Union with Christ

The unio mystica sive praesentia gratiae tantum, the ‘mystical union’ or ‘union by the presence of grace alone’ refers to the special union ‘founded on the indwelling grace of God in Christ, that occurs between God and the believer in and through regeneration’ (Muller). It is a consistent feature of orthodox Reformed and Lutheran theological dogmatics. Remarkably given its prominence in the New Testament, it hadn't been the stimulus for much theological reflection prior to this - perhaps because sacramental theology was doing the 'work' that it now does in Protestant thinking.

The term ‘mystical’ is used because it rests on the mystery of grace and the mercy of God. It is also referred to as the unio spiritualis because this union is of the Spirit. The believer’s ingrafting into Christ constitutes the foundation of the Christian life. A number of New Testament metaphors are picked up in this teaching (vine,/branches, body/head) and also the en Christo terminology which appears so often. The believer’s individuality is not dissolved or thwarted in this union. Rather, it is the work of the Holy Spirit which produces faith and enables the believers to share in the blessings of the work of Christ.

John Murray observed that "Union with Christ is a very inclusive subject. It embraces the wide span of salvation from the ultimate source in the eternal election of God to its final fruition in the glorification of the elect." If we may observe one thing about how the doctrine has been treated in the Reformed tradition it might be that this very inclusivity and breadth makes it difficult to locate in the dogmatic system. It operates rather as the connective tissue between various doctrinal topics - as a motif rather than as a doctrine itself. Furthermore, the language of ‘union’ with Christ has led inevitably to some misconstruals.

IN CALVIN
Calvin scholars like Alister McGrath and Charles Partee have latterly recognised how pervasive and comprehensive Calvin’s doctrine of the unio mystica is. According to McGrath, Calvin utilises the concept of the distinctio sed non separatio drawn from Chalcedonian Christology. That is: the separateness yet distinction of the two natures in the hypostatic union is, for Calvin, the pattern for divine-human relationship found also in the unio mystica. Though the doctrine relates to the doctrines of justification and sanctification and how the believer receives these benefits of Christ’s death, the doctrine is also profoundly Trinitarian.

The basis for our union with Christ is the electing will of God the Father who chooses us ‘in Christ’ before the foundation of the world. Our union with Christ is an expression of the love and mercy of God himself (Inst II xvi.4); and in union with Christ we are brought into relationship with God through the Spirit of adoption, thereby experiencing the paternal love of God the Father. Calvin will refer to Christ himself as ‘the bond of our union with God’.

Calvin writes:
By partaking of him, we principally receive a double grace: namely that being reconciled to God through Christ’s blamelessness, we may have in heaven instead of a Judge a gracious Father; and secondly, that sanctified by Christ’s Spirit we may cultivate blamelessness and purity of life. (Inst III.11.1)

Union with Christ thus has a twin focus for Calvin. From union with Christ flow both justification – which occurs externally to the believer – and sanctification – which occurs internally. Not only is the forensic imputation of righteousness accomplished through union with Christ, but the life of Christ is also imparted to the believer as the basis for his or her sanctification. Both justification and sanctification are, as Evans writes, ‘subsumed under a more comprehensive reality – union with Christ.’ It is possible even to go so far as to conclude that the notion of unio Christi has for Calvin a causal priority in his soteriological thought. Justification is not dependent on sanctification, nor is it a response to justification.

In what does the union with Christ consist? Calvin holds that believers are united with the incarnate humanity of Christ. Christ’s mediatorial work and the benefits that flow from it – including, for Calvin, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness - are received by union with the substantia of the humanity of Christ. This notion pervades his teaching on the sacraments as a (in some way) real appropriation of Christ by the believer. ‘Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ, as expounded in Book III and IV of the Institution and clarified in the context of Eucharistic debates, affirms nothing less than the reception by the believer of the substance, the very being, of the incarnate Christ. This union is the impartation of the life of the risen Christ to the believer, albeit in a manner which does not diminish the personal individuality of both Christ and the individual believer’ (William B. Evans, Imputation and Impartation – Union with Christ in American Reformed Theology, Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008 p.28). Justification involves not simply a forensic, past act of God through Christ in the past – it also involves communion with the person of the living Christ. It is likely that Calvin intended this notion of substantial union to indicate an ontological reality. Evans complains that this notion is underexplained by Calvin, which leaves open the possibilities of revision or rejection in subsequent generations.

Intriguingly, Calvin places sanctification before justification in the Institutes. This may have been to head off Roman Catholic charges that Protestant teaching on justification made good works redundant. But it reveals also just how closely the two were tied together in Calvin’s thought. The mediatorial person of Christ, together with the Holy Spirit binds the two together. ‘...the forensic and transforming benefits of salvation are inseparable because both are communicated to the believer in the same way through union with the mediatorial person of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit’ (Evans). Calvin does not posit a particular ordo salutis with a single moment at which a divine declaration is announced.

Next: Union with Christ in Federal Calvinism

Broughton Knox on Limited Atonement

Bavinck complained at the beginning of the twentieth century that there were very few who held to the teaching of particular satisfaction in his day. Charles Hodge and WGT Shedd had propounded it in the nineteenth century, but Bavinck writes rather wistfully ‘it has been almost universally abandoned.’ Certainly, the evangelical movement, though Calvinist in many of its parts, had not majored on this particular distinctive. Charles Simeon and Bishop JC Ryle, for example, opposed it. Unity with other evangelicals in mission was more important.

While there has been a latter-day resurgence in Reformed theology, it has not ended the controversy among the Reformed themselves over particular redemption/limited atonement. Sydney diocese has been famous (notorious?) as a place which, while claiming the heritage of Calvinism, on the whole has been reluctant to stand with the majority Reformed position on the matter of limited or definite atonement.

Broughton Knox’s piece ‘Some Aspects of the Atonement’ reveals the particular theological commitments that led him and others to deny limited atonement while at the same time happily wearing the ‘Calvinist’ badge. In his usual rather disjointed and compressed style, Knox argues both from theological concepts (the incarnation and so on) down and from exegesis (2 Peter 2) up. Interestingly, though he uses few footnotes (did he ever?), he picks up some of McCleod Campbell’s points about Christ’s perfect obedience being the obedience demanded of every human person and not just the elect.

He clarifies: ‘The extent of Christ’s work is not limited in itself, but only in the intentions and purposes of God, and consequently in the application of its benefits to those whom God had foreknown and predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son’ (p. 261). Knox contends that the atonement makes all people savable, if they will repent and believe. But only the elect do so, for only they receive the necessary grace. Limited atonement, he claims, denies the propriety of preaching to the consciences of the unconverted their duty to repent and believe the gospel.

Furthermore, Knox points out that limited atonement is a ‘textless doctrine’ – which criticism must be a killer blow to any putative Reformed teaching. Certainly, the Bible affirms that Christ dies for the elect: but it does not say that he died for them only. If the notion of substitution is pressed into service in defence of limited atonement, as it is done by Warfield among others, Knox complains that in fact this misunderstands the need for regeneration; and falls into the trap of conceiving the atonement in a pecuniary way. Particularism, characteristic of Calvinism, is not be applied to the moment of the making of the decree, nor is prior to the decree of atonement. The atonement is general, the application particular. Knox concludes: ‘Limited atonement as commonly propounded, introduces unscriptural concepts into the doctrine of God’s relation to the world, and may prove an Achilles’ heel for the revival of Reformed theology’.

I am not sure that he is a successful prophet in this regard. What I would say is that, to be perfectly fair, though he makes some telling points, Knox's critique is aimed at a version of Limited Atonement which lies at the extremes of the discussion. The scriptural testimony as to the definiteness and particularity of the atonement seems undeniable; but that definiteness cannot be thought of in terms of an amount or value. That's a mistake with the metaphor which the term 'limited' exacerbates, it seems to me. The testimony to the definiteness of the work of Christ for the elect does not place a visible parameter around that work in some way. But it does uphold the purposefulness and intentionality of God in salvation, and the priority of his action in salvation. The definiteness of the atonement should not be asserted out of the context of the cosmic scope of the atonement (Col 1:15ff). Charles Hodge - who advocates particular redemption - I think strikes a nice balance. There is little I could contend against in his account.

Limited Atonement is asserted in order to protect the doctrine of election. My hunch, without yet having the exegetical leg-work to back it up, is that the passages that have to do with election are more complex and variegated than are allowed in Systematic Theology. Divine election seems to have a this-worldly sphere of meaning in some passages, and an eternal sphere in others. That is, God 'elects' some people or peoples within history for certain purposes (Abraham; Israel) and also elects some for the age to come. The two elections do not necessarily exactly coincide. I think Romans 9-11 (again a hunch) has more than one view of election in mind. He also elects individually and corporately.

The question would then be: how many passages bring together election and salvation and in what way do they do so? A more complex and nuanced picture might then emerge, which will allay the concerns of the proponent of Definite Atonement - that salvation is now a matter not of Christ's work but of human choice; and the concerns of the Amyraldian - that Scriptural testimony to the universal sufficiency of the atonement is being undermined if not outright denied.

Vanhoozer at the Wheaton Conference

I very much enjoyed listening to Kevin Vanhoozer's talk on Tom Wright at the recent Wheaton Conference - not the least because of the way he talks about the 'dialogical virtues' at the end. He certainly levels some strong criticisms at Wright, as well as his opponents. But it is done in exactly the right way - without caricature.

Ten observations on re-reading the New Testament as a whole

1. How often Christians are enjoined to forgive, or to bear with one another, or to practice gentleness or patience.

2. How incredibly subtle Acts is as a narrative.

3. How much the issue of the inclusion of the Gentiles drives everything from mission to ecclesiology to ethics - and how reflection on this issue drives us back to theology and soteriology and even to creation. Wow.

4. How much and how often Paul has to defend his legitimacy as an apostle.

5. How personal and particular the documents are - they abound with the names of real people about whom we know so tantalizingly little (See Romans 16).

6. How huge the scope is - given that the church was small, scattered, persecuted and divided, how incredible that the NT writers are able to make cosmological statements about their gospel. (see Col 1:15ff for example).

7. What a majestic piece of writing Ephesians is. After reading the Corinthian correspondence, you could be forgiven for despairing somewhat.

8. How complicated the issue of the ongoing relevance of the law for the Christian life is.

9. How rich the NT is when you add to the Pauline vocabulary and outlook the Johannine, Petrine and Jamesian takes.

10. How sublime and yet how pastoral Hebrews is, charting a narrow course between a supremely grounded confidence in the sacrificial blood of Christ and the severe warnings against apostacy.

Don Carson on Perfectionism

This piece really resonated. See what you think.

Joshua Whitfield - Pilgrim Holiness

Joshua Whitfield's book on martyrdom, Pilgrim Holiness - Martyrdom as Descriptive Witness, has arrived in my pigeon hole and I am fascinated to begin reading it. I had the privilege of seeing some of the work in its unpublished form. Here's a taste:

Christian martyrdom should be renewed in the church's memory and in the imagination of individual Christians. Martyrs should not be relegated to an embarassing and unenlightened past, nor should they be made to fit sociologically and politically acceptable models. Rather, martyrs should be remembered for their witness to Jesus. Martyrs should be embraced as those who disclose and also compel the unity of all Christians, of all those who inhabit the same narrative horizon. Only when the Church receives this gift, when Christians are willing to inhabit the narrtive of the Church in the face of every other divisive narrative of nation, race, class, denomination, or gender, will they be able to give witness to what is believed to be a more lasting peace, which passes all understanding. (p. 126)

I am interested that he concludes on this note, emphasising the unity of the Church. I am not sure I would have gone the same route. Of course, many of the greatest martyrs of the Church's history have been killed by professing Christians...

Ethics and Eschatology in 1 Corinthians

Apologies for the slow rate of production on this blog of late. I think this has been my least productive period blog-wise in five years or so! Partly it is because I am writing furiously in other places (Anglican Media Sydney for example) and partly because ... well every blogger tends to have doubts about the value of the medium from time to time, right? Anyhow, here's a draft intro to my paper for this year's Moore College School of Theology on 1 Corinthians. My brief is to write about Ethics in 1 Corinthians. Here's what I have so far:

...for the present form of the world is passing away.

(1 Cor 7:31)

It would be not unreasonable to suspect that the Paul’s ethical teaching in 1 Corinthians is more ad hoc than integrated. After all, isn’t it the case that the pressure of living in the latter days means that Paul’s ethical teaching orients the person away from the present world which is fading - to the point of denigrating it? Although Paul claims that ‘your labour in the Lord is not vain’ (1 Cor 15:58), he has been suspected of preaching a gospel which debases life in the present because ‘the time is short’ – and so the ethical material of the letter is merely a series of improvisations, a matter of staving off the trouble and chaos of to schema. This particular epistle appears to offer support for a long-standing critique of Christian (and specifically Pauline) ethical thought by which it has been charged with having an other-worldly eschatological vision to the end that this-worldly activity is greatly diminished and even deprecated. The claim is that, at its worst, Christian ethical teaching instructs believers in a kind of destructive apocalyptic hatred of the world in favour of the longed-for glorious future. For Paul, Christian ethical action is merely a staving off of the problems of this life, not a taking of it seriously on its own terms. ‘Better by far’, he says to the Philippians, ‘to die and be with Christ’.

This essay will examine the claims of two very different modern thinkers who have attacked Pauline Christianity on this front. Hannah Arendt claims that the triumph of Christian eschatology over the world of the Greeks and the Romans inevitably meant that the vita contemplativa was preferred to the vita activa. For his part, Friedrich Nietzsche argues vehemently that Paul’s eschatology laid the foundation of a life-denial that had kept a (European) civilisation in servility for centuries and had crushed the human spirit. What I shall argue in response is that Paul’s apocalyptic vision in 1 Corinthians describes not the worthlessness of the present order of things compared to the priceless world to come but rather (following J. L. Martyn) the invasion of the present world by that world such that the two coalesce. The ethics that derives from this eschatological vision is not then an avoidance or a disparagement of the sphere of present human living but in fact involves its affirmation and transformation. How this is so I will demonstrate in particular from a reading of the passage which seems most counter to my case – Paul’s discussion of marriage in 1 Corinthians 7.

New-ish review of You...

Stephen Murray from South Africa reviews YOU: An Introduction.

Martyrdom and Identity: The Self on Trial

My book is coming out in May, but you can pre-order your copies now! :-)

(It may be cheaper from Amazon than from the publishers).

The cross alone...

This week's DADA article is on the cross.

Imitation article in The Churchman

The Churchman has published my article entitled Imitating Paul, Imitating Christ: How does imitation work as a moral concept?

Lecture on Foxe

Tonight I am giving a lecture on Foxe's Book of Martyrs at the Presbyterian Theological Centre, Sydney as part of their 'Get to Know the Classics' series.

Here's a bit of what I am going to say:

In telling these terrible narratives, Foxe calculated to inspire an outrage in his readers that godly ministers could be so vilely treated. However, Foxe told the vast story of the martyrs of the church like this not merely because he was after an emotive impact (though of course he was), but because he wanted to give the evangelical cause legitimacy. It was legitimacy that it appeared to lack without the authority of the Pope.

But if Foxe could show that the killing of the evangelical martyrs was of the same type as the martyrdoms of the early church, then he could give an immense boost to the English Reformation. The true church of Jesus Christ, if it is like Jesus himself, is a persecuted church. Under Queen Mary, there was no doubt as to which church the more Christ-like (as Foxe saw it).

Foxe drew his inspiration from the book of Revelation. In that book he saw an account of the history of the world that had martyrs at the centre: ‘these are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb’ (Rev 7:14). And it was a book which spoke of a true and false church. Foxe interpreted what he saw as part God’s great providential plan.

The Age of Television - a Eulogy

The great age of television lasted in Australia from 1960 to 1997. These were the years after the age of the radio and before the internet. It was a generation long, perhaps two. My parents worried that I watched too much TV, but I watched far more than my children do. I have to encourage them: 'do you wanna watch TV?' TV producers recognise this and retread 70s programmes like Doctor Who. Increasingly, TV combs back over its own archives and creates 'classics'.

It is still the case that our lounge rooms are arranged with the seats facing the TV screen, as they would have once been arranged around the fire. The TV is that warm glow against which we warm ourselves - that little box of radiance and enlightenment.

In that period, television had the power to make events as well as record them. We sometimes scoff at the expression ‘television history’; but I don’t think it is an underestimation. The presence of TV cameras made Vietnam an unwinnable war in the public imagination. The Moon landings would not have happened without TV. It is said that the Berlin Wall fell because a TV news reporter mistakenly declared that it had fallen – and so the huge crowds surged to the gates and tore it down.

Television united human beings in single moments more than was ever thought possible. We can be part of a bigger crowd than can actually gather together in one spot- it gives us the ability to be present when we are distant. The thought of 100 million people watching the same event beggars the imagination. But TV made it possible. I remember growing up in Britain in the 70s when there were only three stations for 60 million people. 20 million people would watch the same drivel on Saturday night!

Now that power has largely dissipated; the audience has fragmented. bloggers and tweeters do it better. TV’s great weakness was that it didn’t allow its audience to answer back. It preached at us. Only latterly has it woken up to the possibilities of breaking through the glass and inviting us to take control – through reality TV and through associated technologies like the mobile phone.

In case there is any doubt....

http://himanintroduction.blogspot.com/2008/12/hell-of-problem_15.html

let the reader understand.

Compiling a freedom of speech reading list

I am contemplating some research on freedom of speech and its relation to Christianity (naturally), and its (partial) roots in a Christian understanding of persuasion.

Reading suggestions anyone?

Current Reading List for Theological Anthropology MA

(gold star to anyone who can add up how many pages this is).

Barth, Karl. "The Humanity of God." In The Humanity of God. London: Collins, 1967, pp. 33-64 (32pp)

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Letters and Papers from Prison, ed. Eberhard Bethge. London: SCM, 1999, pp.3-17, 294-300, 369-70 (15pp)

________. Ethics. Translated by R. Krauss, C. West and D. Stott. Vol. 6 Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, ed. Clifford J. Green. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005, pp. 76-102 (27pp)

Calvin, Jean, A Harmony of the Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke. 3 vols. Calvin's Commentaries (Oliver & Boyd). Edinburgh: St. Andrew Press, 1972, pp. 133-143 (11pp)

Cameron, Andrew J.B., G.J. Clarke, and Michael P. Jensen. "Towards a Christian Understanding of the Concept of Human 'Community', with Special Reference to the Praxis of a Non-Government Human Services Delivery Organisation." Evangelical Review of Society and Politics 3, no. 2 (2009): 22-41. (19pp)

Carroll, John. The Wreck of Western Culture : Humanism Revisited. Rev. ed. Carlton North, Vic.: Scribe Pubications, 2004, pp.1-9, 51-59 (20pp)

Cavanaugh, William T. Torture and Eucharist: Theology, Politics, and the Body of Christ Challenges in Contemporary Theology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998, pp. 34-58 (25pp)

Coakley, Sarah. "The Eschatological Body: Gender, Transformation and God." In Powers and Submissions : Spirituality, Philosophy and Gender, Oxford: Blackwell, 2002, pp. 153-167 (14pp)

Darwin, Charles, and J. W. Burrow. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection : Or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life Penguin Classics. London: Penguin, 1985, pp. 65-69 (5pp)

De Botton, Alain. The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work. London: Hamish Hamilton, 2009, pp. 106-128 (23pp)

Erasmus, Desiderius, Martin Luther, E. Gordon Rupp, A. N. Marlow, Philip S. Watson, and Benjamin Drewery. Luther and Erasmus : Free Will and Salvation. London: S.C.M. Press, 1969. pp. 41-42, 89-91, 139-143 (10pp)

Gaita, Raimond. The Philosopher's Dog. London: Routledge, 2003, pp. 39-64 (26pp)

Gregersen, Niels Henrik. "Trial and Temptation: An Essay in the Multiple Logics of Faith." Theology Today 57, no. 3 (2000): 325-343. (18pp)

Gregory, of Nyssa. "On the Making of Man." In Select Writings and Letters, Tr., with Prolegomena, Notes and Indices, by W. Moore and H.A. Wilson ed. William Moore and H.A. Wilson,. Oxford, 1893, pp. 387-406 (19pp)

Irigaray, Luce. "Equal to Whom?" In The Postmodern God : A Theological Reader, ed. Graham Ward, 198-213. Cambridge, Mass. ; Oxford: Blackwell, 1998, pp. 198-213 (15pp)

James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience : A Study in Human Nature Penguin Classics. New York ; London: Penguin Books, 1985, pp. 485-519 (35pp)

Jensen, Michael P. "In Spirit and in Truth - Can Charles Taylor Help the Woman at the Well Find Her Authentic Self?" Studies in Christian Ethics 21, no. 3, (2008), 325-341 (16pp)

Jensen, Michael P. "White Teeth and the New Humanity." Sydney: CASE, 2004. (8pp)

Kafka, Franz, and Nahum Norbert Glatzer. The Complete Short Stories of Franz Kafka. London: Vintage, 2005, pp. 150-177 (27pp)

Moltmann, Jürgen. The Coming of God : Christian Eschatology. London: SCM Press, 1996, pp.323-339 (17pp)

Taylor, Charles. The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991, pp. 25-29 (5pp)

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. "Human Being: Individual and Social." In The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine, ed. C.E.Gunton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 158-188 (30pp)

Volf, Miroslav. Work in the Spirit : Toward a Theology of Work. New York ; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991, pp. 89-122 (34pp)

Williams, Rowan. ‘Being Alone’ in Open to Judgement : Sermons and Addresses. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1994, pp. 143-149 (7pp)

Bizarrely, more Turretin

Turretin argues strongly that the doctrines of faith and practices can be legitmately proved by 'consequences' drawn from Scripture. Which is to say: the lack of an express word of Scripture about a certain doctrine is not a sufficient argument to countersay the claim it makes. Turretin points to the famous heretics of the church who have used exactly this strategy - the Arians and the Macedonians in particular. The Arians denied the homoousion just because it was not contained in so many words in Scripture (says FT). Gregory of Naziansus called the Macedonian (who denied the divinity of the Spirit) 'an ABC Sophist and a pettifogger of words'. In Turretin's time, he observed this strategy being used by his Catholic opponents.

A thing may be in Scripture kata lexin or kata dianoian: expressly, or implicitly. To say that all things necessary for Christian doctrine are contained in Scripture and that Scripture is sufficient means the latter rather than the former. So the sufficiency and perfection of the Scriptures does not consist in their condemning all errors and heresies by name, but only in their announcing all positive doctrines clearly (1.12.7).

Turretin could point to a number of evidences for the use of consequences to establish authoritative teaching and practice - and even the practice of Jesus and the apostles as they read the OT. Proving that Jesus was the Messiah was not a matter of explicit statement in the OT, but rather inference.

It is appropriate for the theologian to use reason in the development of consequences from Scripture because, though fallible reason is an inappropriate foundation for knowledge, it is a suitable instrument for it. In adducing theological conclusions, there is need for faith and the operation of the Holy Spirit; but reason may be the means for the operation of these. So:

Although reason concurs in educing consequences, it does not follow that faith is established by reason; as, although faith cometh by hearing, yet the senses are not the foundation of faith; faith uses readon, is not built upon it. It uses it as an instrument of application and mode of knowledge, but is not built upon it as a foundation and rule of things to be believed.

All wonderful and interesting stuff.

William Perkins: the Golden Chaine

Here is the great Elizabethan 'Puritan' (it is a somewhat anachronistic term) William Perkins on Scripture and Theology:

The body of Scripture is a doctrine sufficient to live well. It comprehendeth many holy sciences, whereof one is principal, others are handmainds or retainers. The principal science is theology. Theology is the science of living blessedly for ever. Blessed life ariseth from the knowledge of God and therefore it ariseth likewise from the knowledge of ourselves, because we know God by looking into ourselves. Theology has two parts: the first of God, the second of his works.

You can see Calvin's great opening to the Institutes coming back here. The emphasis on theology as a practical science and not just a theoretical one is a theme that comes from Calvin and returns in Turretin, too.

Introducing... Francis Turretin

I have been researching the doyen of Reformed Scholastic theologians, Francis Turretin, for a course called Reformed Greats. Of course, Richard A Muller's writings have been my constant companion on the journey.

Descended from Italian stock, Francis Turretin was the son of a leading Swiss theologian, Benedict Turretin, who had himself been a proponent of the kind of Calvinism formulated at the Synod of Dordt. Though he was educated in a variety of European faculties – Leiden, Utrecht, Paris, Saumer, Montaubon and Nimes – Turretin was a man of Geneva through and through. He was born and died in the city, and spent the greater part of his career there.

Appointed the pastor of the Italian congregation in Geneva in 1647, he became a professor of theology in 1653. He was a co-sponsor of the Helvetic Formula Consensus (1675), in which the views of Moses Amyraut were rejected – and which all candidates for the ministry were required to sign. His major work, the four volume Institutes of Elenctic Theology were published in 1688.

Turretin provides a great example of a rigorous attempt to think through the prolegomena to theology - a topic the Reformers had somewhat neglected. What kind of thinking is theology? It can be considered either systematically as a discipline or, more subjectively, as 'a habit residing in the intellect'. Systematically, theology can be classified as doctrine. But Turretin insists that the types of mental disposition or habitus need an analysis. The question is: what habit of mind leads to the due reception of the doctrine of the church for our salvation?

Turretin outlines a trio of mental dispositions - knowing, believing and supposing. For each habit or disposition there is an appropriate act of assent. If assent depends on reasoning, then the habit in question is scientia; if it depends on testimony, then the habit is fides; if it is a question of opinion or probability, the opinio. (I am cribbing from Muller here).

Theology appears to depend for assent on testimony, and so its habit is that of fides. Theology is only roughly similar to scientia-type disciplines - it has a supernatural basis stemming from divine revelation, and it mixes both pratical and theoretical knowledge in a way unlike the intellectual disciplines.

It's the truth

Ok, so it's been a long, long time between blogging drinks. I have to say, I lost my blogging mojo for a while there. Went on holidays...



While there, I read Raimond Gaita's A Common Humanity, and was struck there by an intriguing essay on truth and knowledge. Gaita asks: are we entitled to dismiss the claims of the flat earth society without even investigating them? Ought the teaching of David Irvine, holocaust-denier extraordinaire, be suppressed? Or ought we allow him full airplay and answer his claims one-by-one? Can I just dismiss climate change sceptic Ian Plimer - or does his mantra 'you aren't a scientist!' actually mean I can say nothing? Trouble is of course, I am called upon to have an opinion on these matters in which I am clearly not even remotely expert. Neutrality isn't possible. Given that I am interested in believing what is true and not being fooled - what am entitled to believe?



See, the thing is: I bet Irvine would have me for breakfast in a debate. He knows far more about German history than I ever will. He is an experienced debater and speaker. He has spent years with the sources. Likewise, I am sure that a flat-earth society member can marshall geological arguments far better than I will be able to. Plimer would chew me up and spit me out.



So am I entitled to just dismiss their claims out of hand? Isn't this unscholarly, and even dishonest? And further: isn't it the case that great scientific advances in the past have frequently come from mavericks, eccentrics and oddballs? If I dismiss Irving and the flat-earthers, could it not be said of me that I would also have dismissed a Galileo or a Luther?



Well perhaps. But the fact that mavericks are sometimes right does not mean that mavericks are always or even usually right. In fact, the opposite is the case. Human knowledge is a shared exercise, necessarily. It depends on many small acts of trust. We ought to recognise this and be appropriately modest about what we claim. Scholarly consensus CAN be skewed, or plain wrong. Truth is not an exercise in democracy. But that does not entitle us to dismiss what the clear majority of experts are saying in our time. And we are completely entitled to treat Irving, and flat earthers as eccentrics and oddballs.



Further, the nature of the human grasp of the truth is that there will always be space for Irvings and Plimers. Scientific knowledge proceeds far more precariously and contentiously than we sometimes imagine - let alone the business of history. The very nature of the way we know things - indirectly, by report, by building on premises we haven't got time to test, by following the best opinions to which we have access - means that it will always be possible to through mud in the air.



Which leads me to creation science. Am I entitled to dismiss the claims of the creation science movement? Creation scientists (so-called) have an enormous amount of apparently scientific and apparently theological detail at their disposal. Some very intelligent people with degrees in the appropriate areas hold to young earth creationist views. It is sometimes the case that the wider scientific community has got important data wrong. Consensus hasn't always worked as a lodestone for the truth.

But that doesn't make young earth creation science right, or even remotely plausible. In fact quite the opposite is the case. It trades on the uncertainty we have with all knowledge, and uses some highly charged theological rhetoric to bully Christians into believing it. I think it actually that it is high time that evangelical Christians stopped tolerating it in our midst. We have to stop saying 'some very godly people hold to this view' as if this some excuse for it. The godliness of the people concerned is not the point. We don't have to embrace unchecked credulity when it comes to what scientists claim as an alterative.

Frank Turner on John Henry Newman

In preparation for teaching in 2010, I have been reading Frank Turner's biography of John Henry Newman. Last year I read Ian Ker's biography, which was as detailed as it was unenlightening- comprehensive, but lacking in insight.

Turner is quite the opposite. He seeks to understand the Newman of the Oxford movement, before his self-justifying autobiography Apologia Pro Vita Sua and his own revisions of his early works. His view is that the early Newman was driven chiefly by a visceral hatred of evangelicalism.

Here is Turner:

Asceticism, not antierastianism, lay at the core of Tractarianism. more than any othe rsingle factor, the desire for the pursuit of obedience through novel, ascetic devotional practices led Newman and the others first to reject evangelical theology as manifested among both Dissenters and fellow members of the Church of England, then to press for a broader reading of the 39 Articles, an dfinally to undertake a monastic experiment with the English Church. (p. 109)

Tractarian hostilty to evangelical teaching on justification by faith, ecclesiology, scripture's authority and assurance were at the centre of the movement, then. Turner reminds us that in Victorian England the evangelical movement was at its height in and out of the established church. It is hard to believe that if you have grown up in the mid/late twentieth century context, in which Liberal Catholic Anglicans convinced the Anglican world that its novelties were traditional and that evangelicalism was aberrant and somehow 'not Anglican'.

Gender and langauge

My recent article on Unleashed prompted some of the most inane commentary I have ever read. I really didn't think the article was that complicated, but the point seems to have eluded most of the commenters.

One person even chided me for using the feminine pronoun in this paragraph:

The scholar with this sort of claim - and believe me, they aren't modest about it - imagines herself sublimely objective in this, uniquely capable of divesting herself of all vestiges of her home culture and its variety of faith.

This was, she claimed, further evidence of Sydney Anglican misogyny. Because I had chosen the feminine pronoun to describe a generic person who I was viewing negatively, ergo, I am being chauvanistic. She said 'gender-neutrality' is the only way forward here.

I accept the diagnosis that gender-specific langauge is problematic and needs to be changed as far as possible, especially in cases where no specific gender is meant. Consistently to say 'he' when I mean 'a person' is not a pratice I wish to continue. I cannot fathom why people insist that their Bible translations continue to display a gender-specificity not found even in the original languages.

However, I don't think gender-neutrality is desirable or even possible. Human beings are gendered! Added to which, the gender-neutral options (h/she, they etc) are clunky. So, my solution - and it is certainly not my original solution - is to alternate 'he' and 'she'. That means that sometimes a 'she' will be a villain. Fair enough?

I have seen this practice in academic writing all over the world, though not universally.

I don't think this will work with 'Man' as a generic term, however. It is still the case that if you said 'Woman' when you meant 'Humankind' you would miscommunicate. And I note that Germaine Greer recently said 'mankind' on TV!

BTW, my absolute pet hate when in comes to prescriptive changes in linguistic usage is the word 'Godself' as the alternative to the reflexive pronoun 'Himself'. It makes me want to barf with the self-conscious holier-than-thou political correctness of it.

The Humanity of God - Karl Barth

What does it mean to speak of 'the humanity of God'? Barth says:

...it is bound to mean God's relation to and turning towards man. It signifies the God who speaks with man in his promise and command. It represents God's existence, intercession, and activity for man, the intercourse God holds with him, and the free grace in which He wills to be and is nothing other than the God of man.

In the nineteenth century, theology spoke rather of the divinity of man. This was disastrous for theology, as it was indeed for the whole culture. In response, the dialectical theology of the 1920s sought to recapture the deity of God - his abosolute otherness and strangeness to humankind. That is: 'God's independence and particular character, no only in relation to the natural but also to the spiritual cosmos; God's absolutely unique existence, might and initiative, above all, in His relation to man.'

If this is to be developed or revised, it is in no way the case that this God-ness of God is to be jettisoned. But Barth admits that it was still the case that in this return to God's deity there was the possibility that all human activity and even existence would be rendered void. What he needed to remember was that God's sovereignty is a matter of God's sovereign togetherness with man - grounded absolutely and utterly in God alone, but a togetherness with man nonetheless. It is precisely God's deity which, rightly understood, includes his humanity.

This is of course a Christological statement. Actually, if we had begun (says Barth) from Christology the problem would have been non-existent. In Christ man and God are not isolated from one another - we see man exalted and God humbled in this one Person. And Jesus Christ is the Revealer of them both - he tells us what, or who, God is, and he also declares what or who Man is. In the existence of Jesus Christ there is no doubt that the priority rests with the free action of God in his condescension. 'Superiority preceding subordination.'

BUT: God's freedom in Jesus Christ is his freedom for love. God's sovereignty is what it is in light of his love for people. 'God's deity is thus no prison in which He can exist only in and for Himself'. [This seems to be counter to the emphasis in some latter US New Calvinist thought, which pictures God as always utterly self-reflexively self-interested.] When we look at Jesus we can see that God's deity includes (therefore) his humanity. In God's deity there is enough room for communion with man. God does not exist without man - not because God has any need for man to be truly God, or because in any sense he exists merely for the human being, but becasue it is in fact the case that he chooses to be with man as his partner.

So: 'in this divinely free volition and election, in this sovereign decision... God is human.'

Imagine no religion

At ABC unleashed - my article.

Let the thing be what it is

Two questions to ask pastors:

1) Why is it that in wedding sermons these days almost no mention is made of marriage and that the wedding sermon is a naked attempt to sneak in an evangelistic talk to the pagan relatives? Isn't this almost entirely counterproduction AND an opportunity to reflect on scripture's teaching about marriage lost? And why does such a sermon have to go for 20+ minutes - it's a wedding for heaven's sake!

2) Why, on the one day of the year that non-church goers venture into a church building, that day when they come in the (it turns out) vain hope that they might get to sing some Christmas carols, do we insist on singing as few Christmas carols as possible? What the?

Lifted by Sam Allberry

A new book has just been published by IVP in the UK on a subject that will immediately interest any Christian.

It’s on the resurrection. It’s called Lifted, and it’s written by Sam Allberry, whom I got to know in Oxford. Sam has had a powerful ministry amongst undergraduates at Oxford University for a number years. And he knows how to cook Thai food like no-one else I know.

Sam hasn’t just written about the details though – about the eyewitnesses and the empty tomb and the appearances and so on. He tells us of how, as he started to consider the Bible’s teaching about the implications of the resurrection, whole new vistas opened up before him:

It has shed light on a Christian landscape that I’d spent so much time in without even realizing it. The contours, twists and turns that I’ve been navigating for years – sometimes with frustration, sometimes with exhilaration – are now more visible. I can now make sense of them in the light of this extraordinary doctrine. The truth and reality of the resurrection illuminates the detail of so much of our everyday Christian experience.

It’s a book about having a changed perspective, because we can see how things really are. That’s what the resurrection of Jesus gives us. This experience then drives the books four chapters: ‘Assurance’ ‘Hope’ ‘Transformation’ ‘Mission’.

I think the chapter I found most helpful was the one on hope:

The Bible speaks of hope as something we have. It is about looking forward to something that is certain. I have the hope of eternity with Christ. We still don’t control the thing for which we have hope, but God does and has promised eternity to us. There is no degree of risk or disappointment. This hope cannot be frustrated by anyone. Unlike all our other expressions of hope, this is hope that won’t disappoint us (as Paul says in Romans 5:5). It is guaranteed by God himself and bears his signature: the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. This sort of hope makes living possible, for it gives us a future. Part of what makes us human is the ability to consider the future. We can’t help but be conscious of it. And we need to be. We need to have a future which is, to some extent, sorted out. We need to have hope.

All Christian people need to know the great joy of living in the light of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Sam has done us all a favour in writing such a engaging and readable book about such a vital subject. It is by turns amusing, moving, encouraging and profound. Truly, Sam helps us to look to a familiar horizon with fresh eyes. Lifted is a book that could easily form the centre of a discussion group, but any individual reader will be – well, ‘lifted’! – by what they find here.

Psalm 119:89-96 audio

Psalm 119:89-96

Psalm 119:9-16 audio

Psalm 119:9-16

5. Psalm 119:9-16

5. The beginning of an affair: learning to love the Bible
Can the words of this Psalm become our words? Can we see where he is coming from? We live in very different circumstances to this Psalmist – but we have the same God who speaks. For him ‘the word of God’ meant the Bible he had, which was the first five books of our Bible. But even from them he knew God as a God who promises and commands, a God whose word is powerful to create and powerful to redeem.

Of course we now know this reality in 3D – because we have in Jesus Christ the final and decisive and most glorious Word of God, whom the law and the prophets foretold. We know from him not only that God is holy and righteous, and takes our sin very seriously, but also that he is merciful and kind and will in him forgive us our sin and lead us into all kinds of acts of righteousness. When come to the word about Jesus Christ we find that God himself meets us there. And so even more than this nerdy Psalmist, we have reason to delight in the word of God!

So – how can we learn to love the Bible like this guy does?
1. We need to remember the remarkable benefits we have from this book. We have in it an insight into the mind of our creator. We have in it his means of telling us, turning us and tethering us to himself. We have no other lifeline than we find here in its pages, no better guidance. We can’t live on bread alone – but we need the word of God. And here we have it! How could we ignore it?

2. It is right to have habits and practices that embed the word of God into your life – that make it part of you. We are rightly afraid of a dry legalism that makes us think we are right with God just because we perform certain activities. Even reading the Bible can become like that. But that shouldn’t put us off – as human beings we need all the help we can get. We get tired, distracted and bored. Like anything else, reading the Bible takes practice – and practice makes it all better.

Thirty Nine Articles - new pieces

I have been blogging vigorously on the Thirty-Nine Articles - which explains some of the extended silences here.

Article 24

Article 25

Article 26

Article 27

Article 28

Article 29

Article 30

Article 31

Article 32

Article 33

Article 34

Article 35

4. Psalm 119:9-16

4. The Word in heart bursts out through delighted lips vs 13-16
So, in the second half of our passage today we see that the Psalmist can’t contain himself – his heart, filled with the word of God overflows onto his delighted lips. He puts the laws that come from the mouth of God into his own mouth, and recounts them, speaking them aloud to himself (vs 13). He ‘rejoices in following your statutes as one rejoices in great riches’ (vs 14) – he’s like a lottery winner in his elation. As he reads and mediates, he rejoices and delights. And why wouldn’t he, knowing what these words contain – not condemnation, but life.

That word ‘meditate’ distracts us a bit, because we are used to associating it with the more Eastern practice of meditation, in which you are supposed to clear your mind of all words and thoughts and listen to the sound of one hand clapping (or whatever it is), or by humming a mantra, which is a meaningless sound like ‘Om’.
In Biblical faith, there is a place for solitary contemplation. But in the Bible, meditation is inescapably a verbal thing – it is always a matter of relating the Word of God, since that is how God chooses to relate to us. Its focus is the text and what it says. If God has revealed himself in words, then the way to know him and to be known by him is not to rid yourself of words – rather, it is to immerse yourself in them. If these words have a divine origin, then to know God is to know these words – and to know them deeply is to know God deeply.

And what our ancient poet does is to read these words aloud to himself. Truth be told, the practice of silent reading is a relatively recent one – about 1000 years old. Ancient libraries would have been very noisy places, because even reading to yourself was still reading aloud. But there’s something we miss by not reading aloud – when we read or sing or recite the words of God, the words in a sense become our words. These words are not magic formulas, or spells – but when we say them, even if only to ourselves, they are powerful and effective. These words can so possess us that they become our words.

New Moore site!

Hey, I shoulda said so a week or so back -

but Moore College has an exciting new very Newtowny website.

One of the absolute highlights is the 'featured resources' section - in which you can access mp3s of talks and sermons given at Moore over a period of 30 or 40 years or so. Look out for a lecture by Helmut Thielicke which should be popping up soon.

3. Psalm 119:9-16

3. The Word in the Heart has power to keep us walking in God’s way (vs 9-12)
And though he doesn’t make any mention of those events here in Psalm 119, that’s the background – that’s the God whose word it is he is celebrating. It’s a word of grace and power.

You can see that in these first few verses of today’s section – vs 9-12. He starts out here with a very important question: How can those who are young keep their way pure? This is not so much a question for the young person; but rather, it is the question you might ask as you see your life stretching before you: ‘how can I, over all those years ahead, preserve my life in purity and holiness? How can I, knowing the weakness of my own flesh and how vulnerable I am, hope to live God’s way?’
It’s a powerful question, isn’t it? The Psalmist knows how prone he is like all of us to ‘stray from your commands’. Keeping ourselves from sin isn’t within our human power. Have you ever considered how impossible it is to stop ourselves from the ingrained habits of a lifetime? To give away our instinctive tendency to tell lies; or to master our anger; or to stop our habit of tearing others down?

And so, he says ‘I seek you with all my heart…’ (vs 10). But he knows, too, that he can only do that as the word is hidden in his heart (vs 11). It is only as he takes God’s word on board that he is enabled to know what it is to not sin against God – to live the way he is supposed to. Allowing the word of God to inhabit him is exactly the way to keep his ways pure.

So what does ‘hiding the word of God in his heart’ mean? It means more than knowing the right answers to a Bible quiz. Now, I am a minister’s son – and so I grew up with a pretty good grasp of who was who and what was what in the text of the Bible. I could win the Christian Studies prize no trouble. But having the word in your mind is not the same as having it in your heart. Your heart is a way of speaking about your desires and intentions: the things you want and long for. And so: hiding the word of God in your heart means letting that word not just into your head but into your very being.

But there’s something we need to add to this picture. Notice that even though he is active in learning, it is God who he wants to teach him (vs 12). In the Bible, God’s word is the means by which he does things. How does he create the world, after all? We hear in Hebrews that the Word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword. It’s dynamic. A friend of mine explains it by saying that God’s word tells us, but it also turns us and tethers us. That is: it isn’t just that we hear information about God when he speaks to us. In his word, we actually encounter him – and he himself works on us as we read it, changing us to be more like him and binding us to himself.

It’s powerful, this word. And you can begin to see why this guy loves it so much: because it isn’t of rules that he can’t ever keep. In these words he finds the power to keep him walking God’s way.

2. Psalm 119:9-16

2. This guy really loves the word of God
For the guy who wrote Psalm 119, there is no question about what really cooks his breakfast: it is the word of God. It isn’t just that he likes it: he is fascinated by it.

For one thing, he keeps telling us quite explicitly how he delights in the law of God throughout his Psalm – in verse 16, 24, 35, 47, 70, 77, 92, 143, 174.

But that’s not all – a closer look at this Psalm shows that is a lovingly-constructed love song to the word of God. It’s a long song, too – the longest single chapter in the Bible. But being so long doesn’t mean that the details have been rushed. It is like a carefully-made tapestry, with stitching so fine that you don’t notice it at first. But look more closely and you can see the care and the fine handiwork that has woven the pieces together with expert needlework.

For one thing, the Psalm is an acrostic poem – which is to say that each little section of about eight lines begins with a different letter of the Hebrew alphabet, in alphabetical order. You can see that from the way it is printed in the pew Bibles. This week we are going to focus on the second of those sections, the ‘B’ section. What’s more – and this is something that would take a very skilled translator to get into English – each verse of each section begins with the corresponding letter. So it sounds a guess a little like those Dr Seuss alphabet books, but not as child-like as that.

But another thing about this poem is that the Psalmist has got eight special words that he plays with all through the Psalm. And they are ‘word’ Words – words that have to do with the word.
So: law, statutes, precepts, decrees, commands, laws, word, and promise.

In each verse at least one of these words appears ¬– so you can see that in today’s section, which is titled ‘Beth’ after Hebrew letter for B, each verse has one of the 'word' words. And what is even more clever – in almost every section, he manages to use all eight of the ‘word’ words. He shuffles through the whole deck of them each time. It’s like a pattern of colours repeating over and over.

It’s a virtuoso performance, in a kind of obsessive compulsive way. But it isn’t just a case of him being a complete smarty pants. There is a tender care for his workmanship here. This guy really, really loves the word of God – he is fascinated by it. And he doesn’t just tell us that – he shows it to us in the way he has constructed his love song to the word. He wants us to slow down and take it in.

I have to admit though, that I have always been a little put off by his enthusiasm. I never really ‘got’ it. What is he seeing that I am not seeing?

I think it is the word English word ‘law’ that has put me off, and probably seems strange to us all. What do you think of when you think of ‘laws’? I think of parking police and school principals and rugby referees. For us, laws are the frames around our lives. They define our limits.

But the word ‘law’ in the Bible has a far richer and more positive meaning. It doesn’t just mean ‘the rules’. It means the whole record of God’s dealings with his people – seeking them out to make them a people. For this writer, he would have especially thought of the time of the Exodus, when God brought the Israelites out of Egypt and led them into the Promised Land, even though they were at that time a nation of slaves. Then he took them to Mount Sinai and gave them his law – how they were to respond to him and to live as his people. He called them to obey him because he had saved them. These words are words of grace.

1. 119:9-16 The Word that Delights: Why the Word of God can make your heart sing

1. Do you love the Bible?
Do you love the Bible? I mean really love it? Do you delight in it?
I am not sure I know how would answer that question myself. I believe the Bible. I study it. I think it is true, and authoritative. I even think that in it, God speaks to us – it is his written Word.

But love it?

That sounds a bit too nerdy – a bit too much like saying to your maths teacher that you love your maths text book. Or writing a letter to the Department of the Treasury saying how much you enjoy paying your taxes this year - and thanks so much for the opportunity.
I don’t know what you delight it – it might be that you delight in your children, or your spouse, or in your work, or in your passion for a sport or hobby. Or it might be that your heart sings when you remember a certain possession you own – a car or a house, perhaps, or even something much less expensive than that.

To love something, we know, means that your instinctive attention is given to it. When your delight is in something you don’t need to think about it – you are drawn to it. The thing you delight in is almost a part of you. People who know you know that this is your delight because it shapes your waking moments. Your direction in life is governed by what your love is. It’s your whole being that is taken over by it.

My grandfather’s great passion was for golf. He was a printer by trade, but that was not the thing in which he delighted so much as the time he could spend on the golf course. He quite liked his grandchildren, too, and enjoyed them – but really, it was golf. I remember his joy when he was able to play golf again without pain after he had a hip replacement, and I caddied for him as he won the C grade championship at his club at aged 76. You could see the delight on his face.

But to have that kind of pleasure in the Bible? That feels a little intense, doesn’t it?

Help my unbelief...

1. Introduction: To those whose patron saint is Thomas...
Wherever there has been belief, there has also been doubt. And yet Christians are often ashamed to admit to doubts and have difficulty articulating the nature of their doubts. Because faith itself is personal (and not merely propositional), the sting of doubt is in the way it attacks us personally. This book will address doubt as a spiritual condition, rather than particular doubts. In doing so, we will also need to consider what faith itself is, and how a Christian may claim assurance.
Part One
Reasons for Doubt? An Anatomy of the 21st Century Soul
2. I Can’t Trust Myself
Much Christian doubting comes not from doubting God but from doubting one’s self. If my heart is infinitely self-deceiving, then how can I believe that I have faith? How can I trust that I trust, if part of what I believe is my essential untrustworthiness? The journey into the interior world of the self does not leave us feeling very confident either. Although it is a very contemporary problem in many ways, we introduce Augustine of Hippo here as a fellow traveler when it comes to self-mistrust. His own journey into the centre of the self stands as a warning and an encouragement to those of us who doubt ourselves.
3. Numb
Feeling nothing towards God – even while still affirming the truths of the Christian faith – is a form of doubt which many Christians experience. It is a disbelief in God’s ongoing action in the world. Do I still have faith if I feel nothing?
4. What is Truth?
In an age of far too much information, how can we know what is true anymore? If people interpret the Bible so differently, then what chance have we got of getting it right?
5. My Enemies Surround Me
Many of the Psalms cry out to God from the situation of being attacked by enemies. In the contemporary West, this feeling of being surrounded is still there and still potential lethal for faith, though the nature of the attack is very different?
6. Because it hurts
Will my faith survive a terrible episode of grief and suffering? Will suffering make it all seem impossible? Is suffering proof of my lack of faith?
7. Is Doubt Sinful?
Perhaps we dignify doubt by giving it a kind of aura of authenticity. While it is certainly the case that some doubts are just due to the fact that we worship an invisible God, it is possible for doubt to be a kind of wilful refusal to acknowledge the truth about God. James, Jesus’ brother, seems quite clear on the detrimental effects of doubt. How can we know our doubt is sinful in fact?

Part Two
Believing Again
9. Learning to Walk Again
A period of doubt can be crippling for the Christian. How can I find my feet again? What directions are there for getting back on track?
10. Hearing
Faith itself is not so much a matter of seeing but of hearing – hearing especially the promises of God. The ears, as Luther said, are the organ of the Christian.
11. Waiting
The Christian life consists of a lot of waiting – and yet waiting is one of the things we fear to do most of all. It sounds so passive. And yet Christian waiting is an extremely active business.
12. Getting the Feeling Back
While experience is not the ground of Christian assurance in my knowing that the gospel is for me ought there not be some growing affection for God?
13. Worth Believing In?
Ultimately, what at issue in doubt is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ in whom we are called to have faith. Is he trustworthy, good and powerful to save?

Eternity magazine

You may not have seen Eternity magazine yet.

But I think they are doing a really good job - the second issue is an improvement on the first, and the first was good. It's a freebie - just go to the website and you can order it for your church anywhere in Oz.

In this month's issue, I have written an article about God and laughter.

Movember

Two articles

Is Scripture Clear? Ten Ideas on the Clarity of Scripture is over at Anglican Media.

Peace for our time?, my piece on the end of Communism, is now at ABC Unleashed.

Church order

Article 34 of the Thirty-Nine Articles (Of the Traditions of the Church) reads thus:

It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one or utterly alike; for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's word.

So - there is here envisaged a liturgical flexibility. Modifications can and should be made for the customs of the place. Christians do not meet according to a rigidly fixed pattern, or aping the historical dress and customs of a time gone by. But the principle is normative, not regulative: that is, freedom is allowed insofar as it is constrained by God's word, rather than it being dictated lock stock and barrel by it. Indeed, the last sentence of the article is this:

Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying.

So: have confirmation, or don't have confirmation (for example).

But the middle section of the article reads:

Whosoever through his private judgement willingly and purposely doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church which be not repugnant to the word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly that other may fear to do the like, as he that offendeth against common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the magistrate, and woundeth the conscience of the weak brethren.

That is: even though there is a freedom for individual national churches to change the style (for want of a better word) of their services - and indeed they ought to do so - it is also most definitely NOT a matter of private judgement. It is not a matter of the local clergy varying the practices without authorisation and/or consultation. Why is that? Because of the weak consciences of the faithful and because the authority so set up is undermined by the practice.

Notice that, while on the one hand there is not a whiff that the agreed liturgical practice is soteriologically significant, or that it can't be varied or even radically changed, this is not in tension with the importance of maintaining church order. In a lot of discussions about church practices that I hear, this subtlety is not expressed. Church order is the way in which each church or fellowship of churches puts into practice the kind of teaching we receive from Paul in 1 Corinthians 8-14. It does not substitute for that teaching: it expresses it, for ''God is not a God of chaos but of peace." The church's observance of ordered corporate worship is a reflection of the character of God himself. (Ordered doesn't mean 'formal', by the way, or not relaxed, or inauthentic. It just means that things are done in the meeting are consistent with the purpose of mutual edification.)

Note that that the sacraments are practiced is certainly not optional as far as the Articles are concerned - because these were rites not instituted by man's authority, but by the Lord (see Articles 25-31). It is hard to see how anyone could possibly argue that the sacraments themselves are optional, or merely 'helpful', and remain Anglican in any meaningful sense. But how the sacraments might be practiced may indeed be varied on the condition that this is not a matter of private judgement - because of the kind of troubling disorder that reflects badly on the God whose name we seek to honour. (I hasten to add that the Articles certainly don't make this a free for all. Those practices which communicate an essentially Roman Catholic view of the Supper it does not endorse: elevating the host, carrying it about and so on. All of these are flagrantly ignored in much Anglican practice I have to say. The history of the Oxford movement involved, bizarrely, a good deal of disregard for church order in the name of ... church order.)

Let me summarise: you can have an agreed on church order, and take that order seriously, without suggesting that observance of that order is somehow a matter of salvation, or a work that we think accrues some kind of merit for us. And you shouldn't just break from church order just because it suits you, without proper regard for the fellowship of churches in which you operate. And churches should be innovate and liberating in allowing various ways in which order can be expressed, too.

Right?

On Psalm 119 modified

Ok, how's this:

Psalm 119: The Inexhaustible Word: Why the Word of God has Everything You Need fo Joy, Safety and Direction

119:9-16 The Word that Delights: Why the Word of God can make your heart sing
119:90-96 The Word that Preserves: How the Word of God can save your life
119:105-112 The Word that Guides: How the Word of God can shape your destiny

On Psalm 119

I am preparing a sermon series on Psalm 119. And it's tougher than it looks!

Psalm 119: The Inexhaustible Word

119:9-16 The Word that Delights
119:90-96 The Word that Preserves
119:105-112 The Word that Guides

Pretty dull, huh?

any help?

On Suffering

Three friends of mine, Noel Debien, David Hohne, Andrew Sloane, speak on theodicy on the ABC, along with Carolyn Martin.

On Theological Idiosyncrasies

I am a Protestant. In principle and in practice, I am committed to the authority of scripture - wherever that may take me. That means living with some doctrinal and hermeneutical difficulties, perhaps - but there is a humility in saying that no system or institution is paramount here. In principle, I am open to being convinced that the Bible is saying something other than what I - and perhaps even a large swathe of Christians through history - thought it always had.

The christian academic/theologian is given the gift of time by the church - time to think and write and articulate the great truths of the Christian faith. Necessarily, he or she is given a certain freedom of inquiry - to follow where the scriptures may lead as much as possible without fear or favour. But he/she also exists and teaches within a community of context, to which he/she is responsible, and for whom practices and confessions have been framed in order to preserve true teaching from false.

So: consider this possibility: the theologian/biblical scholar becomes convinced in the course of his/her study that Scripture teaches something that doesn't seem to be reflected in the teaching and practices of the church to which he or she belongs. Romans 7 is really about the pre-Christian life (for example). Or, say, annihilationism is theologically and scripturally justified. Or, the Lord's Supper is a fellowship tea. (NB these are not necessarily positions I hold).

What, then to do?

I would like to think that a Protestant and Reformed mentality allows for the discussion of idiosyncratic positions, so long as there are held to be Scriptural. But (I this is the point of the post) they ought to be recognised as idiosyncratic by the holder of them. The teacher of an idiosyncratic point of view ought to have the integrity to admit to the idiosyncratic and untested nature of the position, until he or she can convince others.

Right?

Music in Church in the 21st Century: part 2 - 'if music be the food of love...'

In my previous post, I put forward the tentative thesis, disguised as someone else's, that 'folk' music was the best way to describe the form of music that ought to be found in churches. It is a particular expression of a theology of church of course. It is missional, in that adapts to local conditions; it is non-elite, in that it is accessible by the community without asking extraordinary skill or learning (thus reflecting the priesthood of all believers); it is open to being sanctified for its use by the Christian community.

Necessarily, some forms of music are going to be excluded from this because they are not aesthetically shaped to the purpose of singing together to God. While no particular form of music is commanded or sanctified in scripture, as we try to adapt different forms of music to use in Christian fellowship as expressions of common life we will soon realise that some styles are just so ill-suited they will never work.

In each age, certain musical styles offer themselves in different ways for adaption for use in church meetings. The traditional tunes that we find used in 'Be Thou My Vision' or 'A Mighty Fortress is Our God' are already deeply embedded in the history and culture of the community from which they emerged as an expression of commonality - the pride and security of togetherness is the note they immediately sound. These features really work for church music because of the overlap - Christians want to express precisely those feelings and truths about their God. The return of Celtic-sounding melodies in the music of Townend and Getty works because we associate that style of music with rousing fellow-feeling. If anything, the danger is that it is a little militaristic - they all sound like national anthems in the end!

In our day, the popular song is the form that we find ourselves most aping in our church music. The popular song is nicely fit for purpose when it comes to church music, too - but in a different way. I would want to argue that popular songs of the 20th century are all about love and desire. When we hear a popular song, we immediately associate it with this erotic theme. The singer is an individual singing about his or her longing or loss. That's the genre: when the Beatles play around with this genre and singing about Walruses and whathaveyou, we recognise that this stretching of the genre is taking place, and ride with it. The music of U2 is an interesting case of course: they express desire and love, but most often it isn't for another human being. It is often suggestive of a desire for God....

And this is quite apt. The Psalms give us this theme of longing and desire for God. We Christians recognise that the popular song is a ready-made vehicle for the expression of longing and desire for God, because we instantly think of this when we hear it.

However, this is where the pitfalls lie, too. Since the 1930s the popular song has revealed itself to be capable of quite complex and even profound expressions of grown-up and mature emotions. But it has also been the musical vehicle for short-cuts to emotional fruition. It has lent itself to cheesiness - to the trite, the cheap, the quick, and the disposable. It has a tendency to be an adolescent form of music for expressing adolescent experiences - challenging no-one about anything. It can be extremely limited as a mode.

And while the popular song expresses much of what we might want to say to God, it doesn't capture all of the gestures and attitudes that are available to us...

Music in Church in the 21st Century: my paper for TWIST

This Saturday I will be giving a seminar at TWIST, EMU Music's conference to be held at Angel Place in the city.

Here's my blurb:

The influence of popular music since the invention of mass recording is inescapable, even in the church. But has it always been for the good? Are there forms of music that are by their nature unsuitable for use in singing the praises of God? Should the church just make use of whatever it finds in the culture around it? (Have you noticed that church music now sounds like Coldplay?) Can, and should, new forms of music emerge from the corporate worship of the church? How will good theology influence music itself (and not just the words)? This seminar asks probing theological questions about the relationship between sacred and secular, traditional and hip.

And here's my thinking in draft form: churches have on the whole moved beyond the sacred/secular divide when it comes to styles of music. This means they have become 'post-aesthetic' - which means that they have decided that the style of music is only incidental to the business of singing in church.

Nowadays, most evangelical churches imagine themselves choosing a style of music on the basis of its cultural relevance. The right style of music, then, is the style that clicks best with the congregation of the day. Or something like that.

There are good theological instincts at work here. The Bible does not mandate a style of music, though it talks about music often and is operatically full of songs. People in the Bible are constantly singing! What is more, we recognise that the gospel does not come to us bound hard to a particular cultural expression - in fact, the missionary genius of Christianity is that it transcends cultural expressions. Church singing in Africa and church singing in Indonesia are going to be different - thank goodness.

Furthermore, a healthy doctrine of creation and a cursory glance at church history will show us that the church adapts forms of music to its uses rather than needing to invent them from scratch. So: today's beer hall song is tomorrow's Lutheran hymn; that familiar sea-shanty will be turned to use in the Methodist chapel. The creative process of course involves borrowing from the world around us.

But does this mean that church musicians are aesthetic relativists? I don't think it can mean this. We don't want to offer short-cuts here - ie, that the organ is a more sacred instrument than the electric guitar. That is just silly. No: what I mean is this. Without prescribing what the outcome is, I would expect that as music is pressed into the service of congregational singing and worship of God, it will be transformed as music. And this means that the church will continually be generating fresh styles as it puts the music it hears to holy purposes.

Which means that, while church musicians ought to be open to repeating what they hear around them, they ought also to be encouraged to innovate and develop their musical style as a reflection of what they are doing. Borrowing and transforming is one thing; aping is another.

How might this work out in practice? A preacher I greatly admire once said to me when I put the relativist/pragmatic argument forward that no, there was definitely a style for church music. He said it was 'folk music'. Now, I think there is something in this - though I am not quite sure what he meant by 'folk'! That is, a style of music that achieves a marriage between the words of praise and the use in congregational singing can never be arbitrary, though it may vary enormously over time and place. It will be 'folk', I guess, if it is in the service of the people. And it is no accident that Christians have been responsible for developing some highly original forms of music from asking 'what musical style best serves and edifies the people of God?' and 'what musical style best correlates with the words of scripture?'

Why the Philosophy of Education?

Well thanks to thoe who helped me with texts on Education.

Why was I asking? Part of working in a denominational seminary as a theologian is being available to help the denomination think theologically about some of its practices. I have had some involvement in a project on 'community' for Anglicare, the Anglican church's vast welfare arm.

One of other things we are involved in a major way of course is education. We have, in Sydney, 40 or more schools, many of which are less than 20 years old. Some of them are what you would call 'elite' private schools, but many of them are low fee-paying schools in the less-advantaged western suburbs of Sydney.

But there is no consistent thinking about what it means to be a Anglican educational institution. Or, at least, such thinking as there is is quite ad hoc. The 'Christian' component gets tacked on somewhat, by having chapel services or some such. I would guess that little sustained thought goes into thinking through the implications of theology for the curriculum, or the practice of discipline, for example. Or, to what degree do schools foster social inclusiveness.

On the other hand, the Christian schools model, insofar as it promotes a sectarian view of knowledge and of the Christian community, is not the way forward either. Furthermore, taking models from the US and trying to replicate them in Australia ignores the massive cultural and historical differences between us on the very issue of education. So - I will read Doug Wilson, for sure: he is ALWAYS interesting, perceptive, funny and ... well, eccentric. But what works in remote Idaho in the political context of Obama's America is not automatically transferrable to Oz.

So, what is needed is a bit of theological thinking about education which will help educational practioners do their job to the glory of God.

Thoughts anyone?

Theory of Education

Help me -

I need to compile a must-read reading list in the theory and philosophy of education. It ought to include classics as well as state-of-the-art works. And I am not interested in the tin-tacks of teaching: I need to get over education as a philosophy.

Any ideas?

Doubt - your experiences?

I am conducting some research into why Christians - and ex-Christians - doubt. And what helped them through it, if anything did. I'd love to have some personal testimonies here ... though doubt has some features that are common in every experience, because it is so personal doubt is very different for different folks. Things one person just lives with, the next person finds crippling.

Please feel to go anonymous if that helps.

My article on Christopher Hitchens at the SMH

It's on the online opinion section (not the print bit). It isn't a knock down or anything, but...

Feel free to join the discussion there!

Hi everyone, Here's a link to my podcast: http://thecommonroom.podOmatic.com See you there! - - Michael

Hmm ... Jensen thinks again

In my Doctrine 2 lecture today I said something like this:

Some have decided, given the plethora of reconstructions of the life of Jesus, that there is no way to access the real Jesus, no knowing the truth about his human life. Albert Schweitzer wrote in 1906, after reviewing a century of scholarship that the best we could hope for in Jesus is a subjective experience of one unknown:

[Then I quoted Schweitzer himself]:

He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lake-side, He came to those men who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same word: “Follow thou me!” and sets us to the task which He has to fulfil for our time. He commands. And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is.

A.Schweitzer, The Quest for the Historical Jesus, p.401

Well, as two students pointed out, this is not entirely a fair representation of Schweitzer's view. Schweitzer, with some confidence that the NT documents represent some contact with a 1st century reality, represented Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet of the Kingdom of God whose prophecies came to naught because of his death. The strangeness that Schweitzer speaks of is as much Jesus's weirdness in relation to our modern world - ie, he isn't after all a liberal white Frenchman (sorry Ernst Renan). My emphasis on his unknownness as a historical unreachability is, true, more characteristic of Bultmann's position.

So: got me. However, I wouldn't want to concede everything. And I have read Schweitzer (yes, Doug! though not recently...). Schweitzer concludes indeed that Jesus cannot be known by historical research but instead by the kind of Christ-mysticism proffered (he said) by Paul. Jesus' words - his ethical teaching - are what makes him transcend times and places.

My 'Open Letter to Nathan Rees' in the SMH

This weeks Anglican Media column, entitled An Open Letter to Nathan Rees has been picked up as an item of interest by the Sydney Morning Herald. Which is funny, since they rejected it in the first place!

In part, the piece was a response to the way I had heard even Christians scoffing about Nathan and his cronies. There's plenty to scoff about, but to pray for civic leaders is a recognition of who we really think is in charge...

A Lecture I gave on Torture at UNSW

Download Audio

Reading for Doctrine Two - some suggestions

Theology is a subject that requires reading – not just of lecture notes or text books but reading of stimulating and challenging theological works.

Every evangelical theological student (that means you!) MUST read J.I. Packer’s seminal article ‘What did the Cross Achieve – The Logic of Penal Substitution’. You can find it online at http://www.the-highway.com/cross_Packer.html and in other places too. The article is gold not only for what Packer says about the cross, but for what he says about theological method.

Closely followed in this are two great evangelical works - The Cross of Christ by John Stott, and The Death of Christ by James Denney. Pierced for our Transgressions, the recent book by Ovey, Jeffers and Sach, is worth a read, though it has its limitations (very minimal reference to the gospels, for example). For a better defence of penal substitution, Steven Holmes’ The Wondrous Cross is the benchmark in my view. There is also Paul Molnar’s book Incarnation and Resurrection - I haven’t read it, but it looks good! :-)

Of the classic works on the work of Christ in the Christian tradition, Athanasius’ On the Incarnation of the Word, written when he was 21, is the standout. Anselm’s Why God Became Man? is the pinnacle of medieval theological thinking about the work of Christ. Calvin’s treatment in Book II of the Institutes is the first real exposition of penal substitution in the tradition. In the 17th century, John Owen’s The Death of Death is the supreme example of a Protestant account. B.B. Warfield’s book The Person and Work of Christ shouldn’t be overlooked. In the 20th century, Jurgen Moltmann’s The Crucified God and Wolfhart Pannenberg’s Jesus: God and Man are the two most sophisticated works from a German point of view and they do not overlook contemporary difficulties brought about by historical and ethical thinking since the Enlightenment. For a Roman Catholic account, Hans Urs von Balthasar’s Mysterium Paschale is good value. Colin Gunton’s The Actuality of Atonement is a very stimulating, if not entirely satisfying book. On the reformed end of things, John Murray’s Redemption Accomplished and Applied will get your pulses racing.

Don’t be shy about dipping into great works of systematic theology – all of which will have to say something about the cross. Use the indexes! Check out Francis Turretin, Charles Hodge and Herman Bavinck, for examples of classic reformed accounts. You ought to purchase one of these as a resource for your ministry. Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics IV.1 can’t be ignored though – even if you only dip in and get your toes wet.

Lastly, I think everyone should read John Howard Yoder’s The Politics of Jesus. Usually it comes up under ‘Ethics’ – but it is a very challenging exploration of the significance for today of the Biblical Jesus in social, political and spiritual terms.

Jesus: Connections for Life

With the 'Jesus All About Life' campaign primed and ready to go this month, the good folks down at Christians in the Media have done us all a favour and put together a resource to take the conversation futher. The TV ads will prompt discussion: will Christians be able to take it to where it counts? The Jesus: Connections for Life coursewill do just that.

There's a professionally produced booklet and DVD package which could be used by a group, a church or an individual. It's all very well done and rates very low on the hokey factor. Dominic and his gang have been able to put substance in. Go order some copies today!

Andrew Shead on translation

Andrew Shead talks about translation.

Given the recent announcements about the NIV, this is a timely discussion!

A New Evangelical Anglican Vision?

Just this past term I have had the great pleasure of co-teaching – with Professor Ashley Null, the renowned Cranmer scholar - a MA unit offered here at Moore College entitled ‘Anglican Identity’. In it we made careful study of the development of the English reformation and the works of leading figures like Fisher, Cranmer and Hooker.

A highlight was reading the moving testimony of Catherine Parr, last wife of Henry VIII, to her conversion to the gospel of justification by faith.

I was curious, however, as to why so few Sydney clergy thought this was a subject that might interest them, or that the study of the founding documents of our denomination might be well worth their while.

This was confirmed by casual conversations with Moore students. I asked them ‘how do you understand your identity as an Anglican?’ – and was met with baffled looks and shrugs. The denomination is a ‘good boat to fish from’, mostly, but there is (it seems to me) no great passion for Anglicanism itself and no great commitment to study its formularies and its history.

Perhaps it is because the international controversies have become wearisome and even a source of embarrassment. Perhaps it is because the denomination changes at glacial speed – and we in our time are addicted to change, even for its own sake. Perhaps we are also in the grip of the ‘lone ranger’ vision of the brave church planter, unencumbered by denominational vagaries.

But I was surprised that even the GAFCON movement, with its bold and remarkable vision for an global Anglican movement, has not caught the local imagination. It has been perceived as a political rather than a spiritual movement - which is certainly not the way it was perceived by those who were present in Jerusalem.

More than ever, we need to renew our vision of what it means to be an evangelical Anglican. My conviction is that not only is being evangelical the most authentic way of being Anglican – we’ve been saying that for years - but also that being Anglican is a great way of being evangelical.

How come?
Firstly, because the Anglican formularies (the 39 Articles, the Prayer-Book and the Homilies) subject themselves at every turn to the authority of scripture. They offer themselves to be tested against a scriptural norm.

Second, because Anglicanism has a great sense of what is of primary and what is of secondary importance. Other Protestant denominations have a tendency to make secondary issues – like the manner of baptism or church discipline or church government – primary. And they endlessly divide because of it. The Anglican formularies commit us to important things – and allow us freedom under Scripture on the secondaries. The great evangelical bishop JC Ryle called this a 'studied moderation about things non-essential to salvation'. What a blessing!

Third, Anglicanism is a great mission strategy. From the beginning, Cranmer and the others knew that they were in a battle for hearts – hearts, like Catherine Parr’s, that needed conversion. Today, the opportunities opening up for mission because of our Anglican networks are extraordinary - nationally and globally. Anyone interested in Christian mission ought to be interested in what is happening through Anglican church today - yes, despite all our well discussed flaws.

I am sure I could add more to this list. But I am not sure that the message is being heard.
The text of Ed Loane's wonderful speech to the Anglican Church League is here. In it, Ed recounts the League's century-long determination to defend the evangelical character of the diocese of Sydney from liberalism and tractarianism. It struck me however that for most of that century evangelical Anglicans knew what the Anglicanism they were defending was. There was a strong positive as a corollory to the negative. If today we have lost a sense of what that Anglicanism really is, then a determination to defend it becomes merely negativity for its own sake, or sectarianism. We need urgently to relocate the evangelically beating heart of our Anglicanism - that ought to be the go-forward mission of the ACL. No amount of fighting off charismatics or New Perspectivists will seem meaningful if there is not this real sense that being Anglican is worth it for a dyed-in-the-wool evangelical.

And that leads me to a final point. We urgently need a liturgical renewal or even revival - and our Anglican heritage gives us the resources to make it possible. Now: I don't want to be misunderstood here. I am NOT calling for nostalgia, for dressing up, for antiquarian services in 16th century English or anything of the kind. Far from it. BUT it seems to me that Cranmer's great insight was that the habitual and regular gathering of God's people - corporate worship - was a crucial moment in which the distinctive emphases of Christian doctrine were to be embedded in the hearts of believers (and preached to non-believers). The thirty-nine articles envisage that in diverse times and places new expressions of corporate life will needed to embody and embed these same truths - showing us that the content and not the form was the thing that mattered.

Too often, Sydney Anglican meetings are characterised by what they are NOT. They are not charismatic and they are not Catholic. Fine. But I can't believe we are satisfied with these negatives. What is more, we have a real envy problem when it comes to the charos - why are their people having so much fun? Why do they enjoy such theologically lite services so much?
The BCP is a standard which we ought to emulate in our own way - it is one of the best things we have! It dramatises the Christian gospel and the Christian life in response - teaching us justification by grace through faith and the authority of scripture and nurturing us in those. It makes a feature of preaching, but it puts even the preacher under the authority of the scriptures that are read aloud. In rejecting the theology of Roman Catholicism, the Protestant reformers at the same time had a compelling alternative to offer. And done rightly, it hits the Christian experientially deep down. Could we one day be able to say again that what we do in church meetings is the one of the best things about being a Sydney Anglican?

Calvin @ 500 - sign up quick!

If you are planning to come to the Calvin conference at Moore - then I advise you to book in and sign up quick! The word on the street is that more than 150 delegates have signed in from interstate. Sydney-siders have been leaving it till the last minute - but they will have to let us know they are coming for catering purposes or they will GO HUNGRY.

Andrew Cameron on the Podcast

Andrew Cameron on the Trials of Theology

Great stuff - latest Common Room episode.