Skip to content

Blog

Published on Leave a comment on "Because we're supposed to"

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?

.

4

Published on 4 Comments on An imagined discussion on the trinity

'Now, now Glen we need balance.  It's not just about the Three, we also must remember the One.'  They say.

'Oh' I say, concerned.  'You don't think I speak about the One?' 

'Well perhaps not as much as you should.  You're always going on about the Trinity see.  Which is great.  Hey, I'm all for Trinity.  But we've also got to balance that by a proper emphasis on the One God.' 

'Hmmm' I say, mentally de-barbing my next sentence against all the inclinations of my flesh.  'This 'One God'...  I should keep Him in 'balance' with the Trinity?'

'I think so...'

'The Three Persons kept in balance with the One God??'

'Now you're getting it.  Yeah... It's the whole Gregory of Nazianzus thing, you know "I can't think about the One without being surrounded by the Three, I can't think of the Three without being carried to the One."  I'm sure you know about it.  I'm just encouraging you to bring up the One a bit more.'

'Hmmm.'  I realize I'm frowning. I try to turn it into a smile.  Now I'm certain I look mad.  I wince at the thought.  It doesn't help.  'So I'm not speaking about the One because I spend all my time talking about the Three?'

'Exactly.'

Barbs spring up like claws on a cat. 'So Gregory should have said "I can quite happily consider the One just as long as later I spend equal time on the Three.  And I can do some independent study on the Three just so long as I promise to think about the One afterwards."?'

'Now, now Glen.  I'm just talking about a healthy balance.'

'I thought trinity was the healthy balance. You know - tri-unity.  Isn't thorough-going trinitarianism already integrating the Three and the One?'

'Why yes it is.  And we love to explore this mystery.  We just have to keep it in balance with proper focus on the One God.' 

'So considering the Three-in-One isn't balanced.  We need to balance the Three-in-One with the One.'

'Exactly.'

'So you're saying we need to balance trinitarianism with unitarianism?'

'I didn't say that.'

'No, you said everything but.'

 

On one hand I've never actually had this conversation.  On the other hand it's bubbled away behind a thousand of them.

.

Published on Leave a comment on Can I eat this kebab?

kebab

 

That's the question Paul is answering from 1 Corinthians 8-10.

If you ate meat in Corinth, chances are it had already been used in ritual sacrifice to a false god.  So the question among the Corinthian Christians was ‘Can I eat this kebab?’ 

It's a question that goes to the heart of the issue - How much of non-Christian culture can I participate in?  Can I eat this food?  In this religious and cultural context?  In this time and place?  At this temple?  During this festival?  With these people? 

At every time and in every place the church needs to address this issue - What should be the Christian's attitude to non-Christian culture? 

In Corinth those with a weak conscience could not eat without thinking of the idolatry involved in producing it.  Those with a strong conscience thought ‘It’s not demon meat, it’s just a kebab, God owns everything, we’re free in Christ, tuck in.’ 

The strong write to Paul and say 'We have the right don't we?  We can eat can't we?'

Paul's answer in chapter 8 is 'Yes you have the right, but that doesn't mean you should.  You should worry about the weak.'

In chapter 9 Paul goes back to first principles and demonstrates that generally the Christian thing to do with your rights is relinquish them. 

Then in chapter 10 Paul returns to the kebab question. This time he says 'Yes you have the right.  But that doesn't mean you should.  You should worry about yourselves.'

Paul is so worried about the strongs' insistence on rights that he wonders whether they're even Christians at all.  Maybe they're just like the faithless generation in the wilderness, claiming the privileges of God's people but with hearts set on evil. 

That's the shocking challenge of chapter 10.

Listen to the sermon here.

.

Published on Leave a comment on Reflecting the Lord’s glory

What's this verse about?

And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the 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...

.

Published on Leave a comment on Reflecting the Lord's glory

What's this verse about?

And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the 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...

.

Published on Leave a comment on Spend 40 hours learning Hebrew

I think Hebrew is cool. 

I've also voiced the opinion that bible teachers can and, if possible, should learn some.   At that point I said a hundred hours would not be an unreasonable investment of time.

Well here's a 40 hour course.  Twenty lessons, one hour of homework a week.

It uses this textbook which has a CD-ROM with answers to homework exercises. 

Thanks to Ros for flagging this up.  I don't know the text book or the website but I know she's a great linguist so this is worth following up if you're keen.

 

 

Published on Leave a comment on A good infection

Have you ever heard or ever spoken about Christ's cleansing of lepers?  Have you ever heard it said that, in the OT, you never got a good infection, only a bad one?  In other words the teaching says - holiness and cleanness never travels to the unholy/unclean thing.  Instead it's always the unholy/unclean thing that defiles the holy/clean thing.  Ever heard that or said it?

I have.

The advantage is that then you can say 'But Jesus gives the world's first ever good infection.'  The disadvantage is that it's a damned dirty lie.

Exodus 29:37 - after the altar is purified, atoned for, christed and consecrated, whatever touches it shall become holy.

Exodus 30:22-33 - the sacred anointing oil christs (i.e. anoints) the tent of meeting, the ark, the table (and utensils), the lampstand (and its utensils), the altar of incense, the altar of burnt offering (plus utensils), the basin and its stand.  And just as Scripture says that anything that touches them becomes holy, it says to christ Aaron and his sons with it.  No ordinary person is to be anointed with this oil, only priests.

Leviticus 6:18,27 - the priests' sin and grain offerings will both make something holy if it touches them.

So it's far better to say that there are rare occasions on which the unholy can receive a good infection.  The altar, certain anointed ones and certain sacrifices can make something holy.

So if you want to be made holy come to the cross, come to The Anointed One, come to His priestly sacrifice.  There you will receive a good infection.  As He receives a bad one.

.

Published on Leave a comment on Are you a bible nut??

Take the Christ the Truth patented quiz:

What is your response to the following Scriptures?

 

Scripture 1: Josh 10:12-15 - the sun stays up for a whole extra day

A) What a rich and enigmatic text! The main thing we glean is that the LORD can be trusted in difficult circumstances.

B) [Muffled] I suppose something quite strange happened here.  Perhaps it was to do with perceptions (after all we'd have to completely rewrite the astronomy books on this one), but even if something miraculous happened here, the main thing we glean is that the LORD can be trusted in difficult circumstances.

C)  Wahey - the sun stopped in the middle of the sky!

 

Scripture 2: 2 Kings 6:17 -  Elisha prays that his servant might see the angels all around

A) What a rich and enigmatic text!  The main thing we glean is that the LORD can be trusted in difficult circumstances.

B) [Muffled] I suppose there were angels in that place at that extraordinary time.

C) Wahey - angels are everywhere!

 

Scripture 3: Mark 15:33 - Darkness on Good Friday

A) What a rich and enigmatic text!  The main thing we glean is that something rich and enigmatic was taking place.

B) [Muffled] I suppose something was obstructing the sun and causing a localised darkness.

C) The sun stopped shining!

 

Scripture 4: Romans 8:19-22 - The creation waits and is groaning

A) What a rich and enigmatic text!  The main thing we learn is how the LORD can be trusted in difficult circumstances.

B) Creation is not how it was supposed to be.

C) Creation waits and is groaning.

 

Scripture 5: 1 Cor 11:3-16 - Head coverings etc

A) What a rich and enigmatic text!  The main thing we learn is how we should skip this chapter and head straight for 1 Cor 13.

B) [Muffled] Gender differences should be expressed in culturally appropriate ways.

C) Men, uncover those heads.  Women, cover them up.  (With hair I reckon - though some will think I should lose points for that!)

 

Scripture 6: 2 Cor 13:12 - Greet one another with a holy kiss.

A) What a fascinating window onto 1st century church practice!

B) Greet one another in an affectionate, culturally appropriate way.

C) Get kissing!

 

A = 1 point

B = 2 points

C = 3 points

 

Add up your score.

 

6-10 - bit woolly for these parts.

11-15 - could be nuttier

16-18 - you are a bible nut.  Welcome to Christ the Truth.

 

What did you score?

.

Published on Leave a comment on The Bible and God

Ok, so the bible is not God.  But then, what is the relationship between God and the written word?

I'll devote quite a big proportion of next week to that question as I blog about preaching.  But for now let me explore an analogy with the sacraments.  Marc can shoot me down - he's doing a lot of work on this subject.  But let me have a go anyway.

Here's my thought - we tend to veer between two mistakes: a Catholic and a Zwinglian view of the bible.

The Catholic view is to see my bible reading working ex opere operato (by doing it, it's done).  I advance the book mark and it is has worked.  The words go in (sort of), my reading plan gets ticked off - job done.

My response?  Disengaged duty.

The Zwinglian view is to see my bible reading as memorialist.  Christ is essentially absent from these words, but they're a jolly good reminder of Him.  And if I employ my imagination and proper meditative techniques, if I think these words into moral, pastoral and theological categories then my thoughts will carry me to Christ. 

My response?  Pietistic duty.

On the first understanding, I don't need to do anything but go through the motions.  The second understanding is a reaction to the first in which I take the spiritual task into my own hands. 

But what if Christ is really and already present through the words of Scripture.  The words aren't Christ Himself.  But neither are they separate such that I must bridge the gap.  Instead, the words are carrying me to Christ who they constantly proclaim (John 5:39).

It's not just reading comprehension.  But neither is it my job to make an otherwise dead letter living and active.  Instead the bible is already a living and lively word ever proceeding from the mouth of God and ever offering to me the Bread of life. 

The bible works on me.  Not apart from faith.  But not by my works either. It is His work - His spiritual work - that is ever offered to me.

Here's what I say to people from the Book of Common  Prayer as I give them communion:

The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for you preserve your body and soul to everlasting life.  Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for you and feed on Him in your heart by faith, with thanksgiving.

And you say - typical Anglicans, straddling all the positions!  Well - Jesus does say 'This is my body.'  And He does say 'Do this in remembrance of me.'  It's just that this is not the centre of communion.  Feeding on Him in our hearts by faith as we feed on the bread between our teeth - this is. 

So as we read our bibles we acknowledge, this IS the word of God.  And we acknowledge that this reading will cause us many subsequent thoughts that bring us to Jesus in manifold ways.  But essentially as we read the Scriptures we are being fed spiritually there and then with the Bread of life.  

My response?  Believing expectancy. 

 

Does that work as an analogy?

.

Twitter widget by Rimon Habib - BuddyPress Expert Developer