I am currently enjoying reading Radical Reformission by Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle - a book about trying to engage with culture without losing the (gospel) plot. Driscoll's big passion for the world and for the Lord Jesus is on every page. Moreover, his chapter on the twin pitfalls of syncretism (when the Church becomes too much like the world) and sectarianism (when the Church hides away from the world) reveals strong convictions about the scope of the gospel's power.
The problem with both syncretism and sectarianism is that they deny the clear teaching of the Scriptures that the power of God unleashed through the gospel of Jesus Christ can transform anyone. Sectarians do not live by the necessary faith in the gospel and therefore believe that evil hearts and sinful actions and worldly social structures are more powerful than God, unable to be redeemed, and therefore are a waste of our energies because they are destined to be meat on God's grill anyway, so why bother? Likewise, syncretists do not live by the necessary faith in the gospel and therefore believe that the hearts of people aren't that bad, their actions aren't that sinful, and since people are doing the best they can, we can't expect any sort of radical transformation, and so we should simply bless them with a sentimental love.
What he says at the end of the chapter is pure gospel optimism rooted in a reformed model of culture.
Here's what I'd like you to remember from this chapter: reformission is not about abstention; it is about redemption. We must throw ourselves into the culture so that all that God made good is taken back and used in a way that glorifies him. Our goal is not to avoid drinking, singing, working, playing, eating, love-making, and the like. Instead, our goal must be to redeem those things through the power of the gospel so that they are used rightly according to Scripture, bringing God glory and his people a satisfied joy.
[Previous posts on Gospel Optimism HERE]
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Are paedobaptists unrepentant?
Some words of sanity on a difficult issue where Christians often disagree can be found here. As an unrepentant paedobaptist I welcome the stance taken by John Piper and co., even if others think it fuzzy.
He was pierced for our transgressions
Things have been a little quiet here recently - apologies (holidays, camps, jury duty etc.). I aim to blog a little more over the next few weeks, at least until college gets into full swing.
One thing jury duty enabled me to do was finish reading Pierced for our transgressions (PFOT). Written in the wake of a fair bit of controversy about what Jesus' death achieved, PFOT aims to help the Church redisover 'the glory of penal substitution' - which is basically the teaching that
'Jesus Christ our Lord, moved by a love that was determined to do everything necessary to save us, endured and exhausted the destructive divine judgment for which we were otherwise inescapably destined, and so won us forgiveness, adoption and glory.' (Packer)
Evangelical Christians have pretty much always believed this, until recent years, when an increasing number from evangelical circles have questioned, attacked and even rejected the doctrine.
Others have reviewed PFOT properly elsewhere (just google it), so this is intended as an advert more than a review. If you don't own it (and you do read books), buy it. Then read it. Then buy it again and give it to others to read.
PFOT is in two parts. Part one kicks of with exegesis of the main relevant bible passages. The main strength here is that all the findings and arguments of others who've written defending penal substitution in the last fifty years are gathered in one place as a coherent whole. Also, the authors deal sensitively with the new perspective on Paul for those interested in those debates. From now on, anyone wishing to write against penal substitution must tackle this exegetical groundswell head on.
The section on theology (i.e. how penal substitution fits with other major themes and teachings in the bible) is marked by crisp logic built on sound exegesis. It is especially helpful to see how PS hooks into the bible's teaching on creation and the nature of God as Trinity - both areas where some evangelical thinking at a popular level can be a little weak.
The authors also show us that PS is pastorally necessary and historically well-attested. The historical section is especially eye-opening in the two main points is makes - PS is an old doctrine (whereas some critics argue it was invented in the C16th) and PS is an evangelical essential (whereas some critics have argued that one can be evangelical and reject it).
But it is in part two that this book really comes into its own. Part two consists of a step by step answer to just about every conceivable criticism of and objection to PS. Whilst many opponents of the doctrine have not listened accurately to the other side of the debate, the same cannot be said for the authors of PFOT. The authors present their opponent's views with calm precision, then politely, but firmly, show how each objection to the doctrine can be fully answered. This section alone (helpfully organised by the different types of objection) makes PFOT an invaluable resource for the Church.
PFOT can help God's people achieve a biblically balanced, nuanced, contextualised, practical and rich conviction about the glorious reality that 'Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.'
One thing jury duty enabled me to do was finish reading Pierced for our transgressions (PFOT). Written in the wake of a fair bit of controversy about what Jesus' death achieved, PFOT aims to help the Church redisover 'the glory of penal substitution' - which is basically the teaching that
'Jesus Christ our Lord, moved by a love that was determined to do everything necessary to save us, endured and exhausted the destructive divine judgment for which we were otherwise inescapably destined, and so won us forgiveness, adoption and glory.' (Packer)
Evangelical Christians have pretty much always believed this, until recent years, when an increasing number from evangelical circles have questioned, attacked and even rejected the doctrine.
Others have reviewed PFOT properly elsewhere (just google it), so this is intended as an advert more than a review. If you don't own it (and you do read books), buy it. Then read it. Then buy it again and give it to others to read.
PFOT is in two parts. Part one kicks of with exegesis of the main relevant bible passages. The main strength here is that all the findings and arguments of others who've written defending penal substitution in the last fifty years are gathered in one place as a coherent whole. Also, the authors deal sensitively with the new perspective on Paul for those interested in those debates. From now on, anyone wishing to write against penal substitution must tackle this exegetical groundswell head on.
The section on theology (i.e. how penal substitution fits with other major themes and teachings in the bible) is marked by crisp logic built on sound exegesis. It is especially helpful to see how PS hooks into the bible's teaching on creation and the nature of God as Trinity - both areas where some evangelical thinking at a popular level can be a little weak.
The authors also show us that PS is pastorally necessary and historically well-attested. The historical section is especially eye-opening in the two main points is makes - PS is an old doctrine (whereas some critics argue it was invented in the C16th) and PS is an evangelical essential (whereas some critics have argued that one can be evangelical and reject it).
But it is in part two that this book really comes into its own. Part two consists of a step by step answer to just about every conceivable criticism of and objection to PS. Whilst many opponents of the doctrine have not listened accurately to the other side of the debate, the same cannot be said for the authors of PFOT. The authors present their opponent's views with calm precision, then politely, but firmly, show how each objection to the doctrine can be fully answered. This section alone (helpfully organised by the different types of objection) makes PFOT an invaluable resource for the Church.
PFOT can help God's people achieve a biblically balanced, nuanced, contextualised, practical and rich conviction about the glorious reality that 'Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.'
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Camp 07
Camp went extremely well last week. Here's some things I am really thankful for.
1. The weather was really good. We had about thirty minutes of rain the whole week (despite being forecast several days). This is not just good for the tan - entertaining 35 9-12 year olds in a week of rain is pretty hard.
2. The book of Exodus proclaimed the gospel loud and clear. We traveled from Egypt to Sinai, from light to darkness, from slavery to freedom, from Pharaoh to Yahweh, from de-creation to new creation.
3. The children listened incredibly well.
4. Two children professed Christ for the very first time.
5. The team was largely happy and unified.
1. The weather was really good. We had about thirty minutes of rain the whole week (despite being forecast several days). This is not just good for the tan - entertaining 35 9-12 year olds in a week of rain is pretty hard.
2. The book of Exodus proclaimed the gospel loud and clear. We traveled from Egypt to Sinai, from light to darkness, from slavery to freedom, from Pharaoh to Yahweh, from de-creation to new creation.
3. The children listened incredibly well.
4. Two children professed Christ for the very first time.
5. The team was largely happy and unified.
Oh Mercy!
I don't usually whine about translations (and I like the ESV), but in sermon preparation for this sunday I find myself asking;
Why has the ESV chosen to translate /hanan/ as 'mercy' in Psalm 123?
It seems so obviously connected to other uses of the word (and related) i.e.
Ex. 33:19 And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. (Note here how it is related to but distinguished from 'mercy')
Num. 6:25 the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
Most of the time when translating the word the ESV goes for something to do with being gracious. Also, the few Hebrew wordy-books I've looked up always give a meaning more akin to being gracious than mercy. Mercy, certainly in our modern English usage, seems too narrow. It helpfully carries the idea of something being undeserved, but then so does 'graciousness'.
I suspect we usually associate mercy with 'not being punished even though you deserve it' rather than a broader concept of 'being shown undeserved compassion and favour' which is closer to /hanan/. Technically speaking 'mercy' can be used with this broader sense of an unmerited kindness (Sheila constantly performed small mercies for the poor in her neighbourhood) though I feel that's a little archaic and foreign to most people nowadays.
All of this makes the preacher's job harder.
Why has the ESV chosen to translate /hanan/ as 'mercy' in Psalm 123?
It seems so obviously connected to other uses of the word (and related) i.e.
Ex. 33:19 And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. (Note here how it is related to but distinguished from 'mercy')
Num. 6:25 the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
Most of the time when translating the word the ESV goes for something to do with being gracious. Also, the few Hebrew wordy-books I've looked up always give a meaning more akin to being gracious than mercy. Mercy, certainly in our modern English usage, seems too narrow. It helpfully carries the idea of something being undeserved, but then so does 'graciousness'.
I suspect we usually associate mercy with 'not being punished even though you deserve it' rather than a broader concept of 'being shown undeserved compassion and favour' which is closer to /hanan/. Technically speaking 'mercy' can be used with this broader sense of an unmerited kindness (Sheila constantly performed small mercies for the poor in her neighbourhood) though I feel that's a little archaic and foreign to most people nowadays.
All of this makes the preacher's job harder.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
In what sense?
The longer I am at Oak Hill the more I realise just how pants much of my state education was. I resent the fact that I was never really taught to think (any fool can regurgitate, and especially if you're blessed with a fairly good memory like this fool is).
In particular, I was never taught how to distinguish, i.e. to ask and answer the question 'in what sense?' about every statement. If our many chat shows, political discussion shows and radio phone-ins are representative, then it would seem that most of the country hasn't been taught to think in this way either. We are rapidly losing our ability to grasp or make coherent arguments.
Obviously this is bad news, since it means decisions will be made for the wrong reasons, theological positions will be held without being carefully worked through, and friendships broken unnecessarily.
Oak Hill graduate Neil Jeffers joined the world of blogs today, and his blog (Distinguo - you'll have to forgive the Latin) opens with a brief thought or two on the need to distinguish. Neil has a great mind and a gospel heart, so do check in at Distinguo every now and then
In particular, I was never taught how to distinguish, i.e. to ask and answer the question 'in what sense?' about every statement. If our many chat shows, political discussion shows and radio phone-ins are representative, then it would seem that most of the country hasn't been taught to think in this way either. We are rapidly losing our ability to grasp or make coherent arguments.
Obviously this is bad news, since it means decisions will be made for the wrong reasons, theological positions will be held without being carefully worked through, and friendships broken unnecessarily.
Oak Hill graduate Neil Jeffers joined the world of blogs today, and his blog (Distinguo - you'll have to forgive the Latin) opens with a brief thought or two on the need to distinguish. Neil has a great mind and a gospel heart, so do check in at Distinguo every now and then
Friday, July 27, 2007
Exodus; Tabernacle & Creation
Peter Enns, in his helpful commentary on Exodus points out that the tabernacle is paralleled with creation.
1. There are seven 'The LORD said to Moses' instructions re. the building of the tabernacle and accompaniments (25:1; 30:11, 17, 22, 34; 31:1; 31:12).
2. The seventh (31:12) is an instruction not so much about the tabernacle (on the face of it) but rather about the sabbath. The instruction here highlights the link to creation clearly (31:17).
3. Enns is unsure about the order of the other six and is reluctant to see them tied too directly to the days of creation, stating that the overall point is made clear simply by the structure of seven climaxing in sabbath rest. I haven't thought a lot further, but it is interesting that the sixth 'The LORD said' instruction is regarding Oholiab and Bezalel, two men filled with God's breath/Spirit/spirit and commissioned to build the tabernacle (cf. Genesis 1:26-30 = Day 6 and creation of humanity, commissioned to have dominion. cf. Genesis 2:7, 15 = Man created and filled with God's breath, commissioned to tend God's garden-sanctuary).
4. Following the Golden Calf incident and following (32-34), there is yet again mention of the sabbath (35:1-3) and then a narrative of the actual building of the temple, under Moses instructions, through the obedience of the Israelites, all according to the heavenly pattern.
5. When all the building is done we are told that 'Moses finished the work' (40:33) in a (surely) deliberate echo of Genesis 2:2.
So, the tabernacle was a model restoration of creation order, a microcosm (Enn's word) of creation, showing how things could and should be with Yahweh as King. How exciting that, by extension/fulfilment/typology/union with Christ, the Church is the tabernacle/temple.
1. There are seven 'The LORD said to Moses' instructions re. the building of the tabernacle and accompaniments (25:1; 30:11, 17, 22, 34; 31:1; 31:12).
2. The seventh (31:12) is an instruction not so much about the tabernacle (on the face of it) but rather about the sabbath. The instruction here highlights the link to creation clearly (31:17).
3. Enns is unsure about the order of the other six and is reluctant to see them tied too directly to the days of creation, stating that the overall point is made clear simply by the structure of seven climaxing in sabbath rest. I haven't thought a lot further, but it is interesting that the sixth 'The LORD said' instruction is regarding Oholiab and Bezalel, two men filled with God's breath/Spirit/spirit and commissioned to build the tabernacle (cf. Genesis 1:26-30 = Day 6 and creation of humanity, commissioned to have dominion. cf. Genesis 2:7, 15 = Man created and filled with God's breath, commissioned to tend God's garden-sanctuary).
4. Following the Golden Calf incident and following (32-34), there is yet again mention of the sabbath (35:1-3) and then a narrative of the actual building of the temple, under Moses instructions, through the obedience of the Israelites, all according to the heavenly pattern.
5. When all the building is done we are told that 'Moses finished the work' (40:33) in a (surely) deliberate echo of Genesis 2:2.
So, the tabernacle was a model restoration of creation order, a microcosm (Enn's word) of creation, showing how things could and should be with Yahweh as King. How exciting that, by extension/fulfilment/typology/union with Christ, the Church is the tabernacle/temple.
Exodus: Talks and passages
Here is the rough breakdown of my series on 'Exodus - The Great Escape' for camp (starts saturday, 9-12 yr olds).
1. Exodus 1 (&2). God keeps his promises (intro to the series)
2. Exodus 3 (&4). Meet the LORD (i.e., what's he like? Holy/Saving/Reliable)
3. Exodus 7-11. The Big Fight - Pharaoh vs God (God is God of all the earth)
4. Exodus 12. Passover - Rescue through Blood (Mainly about PSA this talk)
5. Exodus 14. The Red Sea - Rescue through Victory (God beats his people's enemies)
6. Exodus 20:1-17. Living God's Way (How should rescued people live? Point of rescue was from slavery in egypt to Yahweh's kingship etc.)
7. Exodus 25, 29, 40:34ff. God with us (Tabernacle, God dwelling with his people as the goal of redemption, God guiding Israel all the way to the promised land etc. etc.)
It has really struck me in preparation just how much stuff there is in Exodus. Along the way we'll meet (at times only briefly, alas) with such themes and doctrines as;
- God's sovereignty and human responsibility (talks 3&4 mainly)
- Salvation as new creation (talks 5, 6, 7 mainly)
- Judgment (and in fact sin) as de-creation (mainly talk 3, but it could so easily be in 5 too)
- The Perseverence of the Saints (talk 7)
And of course, Covenant/Promise, Penal Substitutionary Atonement, Death/Resurrection, Law/Grace, Lordship, Kingdom, Christus Victor, Revelation and so on...
Basically, there's quite a lot in Exodus, and I've only started to scratch the surface.
1. Exodus 1 (&2). God keeps his promises (intro to the series)
2. Exodus 3 (&4). Meet the LORD (i.e., what's he like? Holy/Saving/Reliable)
3. Exodus 7-11. The Big Fight - Pharaoh vs God (God is God of all the earth)
4. Exodus 12. Passover - Rescue through Blood (Mainly about PSA this talk)
5. Exodus 14. The Red Sea - Rescue through Victory (God beats his people's enemies)
6. Exodus 20:1-17. Living God's Way (How should rescued people live? Point of rescue was from slavery in egypt to Yahweh's kingship etc.)
7. Exodus 25, 29, 40:34ff. God with us (Tabernacle, God dwelling with his people as the goal of redemption, God guiding Israel all the way to the promised land etc. etc.)
It has really struck me in preparation just how much stuff there is in Exodus. Along the way we'll meet (at times only briefly, alas) with such themes and doctrines as;
- God's sovereignty and human responsibility (talks 3&4 mainly)
- Salvation as new creation (talks 5, 6, 7 mainly)
- Judgment (and in fact sin) as de-creation (mainly talk 3, but it could so easily be in 5 too)
- The Perseverence of the Saints (talk 7)
And of course, Covenant/Promise, Penal Substitutionary Atonement, Death/Resurrection, Law/Grace, Lordship, Kingdom, Christus Victor, Revelation and so on...
Basically, there's quite a lot in Exodus, and I've only started to scratch the surface.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Exodus - The gospel according to Moses
This is the first of what I hope will turn into several posts on Exodus to help me get myself clear(er) in time for talks next week at camp. First up, some general points which will govern all my teaching from Exodus.
1. Exodus follows Genesis.
The book of Exodus is self-consciously a continuation of the story begun in the first book of the bible. The story of Creation-Fall-Abraham and ff. is always in the background either explicitly or implicitly. In short, I'll be aiming to teach Exodus as part of the story of God pursuing his original plans for his creation through the family line of Abraham.
2. Exodus is 'about' Jesus
This is because the story begun in Genesis and continued in Exodus reaches its climax in what God did/is doing through the Lord Jesus Christ. This is obvious and more familiar in some parts (Christ as the passover lamb of Exodus 12) but I'm guessing there will be less familiar discoveries along the way too.
3. Exodus is Gospel
In a very real and significant way, therefore, Exodus is a proclamation of the gospel, both in terms of types and shadows (the tabernacle, the passover) but also in terms of its exposition, expansion and exploration of the gospel promises already announced to Abraham and co. in the covenant(s) of Genesis 12, 15, 17 etc. and its further revelation of the gospel/covenant-proclaiming and fulfilling God. This assumption will prove especially important when teaching the 'law bits'. One of the things I hope to help the children see is that 'His commands are not burdensome' (1 John 5:3).
1. Exodus follows Genesis.
The book of Exodus is self-consciously a continuation of the story begun in the first book of the bible. The story of Creation-Fall-Abraham and ff. is always in the background either explicitly or implicitly. In short, I'll be aiming to teach Exodus as part of the story of God pursuing his original plans for his creation through the family line of Abraham.
2. Exodus is 'about' Jesus
This is because the story begun in Genesis and continued in Exodus reaches its climax in what God did/is doing through the Lord Jesus Christ. This is obvious and more familiar in some parts (Christ as the passover lamb of Exodus 12) but I'm guessing there will be less familiar discoveries along the way too.
3. Exodus is Gospel
In a very real and significant way, therefore, Exodus is a proclamation of the gospel, both in terms of types and shadows (the tabernacle, the passover) but also in terms of its exposition, expansion and exploration of the gospel promises already announced to Abraham and co. in the covenant(s) of Genesis 12, 15, 17 etc. and its further revelation of the gospel/covenant-proclaiming and fulfilling God. This assumption will prove especially important when teaching the 'law bits'. One of the things I hope to help the children see is that 'His commands are not burdensome' (1 John 5:3).
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Reformation in Geneva
Here are some pictures from our visit to Geneva on holiday. The first is Calvin's auditorium where he and John Knox lectured and where reformed refugees from across the whole world gathered to hear them, including many of the guys who would go back to Britain in Elizabeth's reign to get the reformation going again.
The second is the cover of the initial copy of Calvin's Institutes. This work helped clarify the teachings regained at the time of reformation
and spread them across the world.
This is the inscription from Calvin's grave.
There were many more delights, especially the city's newly-opened museum of the reformation. Claire and I bumped into Mark Dever there, which was slightly weird. Whilst he tried to buy a bust of Calvin for his office desk from the Museum gift-shop, I rather fancied the ale they were selling named after the great reformer.
Anyway, the point of it all? Just the kind of thing geeky Oak Hill students get up to on their hols? well, I was struck by one big thing:
The reformers achieved an awful lot and changed the world. Calvin was 55 when he died. Others died younger. Yet these guys left behind them an incredible body of work. In an age before the internet etc. they worked tirelessly to spread the gospel they'd re-discovered around Europe and lay foundations for the generations of Christians who followed them. Just in our one day in Geneva we saw and heard of schools, universities and churches set up, civil government reforms, church government reforms, missionaries trained and sent, books written and revised, and more. It kind of makes me wonder what I've been playing around at these last 28 years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
