Continuing reflection on Romans 8 and particularly the intercession of the Spirit.
Romans 8 is a passage about eschatological tension, and our groaning flows out of looking forward to the glorious hope of the revelation of the sons of God.
The groans of the Spirit are an acceptable prayer to the Father, because they express our eschatological yearning, for Christ to return, for our adoption, for our freedom and for our redeemed bodies. It is a forward looking prayer, concerning ultimately the work of the Spirit Himself, namely our uniting to Christ, our sanctification and the renewal of all things. It is a prayer from earth, because the Spirit is with and in us.
Contrast that with the heavenly intercession of Christ: not on earth, but before heaven's throne. Although I can't find where John Owen gets it from, he argues that it is also unspeaking, the showing of His Calvary wounds; that would be an interesting half-similarity, half-difference to the Spirit's groans. Christ's intercession is also not forward, but backward-looking, looking back to Calvary, to redemption not future but past and complete. And like the Spirit's intercession concerned the Spirit's work, so Christ's intercession concerns His own work.
In this intercession we see therefore the communion of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, each in their common cause and in their genuine trialogue concerned for their own ministry to bring glory to the unity. And we see how dependent we are on a sovereign Trinity to save us: for without Christ's intercession, why should we benefit from His Cross, and given that we don't know how to pray in line with God's will (Romans 8:26), without the Spirit's intercession, how would we make any progress in the Christian life?
Praise God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, our saving Trinity, for their pursuit of their own glory in the demonstration of their saving grace and power!
Saturday 27 September 2008
Wednesday 24 September 2008
Groaning in Romans 8
There's nothing like doing all age talks on Romans. I've done Romans 2:17-29, on this coming Sunday I'm doing Romans 8:18-30, and in November I'm doing Romans 11:1-10.
That's one cause for groaning in Romans 8: how do you present it to the full range from 4 to 84 in church?
But I was very encouraged to reconsider the passage, and particularly when Anders Nygren confirmed my reading. The Spirit groans in sympathy with creation and with Christians. His prayer of groaning is acceptable because that is exactly the right thing to pray as we long for the redemption of our bodies, the end of the battle with indwelling sin. Which leads to a striking application: if the Spirit's prayer for us, fully conformed to God's will for us, is to groan with us, then we ought to groan more in prayer. I'm going to groan more: that would suit my situation.
Another thing about the groaning. The groan of creation in 8:22 is sympathetic - check out the Greek. It is not the groans of a mother in childbirth, rather it is the husband alongside, sharing but contributing directly to the process, because of love and the desire to see the revelation of the child. In one sense that matters because it cleans some English translations from the charge of pantheism; but it also points to the labour of God, for it is He who is doing the life-bringing-forth work that creation groans to see the fruit of.
That's one cause for groaning in Romans 8: how do you present it to the full range from 4 to 84 in church?
But I was very encouraged to reconsider the passage, and particularly when Anders Nygren confirmed my reading. The Spirit groans in sympathy with creation and with Christians. His prayer of groaning is acceptable because that is exactly the right thing to pray as we long for the redemption of our bodies, the end of the battle with indwelling sin. Which leads to a striking application: if the Spirit's prayer for us, fully conformed to God's will for us, is to groan with us, then we ought to groan more in prayer. I'm going to groan more: that would suit my situation.
Another thing about the groaning. The groan of creation in 8:22 is sympathetic - check out the Greek. It is not the groans of a mother in childbirth, rather it is the husband alongside, sharing but contributing directly to the process, because of love and the desire to see the revelation of the child. In one sense that matters because it cleans some English translations from the charge of pantheism; but it also points to the labour of God, for it is He who is doing the life-bringing-forth work that creation groans to see the fruit of.
Sunday 21 September 2008
Islamism, Secularism, Persecution or Stupidity.
The Christian Institute has reported that Tower Hamlets borough council (that's the local authority governing parts of London east of the Tower of London) doesn't allow its Christmas party to be called so, but is requiring councillors not to eat during daylight hours during Ramadan at town hall, and asking them generally to support the fast.
How can we interpret this?
It could be a first step to the imposition of Islam as state religion in Tower Hamlets. Other religions are driven out of the public sphere and only Islam is recognised, with all wanting to play a full role in civil society being required to be practising Muslims.
It could be that rather strange mix of secularism and racism one sometimes hears, whereby Christianity, the white man's religion, is driven out of the public sphere by secularism, but the same secularism has a rather patronising attitude to non-whites, feeling the need to give full recognition to their religions to avoid racism. In fact, such an attitude is a form of racism, because it says that the poor foreigners of different skin colour can't help their religious foibles, but white men ought to grow up.
It could be simply persecution of Christians. Christianity is being driven out of Tower Hamlets just because the people on the council don't like it. One way of doing that is say everyone ought to follow a variety of religious practices and then accuse those who won't of being intolerant and so unfit to work for the council.
Of course, the first is exceptionally unlikely. The second and third options are possible. Britain doesn't do philosophy (Russell and Ayer thought they were smart for confusing epistemological difficulties for ontological answers). So we are incapable of the radical secularism of, say, France, which simply declares a plague on all religious houses: we don't think that deeply. And we do have a somewhat colonial attitude to uncivilised Johnnie Foreigner's religions.
But personally, I don't think there's a thought through ideology at work here, be it Islamism, Secularism or Persecution of Christians. There may be a bit of all of these, but in Britain, I suspect the best explanation is stupidity.
How can we interpret this?
It could be a first step to the imposition of Islam as state religion in Tower Hamlets. Other religions are driven out of the public sphere and only Islam is recognised, with all wanting to play a full role in civil society being required to be practising Muslims.
It could be that rather strange mix of secularism and racism one sometimes hears, whereby Christianity, the white man's religion, is driven out of the public sphere by secularism, but the same secularism has a rather patronising attitude to non-whites, feeling the need to give full recognition to their religions to avoid racism. In fact, such an attitude is a form of racism, because it says that the poor foreigners of different skin colour can't help their religious foibles, but white men ought to grow up.
It could be simply persecution of Christians. Christianity is being driven out of Tower Hamlets just because the people on the council don't like it. One way of doing that is say everyone ought to follow a variety of religious practices and then accuse those who won't of being intolerant and so unfit to work for the council.
Of course, the first is exceptionally unlikely. The second and third options are possible. Britain doesn't do philosophy (Russell and Ayer thought they were smart for confusing epistemological difficulties for ontological answers). So we are incapable of the radical secularism of, say, France, which simply declares a plague on all religious houses: we don't think that deeply. And we do have a somewhat colonial attitude to uncivilised Johnnie Foreigner's religions.
But personally, I don't think there's a thought through ideology at work here, be it Islamism, Secularism or Persecution of Christians. There may be a bit of all of these, but in Britain, I suspect the best explanation is stupidity.
He is the best of Tory and the worst of Tory
The first report I heard was that Bozza, Mayor of London, wanted to close Heathrow. Hurray! What an intelligent policy! Close that dreadful planning error and sell off the land to fund a high-speed rail link straight to Brussels and through to Frankfurt, I thought. Then we wouldn't need it anyway.
Then I read the truth. Firstly, he only wants to prevent its further growth. Secondly, his scheme is to build an island in the middle of the Thames as an alternative!
Okay, Bozza, you've started off alright. Close Heathrow. Then sell that extremely lucrative real estate. Oh, it belongs to BAA? Sod them - after all, they're a nasty polluting monopoly.
Use the money for the above mentioned highspeed link. There are daily armies of flights between London and Frankfurt. None are necessary - make the train preferable.
Thirdly, if we must have an airport, simply put a station on the high speed link at Kent International (the old RAF Manston).
Problem solved.
Then I read the truth. Firstly, he only wants to prevent its further growth. Secondly, his scheme is to build an island in the middle of the Thames as an alternative!
Okay, Bozza, you've started off alright. Close Heathrow. Then sell that extremely lucrative real estate. Oh, it belongs to BAA? Sod them - after all, they're a nasty polluting monopoly.
Use the money for the above mentioned highspeed link. There are daily armies of flights between London and Frankfurt. None are necessary - make the train preferable.
Thirdly, if we must have an airport, simply put a station on the high speed link at Kent International (the old RAF Manston).
Problem solved.
Tuesday 16 September 2008
Late Capitalism and Late Democracy
What shall we make of the collapse of Lehmann Brothers and the impending doom of AIG? If AIG is not supported by the US Government, despite its greater importance to the wider US economy, particularly the housing market so famously propped up by the nationalisation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, then why?
Alisdair Darling of course let the cat out of the bag: we're in the worst place we've been since the end of WWII. Bear Stearns was saved; Lehmann Brothers wasn't. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were saved; AIG won't be. The pattern is clear: an initial intervention is attempted, and then the Government realises that further such interventions are then hoped for and expected. That simply cannot be afforded. Lehmann Brothers had to die: it was sacrificed for the sake of the wider economy, to say that the Government couldn't be relied on to save everything.
Behind this lies a bigger issue. Put simply, capitalism and democracy are less compatible than thought. In a democratic society, particularly what we may soon call late democracy (as per Marx's late capitalism), the population expects the government to act to save the day. So banks do too. They trade irresponsibly to gain the maximum upside during a boom, and expect the government to save them when they go bust, because they expect the government to bail out the depositers, who are also voters.
It's time to decide: who will pay the price? The banks, whose bosses ought to be sued by the governments and not propped up, or Joe Ordinary, who then effectively finances corporate bonuses through the tax system.
But another thought springs to mind. Didn't Joseph Schumpeter, in "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy", argue that late capitalism tends to oligopoly, which lends itself to oligarchy? Look at Russia.
Never has it been clearer that Fukayama was wrong: history is not over. Money is in the hands of anti-democratic powers possessing raw material wealth. After Chelsea and Manchester City, so perhaps more serious institutions. Russia increasingly exercises geopolitical power through the gas pipeline; OPEC has spoken of trying to reestablish the $100 barrel; sovereign wealth funds are increasingly the only remaining wealthy people.
In late democracy, the tensions between oligopolistic late capitalism and populist late democracy grow. The question is, which will go.
Alisdair Darling of course let the cat out of the bag: we're in the worst place we've been since the end of WWII. Bear Stearns was saved; Lehmann Brothers wasn't. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were saved; AIG won't be. The pattern is clear: an initial intervention is attempted, and then the Government realises that further such interventions are then hoped for and expected. That simply cannot be afforded. Lehmann Brothers had to die: it was sacrificed for the sake of the wider economy, to say that the Government couldn't be relied on to save everything.
Behind this lies a bigger issue. Put simply, capitalism and democracy are less compatible than thought. In a democratic society, particularly what we may soon call late democracy (as per Marx's late capitalism), the population expects the government to act to save the day. So banks do too. They trade irresponsibly to gain the maximum upside during a boom, and expect the government to save them when they go bust, because they expect the government to bail out the depositers, who are also voters.
It's time to decide: who will pay the price? The banks, whose bosses ought to be sued by the governments and not propped up, or Joe Ordinary, who then effectively finances corporate bonuses through the tax system.
But another thought springs to mind. Didn't Joseph Schumpeter, in "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy", argue that late capitalism tends to oligopoly, which lends itself to oligarchy? Look at Russia.
Never has it been clearer that Fukayama was wrong: history is not over. Money is in the hands of anti-democratic powers possessing raw material wealth. After Chelsea and Manchester City, so perhaps more serious institutions. Russia increasingly exercises geopolitical power through the gas pipeline; OPEC has spoken of trying to reestablish the $100 barrel; sovereign wealth funds are increasingly the only remaining wealthy people.
In late democracy, the tensions between oligopolistic late capitalism and populist late democracy grow. The question is, which will go.
Saturday 13 September 2008
Learning style and conservative Evangelicalism
As a teacher, I have to be aware that different pupils have different learning styles: they might learn by listening, by seeing or by doing.
The British conservative evangelical emphasis on preaching is wonderful for auditory learners, who tend to be those for whom university was more accessible, and for whom in the past the whole education system was accessible.
What about the visual learners and the kinaesthetic learners?
We need to recover the sacraments, I say.
The British conservative evangelical emphasis on preaching is wonderful for auditory learners, who tend to be those for whom university was more accessible, and for whom in the past the whole education system was accessible.
What about the visual learners and the kinaesthetic learners?
We need to recover the sacraments, I say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)