Thursday 29 May 2008

At my most amateurish

The Amateur is most amateurish when he gets to philosophy, but here goes.
The Enlightenment seems to me the intellectual reaction to the Wars of Religion, particularly the evils of the 30 Years' War - note how figures like Lessing and Kant were German. Deism and then Kantianism ( I would like to distinguish them) reject the transcendental God of theism, because such a God would require revelation to be knowable, giving authority to bearers of revelation, the Church, which carries the can for the Wars of Religion. Kant, by destroying the proofs for God (sorry, I haven't read Kritik der reinen Vernunft - but I'm told so by reliable sources) that Aquinas erected, I would propose does away even with the Watchmaker God of deism.
Kant then wants us to be good. He wants us to submit to categorical imperatives, things that are right simply because they are right, rooted in the twin thoughts of humans as ends (never use anyone) and autonomous (write your own laws). The Kantian then makes such laws as he would want others to live by, and, hey presto, we come up with duties all will accept as right and do.
Is all this a bit A-Level, not university? Spot on! I'm teaching A-Level philosophy of religion.
Problem is, Kant is realistic enough to know that deontological ethics convince no one. So he proves God morally to give us a teleological reason to obey: Kant's God exists for the same reason as the Bogeyman - to get us to bed on time. But the Bogeyman doesn't exist.
But if God is dead, why shouldn't I treat equally random collections of molecules as I want? I am a random collection of molecules, so are you. What gives another being moral value? There is nothing between me and doing what I want other than slave-moralities designed to hold me back in my pursuit of imposing on the world my own will.
London is an atheistic city. 14 youths have been knifed to death in 2008 already, putting us on course for a record. In South-East London in the last month, there have been four knife attacks gaining nationwide publicity.
Just all random coincidences, I'm sure.

Romans 5

I was interested to note that according to Anders Nygren (Commentary on Romans), Romans 5 is seen as an aside, a parenthesis, by many commentators.
That doesn't make sense to me. Romans 1:18-3:20 portrays humanity as under God's wrath, under the power of sin, condemned by the law, and not helped by it but rather driven further into sin by it, and doomed to die. Romans 3:21-5:11 explains what God has done outside of me, portraying the righteousness that is from God and is appropriated by faith.
Something has been done for me, that assures me of eternal hope, God's love and final salvation from wrath. But one more step needs to be made in the argument, or Romans 6ff won't make sense. I need to be shown that I am not just saved from things happening to me by something happening for me, but that something has happened to me: I have come under something new. I am not under wrath, sin, law and death, but under Christ and righteousness. Justification is not simply a legal deal outside of me, but it impacts on my relationship with everything that I was under, because I have been shifted out of the old humanity and into the new one. Neither the symbolism of baptism and its impact on my sinning (Romans 6:1-14) nor the tyranny of the law and its ending (Romans 7:1-6) makes any sense without understanding my transfer explained in Romans 5. Does it?
I'm beginning to think Romans 5:12-21 is the key to Romans, even if Romans 8 is the high point and Romans 9 the point at which the monergism of the book is driven home.
Anyway, I prayed very differently this morning, praying that I would live the life of one baptised into Christ and free from law's tyranny, as appropriate to one under Christ and not in Adam, and as I did so, it was so obvious sin just doesn't fit with who I am by grace in Christ.

Tuesday 20 May 2008

Progress?

"So often common sense means prejudice and not being in the 21st century" - so the Labour member, approximately, just quoted on the 6pm BBC Radio 4 bulletin. She was talking about the objection made by former Conservative leader Iain Duncan-Smith to the possibility that IVP would be offered where there would be no father.
Any cursory look at this blog will indicate the importance attached by this writer to the Christian conception of the family.
I want to make three other points.
1. Common sense is a term we do not want to undermine. If what Duncan-Smith was saying is wrong, inaccurate or faulty, then attack it as such. If it truly is a prejudice, give the evidence. As a teacher, I see daily evidence, admittedly not quantifiable, of the importance of proper, balanced, two-partner, male and female parenting. My brain synthesises the data available and comes to a conclusion. That is the exercise of common sense. Call my sense faulty - I have no objection to that. But don't undermine the concept of common sense, that we humans are capable of making evidence-based judgements useful for daily living across a variety of life questions. Common sense thinking will always submit to data.
2. Almost contradictorially to the previous point, no human can, if we believe Scripture, claim to be an effective judge in any lifestyle issue. Sin affects all that we are: deeds, thoughts, words, intellect, political thinking.
3. What is so great about our century and its intellectual progress? Why do we assume we've made progress in everything? That's a foolish assumption. Each claim to progress needs to be tested.

Tuesday 13 May 2008

So, you don't like long readings?

On Sunday evening, I wanted to help my son to calm down and go to sleep. And I wanted to start getting ready for studying Romans at church. So I read him Romans 1-3. Three chapters. So who says one year olds can't concentrate? And it didn't send him to sleep at all. So next time, it'll be 4-6, or even to 8. By which time I'll have thorough spiritual indigestion on such rich fare.

Sunday 4 May 2008

Getting it wrong on the White Horse Inn

The Amateur ought not really dare to argue with the professionals, but sometimes it's hard to avoid questioning certain perspectives.
You can hear the White Horse Inn by visiting their website. Even over here in Europe I feel it makes sense, as Europe is battered by every wave of doctrine that sweeps over the Atlantic. WHI acts as an early warning system. But at its best, it is truly an education in the doctrines of the faith.
So what got to me today?
Firstly, I didn't see the fundamental difference between the two sets of ministers interviewed: why did the second lot get so much stick, even from Revd Jones, normally the voice of reason, aware of the other side of the story (including in this broadcast.)
Secondly, why are they so critical of the Willow Creek idea of people being "self-feeders"? Maybe I'm missing something here, but I only go to church on Sunday, and on Tuesday I attend a midweek, lay-led Bible group. What am I to do the other five days? Starve? Perhaps Willow Creek wants to convert people and then pack them off to survive without church, but I can't believe that. They'll need to explain their critique of "self-feeding" a bit here. I need breakfast every day, and I need to know how to prepare it, even if I only get a full-on, chef-prepared hot dinner on Sunday.
Finally, I thought the second question was wrong. That question should have been third. First, the ministers interviewed were asked how important doctrine was in their ministry, and the answers were high: 8 or 10 out of 10. Then they were asked to estimate the knowledge of doctrinal terminology in their congregations. Many spoke of their wanting to communicate the content without the "seminary language".
Now I agree with the WHI guys that we need to teach people the language of the Scripture - although part of that agreement must surely be to help people be self-feeders, able to read Scripture on their own. But I also see that we must make those terms fully accessible, with good analogy and using Scripture to explain Scriptures - both methods - as they also said. I understood all the interviewed ministers as making that point, but also making a third: that conceptual content is more important than the label.
We're about to do Romans at church. If I get the high privilege of doing Romans 3:21-26, then of course I will be explaining terms like justification, propitiation, redemption and righteousness. How I would do that in the short slot we get on Sundays I don't know. But although I'd be delighted if everyone left knowing those words and their meanings, I'd rather they left remembering the meanings than the words, if it were one or the other.
So the second question should have been when those guys last worked through Romans or Galatians or the start of Ephesians. If all of them genuinely meant what they said, then had they worked through one of these books, they would have been involved in defining the terms Paul uses clearly and simply. And if they love their people, they will have been worried first to communicate Paul's ideas, and worrying only secondarily if the appropriate syllable collection sticks.
Which means that whatever we think about theological language, if we preach all of Scripture, we'll end up teaching the ideas and at least presenting all the key words. The answer to being interesting, dramatic, doctrinal and relevant is simple: preach the Word, book by book, chapter by chapter, week in, week out, year after year. Reminding us of that would have helped us all.

Quiet times in Psalm 119

Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. (Psalm 119:105)

The reader might find it hard to grasp, but the spiral-bound notebooks that accompany me in my daily devotionals read like this blog: expositions, preachy bits, language that reads like commentary, homily or just plain appeal from the heart, poetry, songs, one liners, verses copied out. Whatever comes to me as I meditate on the Scriptures.

Here's what I wrote on Psalm 119:105-112 yesterday (Saturday) morning:

I walk in darkness
My path errs and strays
Folly and foolishness
Mark much of my ways
O Lord, light the way up
Lord, let me see
All you have done Lord
And all you command me

Open the Scripture, Lord
Your word is a lamp to my feet
Your word is a light to my path
Gathered all together
Lord, let us hear
Through the mouth of your preacher
Your word loud and clear

Who has lived 119:105-112 like Christ? Christ our Righteousness!
For I can do 119:112!!

The first bit is a congregational song, starting with my own feelings as I responded to the Psalm, but looking for God's ordained instrument to bring light.
If the second bit makes no sense, you may well not understand the Christian message.

Abraham believed what?

Genesis 22 is a test of Abraham's faith, right? Nothing simpler than that, is there!
Sorry. Wrong.
Perhaps parenthood makes a passage like the offering of Isaac harder, but I think attention to detail sometimes forces a more careful consideration of the passage, and given that the Amateur is an amateur, sometimes the way is blocked.
Here's some mysteries in Genesis 22:
1. Why is Abraham so convinced that he'll get Isaac back (v5 and v8 - see also Hebrews 11), yet he goes all the way to placing Isaac on the altar?
2. Why does God test Abraham in this way? I'm afraid the "it's seeing how much Abraham will give for God" simply won't do for me anymore. Firstly, I am convinced that the God of Genesis 22 is the God of the entire Old Testament, a God who very clearly condemns all child-killing and especially child-sacrifice. Why does God seem to go against His own very clear standards. Again, don't tell me that the Law had not been given at that stage. God's opinion on moral questions cannot change, otherwise we'd end up with a God who is not perfect in wisdom. Secondly, God is actually asking Abraham to destroy the covenant - the fulfilment and blessings of which have been explicitly tied to Isaac(17:19,21 and 21:12). If Isaac is lost, then so is the covenant.

Here's my solution, for what it's worth. I think Abraham's faith is being tested in two ways, a surface way and a deeper way. On the surface is the basic test, Abraham's passing of which is acknowledged in 22:12. Abraham was willing to do whatever was commanded. But on a much deeper level it is actually the faith of verses 5 and 8 which is commended, the faith that God keeps His promises, the faith that knows God is not the child-killer that the pagan gods were, the faith which said whatever might happen on the mountain the Lord would show him, God wasn't going to lose Isaac. You see, we are called to be people of visible faith, faith that obeys; yet it is the faith that knows God and trusts His promises that is the faith for which Abraham is commended in Genesis 15, and which is commended in Romans 4 and Galatians 3, then unpacked and related to this passage in James 2. That faith is the one to which we are actually called here.