glenscriv – Page 85 – Christ the Truth

I’ve got a question

glenscrivAugust 6, 2009Leave a comment

A man accused of killing his 11-year-old diabetic daughter by praying instead of seeking medical care has been found guilty of second-degree reckless homicide.

Dale Neumann, 47, was convicted over the March 23, 2008, death of his daughter, Madeline, from undiagnosed diabetes.

Prosecutors argued he should have rushed the girl to a hospital because she could not walk, talk, eat or drink. Instead, Madeline died on the floor of the family's rural home as people surrounded her and prayed. Someone called an ambulance when she stopped breathing.

Neumann stared at the jury as the verdict was read out in the courtroom in Wausau, Wisconsin.

Defence lawyer Jay Kronenwetter said they will appeal against the verdict.

Neumann, who once studied to be a Pentecostal minister, testified that he believed God would heal his daughter and he never expected her to die. God promises in the Bible to heal, he said.

"If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God," Neumann testified. "I am not believing what he said he would do." (As reported here)

Why is it lack of faith to call a doctor but not lack of faith to use a lawyer??

Pray for these parents. And renounce this theology.

Trusting God’s sovereignty – Trusting God’s Son

glenscrivAugust 6, 2009Leave a comment

A re-post for Thawed-out Thursdays

When times are tough - what is your comfort? When comforting others, where do you point them?

In the circles in which I move the encouragements of choice involve variations on the theme of 'God's got a plan.' Many's the time when a well-meaning brother (usually a brother) has said 'I guess at moments like this, all you can do is cling onto God's sovereignty.' Often I've heard friends say that only sovereignty has enabled them to get through the hard times.

Something's gone wrong here. Over a billion Muslims navigate through life clinging onto 'insh'Allah' (God willing). 800 million Hindus believe that karma will work everything out. And how many unbelieving westerners, even in the face of terrible suffering, will still believe 'everything happens for a reason.'

This was really brought home to me about 5 years ago. I was praying with a new convert from Islam. We were worried about his visa application, but I was amazed at how he was 'trusting God's sovereignty'. In fact he was using language that I usually associate with the most mature of reformed Christians. I told him I was very impressed, he shrugged his shoulders and said 'In Pakistan we have a saying: 'God willing' - it means that whatever God wills will happen.' I almost physically slapped my forehead. Of course! He's just translated Insh'Allah into a Christian environment.

Yet surely a Christian account of sovereignty involves more than simply transfering deterministic agency from Allah to the Father! Surely there's got to be a gospel-shape, a Christ-focus, a trinitarian dynamic to Christian sovereignty. Yet what was so striking about my friend's translated insh'Allah was that it sounded so completely like the Christian pastoral wisdom sketched out above.

Two years ago I went to northern Nigeria and the difference between Muslim and Christian accounts of sovereignty struck me again. When I wanted something done by Tuesday, the Muslim would tell me 'It will be ready, insh'Allah'. The Christian would tell me, 'It will be ready, if Jesus tarries.' Hallelujah!! Isn't that brilliant?? (King James' English lives on in Nigeria!). But isn't there all the difference in the world between a future determined by an inscrutible divine will and a future opened up in the gospel-patience of Jesus? I've tried to get people using 'If Jesus tarries' over here, but it hasn't taken. Yet.

Now I'm not denying for a second the sovereign rule of the Father through the Son and by the Spirit. And perhaps in future posts I'll outline some thoughts on what a truly gospel-shaped, Christ-focused, dynamically-trinitarian account of sovereignty might look like. But for now I will simply question the pastoral wisdom of referring the suffering Christian to the sovereignty of God as though 'God's in charge' was the sum and substance of the Christian hope.

All too often this amounts to a 'light at the end of the tunnel' comfort. How much better to encourage a person that Christ joins them in the tunnel.

I want to know Christ and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in His sufferings. (Philippians 3:10)

Christ is with us in suffering. He is especially near to the broken-hearted. As Spurgeon used to say, He never throws His children in the fire without joining them in it (cf Dan. 3; Isaiah 43:2). In suffering we get to know the Suffering Servant with greater depth and intimacy than ever before. To simply point to the God over and above us in suffering is deficient. We must also point to the God beside and within us.

The gospel is not the truth that, while I may be buried in muck, God remains untouched in pristine glory and one day I'll be there with Him. The gospel is about God joining us in the muck. The gospel is that He stoops, sympathises and suffers alongside us. And that He raises us with Him to the throne.

Now we know that the good news is not that God remains in heaven and we battle on till glory. Well then, why does so much of our pastoral exhortation assume exactly such a 'gospel.'

Why do we so often point people to God's sovereignty and so rarely point them to God's Son? Why is the focus on the light at the end of the tunnel and so little on the One who joins us in the darkness? The one kind of exhortation produces tight-lipped soldiers, the other produces broken-hearted lovers. Let's aim for the latter!

Daddy’s rich

glenscrivJuly 28, 2009Leave a comment

Maybe your earthly father had short arms and deep pockets. Or long arms and shallow pockets. Or crossed arms and closed pockets. gold

Your Father in heaven is different.

He's rich beyond your wildest imaginings. 6 times Pauls says it in Ephesians (1:7,18; 2:4,7; 3:8,16).

He's rich - rich I tells ya. And it's just the normal word for wealthy. Loaded. Rolling in it. Stinking, filthy rich. Like Abraham (Gen 13:2), like Solomon (1 Kings 3:13), like 'the rich man' (Mark 10:25). Your Father is no pauper.

And neither is He a miser. He lavishes His children with every treasure at His disposal. First, He commits all things into the hands of His Son (John 3:35). The nations are His inheritance (Ps 2:8). The whole creation is a love gift for Him (Col 1:15-16). But for the sake of His Son, and so that He might be the firstborn among many brothers (Rom 8:29), the Father brings us into His inheritance. We become objects of the Father's lavish philanthropy.

But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved. (Eph 2:4-5)

We weren't just dirt poor, we'd bitten the dust - dead in transgressions and sins. Yet even in that lowest of gutters God's riches were lavished on us - His riches in mercy - to make us alive with Christ. Not only this...

In Christ we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that He lavished on us (Eph 1:7-8)

Now in Christ we are lavished with freedom and forgiveness of our sins. And we stand as witnesses to heaven and earth of how generous is our Father in bestowing such treasures:

And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with Him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of His grace, expressed in His kindness to us in Christ Jesus. (Eph 2:6-7)

God is rich and will be known as rich.

But perhaps you don't feel able to appreciate this wealth. Maybe you're not feeling the benefits of this incredible union with Christ? Well God's riches aren't just for the bestowal of grace, they enable you to appreciate these blessings too:

I pray that out of His glorious riches He may strengthen you with power through His Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith (3:16-17)

You know what this means? God even has riches that awaken us to the riches He's already bestowed! Talk about grace upon grace.

And if we despair that we don't already possess these riches in their fullness, Paul has another prayer:

I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which He has called you, the riches of His glorious inheritance in the saints (Eph 1:18)

What a day of sumptuous opulence and overwhelming prosperity when we are heirs of God, co-heirs of the cosmos with Christ and when God Himself inherits us His saints.

What can we do in the meantime except...

...to preach to the nations the unsearchable riches of Christ (Eph 3:8)

Christ is the storehouse of the Father's overflowing bounty. We beggars, who've gotten rich quick, tell the world where to find true wealth.

Friends, rejoice. Daddy's rich.

Luther v Cranmer on Lord’s Supper

glenscrivJuly 23, 2009Leave a comment

Given discussion about Lutheran influence on the UK, here's a Thawsday repost...

John Richardson (whose excellent blog is here) adds his voice to this discussion on Stand Firm in Faith. He writes about the place of repentance in the communion service. It chimes with a lot of what I wrote here:

I have long felt Anglicanism (specifically Thomas Cranmer) to be good at driving us to our knees in repentance, but not so good at letting us get up again.

In regard to this, I would point out the contrast between what the Book of Common Prayer says about our preparation to receive Holy Communion and what Luther said. The Exhortation in the BCP says in effect that if we are to receive Communion worthily we must first put ourselves right with God.

Contrast this with Luther. First, he says, “There must be faith to make the reception worthy and acceptable before God, otherwise it is nothing but sham and a mere external show.”

And what is this faith? It is “a firm trust that Christ, the Son of God, stands in our place and has taken all our sins upon his shoulders and that he is the eternal satisfaction for our sin and reconciles us with God the Father.”

But what does this mean for our ‘worthiness’? “This food demands a hungering and longing man, for it delights to enter a hungry soul, which is constantly battling with its sins and eager to be rid of them.”

Therefore those with the right faith are those, “who suffer tribulation, physical or spiritual ... spiritually through despair of conscience, outwardly or inwardly, when the devil causes your heart to be weak, timid, and discouraged, so that you do not know how you stand with God, and when he casts your sins into your face.” (emphasis added)

I don’t think the BCP reflects this. Rather, the BCP urges communicants first: “search and examine your own consciences ... that ye may come holy and clean to such a heavenly Feast, in the marriage-garment required by God in holy Scripture, and be received as worthy partakers of that holy Table” and so, “examine your lives and conversations by the rule of God’s commandments; and whereinsoever ye shall perceive yourselves to have offended, either by will, word, or deed, there to bewail your own sinfulness, and to confess yourselves to Almighty God, with full purpose of amendment of life” (emphasis added).

The Anglican way is ‘be cleansed, then come’. The Lutheran way is ‘come and be cleansed’.

Here's a 'come and be cleansed' type sermon I preached called Eating with Jesus (listen here).

You’re a very pretty princess!

glenscrivJuly 17, 2009Leave a comment

The church says "we need to man up, we need to appeal to men"; the Scripture says "if it helps, He does think you're a very pretty Princess".

Go and read Daniel Blanche's post NOW.

“Because we’re supposed to”

glenscrivJune 9, 2009Leave a comment

I just finished a preaching group where a fine preacher gave a fine talk on Judges 14. At the end he included a sentence about 'another Saviour who came to deliver His people eternally'. That sort of thing. He didn't make anything of the point and he didn't mention the name 'Jesus', but he included the sentence.

During the feedback session I asked him in as non-leading a way as possible, "Why did you include that sentence about Jesus?"

Quick as a flash another student answered "Because we're supposed to."

Let me ask:

Do we preach Christ from the OT "because we're supposed to" or because the Hebrew Scriptures are already and inherently a witness to Christ?

Is the 'Jesus bit' a token effort to fulfil some preaching requirement? Or is Jesus actually witnessed in and through the passage?

Is Jesus as incidental to the proclamation of this passage as those terrible jokes that are also tacked on?

Is it the preacher's job to 'bridge to Christ'? Or has God's word already done a good job of that?

Is Jesus forced into our sermons? Or is He present as the Ground, Grammar and Goal of the whole Scripture?

Congregations can really tell the difference between the former and the latter.

Churches where the former is the common practice often produce Christians who know that Jesus is very important. But they're not so sure why.

Preachers that follow this model can start to think that Jesus is a homiletical necessity, but not so much a spiritual one. So when they speak of God's sovereignty, the importance of holiness, the necessity of prayer, they give powerful illustrations and pointed applications. For these 'main points' of their sermon it's aged wine and the best of meats. But then at the end they give their people Jesus as though He's cod liver oil. Out of the blue, unappetising, supposedly good for you but we're not quite sure why.

Know what I mean?

Reflecting the Lord’s glory

glenscrivJune 5, 2009Leave a comment

What's this verse about?

And we, who with unveiled faces all reflectthe Lord's glory, are being transformed into His likeness with ever-increasing glory... (2 Cor 3:18)

Is it about enjoying private devotional experiences with Jesus so that we become like Him? That's a popular interpretation. And it's half right. But it's really not the full story.

The NIV footnote says that 'reflect' can be translated 'contemplate'. But I think 'reflect' is a better translation. It's a word that means 'showing like a mirror shows'. The question is this - Is the mirror-like-ness telling us about how the beholder looks at the mirror? Or is the mirror-like-ness telling us about how the mirror itself reflects outwardly?

My guess is the latter. Our faces are like mirrors reflecting outwardly to the world the glory of Jesus.

This fits the context. Paul has been reminding us about Moses's face-to-face encounters with the Lord (2 Cor 3:7,13). He put a veil on to stop the Israelites seeing this fading glory. We though (as v18 says) have unveiled faces. And so what happens? Others see the glory of Christ as we reflect it out to the world.

So this verse does indeed depend on our having devotional experiences with Jesus - just as Moses did (e.g. Exodus 33:7-11). But that in itself will not transform us into Christ's likeness. Reflecting Christ's glory out into the world - that will transform us.

Which is what the next two chapters of 2 Corinthians are all about.

Too often we think of holiness as one thing and mission as another. Really they are mutually defining and mutually achieved. Just as God's own being is a being in outreach, so our Christian character is a character in outreach. To divorce the two is disastrous.

One of these days I'll write some posts on holiness in mission as parallel to God's being in becoming. One of these days...

“My Body Hell”

glenscrivMay 29, 2009Leave a comment

Last night I caught the end of a wonderful documentary about Marlie Casseus from Haiti. She suffers from a rare disease called Polysostotic Fibrous Dysplasia. A 16-pound growth overwhelmed her whole face to point she could barely breathe and was about to go blind.

She was ostracized by her community - many considering her to be demon-possessed. (Some websites I've read have made much of this "primitive" reaction to her). But, by contrast, she has been well loved by her family and her church. And Marlie loves Jesus - she was able to speak about her faith a number of times. It was very moving.

A Christian charity arranged for her to fly to Miami to receive life-changing if not life-saving surgery. Here are the results:

Marlie's new face

Here's what I found so incredibly awful though.

In the commercial breaks there were adverts for the show that went on immediately prior to this documentary. The title of this other show was: “My Body Hell”, suggesting a similarly sobering subject. Not so! This other programme dealt with the ‘living hell’ of nipple hair and relative breast size. Apparently such concerns can have devastating implications for one’s date-ablility index.

It was indeed truly hellish. But not in the way the programme makers intended.

It got me thinking about those 'primitive' Haitians who demonized Marlie for her physical deformity. They've got nothing on the body Nazis of the West. We'll demonize anyone's physical imperfections, beginning with our own.

A sense of perspective please. And a sense of hope that the Christian community can be different.

What’s the point?

glenscrivMay 20, 2009Leave a comment

A flurry of recent blogging on Christ in the OT. A whole swathe of posts written in the past. Why?

I write on this the same reason I write on pastoral theology, on doctrine of God, on evangelism, on preaching, on everything:

KNOWING JESUS IS CRUCIAL!

KNOWING JESUS IS EVERYTHING!

DON'T MESS WITH KNOWING JESUS!

That's why.

Is the fruit of the Spirit too sissy for ‘real men’?

glenscrivMay 14, 2009Leave a comment

Quote:

Real manliness is defined by Christlike character, and not just the Gentle-Jesus-meek-and-mild-style character, but the full-orbed fruit of the Spirit rounded out with strength, courage, conviction, strong passions, manly love, and a stout-hearted willingness to oppose error and fight for the truth—even to the point of laying down your life for the truth if necessary.

From TeamPyro's More on the Sissification of Church

Just the other day I was going to post on the fruit of the Spirit - wondering whether 'real men' would find Paul too feminized at this point. All that girly 'patience and gentleness' and nothing about mechanical, athletic or barbecuing ability.

Then I read the quote above. Now I think I agree with much of what the author says. He himself is reacting against a kind of John Eldredge 'wild man' myth. And who could disagree that manliness is defined by Christlike character? But to say the fruit of the Spirit requires 'rounding out' when it's applied to real men.... ??

Does this mean that 'faith, hope and love' are a bit 'chickified'? Perhaps they require rounding out with 'strength, honour and belching'? Or maybe 'be joyful, pray and give thanks' (1 Thes 5:16-18) need augmenting with 'build, fix and kill.'

Oh look, I'm all for stout-hearted fighting spirit. I know that men are cowards. I know what a problem this is. After all, the silence of Adam got us into this mess in the first place.

But when true, stout-hearted, courageous manhood is expressed, you know what it will look like? Cheek-turning, cloak-giving, rights-yielding, foot-washing, burden-bearing, shame-absorbing, sacrificial love.

It will look like the fruit of the Spirit. And even though these qualities may look sissy to the world - well... Real men don't care about looking sissy.