Dan's worried about wearing Anglican garb.
Don't worry Dan, there's a lot of cool clerical wear out there. I think the guy at the back is Archdeacon or something.
.
Blog
How He has loved us
For Thawed-out Thursdays - this one from 18 months ago
Three pictures of how we are loved from the upper room. The waterfall, promotion, God's compass. They all deserve reflection as we immerse ourselves in the love of the triune God.
.
First, the waterfall:
"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you." (John 15:9)
Here the love of the Father for His Son cascades over to us. We stand in a beginningless, limitless torrent of love. Think about it. Take the word 'as' with utmost seriousness.
.
Then there's promotion to Jesus' side:
The Father Himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. (John 16:27)
Here, in loving Christ we are raised shoulder to shoulder with the Son. Think how highly we have been raised. Anointed ones alongside the Anointed One. Sons and daughters alongside the Son. Receiving the same love from the Father that Jesus does. Promoted into the Godhead!
.
Then there's God's compass placed within us:
...in order that the love You [Father] have for Me may be in them and that I myself may be in them. (John 17:26)
The Father's own 'true north' of love for His Son is placed within the Christian. Now we have the Father's love for His Son in us. The Christian loves the Son with the love the Father has placed within us. That beginningless, limitless waterfall is not only something we receive, it's something that now flows from within us (John 7:38f).
.
How He has loved us! How He has caught us up in His love! Meditate on these things
.
Not receiving it – receiving Him
Enquirers into Christianity often have difficulty with the concept of appropriating grace. And given how we often present it, that's understandable. Often we tell the enquirer simply to receive grace as a free gift. They, naturally, wonder what on earth that looks like. So we reply with greater vigour 'Just receive the free forgiveness and trust that you have been forgiven.' When that draws a blank we revert to a series of cliches, each more abstract than the last - "The door has been opened, walk through the door... You've got the cheque marked 'forgiveness' - cash the cheque."
But this is not the way the Bible presents it. In John 3:16 - the gift we are to receive is Jesus. Grace is not basically a concept or property. He is a Person. Doesn't this (literally) put flesh and bones on the concept of receiving grace as a free gift. We're really asking the non-Christian to receive Jesus - the gift of His Father.
Rev 3:20 - There's not a 'free gift' standing at the door, waiting to be unwrapped. There's not a gift certificate to be opened saying "IOU 1 eternal life". There is Jesus standing at the door. And when you let Him in He doesn't just hover in your lobby assuring you of your forgiven status, He eats with you in intimate fellowship. THAT is what saving faith looks like. That is how a person becomes a Christian - not by assenting to a concept of forgiveness or vicarious atonement but by receiving the Person in Whom forgiveness, atonement and life is offered.
The same point is made in Colossians 1:13, 14. It is the Son in Whom redemption is offered - which is the forgiveness of sins. Forgiveness is redemption - the transference of a person (who is still a sinner!) from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of Christ. This deliverance is offered IN Jesus. We must be introducing people to the person of Jesus not the concept of change (or even of redemption or deliverance). We don't believe in redemption per se - we believe in the Redeemer.
Three implications:
First, in the Lord's Supper we ought to find some way of taking 'This is my body' seriously. Transubstantiation is not the answer but neither is memorialism - we don't simply receive tokens of good stuff. We receive Christ in the supper. He Himself is the Bread of life who nourishes, not remembrances of grace.
Second, in personal chats let's talk about Jesus. Not just our spirits, not just our blessings or struggles but Jesus. How it fortifies the heart to hear His name on another's lips! He is received by us again and again as we hold out His word to one another.
Third, in preaching, we can be bold to offer a free salvation to sinners because we're not offering a blank cheque but marriage to a Bridegroom. This will help us with the issue we thought about in my last post - I reckon we ought to hold out salvation to people who are hardened sinners, people who still love darkness and who don't actually have a resolve to 'Go God's way'. Because, of course, without Christ how could they?? But then people object and say, 'This will promote licence. You can't offer forgiveness to people who don't show signs of repentance.' Here's the thing though - we're not holding out a 'Get out of Jail Free' card. We're holding out Christ Himself to sinners. If we simply preached an abstract 'forgiveness' then licence is a distinct possibility. If we preach Christ it's out of the question.
The New Birth
My great friend (and regular commenter here) Will Mackerras recently preached a cracker at Farm Fellowship (where Paul Blackham ministers).
Do we really believe that a person in Christ will naturally and organically produce righteous fruit - just as someone in Adam will naturally and organically produce wicked fruit? Do we have a proper understanding of our new nature? And of what will flow from it?
Will gets Rom 2:14 absolutely right to say yes. Even Gentile believers will do by nature the things required by the law, because they are born again - they have a new heart of flesh (Jer 31:33-34).
Then he discusses how to be born again. We do not contribute to the new birth. We are born again by faith (John 1:12). Will has a wonderful analogy for how Jesus does not dispense the new birth.
He asks us to imagine a super hero called Super Doctor. Super Doctor has the power to cure people of their sickness at will and even from distance. But Super Doctor's one weakness is that he hates spending time with sick people. So he hatches a plan. He decides that he'll wait until people come into his waiting room and then as soon as they walk through his office door he'll magically heal them so that they won't get any germs on him.
But then he thinks they won't be very grateful for this because they'll think they effected the cure by walking through the door. So instead he just magically zaps sick people in the community at random and trusts that eventually they'll figure out what's happened to them and turn up in his surgery to say thanks.
Of course both these scenarios are very different to Jesus' healing methods. Sick people come to Jesus just as they are. It's precisely the sick people who do come to Jesus - leperous warts and all. (Mark 2:17) 'If you are willing you can make me clean' said the unclean man to the Holy Lord of Israel. (Matt 8:2). Jesus heals the way He saves. He encounters people in their unregenerate sinful mess and through the encounter He changes them.
One implication of this for preachers is that we should be far more invitational. We call on people to turn to Christ just as they are. They don't need to clean themselves up but simply call on Christ even in their sins and love of darkness.
I spent some great time with Will a few weeks ago discussing how we love to hear invitational preaching. It is of the essence of the gospel to call on sinners to come to Christ right there and then as the sinners that they are. May our preaching reflect this precious gospel truth.
The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price. (Rev 22:17)
1. Just as I am, without one plea,
but that thy blood was shed for me,
and that thou bidst me come to thee,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.2. Just as I am, and waiting not
to rid my soul of one dark blot,
to thee whose blood can cleanse each spot,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.3. Just as I am, though tossed about
with many a conflict, many a doubt,
fightings and fears within, without,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.4. Just as I am, poor, wretched, blind;
sight, riches, healing of the mind,
yea, all I need in thee to find,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.5. Just as I am, thou wilt receive,
wilt welcome, pardon, cleanse, relieve;
because thy promise I believe,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.6. Just as I am, thy love unknown
hath broken every barrier down;
now, to be thine, yea thine alone,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
Listen to the sermon here (unfortunately it misses the last few minutes).
.
Dan Allender – The Psychology of a Pooped Pastor
The Wounded Heart is my favourite Dan Allender resource. (see previous post). But here's one that's $95 cheaper (i.e. free). A talk entitled The Psychology of a Pooped Pastor
His main point is that the problem is not Pooped Pastors but Pissed Pastors. (By the way Mum, by pissed he means angry - it's an American thing).
It's not underlying tiredness but underlying anger that's the problem. Very interesting!
.
Reading Scripture trinitarianly
. . . There is no such thing as a non-dogmatic or non-theological engagement of the biblical text, or of any text or language for that matter. Moreover, anti-Trinitarian frames of reference lead to fundamental problems for approaching the Bible and revelation. To illustrate by way of a historical parallel, the early Socinians, whose orientation was supposedly non-dogmatic, advocated an inspired and trustworthy Scripture, yet were closed to a Trinitarian perspective. They sought to divorce Scripture from its Trinitarian frame of reference. Their Unitarian view of God had repercussions for Scripture’s authority and inspiration. Perhaps it is the case that the seed of liberalism is sown on orthodoxy’s soil. That is to say, an over-objectified view of the Bible leads ultimately to radical objections to the Bible. A Trinitarian frame of reference is important for developing a doctrine of revelation, including Scripture’s status in the revelational framework, for God reveals God by God through Scripture in the life of the church. Scripture’s content, even the means through which Scripture is mediated, is ultimately Trinitarian. Once this view is lost, the radical objectification process is bound to begin. (Paul Metzger, ed., “Trinitarian Soundings in Systematic Theology: Chpt. 2 The Relational Dynamic of Revelation, A Trinitarian Perspective,” 23-24)
h/t Bobby
This reminded me of an old post called 'Theology - the end of the process?' So here it is for Thawed-out Thursday...
Is “systematic theology... the end process of exegesis and biblical theology"?? Ben Myers writes persuasively against this idea. To imagine that a pure biblical scholar can dispassionately read off the meaning of the Bible through the use of objective interpretive tools is ludicrous. To imagine that then the systematic theologian comes to co-ordinate these propositions into a logically cogent order is similarly misguided. As Myers says 'It's theology all the way down.' Theological pre-suppositions and commitments necessarily guide and shape all Christian activity from exegesis to exposition to pastoral work, to evangelism to hospitality to everything.
And yet the idea that the Bible can be neutrally read is so tempting. We would love to conceive of revelation as propositions deposited in a handy compendium simply to be extracted and applied. Yet the Word is a Person. And His book is Personal (John 5:39). It's not something we judge with our double edged swords - the Word judges us. (Heb 4:12)
Now Jesus thought the Scriptures were absolutely clear. He never made excuses for theological error. He never gave even the slightest bit of latitude by conceding a certain obscurity to the Bible. He never assumes that His theological opponents have just mis-applied an interpretive paradigm. If they get it wrong He assumes they've never read the Scriptures (e.g. Matt 21:16,42; Mark 2:25)! So the perspicuity of the Bible is not in dispute.
But Jesus tells the Pharisees why they get it wrong - "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God." (Matt 22:29) And, again, "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." (John 5:39-40) They are wrongly oriented to the Power of God and the One of Whom the Scriptures testify - Jesus. This is not simply a wrong orientation of the intepreter but of the interpretation. Scripture reading must be oriented by the Power of God to the Son of God. Within this paradigm - a paradigm which the Scriptures themselves give us - the Bible makes itself abundantly clear.
But this paradigm is an unashamedly and irreducibly theological one. It is the result of exegesis (e.g. studying the verses given above) but it is also the pre-supposition of such exegesis. Theology is not the end of the process from exegesis to biblical studies and then to the systematician!
And yet, I have often been in discussions regarding the Old Testament where theologians will claim an obvious meaning to the OT text which is one not oriented by the Power of God to the Son of God. They will claim that this first level meaning is the literal meaning - one that is simply read off the text by a process of sound exegesis. And then they claim that the second meaning (it's sensus plenior - usually the christocentric meaning) is achieved by going back to the text but this time applying some extrinsic theological commitments.
What do we say to this? Well hopefully we see that whatever 'level' of meaning we assign to the biblical text it is not an obvious, literal meaning to be read off the Scriptures like a bar-code! Whatever you think that first-level meaning to be, such a meaning is inextricably linked to a whole web of theological pre-suppositions. The step from first level to second is not a step from exegesis to a theological re-reading. It is to view the text first through one set of pre-suppositions and then through another.
And that changes the direction of the conversation doesn't it? Because then we all admit that 'I have theological pre-suppositions at every level of my interpretation.' And we all come clean and say 'Even the basic, first-level meaning assigned to an OT text comes from some quite developed theological pre-commitments - pre-commitments that would never be universally endorsed by every Christian interpreter, let alone every Jewish one!' And then we ask 'Well why begin with pre-suppositions which you know to be inadequate? Why begin with pre-suppositions that are anything short of 'the Power of God' and 'the Son of God'? And if this is so, then why on earth do we waste our time with a first-level paradigm that left even the post-incarnation Pharisees completely ignorant of the Word? In short, why don't we work out the implications of a biblical theology that is trinitarian all the way down? Why don't we, at all times, read the OT as inherently and irreducibly a trinitarian revelation of the Son?
.
Jesus saved a people out of Egypt – the story of Exodus
Jesus... saved a people out of the land of Egypt. (Jude 5)
That's Exodus in 10 words.
Let me give a more expanded but less inspired version. I will focus on the who of Exodus rather than the what. My attention will not be on Moses or Pharoah or the plagues or the Red Sea or the law or the tabernacle - that can be for another time. I happen to think there's a more fundamental issue to tackle: Who is the LORD who redeems Israel? Given that this is precisely how the God of the Old Testament defines Himself - 'the LORD who brought you up out of Egypt' - getting this question right will be absolutely crucial.
We begin at the non-burning bush - Exodus 3.
Here the Angel of the LORD (v2) confronts Moses. This Sent One from the LORD is "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" (v6). (Note that Jacob agrees - the God of His fathers is the Angel: Gen 48:15f). The Sent One calls Himself “I AM WHO I AM.” (v14)
Note: When Jesus, in His incarnate ministry, calls Himself “I AM” (for e.g. John 8:24,28,58; 13:19; 18:5-8) He is not saying that He's closely related to the God of the Exodus. He is the God of the Exodus.
This is important to note because verse 12 may just be the book's theme sentence:
He said, "But I will be with you, and this shall be the sign for you, that I have sent you: when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall serve God on this mountain." (Ex 3:12)
The Angel does not say “God will go with you and you will worship God.” Nor does He say “I will go with you and you will worship Me.” No, the Angel is the saving LORD (see Judges 2:1-5) and He relates the people to Another. Jesus saves a people and brings them to worship God on the mountain. The Son redeems a people for the Father. That is what Exodus is all about. And the rest of the book is the playing out of this truth.
As the people come out of Egypt - there He is in the pillar of cloud/fire. At one point He's called the LORD (13:21,22) at another, 'the Angel of God' (14:19,20). The Sent One who is God is the redeeming LORD.
When He carries them on eagles wings to the mountain (as promised) He makes sure they are prepared to meet the LORD:
The LORD [who carried Israel on eagle's wings - v4] said to Moses, "Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments and be ready for the third day. For on the third day the LORD will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people. And you shall set limits for the people all around, saying, 'Take care not to go up into the mountain or touch the edge of it. Whoever touches the mountain shall be put to death. (Ex 19:10-12)
Here the LORD is on the mountain warning the people about how dangerous it will be when the LORD meets them on the mountain. If this were some unitarian god it would be strange talk indeed but we know that the divine Angel is the LORD who is bringing them to meet God (the Father) on the mountain (Ex 3:12).
As Deuteronomy 4 and 5 underline, the encounter on Sinai was utterly unique (e.g. Deut 4:15; 5:26).
No-one had ever heard 'the living God' speaking out of fire on the mountain as they did on that third day. Of course Moses had heard the I AM speaking out of fire on that very mountain (Exodus 3). But this is different. This is the unseen LORD. This is the Most High God and it has taken 70 chapters of the bible - it has taken the mighty redemption of the Angel - to make this kind of encouter possible.
And just when you thought Exodus might finish in chapter 19, the people don't actually go up the mountain at the trumpet blast (Ex 19:13). Instead Moses goes up on their behalf (cf Deut 5:27). Everything will now be presented by intermediaries, shadows, types. For the second half of the book it's mainly Moses on the mountain, in the cloud, receiving the law and the tabernacle blueprint from the unseen LORD.
Attention turns to the future as the unseen LORD promises Moses that the Angel will continue to deliver them (Ex 23:20-23). They can trust Him because the name of the unseen LORD is in Him (Ex 23:21). The Angel commands, leads and forgives the Israelites.
Perhaps Moses wasn't listening at this point because in 33:12 he says:
"See, you say to me, 'Bring up this people,' but you have not let me know whom you will send with me."
The unseen LORD replies: "My Presence will go with you, and I will give you rest." (v14) The word 'Presence' is the word for face and it recalls a very memorable phrase from the previous chapter.
In Exodus 33:7-11 we hear about what used to happen. We leave the mountain-top briefly to be told how Moses used to meet with the LORD down on ground level. At that time he'd go to the tent of meeting and speak with the LORD "face to face as a man speaks with his friend."
That was the 'face to face' LORD at ground level. But when Moses is on the mountain, the unseen LORD reassures Moses that the Face (Presence) would continue to go with them. Moses considers this to be absolutely essential - if the Presence doesn't go with them he'd rather just perish in the wilderness (v15). Give me Jesus or give me death!
Having been encouraged greatly, Moses is now bold enough to ask something with echoes of Philip's request in John 14. Now he wants to see the glory of the unseen LORD (v18)! The LORD’s reply is very telling: He would pass in front of Moses, He would proclaim His name, but, 33:20, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." Again in v22 He emphasizes “my face must not be seen.”
Now Moses is not an idiot. He's just recounted the incident in the tent of meeting (33:7-11) for a reason. He's deliberately distinguishing the ground-level appearing LORD with the mountain-top unseen LORD. But distinguishing them so as to intimately relate them.
Because as soon as Moses hears the name of the Unseen LORD (Ex 34:5-7) he exclaims:
"If now I have found favor in your sight, O Lord, please let the Lord go in the midst of us." (Ex 34:9)
When he hears the name of the Most High God he asks Him to send the Lord in their midst. The name of the LORD is in the Angel who is in their midst (Ex 23:21). So when Moses hears this gospel character he knows he's experienced this very name in the Angel. The seen LORD is everything that the unseen LORD proclaims when He reveals His name. And so Moses asks the Father to send the Son in their midst - the redeeming Lord-from-Lord.
Moses’ plea of 34:9 is granted and, at the end of Exodus, the Glory / Presence / LORD fills the tabernacle and directs all their travels (40:34-38).
We see throughout the Old Testament that this promise of the Presence of the LORD being in the midst of His people was kept. Numbers 9:15-23 is one example of many showing the seen LORD going in the midst of His people. Number 14 tells us that even the surrounding nations knew that the Face-to-Face LORD travelled with the Israelites and fought for them (v13ff). When Solomon finally builds a Temple for the Name of the LORD, the LORD fills it in exactly the same way as He filled the tabernacle in Exodus 40. This LORD appears to Solomon in 1 Kings 9 and to Isaiah in chapter 6. If we were in any doubt as to who this Divine Person is, the Apostle John settles all dispute: “Isaiah said this [Isaiah 6] because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about Him.” (John 12:41)
In the fulness of time this LORD - this Angel of the covenant, this sought after and desired Redeemer - would come in a definitive judgement and salvation (Mal 3:1ff).
Jesus has always been the saving, ground-level, appearing LORD, mediating perfectly the saving plan and character of His Father. Jude was speaking absolutely plainly and straightforwardly - Jesus is the LORD who brought the Israelites up out of Egypt. In other words He is the God of the Old Testament. Exodus is a wonderful demonstration of this foundational truth.
.
Jesus is LORD
I'm watching Lionel Richie sing 'Jesus is LORD' at the concert to commemorate a JW turned Muslim.
What the?
UPDATE: Just found out the song is 'Jesus is love'. Lyrics here. Still interesting.
Macho Jesus is a false Jesus
I think this is the most blasphemous image of Christ I've seen.
Brings to mind that pithy saying often heard on the lips of an influential pastor: 'I refuse to worship a Jesus I could beat up.'
If that logic were followed - would this be the Jesus who is worthy of worship? Perish the thought.
.
Some manly things Jesus did
Three pictures of manliness in the gospels:
ONE. Jesus, pictured as the father in Luke 15, (seriously the father is Jesus. Just straightforwardly and obviously Jesus. It's demonstrable beyond any question of refutation. Really). Where was I? Oh yes, Jesus, pictured as the father, is turned in his stomach with compassion, hitches up his robes, runs to his good-for-nothing son, flings his arms around him and kisses him.
Here is the most poignant picture of Jesus' love for sinners. And Jesus chooses a patriarch to show it. We might think he looks pretty motherly and not fatherly. We might question the masculinity of this scene. We'd be dead wrong. Here is a picture of total Jesus-shaped manliness.
TWO. Jesus gets up from the evening meal, downs his drink in one, belches and tells a cracking gag about women drivers. No wait. That's not John 13. In John 13 He gets up from the table, takes off His robe, picks up a towel, and He gets down on His hands and knees to wash and pad dry the dirty, naked feet of His friends.
Was this a detour from His otherwise robust masculinity? No, it was the expression of it. Here was Jesus showing the full extent of His love (v1) - the Bridegroom washing His bride in sacrificial service.
THREE. Gethsemane: Jesus, overwhelmed with sorrow, actually lets His friends in on His distress - inviting Peter, James and John to watch with Him. The Passion of the Christ gets this wrong - Jesus does not say 'I don't want them to see me like this.' The only reason we know about this episode is that Jesus must have told them all about it. Desperate praying, sweating blood, heart poured out, never has Jesus looked weaker.
I've heard Driscoll repeatedly describe Gethsemane as a portrait of femininity - Jesus in submission to His Head, the Father. Of course both men and women need to look to Christ as Model. But frankly I think Driscoll is avoiding something that ought to challenge his macho-man masculinity. Here is Man in submission to God. This is what man is made for. The Ruler under God, in the garden, obeying submissively in total dependence and willing to die for His bride - here is the Last Adam, the true picture of manliness.
Of course it doesn't look very macho. It isn't. But it's what Jesus-shaped masculinity looks like.
To be a man like the Man doesn't look manly to men. A man must be man enough to reject men and follow the Man.
.