Skip to content

So, as we've seen, God does not treat the world as a tool to be used.  He's not in the whole creation-salvation thing for what He can get out of it.  He's in it in order to pour Himself out.  This is His glory - it is His eternal nature to love the other.  That's what it means to say He creates for His glory.  i.e. He creates that He might sacrifice and give of Himself (Revelation 13:8).  In other words God is for us.  Really and utterly and to the depths of His being, the living God is for us.  This isn't just window-dressing for a more fundamental narcissism.  It is God's uncreated and eternal glory to live for the other.

Once we've grasped this, we've learnt the secret of life.  Kant wasn't so far off really.  Treating people as ends in themselves is absolutely right and good.  If even God does it, then it must be the good life.  But such living is the fruit of the gospel.  It's the good life that comes about with this good God.

Yet it runs counter to all the ways we're tempted to think and act in the world.  Here are some of my temptations to treat things as means rather than ends in themselves...

Salvation

Like a gold-digging wife, I eye  up Jesus in terms of the heavenly blessings He has to His name.  I conceive of salvation as "escape from hell, forgiveness of sins, feelings of love, assurance and purpose..." and I think of Christ crucified as the mechanism that secures these ultimate benefits.  I use Jesus to serve myself.  But I forget that He serves me.  And that He is salvation Himself!

"Godliness"

I can use godliness as a means - and not just for "financial gain" (1 Timothy 6:5). I have all sorts of motivations for "being godly" - salvation, self-righteousness, status, self-protection.  And so, I don't do good "for righteousness' sake" (Matthew 5:10), I do it for my sake.  Yet in all this I forget that godliness with contentment is itself great gain (1 Timothy 6:6).  There's much truth to the saying "a good deed is it's own reward."

Mission

I move out into the world to "gain converts".  Every friend has a target on their back.  Every act and engagement is calculated according to its evangelistic potential.  I love unbelievers only to the degree that they are winnable to the gospel.  Essentially I conceive of mission as "gaining converts" rather than "offering Christ."  Much of this stems from the delusion that I can "give the growth" when all I'm called to is "scattering the seed."

Ministry

I enter into ministry for "shameful gain" (1 Peter 5:2-3).  Perhaps for money.  Perhaps to seem like a big-shot. Perhaps to exercise authority over others.  Perhaps to escape into a nice little ecclesiastical life.  But Paul had it right when he identified his flock as his crown (Phil 4:1; 2 Thes 2:19).  The people to whom he ministered were his joy.  They were the gain which he saw in all his ministry.

Pastoring

I preach the gospel in order to give people law.  I use the gospel as a spoonful of sugar.  It helps the medicine of arduous "discipleship" go down.  "We mustn't forget grace..." I say at the start of the sermon.  And then lay down the law.  But in doing so I'm essentially saying that Jesus is a means towards something more vital - moral rectitude.  What would pastoring look like if my ultimate goal was to give away Christ for free?  (1 Corinthians 9:18)

.

Can you think of other realms in which we live conditionally and suffer for it?  How does the self-giving life of the Trinity release us into living free?

 

I spoke at this mission to Plymouth University last week.

The students were wonderful. They prayed for 100 hours solid the week before. We saw many answers to prayer. Non-Christians invited. Seed sown.  Christians and non-Christians alike seeing the grace of Jesus afresh.  Please pray for those who are now following up on their interest in Christ as the Christian Union runs an Alpha course for them.

Unfortunately only two of the talks recorded in a listenable form:

3 in 1 - Have Christians got God right?

Meeting Jesus - Luke 15

7

I'm working on a talk whose title was given to me in advance: Liar, Lunatic or Lord.

It's the famous trilemma popularised by CS Lewis.

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to...."

It's brilliantly put and it highlights the absurdity of a mild reaction to Jesus.  The Son of  God splits the world.  Amen.

But just read on to the rationale that's informing Lewis's argument:

... Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God."  Mere Christianity

Does that strike you as odd?  "Drat and blast, I'm logically impelled to worship Christ as Lord!  I wish it were otherwise but I'm trapped by the logic of it."

Of course, that was Lewis's own testimony - "the most reluctant convert in all of England."

But Lewis was also brilliant at capturing the imagination - narrating Narnia then inviting us through the wardrobe.  Yet how often do we simply follow the approach of this passage in Mere Christianity?  "I know you won't want to admit Jesus as Lord, but here's the water-tight argument that will force your hand!"

If that's the note we strike - are we really communicating the kind of Lord that Jesus is?

Do you exist?

Can you please give me long life?

Why do children die young?

Why am I here?

Can you please take me?

What is the point of us being here?

Would you pay off my mortgage?

Would you please give my grand-sons some employment?

What happens to us after we die?

Why do you make people ill?

What is the meaning of my life?

Why do good people die young?

Is the world going to end in 2012?

If you're from Eastbourne - tell us yours.

1

Sorry I haven't been blogging so much recently.  Among other things I've been busy preparing for this.  The Christian Union have done a terrific job preparing and publicizing.  Please pray that the word of Christ would go out with power!

 

7

"A universe with a god would look very different to a universe without one.” Richard Dawkins.

It's one of the wisest things Dawkins has ever said. Believers and unbelievers alike should take heed.

Let's tease out some implications of it.

1) Dawkins clearly has a doctrine of "god" in mind as he makes the statement.  The flying spaghetti monster wouldn't affect the kind of universe we inhabit.  But Thor might.  Allah in a different way.  And the triune God, different again.  Therefore it's not a straight binary choice.

2)  I would look different depending on the existence of God or not.  Dawkins seems to imagine two states (a theistic and an atheistic universe) as alternatives lying before him.  And who is the great unmoved mover in this scenario?  Who is the neutral observer, the one enthroned above all worlds?  The scientist!  But no, Dawkins' thought experiment - if it takes the word "God" with any seriousness - is one in which everything must be re-imagined.  If I am a creature, made by the Father's Word, intended for life in communion with God, then everything changes for me.

3) I would look differently depending on the existence of God or not.  If I was a creature of the Word, and if the world  is a creature of the same Word, I would look through the lens of His Word.  I would see all things in relationship to Christ the Creator.  That would simply be good science if the Christian God existed.

But here's something strange...

4) Dawkins ridicules Christian scientists who do actually deliver a different vision of the universe to his own.  Yet how could they do otherwise, if "a universe with a god will look very different"?

Which only makes me think...

5) Dawkins has not entered into his own thought-experiment for even a minute.  Has he really considered the revolution involved in actually reconceiving Self and World and God according to the Christian vision?  Of course not.  To do so would mean repenting of his position as all-seeing Arbiter.  Or in other words:

"Unless you change and become like little children you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."  (Matthew 18:3)

 

Twitter widget by Rimon Habib - BuddyPress Expert Developer