The Gospel and Lifestyle - how one vindicates the other

When I start blogging, it's because I'm preparing a sermon, and bits of prep sort of fall of my desk and into my blog.
Evangelicals love to find ways of compelling a godly life out of themselves, and one is that a godly life vindicates the gospel. We speak the gospel and then show that it is true by the transformed life that we lead.
I've just come to the conclusion that such an argument is backwards (I'm an amateur, I'm slow!) Rather, the process works the other way round. I hope in the gospel, which has lifestyle implications. This hope that is in me arouses questions (1 Peter 3:15) and so I explain how my hope is vindicated by the gospel. The psalmist in Psalm 102:12-15 looks forward to his and others hope (v14) in the eternal God (v12) being vindicated by His restoring Zion (v13), a vindication of hope that will lead to the nations turning to God. The vindication of their hope was future: but to us that same event is past - it is the incarnation, atonement, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ.
That has wonderful implications. Firstly, it means I can sin. No, not in the sense that I'll be lazy about holiness. But when I do sin, I won't think that my evangelism is dead. Rather, the fact that my hope is not destroyed by my sin will raise the question, "what can vindicate such a hope?" Answer: Christ. Secondly, it means I can pursue holiness in freedom. My heavenly citizenship is secure, because of Christ, a hope vindicated by the events of His ministry. So in that assurance I live my new citizenship. What vindicates living differently to others? Answer: Christ. Suddenly the gospel is about Jesus again.

Why does Hebrews 1 quote Psalm 102?

Here's a thought I had: comments?

In Psalm 102:25-27, the exile is speaking in faith of his God, that his God is the everlasting, unchanging Creator God; in Hebrews 1:8-12, in which this verse is applied to the Son, the Father is speaking. So what is the writer to the Hebrews doing?
In order to believe in his situation that Zion really can be restored, the exile needs to believe that his God is the unchanging, faithful, everlasting Creator God, fully able and fully faithful. In order to believe that His Messiah can really achieve the mission for which He has appointed Him, that of second Adam and therefore restorer of Eden itself, of Zion, the City of God with men, then God Himself must be able to express similar faith in the Messiah! What the writer to the Hebrews therefore implies is that his readers may have full faith in the Lord Jesus because He is the one of whom God the Father may speak precisely those words of faith that they have been speaking of God since the exile.

The Gospel is foolishness to many who think they are being saved

I teach Christianity to pupils of various faiths and various attitudes to the Christian gospel. But one thing really disturbs me, and that is this: unbelievers understand the Bible better than believers in my classroom. On one level that's not true - I'm not talking about spiritual receptiveness. But their conceptual understanding of the awesome nature of God ("if there is a God, then if I was standing before him, I'd be scared out of my mind"), holiness and sin ("why doesn't God just spit on us?") and the transcendence of God and its impact on the likeliness, and therefore graciousness, of divine intervention for us ("if there is a God, then why does he bother with tiny little insignificant human beings?") beats the conceptual grasp of many churchgoers, whose God is thoroughly domesticated. No wonder I have two Christian pupils who regard church as stupid: the semi-Christian Christless Christianity they are, by their account of it, receiving probably is.

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.

"What's hell like and who's going there?"

A question posed to the Archbishop of Canterbury at a pub in Cardiff - see more here. His answer: "Hell is being by yourself for ever. Who's going there? God knows."
Well, if Psalm 88 portrays a vision of hell - which is my view of the text, then verse 8 tells us that the ABC is spot on. This is a good news story about our Archbishop.
Only God knows who's going there? Yes, again, that's true. But His knowledge takes nothing away from our responsibility. The entire point of this season is that God took to Himself in the person of the Second of the Trinity a body, a body He sacrificed on the Cross, that He might say to all who by their rebellion against His rule march steadily toward hell:
"Over My Son's dead body."

What is the BBC playing at (1)?

Roger Bolton's piece on the BBC News website, no doubt linked to the radio show he presented, is a classic example of low-grade journalism and bias dressed up as research. It is excellent that the Codex Sinaiticus is being digitised and put online: the Christian Church has always been scholarly and willing to learn at its best, and it is to be welcomed.
The problems start here:
"For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible."
No there won't. Or at least, there are no new questions, as Codex Sinaiticus brought to the attention of the academic community in 1844 by Count Tischendorf, a Leipzig-based adventurer-scholar (let's not think Indiana Jones, though). A basic summary of what you need to know can be found at the website of the digitisation project here, including the unusual story of how he got it out of the monastery at Sinai, more details of which can be found in a fairly good article on Wikipedia, from what I can judge.
The simple fact is, Mr Bolton, that the scholarly community simply won't make the fuss you did. Because to us, Codex Sinaiticus is nothing new. I have a critical edition of the NT (GNT 4th ed., the type face of which I prefer over Nestle-Aland 27), and am perfectly aware of transmission issues and the differences between the texts. Whereby your thousands needs to be relativised by pointing out that the overwhelming majority are easily recognised copying errors, some of which have been corrected even in the manuscripts themselves (see intro to N-A 27 or GNT 4th ed.)
So why write the article? Very simple, I'm afraid. Bias, and a willingness to distort and misrepresent the state of research for the sake of bias. It's a classic case of a media cheap-shot at religious believers, intellectually on a par with what Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross did to Andrew Sachs (see next post).

Our Two Intercessors

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!

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.

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.

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.

Prince of Egypt

There are few things that bring tears to my eyes like films; on that score, there are few films like Prince of Egypt. I don't even own a copy! I use short extracts for lessons, but I first saw it when unwell a few years ago. Back then I was considering a call to ministry and newly married. The scene in which Moses speaks to Zippora of his calling brought me to tears then. This time it was the scene in which Jocabed puts baby Moses into the Nile. He's sooo the age of my own son! I was almost in tears in front of year 7.
Why do I mention this on what is generally quite a high-minded blog? Because particularly in the songs, but also in the wonderful portrayal of the tenth plague, the filmmakers get the "drama of the doctrine". Okay, you might think Whitney Houston's "There may be miracles when you believe" is a bit short on Reformed Theology - and you'd be right. But in so far as Prince of Egypt is teaching doctrines, they are dramatic and dramatised, even dramaticised.
Yet Christians have been delivered not from earthly slavery into a land, but from darkness into His wonderful light (1st Peter 2:10). That is a far bigger drama! Yet do we see it that way? Rejoice in being swept up into the biggest movement of history, the greatest show in the world? I felt history was being made, like I was "glad to be alive" when the Berlin Wall fell: I rejoiced to be a human being - and I was only 12 and it wasn't happening to me. But here I am, a thinking 30 year old, and I really am part of the greatest story ever told, and that by no virtue of my own but purely by those of Him whose story it is. Wow!

Romans 2:1-16

Most of my talks in church have been all-age of late, but I preached a sermon to the adults only today, and as they work in written form, here it is:

Romans 2:1-16 – No Leniency for the Law-Abiding

Chapters 1 and 2 of Romans are not easy. They speak of the state of human beings without Christ. Guilty before God. Caught in the power of sin. No excuses. Paul showed that in Romans 1 for the unbelieving world. He showed that they had no excuse for not knowing God. Creation gives them sufficient knowledge of God. But they suppress it because they don't want to glorify God and thank Him. So God hands them over to the power of sin. They have a knowledge of God's righteous decree. They ignore it. And so they are guilty. You can imagine the situation in Rome as the letter is read. Someone stands up. “Here, here, Paul. You tell it like it is. It's dreadful what's going on out there. Praise God that we have His laws and know the way to go.”

Paul answers back in verse 1 of chapter 2.

You therefore have no excuse, you who pass judgement on some else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgement do the same things.

The language of this section and the discussion of the law in verses 12 to 16 persuade me that Paul has a very specific audience in mind for these words. He's talking to the synagogue. Many of Rome's Christians will have come from synagogues. Synagogue thinking was in their bloodstream. In the synagogue there were two groups of people. There were the Jews, to whom he will speak specifically in verses 17 to 29. But in this first half of the chapter, he's not just speaking to them. He's speaking to a second group as well. Those Gentiles, non-Jews, who had found in the synagogue a refreshing change from Gentile society. They realised that the Jewish Law offered a superior lifestyle. They found the God of Israel plausible. These so-called God-fearers are also being addressed here. Paul's speaking to all who, verse 13, hear the law, that is, the Law of God. He's speaking to all who, verse 2, share his basic view of God's judgement. He's speaking in his own day to the synagogue. He's speaking in the 21^st century to all who hear God's Law. He's speaking to all who call themselves Christians. And his message is stark. Some parts of this passage sound a little tricky. But the main argument is simple and devastating. If you came to church to be patted on the head today, you'll leave disappointed. If you came today thinking you're the kind of person God wants around, forget it. Until we despair of such things, we won't hear God's real good news. That's where Paul is taking us today: to the point where we despair of our own righteousness.

Righteousness is a key word in Romans. To be righteous is match up to the standards of God's Law. The righteous person is found innocent and worthy of eternal life in God's court. People in the synagogue thought themselves righteous. They thought they would be fine on the last day. Paul has a shock in store for them and us. He has two main points: God judges deeds by the highest standard. God's kindness and patience will come to a terrible end.

Here's the major point.

God judges deeds by the highest standard.

Let's read some verses together – follow along as I read them out: Verse 1 again:

You therefore have no excuse, you who pass judgement on some else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgement do the same things.

Verse 6:

God “will give to each person according to what he has done.”

Verses 9 and 10:

There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew and then for the Gentile; but glory, honour and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew and then for the Gentile.

Verse 13:

For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

Judgement is all about what you do. Hearing the law, verse 13, won't do. Judging others by the law, so agreeing with its standards, verse 1, won't do. Those in the synagogue listened to the law. They agreed with its judgement on the outside world. They nodded sagely in agreement with its standards and condemnations. They knew something of God. But the judgement is by deeds. God doesn't make people His favourites because they know about Him. God does not show favouritism, verse 11. Which means verse 12:

All those who sin apart from law will also perish apart from the law, and all those who sin under the law will be judged by the law.

If a person sins not knowing God's standard, they die. As we saw two weeks ago, they're without excuse – they have the message of creation. But if we sin knowing God's standard, then we'll be judged by it. And the standard is high. In fact, it couldn't be higher. Verses 7 and 8:

To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honour and immortality, He will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.

What kind of doing good wins glory, honour and immortality? Persistent doing good. No mistakes, nor errors, nor slip-ups. The words Paul uses mean unwavering, unfailing, without fault. The standard is unchanging perfection. If we want to be righteous, that's the mark we have to hit. But self-seeking, being motivated by what we can get for ourselves, will kill us. As soon as we pursue our own agendas, so reject God's truth and follow evil, that's it. Our English Bible here has done very well with “self-seeking”. Some, verse 7, seek glory, honour and immortality. They seek God – for these things are of God. Others, verse 8, are self-seeking. Again and again their deeds are besmirched by ambition and selfishness. There are the God-seeking and the self-seeking. And as soon as self-seeking slips in, we belong to that group. Isn't that all of us? If we are measured by the standards of the Law, are we not lost? If all we have is knowledge of God and His laws, we have nothing. All we have on the last day is the very Law that exposes and condemns us. And that day is coming. Paul's second devastating point:

God's kindness and patience will come to a terrible end.

Paul has shown us that when God judges, He judges by works and His standard is perfection. And Paul has said that there is no favouritism. But there is one hope surely? What about God's kindness, tolerance and patience? Won't He forgive His people their sins?

Paul has said to his audience that their best will never do. So they start to hope that God will overlook their sins. They want God to be lenient. Let me say that this is common thinking in Christian circles today. It is increasingly common to think of God as lenient. That precious word forgiveness has been used to support this view.

Firstly, some Christians think that God grades on a curve. It's as if heaven is for those who get 60% or more on the being good exam. God is forgiving. Get your 60% and He'll forgive the rest. But essentially heaven is for good people. And that viewpoint quickly leads people to a second. It doesn't really matter what you believe. It matters how you live. We talk about deeds mattering more than creeds. Or we see the beautiful character and lifestyle of a non-Christian and think, “oh, God will surely let them in.” In conservative, Bible-believing circles a similar view has found respect. People say, “God welcomes you into the church because of Jesus. Your sins are forgiven. You have a wonderful relationship with God. But you need to work at that relationship. God gives you His Spirit so that you can. But you need to keep that relationship going and growing. Because on the last day, God will judge whether you've fully lived that relationship.”

I've myself said things pretty close to that. But, again, human effort is required. This time, God begins the process and we finish it up. But again, our deeds will be judged. Without our deeds, no heaven. We have to contribute something, we have to be good, do the right things. It boils down to something like this: God is gracious to people who are good. Or: Do your best and God will forgive the rest. Perhaps more subtly: God forgives people who live for Him.

So, like the people Paul was writing to, Christians hope that God in His kindness, tolerance and patience will be lenient towards their failings. We hope that He will be lenient because we're doing enough to win His leniency. Paul's answer to that thought is a massive blow. Look at verse 4:

Do you show contempt for the riches of God's kindness, tolerance and patience, not realising that God's patience leads you towards repentance?

God won't accept they've done their best and then forgive the rest. His patience with them now is so they get their lives sorted out, up to scratch. God is patient with people now not because He's lenient. He wants people to repent. And when people don't repent, His patience means this, verse 5:

You are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath.

Notice how Paul repeats that word “wrath” for good effect? God is kind and patient to everyone at the moment. He hasn't come in His full wrath fully to reveal His righteous judgement on all. But one day that kindness and patience will end. And anyone who does not get themselves sorted out, who does not repent and match up to God's standards is going to find wrath stored up against them.

The hope of Jew and God-fearing Gentile in the synagogue was that God would acknowledge their listening to and approving the law, even keeping much. They hoped that God would then forgive their failings. But Paul says “no”. God judges deeds, and judges them by the highest standard. God's kindness and patience will come to a terrible end. The only option is repentance. And we're only in Romans 2. Paul hasn't told us about Jesus yet. That repentance is a turning away from sin to perfection. Our only hope in Romans 2 is to reach the standard of God's judgement. And that is no hope at all. There is no good news in our passage. The reason for that is simple. This passage is here to drive us away from any last trace of trust in our own righteousness. Every moment in which we are unrepentant concerning our sins stores up wrath. Oh, we may be hearers of the law, but verse 13 tells us we must do the Law. We may approve God's judgement of outsiders, but verses 1 and 3 tell us that we judge ourselves and our own sins when we do that. No, we are no better off than unbelievers. As verse 14 points out, they too sometimes do what the Law requires. And we see that every day. As verse 15 points out, they have crises of conscience. They have thoughts accusing them as well as thoughts defending them. You don't need to be a God person to be a good person.

It may even be that our sins are very secret. But look at verse 16.

This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets.

Even our secret sins will be found out. We can't hide our secrets from God. Verse 16 puts an end to every hope that we can trust in our own righteousness. Let me ask you this question. If I put on a video of edited lowlights from your thoughts this week, would you stay? Would you ever come again? I wouldn't. My secrets condemn me. They reveal how I am part of humanity under sin. Even going half and half with God won't do. Verse 16 surely ends our hope. Our righteousness is in tatters. However good we are, we'll never meet the standard. And God simply is not lenient. Hope is gone. Or is it? Verse 16 again:

This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

When Paul proclaimed his gospel of Jesus Christ, he proclaimed this judgement. This message prepares us to accept what comes next: The good news. God's judgement is by the highest standard. But there was One who, in the words of verse 7, sought glory, honour and immortality, to whom God has given eternal life. Jesus Christ.

Our hope is not that we'll reach the standard or God will be lenient. Our hope is Jesus Christ. He reached the standard for us. And God the Father has given Him glory, honour and immortality. That glory includes being the Saviour of sinners. It reveals just how perfect, righteous and obedient Christ was that God declares Him Saviour of sinners.

We're celebrating Communion, so let me explain what I'm saying using Communion as an illustration. And as you receive, consider each step as acting out the drama of your salvation. We're going to use the Prayer of Humble Access. Look at it on the service sheet. Look how we say that we come “trusting not in our own righteousness.” We declare ourselves unworthy. Then we look away from ourselves to Christ, to His death. We ask for cleansing through His death.

Then, the meal having been consecrated, we come. We kneel – in heart, even if our bodies can't manage it. We are not worthy. Who are we? We are those who have not matched the standard. We have no hope of leniency. But what do we receive? We receive Christ. We receive tokens of that righteous body that died a sinner's death. We receive tokens of that righteous blood that was shed. We receive by faith the Righteous One. And so, one with Him, the Righteous One, we meet the standard, because He met the standard for us and we have received Him by faith. And receiving Him means receiving His righteousness. So we need no leniency from God. We need no leniency because God has shown us something better. He has shown us His grace.

The Early Music Show

There's something disturbingly middle-class and aging about having post titles that reflect the BBC Radio 3 Saturday lunchtime line up!
Why is the Early Music Show so called? Why was the label Das Alte Werk so called? After all, the history of music-playing culture stretches back as far as our knowledge of civilisation, and that must be thousands of years! Most people have held in their hands books that contain songs thousands of years old, whether the Psalms of the Bible or songs in Hindu or Buddhist works; and if the Guru Granth Sahib contains Hindu hymns, which it does, perhaps there are works thousands of years old there too. Mesopotamia, India, China and South America can look back over thousands of years and so have music that really is early. Yet the Early Music Show is essentially about the Baroque period of European music: Bach, Handel, Vivaldi - yet they were around only 300 years ago. Das Alte Werk produced recordings of these and composers of a similar period. If you get all the way back to Tallis, then you are getting into musical prehistory on that basis, and he was around under Henry VIII, from whom at school we dated the Early Modern Period!
I am not so worried by the Eurocentricism of that, not because Eurocentricism isn't wrong, but because there are plenty of other people bothered about that online, and they no doubt have commented interestingly. My problem is the underlying assumption in terms of history. Everything pre-Bach, pre-1750, can be called early and covered in that context. Only the most recent deserves any more careful differentiation. We assume the superiority of the contemporary, that everything else is just old, even early, but have you listened to Bach and compared him to Britney? Exactly, no, you haven't. It would be an insult to Bach's quality even to consider making the comparison. And I apologise.
But this one goes deeper. We assume that what is modern renders the wisdom of the past obsolete. However, what we in fact find is that there is nothing new under the sun, that humanity's big issues have already been faced up to, and, if Romans 1:30 is right, that much of progress is inventing evil. We fail to listen to the past at our peril; we exalt the contemporary to the point of idolatry; and we dismiss those who disagree with the Zeitgeist - shutting them up with laws dressed up in the language of tolerance - at the cost, potentially, if J S Mill, that great Victorian liberal, was right, of progressive thought itself.

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.

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.

Tears and the Truth

I was listening to the White Horse Inn this week, and they played this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr4DBnB7aNQ . It was absolutely mind-blowing when I then looked it up on YouTube and listened to it. I was listening to it and crying - I just burst into tears. The song parodied, but in a serious tone, the religiosity of many Americans - oh, and Europeans, and Africans, and wherever, I guess. The sadness of the song expresses perfectly the terrible thought that God's people live under such slavery. Oh God, oh God, oh God, my heart breaks for people suffering such slavery! Give me a pulpit!

Truly Unexpected Largely Intuited Poetry (TULIP)

Turned away
Truly I have turned away
Totally rejected You
Traitor to Your righteous rule

Unmerited
Unsought is Your great love for me
Utterly the product of
Unending steadfast love

Lovingly
Leaving heaven far behind
Lost redeeming by a cross
Lord You gave Your life for me

In Your good time
Irresistibly Your Spirit came
Into Your arms to draw my soul
Invisibly my heart to transform

Perfectly
Perseverance won by Christ
Pulled out of every danger now
Perfected in heaven to be

Geddit?

So, what is a sacrament after all?

Dear me, not figured it out yet? After all, I am an amateur. There is a huge difference between an amateur and a professional. Primarily that thinking is a luxury for me for which I seldom have time.
When earlier in the year I was reading Genesis, I was struck by the sacramental nature of covenant relationship. Noah gets a rainbow, Abraham gets a sighting of the land, gets circumcision, gets that ritual with God walking through the cut animals, and Jacob gets his ladder. Each time God acts, He provides a sign of that of which He has spoken, which is symbolic, that is, it is itself illustrative of the promise, and which is also a seal, a guarantee of that of which God has spoken. When the patriarchs acts in faith, they find God truly faithful to these promises.
Here's my problem: the idea of a seal. Faithlessness delays divine action, but He works out His purpose in the end. So here's the big issue: are baptism and Communion given to the church, signs symbolic of His work among us which all visible members receive (fine, happy so far) and seals that He does so act among us. Or are they seals to the individual as well? If so, what is the role of faith? "Do those without faith also receive the signified?" - the great Reformational debate - still ought be discussed after you've dismissed substantial interpretations of sacraments (Roman, Lutheran and Zwinglian) for covenantal ones (Reformed). I hope that the book I'm reading at the moment, by Leonard Vander Zee, clears that one up for me.

The roots of Heresy

The shock of my life flew out of 2 Peter 2 yesterday. The roots of heresy are greed and being overwhelmed by one's physical desires (v2). Anyone struggling with those can tip over into heresy, denying Christ and His cross (v1). The solution? Authority (v10). We need an outside authority to set us right. Which is why heresy always attacks the Bible, I guess. Anyway, I was sobered. How close am I then, a western materialist, to denying my Lord every minute?
Oh, and Scripture has a lot to say about the tongue and self-control, particularly in Proverbs, doesn't it! Ouch!
Who will save me from this body of death? --> Romans 8

Cessationism and Baptism

Huh? What's this going to be about.
Last night I became a cessationist. Cessationism is normally associated with the idea that one believes that certain works of the Holy Spirit are no longer seen in the church, but that's not my cessationism. Mine is that the apostolic era is over: there are no more apostles. So the character and purpose of the work of the Holy Spirit is different: there are no miracles of confirmation of ministry, or any need to provide particular wisdom concerning Christ because it's all there in the Scriptures. So He carries on doing much, including many miracles, but they are different in character and purpose: healing for the sake of a sick person, rather than frequent, public and dramatic healing to draw attention to the apostle in whose words and person the ministry of Christ is continued.
You see, my acceptance of cessationism came from a new understanding of what it means.
Baptism?
Baptism is an outward sign of those actions God purposes covenantally to pursue with an individual, placing them under obligations vis-a-vis Himself. I was caught up in the fear of either a Catholic or Zwinglian view, partly because I hadn't got the covenantal element of Reformed thinking. Yes, the invisible church is constituted by new birth, but neither the old or the new covenant visible community is co-extensive with the invisible true body of the elect. Rather, the sign of the covenant is applied to show that someone is entering a community that lives under that covenant. Can babies receive it? Well, if their parents are bringing them up in full awareness of the covenant, why might they not receive the sign of that?
Again, a new understanding brings a new view, here on paedobaptism.
Help! I'm thinking aloud and online! Any advice?