds up to a damning indictment of liberal theology, claiming it works with a stunted rationality that actually weakens the intellectual life of the church.
Following on from this critique of liberal trends of interpretation, Packer encourages an approach to Scripture that springs from “reasoning faith”. I was heartened by Packer’s plea for careful and constructive thought that applies Biblical truth to the whole of life. Such an enterprise is crucial. The duty to effectively communicate God’s truth involves the duty to think hard. This involves reasoning (Paul provides a good example in Acts 17.16-33 when he preaches in Athens[1]) in an effort to get across Biblical concepts in a language that is comprehensible within contemporary culture and yet does not deny the gospel. After all, Biblical revelation is predominantly given in terms of near Eastern culture and thought forms; it is necessary to do the work of translating it into the thought patterns of contemporary culture.
Packer writes, “…it is through the ferment of thought created by such interaction that theological insight is deepened and the relevance of the gospel more fully grasped” (p. 135). I heartily agree. Indeed, since the publication of “”Fundamentalism” and the Word of God” (1958), the term “fundamentalism” as a by-word for anti-intellectualism has to some extent been superseded by the term “evangelical”, at least in my experience. Bibliolatry, bigotry, unthinking dogmatism and shallow theology are conflated under the term “evangelical” – at least, it was by some of my university peers. I believe that on some level this is a justified critique. Quite simply, the hearty and vibrant thought and reflection Packer calls for, the kind of thinking that relates Biblical truth to every aspect of social, cultural, historical, political, philosophical and scientific reality (as well as to the arts) is lacking in a good amount of contemporary evangelical life and thought.[2] Packer admits recognition of this trait in the evangelical circles of his own period. The pairing of evangelicalism and anti-intellectualism is an unhealthy and unwarranted development that is ill-at-odds with a thoroughly Biblical Christian witness in the world.
As Packer suggests, a vibrant faith (and reliance on the Bible as the Word of God) does not necessarily negate or undermine vibrant, vital thinking and critical reflection. If any tradition can claim intellectual credibility, it is evangelicalism. The theological ancestry of evangelicalism is rooted in the thought of giants like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Jonathan Edwards and John Wesley. Evangelical thought (because it springs from the Reformation revolution) has properly resolved the dual role of reason and faith and how they ought to compliment one another on the basis of prior divine illumination. This complimentary relationship between reason and faith is fostered only by a proper understanding of Biblical revelation. Liberalism on the other hand is “wedded to axioms which represent a lapse into unbelief” (p. 142) and therefore estrangement from God. As such, it must (and inevitably does) lapse into intellectual short-falls and error.
Overall, I was encouraged by Packer’s estimate of the vitality of the evangelical tradition, which despite so many protestations to the contrary, is in fact a treasure trove of so much formative and ground-breaking thought. To be thoroughly evangelical, then, does not demand a wholesale abandonment of contemporary thought and culture, but the opposite; a robust engagement that seeks to redeem it for the glory of Christ.
Accordingly, the evangelical opposition to liberalism is absolutely not based on irrationality or lack of intellectual depth. Rather, the opposite is the case. It is precisely because evangelicalism contains a deeper, truer and more rational estimate of Scripture, that it must stand against liberal trends of interpretation. Packer helped me to see that. Indeed, a thorough-going liberalism collapses under itself; by evacuating Scripture of its historical veracity and theological truth, it leaves only a single option for the basis of belief – a will to “leap into the dark” without any basis on evidence. Such is a true abdication of the use of the mind.
Finally, Packer helped me to realise that repentance follows through on the intellectual level. It is possible to be in intellectual revolt against the God of the Bible. Such a stance is embodied in an unnecessarily sceptical and wise-ass approach to Biblical truth, which seeks to force it into a prior mould borrowed from agnostic trends of contemporary thought. I know that I have been guilty of this although I have often conveniently ignored it. At root, as Packer makes clear, all intellectual pride emerges from a prior flouting of God’s authority, a refusal to submit both the heart and mind to Christ in willing obedience and love. If our thinking is to be properly and truly doxological, we must first submit to the God who is there: the God who has spoken and revealed himself through his Word.
[1] Jesus himself, according to Bernard Ramm (The Pattern of Authority, Eerdmans, 1957, pp.51) – cited by Packer on pp. 93 – appealed to logic: “With reference to logical forms our Lord used analogy, Luke xi.13; reduction ad absurdum, Matt. xii.26; excluded middle, Matt. xii. 30; a fortiori, Matt. Xii. 1-8; implication, Matt. xii. 28; and the law of non-contradiction, Luke vi. 39.”
[2] Perhaps this is an overstatement: there is much in the way of evangelical engagement with critical thought and contemporary culture in the work of a long list of writers and scholars like D A Carson, Tim Keller, N T Wright, John Frame, William Lane Craig, William Alston, Alvin Plantinga, Kevin Vanhoozer, Stephen N Williams…to name but a few working in different realms of thought.
Friday, October 29, 2010
What is Hell? J.I. Packer
J I Packer, the theologian who has probably written more introductions to Christian theological books than any other living mortal, addresses the solemn question, "What is Hell?" In terms of influence on contemprary evangelicalism and generations of Christians, Packer's influence is inestimable. His writing is brisk and packed to the hilt with edifying, readable truth ("Packer by name, packer by nature"). In a kind of miniature homage to Packer, I hope to lift an old article on one of his first (and still very influential) books "Fundamentalism and the Word of God" and post it sometime soon. In the meantime, enjoy this post. And if you can get your hands on anthing by Packer, give it a read.
Peter Says: Get Some Nuts (Because the End of All Things is Near) III
"The end of all things is near. Therfore be clear minded and self-controlled so that you can pray. Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers a multitude of sins. Off ospitality to one another without grumbling. Each one should use whatever gift he has reveived to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms. If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen" (1 Peter 4.7-11)
Peter writes in verse 7: “The end of all things is near.” This brings us to our second and last point. The end of all things is near therefore we the church (as a pilgrim people) must live a distinctive and prophetic way of life.
Do you know that the church – by simply being – by simply meeting and gathering – is a prophetic voice in the world? It may not seem that way from time to time. But only the church can declare two truths that every person needs to hear. First of all, everyone needs to know that God has not abandoned the world. That is one truth every person must hear. The other truth the church declares is that God will judge the world. Two truths. Both of them stand or fall together. We cannot afford to proclaim one without the other. Both are absolutely vital and everyone must hear them.
They must hear the first truth so that they may know that there is a sovereign God of supreme love and power who created them and the world and everything in it. They must know that there is a God who is sacrificially committed to a dying world – so much so that he gave his only Son Jesus Christ. They must know that Jesus Christ is the one who suffered that they may be healed of their sin and spiritual blindness. They must hear about Jesus the Saviour-King.
But they must also hear that Jesus the Saviour-King is also the Righteous Lord. He cannot permit injustices like rape and murder and unjust violence and adultery and pride to go unpunished. For he is utterly holy and righteous and just. It cannot be that all the heinous evils of the world will go unpunished in the end. It cannot be that all the terribly wrongs of history will not be put right. There must be judgement. But the truth is everyone of us is implicated in the evil of the world; we are all sinners and therefore accountable to God. People must know that there is a judgement to come. No stain of sin, not a hint of evil, or of pain or of suffering can have a part in the New Creation God will bring into being through his Son.
How will the church communicate two such vital truths to a world so full of death, chaos and hopelessness? How is the prophetic voice of the church going to reach a dying culture? Peter spells it out. The end of all things is near therefore we must be:
- clear-minded and self-controlled (verse 7). In other words, have a clear-eyed grasp of the gospel. Know the truth. Be self-controlled so that you can pray. We cannot pray if we are filled with agitation or envy or anger. We cannot pray if we loose control in the chaotic pursuit of self-centred pleasure or if we become drunk and loose the run of ourselves
The end of all things is near therefore above all:
- love one another deeply (verse 8). Paul says in Romans (13.10) that love is the fulfilment of the law. All the commandments are summed up in this one: “Love your neighbour as yourself” (Leviticus 19.18). In John 13.35 Jesus says: “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love is the most vital and distinct mark of the church. As Peter says, love covers over a multitude of sins. Our love for one another enables us to forgive one another and self-sacrificially serve one another. This love will express itself in very practical ways, not least of which is:
- offering hospitality to oneanother without groaning (verse 9). It doesn’t get much more practical then this, does it? Peter commands us to open our homes to one another, to share what we have with one another in a spirit of service and love. It is quite incredible; Peter begins by emphasising the imminent end of all things and then in the same breath he commands us to invite each-other over for a cup of tea. The reality of the eschaton intrudes into the most practical, seemingly mundane acts of service. By offering hospitality without groaning we anticipate the eternal Kingdom to come. By living in the manner Peter calls us to we live out the reality of the Kingdom to come in the flesh, in space-time now.
The end of all things is near therefore:
- each one should use whatever gift has been given to serve eachother. There is an overwhelming variety of gifts and temperaments here at Immanuel. Everyone of us is unique and gifted with a particular ability and perspective nobody else shares. It’s worth saying here too that the lists of spiritual gifts that we find in the pastoral epistles are not exhaustive but merely suggestive. It’s impossible to neatly classify the dizzying array of gifts we all possess between us. Having been created in the image of God we each possess different gifts and abilities; it may be intellectual passion, artistic creativity, administrative brilliance or musical genius. All these gifts with which we are endowed by creation are touched by the Holy Spirit when we are created anew in Christ.
We have been gifted so that we may serve one another. Our gifts are only discovered in service and never in introspection. In other words, it is only in the context of community and fellowship that we discover our gifts. We don’t discover them by sitting in solitude and studying our inner selves. As we gather in community others will recognise and encourage our the gifts they recognise in us. A major reason for gathering as church is to enable us to serve one another with the gifts we have. “Each one of us should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God’s grace in its various forms” (verse 10).
As Peter says (4.11) we can only serve eachother in the strength God provides. In our own power we quickly grow weary of serving one other and we become either burnt out or fed up. If we love and serve one another in God’s strength as Peter commands then the prophetic voice of the church will sound out in the midst of the city. The quality of our mutual love, the richness of our communal life and the truth we have to share will impact lives and rescue people out of the flood of dissipation into the fullness of life in Christ Jesus.
Only the church can point ahead to where the universe is going. The gospel alone provides the answers people hunger for. For what were we created? We were created and called “so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ” (verse 11b). Only the church can proclaim this message. Only we can proclaim it as we choose to live out our earthly every-day life not for evil human desires but for the will of God.
May God give us the wisdom, the passion and the desire to do just that. May we arm ourselves with the attitude of Christ so that we may suffer in the world for the sake of pointing to him; the only Saviour-King, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Signing Off For Now -
The Scribbling Apprentice
Peter writes in verse 7: “The end of all things is near.” This brings us to our second and last point. The end of all things is near therefore we the church (as a pilgrim people) must live a distinctive and prophetic way of life.
Do you know that the church – by simply being – by simply meeting and gathering – is a prophetic voice in the world? It may not seem that way from time to time. But only the church can declare two truths that every person needs to hear. First of all, everyone needs to know that God has not abandoned the world. That is one truth every person must hear. The other truth the church declares is that God will judge the world. Two truths. Both of them stand or fall together. We cannot afford to proclaim one without the other. Both are absolutely vital and everyone must hear them.
They must hear the first truth so that they may know that there is a sovereign God of supreme love and power who created them and the world and everything in it. They must know that there is a God who is sacrificially committed to a dying world – so much so that he gave his only Son Jesus Christ. They must know that Jesus Christ is the one who suffered that they may be healed of their sin and spiritual blindness. They must hear about Jesus the Saviour-King.
But they must also hear that Jesus the Saviour-King is also the Righteous Lord. He cannot permit injustices like rape and murder and unjust violence and adultery and pride to go unpunished. For he is utterly holy and righteous and just. It cannot be that all the heinous evils of the world will go unpunished in the end. It cannot be that all the terribly wrongs of history will not be put right. There must be judgement. But the truth is everyone of us is implicated in the evil of the world; we are all sinners and therefore accountable to God. People must know that there is a judgement to come. No stain of sin, not a hint of evil, or of pain or of suffering can have a part in the New Creation God will bring into being through his Son.
How will the church communicate two such vital truths to a world so full of death, chaos and hopelessness? How is the prophetic voice of the church going to reach a dying culture? Peter spells it out. The end of all things is near therefore we must be:
- clear-minded and self-controlled (verse 7). In other words, have a clear-eyed grasp of the gospel. Know the truth. Be self-controlled so that you can pray. We cannot pray if we are filled with agitation or envy or anger. We cannot pray if we loose control in the chaotic pursuit of self-centred pleasure or if we become drunk and loose the run of ourselves
The end of all things is near therefore above all:
- love one another deeply (verse 8). Paul says in Romans (13.10) that love is the fulfilment of the law. All the commandments are summed up in this one: “Love your neighbour as yourself” (Leviticus 19.18). In John 13.35 Jesus says: “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love is the most vital and distinct mark of the church. As Peter says, love covers over a multitude of sins. Our love for one another enables us to forgive one another and self-sacrificially serve one another. This love will express itself in very practical ways, not least of which is:
- offering hospitality to oneanother without groaning (verse 9). It doesn’t get much more practical then this, does it? Peter commands us to open our homes to one another, to share what we have with one another in a spirit of service and love. It is quite incredible; Peter begins by emphasising the imminent end of all things and then in the same breath he commands us to invite each-other over for a cup of tea. The reality of the eschaton intrudes into the most practical, seemingly mundane acts of service. By offering hospitality without groaning we anticipate the eternal Kingdom to come. By living in the manner Peter calls us to we live out the reality of the Kingdom to come in the flesh, in space-time now.
The end of all things is near therefore:
- each one should use whatever gift has been given to serve eachother. There is an overwhelming variety of gifts and temperaments here at Immanuel. Everyone of us is unique and gifted with a particular ability and perspective nobody else shares. It’s worth saying here too that the lists of spiritual gifts that we find in the pastoral epistles are not exhaustive but merely suggestive. It’s impossible to neatly classify the dizzying array of gifts we all possess between us. Having been created in the image of God we each possess different gifts and abilities; it may be intellectual passion, artistic creativity, administrative brilliance or musical genius. All these gifts with which we are endowed by creation are touched by the Holy Spirit when we are created anew in Christ.
We have been gifted so that we may serve one another. Our gifts are only discovered in service and never in introspection. In other words, it is only in the context of community and fellowship that we discover our gifts. We don’t discover them by sitting in solitude and studying our inner selves. As we gather in community others will recognise and encourage our the gifts they recognise in us. A major reason for gathering as church is to enable us to serve one another with the gifts we have. “Each one of us should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God’s grace in its various forms” (verse 10).
As Peter says (4.11) we can only serve eachother in the strength God provides. In our own power we quickly grow weary of serving one other and we become either burnt out or fed up. If we love and serve one another in God’s strength as Peter commands then the prophetic voice of the church will sound out in the midst of the city. The quality of our mutual love, the richness of our communal life and the truth we have to share will impact lives and rescue people out of the flood of dissipation into the fullness of life in Christ Jesus.
Only the church can point ahead to where the universe is going. The gospel alone provides the answers people hunger for. For what were we created? We were created and called “so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ” (verse 11b). Only the church can proclaim this message. Only we can proclaim it as we choose to live out our earthly every-day life not for evil human desires but for the will of God.
May God give us the wisdom, the passion and the desire to do just that. May we arm ourselves with the attitude of Christ so that we may suffer in the world for the sake of pointing to him; the only Saviour-King, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Signing Off For Now -
The Scribbling Apprentice
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Peter Says: Get Some Nuts II
1Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in his body is done with sin. 2As a result, he does not live the rest of his earthly life for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. 3For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. 4They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you. 5But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. 6For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit. (1 Peter 4.1-6)
So who is the fool? According to Mr T it’s the faker on the pitch crying out for a free-kick (so is the “speedwalka” and the “toe-dippa”.) But who is the fool here? Who is living a fruitless life that will come to nothing? Look again at verse 3 and following: “For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do – living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatory. They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you. But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.”
In the end, it’s worth facing the whateve ridicule and the discomfort our peers will heap on us because of the ultimate things. Death and judgement will come and only Christ can save people. Death will come and only Christ has conquered it. Therefore live it out, says Peter. Suffer for the sake of deep moral commitment to God brought about through the life-saving power of the gospel. In doing so, others without hope will see it. Then they too may be saved from the flood of dissipation that goes nowhere but the bleak despair of eternal hell.
Before we move on to the third post ("Get Some Nuts Because the End of All Things is Near") I think it’s worth saying this: I’m not telling you that enjoying pleasure is wrong and neither is Peter. The God of Christianity is not a pleasure-hating God. How could he be? He created the senses; sex is his idea. This voluptuous world with all its colours and textures are the work of his hands. How could God be a pleasure-hating God if he sent his Son to rescued us from a pleasure-less eternity? God cannot be a pleasure-hating God if he promises us the intense joy of heaven through Christ his Son. Peter is not telling us to deny ourselves that which is good and God-given. A pleasure-hating God would not create a world in which a Taco Taco Beef Burrito with extra Jalepenos could exist; there is too much correspondence between its tangy taste and my personal pleasure for that to be the case.
We are pleasure loving creatures. We delight in beauty and sensation. That is not a mistake. But the abuse of pleasure and the bondage and harm it leads to is wrong. Sin distorts everything that is good; sexual hunger becomes lust, love of pleasure becomes debauchery, love of good food becomes gluttony, the in-born human sense of the divine is warped into idolatory; sin reduces human life to nothing more than a flood of dissipation. It is spiritually fatal and ultimately seals us off from the living God. There cannot be a more heart-rending tragedy or a more fruitless loss than that of a human life spent on triviality and distorted pleasure. Peter wants to spare us from such a tragedy. As Christians we want to call people from such a wasted life of foolishness and ultimate loss.
It’s a shocking thing isn’t it? In an ultimate sense, a life without Christ is a wasted life. A life lived for sin and self-serving pleasure is utter folly. And it only ends in tragedy.
We must continue to live God-honouring lives that magnify Christ and contradict the flow of dissipation and spiritual darkness around us. People need to see that there is an alternative; that there is hope. They need to see that they are not doomed to the death-grip of drug addiction or drink-induced numbness. They need to to see that death, boredom and despair don’t have the last word. So don’t run a mile from what Peter calls the pagan flood of dissipation. Stay close. You’ve been stationed where you are to be a burning light in the smog of spiritual darkness and pain that engulfes so many lives.
If that is not reason enough to push through and press on, verse 5 has got to be: “But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.”
In the end the live Peter calls us to is the only life worth living. The alternative is unthinkable. It is folly. It is fruitless and tragic. Yes, to obey Jesus as Lord is costly and difficult. It is painful and uncomfortable to fight against sin and unbelief day-by-day. It is difficult to face the derision of other who think our belief is delusion and our way of life straight-jacketed morality. But, in the end, it is the only way that leads to life. And, in the end, it is the only path to blessing and fullness. It is the only way to live. The alternative is folly.
May God in his infinite love grant us the spiritual strength to go Get Some Nuts so that we might be gracious Jesus-people amidst a flood of dissipation. May we offer the spiritually lost the only thing that can satiate the awful thirst and the gnawing hunger: the gospel of Christ. Amen.
Signing Out -
The Scribbling Apprentice
So who is the fool? According to Mr T it’s the faker on the pitch crying out for a free-kick (so is the “speedwalka” and the “toe-dippa”.) But who is the fool here? Who is living a fruitless life that will come to nothing? Look again at verse 3 and following: “For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do – living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatory. They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you. But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.”
In the end, it’s worth facing the whateve ridicule and the discomfort our peers will heap on us because of the ultimate things. Death and judgement will come and only Christ can save people. Death will come and only Christ has conquered it. Therefore live it out, says Peter. Suffer for the sake of deep moral commitment to God brought about through the life-saving power of the gospel. In doing so, others without hope will see it. Then they too may be saved from the flood of dissipation that goes nowhere but the bleak despair of eternal hell.
Before we move on to the third post ("Get Some Nuts Because the End of All Things is Near") I think it’s worth saying this: I’m not telling you that enjoying pleasure is wrong and neither is Peter. The God of Christianity is not a pleasure-hating God. How could he be? He created the senses; sex is his idea. This voluptuous world with all its colours and textures are the work of his hands. How could God be a pleasure-hating God if he sent his Son to rescued us from a pleasure-less eternity? God cannot be a pleasure-hating God if he promises us the intense joy of heaven through Christ his Son. Peter is not telling us to deny ourselves that which is good and God-given. A pleasure-hating God would not create a world in which a Taco Taco Beef Burrito with extra Jalepenos could exist; there is too much correspondence between its tangy taste and my personal pleasure for that to be the case.
We are pleasure loving creatures. We delight in beauty and sensation. That is not a mistake. But the abuse of pleasure and the bondage and harm it leads to is wrong. Sin distorts everything that is good; sexual hunger becomes lust, love of pleasure becomes debauchery, love of good food becomes gluttony, the in-born human sense of the divine is warped into idolatory; sin reduces human life to nothing more than a flood of dissipation. It is spiritually fatal and ultimately seals us off from the living God. There cannot be a more heart-rending tragedy or a more fruitless loss than that of a human life spent on triviality and distorted pleasure. Peter wants to spare us from such a tragedy. As Christians we want to call people from such a wasted life of foolishness and ultimate loss.
It’s a shocking thing isn’t it? In an ultimate sense, a life without Christ is a wasted life. A life lived for sin and self-serving pleasure is utter folly. And it only ends in tragedy.
We must continue to live God-honouring lives that magnify Christ and contradict the flow of dissipation and spiritual darkness around us. People need to see that there is an alternative; that there is hope. They need to see that they are not doomed to the death-grip of drug addiction or drink-induced numbness. They need to to see that death, boredom and despair don’t have the last word. So don’t run a mile from what Peter calls the pagan flood of dissipation. Stay close. You’ve been stationed where you are to be a burning light in the smog of spiritual darkness and pain that engulfes so many lives.
If that is not reason enough to push through and press on, verse 5 has got to be: “But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.”
In the end the live Peter calls us to is the only life worth living. The alternative is unthinkable. It is folly. It is fruitless and tragic. Yes, to obey Jesus as Lord is costly and difficult. It is painful and uncomfortable to fight against sin and unbelief day-by-day. It is difficult to face the derision of other who think our belief is delusion and our way of life straight-jacketed morality. But, in the end, it is the only way that leads to life. And, in the end, it is the only path to blessing and fullness. It is the only way to live. The alternative is folly.
May God in his infinite love grant us the spiritual strength to go Get Some Nuts so that we might be gracious Jesus-people amidst a flood of dissipation. May we offer the spiritually lost the only thing that can satiate the awful thirst and the gnawing hunger: the gospel of Christ. Amen.
Signing Out -
The Scribbling Apprentice
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)