For those who have not seen the British National Party poster in question, it's at the beginning of the video on the BBC news page here. The quote is interesting: John 15:20. It's worth looking at in context, and it's in the context of the Gospel reading for Pentecost, which is currently on my desk. However, I must give credit to my brother, himself no Christian, for pointing out some of what I am about to discuss.
The poster points out that C of E employees may not belong to the BNP and that it is pursued by both the press and the police: which it is. As the same happened to Jesus, which is the basic meaning of the quote, the BNP essentially claims that it is being treated as Jesus was, therefore the BNP is in the place of Jesus. Which makes the BNP Christian.
There's a lot we could say to that.
Firstly, the logic, as is obvious from the above, is quite tortuous.
Secondly, if the BNP wants to appeal to Christian voters, why this quote? They'd be better off ripping Acts 17:26 out of context, wouldn't they?
Thirdly, the C of E ban has its reasons throughout the Scriptures. The Bible takes no view on economic systems, assuming one of trade and slavery as that was the system at the time and modelling how it should operate in a just fashion, a model we need to apply with wisdom to whatever system we adopt. However, on questions of race the Bible is very clear, whether you start from creation (Gen 1:26-29) or redemption (Gal 3:28). The Church ought be careful about being party political, but some things are beyond the pale.
Fourthly, the press pursues the BNP because the press pursues everyone - that's it's job.
Fifthly, the police pursues the BNP because the BNP faces repeated allegations of incitement to hatred and the police has a legal duty to pursue allegations in order to see if charges are to be brought.
In other words, the BNP is persecuted not without cause, quite unlike Jesus (John 15:25).
But here's a thought: this quote is from the Farewell Discourse. The immediate persecutors of Jesus were the Jewish authorities, about to hand Him over to Rome; John's readers may well have experienced rejection by their local Jewish communities. Is this dog-whistle politics? Well done to my brother for suggesting it. I wonder if the BNP are smart enough, let alone their voters, but hey, if a BNP person turns up and says "we are smart enough", we know that the anti-Semitic whistle has been blown. Anti-Semitism has been documented as being on the rise, primarily as a result of rise of more combative forms of Islam in the UK, but to see the return of anti-Semitism into our political system would be, sadly, not as surprising as I thought when I started writing this sentence and remembered the activities of Le Pen and Mölleman and some of the things they said in our near neighbours.
Showing posts with label Gospel of John. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gospel of John. Show all posts
Tuesday, 26 May 2009
Tuesday, 3 February 2009
Why red letter Bibles are a joke
Here's John 12:27-28 in the red letter ESV: "Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? But for this purpose I have come to this hour. Father, glorify your name." Then a voice came from heaven: "I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again." It's the same in the other red letter Bibles I own (for some reason, red letter Bibles are cheaper.)
So let's put the word of Christ in red, because they are special, but the direct words of God the Father don't deserve special mention. It just goes to prove how silly red letter Bibles are - and as theologically useful in terms of prioritising words as the multicoloured creations of the Jesus Seminar.
So let's put the word of Christ in red, because they are special, but the direct words of God the Father don't deserve special mention. It just goes to prove how silly red letter Bibles are - and as theologically useful in terms of prioritising words as the multicoloured creations of the Jesus Seminar.
Friday, 29 August 2008
Why Pietism offers little hope
I have been told by friends in Germany that the best, most biblical denomination is the Bund Freier Evangelische Gemeinden (FeG). If my experience on holiday in Kassel is any measure, then God help Germany!
The sermon was on John 10:27-30. The initial introduction set the text in its immediate context: what Jesus was claiming in claiming to be the Good Shepherd and God's equal was clear enough to His then listeners. So they picked up stones to stone Him.
Then we were taken through the text step by step:
"My sheep"
We were informed how valuable the sheep were to a shepherd, and how much he would do for them if he was both shepherd and owner, since they were his precious property. So we too are precious in the eyes of Jesus, because we are His sheep.
True, in fact, Jesus makes the point Himself really well in verses 11 to 15 of the same chapter (always take your Bible to church - you can preach to yourself the bits the minister leaves out!), by talking about the Cross. "I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep." Jesus even makes the point the preacher made about hired hands and shepherds! So why didn't the preacher make Jesus' point Jesus' way?
"My sheep listen to My voice"
Listening to Jesus' voice is not a matter of technique, we were informed. It's not about sitting quietly and calming oneself. Absolutely correct - we must knock this New Age or Eastern or Gnostic mysticism on the head when it gets into the church. But having started so well, the preacher lost it.
Firstly, he fully legitimated this Gnostic approach to listening to Jesus as one alternative. Then he said that this verse was a promise that all Jesus' sheep would hear His voice. But it's not a promise - it's a statement of a fact that comes as a sharp rebuke to the Jewish scribes questioning Him, as the context in verses 22 to 26 make clear. Thirdly, he suggested that there were other ways of hearing Jesus' voice, such as reading a good book or "wenn man etwas aus der Bibel ableitet". God's voice is not Scripture, according to this man, but whatever I take away from it. Good! Richard Dawkins, Chris Hitchens et al. has taken away the last four words of Psalm 14 verse 1a! Fourthly, he said we need to listen; he contrasted that to the German student tradition of Bibelarbeit - literally, "Bible work", working away at the text to understand it.
Now he's fully moved to the mystic position, which says that God works exclusively through non-natural means. I consider myself Reformed in my theology, and the Reformed position is that man is essentially good, but by consequence of the Fall totally depraved. Having made humans, God looks on the world and says it is "very good". We are essentially, that is, according to what is essential to what we are, good. That is how we are made. But that is shot through with fallenness, such that all of what was created good is corrupted by sin.
One consequence is that God pours out His Holy Spirit, who was there in Creation (Genesis 1:2), to make us what we are by creation. The natural means God has created are not inferior, but "very good". Now God has given us His word in a book. So we are to read it as a book. The work of the Holy Spirit is to make us better readers and believing and obeying readers, that is, to help us understand the book and respond appropriately, as we naturally would do if it were not for sin.
Having been denied hearing the Gospel of Christ crucified and having heard such dangerous mystic-leaning ideas on Scripture, I half switched off. He was orthodox on verse 28, but uninterestingly so. But I was not surprised at his comment on verse 29 "Wir sollen das nicht theologisieren" - we should theologise this. Just hear the confidence you can have in Jesus, that He won't lose you. But what does that mean, that He won't lose me? Help me understand that, speak to me a word about God, a logos about the theos, a theology!
Perhaps it was the emnity to theology that led to the earlier mistakes too.
If that's the best Germany has to offer, then Lord Jesus Christ, please raise up harvest workers, preachers who love Your word and proudly preach Your Cross, that Your people might not starve, but be led onto good pasture (John 10:9) across that nation.
The sermon was on John 10:27-30. The initial introduction set the text in its immediate context: what Jesus was claiming in claiming to be the Good Shepherd and God's equal was clear enough to His then listeners. So they picked up stones to stone Him.
Then we were taken through the text step by step:
"My sheep"
We were informed how valuable the sheep were to a shepherd, and how much he would do for them if he was both shepherd and owner, since they were his precious property. So we too are precious in the eyes of Jesus, because we are His sheep.
True, in fact, Jesus makes the point Himself really well in verses 11 to 15 of the same chapter (always take your Bible to church - you can preach to yourself the bits the minister leaves out!), by talking about the Cross. "I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd lays down His life for the sheep." Jesus even makes the point the preacher made about hired hands and shepherds! So why didn't the preacher make Jesus' point Jesus' way?
"My sheep listen to My voice"
Listening to Jesus' voice is not a matter of technique, we were informed. It's not about sitting quietly and calming oneself. Absolutely correct - we must knock this New Age or Eastern or Gnostic mysticism on the head when it gets into the church. But having started so well, the preacher lost it.
Firstly, he fully legitimated this Gnostic approach to listening to Jesus as one alternative. Then he said that this verse was a promise that all Jesus' sheep would hear His voice. But it's not a promise - it's a statement of a fact that comes as a sharp rebuke to the Jewish scribes questioning Him, as the context in verses 22 to 26 make clear. Thirdly, he suggested that there were other ways of hearing Jesus' voice, such as reading a good book or "wenn man etwas aus der Bibel ableitet". God's voice is not Scripture, according to this man, but whatever I take away from it. Good! Richard Dawkins, Chris Hitchens et al. has taken away the last four words of Psalm 14 verse 1a! Fourthly, he said we need to listen; he contrasted that to the German student tradition of Bibelarbeit - literally, "Bible work", working away at the text to understand it.
Now he's fully moved to the mystic position, which says that God works exclusively through non-natural means. I consider myself Reformed in my theology, and the Reformed position is that man is essentially good, but by consequence of the Fall totally depraved. Having made humans, God looks on the world and says it is "very good". We are essentially, that is, according to what is essential to what we are, good. That is how we are made. But that is shot through with fallenness, such that all of what was created good is corrupted by sin.
One consequence is that God pours out His Holy Spirit, who was there in Creation (Genesis 1:2), to make us what we are by creation. The natural means God has created are not inferior, but "very good". Now God has given us His word in a book. So we are to read it as a book. The work of the Holy Spirit is to make us better readers and believing and obeying readers, that is, to help us understand the book and respond appropriately, as we naturally would do if it were not for sin.
Having been denied hearing the Gospel of Christ crucified and having heard such dangerous mystic-leaning ideas on Scripture, I half switched off. He was orthodox on verse 28, but uninterestingly so. But I was not surprised at his comment on verse 29 "Wir sollen das nicht theologisieren" - we should theologise this. Just hear the confidence you can have in Jesus, that He won't lose you. But what does that mean, that He won't lose me? Help me understand that, speak to me a word about God, a logos about the theos, a theology!
Perhaps it was the emnity to theology that led to the earlier mistakes too.
If that's the best Germany has to offer, then Lord Jesus Christ, please raise up harvest workers, preachers who love Your word and proudly preach Your Cross, that Your people might not starve, but be led onto good pasture (John 10:9) across that nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)