not a pleasant story...

...but the logical extension of our society's groundless ethical standards. Why is this wrong if we don't take God's perspective (which obviously I do and see this as a terrible situation!)?

Romans 8 Part 2

More thoughts from my Romans 8 talks that might be helpful....

8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Now, he reason Paul gives that those who are in Christ Jesus no longer face condemnation is interesting. It is not simply – because Jesus died for us...no look at what he says in verse verse 2 [...] the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.

In this verse Paul seems to be using law the way we might speak about the law of gravity. When we talk about the law of gravity – we don't mean that there is a law passed by parliament specifying how quickly you have to fall. No, the word law in this context means the power of gravity. Gravity is a power or a binding authority that has a hold over us.

And so it is with Sin. Perhaps rather than comparing sin to gravity we could compare Sin to Alcohol. I am not saying alcohol is sinful – but I think there is parallel that when someone is controlled by alcohol they are enslaved by it. There is a real hopelessness and helplessness with someone struggling with alcohol. But at the same time that person is responsible for their actions. An alcoholic still held liable if they are arrested for drink driving. Even though they are enslaved by alcohol – and in one sense out of control - they are still guilty for their actions. The same is true of us.

Even though we are enslaved by Sin we are still responsible for our actions – we still deserve to be condemned.

So we need someone to break the power of sin. If we are not going to end our lives facing God's condemnation we need to have Sin's power over us broken. And that is precisely what has happened: the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus

Again Paul seems to be using law in this power sense. The power of sin has been defeated by the power of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is that powerful liberator who can deliver us from the power of sin – and he does it in Chirst.

But how does the Spirit set us free from the power of sin and death? Does he simply enable us to live a better life.. No – the key is this phrase that we have seen - 'in Christ'

The power of sin has been broken because...because the Penalty for Sin has been paid v3

For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,

You see even God's good law cannot save us. God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do.

But God did what the law could not verse 3: By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,

God's solution to our problem is radical. He sent his own son– to deal with sin. And by doing that he condemned sin in the flesh. This is the heart of Paul's argument. There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ because there has been a condemnation already. The trial has occurred already. A decisive irreversible verdict has already been given. Sin has been condemned. The condemnation has happened already – in Christ. God has condemned sin in the flesh by condemning it in His Son on the cross. As our substitute he has taken the condemnation for sin so that we don't have to. The Penalty for sin has been paid – and so Sin loses its power. Sin's power over us is that it leads us to eternal death. We cannot escape from its grip and we are led to eternal death and condemnation. But that death has happened already. Christ has died – sin has been condemned and paid for in his flesh, in him. So, Sin can no longer take us captive to eternal death. So in that sense our relationship with Sin is severed – it no longer has that hold over us. It can’t lead us to condemnation because that condemnation has happened already. So sin is powerless. It can’t condemn us. So, we are liberated from sin's power because in Christ the penalty for sin has already been paid.

Romans 8

I think one of the reasons that Romans 8 is so well loved is that it lists so many of the spiritual privileges and blessings that we have as Christians. My guess is that our tendency is to concentrate on Jesus death and how that deals with our fundamental problem of God's wrath...but this chapter shows us just how much flows from that.

I don't know if you have ever had the experience of using a computer program and finding that it did everything you needed it to. But then someone showed you a whole host of features you didn't know about it and suddenly a program that was useful becomes indispensable.

Or maybe you have joined a gym and been happy with everything but then suddenly discovered that included with your membership is a free monthly visit to the spa. Or - and I can't imagine this happening – have you ever checked a bank account that you haven't looked at for ages and discovered that there was more in there than you imagined?

Each of those experiences is of discovering that you were better off than you imagined. And that is the experience you get when you read Romans 8 – you are reminded of things that it is easy to take for granted.

Paul in this chapter shows us that there is so much more to the Christian life than we often imagine...Stay tuned!

If you could give away one book...

A woman at church has had a friend ask her questions about God, Christianity, etc., and she is a bit flummoxed as to where to direct her. Enter Christianity Explored's latest offering - "If you could ask God one question" (more details and sample chapter here). Written by Paul Williams and Barry Cooper, the book picks up and answers the most common questions asked by participants on the Christianity Explored course.

I've read similar books which address the 'standard' questions - issues to do with revelation, suffering, the plurality of religions, etc. "If you could..." answers the questions, but does so in a format which is progressive (moving from revelation in Christ, inscripturated revelation, sin and its consequences, the atonement, grace, etc.), strongly exegetical (each of the chapters is clearly grounded in the text of Scripture and addresses the questions from the Bible), and profoundly readable. It sounds in places quite similar to the CE course, but is different enough so that I'd feel comfortable bringing someone along to the course after they had read the book.

While it is a bit too "English" in places (Pete, you'll appreciate that) for a NZ audience, it's not impossible to read, and is straight forward enough for most adults to comprehend. And at 5 quid (~NZD$12 + P&P) its certainly worth having a few on your shelf. Buy it here or here.

What book would you give away to someone asking those sorts of questions?

April fooled

This was posted this morning [update - not by us - I've just copied it from here!!]. Of course it helps if you know the people invovled, but you can still get it.

The Warden of Latimer Fellowship, Rev. Malcolm Faloon, has declared a moratorium on overseas speakers to conferences and for any events with which Latimer Fellowship is connected. In an interview Christchurch priest Malcolm Falloon spoke about the problems associated with inviting overseas “specialists”. He said the issue had polarised the church.

"There are New Zealand-born leaders here, both liberal and conservative, who could have done the job. I think it is a failure of the church in honouring our home-grown leaders."

Strong support soon followed the announcement. Latimer Fellowship shares its offices with a missionary society which will meet today to discuss the suggestion of withdrawing all its manpower from overseas. The society is assuring members that funding of poorer nations will continue in any case. Parishes are also responding to the challenge of no longer inviting overseas speakers to preach or run parish missions.

A priest who was a New Zealander who had worked in the same parish for the past 20 years and was responsible for building a multithousand-dollar church, Canterbury Archdeacon Mike Hawke said "What is it about New Zealand culture that overlooks the local with the good track record, in favour of someone who knows sweet little."

"When you have someone coming from a completely different culture they are going to have to spend time immersing themselves in New Zealand culture and I'm not sure we have got that much time."

A vicar who declined to be named added overseas clergy often do not understand our local approach of openness. “Many overseas clergy are still stuck in valuing confidentiality and discretion. They are unaware of instant communication available to all on the Internet. We live in a world of modern communications systems, which the Church must surely recognise. Young people live their lives publicly on Bebo and Facebook and growing churches with young people are conscious that keeping secrets is a bad thing.” The vicar reminded us that Jesus himself taught “For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.”

Brilliant.

Carson at Moore II

During his visit to Moore college last week, Don Carson was interviewed at a dinner for alumni. He spoke about a number of things, including the soon to be revamped Gospel Coalition Website. However, the main focus was on a book he has just written about his father. I bought the book that night and finished it a day later. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Carson's Dad was a faithful pastor who worked for many years in French Canada without seeing much fruit at all. At one point he actually resigned from the ministry because he did not believe that he should continue given the fruitlessness of his ministry. This book is actually a wonderful encouragement to every Christian to remain faithful first and foremost and let the Lord take care of the results. If you are in full-time ministry, this book will re-orientate your priorities. If you are not it will still encourage you as a Christian and help you care for your own minister. (It also gives you a great insight into Don Carson - e.g. he spent a period helping establish a church plant and visited around three thousand homes to get a bible study started).

Highly recommended.

The Spiritual Mind

Last week I attended my first ‘ministers fraternal’ – a meeting of different ministers from around mid-Canterbury. One of the things we spoke about was how we made decisions – the start off point being that the guy leading the discussion recognized in himself, and in others, that many decisions we made were based on ‘common sense’. So, given that we’re Christian, how do we make decisions?

The responses were intriguing. Representatives from the Roman Catholic church recognized that in their polity, decisions were made within a hierarchy – they did what they were told. Brothers from more Pentecostal congregations spoke of handing things over to the Lord, letting the Spirit guide them, receiving confirmation of their thoughts through Scripture, etc.

In the conversation the implicit thought was that ‘common sense’ was too worldly and not spiritual enough. The presupposition seemed to be that that the spiritual is contrary to, or at least distinct from, the intellect, the ‘normal’ workings of the human mind.

However consider Paul’s words in Ephesians 4:17-24. Gentiles live in the futility of their thinking. “They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts.” Remember that this in Ephesians 4 – the so called ‘imperatival’ part of Paul’s epistle. And yet action is inextricably linked to the state of your intellect. It is their thinking that is futile, and this futility characterizes their behavior. The reason for their alienation from God is their ignorance (agnoian), which itself has come from the hardening of their hearts.

Paul goes on to speak of the change in the Ephesians, speaking of them coming to ‘know’ Christ, being ‘taught’ in him, etc. This new knowledge leads to a new lifestyle (hence his ‘putting off/putting on’ language).

This isn’t neo-Gnosticism. It isn’t trying to divorce the spiritual from the cognitive. The point is that you can’t. To be spiritual is to know, to be taught in Christ. To be unspiritual is to be ignorant – to have futile thoughts. Of course in no way am I implying that my brothers at that meeting fell into the ‘futile gentiles’ category – absolutely not. But we need to watch that we don’t tear apart that which must stay together – the working of our minds and the working of the Spirit.

Somewhat depressing.

We continued today at church working our way through Ephesians - the text this morning being Eph 4:1-16. For me this is one of the most programmatic texts for evangelical ministry, and I preached it with all I had in me. God's word equips God's people for God's work. Catchy, I thought.

As usual, I came down from the pulpit absolutely exhausted, but pushed on with prayers, and communion, and greeting new people and so on (no staff teams here!). And observed afterwards the most enthusiasm that I have seen since we arrived here. Enthusiasm for the sermon? No. Enthusiasm for the unity that we have in Christ (another major theme of Ephesians that we've been pushing over the past weeks)? No. Enthusiasm for the new coffee plungers that I bought this week that were producing (for the first time, I might add), real coffee at church. Somewhat depressing? What do you think.

But then I get home, and see that a group of guys in the UK who pray for the work here in Methven have sent through this (arriving at exactly the moment I stepped out the pulpit, if you're into that kind of thing):

...Rico [Tice, at the London Men's Convention] spoke of 2 Cor 4:1-6 as his job description today. I pray we all, especially those somewhat isolated physically in small NZ towns, will not lose heart but boldly proclaim the message we've been given...

Somewhat depressing? Hardly. In God's grace he uses his people just when we need it. And so in light of God's word, we'll keep at it. Month in, month out. In season and out of season. Setting forth the truth plainly and trusting that God will feed his people not only with good coffee (now), but also with his timeless and perfect word which will equip them for their service of each other and him.

Things you don't find in Newtown

Doing a bit of gardening on a Saturday afternoon, and in the space of 9 minutes collected a large bowlfull of potatoes. Boiled them up with a bit of mint, served them with salt and pepper and a dash of butter - never tasted better (sorry Mum). In all seriousness, there is something wonderful about being about to take food from your garden and twenty minutes later have it on your plate. God certainly did make this world well.

Unto the breach, dear friends...

Some of you have seen what has been posted at Anglicans All - an online forum with an NZ feel for debating a variety of Anglican issues. There have been a few feisty posts (not from me!) and until now I haven't said anything. However, this was posted this morning (it is moving on from Rowan William's Easter sermon):

An extract of the post:

"In recent years, a number of Christian writers, inspired by French critic and philosopher René Girard, have stressed with new urgency how the Bible shows the way in which groups and societies work out their fears and frustrations by finding scapegoats."

"Because we compete for the same goods and comforts, we need to sustain our competition with our rivals and maintain distance from them. But to stop this getting completely out of hand, we unite with our rivals to identify the cause of the scarcity that makes us compete against each other, with some outside presence we can all agree to hate."

Of course, Rowan was speaking here of material goods for which we compete against one another; but it could equally be applied to those spiritual goods (acceptance, forgiveness) which we are withholding from other members of the Church (and others outside of the Church), because of our paranoia about personal holiness, which we perceive as entirely lacking in people of another theological perspective.

Is this not a lesson to all of us - of the need to step back a little before proclaiming our own righteousness in belief and action, being all too ready to separate ourselves from the Common Table at the Eucharist, and issuing anathemas to the groups whose beliefs we are disposed to discredit?

It will be interesting to see how, for instance, protestant Archbishop Jensen of the Sydney Archdiocese, whose expressed desire is to legitimise the ministry of lay-presidency at the Eucharist, is able to find theological convergence with, say, the anglo-catholics of the Global South who will be gathering with him at the GAFCON conference.

Is their joint hatred of homosexuals and women in the ministry going to be enough to create a new provincial ministry in the Anglican Church?

I don't know whether it was the particular crispness of the morning, or the extra strong coffee, or what, but I couldn't help it. Here's my response (not that it's particularly biting by any means).

I’ve been following the discussion on Anglicans All for some time now, and, until this point, have read from a distance. I realise that in your last post you are referring to a specific situation and are seeking to foster debate on the archbishop’s sermon. Good on you. The topic can be debated. However, I do find it somewhat difficult (and, may I say, somewhat inconsistent) to hear you speak of Jensen’s ‘hatred of homosexuals and women in the ministry’ only 53 words after you’ve said: “Is this not a lesson to all of us - of the need to step back a little before proclaiming our own righteousness in belief and action […], and issuing anathemas to the groups whose beliefs we are disposed to discredit?” Maybe my difficulty comes from the fact that maybe “all of us” doesn’t mean all of us, and “hatred” doesn’t actually mean hatred. I confess that it is getting so hard now-a-days to know what words actually mean.

Why don't you have a wander over to Anglicans All - I don't think you need to register to read the posts. And any suggestions you have for other response will be gladly received (by email or comment here).

Forgetting Easter

Another tasty morsel from the parish magazine...

Easter has been and gone. For many of us the signs are strewn around the house – Easter egg wrappers, other signs of a long weekend, or maybe hyperactive children still coming down off their sugar highs. But over time Easter will pass away and we’ll look forward to what is coming up this week, this month, for the rest of the year. This isn’t a bad thing – we can’t live lives that refuse to deal with the present and only focus on the past. But as Christians, we live present lives that are permanently affected by the past.

We have just celebrated Easter, and will do again next year, but in the days in between out lives will be affected by Easter. The Bible says that if Christ has not been raised, our faith is futile – we are still in our sins (1 Corinthians 15:17). The fact that Jesus died and rose again affects us because by believing in Jesus we are united with him – united in his death where our sins are dealt with. And united in his resurrection, where we are given new life. And it is that new life which we now live. It’s that new life which we lived on Easter Sunday, the same new life we live today, and the same new life which we’ll live sometime in October (and all the days in-between). Because we are united by faith to Jesus who has risen from the dead, our lives are now different.

That means that we don’t just ignore Easter – ticking it off as another event on the church calendar which we’ll come back to next year. We look forward to this week, this month, this year because we live each day united with Jesus in his resurrection. There is a confidence in all we do, because we know that we have been made spiritually alive. There is a purpose to our lives, because as we work on the farm, mind the children, visit the grandchildren, we do so as people who are playing a part in God’s universal plan. We do so as people who have been joined to God’s Son, the king and ruler of all we see. We do so as people who are on their way to heaven, and who are urging others to join us. For, as God says, if only for this life we have hope in Christ, then we are to be pitied more than all people (1 Corinthians 15:19).

Treating the Bible Properly

Blomberg has been interviewed over at Between Two Worlds. One of the questions asked of him was:

Are there certain mistaken hermeneutical presuppositions made by conservative evangelicals that play into the hands of liberal critics?

Absolutely. And one of them follows directly from the last part of my answer to your last question. The approach, famously supported back in 1976 by Harold Lindsell in his Battle for the Bible (Zondervan), that it is an all-or-nothing approach to Scripture that we must hold, is both profoundly mistaken and deeply dangerous. No historian worth his or her salt functions that way. I personally believe that if inerrancy means “without error according to what most people in a given culture would have called an error” then the biblical books are inerrant in view of the standards of the cultures in which they were written. But, despite inerrancy being the touchstone of the largely American organization called the Evangelical Theological Society, there are countless evangelicals in the States and especially in other parts of the world who hold that the Scriptures are inspired and authoritative, even if not inerrant, and they are not sliding down any slippery slope of any kind. I can’t help but wonder if inerrantist evangelicals making inerrancy the watershed for so much has not, unintentionally, contributed to pilgrimages like Ehrman’s. Once someone finds one apparent mistake or contradiction that they cannot resolve, then they believe the Lindsells of the world and figure they have to chuck it all. What a tragedy!

A slightly different but related issue being perennially discussed here in NZ is the place of the whole Scriptures in our theological and ethical formation. For example:

Thankyou for your response to my question - as to whether there is any part of Scripture you could no longer support (or believe in). Indeed, you have provided just a few items which might embarrass you to have to subscribe to in today's world. However, I particularly noted your reference to 'development in certain ways in Scripture' that might just support my contention that 'not all of Scripture as it is presented to us is to be relied upon for guidance in today's world'.

I repeat your third paragraph here:

(3)Clearly we find development in certain ways in Scripture. The
punishments prescribed for the community to enact in Leviticus are
remitted by the teaching and example of Jesus. The question of
whether we are authorised to continue such development beyond
Scripture (e.g. on the basis of the Johannine understanding that the
Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth) is a large one. The Roman
Catholic church offers one answer, the Pentecostal church another,
and the liberal wing of the Anglican church yet another. Speaking as an evangelical who has consciously refrained from becoming RC, or Pentecostal or a liberal Anglican I continue to work theologically on the basis of being grounded in Scripture - the whole of Scripture.

You talk here about 'The punishments prescribed for the community to enact in Leviticus are remitted by the teaching and example of Jesus'. Precisely! The moral and theological concepts of Jesus are not always those of the Old Testament. Nor, I suspect, are some of the teachings Paul in line with what Jesus himself might have taught. In other words, the Dominical teaching is, par excellence, the teaching that is commended to the Church as primary, in its engagement with the world on matters of theology, orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

With regard to your statement in your note (i), you infer, that to say Jesus said nothing about homosexuality is 'a false statement'. That may be your opinion. But there again, are you the expert here? You say that Jesus never 'abrogated' the moral aspects of the Law. However, he certainly made sure that the woman caught in the act of adultery was not stoned! Was that not an abrogation of the Law!

You have also implied that Jesus 'by implication' did say something about homosexuality. I cannot personally find any evidence of that. can you tell me where i might find it? However, we'll stretch a point and say that there might be a possibility that his teaching about heterosexuality applied equally to homosexuality. Then, the very same proscriptions would apply. No more and no less!

You say that a "proper engagement with Scripture at this point would incorporate a careful study of the relationship between 'law' and 'gospel' - with particular reference to Pauls 'law of Christ' " The verse which you quoted say just this: "You should carry each other's troubles and fulfil the law of Christ". It is interesting that, in my J.B. version, this section is headed: 'On kindness and perseverance'. This heading alone indicates that Christ's 'New Commandment' - to love - is paramount in our relationships one to another - whether those relationships are of marriage, kinship or friendship.

In my understanding of orthodoxy, Peter, if God does not condemn something, then God cannot help but bless it. Remember, Jesus came not into this world to condemn the world, but to redeem it. We are all sinners, and Christ came into the world to save sinners - that's you and me, and every single person that God has created in the divine Image and Likeness of God's self. It is my job and yours, as clergy in our Church, to proclaim the Good News of God's love for all God's children. My hands were meant to bless, not curse. Why? Because that is my calling and vocation - not to condemn people to hell, but to show them the way to heaven.

Such an approach seeks to (impossibly) posit the person of God over the words of God, and I think, is seen implicitly in the practice of standing for (only) the gospel reading. Biblical Theology, Divine authorial intent, and, somewhat ironcially, a truly Christological hermeneutic need to be applied to the second author's position. When I get the time...