Skip to content

"You need to repent"
- sure

"You must put that practice to death"
- true

"You must die"
- more like it

"You have been crucified with Christ, the world is crucified to you and you to the world."
- now you're cooking with Holy Ghost power.

.

Meditating on Galatians 6:14 this morning I reckon we need to be much more radical in our language about 'sanctification'. Even talking about 'mortification' can get us off the hook if we imagine ourselves as some tutting fashionista putting off the old man like a bad suit. It is a bad suit. But it's also me. Taking it off is like flesh peeling from bones. It's me that has to die not simply some habit or attitude.

But then I'm reminded - I'm already dead. I'm already crucified with Jesus. From baptism onwards I've been united with Him in His death. I'm carrying my cross daily - it's Christ's gift to me, releasing me from every worldly claim. I owe this world exactly what a corpse owes it - jack squat.

Realising this again is repentance (change of mind). I am realigned with reality - living is dying; dying is living. But when united with Jesus it's always a fruitful death - pruned branches bearing fruit for God.

So don't give up your sin, don't reorder your priorities, don't resolve to try harder. Just die. It's the very essence of your life. .
.
(PS I'm away from a computer right now so unable to respond to comments).
.

I've just listened to a seminar on hospitality.

  • Some verses on why we should
  • Some more verses as examples from the bible.
  • Then testimony after testimony from couples who grew up in hospitable homes, who rejoice to welcome people into their families and can't help smiling even at the thought of hospitality.

And in the midst of my admiration, bemusement and self-condemnation, the penny dropped. Ohhh, I thought, so this is how most people feel sitting through those evangelism courses I lap up!

I've just listened to a seminar on hospitality.

  • Some verses on why we should
  • Some more verses as examples from the bible.
  • Then testimony after testimony from couples who grew up in hospitable homes, who rejoice to welcome people into their families and can't help smiling even at the thought of hospitality.

And in the midst of my admiration, bemusement and self-condemnation, the penny dropped. Ohhh, I thought, so this is how most people feel sitting through those evangelism courses I lap up!

7

Why do two people end up marrying?  Love at first sight?  Spiritual discernment?

I just came across my new favourite phrase: "interlocking neuroses."

Bully seeks victim for ongoing abuse and re-abuse

Emotionally detached seeks career obsessed for parallel existence

Noble rescuer seeks troubled soul for noble rescuing

Damaged soul seeks jovial baffoon for shallow comfort

That kind of thing.

No marriage is free from this.  To some extent all of us married our spouses to fit in with our neuroses.

Which is yet one more reason why the phrase "We promised we wouldn't change each other" is death to a marriage.  Our only hope is continual repentance of these flesh dynamics.

.

5

From a letter to an American woman, 31.7.62

I have a notion that, apart from actual pain, men and women are quite diversely afflicted by illness.  To a woman one of the great evils about it is that she can't do things.  To a man (or anyway a man like me) the great consolation is the reflection "well, anyway, no-one can now demand that I should do anything." I have often had the fancy that one stage in purgatory might be a great big kitchen in which things are always going wrong - milk boiling over, crockery getting smashed, toast burning, animals stealing.  The women have to learn to sit still and mind their own business: the men have to learn to jump up and do something about it. When both sexes have mastered this exercise, they go on to the next.

A clarification written 03.09.62

[this] is simply my lifelong experience - that men are more likely to hand over to others what they ought to do themselves, and women more likely to do themselves what others wish they would leave alone.  Hence both sexes must be told "mind your own business" but in two different senses.

.

I've been listening to sermons from the web on Luke 14.  It's Jesus at a banquet.  He heals on the Sabbath, He teaches about refusing the seats of honour, He calls us to invite the poor, crippled, lame and blind to dinner and He speaks of the kingdom as a great feast.  Wonderful stuff.

But do you know, in all the sermons I've listened to from the web, what's been the number one application of Luke 14??  Quiet times!  From both UK and US pastors, the predominant take-home message was 'make sure you get alone with God every day.'  I'm not going to name names but I listened to some big hitters.  And they preached on the feast.  The feast where Jesus tells us to throw feasts and then speaks of the kingdom as a feast.  And what's their conclusion: 'We need to get on our own more!'

??!

Usually the logic was: Don't take the places of honour => Therefore get humble => Therefore get on your knees => Therefore commit to quiet times.

Now there were two notable exceptions:  John Piper was good.  And so was the Australian (obviously!) Mike Frost.  (Those two aren't usually positively lumped together but there you are).  But the rest took Luke 14 and boiled it down into some very individualistic applications.

Now I'm all in favour of ensuring that our doing flows from a lively relationship with Christ.  But why does that equate to 'getting alone with God'??  I mean how do we get from the feast to the prayer closet??  Are conservative evangelicals that afraid of getting our hands dirty in mission, in rubbing shoulders with the poor, crippled, blind and lame?  Are we that individualistic and moralistic?

Anyway...  I do think a healthy relationship with Christ means talking and listening to Him daily.  But why is the quiet time the touch-stone of evangelical spirituality?  Why is it the default application for every sermon?  Why do we reach for the privatized exhortations so readily?

And how many times have I heard Robert Murray McCheyne's daunting challenge:

What a man is alone on his knees before God, that he is and no more.

I mean it's right to be challenged by that.  But is it true?  And is it right to aim for this as the very model and highpoint of Christian maturity?  What about: "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."  (John 13:35)

I dunno.  Bit of a rant really.  What do you think?

Here's the Luke 14 sermon I ended up preaching.

.

In previous posts (here and here) we've considered three ways to pastor - Pharisaiscal, therapeutic or evangelical (i.e. gospel).

Let's begin to flesh out some of the differences:

The gospel preached:

The Pharasaical gospel:

Jesus gives advice from heaven

The therapeutic gospel:

Jesus comes to understand you

The evangelical gospel:

Jesus comes to redeem you

The community:

Pharasaical community:

The collusion of hypocrites looking acceptable

Therapeutic community:

The collusion of 'strugglers' accepting ugliness

Gospel community:

The fellowship of sinners in the Light (1 John 1:7)

The way of change:

Pharasaical change:

Looking good in the presence of law

Therapeutic change:

Looking troubled in the presence of understanding

Gospel change:

Looking bad in the presence of grace

Karl Barth died 41 years ago today.

Here are a few of my favourite quotes from him:

On his own theology:

My whole theology, you see, is fundamentally a theology for parsons. It grew out of my own situation when I had to teach and preach and counsel a little. (From a radio broadcast made shortly before Barth’s death. Quoted from William Willimon, Conversations with Barth on Preaching, Abingdon Press, 2006.)

On the reason for theology:

The normal and central fact with which dogmatics has to do is, very simply, the Church’s Sunday sermon of yesterday and to-morrow, and so it will continue to be.” (Church Dogmatics I/1, p91)

On theological method

Jesus Christ, as he is attested to us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God whom we have to hear, and whom we have to trust and obey in life and in death.  (Article 1 of the Barmen Declaration)


On the bible:

“The Bible says all sorts of things, certainly; but in all this multiplicity and variety, it says in truth only one thing – just this: the name of Jesus Christ… The Bible becomes clear when it is clear that is says this one thing… The Bible remains dark to us if we do not hear in it this sovereign name… Interpretation stands in the service of the clarity which the Bible as God’s Word makes for itself; and we can properly interpret the Bible, in whole or part, only when we perceive and show that what it says is said from the point of view of that… name of Jesus Christ.”  (Church Dogmatics I/2, p720)

At bottom, the Church is in the world only with a book in its hands. We have no other possibility to bear witness except to explain this book.” (God in Action, p107-8)

On creation and covenant

Creation is the outward basis of the covenant and the covenant is the inward basis of creation.  (Church Dogmatics III/1, ch41)

On church:

The essence of the Church is proclamation.  (Homiletics, p40)

On the Christian life:

"Ye shall be witnesses unto me" (Acts 1:8) – this is enough for the one to whom Christ speaks and who has heard Him. Whether strong or weak, willing or unwilling, successful or unsuccessful, the Christian is a witness, irrespective of whether the miracle occurs, or whether it occurs visibly or invisibly. In all circumstances and with the whole of his existence he is a responsible witness of the Word of God. He is called to be this. As such he is set at the side of God in the world, and therefore set over against the world.’ (Church Dogmatics IV/3, p609)

On proofs for God:

Note well: in the whole Bible of the Old and New Testaments not the slightest attempt is ever made to prove God. This attempt has always been made only outside the biblical view of God, and only where it has been forgotten with whom we have to do, when we speak of God. What sort of attempts were they, after all, where the attempt was make to prove a perfect Being alongside imperfect ones? Or from the existence of the world to prove the ordering Power? Or the moral proof of God from the face of man’s conscience? I will not enter into these proofs of God. I don’t know whether you can at once see the humour and the fragility of these proofs. These proofs may avail for the alleged gods; if it were my task to make you acquainted with these allegedly supreme beings, I would occupy myself with the five famous proofs of God. In the Bible there is no such argumentation; the Bible simply speaks of God simply as of One who needs no proof. It speaks of a God who proves Himself on every hand: Here I am, and since I am and live and act it is superfluous that I should be proved. On the basis of this divine self-proof the prophets and apostles speak. In the Christian Church there can be no speaking about God in any other way. God has not the slightest need for our proofs. (Dogmatics in Outline, 38)

On apologetics:

The great danger of apologetics is “the domesticating of revelation… the process of making the Gospel respectable. When the Gospel is offered to man, and he stretches out his hand to receive it and takes it into his hand, an acute danger arises which is greater than the danger that he may not understand it and angrily reject it. The danger is that he may accept it and peacefully and at once make himself its lord and possessor, thus rendering it inoccuous, making that which chooses him something which he himself has chosen, which therefore comes to stand as such alongside all the other things that he can also choose, and therefore control.” (Church Dogmatics II/1, p141)

On assurance (this is perhaps my favourite Barth quote):

“We might imagine the conversation...  The man to whom [the Word of grace is spoken] thinks and says that he is not this new, peaceful, joyful man living in fellowship. He asks leave honestly to admit that he does not know this man, or at least himself as this man.

The Word of grace replies: ‘All honour to your honesty, but my truth transcends it. Allow yourself, therefore, to be told in all truth and on the most solid grounds what you do not know, namely, that you are this man in spite of what you think.’

Man: ‘ You think that I can and should become this man in the course of time? But I do not have sufficient confidence in myself to believe this. Knowing myself, I shall never become this man.’

The Word of grace: ‘You do well not to have confidence in yourself. But the point is not that you can and should become this man. What I am telling you is that, as I know you, you already are.’

Man: ‘I understand that you mean this eschatologically. You are referring to the man I perhaps will be one day in some not very clearly known transfiguration in a distant eternity. If only I had attained to this! And if only I could be certain that even then I should be this new man!’

The Word of grace: ‘You need to understand both yourself and me better than you do. I am not inviting you to speculate about your being in eternity, but to receive and ponder the news that here and now you begin to be the new man, and are already that which you will be eternally.’

Man: ‘How can I accept this news? On what guarantee can I make bold to take is seriously?’

The Word of grace: ‘I, Jesus Christ, am the One who speaks to you. You are what you are in Me, as I will to be in you. Hold fast to Me. I am your guarantee. My boldness is yours. With this boldness dare to be what you are?’

Man: ‘I certainly hear the message, but…’

In this perplexed and startled ‘but’ we see the attack, and who it is that is attacked.” (Church Dogmatics, V/2, p250)

.

Do you have a favourite Barth quote?  Why not leave it in comments.

.

“My whole theology, you see, is fundamentally a theology for parsons.  It grew out of my own situation when I had to teach and preach and counsel a little.
Twitter widget by Rimon Habib - BuddyPress Expert Developer