Jesus is the Word of God
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPB_EQly1jI]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLToN2pjik8]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agFWob0E7ns]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX0r6DsvXAU]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIIAQME1Uhg]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JibxHpXqAfc]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxUm-2x-2dM]
.
Do you have favourites of your own?
Have you ever heard this kind of claim from an atheist:
Unlike you theists, I am open to change. All you need to do is show me the evidence and I'll confess on the spot that I was wrong. If you can prove God I will switch sides. You theists on the other hand obstinately cling on to the God hypothesis no matter what the evidence. You call this irrationality "faith."
How to respond?
Do we say "No I'm very open to change, I just think the evidence is better on our side"?
That might sound tempting. After all it has the air of intellectual credibility about it (if, ironically, you don't think about it too long). And it's the least we could do seeing as the atheist has been so even-handed with "the evidence." Besides, what hope is there for genuine dialogue if we're not open to change?
Well let's slow down a second. What kind of openness is being claimed by the atheist?
Doesn't their claim amount to:
I, the neutral observer, will accept the God hypothesis if and only if naturalistic evidence meets my criteria. And of course such acceptance will be eternally tentative, since opposing evidence may arise to dis-prove the God hypothesis.
Let me ask some questions about those bolded phrases...
Are you really a neutral observer? Is the scientific community, religious community or indeed the human race collectively a neutral observer? How could you ever know? What tests could you perform to figure out whether, when it comes to God, humanity suppresses the truth?
If you are assessing 'the God hypothesis', are your investigations being carried out in a way proper to the object of your study. I.e. is God really a 'hypothesis' to be tested? And if you think he is, the question must be asked, Which god are you talking about? Because it doesn't sound like the God of the Bible. If, on the other hand, God is a Self-Revealing Speaker, doesn't "scientific investigation" look very different? i.e. Wouldn't a proper correspondence to this Object of enquiry entail listening to His Word?
Who gets to decide what is "evidence"? Does the Bible count? Does it count on its own terms, or only when filtered through other tests? What about encountering Christ spiritually through Scripture or worship? Wouldn't that be quite a "knock-down" proof - for some even literally! Is this evidence allowed at the bar?
Even if you are a neutral observer, even if God is a hypothesis that could be tested and even if the evidence you demand is the right kind of evidence - will you really 'become a believer' on the basis of this evidence? Surely, to be consistent with your methods, you will merely line up with the God-hypothesis-camp until a better hypothesis comes along? This is nothing like what Christians mean by "faith in God."
Therefore in what sense are you open to change? Admittedly, you are open to reshaping certain of your views - and that is a very laudable thing. Few ever do it, so such openness is indeed commendable. But the openness of which you speak is set within a tightly de-limited, pre-established epistemological system (i.e. system of gaining knowledge).
And if that's your definition of "open" then the Christian is at least as open. If you show me convincing evidence about a pre-millennial return of Christ (to choose an intra-mural Christian dispute of secondary importance) then I hope I'm open enough to change. I hope I am. Obviously, people are biased, obstinate, self-justifying fools by nature (the Bible told us that long before science did), so it might be an uphill battle, but allow me to declare my willingness to change.
So there you are. I'm open.
Of course, at this stage, the atheist says: "That's not openness to change! That's just redecorating the exact same house." To which I say, "Pretty much! But then, a tentative assent to the God-hypothesis is also just re-decoration. The foundations and structure of your beliefs would remain exactly the same."
You might rate yourself as a De-Facto Theist on Richard Dawkins' scale, but it's your commitments to a naturalistic method of knowledge that are really God for you.
To inflexibly hold pre-commitments about yourself, your object of enquiry, your method of enquiry and your criteria of judgement is to be "open" in only a very limited sense. But here's the thing... pre-commitments about Me and God and the World and how I know things are absolutely inescapable! I can't even begin to think without at least a shadow of an opinion on these things.
Which means none of us are very open. There is no neutral space between the Christian position and the naturalistic position. There is only conversion - i.e. a radical re-ordering of my view of self and God and the world.
Does this shut down all conversation? Absolutely not! This is the beginning of genuine conversation. Now that we know where we all stand (and both Christians and atheists are regularly deluded about this), real interaction can happen. How? I say "Come on over to my house. Let me show you around. For a time, come in on my foundations, my vision of God and self and how to know things. Experience the world from within these commitments. See if life doesn't make more sense. See if you don't confess that Jesus really is the deepest Truth" And, by the same token, you can say to me "Come over to my house. Allow me to show you the Magic of Reality as I see it. Experience the world from within these commitments."
There's great hope for fruitful engagement (though this is a real statement of faith, I acknowledge!). I believe that there is plenty to be said on the other side of an acknowledgement of our radical differences. But let's be honest enough to state our differences. It's not a case of simply assessing mutually agreed-upon evidence with the obvious tools for the job. It's about show-casing different visions of reality.
This doesn't mean we cast stones at each other's "houses" or dig into our entrenched positions. Instead it's a call to hospitality. Let's love our neighbours.
Have you ever heard this kind of claim from an atheist:
Unlike you theists, I am open to change. All you need to do is show me the evidence and I'll confess on the spot that I was wrong. If you can prove God I will switch sides. You theists on the other hand obstinately cling on to the God hypothesis no matter what the evidence. You call this irrationality "faith."
How to respond?
Do we say "No I'm very open to change, I just think the evidence is better on our side"?
That might sound tempting. After all it has the air of intellectual credibility about it (if, ironically, you don't think about it too long). And it's the least we could do seeing as the atheist has been so even-handed with "the evidence." Besides, what hope is there for genuine dialogue if we're not open to change?
Well let's slow down a second. What kind of openness is being claimed by the atheist?
Doesn't their claim amount to:
I, the neutral observer, will accept the God hypothesis if and only if naturalistic evidence meets my criteria. And of course such acceptance will be eternally tentative, since opposing evidence may arise to dis-prove the God hypothesis.
Let me ask some questions about those bolded phrases...
Are you really a neutral observer? Is the scientific community, religious community or indeed the human race collectively a neutral observer? How could you ever know? What tests could you perform to figure out whether, when it comes to God, humanity suppresses the truth?
If you are assessing 'the God hypothesis', are your investigations being carried out in a way proper to the object of your study. I.e. is God really a 'hypothesis' to be tested? And if you think he is, the question must be asked, Which god are you talking about? Because it doesn't sound like the God of the Bible. If, on the other hand, God is a Self-Revealing Speaker, doesn't "scientific investigation" look very different? i.e. Wouldn't a proper correspondence to this Object of enquiry entail listening to His Word?
Who gets to decide what is "evidence"? Does the Bible count? Does it count on its own terms, or only when filtered through other tests? What about encountering Christ spiritually through Scripture or worship? Wouldn't that be quite a "knock-down" proof - for some even literally! Is this evidence allowed at the bar?
Even if you are a neutral observer, even if God is a hypothesis that could be tested and even if the evidence you demand is the right kind of evidence - will you really 'become a believer' on the basis of this evidence? Surely, to be consistent with your methods, you will merely line up with the God-hypothesis-camp until a better hypothesis comes along? This is nothing like what Christians mean by "faith in God."
Therefore in what sense are you open to change? Admittedly, you are open to reshaping certain of your views - and that is a very laudable thing. Few ever do it, so such openness is indeed commendable. But the openness of which you speak is set within a tightly de-limited, pre-established epistemological system (i.e. system of gaining knowledge).
And if that's your definition of "open" then the Christian is at least as open. If you show me convincing evidence about a pre-millennial return of Christ (to choose an intra-mural Christian dispute of secondary importance) then I hope I'm open enough to change. I hope I am. Obviously, people are biased, obstinate, self-justifying fools by nature (the Bible told us that long before science did), so it might be an uphill battle, but allow me to declare my willingness to change.
So there you are. I'm open.
Of course, at this stage, the atheist says: "That's not openness to change! That's just redecorating the exact same house." To which I say, "Pretty much! But then, a tentative assent to the God-hypothesis is also just re-decoration. The foundations and structure of your beliefs would remain exactly the same."
You might rate yourself as a De-Facto Theist on Richard Dawkins' scale, but it's your commitments to a naturalistic method of knowledge that are really God for you.
To inflexibly hold pre-commitments about yourself, your object of enquiry, your method of enquiry and your criteria of judgement is to be "open" in only a very limited sense. But here's the thing... pre-commitments about Me and God and the World and how I know things are absolutely inescapable! I can't even begin to think without at least a shadow of an opinion on these things.
Which means none of us are very open. There is no neutral space between the Christian position and the naturalistic position. There is only conversion - i.e. a radical re-ordering of my view of self and God and the world.
Does this shut down all conversation? Absolutely not! This is the beginning of genuine conversation. Now that we know where we all stand (and both Christians and atheists are regularly deluded about this), real interaction can happen. How? I say "Come on over to my house. Let me show you around. For a time, come in on my foundations, my vision of God and self and how to know things. Experience the world from within these commitments. See if life doesn't make more sense. See if you don't confess that Jesus really is the deepest Truth" And, by the same token, you can say to me "Come over to my house. Allow me to show you the Magic of Reality as I see it. Experience the world from within these commitments."
There's great hope for fruitful engagement (though this is a real statement of faith, I acknowledge!). I believe that there is plenty to be said on the other side of an acknowledgement of our radical differences. But let's be honest enough to state our differences. It's not a case of simply assessing mutually agreed-upon evidence with the obvious tools for the job. It's about show-casing different visions of reality.
This doesn't mean we cast stones at each other's "houses" or dig into our entrenched positions. Instead it's a call to hospitality. Let's love our neighbours.
What are you praying for right now?
How are you asking Jesus to act in your life?
And how do you feel He's responding to your requests?
If you want a sobering reality check (and, let's face it, who doesn't?) - read Luke 8:19-56. Here we see five encounters with Jesus in which people know what Jesus needs to do. And they tell Him. Each one of their requests are perfectly reasonable. They are exactly the things you would ask if you were in their shoes. And granting them is exactly what you'd recommend if Jesus had bothered to consult you.
And yet... in each and every case Jesus refuses legitimate, heart-felt and often heart-breaking requests.
Scene one (v19-21). Jesus' mother wants to speak with Him. A good Jewish mother, worried for her over-worked, under-fed son. She wants a word. In a traditional culture where family is everything, Mary expects her son to honour her in this way. Is there anything wrong with that? There's nothing wrong with that. But Jesus denies His own mother.
In our time and place we're not shocked. But in Jesus' day, they were shocked. Three of the Gospel writers thought this was worth recording. Jesus is profoundly upsetting His nearest and dearest. But He's only just getting warmed up...
Scene two (v22-25). The disciples are sailing with the Son of God. He directs them towards a hurricane then takes a power-nap. "Master, Master, we're going to drown!" they complain. Understandable, you'd think. Jesus rebukes the weather, then He rebukes His followers: "Why don't you trust me!?"
Sheesh! They're doing their best Jesus! They just wanted a safe passage across the lake. Too much to ask??
Well just look at what happens on the other side...
Scene three (v26-39). Jesus liberates a man oppressed by an army of demons. Much better! We all like a good exorcism (well, apart from the locals who are infuriated by His methods, but who cares about them...) Jesus is back on track - doing the stuff He ought to be doing. Yet consider the ending to the story. This new-born baby Christian, in possession of himself for the first time in decades, finally puts words to his greatest desire. What does he want? He wants to be with Jesus (v38). Anything wrong with that? It's the most beautiful ambition anyone can express. This man "begs" Jesus: "Please, I just want to be with you." And Jesus says, "No, go and be a missionary to your own people.' He gives the command, the disciples push the boat from shore and the man watches His Lord and Saviour sail off into the distance. What on earth is Jesus like??
It only gets more shocking...
Scene four (v40-48). A woman with a chronic and defiling illness seeks a miracle from Jesus. She'd read that there was healing in the wings of the Messiah (Malachi 4:2), so she goes to touch the wings (i.e. the ends) of His coat. She knows He's the Christ, she trusts Him for healing. She just wants her life back. She doesn't want to make a fuss. For 12 years she's been told that she's unclean and unwelcome. She's learnt to scurry around the fringes. The last thing she wants is a face-to-face with the Holy One of Israel. She just wants a zap-and-run. Very understandable. But Jesus is having none of it. He makes the biggest scene imaginable. Hundreds of eyes are now turned on her and she has to tell her story very publicly. It's mortifying! This is not how she'd planned things. But it is how Jesus wants it. He frustrates all our natural desires.
Yet this is nothing compared to the frustration inflicted on Jairus, the synagogue ruler...
Scene five (v49-56). Can you imagine how Jairus felt as Jesus stops to talk with this woman? Jairus's 12 year old daughter lies dying and he has left her to seek Jesus' help. People were ejected from synagogues for lining up with Jesus and now Jairus has risked it all on a Rabbi who stops to chat with riff-raff. Here was a woman who'd be banned from Jairus's own synagogue. And her healing could wait, surely! She'd suffered for 12 years, she could suffer another 12 hours, couldn't she? Can you picture him, desperately trying to hurry Jesus, tugging at his arm, pleading with his disciples to do something. Has the whole world gone crazy - what on earth are Christ's priorities and why won't they match up with mine?
If I was Jairus, I'd be beside myself. But the worst is yet to come. While Jairus is trying to hurry Jesus, the most horrific words that could ever be spoken to a father are uttered, "Your daughter is dead." And if it's possible for anything to make matters worse - Jesus manages to make matters worse, because there is the Author of life, standing by, chatting to an unclean woman, while Jairus's world falls apart. Jairus had banked everything on Jesus, and Jesus had deliberately allowed a hell-on-earth to befall Jairus.
AND THEN ... AND THEN... Jesus says "Don't be afraid, trust me."
Are you kidding me? Trust you now? Now is the time to sue you for malpractice! Trust you now?
This is why Jesus is utterly, horrendously, maddeningly infuriating.
But think of this...
- He resists His mother so that He might act like a true Son and bring many into the family (v21)
- He sails His friends through a storm and into a profound appreciation for Him (v25)
- He returns Legion to his family as a whole man, and a man with a mission (v39, cf. Mark 7:31ff)
- He restores the unclean woman to community, giving her a deep assurance and blessing (v48)
- He brings this family through death to new life, with feasting to boot (v55)
.
Through darkness to the light. Through suffering to glory. Through death to resurrection - that's the way of Jesus.
We are enslaved to this death-bound realm. All we can think to do is cling on to life and status and blessings and we fire up all sorts of prayers with frenzied fervour. "THIS, THIS, THIS Jesus, you don't understand how vital THIS is." Jesus understands far more than we know. Which is why He stands against our natural desires. He grabs us violently by the hand and dives down with us into a death we never would have chosen.
And maybe right now you're asking: What on earth are you doing Jesus!?
Well, He's doing what He always does... bringing life from the dead.
You think He's gone too far? You think He can't redeem this situation? He raises the dead. He raises the whole world. There's nothing He can't redeem. If you're His, there's nothing He won't redeem.
But because He raises the dead His priorities will look different to yours. Insanely, infuriatingly different.
This is not a sign of His indifference towards you. It's not even a sign of some abstract inscrutability. It's just the plain, obvious truth that those who can raise dead people prioritize differently to those who are bound to death. A death-bound to-do list is a pitiful thing. But it's all we've got. So it's what we bring to the Lord in prayer. Essentially we say
"Lord, Bless my to-do list! Fulfil my desires - shaped, as they are, by a paralyzing fear of losses and crosses and an utter commitment to this passing age."
And Jesus says "No." Thank God He says "No!"
He LOVES His mother. He LOVES His disciples. He LOVES Legion. He LOVES the woman. He LOVES Jairus. And He LOVES you. Therefore He won't allow our death-bound desires to hold sway.
I don't know what redemption will look like in your situation. But reflect on this...
Mary wanted a word with her son, Jesus gave her a family.
The disciples wanted plain sailing, Jesus gave them amazement and awe at Him.
Legion wanted escape with Jesus, He gave him back to his family with a mission.
The woman wanted a zap-and-run, Jesus gave her a face-to-face.
Jairus wanted a healing, he got resurrection feasting.
One day - maybe in glory - but one day you'll be able to make a statement like that: "I desperately wanted X, but through a kind of death, Jesus brought me Y." I don't know what those details will be, and probably you won't either.
But in the meantime you can trust a Lord who, through His life and death, has
Handled exclusion far worse than Mary's
Gone through storms far rougher than the disciples'
Felt disappointment far darker than Legion's
Endured shame far deeper than the woman's
Suffered loss far crueller than Jairus's
And He's with you now in a suffering that He understands from the inside. He's done it all for you... that you might have life to the full.
It's just that true life comes from the dead.
.
A sermon on Jairus and the Woman (one of the sermons closest to my heart).
I stumbled across Don Fortner when I was preparing for my Isaiah talks. I downloaded 20 random Isaiah sermons from sermonaudio.com. 19 of them ranged from the fairly helpful to the downright depressing. Don Fortner's was pure glory from the very beginning.
I've only heard a handful of sermons from him since then but already I'm struck by certain things in evidence:
He PREACHES. He actually believes in heralding the gospel, and does so with the tone and passion to match.
He preaches CHRIST. He actually believes that the whole Bible is understood only when it's received as a proclamation of Christ.
He preaches Christ to the COMFORT OF SINNERS. He's very much a faith alone, grace alone guy.
Other things might irk you about his preaching, but if you get that from a preacher, you're doing pretty well in this day and age!
Here's a few I've heard already, looking forward to more on the iPod...
Ten Words of Comfort for God's People (Exodus 3)
.
A wonderful sermon on John 6, though he knoweth not what he doeth...
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttMrSCnQnnk]
I love living in a world where toast - and comedy about toast - preaches Christ to my soul.
#ChristocentricPanapocalyptheism
.
A three-part round based on Psalm 18.
Two-parters are for binitarians.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpBPEQlEf4Y]
If you listen with headphones you'll be able to pick out the parts more distinctly.
Words:
My God is my Refuge and He is my Rock,
My Stronghold My Shield and My Saviour,
I call on His name and He fights all my foes,
He lifts me up out of all danger
You stoop down to make me great.
You brought me out to a spacious place.
You save your King from His enemies,
We sing to Him for His victories.
Chords: G C D
.
My YouTube channel with more songs
.
A three-part round based on Psalm 18.
Two-parters are for binitarians.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpBPEQlEf4Y]
If you listen with headphones you'll be able to pick out the parts more distinctly.
Words:
My God is my Refuge and He is my Rock,
My Stronghold My Shield and My Saviour,
I call on His name and He fights all my foes,
He lifts me up out of all danger
You stoop down to make me great.
You brought me out to a spacious place.
You save your King from His enemies,
We sing to Him for His victories.
Chords: G C D
.
My YouTube channel with more songs
.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bYSV3OFYCQ]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xhlx43rTs2Q]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7rTk8Vihe0]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyZspqjtG2k]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5jpVbEL0jc]
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzVD5zYLK1k]
What are your favourite Alan Partridge moments?
In the autumn a friend of mine is teaching a course on questions Christians are too afraid to ask. Help him out. What should he cover?
To get you started, here were the first four off the top of my head:
.
Over to you...