http://nathanjameslee.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/you-an-introduction/
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Getting things done
Here's my latest Defence Against the Dark Arts piece:
http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/life/culture/the_man_who_gets_things_done/
I am trying to apply justification by faith to the modern world…
Monday, March 30, 2009
Luther’s Theology of the Cross
As Luther explains it, there is no other true locus of the knowledge of God than the cross of Christ. And yet, in the cross of Christ God is both at the same time revealed, and paradoxically hidden from view just as he is revealed. Like Moses, the cross only grants a view of God from the rear – a posteriora. God in his revelation is also, strangely, hidden. He is deus absconditus just as he is deus revelatus. This distinction means that 'the holy, unapproachable majesty of God remains even in God's self-disclosure' (Lohse).
McGrath outlines five features of the theology of the cross (theologia crucis):
- It is a theology of revelation, not speculation. It is not based on the created order as we perceive it. Theologians ought to concern themselves with what God has revealed of himself, and not rely on preconceived understandings of God, which are ultimately idolatrous.
- This revelation is indirect and concealed, even as it is revealed. Sound paradoxical? What Luther is trying to help us to see is that if we expect a direct revelation of the face of God, we will miss the way in which he has revealed himself, unexpectedly and shockingly, in the passion and cross of Christ. Faith is required to see that in the humility and shame of the cross is God's great power and glory.
- God is not found in intelligent reflection on the nature of our moral being or the order of creation. True theology can only be found in Christ crucified. The cross shatters human reason's pride.
- Knowledge of the God who is hidden in his revelation is by faith only.
Only faith can see the cross as revelation of God. This is what Jesus taught his disciples, who sought a theology of glory – see, for example, Philip in John 14:8. This theology of glory bypasses the cross! - God makes himself known through suffering – primarily of course that suffering which is Christ's. But also, suffering and temptation are the way in which God acts to bring human beings to himself. In fact, he needs to humiliate us before we may be justified. 'God assaults man in order to break him down and thus to justify him' (McGrath). Both law and gospel are necessary to each other. This breaking down – the experience of Anfechtung - is a work that alien to God in order that the work that belongs most to his nature.
The theology of the cross can be regarded both as the substantive and the methodological principle in Luther's theology – and its impact is felt on all his theological work.
It meant for example a radical recasting of the nature of theological language. To simply somewhat - throughout the middle ages, it was held that 'the righteousness of God' was analogous to 'justice', as we understand it and encounter it in the world. The justice of God was to be understood after the pattern of, or in continuity with, the justice of man. But under the account Luther gives of the theologia crucis, this is no longer possible. For him, all theological talk must be related to the word of the cross. 'The cross is the test of everything' – crux probat omnia. It means that human theological intuitions are always suspect. The cross breaks down our preconceptions regarding everything about God – and, if we see with the eyes of faith, rebuilds them.
And that is the heart of justification. The individual finds himself under the judgement of God, with nowhere to turn, exposed terribly to his wrath. The only place to flee for safety from God's wrath – is to God! And there he finds the mercy that lies hidden under the terrible wrath. Christ the crucified one, who suffered on our behalf, became sin for us in order that his righteousness might become our righteousness.
Faith is really the only means by which the true significance of the cross can be perceived – faith alone. Faith is hearing the word of promise; and it is also the special bond that unites the believer with Christ – which means that the great exchange of Christ's righteousness for our wickedness is far more than a merely externalised transaction.
For Luther, then, the Christian life is lived in the middle of a tension between faith and experience. Our experience only serves to contradict our faith. This was something Luther expounded when he thought that he might be martyred. Where was God in this? Luther used the word Anfechtung – 'temptation', or 'assault' – to describe this experience. The devil, the world and death are allied in a war against man. But of course, it is a work of God too, to reduce man to utter reliance on him and him alone. The only way to grow in the Christian life is to return to the foot of the cross and start all over again.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
To my alarm
To my alarm, it has come to my attention more than once that some readers think that in this post from last month, 'Missiological Assumptions', I was urging clergy everywhere to don their collars and dress up in their flowing white robes!
I was not.
I think a straight reading of the post will reveal that my intentions were quite otherwise: I was merely questioning some of the discourse that I have heard used to justify changes in church practices over the years, and also asking whether we really are as flexible as we think we are. It was somewhat of a thought experiment - and a useful one I feel.
Furthermore, in the discussion that followed a variety of views were expressed. Some people made my point more intensely than I had, I think, or pushed it further than I had done. The discussion was vigorous, but polite and thoughtful too.
A few points:
1) a blog post is not a definitive declaration of one's deepest convictions.
2) the owner of the blog ought not to be judged by the opinions of the commenters.
3) good missiology helps us to revisit our assumptions, doesn't it?
I was not.
I think a straight reading of the post will reveal that my intentions were quite otherwise: I was merely questioning some of the discourse that I have heard used to justify changes in church practices over the years, and also asking whether we really are as flexible as we think we are. It was somewhat of a thought experiment - and a useful one I feel.
Furthermore, in the discussion that followed a variety of views were expressed. Some people made my point more intensely than I had, I think, or pushed it further than I had done. The discussion was vigorous, but polite and thoughtful too.
A few points:
1) a blog post is not a definitive declaration of one's deepest convictions.
2) the owner of the blog ought not to be judged by the opinions of the commenters.
3) good missiology helps us to revisit our assumptions, doesn't it?
Piper on worship, emotion and so on.
I just went back to Piper's book Desiring God - Meditations of Christian Hedonist. This is Calvinism in the tradition of Jonathan Edwards, make no mistake. And it is full of purple passages about the emotions or affections that seem to ring true:
Where feelings for God are dead, worship is dead...
True worship must include inward feelings that reflect the worth of God's glory.
These are strong statements - but surely right! Piper says that the right affections give authenticity to the external acts of worship, performed as they are by the will. He turns to the Psalms, especially as they give expression to a genuine brokenness and contrition on the one hand, and to the hearts right desire for God himself on the other.
Where feelings for God are dead, worship is dead...
True worship must include inward feelings that reflect the worth of God's glory.
These are strong statements - but surely right! Piper says that the right affections give authenticity to the external acts of worship, performed as they are by the will. He turns to the Psalms, especially as they give expression to a genuine brokenness and contrition on the one hand, and to the hearts right desire for God himself on the other.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Moore Blogs
I have had a go at aggregating as many Moore College student and faculty blogs as I can, and you can see them over right on my blog list. I think they give a fascinating insight into Moore College life and its joys and trials. There is some quality theological discussion and some very funny stuff. There is also stuff about food, about living in Newtown, and about hobbies, like craft.
To those student and faculty bloggers - the challenge to you is to keep your blog ticking over at least!
I am also starting a select Moore graduates list - so if you are a Moore graduate and blogger, send me your url!
To those student and faculty bloggers - the challenge to you is to keep your blog ticking over at least!
I am also starting a select Moore graduates list - so if you are a Moore graduate and blogger, send me your url!
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
Luther on the Lord's Supper
In response to some discussion in class on Tuesday about Luther's view of the Lord's Supper.
It might be worth citing from the Smaller Catechism:
Luther had made a strong attack on the Catholic understanding of the sacraments in The Babylonian Captivity of the Church. He was appalled by the pratice of communion in one kind, which he viewed as unscriptural. The doctrine of transubstantion was an absurd - an attempt to explain a mystery. To know that Christ is present - isn't that enough? Furthermore, the idea that the priest made a sacrifice on our behalf was equally unscriptural. Sacraments were for the nourishment and growth in faith of the people of God, not for accruing merit.
But Luther held onto the view that bread and wine really did become the body and blood of Christ. He did so not because it was traditional, but because it was (as he saw it) scriptural. This IS my body! The principle of the clarity of scripture seemed to be at stake here.
The controversy between the Reformers over this matter dominated the late 1520s. For Luther, the Word of God and the sacrament were inseparably linked. Both serve to mediate the power and presence of Christ. The sacraments, just like the word, could generate and support saving faith.
Furthermore, Luther asserted that Christ was 'ubiquitous': that is, the ascension of Christ 'to the right hand of God' did not mean that his presence was limited by space or time. Thus, he could be present in the sacrament in a saving way.
It might be worth citing from the Smaller Catechism:
VI. The Sacrament of the Altar
As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household.
What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.
Where is this written?
The holy Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul, write thus:
Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me.
After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Take, drink ye all of it. This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.
What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?
That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.
How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?
It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins.
Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily?
Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins.But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words 'For you' require altogether believing hearts.
Luther had made a strong attack on the Catholic understanding of the sacraments in The Babylonian Captivity of the Church. He was appalled by the pratice of communion in one kind, which he viewed as unscriptural. The doctrine of transubstantion was an absurd - an attempt to explain a mystery. To know that Christ is present - isn't that enough? Furthermore, the idea that the priest made a sacrifice on our behalf was equally unscriptural. Sacraments were for the nourishment and growth in faith of the people of God, not for accruing merit.
But Luther held onto the view that bread and wine really did become the body and blood of Christ. He did so not because it was traditional, but because it was (as he saw it) scriptural. This IS my body! The principle of the clarity of scripture seemed to be at stake here.
The controversy between the Reformers over this matter dominated the late 1520s. For Luther, the Word of God and the sacrament were inseparably linked. Both serve to mediate the power and presence of Christ. The sacraments, just like the word, could generate and support saving faith.
Furthermore, Luther asserted that Christ was 'ubiquitous': that is, the ascension of Christ 'to the right hand of God' did not mean that his presence was limited by space or time. Thus, he could be present in the sacrament in a saving way.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Schleiermacher, Newman, Warfield
In our Shapers of Contemporary Protestant Theology course here at Moore we have been reading sections from Schleiermacher, Newman and now Warfield. It is quite interesting to see the lines of concern and thought criss-cross in surprising ways. Having read Newman on the development of Christian doctrine, it is fascinating to see Warfield appealing to some of the same criteria in trying to defend the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture. This doctrine, he argues, is early, ubiquitous and persistent.
Warfield claims:
Despite these attempts to introduce lowered conceptions, the doctrine of the plenary inpsiration of the Scriptures, which looks upon them as an oracular book, in all its parts and elements, alike, of God, trustworthy in all its affirmations of every kind, remains to-day, as it has always been, the vital faith of the people of God, and the formal teaching of the organized church.
Newman might have agreed with this as a method, if not an affirmation. The doctrine, he says, is not merely a matter of form alone, but is a necessary preservative of the lively faith of the church.
Of course it is in the role of the church that they will differ. Newman appeals to the need for an authorised interpretive magisterium and the providential care of God. Warfield will put the church - and he DOES have an ecclesiological concern - is the role of a hearing, listening and obeying church, the church that recognises rather than authorises the authority of scripture....
Warfield claims:
Despite these attempts to introduce lowered conceptions, the doctrine of the plenary inpsiration of the Scriptures, which looks upon them as an oracular book, in all its parts and elements, alike, of God, trustworthy in all its affirmations of every kind, remains to-day, as it has always been, the vital faith of the people of God, and the formal teaching of the organized church.
Newman might have agreed with this as a method, if not an affirmation. The doctrine, he says, is not merely a matter of form alone, but is a necessary preservative of the lively faith of the church.
Of course it is in the role of the church that they will differ. Newman appeals to the need for an authorised interpretive magisterium and the providential care of God. Warfield will put the church - and he DOES have an ecclesiological concern - is the role of a hearing, listening and obeying church, the church that recognises rather than authorises the authority of scripture....
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Teach us to pray?
The trouble with most evangelistic courses or programmes is that they focus on imparting information. That isn't bad in itself - and the ones like 'Simply Christianity' which introduce you to a text of the Bible and to the person of Jesus, which is great.
However, I wonder if it would be possible to construct an evangelistic course around the idea of teaching people to pray.
The basis for this idea is firstly that people think of themselves as 'spiritual', and like the idea of praying, but have no idea how one might do this - 'in the Christian/Anglican tradition'. Secondly, it is less confronting than an out and out 'investigating Christianity' course. But, thirdly, you can't explain Christian prayer without explaining the gospel. That is, Christian prayer is very much shaped by the nature of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You can't avoid talking about topics like forgiveness and confession of sin and God's soveriegnty and his Father-heart - topics that bring you into the gospel itself.
And while you might focus on some specific practices that have helped Christians pray - kneeling, praying over Scripture, some famous Christian prayers - you would also try to subvert the idea that Christian prayer is a technique, or a means of somehow accruing greater religiosity. Christian prayer is specifically not about grandiloquent words, or about goading God into action. You could very usefully talk about prayer in other faiths as a way of doing comparative religion in a gentle way, as well.
Of course, the Sermon on Mount would be a key text. But Paul's prayers prare so attractive that it would be great to show them to non-Christians...
Is it a go-er?
However, I wonder if it would be possible to construct an evangelistic course around the idea of teaching people to pray.
The basis for this idea is firstly that people think of themselves as 'spiritual', and like the idea of praying, but have no idea how one might do this - 'in the Christian/Anglican tradition'. Secondly, it is less confronting than an out and out 'investigating Christianity' course. But, thirdly, you can't explain Christian prayer without explaining the gospel. That is, Christian prayer is very much shaped by the nature of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You can't avoid talking about topics like forgiveness and confession of sin and God's soveriegnty and his Father-heart - topics that bring you into the gospel itself.
And while you might focus on some specific practices that have helped Christians pray - kneeling, praying over Scripture, some famous Christian prayers - you would also try to subvert the idea that Christian prayer is a technique, or a means of somehow accruing greater religiosity. Christian prayer is specifically not about grandiloquent words, or about goading God into action. You could very usefully talk about prayer in other faiths as a way of doing comparative religion in a gentle way, as well.
Of course, the Sermon on Mount would be a key text. But Paul's prayers prare so attractive that it would be great to show them to non-Christians...
Is it a go-er?
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Propositions on Emotions and the Christian life - a preliminary sketch?
1 - To apprehend God in Christ requires/produces an emotional response - reverent fear! 1 Peter 2:17 (and many other NT references as well). It is a response it is appropriate to command, even. 'Requires' in this sense is not a pre-condition of justification.
2. There is also an expectation of joy - an emotion that is often linked to the Holy Spirit. 1 Thess 1:6, Gal 5:22.
3 - It strikes me that we distinguish falsely if we separate the emotions from reason/rationality. The emotions are an epistemological or apprehensional tool as much as the mind is. And, if we fear that a speaker may manipulate the emotions, how much more ought we to fear that a speaker may manipulate us by using rational argument? Impeccable logic can lead to absurd conclusions, indeed. We ought not to avoid or downplay the emotions because the mind is more trustworthy, surely...
2. There is also an expectation of joy - an emotion that is often linked to the Holy Spirit. 1 Thess 1:6, Gal 5:22.
3 - It strikes me that we distinguish falsely if we separate the emotions from reason/rationality. The emotions are an epistemological or apprehensional tool as much as the mind is. And, if we fear that a speaker may manipulate the emotions, how much more ought we to fear that a speaker may manipulate us by using rational argument? Impeccable logic can lead to absurd conclusions, indeed. We ought not to avoid or downplay the emotions because the mind is more trustworthy, surely...
Friday, March 06, 2009
How near?
Despite the great gulf between human beings and God being crossed in Christ - a crossing that we can truly call, with the New Testament, reconciliation - despite that, there is no sense in which the holiness of God collapses into the ordinary. God remains in his godness God - the incarnation and the atonement don't change this. We are purified and brought into his presence, inhabited by the Holy Spirit and granted a place in the divine fellowship (2 Pet 1:4) -but though the matter of sin has been dealt with, our union with God does not mean that the creature is no longer a creature and the divine no longer divine. God's holiness is still awe-inspiring. (I don't quite want to be the Orthodox doctrine of theosis, here, if it means the divine-human is collapsed. I think there can be union, and reconciliation, but it is without loss of the transcedent.)
We can see this from the prominence given to the idea of 'reverent fear' in the NT as an absolutely appropriate emotional response to an encounter with God - even for those who have been reconciled with God. The people of God are both confident to walk into the heavenly throne room and trembling at the prospect.
Take Hebrews 12:28-29, for example
28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us give thanks, by which we offer to God an acceptable worship with reverence and awe; 29 for indeed our God is a consuming fire.
The people of God know better than anyone that God is to be truly and deeply revered. God is not in anyway tamed by the incarnation.
Will this be the case in the eschaton? I think so - God is visibly near, but not even then visible, no?
We can see this from the prominence given to the idea of 'reverent fear' in the NT as an absolutely appropriate emotional response to an encounter with God - even for those who have been reconciled with God. The people of God are both confident to walk into the heavenly throne room and trembling at the prospect.
Take Hebrews 12:28-29, for example
28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us give thanks, by which we offer to God an acceptable worship with reverence and awe; 29 for indeed our God is a consuming fire.
The people of God know better than anyone that God is to be truly and deeply revered. God is not in anyway tamed by the incarnation.
Will this be the case in the eschaton? I think so - God is visibly near, but not even then visible, no?
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Over at HIM
At Him: An Introduction I have started a series entitled Is God Laughing?
A penny for your thoughts.
A penny for your thoughts.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Is it possible to please God?
Is it possible to please God? I raise the question because I suspect the common answer to be 'no'. Indeed, I read of someone saying recently '“I think a lot of people have the misunderstanding that going to church is going to please God by virtue of our activity.”
I think what the speaker was trying to avoid is the possibility that people think they are gaining justification by coming to church - that somehow church going is a work that enables sufficient merit to be accrued in order that God smiles upon it. But there are a great number of scriptures which teach precisely that Christians are able to please God. Indeed, this is one of the great freedoms of the Christian life. And, what is more, they can please God when they gather together to praise him.
Of the passages in the NT which talk about pleasing God, two stand out. Firstly, Romans 8:6-9:
6 To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law-- indeed it cannot, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
Now, there is only a negative here from which the positive is implied: the mind to which the Spirit is given, and the individual in whom the Spirit of Christ dwells can indeed please God. Is this just on account of Jesus's righteousness vicariously applied to us? Is there an imputed pleasing of God (as we can assume an imputed righteousness by which we are justified?) Was is not Jesus with whom God was 'well pleased', after all? Well all that is true, and the prior action of God in the spirit is assumed here; but it is also true that the context (see Romans 6 and 7) is talking about the wrestle to offer the members of the body to God as weapons of righteousness. The fleshly man of Romans 7 cannot please God, certainly; the spiritual man of Romans 8 apparently can, in the power of the Spirit. Paul will go in Romans 14:18 to speak of the one who serves Christ being pleasing to God...
The second text is Hebrews 13:15-16
15 Through him, then, let us continually offer a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that confess his name. 16 Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.
Here, the Christian is called on to offer sacrifices that are pleasing to God! Not cultic sacrifices. Not atoning sacrifices - but then, the OT sacrifices werent all atoning sacrifices either. But still - here are acts of sharing and praising - which we do when we meet together, in which God delights...
I think what the speaker was trying to avoid is the possibility that people think they are gaining justification by coming to church - that somehow church going is a work that enables sufficient merit to be accrued in order that God smiles upon it. But there are a great number of scriptures which teach precisely that Christians are able to please God. Indeed, this is one of the great freedoms of the Christian life. And, what is more, they can please God when they gather together to praise him.
Of the passages in the NT which talk about pleasing God, two stand out. Firstly, Romans 8:6-9:
6 To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law-- indeed it cannot, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.
Now, there is only a negative here from which the positive is implied: the mind to which the Spirit is given, and the individual in whom the Spirit of Christ dwells can indeed please God. Is this just on account of Jesus's righteousness vicariously applied to us? Is there an imputed pleasing of God (as we can assume an imputed righteousness by which we are justified?) Was is not Jesus with whom God was 'well pleased', after all? Well all that is true, and the prior action of God in the spirit is assumed here; but it is also true that the context (see Romans 6 and 7) is talking about the wrestle to offer the members of the body to God as weapons of righteousness. The fleshly man of Romans 7 cannot please God, certainly; the spiritual man of Romans 8 apparently can, in the power of the Spirit. Paul will go in Romans 14:18 to speak of the one who serves Christ being pleasing to God...
The second text is Hebrews 13:15-16
15 Through him, then, let us continually offer a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that confess his name. 16 Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.
Here, the Christian is called on to offer sacrifices that are pleasing to God! Not cultic sacrifices. Not atoning sacrifices - but then, the OT sacrifices werent all atoning sacrifices either. But still - here are acts of sharing and praising - which we do when we meet together, in which God delights...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)