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."
Saturday, 13 December 2008
Saturday, 22 November 2008
A British Obama?
I'm not thinking about the question posed in the media, concerning whether we'll see in Britain or any European country a black leader soon (note - the German Greens have elected a man of Turkish origin to their dual leadership - but that's the nearest we have right now).
It's the hype thing. Could a political leader ever be so hyped, ever have so much hope associated with him, ever be such a rhetorical star turn in Europe?
Well, yes.
He was elected in 1997 in Britain.
Look where that got us.
It's the hype thing. Could a political leader ever be so hyped, ever have so much hope associated with him, ever be such a rhetorical star turn in Europe?
Well, yes.
He was elected in 1997 in Britain.
Look where that got us.
Tuesday, 28 October 2008
What is the BBC playing at (2)?
When the BBC does stuff like the Brand-Ross prank call, you know that rock bottom has been hit.
What was most interesting in the coverage I've seen is that although there have been thus far 10 000 complaints, the younger generation phoning in to Radio 1 seem generally supportive.
The answer as to what is going on is all too simple. Brand and Ross know exactly to whom they are appealing: the generation that happy-slaps. For that is exactly what it was: it was public, on air happy-slapping. They are appealing to the generation that thinks nothing of dropping litter and beating up policemen who ask for it to be picked up: for Brand's defending himself by saying it was funny indicates that he clearly thinks he did nothing wrong, and it's the rest of us who are being pompous by standing by common standards of decency.
Common standards of decency brings us ultimately to the point: common standards of decency flow ultimately from shared convictions concerning right and wrong. And whether it's Roger Bolton (see previous post) or Brand and Ross, common standards of decency and their religious underpinning are what is under attack.
If either Mr Brand or Mr Ross finds themselves on the receiving end of youth violence, we must all feel sorry for them. Because as decent people, we are on the side of the victim. They however must not push for prosecutions. They must laugh it off, extend a hand to their tormentors and say, "funny one, guys."
What was most interesting in the coverage I've seen is that although there have been thus far 10 000 complaints, the younger generation phoning in to Radio 1 seem generally supportive.
The answer as to what is going on is all too simple. Brand and Ross know exactly to whom they are appealing: the generation that happy-slaps. For that is exactly what it was: it was public, on air happy-slapping. They are appealing to the generation that thinks nothing of dropping litter and beating up policemen who ask for it to be picked up: for Brand's defending himself by saying it was funny indicates that he clearly thinks he did nothing wrong, and it's the rest of us who are being pompous by standing by common standards of decency.
Common standards of decency brings us ultimately to the point: common standards of decency flow ultimately from shared convictions concerning right and wrong. And whether it's Roger Bolton (see previous post) or Brand and Ross, common standards of decency and their religious underpinning are what is under attack.
If either Mr Brand or Mr Ross finds themselves on the receiving end of youth violence, we must all feel sorry for them. Because as decent people, we are on the side of the victim. They however must not push for prosecutions. They must laugh it off, extend a hand to their tormentors and say, "funny one, guys."
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).
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).
Saturday, 27 September 2008
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!
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!
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)