We are not amused?

Does it matter what means of communication we use for proclaiming the gospel?

The commonly held view is that communication methods are neutral tools - they can be utilised for good (i.e. getting the gospel out) or bad, but in and of themselves they are value-free. Therefore, christians should use any and whatever means available to get the word of God out to people whether TV, radio, letter, tract, video, CD-ROM and so on. More than that, Christians should use especially those methods that allow them to reach the maximum number of people.

Sounds peruasive doesn't it (I know I've thought and said something like it in the past).

However, reading 'Amusing Ourselves to Death' by Neil Postman (not a Christian) has really challenged me to think that it's not as simple as all that. The book argues that the medium we choose will inevitably effect the content of the message. In one striking passage he quotes US Christian leader Pat Robertson as saying;

"To say that the church shouldn't be involved in
television is utter folly. The needs are the same, the message is the same, but
the delivery can change..."

To which Postman retorts;

'This is utter technological naivety. If the
delivery is not the same, then the message, quite likely, is not the
same.'

TV (and other formats for information and discussion etc.) is not value-free, by its very nature it communicates things other than just the information on screen - a way of thinking, a way of knowing and deciding what is true or false etc. In other words, a child who learns her alphabet by watching television is not just learning the alphabet, she's learning a method of learning and knowing about the world.

Postman adds (astonishingly) with reference to Christian TV programmes;

'...on television, God is a vague and subordinate character. Though his name is
invoked repeatedly, the concreteness and persistence of the image of the
preacher carries the clear message that it is he, not He, who must be
worshipped. I do not mean to imply that the preacher wishes it to be so; only
that the power of a close-up televised face, in colour, makes idolatry a
continual hazard. Television is, after all, a form of graven imagery far more
alluring than a golden calf.'

God can't be seen on TV. The preacher can. We watch TV to be entertained and if we're not entertained we flick channels (which means the preacher must be entertaining, and the focus is all on him/her). Postman argues that all of this has produced a TV version of Christianity with a skewed focus. Later he says;

'Though it may be un-American to say it, not
everything is televisible...what is televised is transformed
from what it was to something else, which may or may not preserve its former
essence.'

That's the question. Is the gospel televisible? Can 'the Word' transfer to an inherently image-entertainment based format? Thoughts anyone?

Filey Gospel Camp

Last weekend Claire and I attended the annual reunion of the summer camp we serve at. The camp runs every year at Filey (east yorkshire coast) with over thirty 9-12 yr olds attending, many from difficult backgrounds and most from non-christian homes.

The reunion was really helpful for me as my own level of enthusiasm for the camp had been waning recently. Serving amongst what can be a diverse bunch of leaders has been hard. However, seeing some of the children again, particularly those who professed Christ last year, was a very welcome reminder of why we do the camp in the first place. My enthusiasm has been re-ignited. It's my job to compile the quiet time notes for the children this year, so please pray about that (and give me any suggestions you've got).

My long term vision is for the camp to have an annual leader's training day that would help build the team and train some of the younger leaders. We've tried unsuccessfully to start this in recent years. Added to this, Claire and I have talked in the past about running a follow-on camp for teenagers, especially since many of them drift off from 13 onwards, even those who've shown some sort of response to the gospel in the past. The administrative and legal headache that such a ministry would pose has been a disincentive to get cracking in many ways. Prayers and ideas highly valued.

The worst follow-up course leader ever

Our Gracechurch home group finished its romp through John ch7-8 this week with looking at ch8:31-59 this week in home group. It really is an astonishing incident in Jesus' life.

In vs. 30 we get told how 'many believed in him'. And so in vs.31 he starts talking to them about what it means to be a true disciple. So, to take an analogy from the way we do things now, it's a little bit like they've come to an evangelistic event and signed the card/prayed the prayer/come forward to receive Christ. Αnd now those who've made a profession are attending the first session of 'discipleship explored', led by none other than Christ himself. However, by the time the first session is over (vs. 59) these recent 'converts' are trying to stone Jesus to death. If it happened in one of our churches you can bet that the week two would be led by someone other than Jesus.

The troubling thing is, all Jesus has done is lay it on the line for them about what true discipleship is, and in the process of what seems like a heated argument, exposed that whatever they were doing when they 'believed in him' these converts remained well and truly unconverted. He makes several statements about what it means to be a genuine follower, and they all add up to the same kind of thing.

vs. 31: 'If you abide in my word you are truly my disciples...'
vs. 43: 'Why do you not understand what say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.'
vs. 47: 'Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.'
vs. 51: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word he will never see death.'

True discipleship means committed, believing allegiance and obedience to Jesus and his teaching. If we have no space for his word in our lives then we've never really started out on the Christian life. As Jesus teaches them about his saving power (vs.32, 36, 51, 58) the Jews can't accept it. Even more outrageous to them is Jesus' suggestion that they are enslaved to sin and not really part of God's family (vs.34, 39). As they react like that to Jesus though that's exactly what they show themselves to be - the Devil's children not God's (vs.44-47).

Now, of course, we're not supposed to be copying Jesus' style with his hearers in John 8 - he could read their hearts and their minds in a way in which we can't (and Jesus himself adopts very different styles with different groups accordingly - compare this to his conversation with the Samaritan woman in ch4, or his own slow-to-believe disciples in ch14-16). But, I wonder if this passage does in fact raise issues for us over the nature of true disicpleship, issues that apply first and foremost to our own discipleship and then secondly to the kind of discipleship we call people to. Here are a few of the questions John 8 is making me ask.

• How does our 'just pray the prayer' practice fit with Jesus' 'if you abide in my word'?
• Do we look for the evidence of obedience ('keep my word') in ourselves and in those we disciple?
• How do we describe the human condition - are we 'slaves to sin' or does Jesus simply save us from loneliness and existential angst?
• Are we willing to take the offensive message of sin and judgment to 'nice, religious people'?
• Do we let people have assurance of salvation merely on the basis of an outward profession or intellectual assent and without any evidence of assent?
• How important is Jesus' divinity in our evangelism (vs.58) ?

A thought about thinking

We were looking at John 7 last night in our home group bible study and I had some thoughts, especially about how some of what the passage was saying relates to how we come to understand the bible.

Basically, Jesus tells the Jewish religious authorities that they don’t understand him because they’ve got the OT all wrong, especially the law (vs.19). No wonder then that they are upset about him healing on the Sabbath whilst still thinking its ok to circumcise someone on the Sabbath – they don’t understand what the OT laws (like circumcision) were all about and how in actual fact it is Jesus (vs. 23) in his ministry of saving and restoring people who fulfils them (brings to substance what they were all about in shadow form). In other words, they don’t get Jesus because they don’t get what the law was all about. Or perhaps the other way round - because they don't get Jesus by definition they don't get what the law was really all about?

Either way, in an earlier verse Jesus makes it clear that this wasn’t just a failure in understanding however, but more of a moral failure;

Vs. 17: If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own.

That is, they don’t want to do what God says, that’s why they don’t realise who Jesus is and instead think he’s a law-breaker. Their disobedient hearts prevent them from reading the law and discerning in Jesus the God-sent fulfilment of it and not a breach of it.

Now that all might sound a bit complicated but what I think it amounts to is this;

Our wills are the most important factor in understanding the bible. Whether we want to disobey or obey God will make the crucial difference between whether we understand the bible or not.

Or we could put it another way. If we have a problem with the bible we should consider the possibility that the problem is not that the bible is obtuse and unclear, or that we aren’t intelligent enough. The problem might just be that we are sinful.

All of which means we need ongoing the work of God (through Jesus’ death on the cross and rising again to deal with our sin) in our lives if we are to interpret and apply the bible properly and not be like the dreadful legalists of Jesus’ day. Good hermeneutics (the ‘science’ of biblical interpretation) starts with us on our knees at the foot of the cross.

Dismembered Membership

This posting will probably only be relevant to those who were at the afternoon question time with Mark Dever (Fri 20th) So sorry for those who have no clue what this discussion is all about. Needless to say, it covers issues that are important but not absolutely essential, so feel free to ignore or contribute at will.

Here's the problem as I see it with the practice on membership as articulated by Mark Dever, or perhaps better put, here's the current question I have.

If issues that are important but not essential to the gospel can limit church membership (i.e. Mark Dever could not admit to membership of his congregation someone who was a committed infant baptist) then what is the church?

The church under this practice is now something other than the community of those who have been gathered to God by the saving Gospel of Christ. It is the community of those who have been gathered to God by the saving Gospel of Christ and have baptist/congregationalist convictions.

Or, put another way. If the church is a community that is brought into existence only by the gospel, how come issues that are non-essential to the gospel (by Mark's own admission) can stand in the way of membership?

Or, put perhaps more provocatively, why if Christ has welcomed someone into his church, are we allowed to keep them out of 'ours'? Unless of course, being a paedobaptist is an 'error' of such an order that it warrants church discipline. If this is the case, I fail to see how baptists could justify any co-operation at all with paedobaptists, even at a para-church level.

It seemed to me that at least a degree of the justification given for this practice was a practical rather than a scriptural consideration, namely that acceptance into membership of a paedobaptist could lead the congregation over time towards such a position. Ηowever, surely there are equal dangers in accepting someone who holds to a dispensationalist position on the return of Christ and the future of Israel, or any of the other issues that Mark Dever indicated would not be a barr to membership. As the discussion progressed on this point I felt we had left the realms of what scripture prescribes and moved into the arena of what might seem expedient given the spiritual climate in America (I had a similar feeling as Mark justified his reasons for not baptising anyone under 16).

I also wonder if this perhaps highlights one weakness of a 'members-voting' model of church government - the voting power of the members means that the brother or sister who feels strongly on a particular issue but is happy to sit under the leadership of those who disagree with him has to be kept out of membership. And it does seem as if the voting is the key issue here, since Mark Dever would happily have a paedobaptist preach to his church, though presumably not on baptism.

I don't think in any way that this somehow sweeps away eveything Mark was saying, or that my question somehow 'disproves' his view. No doubt he has done so much more thinking on this than a short question time could reveal. I also suspect, as I reflect a little more on it, that there are similar issues raised if we take any stance on meaningful membership (which I think all of us most certainly should).

Anyway, please point out the errors in my presumptions and let me know your thoughts/answers/suggestions.

Moses is Dead, Long Live Christ

Ok, this might not be for everyone, but here's a copy of an exegetical paper I did recently on the death of Moses in Deuteronomy. The idea is to do the work that would be done as background to giving a talk on it, rather than write the talk itself.

Comments are more than welcome, especially on the application section.

Deuteronomy 34:1-12

Summary: The Work of Yahweh through Moses was unique and foundational, therefore Israel must continue to heed his word

Context
These verses are the main section of narrative progression in Deuteronomy, largely a book of speeches[1]. They record Moses’ death – an event that the reader has already been prepared for, with increasing emphasis in recent chapters[2]. However, they also continue the emphasis throughout the book on the necessity of Israel obeying the words of Moses in this and future generations[3]. Thus the central message of Deuteronomy is concluded, simultaneously closing the Pentateuch and laying the ground for continuation in Joshua.

Outline
His death imminent, Moses is shown the whole of the land, thus bringing his life and ministry to a point of climax[4]. Yahweh reminds him that he cannot enter, but repeats the promise to the patriarchs[5]. Therefore Moses dies outside the land because of sin yet strengthened by what he has seen[6]. Similarly, Israel have ‘seen’ all that Yahweh has accomplished through Moses’[7] unique prophetic ministry as he delivered them from Egypt and brought them to the brink of the promised land and gave them Yahweh’s word which is sufficient to secure their entry into and blessing in the land[8]. The response to that word is modelled in the Israelites’ obedience of Joshua[9]. Thus the continued significance of Moses’ foundational ministry is established, and, by implication, the significance of the Pentateuch too.

Explanation of Content
The passage is structured around the central verses recording the death of Moses and the Israelites response to it[10]. Either side are two passages which contain lists[11]. Both lists relate to the conclusion of Moses’ ministry, although the second of these asserts itself as the most prominent, containing as it does the narrator’s commentary. This explanation has attempted to reflect this structure.
Yahweh’s final word to Moses re-affirms the promise of the land to Israel (1-4).
The description of the land as Moses sees it is highly stylised, depicting a detailed panoramic viewing of the land taking in all of its extremities. The effect is that Moses is described as having seen the entirety of the land (the word ‘all’ used three times[12]), adding to the sense that in viewing the land Moses’ ministry has reached an end point[13]. This explains why, although it is re-affirmed that Moses cannot enter the land, and elsewhere his culpability is made clear, the overall feel of the passage is positive[14]. Moses is clearly strengthened by this viewing and re-affirmation of the promise, such that although he is aged[15] he goes to his grave with youthful vigour and vision.
Yahweh’s work through Moses is unique and foundational (vs. 10-12)
That Yahweh knew Moses ‘face to face’ is probably a reference to the revelation that Moses received[16]. Similarly unsurpassed are the wonders associated with the Exodus (‘in the land of Egypt[17]’ ff.) and subsequently in the wilderness (‘all the mighty power[18] and all the great deeds of terror’[19]). As rescuer and mediator Moses remains unsurpassed from the narrator’s historical standpoint. However, specifically on view is the way that Moses relates to subsequent generations of Israelites from his death onwards.
Therefore Israel must continue to heed Moses’ word (vs. 5-9)
A parallel is drawn between the two lists. Where ‘all the land’ was ‘seen’ by Moses, at the very end of the passage ‘all[20] the works’ have been ‘seen’ by the Israelites[21]. In the centre verses we find the appropriate responses to such comprehensive revelation. Firstly Moses responds to all of the land that he has been shown by Yahweh with faith, going to his death strengthened by his vision of the promises fulfilled. In a similar way, all that the Israelites have been shown by Yahweh through Moses sets before them a similar promise to trust[22]; they must trust Yahweh who rescued them through Moses and express their trust in covenant obedience if they are to inherit the land and experience blessings and not curses[23]. Again, this response is modelled in the central section where the Israelites’ response to Joshua (whose authority is derived from Moses) is cast in terms of them doing ‘as the LORD had commanded Moses’. Israel’s future rests upon the rescue Yahweh accomplished through Moses, the promise he confirmed to him and the words he communicated through him. Israel must continue to trust and obey all that Yahweh worked through Moses[24].

Biblical Theology
The tension in this passage between the positive assessment of Moses’ ministry and his sinful failure, is in many ways a microcosm of the tension throughout Deuteronomy and Israel’s history – between Yahweh’s firm promise and yet Israel’s rebellion which denies them lasting enjoyment of it, climaxing in exile[25]. However, Yahweh promised a new covenant in which the sin that undermined the Mosaic one would be solved forever[26]. Into this expectation the apostles declare that Jesus is a ‘prophet like Moses’[27], only his ministry surpasses and fulfils that of Moses[28]. He brings a new covenant[29], a new law[30], a fuller revelation[31], a more complete rescue[32] and a better inheritance[33]. Therefore, it is Jesus’ ministry (who has not failed like Moses and Israel[34]) which has ongoing sufficiency and significance; the believer must continue to heed what God accomplished and said through him[35].

Possible lines of Application
- The uniqueness of Moses helps us understand Christ better (therefore the importance and place of the Pentateuch in Christian discipleship).
- The derivative nature of post-Moses instruction to the Israelites could serve as an illustration for modern day ministry that must be rooted in the unsurpassed revelation of Christ.
- Call to trust in the greater security in Christ the greater mediator than Moses.
- The necessity of continuing to pay attention to Jesus’ words. The finality of Jesus’ ministry and the danger of being led from trusting and obeying him[36].

Footnotes
[1] Deuteronomy 1:1, 4:2, 5:1, 29:1, 31:1, 30, 32:44, 33:1
[2] Deuteronomy 31:2, 14, 27, 32:49-52, 33:1
[3] Deuteronomy 4:9-10, 30:11-20, 32:44-47
[4] The land was in view since Moses was called, see Exodus 3:7-9. See also McConville, Deuteronomy, Apollos OTC 5, (Leicester; Apollos, 2002) p478.
[5] Deuteronomy 34:4
[6] Deuteronomy 34:7
[7] Deuteronomy 34:12
[8] Deuteronomy 30:11-14, 32:44-47
[9] Deuteronomy 34:9
[10] Deuteronomy 34:5-9
[11] Deuteronomy 34:1-4 and 10-12
[12] Deuteronomy 34:1-2
[13] The level of detail, the place names etc. all suggests a picture of the land once inherited, therefore Moses’ viewing is described in ways that highlight the completion of his God-given task. Although he himself will not enter the promise of entry is re-affirmed and Moses has seen it.
[14] See for example the description of Moses as ‘the servant of the LORD’ in 34:5, emphasising the importance of his office. This is not to deny the tension in the passage between a positive assessment of Moses ministry and the as yet unfulfilled aspects. See below under Biblical Theology.
[15] Compare Deuteronomy 31:2 with 34:7
[16] Exodus 33:11 where the context is revelatory
[17] Deuteronomy 34:11-12
[18] AV reads it as ‘in all that mighty hand’ emphasising the relationship between God’s actions and Moses’.
[19] Deuteronomy 34:12
[20] The word ‘all’ is used many times in both lists, emphasising the connection between them.
[21] The same Hebrew word is used in 34:4, 12 and also in 7.
[22] Deuteronomy 1:32
[23] Deuteronomy 28
[24] Deuteronomy 4:9-10
[25] This in itself was an indication of the ongoing importance of Moses’ words, see Deuteronomy 29:64-68
[26] Jeremiah 31:31-34
[27] Matthew 5:1, John 1:17, Acts 2:22, Hebrews 1:5
[28] Matthew 5:17-18
[29] Mark 14:24, Hebrews 8:6-13
[30] Matthew 5:17-20
[31] John 1:18, Hebrews 1:1-4
[32] Hebrews 1:1-4, Hebrews 9:11-12
[33] 1 Peter 1:4, Hebrews 9:15
[34] Luke 4:1-11
[35] Hebrews 2:1-4
[36] Using the logic of Hebrew 2:1-4, 3:5, 10:28 for example

Welcome to my blog

Dear All
I have set this blog up for two main reasons

1. As an easier way of keeping friends up to date with our news, what we are doing and how it's all going down here in the big smoke

2. As somewhere to post my thoughts, reflections, ideas, half-ideas, rants, random thoughts and musings, especially so that people can let me know what they think (feedback is so important in the whole learning process).

So, for example, I might put here the odd story (especially if it's slightly funny) or two about how college is going, what's happening in our church down here, what we've been up to and so on. I might also use this blog to talk about a talk I've got coming up and where I'm at in understanding the passage, an idea I've been thinking about, something that has struck me in my quiet time (yet another reason to make sure I keep having one), something I've read/seen recently that made me think, an assignment I'm chewing on. People can then make comments, suggest things, rebuke and correct, laugh or cry (whatever seems the most appropriate). With the college stuff in particular the hope is that this (you all) might help me keep what I am learning rooted in the reality of real life and experience.

Clear? Good. Watch this space.

Pete