Skip to content

Blog

6

Published on 6 Comments on Redeemed Features

Having been at a week long Larry Crabb conference (see previous notes here, here, here and here), these are some of my reflections.  This isn't what Larry said.  These are all things his teaching has prompted me to think.  Many of them are quite new to me (even though they should have been obvious!):

I have no redeeming features. I have a Redeemer.  But through my Redeemer I have some redeemed features.  They are not my hope.  But they are there.  Not at all perfectly but really and noticably.

It's ok to notice these features!  It's more than ok for others to notice these features - they haven't distracted attention from the real me, clothed in Christ, hidden in God.  Paul (who was quite keen on the whole 'clothed in Christ', 'hidden in God' language was also able to identify in others their real, distinct, noticable praise-worthy features!)

My identity is in Christ.  But I do not, for that reason, dissolve into Him.  Just as His one-ness with the Father does not dissolve away the concrete particularity of His Person, so my one-ness with Jesus does not take away from my own particular personhood.

To be lost in Christ is not like a drop lost in an ocean but more like a musician lost in her music or a lover lost in his beloved.  ie  I am truly found in that lostness.  I am the musician and lover set free in their element to be their true selves.  In this all-embracing context I am able to discover a genuine particularity that I could never find apart from it.

I am truly and particularly myself when I am entirely His.  Now that I am entirely His I can truly find myself.  I can know myself only when I know myself in Him.  But once I know myself in Him, then I can truly know myself.

To fail to find and know myself is not a testament to my hiddenness in Christ.  Quite the opposite. The person without a genuine sense of self testifies to the world that Christ has not found them, bought them, and named them.  Something is wrong with our knowledge of Christ if genuine knowledge of self does not ensue (cf Institutes 1.1.1)

It is not just that I am in Christ.  Christ is in me.  And according to Scripture, this reality can be known to some extent by sight and not merely by faith.   (e.g. 2 Cor 13:5).  You can dig down and not merely descend through infinite sewage.  You can actually hit Rock!

There is such a thing as a new heart!

The look within will not just reveal wickedness (though it'll be a lot worse than I'd imagined).  Paul says he knows 'nothing good dwells in him'.  (Rom 7:18) But he immediately qualifies that - "that is, in my flesh."  He goes on to say that in his inner being he delights in God's law.  Flesh is not the only thing going on in him.  He digs deep enough to realise that he has no hope in himself. But he also digs deep enough to see what his 'inner being' is like.

We generally only look deep enough at ourselves to diagnose a problem for which Christ is unnecessary.  After a brief but uncomfortable glimpse we say: "I'm stupid, I'm fat, I'm disorganised, I'm ugly, I don't know my bible, I'm not a very good friend / son / daughter / spouse / minister / worker."  None of these verdicts get anywhere near the heart of the problem but they engender sufficiently strong feelings of self-contempt that we quickly say sorry and determine to do better next time.  After a brief self-directed pep-talk (in the name of Jesus obviously), we look away.

We rarely discover anything deeper than flesh-dynamics because we don't trust the gospel enough to be able to uncover the really ugly stuff.

We rarely discover anything deeper than flesh-dynamics because we rarely relate to others very deeply.

When someone asks me how I'm doing I could of course answer "Clothed in Christ, seated in Him at God's right hand."  At the end of the day this is the only thing that matters.  But "end of the day" answers aren't the only ones.  There's a significant danger that this answer could avert both our eyes from realities that need addressing here and now.  The 'clothed in Christ' answer should free me to be real not shield me from the truth.

I believe in the old saying "For every one look at yourself take ten looks at Christ."  But will I really take that one look?  And will I allow you to take that look too and to point out things I just can't see from where I'm sitting?

I believe Bonhoeffer's saying that we should avoid constantly taking our spiritual temperatures.  But I also know I have a contagious spiritual disease.  It's worth getting my cough checked out once in a while - cos it's going to hurt you sooner or later.

I believe in Col 3:1-4.  But will I read on to verses 5-9? You can't put to death what you don't see.  And we're very good at deceiving ourselves.

I'm a master at sinning with Scriptural back-up.  I read the bible with my own sin-tainted glasses.  I need you to say 'That's not what that verse means...'

Sin is relational.  It takes a community to call it forth, a community to see it and a community to handle it.

I'm not loving you if I don't take drastic steps to deal with my sinful patterns of relating.  I don't really believe the gospel if I a) I don't know the freedom to repent and b) can't take your criticism.

God doesn't need my good works, my neighbour does.  God doesn't need me to deal with my wicked ways of relating, you do.  This is gospel driven mortification not self-obsessed introspection.

Going into last week this was basically my view of self: an ugly mess of sins sprinkled with a few ministry gifts but - thank God! - united to an alien righteousness, Christ.

What I'm now seeing is that I have an even uglier mess of sin than I thought.  And such a mess of sin that I have no earthly hope of untangling.   But, deeper still, I have Spirit-implanted passions.  I have redeemed desires.  I have what the bible calls a new heart (e.g. Ezek 36:24ff).

Am I still capable of massive self-deception?  You bet!  Should I cast off the external word by which I am declared righteous and trust my heart?  B y no means!  But now I have a renewed sense that Glen Scrivener has a centre, a purpose, a direction, a concrete self.  If I'd just looked within to find myself I'd have been lost in a hall of mirrors.  But anchored in Christ, I've found an authentic me to be.

Which is nice.

.

PHOTO OF SSD

.

.

Published on Leave a comment on The Dream of the Rood

An incredible 7th century old English poem.  (Rood means cross)

Listen! The choicest of visions I wish to tell,
which came as a dream in middle-night,
after voice-bearers lay at rest.
It seemed that I saw a most wondrous tree
born aloft, wound round by light,
brightest of beams. All was that beacon
sprinkled with gold. Gems stood
fair at earth's corners; there likewise five
shone on the shoulder-span. All there beheld the Angel of God,
fair through predestiny...

...Then best wood spoke these words:
"It was long since--I yet remember it--
that I was hewn at holt's end,
moved from my stem. Strong fiends seized me there,
worked me for spectacle; cursèd ones lifted me.
On shoulders men bore me there, then fixed me on hill;
fiends enough fastened me. Then saw I mankind's Lord
come with great courage when he would mount on me.
Then dared I not against the Lord's word
bend or break, when I saw earth's
fields shake. All fiends
I could have felled, but I stood fast.
The young hero stripped himself--he, God Almighty--
strong and stout-minded. He mounted high gallows,
bold before many, when he would loose mankind.

I shook when that Man clasped me. I dared, still, not bow to earth,
fall to earth's fields, but had to stand fast.
Rood was I reared. I lifted a mighty King,
Lord of the heavens, dared not to bend.
With dark nails they drove me through: on me those sores are seen,
open malice-wounds. I dared not scathe anyone.
They mocked us both, we two together. All wet with blood I was,
poured out from that Man's side, after ghost he gave up.
Much have I born on that hill
of fierce fate. I saw the God of hosts
harshly stretched out. Darknesses had
wound round with clouds the corpse of the Wielder,
bright radiance; a shadow went forth,
dark under heaven. All creation wept,
King's fall lamented. Christ was on rood...

...May he be friend to me
who here on earth earlier died
on that gallows-tree for mankind's sins.
He loosed us and life gave,
a heavenly home. Hope was renewed
with glory and gladness to those who there burning endured.
That Son was victory-fast in that great venture,
with might and good-speed, when he with many,
vast host of souls, came to God's kingdom,
One-Wielder Almighty: bliss to the angels
and all the saints--those who in heaven
dwelt long in glory--when their Wielder came,
Almighty God, where his homeland was.

Translation copyright © 1982, Jonathan A. Glenn

Read the whole thing here

May you know that young Hero - God Almighty - close this day.

.

Published on Leave a comment on Steve Chalke on the torture of the cross

Maybe this is well known but I was intrigued by finding this in a second hand bookshop:

chalke-cover

 

Chalke wrote it in 1995.  On the cross he writes this:

chalke-inside

"...to complete the rejection, [Jesus] was abandoned by God the Father.  To a large extent, it was this emotional torture which killed Jesus... It shows the completeness with which he was prepared to pay the price of human sin."

This from a man who in 2003 denied a penal substitutionary view of the cross.  Having quoted John 3:16, Chalke says

"...how then, have we come to believe that at the cross this God of love suddenly decides to vent his anger and wrath on his own Son? The fact is that the cross isn't a form of cosmic child abuse - a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the Church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith" (The Lost Message of Jesus, p182).

Anyone know if Chalke has ever explained his earlier explanation of the cross in the light of this later one?

.

 

 

Published on Leave a comment on Application – the evangelical cure-all

habits

 

Like coathangers, we own a hundred bibles but have no idea how they came to be ours.  One of them is called a "Life Application Bible." 

As far as I can tell, it exists in order to footnote every biblical indicative so that a moral imperative may be added.  This is, we are assured, the cure to our spiritual malaise.  Just listen to this endorsement on the back cover:

Evangelical Christianity is suffering from an acute case of spiritual malnutrition.  The symptom is well known - defection in personal standards of living.  The cure - Vitamin A - application of God's Word.

This remedy is both refreshing and realistic, calculated to change the will.  Not merely satisfying curiosity or making us smarter sinners, the Scriptures were given to make us more like Jesus Christ.

Wha?? 

What's the understanding of the bible here?  The Spirit's testimony to the Son?  Christ's love-letter to His bride?  The deposit of faith given to the church for the sake of proclaiming Christ to the world?  No.  At base the bible is, apparently, given for individual piety.

What kind of anthropology is this?  Change the will and you'll correct the 'defection in standards of living.'  ! 

What kind of salvation is offered?  Apparently we are not to become merely 'smarter sinners' - well what then?  Do we become subtler sinners?  more self-righteous sinners?  self-satisfied sinners?  There's one option that is assuredly closed to us - that of ceasing to be sinners!  So why not a smarter sinner?

This approach to Scripture and to Christian faith is not good.  And yet, doesn't this kind of thinking throb away beneath much of what passes for evangelicalism?  Isn't the majority of 'evangelical' preaching informed by just such beliefs?  I'd say our spiritual malnutrition is not because of a lack of this kind of application.  We're spiritually anaemic precisely because we have turned the Scriptures into moralistic or therapeutic self-help.  No wonder other Christians deride us as simplistic legalists.

For a thought on what good application is, go here.

.

Published on Leave a comment on Ten thoughts on planning missions

 Like many churches across the country, we're planning our involvement with the Passion for Life mission initiative taking place in Easter 2010.  Here are ten thoughts on these kinds of missions in no particular order.

  1. 'A mission' should be part of a church's ongoing life of mission.  The one-off sports event with gospel talk at half time is one thing. Having a bunch of Christians join a local sports team season by season - befriending and gospelling non-Christians there - now that's an ongoing life of mission.  Its effects will be so much more hidden and ambiguous than the grand week of events.  But the impact will be so much greater for the kingdom.
  2. 'A mission' should be owned by the whole congregation.  The priesthood of all believers applies especially here.  It takes a body working together with speaking and serving gifts working in harmony.  Too often we impose a mission on an unprepared church from the top down.  The events will be unbalanced, few will bring friends and the strong impression will be given that mission is something compartmentalized - done only at special times and only by special people.
  3. The greatest problem with our 'missions' is that typically our Christians don't know any non-Christians.  Not very well anyway.  Now by all means door-knock your locality. By all means lift high the name of Jesus in your community at large. But our priority must be our neighbours, friends, colleagues and families with whom we are already involved.  Or if we're not already involved, we ought to be.  Ideally 'a mission' should be a dew point collecting together the scores of gospel conversations that Christians are already having with the people they're involved with.
  4. Our perceived need for apologetic events is inversely related to our willingness to love our neighbours.  In other words - if we actually loved our neighbours we'd probably find that we didn't 'need' apologetics events after all.  The real trouble is that we're not actually involved with non-Christians, we don't really love them.  And so the only bridge into Christian things that we can think of is an 'apologetic' bridge.  I use the term 'apologetics' advisedly (click my 'apologetics' tag for more).  Because 1 Peter 3:15 (where the word 'apologetics' comes from) is not describing the 'apologetics' that people tend to do today.  1 Peter 3:15 is about giving the gospel reasons for the hope that is so obviously in you as evidenced by your many and deep interactions with unbelievers.  Now if we lived in 1 Peter 3:15-world then our friends and neighbours would see this hope and would ask us about it.  We could give some kind of witness, but - joy of joys - we could also bring them along to a mission event where this gospel hope would be proclaimed by a gifted evangelist.  And if this were the case we'd be praying to God that the evangelist would stop trying to be culturally relevant and would please just sock it to our friend with Christ. The reality is that a) our hope aint that evident and b) we don't get close enough for non-Christians to see it anyway.  Therefore the only way we can think to get non-Christians in the door is to put on talks about "What Jesus would say to the G20 summit" or whatever. 
  5. Conversion is not a process. Conversion is a miracle. How much of our evangelistic strategy belies the evangel we say we believe. 
  6. Non-Christians are nowhere near as excited by 'A Christian view of the Credit Crunch' as Christians are.
  7. If it's credibility you're after, non-Christians figure that the thing (really the only thing) that Christians can speak on credibly is Christianity.  There might be a clue there.
  8. The bible must be front and centre if people are to truly trust the living God and not simply the oratory powers of a visiting speaker.
  9. Often we greatly underestimate the amount of Christian input a non-Christian is expecting / willing to bear once they've accepted an invitation by a trusted Christian friend.  It's a huge deal for a non-Christian to come to an event in the first place.  They're basically expecting to be proselytised.  But once they get there, guess who's afraid of proselytising?  Not them.  Us.
  10. Evangelism is summons to Christ not the presentation of interesting information.  Calling people to repent and believe the gospel at our mission events sets our evangelism in its proper context.  Just by itself a call for people to trust Christ on the night is a powerful demonstration of the nature of the gospel. We ought to call people to Christ and not simply a follow up course  

.

Published on Leave a comment on How not to read the bible

A semi-imagined conversation

-- Right.  Bible reading.  Here we go - Speak Lord, your servant is listening.  Ok, Matthew 11:28.  Jesus said "Come to me all you who are weary and burdened and I will give you rest."  Ok, good verse.  Thank You Lord.  But now let me think.  What is this verse really saying to me...?  Hmm, well of course "rest" is very theologically loaded.  Right from the seventh day of creation we see eschatological perfection modelled in Sabbath....

-- Glen!

-- Speak Lord, your servant is listening.

-- Yes you've already said that.  And I've already spoken...

-- ... Oh indeed you have Lord and now I'm allowing your word to inform and shape my theological understanding that I might be transformed by the renewing... Well you know how the verse goes.  Anyway I find it fascinating that you say v28 right after v27 when you declare the trinitarian, christo-centric dynamic of all revel...

-- Glen! 

-- Speak Lord, your servant is listening

-- Are you?

-- Well trying to.  That's why I'm thinking hard about how the verse fits in with the context and with the rest of the biblical witness.  I'm allowing my whole theology to be shaped by these concepts...

-- These concepts?  Glen, have you actually come to me for rest today?

-- Well.  My plan is to get a properly nuanced theology of rest in place.  And once I have this understanding I imagine the experience of rest will sort of, I don't know, umm....

-- Glen?

-- Speak Lord your servant is listening

-- Maybe later...

.

9

Published on 9 Comments on Comedy leftovers – Self lightly, God seriously

god-seriously-self-lightly-21

 

.

Here's the audio of my talk on the subject

All this began here.

Then I had some initial thoughts on the usefulness of comedy here

There's an excellent CS Lewis quote here

Here is a very expanded early version of the talk: part one, part two, part three, part four.

Then some follow up thoughts on blasphemy here and here.

 

.

Twitter widget by Rimon Habib - BuddyPress Expert Developer