Carson at Moore I

Last night I went to a lecture at Moore College delivered by Don Carson. This was part of a series of lectures on Christ and Culture that he has been doing for the college (and which are due to be published as a book). He looked at the relationship between Church and State. A few things struck me:

i. the sweep of his survey. He interacted with and integrated around at least 10 NT passages. This was a great example of how do approach a theological question - refreshingly Biblical and deeply thoughtful.

ii. he talked about the danger of using the language of 'redeeming' the culture. Redemption language is to theologically important to use in this way. Also, he noted the danger of becomming excited about things other than the gospel. So, the ministry that assumes the gospel but is excited about AIDS relief in Africa will lose the gospel in the next generation. We should be doing AIDS relief but it should flow from the gospel. He gave the example of a church in Memphis who have formed a relationship with the local school where around 400 congregation members do one on one tuition with the students. And all the while the church has maintained its strong gospel focus. He bemoaned the Wilberforce film in that it made it seem like Wilberforce had side-lined the gospel to focus on the slavery issue, whereas Wilberforce remained commitedly evangelistic throughout his life.

A very stimulating talk.

From the ..... mouth

Listen to an interview with Victoria Matthews, bisop-elect of Christchurch, here.

Paul

About a year ago I was asked to review a play on the Apostle Paul. My review never made it to publication so I thought I would put it up here:

Paul

Written by Howard Benton.

Directed by Wesley Enoch.

I was not sure what to expect as I waited for Paul to begin. On the one hand a sign had warned me that the play contained blasphemy and might lead to offence. On the other, as I read the program notes my interest was raised. They displayed a level of sophistication that isn’t often present in contemporary examinations of Christian subjects. So, one of the articles on faith eschewed the usual ‘blind leap in the dark’ line and discussed how faith ‘engages the whole person – their emotions (trust, hope, peace), their intellect (belief), and their will (faithfulness, fidelity)’. Even more encouraging was the comment that ‘[g]enuine faith […] requires not only intellectual integrity, but psychological integrity’. The director himself commented that this play was not ‘about disproving the validity of the Bible and its stories’ but rather ‘an investigation and reiteration of the power of faith’.

The play starts with Paul and Peter in prison in Rome the night before their executions (tradition has them both dying in Rome). Sharing a cell together they have the opportunity to reflect on the last 30 or so years via a series of flashbacks – starting with Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus. Some of the play’s portrayals are both accurate and moving. So, when the converted Paul first shares the Lord’s Supper with Barnabas, the scene is presented very sensitively and it was easy to imagine it happening this way. Later we see Paul boldly and engagingly witnessing to his gaoler – again something we could easily imagine. Paul’s interaction with the squabbling Corinthians is amusing and the play manages to do what countless preachers have failed, namely to situate 1 Corinthians 13 in its proper context!

However (you knew there would be a ‘however’!), it is the portrayal of events surrounding Paul’s behaviour that the play really shows its hand. As much as the liner notes might argue that the play is not concerned to question the validity of the Bible, a central claim of the play is that Jesus did not rise from the dead. The play recognises that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, an explanation needs to be given for the amazing spread of Christianity. This is disclosed at the end of the play as Peter tearfully reveals that he, James and Jesus – who had survived the crucifixion – had staged the Damascus Road encounter to stop Saul from persecuting the Church. James, Peter and Jesus later continue the deception by commissioning Paul to preach to the Gentiles – with the proviso that he send money back the Jerusalem church. What they didn't count on was both the extent to which Paul would embrace this new understanding of Jesus' resurrection and Paul's ability as a persuader. Even Peter himself, is, amazingly, convinced by Paul's message. This all comes out as Peter faces his execution. 'I lived with two Yeshuas', he sobs, 'the one I knew and the one you preached'. Paul refuses to believe Peter and the play ends with him again persuading a now seemingly demented Peter to chant 'Christ is risen' over and over and over gain.

And so ultimately the play is disappointing. Not only do we have this unbelievable Damascus Road fake, and the tired old 'Jesus-was-married-to-Mary-Magdalene

-but-the-truth-never-came-out-because-she-was-a-prostitute' line, but more fundamentally there is a failure to understand the importance of the resurrection to Christianity. At one point as Peter is confessing his deception, Paul effectively quotes 1 Corinthians 15:19 'If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied' and so we might as well 'eat and drink, for tomorrow we die'. The play thus does recognise that the resurrection is the key to Paul's understanding of Jesus but rejects it. Peter immediately rails against Paul, 'You're always so harsh!' Here is the key to the play: Paul was wrong – the resurrection does not matter. In fact at the end of his introductory article in the program notes, Brenton makes it clear that his view:

is that Jesus will never return and there is no God. But if Paul had not believed and had not written to the Corinthians and the Romans we would all be immeasurably impoverished. He was profoundly wrong but also mysteriously right.

In other words, as with Jesus, it is Paul's ethical teaching that matters. And yet there is a stronger conviction running through the play. There is no ambiguity with respect to the resurrection – no ‘it might be true or not but that’s not the point’ - no, the resurrection is rejected out of hand. Even though Paul’s ignorance might not affect his message, we are under no illusion that Paul was wrong – plain and simple.

Ultimately, then, the play raises this question of historical fact that it is not equipped to answer. It recognises that the phenomenal spread of Christianity needs and explanation but can only imagine an implausible fake combined with the force and persuasiveness of Paul's preaching. Interestingly, the description we have of Paul by the Corinthians is that ‘in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amount[ed] to nothing’ (2 Cor 10:10). Hopefully, this play will force people to look more closely at the Paul of the New Testament. It does capture some of the features that make him so intriguing but, in comparison to the presentation in the New Testament, misses the depth, power and historically-rooted nature of his theology. Really everything stands or falls with the historical resurrection of Christ. A claim that the play raises but dismisses and so, sadly, finally misses the point of Paul altogether.

A Reason for Unbelief

Some thoughts from Owen on Peter's confession of faith (Matt16:16) which are apt both for Easter and the state of the church worldwide.

The danger of men's souls lieth not in a disability to attain a comprehension of longer or more subtile confessions of faith [than Peter's], but in embracing things contrary unto, or inconsistent with, this foundation thereof. Whatever it be whereby men cease to hold the Head, how small soever it seem, that alone is pernicious.

NOOMA Review

As Rob Bell's long lost identical twin, I was intrigued to hear that Greg Gilbert at 9 Marks has done a review of all the NOOMA DVDs. You can find the three part review here.

Gilbert treats Bell fairly, but, as you would expect from anything from 9 Marks, with theological acumen and biblical insight. His conclusion is that NOOMA repeatedly refuses to address the foolish and unpopular parts of the gospel, is vague (at best), and is essentially just another form of religion:

'Bell would never use this word, but I believe what he’s presented in NOOMA is really just another religion that’s not so much different from any other religion in the world. For the gospel of NOOMA isn’t finally about the Son of God who lovingly dies in his people’s place to redeem them from sin and save them from God’s righteous judgment. It’s about the really great teacher who says, "Change your life. Live this way."'

This review also includes a summary of each of the 19 DVD's. Given the popularity of NOOMA, this review is valuable and necessary reading.

Degrees of Change

Come and live in Methven.
On Wednesday it was 34 degrees.
Today the forecast maximum is 13.

The importance of being simple

I was chatting to a guy here in Methven this morning, a good solid New Zealand farmer, who is doing some study on the gospels at the Bible College of New Zealand. I got to know him when he visited our church and borrowed Blomberg's Jesus and the Gospels for his course. I asked him how the course was going, and how he was finding Blomberg.

"Great" he replied. "I'm not an intellectual - I don't want to hear fancy language. But he [Blomberg] helps me understand who Jesus is".

Let us pray that people would walk out of our churches, and away from conversations with us saying the same thing. Particularly this Easter, let us speak simply and clearly the gospel message of the death and resurrection of God's Son.

Owen's words are a timely reminder for those of us fortunate enough to have spent time studying theology:

By some men's too much understanding, others are brought to understand nothing at all.
From Sermon: The Strength of Faith. Works 9:20.

Pray that that wouldn't be us, but that we would boldly preach that simple message that sinners can be forgiven, prisoners set free, and rebels reconciled.

Responses to Thompson

Mark Thompson's piece for the ACL has generated some responses (on a NZ Anglican website) Here's an extract (and let it be said that I thoroughly disagree with this person's comment):

"...This rant from a 'learned doctor' sounds like a lecture in demonology. Not too surprising, though, as this is the off-the-cuff reflection of a disappointed and bitter re-asserter, who wants the Church to go back to the first century of the Church environment..."

Halucination?

Well, it is the time of year for all the different theories of the resurrection - what really happened? A relatively common one is that Jesus' disciples were undergoing mass hallucination. I think we can rule that out on the basis of Luke 24:36 ff. In this section Jesus appears to the disciples and has them touch him and eats a piece of brolied fish. He does these to prove that he is not a ghost but has been physically raised. Whatever you think of the validity of this account you have to rule out hallucination. In other words either it is true or the disciples are being willfully deceptive. The latter would be strange given that most of them went to their deaths proclaming the resurrection. But away with this idea that the disciples were well-meaning but simply deceived into thinking that Jesus had risen. Luke 24 rules that out.

Christ is risen!

Taylor on Reinker on Ferguson on Owen on Saving Faith

Once you trace it all back, Sinclair Ferguson has made a number of comments on Owen's view of saving faith. Read them here.

Even better, read Owen himself here.

Thompson on the present state of Anglicanism

Mark Thompson has written a very good overview piece describing the development of the present situation the Anglican communion finds itself in. So good, infact, that it has been picked up by an Anglican discussion group here in NZ. Read the full article here. Becuase the discussion group is closed I'll let you know general responses to it when (or if) they happen.

The worst of Easter

Amanda was pointed to this by someone she has met here in Methven. This person was absolutely genuine that this had moved her to tears as a picture of the Cross, and was encouraging people to watch it.

It is difficult to even know where to begin. Of course this is a collage from a movie - I haven't seen it and maybe (!?) the movie as a whole is more subtle and nuanced than this clip portrays. Of course there is an aspect of the atonement which this piece captures - the concept of one for many, and it attempts to deal with the pain of the Son's death.

But the problems with it monumentally outweigh the benefits. The Son's death is labelled as a tragic mistake, and indeed is seen simply as an accident. The Son himself has no intention to die for the passengers on the train - he slips and falls (cf Jn 10:18). Here indeed is child abuse.

What is more, the passengers on the train are 'saved' - but with no reference to the Father or the Son. They simply carry on in their 'pre-salvation' lives, completely ignorant of what has happened for them. Surely, if anything, this clip promotes universalism!

I do appreciate what this clip, and similar illustrations in sermons, attempt to do. As with any articulation of the gospel, not all things can be covered at once. However, I have to conclude that this is such a distortion of the gospel that I wonder if it is any gospel at all.

Preach the gospel this Easter. Preach the glories of the triune God who took on flesh that our sin might be borne and punished in him that we might be forgiven. Preach that any who turn to Him, with their doubts, worries, fears and anxieties can be released and freed and born to a new life in Christ. Preach that grace has been given, sin has been conquered, death has been defeated and that creation will never - can never - be the same again.

Preach the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. But don't preach the bridge.