tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-186543612024-03-08T00:25:11.362+00:00JOHN'S BLOGthoughts on God, the Bible, science and random other stuff...Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02487495921222083129noreply@blogger.comBlogger1222125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-79630697980985431912020-02-18T19:51:00.000+00:002020-02-18T19:51:28.568+00:00Newer blog<p>Just a reminder that my current blog is <a href="https://johnallister.wordpress.com/">here</a> - this one is only kept as an archive of old stuff...</p>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02487495921222083129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-59484467321144310372017-02-21T18:48:00.000+00:002017-02-21T18:51:20.260+00:00Children and Communion - What the Bible Says<p>The church I'm part of are discussing issues around admitting children to communion at the moment. Unconnected to that, a friend asked me what the Bible said about it, so I spent a bit of time and came up with the following. I was trying to write a fairly balanced piece, but it didn't come out that way because all the arguments seemed to go in one direction. Or maybe two directions, but more of that later...</p><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif_uWEScgMkJDjL05Ou6AISi6A_mKznEt0qMhKQfMoux1Hkxpq5lDYNDGX6huChclJe0bEoIwbXp9XoJT5p6d2Np_y5S3t0eQ875dI7l6bulJqtWLYWW_yH6PBj5-9VN0re7t6/s1600/Charles_Lock_Eastlake_-_Christ_Blessing_Little_Children.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif_uWEScgMkJDjL05Ou6AISi6A_mKznEt0qMhKQfMoux1Hkxpq5lDYNDGX6huChclJe0bEoIwbXp9XoJT5p6d2Np_y5S3t0eQ875dI7l6bulJqtWLYWW_yH6PBj5-9VN0re7t6/s400/Charles_Lock_Eastlake_-_Christ_Blessing_Little_Children.jpg" width="400" height="310" /></a></div><h2>Old Testament</h2><p>Obviously, there isn't any communion in the Old Testament, but there are still some relevant passages, because Communion is an upgraded version of a couple of OT ceremonies – the passover and the sacrificial meal.</p><h3>Passover</h3><p>In Exodus 12, the original passover was done by households, and children were very much included (e.g. v26). In fact, it's particularly appropriate for children to join in as the lamb dies in place of the firstborn son.</p><p>The same is implicit in the command to celebrate the Passover every year in Numbers 9 and Deuteronomy 16. Certainly, Jewish Passover liturgy had important roles for the children (filled by the youngest adult if no children were present).</p><h3>The Sacrificial Meal</h3><p>The Passover isn't the only sacrifice where the meat is eaten. There are short regulations in Leviticus, but we see it worked out in 1 Samuel 1:4ff, where Elkanah makes a sacrifice at the Tabernacle as the head of the household, and shares the meat with the priests and with his family, including the children. It's fairly clear from the passage that Elkanah's actions are seen as normal.</p><h3>Summary</h3><p>It's clear that in the Old Testament, the meals which were later upgraded to communion included children as a normal part of them. The obvious question is “Why should a child in the New Covenant people of God be worse off that one under the Old Covenant in respect of sharing in the commemoration meal?” Or to continue the analogy of an upgrade, this was a key feature in previous versions of the product - why should the Jesus upgrade do away with it?</p><h2>Gospels</h2><p>There's nothing obvious in the gospels about children and communion, as the Lord's Supper is the only obvious communion meal, and there were (probably) no children present.<br />
However, there are a few other passages which can help.</p><br />
<h3>“Let the children come to me”</h3><p>In Matthew 18 & 19, there are a series of episodes involving Jesus and children. Jesus says that we need to become like little children 18v3, that we should not despise (i.e. neglect) them 18v10, that he blesses them when the disciples would send them away 19v14. It is clear from this that even “little children” can believe in Jesus and that he seeks to include them.<br />
There isn't a direct link to communion here, as it's not really in view in the passage, but it's clear that some people want to exclude children, and Jesus wants to include them. I think at the least this passage should make us want to have a bias towards inclusion.</p><h3>The Woman with Bleeding</h3><p>Another helpful passage is the story of the woman with bleeding in Mark 5:25-34. We are told that her faith “saves” her v34 (though some translations hide it, the word is clearly “saved” not “healed”). And yet her saving faith doesn't seem to be very good at theology – it's much more of a kind of superstition that if she touches Jesus' clothes then she will be healed. It's clear that what matters is that it's faith in Jesus, not whether the faith is intellectual or superstitious.</p><p>One obvious consequence of this is that it is appropriate for adults with special needs to receive communion if they want to – what matters is whether they trust Jesus, not how intellectual that trust is.</p><h3>Feeding of the 5,000</h3><p>In John 6, Jesus sees the feeding of the 5,000 as anticipating communion (v1-14, v53-58). And yet we read that there were children present and eating there as well (e.g. Matt 14:21).</p><br />
<h2>Acts</h2><p>Communion is something that seems to be celebrated by the church as a whole, especially when meeting in people's homes (e.g. Acts 2:42, 46). It is clear that whole households were sometimes baptised (e.g. Acts 16:33), and there is no evidence that baptised children were excluded from communion. Sunday School wasn't invented for a good few centuries!</p><br />
<h2>Epistles</h2><p>There's a clear link made in the epistles between baptism, union with Christ and being members of the body of Christ (Rom 6:3-4, 1 Cor 12:13).</p><p>There's also a clear link between being part of the body of Christ and sharing in communion (1 Cor 10:16-17).</p><p>It seems fairly clear that the expectation is that people who are baptised are part of the (visible) church, and that members of the visible church share in communion to show their unity with one another. The obvious conclusion is that all people who are baptised should receive communion.</p><br />
<p>To my mind, the most persuasive argument in the whole debate comes out here, and goes something like this. "My 9 year old clearly believes and trusts in Jesus. She has been baptised. Is she a member of Christ's body? (Answer has to be "yes"). Then why can't she receive communion?"</p><h3>1 Cor 11:27-32</h3><p>This is the only passage I can find from which anyone argues that baptised children should not receive communion. It says that people should examine themselves before eating the bread and drinking of the cup, and that those who don't bring judgement on themselves.</p><p>It clearly means something important. The context was that the church in Corinth was meeting together after work. Some people (maybe the rich who came from the golf course or equivalent) were getting there early and eating a lot; others were arriving late (maybe with tougher and lower-paid jobs) and folk weren't being considerate to each other (e.g. v20-21). Recognising the body of Christ in this context means being willing to inconvenience ourselves for the sake of other Christians.</p><p>This passage <b>can't</b> mean that someone needs a certain level of intellectual ability before they receive communion, because the body of Christ includes all different sorts of people, even the woman with bleeding and even folk who lack that level of intellectual ability. We don't give an IQ test before we admit folk to communion! What matters is the object of our faith – am I really trusting / loving Jesus, and whether that shows itself in love for others. Do I love Jesus? Do I love others? If someone can ask and answer those questions, then these verses shouldn't stop them receiving communion.</p><p>If anything, this passage cuts the other way. Do we recognise that children who believe in Jesus are part of the body of Christ? What does v29 mean in the light of your answer?</p><br />
<h3>Other Verses</h3><p>There are a few other Biblical arguments against children receiving communion (e.g. needing children's own profession of faith rather than that of parents), but they are all actually arguments against children being baptised, and stop applying long before children reach the age at which confirmation is normal. I've seen an 8-year old bring her whole family along to church because she came to trust in Jesus for herself through reading a Bible she was given.</p><p>In any case, as Anglicans, we accept that even little children can have faith, and we accept that parents can make promises on behalf of their children. I was hoping to write a balanced piece, but having done the work it seems to me that there are no substantive Biblical arguments against children receiving communion, especially those who profess faith for themselves.</p><br />
<p>Disagree? Think I've missed something important? Feel free to comment below!</p><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06521625130572179577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-89866462082994059992017-01-02T11:24:00.000+00:002017-01-02T13:06:37.321+00:00Best Apps for Helping You Read the Bible<p>This is a list of ones I've had recommended to me or have used myself. I'll try to keep it updated if people let me know of ones they find helpful and why. Links are to the Google Play store; I'm sure most of these exist for Apple devices as well.</p><br />
<dl><dt><a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sirma.mobile.bible.android">The Bible App</a> from Life.church<br />
<dd>One of the best apps for "just reading" the Bible. It has lots of translations - I'd recommend the UK edition of the NIV, or the New Living Translation. It also has a variety of reading plans with notes, but they tend to be quite short and I've not really used them.<br />
<dt><a href=https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=niv.biblereader.olivetree>Olive Tree NIV Bible</a><br />
<dd>This is a proper study Bible, with maps, commentaries, etc. (often via in-app purchases), as well as several translations and reading plans.<br />
<dt><a href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.blueletterbible.blb">Blue Letter Bible</a><br />
<dd>This is more useful for the Bible geeks, as it lets you read the English in parallel with the Greek or Hebrew if that's your thing. The best translation on there is probably the HCSB, which is pretty good.<br />
<dt><a href=https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.multipie.bibleinoneyear>Bible in One Year</a><br />
<dd>HTB's app for helping people read the Bible in a year, complete with notes from the staff at HTB. Note - Bible in one year is about 4 chapters per day, so expect a fair bit of reading!<br />
<dt><a href=https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.aimermedia.dailyprayer>Daily Prayer</a><br />
<dd>The official Common Worship Daily Prayer app, for those who like things a bit more traditional but still on their phone. It gives you a short service of Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer and Compline every day, with the readings and prayers changing with the dates and seasons.<br />
<dt><a href=https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.geero.prayermate>PrayerMate</a><br />
<dd>OK, not actually a Bible reading app, but it's great for managing lists of things to pray for and giving you reminders to pray!<br />
</dl><br />
Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06521625130572179577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-73753331798923122532016-11-14T15:43:00.002+00:002016-11-14T15:43:18.476+00:00Theology for Dads - Forgiveness<p>One thing that being a dad taught me about God's love is to do with forgiveness.</p><p>My son hurts me most days at the moment. Yesterday it was putting his fingers up my nose and trying to pull it off. I didn't really mind and forgave him instantly of course; I even thought it was kind of sweet. Why? Because he's my son</p><p>If I was on the bus and a random kid came over to me and started doing that, I'd probably object. But my love for my son is such that I don't mind him hurting me; I'm just glad to spend time with him.</p><p>Now how does God feel when his children sin?</p><p>He loves us far more than I love my son, of course, so he is far more ready and willing to forgive. His attitude towards us isn't some kind of cold reckoning that weighs our sin and counts off beans to match from Jesus' life. He loves us, so he forgives us.</p><p>Judgement is God's "strange work" and "alien task" (Isaiah 28:21). Love and forgiveness come naturally to God the Father, especially for his children.</p>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06521625130572179577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-66149082311345497642016-10-25T16:49:00.001+01:002016-10-25T16:52:57.369+01:00Theology for Dads - Introduction<img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTqqR13w6D8mrWYEsSFrTGXajfSjy3X97Ah3bIS2UlXI-6ZUKZL6mo9mOsFEnE7kegBvdoxnMdWpqT4Zaodg0VdEcUMeu1cESVacdJWMmZUB5aDrhWfRKLdEx0HVBkUgLdida5/s400/father-1633655_1280.jpg" width="600" /><br />
<p>One of the reasons I've not been blogging much of late is that we now have a lovely baby boy. I've learnt loads about being a dad (obviously), but also quite a lot about God from the experience of being a dad.</p><p>So I thought it would be worthwhile posting some of those thoughts here, in case other folk find them helpful...</p>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06521625130572179577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-28413905401767120592016-03-01T21:08:00.002+00:002016-03-02T10:04:03.842+00:00The Lost World of Adam and Eve - John H Walton<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiibt1zicYuJwp4h9bM_CVHKzZDRtQ6G1gCJ40m1js9bZd6CMCGmY3uoM9uYSJ3Qb7Q6Sg-ntAYr1AoYth5o74kJD_Vv_8oaDdLA4nNtcCxPR2RrTv738kSLB96U9HUGY4DYpoL/s1600/2016-03-01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiibt1zicYuJwp4h9bM_CVHKzZDRtQ6G1gCJ40m1js9bZd6CMCGmY3uoM9uYSJ3Qb7Q6Sg-ntAYr1AoYth5o74kJD_Vv_8oaDdLA4nNtcCxPR2RrTv738kSLB96U9HUGY4DYpoL/s320/2016-03-01.jpg" /></a></div><p>I've read a lot of Christian books that were okay – they didn't set the world alight but they might have reminded me of some important truths or put something in a slightly different way. This is not one of those; this could be a real game changer.</p><p>John Walton is professor of Old Testament at the bastion of US religious conservatism that is Wheaton College, and he's written this book to see what Genesis 1-3 really claims about creation, specifically the question of human origins. He doesn't bother with the science, because he isn't a scientist; he just sticks to what he is good at, which is Old Testament exegesis and cultural background. He doesn't even deal with Adam and Eve in the New Testament – he gets N.T. Wright to write that chapter. He also (quite rightly) recognises that the scientific arguments don't really matter much for Christians - we believe that God could have created the universe with the appearance of age and human beings with the appearance of being descended from a common ancestor with chimps; the question is whether he did.</p><p>Walton confirms what I have long thought; that Genesis 1-3 doesn't necessarily contradict the claims of modern science. Along the way he demolishes some of the things I'd already noticed were bogus (like the assumption that Adam and Eve were immortal in the Garden of Eden – if they were, they wouldn't have needed the Tree of Life) and some I hadn't spotted before (Adam and Eve are Hebrew nouns and Hebrew wasn't invented until Genesis 11, so they can't be the real names of the couple). He remains utterly committed to Biblical authority throughout; even while working on potentially controversial areas he gives clear, common sense, uncontroversial examples which show the validity of his position. Did several Old Testament authors believe in a solid sky? Yes, I suppose they did. Did the wine Jesus made from water in John 2 have the appearance of a potentially misleading history? Of course it did. Does the ancient belief that the heart was where a person did their thinking and feeling commit us to believe the same? No, it doesn't.</p><p>I'm not convinced by everything in the book – I think he over-eggs the concept of sacred space, for example, and there are some bits near the start of the book that badly need editing/rewriting. But I think that for the reader who can cope with his language and style, this book utterly demolishes the idea that you need to believe in young earth creationism to take the Bible seriously, and shows us just how much cultural baggage we bring into our readings of Genesis 1-3. Brilliant, eye-opening, thought-provoking.</p>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06521625130572179577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-32979478885698420012015-07-21T21:57:00.001+01:002015-07-21T21:57:52.318+01:00Telling Right from Wrong in Old Testament Narrative<p>When we read stories in the Old Testament, sometimes it's easy to know what we're meant to think about the events, because God tells us. Sometimes, however, it's not always obvious who (if anyone) is in the right, and who is in the wrong. Take, for example, the story of Jephthah in Judges 10-12. He only agrees to fight for Gilead (part of Israel at the time) if they make him their leader; he defeats the Ammonites, sacrifices his own daughter to keep a rash promise, and then massacres a load of fellow-Israelites because they didn't fight with him against the Ammonites. Is he a good guy or a bad guy? And was he right to sacrifice his daughter or not?</p><p>Here are a few pointers for how to go about it when we aren't sure who is right and who is wrong.</p><h3>1. Trust the Narrator's Perspective</h3><p>As Christians, we believe that the Bible is inspired by God (“God-breathed” in the language of 2 Tim 3:16). But the way God has inspired Scripture is usually by using human authors, so that the words we read are simultaneously the words of a limited human writer writing thousands of years ago and also the eternal words of God. Peter describes it like this “prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21).</p><p>That means that the narrator's perspective is reliable, but not exhaustive. They don't tell us everything that they know – they select what they think is most relevant. But nor do they necessarily know everything about the events they are describing, as Peter tells us in 1 Peter 1:10-12. For example, the author (or editor) of 1 & 2 Samuel probably didn't understand exactly how David would serve as a template for Jesus. </p><p>Sometimes the narrator tells us directly what God thinks of an episode. For example, at the end of 2 Samuel 11, the narrator adds in his own comment “But the thing David had done displeased the LORD.”</p><p>Sometimes the narrator leaves it quite a while before commenting – one example would be the history of the Northern Kingdom during the time of the divided monarchy. We're given occasional comments such as “X did evil in the eyes of the LORD”, but the narrator saves up a long exposition of what was wrong with the Northern Kingdom until just after its final destruction in 2 Kings 17.</p><p>Sometimes the narrator is more subtle, as in Ezra 4. In Ezra 4:1-5, the Jews get into an argument with their neighbours about rebuilding the temple. The neighbours claim they want to help; the Jews don't want them to. It isn't immediately obvious whether the Jews are getting it right by excluding other nations or whether they are being too exclusive and just creating unnecessary trouble for themselves. Except that in v1 the narrator slips in a single word – he describes the neighbours as “enemies”. Problem solved – the Jews were right on that occasion.</p><h3>2. Look for comments elsewhere in Scripture</h3><p>One of the main ways this happens is by a New Testament writer referring to an Old Testament story. Because we can trust the writers to be accurate in what they write, even if they don't always see the whole picture, we can use the extra information to help us figure out the OT story. Here are two quick examples:</p><p>In 1 John 3:12, John discusses Cain and Abel, and tells us that Cain murdered Abel because Cain's actions were evil but Abel's were righteous. That makes it easier to understand their story in Genesis 4.</p><p>In Joshua 2, we read the story of Rahab, a Canaanite prostitute who shelters Israelite spies. It isn't immediately obvious whether or not she is right to lie to her own people. However, James 2:25 tells us that it was an example of faith in action, which led to her being counted righteous. Likewise, Hebrews 11:31 also tells us that Rahab's faith shown in welcoming the spies saved her from the destruction of the city.</p><h3>3. Pay attention to Prophets</h3><p>Most human characters in the story are fallible. But not quite all. In particular, the books of Joshua, Judges, 1&2 Samuel and 1&2 Kings were originally classified as “Prophets” not history. Modern theologians tend to describe them as “Deuteronomic history”, because they tie in so strongly with the priorities of the book of Deuteronomy. I've argued elsewhere, and am still largely convinced by it, that most of the Old Testament prophets saw themselves as preaching God's word largely as they had read it in Deuteronomy. (For this view from a more liberal perspective, see, e.g. Holladay's massive commentary on Jeremiah.)</p><p>Deuteronomy is Moses' farewell speeches/sermons to Israel. One passage that's of particular interest for understanding Joshua – 2 Kings is Deut 18:14-22. Moses tells the people that God will raise up a prophet “like him” for the Israelites, and that they must listen to him. The marks of the true prophet are that he will speak God's word, he will point the people to God and not to other gods, and that what the prophet speaks “in the name of the Lord” will happen. Prophets who claim to speak “in the name of the Lord” but who aren't really doing so are to be put to death.</p><p>In the books of Samuel and Kings, in particular, the major characters are often prophets. In fact, arguably the two biggest characters in the story from the Northern Kingdom in 300 years are Elijah and Elisha, both prophets and both of whom get more attention than any of the kings.</p><p>We're told that some of the prophets are false, for example Zechariah son of Kenaanah. We're told that other prophets are true prophets, such as Elijah, Elisha and Samuel. 1 Samuel 3:19 tells us that God was with Samuel and let none of his words fall to the ground. The author of 1 Samuel is also at pains to show that Samuel fits the description in Deut 18 of the prophet who succeeds Moses. We can therefore trust Samuel's words because we can trust that he is speaking from God.</p><p>The same is true of Elijah and Elisha. The author again takes pains to link them with Samuel and hence with Moses' promise of a prophet. For example, at Samuel's farewell he calls on God and God answers with thunder and rain (1 Sam 12:16). When Elijah turns up in 1 Kings 17, he declares that it will not rain, then several years later, he prays and there is thunder and rain. The signs show that he is a true prophet, therefore his words can be trusted.</p><p>Of course, that doesn't mean they are perfect at all – Samuel is a poor father; Elijah gets very depressed in 1 Kings 19, and so on. The Bible loves to show that God uses normal people with normal human failings, and even that he can use them to speak for him.</p><h3>4. How does it fit into the big storyline?</h3><p>It often pays to be aware of how the passage you are reading fits into the big story.</p><p>For example, Genesis 12 is one of the key passages in the storyline of the whole Bible. God makes a series of promises to Abram – that his descendants will become a great nation, that God will give them the land of Canaan, that God will bless them and make them into a blessing to the nations. Those promises are a major theme right through the Old Testament and into the New.<br />
But straight after that, in Genesis 12:10-20, you get an odd incident. There is a famine in the land, Abram and his wife go to Egypt; Abram pretend that Sarai isn't his wife and she joins Pharoah's harem, God sends diseases on Egypt because of them, but it's not obvious what God thinks of Abram's action until you compare it with the promises that have gone before.</p><p>Abe has become a curse to the nations, not a blessing. He has left the land that God promised to give him and has stopped treating his wife as his wife, therefore putting the idea of children at risk. Why? Because he failed to trust God's blessings. Ultimately the passage shows that when Abe fails to take God at his word things go worse for him and for the world than they would otherwise have done. But God won't let Abram's unfaithfulness de-rail his promises...</p><p>In the same light, Elimelech and his family leaving Israel for Moab due to a famine at the start of Ruth is seen in a negative light. It's part of the big pile of mess which Naomi is carrying and which God redeems in the story.</p><p>Or take the book of Judges. It's part of a huge story arc, running from Joshua to 2 Kings, which shows that despite starting with every advantage, ultimately God's people fail to live up to God's standards and so lose their place in the Promised Land. Joshua is mostly positive – the people obey God as long as Joshua and Eleazar live. But Judges marks the point where the rot starts to set in. From Judges 17 onward, the refrain “In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” keeps coming up. In fact, what we see in Judges is a descent from well-ordered obedience to God to vicious anarchy, where the author sees the best solution as being the need for a strong central government – a king. The next big stage of the story, in Samuel & Kings, shows that though the kings start well and solve the problem of anarchy, they don't solve the problem of disobedience to God. Ultimately, that takes Jesus's redemption and the Holy Spirit's transformation...</p><p>Knowing the shape of the book of Judges explains why it misses out the last and probably greatest judge (Samuel) – because it runs from the ideal judge (Othniel), through the pretty good ones (Ehud, Deborah) to the really-not-very-good-at-all ones (Jephthah, Samson) and then into chaos. That means that when we see the horrific events towards the end of the book (chs 17-21), we shouldn't necessarily expect <i>anyone</i> to be in the right. It's depicting the anarchy that ensues when human sinfulness runs riot without even the restraining influence of central government.</p><h3>5. How does it fit with God's character as revealed in Scripture?</h3><p>The fifth criterion we can use to get something of God's perspective on an event is to compare it with what we know of the character of God from elsewhere in Scripture. This is probably the hardest criterion to use well, because it's easy to have our ideas of what God is like, then reject anything in the Bible that doesn't fit with them.</p><p>An easy example would be where someone in the Old Testament does something expressly forbidden in the Old Testament Law, like marrying a non-Israelite or where Onan abuses the tradition of Levirate marriage to sleep with his brother's widow while avoiding the responsibility of having children (Gen 38:8-10, and Deut 25:5-10).</p><p>But there are big principles too, like mercy triumphing over judgement and knowing that God does not desire the death of sinners but rather that they turn from their wickedness and live (Ezekiel 18:23).</p><h3>Back to Jephthah</h3><p>So what about Jephthah? We're told in Hebrews 11 that he had faith in God, which helps a little. But last time I preached on him, I described him as “a bastard in every sense of the word”, which still seems about right. He is one of the later judges in the book, so we should expect him to be very flawed, but still used by God to rescue (like Samson).</p><p>We can see he is angry and jealous at earlier rejections because he is illegitimate (Judges 11:1-11). We can say that his father should have done a better job of providing for him, and also that he should have learnt to be more gracious in his responses.</p><p>He does trust what God has done in the past and therefore rebukes the Ammonites. We are told that God's Spirit came on him and enabled him to defeat the Ammonites. (11:12-29)</p><p>He made a rash promise to God to sacrifice whatever came out of his house first when he returned. His daughter came out of the house first, so he sacrificed her. (11:30-39) We can tell from elsewhere in the Bible that bargaining with God is a bad idea, and from Deut 12:31 that God hates the thought of people sacrificing their children to him – the Canaanites sacrificed children to their gods and that is one of the reasons God drove them out of the land. Jephthah had two ways out of it as well – he could have broken his rash promise to God and thrown himself on God's mercy, or he could have bought his daughter back – Leviticus 27 strongly suggests that Jephthah could have bought his daughter out of the oath for 30 shekels of silver. That he did not shows us that either he was ignorant of the law or that he was exceptionally bloody-minded. </p><p>As for what happens in 12:1-7, with the massacre of the Ephraimites, it's obviously against God's character, though the author remains silent about it. There's probably a deliberate parallel with Joshua 22, where there is another quarrel between the same two groups of people. But there, just as they are ready for war, they discuss it first and end up agreeing and rejoicing together. Here, they don't bother listening to each other and it just descends into civil war.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>These tools give us a pretty good way forward with understanding what God's perspective on narrative events in the OT is. It's an important first step for understanding the significance of the events, why they are recorded in Scripture and what they mean for us - I'd recommend a book like “The Word Became Fresh” by Dale Ralph Davis for taking the next couple of steps...</p><p>There are also some events this doesn't really help with because I don't think we're meant to see them as clear cut right or wrong. Was David right to let Absalom back in 2 Samuel 14? I don't know – it's part of a sequence following on from David's adultery with Bathsheba which shows how that has left him less capable of leading his own family, and I think that's closer to being the point of the story. It's understandable, and it has bad consequences, but not everything recorded in the Bible is clearly right or clearly wrong. It's messy - much like life.</p>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06521625130572179577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-63666302257569561672015-06-23T22:06:00.001+01:002015-06-23T22:06:46.874+01:00Does God Seek His Own Glory?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5eSY5sS34IKCcTuT_hKvA4KLTJb9yu3MEsTrimlw-jbaW6xtJp8f7TN_20P-wqVdscQaRePuom5p2Bpt_nchKL-vqtDNx6vTvFJsjdiTrPnI8a-lmtKrD3sfDwezdT5jymLv0/s320/Photo_of_John_Piper%252C_Oct_2010.jpg" /></div><p>I quite like <a href="http://www.desiringgod.org/authors/john-piper">John Piper</a>. For those who aren't familiar with him, he's an American preacher and theologian who manages to combine “heavy” Calvinist theology with astonishingly deep passion for God and his glory and breathtaking love for the lost. His book <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Desiring-God-Meditations-Christian-Hedonist/dp/1601423101/">Desiring God</a> really helped me reconnect my emotions with my spirituality after a really tough time in my life. I don't see eye to eye with him on everything (women's ministry is one big example), but I'd happily sit under his teaching and I'd love to have half of his love for God.</p><p>One of the issues that Piper has really brought to the fore in modern theology is the question of God seeking his own glory. Piper is all for it, echoing Jonathan Edwards (18th century American theologian, not 20th century British athlete). And he argues very persuasively from Scripture that God does indeed seek his own glory, and that we also should seek God's glory.</p><blockquote><p>He says, ‘Be still, and know that I am God;<br />
I will be exalted among the nations,<br />
I will be exalted in the earth.’ <em>Psalm 46:10, NIV</em></p></blockquote><p>The problem for Piper's theology comes with the question of whether God is right to seek his own glory. Doesn't that make him an egomaniac? Piper's usual response to that challenge is well captured in this recent cartoon by Adam4d. In short, God is so wonderful, so powerful, so wise, that for him to seek the glory of anything other than himself would be both ridiculous and idolatrous.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://adam4d.com/egomaniac/" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-SVQ3P0DI5R3vEWYuJ0w_WzByxfxXzoveOSdVewoVtSKgfX-p86HT0_9IZN4_biDck3oGl790-sApaCFGlbX8AfMQwyOmZN8FIsQGtBkoTJYYti30Lqa38BIEuNNL1EQQKPHX/s320/2015-06-19-egomaniac1.png" /></a></div><p>On a logical level, Piper's response is fine, though I think he's missing a very important factor. There is a problem with passages like Philippians 2 which emphasise precisely the fact that we shouldn't seek our own glory because Jesus didn't seek his own glory. There's also a problem on a personal level. We as Christians are meant to imitate the character of God, but Piper here draws a line between God's passion for his own glory and us being meant to have a passion for God's glory. I don't think it quite works, or not as well as the alternative.</p><p>You see, Piper's arguments for God seeking his own glory are mostly from the Old Testament. In the New Testament, there are some things we see much more clearly. One of those is the Trinity, and that makes all the difference in the world to Piper's argument. </p><p>In the New Testament, what we see is consistently that Jesus as the Second Person of the Trinity does not seek his own glory at all. He seeks the glory of the Father and the Spirit. We see that the Father, too, does not seek his own glory; he seeks the glory of the Son and the Spirit. The Spirit, likewise, does not seek his own glory but seeks the glory of the Father and the Son. The Spirit's glory can be harder to see in the Bible precisely because it's the Spirit who inspires the Bible and he points to the Father and the Son. Here's an example of what we get in the New Testament.</p><blockquote><p>Jesus replied, ‘If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. <em>John 8:54, NIV</em></p><p>After Jesus said this, he looked towards heaven and prayed:<br><br />
‘Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.' <em>John 17:1-5, NIV</em></p></blockquote><p>Does God seek his own glory? Kind of. God is Trinity, and each of the persons of the Trinity seeks <b>each other's</b> glory not their own. Even though Jesus has infinite value and worth and power, he does not seek his own glory; he surrenders it for our good and for the greater glory of his Father, who is also worthy of all honour and glory and praise. He is therefore our perfect example as well as our Saviour. That is what we should imitate, and to my mind it's a much more compelling reason and example than the ones often used by Piper and his followers.</p>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06521625130572179577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-9972731787673422142015-03-11T16:22:00.001+00:002015-03-11T16:22:29.085+00:00"Son" or "Child"?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9P6jOa7WMYBKGzBJ74uq8UufIwKl_3RzsPnmJTlR0HcbNB7flbqKG8bRi2wysw4DQRZhqXAH8aUoLfBimsu2TxR5Y9yloZ1Z-m7NPRWxjjRjunDVrwZWgB-4Y7O4aeWctffXd/s1600/file1401272359020.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9P6jOa7WMYBKGzBJ74uq8UufIwKl_3RzsPnmJTlR0HcbNB7flbqKG8bRi2wysw4DQRZhqXAH8aUoLfBimsu2TxR5Y9yloZ1Z-m7NPRWxjjRjunDVrwZWgB-4Y7O4aeWctffXd/s400/file1401272359020.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<p>It's always slightly odd singing the song “Father God, I wonder”. In the chorus, there's a line with two different versions. It's either “Now I am your child, I am adopted in your family” or “Now I am your son, I am adopted in your family.” And there are some people who will always insist on singing “child”, and some people will always insist on singing “son”, regardless of what the hymn book / song sheet / screen says.</p><p>The arguments goes to an interesting issue in Bible translation, especially Romans 8:14-17 and Galatians 4:4-7. Here's Galatians in the 2011 NIV:</p><blockquote>But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship. Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, ‘Abba, Father.’ So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir.</blockquote><p>The words “Son”, “sons”, “adoption to sonship” and “child” are all basically the same word – <em>huios</em>. Here's the same passage in the NASB:</p><blockquote>But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons. Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” Therefore you are no longer a slave, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.</blockquote><h3>Why does Paul say “sons”?</h3><p>It's important to remember that these verses in Galatians 4 come just a few verses after Paul has made his famous declaration that there is no male or female in Christ Jesus, because we all clothe ourselves with Christ through faith.</p><p>Adoption as sons, not just as children, really matters. In the Roman world which Paul was writing to, daughters did not have proper inheritance rights, but sons did. To be a “son” was to be a “top status child”; to be a daughter was to have a lesser status. So for Paul to declare that all the Galatian Christians: male and female, black and white, Jew and Gentile, gay and straight, slave and free were <b>sons</b> was an incredibly egalitarian thing to say. He was using an illustration from his time, of Roman family law, and making a powerfully egalitarian statement from a powerfully non-egalitarian structure.</p><h3>Why should we translate it as “children”?</h3><p>But that's not the situation today. The situation today is that sons and daughters are equal, and inherit equally, but that there's a lingering suspicion of gender bias hanging around in society. In that culture, to insist that we're all sons is to suggest that being a daughter isn't good enough, which it wasn't in Roman culture, but it is with Jesus.</p><p>When we retell Bible stories into contexts where some elements are unfamiliar, we often change the details and idioms so that they fit better. I understand that where bread is not the staple food, the Lord's Prayer sometimes reads “Give us today our daily rice” for example.</p><p>This even happens with the people who wrote the Bible! For example, in Mark 2:4, a paralysed man is brought to Jesus by his friends, who dig through the roof. That makes perfect sense in the original context, where houses were made of mud and wood, and it makes sense in a story told by Peter or Mark, who grew up in that world. But when Luke, who was from a much more “developed” urban background, tells the story in Luke 5:19, the friends lower the man “through the tiles”. Those are the roofs that Luke and his readers are used to, so he accommodates the story to the readers, even though it's still set in a village in Galilee.</p><p>In writing Galatians 4, Paul uses an analogy from his day – the analogy of adoption into a noble family as a son. If we're just trying to translate his words into English, then I guess it's correct to translate as “sons”, like the NASB does. But if we're trying to translate the analogy and get a Bible that is readable and makes sense to people who haven't studied Roman inheritance law, then it makes more sense to translate the whole analogy into present thought and use “children” throughout, as the NLT does:</p><blockquote><p>But when the right time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman, subject to the law. God sent him to buy freedom for us who were slaves to the law, so that he could adopt us as his very own children. And because we are his children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, prompting us to call out, “Abba, Father.” Now you are no longer a slave but God’s own child. And since you are his child, God has made you his heir.</p></blockquote><p>The NIV goes for a weird middle route, but tries to explain it with a footnote:</p><blockquote><p>The Greek word for adoption to sonship is a legal term referring to the full legal standing of an adopted male heir in Roman culture.</p></blockquote><h3>Back to the song</h3><p>But when we're singing “Father God, I wonder”, we don't have that explanation. All we have is a song. And without the explanation, I think it makes far more sense to sing “child”.</p>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06521625130572179577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-27752685773099156722015-02-23T12:03:00.001+00:002015-02-23T17:10:46.128+00:00Dust and Ashes<p>This is an outline of a sermon I gave on Ash Wednesday this year. Some people found it helpful, so I've written up my notes.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4DXnSKyRqtVL2FqGXsHOXHHzTztauN54UA3dYVEV7Jt8hiPME8C56yFbmDE3FDxdJysnBAPzZusis_Eg3_MTt-nY0OfFWTFn7vwBrUkSj1hx3k7Fz_1S2-FxA-i_7daa2DlUg/s1600/file000798559383.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4DXnSKyRqtVL2FqGXsHOXHHzTztauN54UA3dYVEV7Jt8hiPME8C56yFbmDE3FDxdJysnBAPzZusis_Eg3_MTt-nY0OfFWTFn7vwBrUkSj1hx3k7Fz_1S2-FxA-i_7daa2DlUg/s400/file000798559383.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<p>The Hebrew words for “dust” (aphar) and “ashes” (epher) are very closely linked, and the two are often paired, both in Scripture and in everyday life. It is helpful to look through something of a Biblical theology of dust and ashes.</p><h3>Creation and Fall</h3><p>Adam was originally formed out of dust.</p><blockquote><p>The LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.<br />
<em>Genesis 2:7, ESV</em></p></blockquote><p>Adam's name is even derived from the word for “ground” - his identity seems to be linked to the fact that he's come from the ground, from the dust. After the Fall, the curse that is placed on Adam is that he will return back to dust.</p><blockquote><p>By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.<br />
<em>Genesis 3:19</em></p></blockquote><p>Dust and ashes are symbolic of our mortality and hence also our fallen humanity – we come from dust and return to dust. In 1 Corinthians 15, when Paul is contrasting Adam and Jesus, he does so by describing Adam as a “man of dust”. It can also therefore be a sign of judgement – the result of God's judgement is that we all return to dust.</p><h3>Humiliation and Humility</h3><p>Because of this, people often take dust and ashes as a symbol that they have come near to death and of utter humiliation. People put dust on their heads or roll in ashes as a sign of mourning (e.g. 2 Sam 13:19).</p><p>It's also a sign of humility. The Tower of Babel was in some senses people trying to escape from the dust and reach their own way to heaven. But that contrasts with Abraham, who does not try to be anything other than a man of the ground. He even describes himself as a man who is “just dust and ashes” (Gen 18:27).</p><p>It's therefore something that people can choose to take on as a sign that we recognise our mortality and the gap between us and God, especially with repentance. So Job's response to being rebuked by God is that he repents “in dust and ashes” (Job 42:6).<br />
<h3>Redeemed from Dust</h3><p>But there is hope. In the Old Testament, animals were sacrificed – reduced to ashes, and that ash could provide forgiveness for people of dust.</p><p>But there is far more. The dust is the place where God meets us, and from which he transforms us. Here's part of Hannah's prayer in 1 Samuel 2:</p><blockquote><p>The LORD makes poor and makes rich;<br />
he brings low and he exalts. <br />
He raises up the poor from the dust; <br />
he lifts the needy from the ash heap,<br />
to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honour.<br />
<em>1 Samuel 2:7-8</em></p></blockquote>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06521625130572179577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-68472665434297344042015-01-06T13:24:00.001+00:002015-01-06T13:24:55.426+00:00When Was Galatians Written?<p>Some Bible books just leave us guessing when they were written (e.g. James). Some give us enough information to say with a great deal of accuracy (e.g. 1 Thessalonians). Others give us enough information that we can narrow it down but not say for certain (e.g. Colossians). Only Galatians seems to give us so much that it becomes uncertain again! In fact, Galatians gives us so much information that it has led some people (e.g. my old tutor John Muddiman) to call into question the reliability of Acts and put together a different timescale altogether.</p><p>I'm pretty sure we don't need to do that. I'm pretty sure that the data from Galatians and Acts can all be true, and all fit together, but only if Galatians is Paul's earliest letter, written somewhere between Acts 15:1 and Acts 15:4. This articles explains why, and shows some of the ways that impacts how we read Galatians. [The title of “Paul's earliest letter” is usually given to 1 Thessalonians, written in Acts 18:5.]</p><h3>The Council of Jerusalem</h3><p>The big event connected with Galatians is the Council of Jerusalem, described in Acts 15:4-30. It's often thought that Paul writes about it in Galatians 2:1-10, which is one of the reasons for the confusion. If we read Galatians and Acts carefully, it's clear they are different events. It turns out to be most helpful if we track through Paul's visits to Jerusalem from the time of his conversion onwards.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuklwvirhIx4DPW5jecVSDUHFYQITIETHLKc-XUeKKOJoa0yQXZTnp4vQ_sUqjpYlMBQ_65w44p2ZEROkLy71pMnSB_vPgS5vN_KNa_gdWfLmttttl6cAncRQKGM9qUtCyApcS/s1600/paul.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiuklwvirhIx4DPW5jecVSDUHFYQITIETHLKc-XUeKKOJoa0yQXZTnp4vQ_sUqjpYlMBQ_65w44p2ZEROkLy71pMnSB_vPgS5vN_KNa_gdWfLmttttl6cAncRQKGM9qUtCyApcS/s320/paul.jpg" /></a></div><h3>Paul's visits to Jerusalem in Acts</h3><p>Paul's first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion is in Acts 9:26-30. He was a fairly new convert, having just escaped from a plot to kill him in Damascus. Barnabas trusted him and introduced him to the apostles. He left after another attempt on his life.</p><p>Paul's second visit to Jerusalem in Acts is in Acts 11:30. Paul and Barnabas are by this stage elders of the church in Antioch, where, for the first time, lots of Gentiles have become Christians. A prophet called Agabus predicted there would be a serious famine, so the church in Antioch sent aid to the elders of the church in Jerusalem by Barnabas and Paul.</p><p>Paul's third visit is to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Some people from Judea had come to Antioch and were teaching that Christians needed to be circumcised. Paul and Barnabas were elders of the church in Antioch, but had also already planted churches across Turkey and Cyprus in what we'd now call Paul's First Missionary Journey. Because of the argument, Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem to sort it out. In Jerusalem Peter and James both spoke positively about the Gentile conversions and it was decided that they did not need to be circumcised, but that Gentile Christians in Antioch should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from eating blood and from sexual immorality. The apostles explicity distance themselves from the people who had been teaching the need to be circumcised (v24).</p><p>Paul's fourth visit to Jerusalem is in Acts 18:22 at the end of what is usually called his Second Missionary Journey. He seems to just drop in, having reached Caesarea by boat. We're not told anything that happened, except that he “greeted the church then left for Antioch.”</p><h3>Paul's visits to Jerusalem in Galatians</h3><p>In Galatians, there seems to be a conflict between the church in Antioch and Jerusalem, so Paul gives the history of his relations with Jerusalem. His first visit was three years after his conversion, where he went from Damascus to Jerusalem “to get acquainted with Peter” (Gal 1:18). Paul stayed for 15 days and only met Peter and James of the apostles.</p><p>Paul's second visit according to Galatians was 14 years later, accompanied by Barnabas and Titus. It was “in response to a revelation” (Gal 2:2). Paul had a private conversation with the leaders of the Jerusalem church, where he set before them the gospel he preached to the Gentiles. They did not require that Titus should be circumcised, and James, Peter and John agreed that he should carry on preaching to the Gentiles. The only requirement they put on him was that he should continue to remember the poor (Gal 2:10).</p><p>The situation which led to Paul writing Galatians also happened in Antioch. Peter came to visit (not recorded elsewhere). During Peter's visit, some people arrived from James, the leader of the church in Jerusalem. As a result of their arrival, Peter stopped eating with Gentiles, and the other Jews followed his example. Paul accused him of “forcing Gentiles to follow Jewish customs”. (Gal 2:14). From the rest of the book, it is clear that there was a problem with people requiring gentile Christians to be circumcised.</p><h3>Comparing Paul's Visits in Acts and Galatians</h3><p>The traditional view is that Paul's third visit in Acts is the same as his second visit in Galatians. But that doesn't work. For one thing, Paul's argument in Galatians falls apart if he's missed out a trip to Jerusalem. For another, although both involve conversations in Jerusalem between Paul, Peter and James about Gentiles, the outcomes are different. In Galatians, Paul says he's only asked to remember the poor. In Acts, he's also asked to abstain from food sacrificed to idols. In Galatians, he describes himself as timid and fearful, in Acts he is clearly bold and angry. His conversation in Galatians is in private – in Acts it seems to be in public. It makes most sense to say these are talking about two different meetings.</p><p>But the traditional view also requires two arguments in Antioch between Paul and some people from Jerusalem about circumcision. The first one leads to the Council of Jerusalem, where it is all agreed. But then there needs to be another argument in the same place between the same people which sparks the writing of Galatians. Little wonder that this view has led some to ditch the reliability of Acts!</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhyphenhyphenH6g-gKe2Ocwfoc0mx6ze_71rpfXMA_4sbrSBVarbekl-V93wdcCtRETOXZd_Wveo66hyCknRNs5UIbSxhzNZIVobKfN5N98AEp56xrHKhasAlKJnLZWlKdyCAvJzpjer3kp/s1600/921px-Anatolia_Ancient_Regions_base.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhyphenhyphenH6g-gKe2Ocwfoc0mx6ze_71rpfXMA_4sbrSBVarbekl-V93wdcCtRETOXZd_Wveo66hyCknRNs5UIbSxhzNZIVobKfN5N98AEp56xrHKhasAlKJnLZWlKdyCAvJzpjer3kp/s400/921px-Anatolia_Ancient_Regions_base.svg.png" /></a></div><h3>Who were the Galatians?</h3><p>It's further complicated by the question of who the Galatians were. Ethnic Galatia is in north-central Turkey, which wasn't visited by Paul until much later, if at all. This confused Calvin (for example), who somehow managed to argue that the letter was written to churches that he didn't think had been founded yet. However, it's more recently been discovered that for 100 years or so (including the time when Paul was around) there was a larger Roman Province of Galatia which included the cities of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe, which Paul visited on his first missionary journey in Acts 13-14. These were later split back off into the province of Lycaonia.</p><h3>So What Actually Happened?</h3><p>Here's my attempt to say that Acts and Galatians are both right and put all the information together:</p><p>Paul's first visit to Jerusalem is described in Acts 9:26-30 and Galatians 1:18-24. It was three years after his conversion, and he wasn't well-known except as someone who had persecuted Christians. He came from Damascus, and Barnabas introduced him to Peter and James. Two weeks later he left, after an attempt on his life.</p><p>Paul's second visit to Jerusalem is in Acts 11 and Galatians 2:1-10. It was “in response to a revelation” (Gal 2:2), which was the prophecy of a famine from Agabus (Acts 11:28). This visit was for the purpose of giving aid to the church in Jerusalem. While Paul was there, he would naturally have a private conversation with the apostles about the fact that lots of Gentiles were becoming Christians in Antioch. They said that it was a good thing and only asked that they kept on remembering the poor, which is a natural thing to say after the Gentile Christians have just helped you get through a famine. The private conversation isn't recorded in Acts, but it makes sense that it would have happened.</p><p>Some time after that, Peter visited Antioch. After he came, there were some people who came from the church in Jerusalem, and claimed to speak for James (though didn't actually – hence his need to make that clear in Acts 15:24). They said that the Gentile Christians needed to be circumcised, otherwise Jewish Christians should stop eating with them. This might have been because Jewish Christians in Jerusalem were starting to be persecuted as “not really Jewish” because they ate with Gentiles. Their proposed solution – the Gentiles should be circumcised. Paul strongly objected to this and therefore wrote a letter (Galatians) to the other majority Gentile churches which he'd just planted warning them against the teaching. He then set off with Barnabas to Jerusalem to take the argument up with James, who the circumcision group claimed to be speaking for.</p><p>When they got there in Acts 15:4-30 (after Galatians had been written), they found that the circumcisers weren't actually speaking for James at all; James and Peter agreed with Paul that the Gentiles shouldn't be circumcised, and that Jewish and Gentile Christians should eat together, but suggested a compromise where the Gentile Christians should choose to limit their freedom by abstaining from eating food sacrificed to idols and blood.</p><p>That storyline seems to explain all the data well. It also explains other features of Galatians, such as why it seems to be much more argumentative than the discussion of the same issue in Romans, why it identifies the “circumcision group” with James, and why it doesn't have the teaching on the importance of limiting freedom for the sake of the consciences of Christian brothers and sisters which is so characteristic of how Paul handles difficult issues later on (1 Corinthians 8-10, Romans 14).</p>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06521625130572179577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-88329720615693224932014-10-09T10:14:00.000+01:002014-10-09T10:19:18.865+01:00Responding to ISIS<p>I wrote this for folks at church; some people have found it helpful, so I thought I'd share it more widely. Here are a few quick thoughts on how to respond to the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, which has obviously been in the news a lot recently with the <strike>execution</strike> murder of Alan Henning.</p><h3>1. Remember God's Justice</h3><p>Lots of the Psalms can appear quite bleak at first reading. But actually, they were written precisely to help God's people respond to difficult situations like the rise of the Islamic State. Here's Psalm 10:7-15, for example.</p><blockquote><p>7 His mouth is full of lies and threats;<br>trouble and evil are under his tongue.<br>8 He lies in wait near the villages;<br>from ambush he murders the innocent.<br>His eyes watch in secret for his victims;<br>9 like a lion in cover he lies in wait.<br>He lies in wait to catch the helpless;<br>he catches the helpless and drags them off in his net.<br>10 His victims are crushed, they collapse;<br>they fall under his strength.<br>11 He says to himself, “God will never notice;<br>he covers his face and never sees.”</p><p>12 Arise, Lord! Lift up your hand, O God.<br>Do not forget the helpless.<br>13 Why does the wicked man revile God?<br>Why does he say to himself,<br>“He won’t call me to account”?<br>14 But you, God, see the trouble of the afflicted;<br>you consider their grief and take it in hand.<br>The victims commit themselves to you;<br>you are the helper of the fatherless.<br>15 Break the arm of the wicked man;<br>call the evildoer to account for his wickedness<br>that would not otherwise be found out.</p></blockquote><p>And the Psalms keep pointing us back to God's justice. He will do what is right. He will repay those who attack and murder the innocent; he will repay those who have been hurt unjustly, and those who have hurt them.</p><h3>2. Don't be afraid</h3><p>It's easy to be afraid of the seeming rise of Islamic fundamentalism. But the fact is, the Bible is very clear that God's people will always be opposed. The way the UK has been for centuries, where Christians are free to practice our beliefs and even in positions of power, is very much the minority position in world history. We should not be surprised that people who do what is right are sometimes attacked. We shouldn't be surprised that Christians are attacked and persecuted. We should remember and support them (and see Open Doors for ways to do just that). The Bible is also clear that we don't need to be afraid of those who oppose us. We know the end of the story – we know that Jesus wins.</p><p>But that final victory does not come about by us fighting. Even in the final battle in Revelation, in Rev 20:7-9, all the armies of the world gather to attack God's people, but God's people do not need to fight to defend themselves. God wins the victory, and God will defeat Islamic fundamentalism, whether sooner or later; we do not need to be afraid.</p><h3>3. Love our neighbours; love our enemies</h3><p>Our call is rather different. We are called to love those who hate us; to pray for those who persecute us. Christianity did not conquer the Roman Empire by military force; we conquered it by patient suffering and love for the oppressed. We should pray for those in authority in ISIS and those who seek to kill Christians, that their hearts would be changed just as the Apostle Paul's was.</p><p>We are also called to love our neighbours. It's important to recognise that there are many Muslims who are appalled at the things being done in the name of Islam. We should love them and seek to support them and defend them from those in this country who would seek to hurt them.</p>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06521625130572179577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-91789463440260868102014-09-29T18:08:00.000+01:002014-09-29T18:08:46.391+01:00Scarves, Stoles and Symbolism<p>Symbols change their meaning with time.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVPvmCLhVw5hcenAV08C8kWXhulVYvM1OjMwtWr-1glxcoevMGPDu4e9zUU53aNuwSgixvAXqJ3y3p5UkrgcY72aSFn-A8yAB0NNhMBKtCsK_PddHF1TQTlAOFpUmD88b2b8zc/s1600/Cimg3053.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVPvmCLhVw5hcenAV08C8kWXhulVYvM1OjMwtWr-1glxcoevMGPDu4e9zUU53aNuwSgixvAXqJ3y3p5UkrgcY72aSFn-A8yAB0NNhMBKtCsK_PddHF1TQTlAOFpUmD88b2b8zc/s640/Cimg3053.jpg" /></a></div><p>When I was growing up, one symbol that had a very clear meaning for me was whether ministers wore scarf or stole. (Scarves are black; stoles have the colour of the liturgical season – green, white, red or purple). If a vicar wore a black scarf, it showed that they understood that their role was primarily as a preacher of God's Word. If they wore a stole, it meant that they saw their ministry as being priests, re-sacrificing Jesus on the altar.</p><p>That understanding informed what I wore for my ordination. Lots of evangelical ordinands share that view and want to be given a black scarf at their ordination rather than a white stole, because it symbolises being given authority to preach rather than authority to re-enact the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The official rules of course say that it makes no doctrinal difference which you wear, but that just prompted a friend of mine to find out what the doctrinal difference was. He wore a scarf.</p><p>Years later, I found myself in a different part of the country, in a church where no-one would even dream of thinking that the minister re-enacted Jesus sacrifice of himself at communion, and everyone was clear that a big part of the vicar's role was preaching. When I asked them how they understood the difference between scarves and stoles, the only difference they could find was that stoles were colourful and showed that the minsters valued colour and symbols but that scarves showed the vicar was a bit old-fashioned.</p><p>Of course, if people understand the symbolism that way, then I'm not going to be so insistent on wearing a scarf rather than a stole... Symbols are flexible and can mean different things in different contexts. There is nothing inherent about a black scarf that means it's about preaching or about a coloured stole that means it carries a certain understanding of communion – those are labels that some people choose to attach to those items of clothing.</p><p>Now it seems that scarves are dying out altogether. Some bishops ban them at ordinations. I don't think that's usually because of theology; I suspect it's because it looks neater if everyone is wearing the same thing. But more evangelicals avoid robes as often as they possibly can, which again comes down to symbolism.</p><p>For some people, robes symbolise the church they of their parents stopped going to – the idea of a minister who is boring, old-fashioned and out of touch. (That's not always a bad thing; I wear robes every week for a service where it's a positively good thing.) For others, robes symbolise that the people wearing them are different from everyone else. Ironically, that's how robes came about, but in not the way that you'd expect.</p><p>In the 400s AD, some clergy had started dressing in a way that was designed to look impressive. Pope Celestine I objected strongly and wrote this:</p><blockquote><p>We bishops must be distinguished from the people and others by our learning, not our dress, by our life not by our robes, by purity of heart not by elegance.<br><em>Quoted in Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy, p.401</em></p></blockquote><p>Shortly afterwards, to stop the clergy wearing fancy clothes that set them apart, the church introduced some rules about what clergy should wear. Ironically, it was those very rules that then stayed the same for centuries and resulted in clergy wearing different clothes from everyone else as fashion changed!</p><p>In the late Roman Empire, people who held an office (magistrates, etc) would wear a special scarf to identify themselves and to show the authority that had been given them to do their role. It's that scarf that is the ancestor of both the scarf and the stole.</p><p>People who think that robes make an important statement, and that clergy are more about preaching than presiding at communion are also likely to think that robes themselves communicate the wrong message to people, and so are more likely to avoid wearing them, except on special occasions.</p>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06521625130572179577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-13178307014527095152014-09-09T18:12:00.002+01:002014-09-09T18:12:22.144+01:00Old Testament Source Criticism<p>I spend quite a bit of my life digging into details of the text of the Bible. I love doing it, but I didn't love studying large parts of the OT at university, and I don't like the way it's often taught today. The main reason comes down to two words: <b>source criticism</b>.<br />
</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOj2FAtpQRKuH9VXmzFnbdWWYR5RaWnCYm7BB8vbnWbDP4azvTOUuczCBbtjekUdPOGdlSe8dXmybPPCM6nNVLCDWdcz30-IDdoviivpo8IQIc9DsoiIwHdXIKE5zSjhgSgj_0/s1600/library.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOj2FAtpQRKuH9VXmzFnbdWWYR5RaWnCYm7BB8vbnWbDP4azvTOUuczCBbtjekUdPOGdlSe8dXmybPPCM6nNVLCDWdcz30-IDdoviivpo8IQIc9DsoiIwHdXIKE5zSjhgSgj_0/s400/library.jpg" /></a></div><p>Source criticism is about trying to understand the history of a text. A source critic might read <i>Lord of the Rings</i>, for example, and try to work out how the text came to take the form it did. It's much easier if you've got copies of earlier versions, or of the author's working. We don't have those in the case of the Bible, though.</p><p>Source criticism can be a useful tool to have when studying the Old Testament. There are a few places where it produces helpful insights. For example, Psalm 89 seems to have been a Psalm about God's goodness in creation, to which someone has added a bit in a different style about God's goodness in making promises to David, to which someone else has added in another style a complaint that God isn't keeping those promises and prayer that he would. Or Amos 4 & 5 seem to be a speech Amos gives in the (Northern) temple, interspersed with some verses of a hymn that's being sung, creating an effect a bit like <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_O%27Clock_News/Silent_Night>Simon & Garfunkel singing Silent Night over the evening news</a>. Seeing those aspects of a passage actually help us to understand the meaning of the passage better.</p><p>Where Source Criticism gets annoying is when scholars treat it like the main tool they should be using to understand a passage. This is especially true in the Pentateuch, and especially with a theory called the Documentary Hypothesis (JEDP). In that theory, Genesis - Deuteronomy somehow contain the full text of four older documents, called J, E, D and P, and probably the majority of non-evangelical Pentateuch scholars seem to spend most of their time (and most of the space in commentaries) arguing about precisely which bit comes from which source. The result is rather as you'd expect if you read a novel with your main concern being trying to work out how the author had drafted it - you completely miss the point.</p><p>C.S. Lewis, who was both an author and an expert on old texts, writes this on Biblical source criticism:</p><blockquote><p>This then is my first bleat. These men ask me to believe they can read between the lines of the old texts; the evidence is their obvious inability to read (in any sense worth discussing) the lines themselves. They claim to see fern-seed and can't see an elephant ten yards away in broad daylight.</p><p>...</p><p>My impression is that in the whole of my experience, not one of these guesses [of reviews where others try to reconstruct how he wrote things] has on any point been right; that the method shows a record of one hundred per cent failure. You would expect by mere chance they would hit as often as they miss. But it is my impression that they do no such thing. I can't remember a single hit.</p><p>...</p><p>They assume that you wrote a story as they would try to write a story; the fact that they would so try explains why they have not produced any stories.</p><p>(from <i>Fern Seed and Elephants</i>)</p></blockquote><p>Let's backtrack for a moment. The main reason that the JEDP hypothesis came about in the first place was because the Pentateuch really doesn't read like history as written by a modern westerner. Here's an example:</p><blockquote><p>4 Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘I will rain down bread from heaven for you. The people are to go out each day and gather enough for that day. In this way I will test them and see whether they will follow my instructions. 5 On the sixth day they are to prepare what they bring in, and that is to be twice as much as they gather on the other days.’</p><p>6 So Moses and Aaron said to all the Israelites, ‘In the evening you will know that it was the Lord who brought you out of Egypt, 7 and in the morning you will see the glory of the Lord, because he has heard your grumbling against him. Who are we, that you should grumble against us?’ 8 Moses also said, ‘You will know that it was the Lord when he gives you meat to eat in the evening and all the bread you want in the morning, because he has heard your grumbling against him. Who are we? You are not grumbling against us, but against the Lord.’</p><p>9 Then Moses told Aaron, ‘Say to the entire Israelite community, “Come before the Lord, for he has heard your grumbling.”’</p><p>10 While Aaron was speaking to the whole Israelite community, they looked towards the desert, and there was the glory of the Lord appearing in the cloud.</p><p>11 The Lord said to Moses, 12 ‘I have heard the grumbling of the Israelites. Tell them, “At twilight you will eat meat, and in the morning you will be filled with bread. Then you will know that I am the Lord your God.”’</p><p><em>Exodus 16:4-12</em>, NIV</p></blockquote><p>The passage clearly says things more than once. It reads like there are two accounts of the same event with slight variations in the same passage. It does not read like it was written by a modern western historian. But there's a simple reason for that - <b>it wasn't written by a modern western historian</b> - it was written by an ancient Israelite, and they wrote rather differently from us.</p><p>Take the Psalms, for example. The basic literary technique in Psalms is that you say something, then you say it again using slightly different words - sometimes giving a little more information, sometimes not.</p><blockquote><p>Come, let us sing for joy to the Lord;<br> let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation.<br>2 Let us come before him with thanksgiving<br> and extol him with music and song.</p><p>3 For the Lord is the great God,<br> the great King above all gods.<br>4 In his hand are the depths of the earth,<br> and the mountain peaks belong to him.<br>5 The sea is his, for he made it,<br> and his hands formed the dry land.</p><p><em>Psalm 95:1-5</em>, NIV</p></blockquote><p>No-one in their right mind would suggest that "the Lord is the great God" must have been written by a different person from "the great King above all gods". That's how Hebrew poetry works. So we shouldn't be surprised if Hebrew prose shows some of the same structures. There's often repetition; there's often clarification. It may well be linked to the fact it was originally written in a non-literate culture, so was written to be remembered easily.</P><p>But they don't just repeat randomly; there are all kinds of interesting structures in Hebrew prose. One of the most common is the chiasm, where the passage repeats itself in a mirror image around a central verse. Exodus 16 is one of those:</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgf1EhhcoR7y2dOOUB2Gy-25HadcW37Ogy1g16OhwyDf9iMvMva-cSSC9-tTk_aQ7PjsGMuBYZReEgRyKoQg-UZ2X_H4gE7KXKjHwC1K8df0Xu-wfGuWzgQUg0sHGOa9fcI-yOC/s1600/sermon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgf1EhhcoR7y2dOOUB2Gy-25HadcW37Ogy1g16OhwyDf9iMvMva-cSSC9-tTk_aQ7PjsGMuBYZReEgRyKoQg-UZ2X_H4gE7KXKjHwC1K8df0Xu-wfGuWzgQUg0sHGOa9fcI-yOC/s400/sermon.jpg" /></a></div><p>The whole section is exposing the fact that the Israelites are doubting that God is with them. The passage points to the fact that God will show his presence among them by providing them food. It's a carefully constructed work of literary art rather than a badly meshed together group of extracts from sources.</P><p>Now a decent commentary will spend more time on the important aspects of the structure rather than JEDP, but most won't. Decent teaching material on the Pentateuch will spend more time discussing structures like that than JEDP, but most doesn't. And that makes me sad.</p>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06521625130572179577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-47510730962594649462014-09-04T22:12:00.000+01:002014-09-04T22:12:50.806+01:00Three Quick Book Reviews<p>It's been a while since I've posted on here – largely because of the summer. Here are some reviews of non-fiction books I've read recently...</p>
<h3>Celebration of Discipline – Richard Foster</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgluvwqkhb0NzGkHMf6-glRCynbFxqVh7LLVLSTKo1Z2H4s7fMiQmbfRTa8TD_3IhIox2cOz1nvGCKMTPGrm6_omsvqVcAjI7c-B87HBZGoNVN6BuYrGYqe8NXGACdnLdo7NFg/s1600/celebration-of-discipline.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgluvwqkhb0NzGkHMf6-glRCynbFxqVh7LLVLSTKo1Z2H4s7fMiQmbfRTa8TD_3IhIox2cOz1nvGCKMTPGrm6_omsvqVcAjI7c-B87HBZGoNVN6BuYrGYqe8NXGACdnLdo7NFg/s320/celebration-of-discipline.jpg" /></a></div><p>This book is far far better than its title! One of the huge dangers facing any book on spiritual disciplines is legalism, which Foster avoids well. It is easy to see how this book became a classic, and was one of the key influences in helping evangelicals learn from some of the riches of other traditions. Lots of wise practical advice about fasting and so on as well.</p>
<p>In some ways, Christian culture in the 2010s might be even more compromised by seeking after comfort than it was in the 1980s when the book was written, and hence even more in need of the spiritual disciplines.</p>
<p>There aren't many books which I'd say are a “must read” for modern Christians. This might well be one!</p>
<h3>Liturgical Worship – Mark Earey</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEja3_OOhox4KOHnPsD5QRIc89RHYF8kWVMthQbhsHC80zQjgWopIHWRhA1lPVzhg8P9QeAWTDEmKQAhCOshgulY7tUg89qX2DZNT8UmwN-n5fXfglS1Xezw5a690RfCUDFb3SM/s1600/51X+8p3mh0L._SY300_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEja3_OOhox4KOHnPsD5QRIc89RHYF8kWVMthQbhsHC80zQjgWopIHWRhA1lPVzhg8P9QeAWTDEmKQAhCOshgulY7tUg89qX2DZNT8UmwN-n5fXfglS1Xezw5a690RfCUDFb3SM/s320/51X+8p3mh0L._SY300_.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>This is the recommended textbook for a course I'm teaching in the Autumn on liturgy. It's a really good book for giving an introduction to the shape and nature of Anglican liturgy. </p>
<p>There are a couple of places where I felt he missed important points – for example he sees the options with deciding what to preach on as either following a lectionary or having the danger of going for the preachers' pet topics – ignoring the pattern I've come across many times of systematic preaching through chunks of Scripture, but varying the genre regularly. But by and large, I thought that Earey gives a fair representation of most of the breadth of Anglican positions on various topics.</p>
<p>There are quite a few grand-sounding statements about liturgy – that it is the “Corporate drama of being the people of God” and “a public symbolic shaping of space and time in order that our hearts and lives might be shaped in the image of Christ”, but at times I felt it could do with a lot more fleshing out.</p>
<p>I don't think we covered liturgy very well at theological college at all. I'd have found this a really helpful introduction to the topic, but it's not more than that.</p>
<h3>The Breeze of the Centuries – Michael Reeves</h3><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEil-dEazjhS3aZ_mAdFkzr6jqFIROyG9S4WAGwYIxTyy8NgCSvKI4Y-N9EpRD1jShbCSs7nC3eekhfzbUpNaFVMM9TRgzUdzYBn7hkgjfMLGP7Dp72HHFaT0WmQNRrm2ll5f8E/s1600/46583.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEil-dEazjhS3aZ_mAdFkzr6jqFIROyG9S4WAGwYIxTyy8NgCSvKI4Y-N9EpRD1jShbCSs7nC3eekhfzbUpNaFVMM9TRgzUdzYBn7hkgjfMLGP7Dp72HHFaT0WmQNRrm2ll5f8E/s320/46583.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>This is an introduction to a handful of great Christian thinkers from before the Reformation period – the Apostolic Fathers, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Anselm, Aquinas.</p>
<p>With each of them, Reeves gives a short biography, complete with humorous anecdotes, and a summary of their major works, theology and influence.</p>
<p>There's a lot of good stuff there. It's certainly helpful to see the people in their wider context. Reeves doesn't let people slip into their own stereotypes – he doesn't let them always be right and points out some of Anselm's theological weirdnesses (for example). It's certainly a good introduction to the theologians he covers, but it's the weakest of the three Michael Reeves books I've read.</p>
<P>Here's one of the high points of the book:</p>
<blockquote><p>Augustine provides a prime example of what it is like to read a great theologian from the past: both grand and alien, both profoundly right and profoundly wrong (often in the same sentence), he challenges in every way. His great temporal distance from us dares our comfortable and well-worn formulas. Even the mistakes we recognise as characteristic of his age force us to ask what mistakes are characteristic of ours. (p.100)</p></blockquote>
<p>There are a couple of things I found difficult or unhelpful. One is the selection of theologians – they're almost all Westerners (Justin Martyr and Athanasius are the only exceptions), and it seems odd not to mention Origen or the Cappadocians. Reeves also seems to say that there weren't any significant theologians between Augustine and Anselm, which seems a little unfair to John of Damascus and co. Maybe it would have been better as two books – one on patristic theologians and one on medieval ones, with people like Bernard of Clairvaux, Tauler, Catherine of Siena, etc.</p>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02487495921222083129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-81052567121485795662014-07-01T12:16:00.000+01:002014-07-01T12:27:34.321+01:00How I File Sermon NotesI'm a little obsessive when it comes to organising things on my computer. That's in complete contrast to organising things on my desk, but that's another story...<br />
Here's a system I've found easy to use and helpful for filing sermon notes on the computer.<br />
<br />
<b>1. Have a computer folder for upcoming talks</b>, with a subfolder for each talk and event. Here's mine:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6g7xvHm5RMHmdWLIiCYsbKxer1BDBWQ_5Befg3kuGPYmy2wuB5g_YIvddAu0g7ocRv5p5qnOhOrStMKbtdfPbkgo4t6DUL0ujF9QQWBwdNsq5eWxKg5oyp1Ki-6zTMaFMmw18/s1600/filing+1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6g7xvHm5RMHmdWLIiCYsbKxer1BDBWQ_5Befg3kuGPYmy2wuB5g_YIvddAu0g7ocRv5p5qnOhOrStMKbtdfPbkgo4t6DUL0ujF9QQWBwdNsq5eWxKg5oyp1Ki-6zTMaFMmw18/s1600/filing+1.png" /></a></div><br />
Note that the subfolder names have the date of the event first, in yymmdd format. It used to be yyyymmdd, but I figure I'm not going to be preaching still in the year 2100, so I don't need the first two digits.<br />
<br />
That means that if I sort the folders alphabetically, they sort into chronological order, and I can see what's coming up.<br />
<br />
I create this folder about once a term, and clear out the old one into my filing system. I find it much easier to keep this folder on a cloud drive, so I can access it from anywhere. I keep all the files related to each talk in the appropriate folder.<br />
<br />
<b>2. Have a folder for each book of the Bible</b>. I find a list of 66 quite hard to work with, so I subdivide into genres, then by books, putting a number in front of the book name so that sorting by name also sorts by book order.<br />
<br />
For example, the book of Psalms is at Bible/3. Poetry-Wisdom/2. Psalms<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqYFAv-SPNtxmIn_GVmiU18yINOUEaO9oJPiUcUhIQS0oPwLRi0cUMA29rpZ9z6_5QnMHC1Zj6bdj1PL6B7fFqXtG2Mr5XcqNioXDAKs4yzmoLcDM6DeOPIxoducLRvKDSRdFw/s1600/filing+2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqYFAv-SPNtxmIn_GVmiU18yINOUEaO9oJPiUcUhIQS0oPwLRi0cUMA29rpZ9z6_5QnMHC1Zj6bdj1PL6B7fFqXtG2Mr5XcqNioXDAKs4yzmoLcDM6DeOPIxoducLRvKDSRdFw/s1600/filing+2.png" /></a></div><br />
<b>3. File notes in the appropriate folder,</b> with a title that looks like this:<br />
<code>Matthew 05v01-16 140621</code><br />
<br />
Having a file title like that means that sorting by name sorts by order within the book, and lets you see immediately when the talk was done as well. Note the importance of trailing zeros – otherwise it would sort Matthew 1, Matthew 15, Matthew 2. In Psalms you need more trailing zeros – so it's Psalm 008 or Psalm 037 because there are more than 100 chapters.<br />
<br />
I file notes from sermons that I've preached (still in folders with appropriate files); interesting articles that I've read online; notes I took in lectures in college; notes from talks I've listened to (scanned in), and so on. Here's an example from my folder on John.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhO45KGsgNwShFa4JZ5ONIwCW3earrKcg6BRYNbXasLjFXoqMkPrbydxB2vlYALXqph8N6TZohIMXM-A1VMYdwki3za4AJYqF07eBho4FkzxWz26xB-W1OQJ9iSwJrUIZh5ffpf/s1600/filing+sermons.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhO45KGsgNwShFa4JZ5ONIwCW3earrKcg6BRYNbXasLjFXoqMkPrbydxB2vlYALXqph8N6TZohIMXM-A1VMYdwki3za4AJYqF07eBho4FkzxWz26xB-W1OQJ9iSwJrUIZh5ffpf/s1600/filing+sermons.png" /></a></div><br />
<b>4. Show cross-references with shortcuts</b><br />
One of the beauties of an electronic filing system is that shortcuts are easy to create. If I preached a sermon on Acts 2, for example, that strongly referred to the Tower of Babel, I could create a shortcut to the Acts 2 folder and rename the shortcut as Genesis 11, and file it appropriately.<br />
<br />
It makes things really easy to file and to find again. I guess it took a couple of hours to set up in the first place, but it didn't take long to more than recover that time back!<br />
Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06521625130572179577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-38032389121111815752014-06-25T13:59:00.002+01:002014-06-25T13:59:52.764+01:00"Discipline" - an unhelpful translation?Here's a passage which I find really unhelpful when you're going through a hard time, but which shouldn't be...<br />
<blockquote><p>And have you completely forgotten this word of encouragement that addresses you as a father addresses his son? It says,</p><p>‘My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline,<br />
and do not lose heart when he rebukes you,<br />
because the Lord disciplines the one he loves,<br />
and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.’</p><p>Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children. For what children are not disciplined by their father? If you are not disciplined – and everyone undergoes discipline – then you are not legitimate, not true sons and daughters at all. Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live! They disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, in order that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.<br />
<i>Hebrews 12:5-11</i>, NIV</p></blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2VaBFph-Smd095887ZMWGCKur06B66BraEiFaqDhyXqGaBsjW3klbmiZzKxydV6DWHxz9xJoPBrqX8Pio5hS6bHGg985P1qoM64g0TfYmaSwmqBjV1tseZptwrAXekicphdp2/s1600/759268.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2VaBFph-Smd095887ZMWGCKur06B66BraEiFaqDhyXqGaBsjW3klbmiZzKxydV6DWHxz9xJoPBrqX8Pio5hS6bHGg985P1qoM64g0TfYmaSwmqBjV1tseZptwrAXekicphdp2/s320/759268.jpg" /></a></div>So what? We're meant to endure hardship as discipline? Try telling that to the woman whose child has died – that it's God disciplining her! How's that a “word of encouragement”? It's stupid, pastorally insensitive, and just plain wrong. We don't live under the law. We don't believe in a God who gives us petty material rewards for obedience and punishments for disobedience. Maybe that's the way it worked in Leviticus, but not for the Christian.<br />
<br />
There are two problems here. The first is the word “discipline” - most translations seem to use it in Hebrews 12, but I don't think it's warranted.<br />
<br />
<b>Discipline:</b> the practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behaviour, using punishment to correct disobedience.<br />
<b>παιδεια:</b> upbringing, training, instruction.<br />
<br />
The Greek word which we translate as “discipline” doesn't quite mean that though. “Training” would be a better translation – it's the idea of an adult training a child. Sometimes that involves punishing disobedience - we suffer because we do things wrong. Sometimes, like with hard physical training, it's difficult and painful when we do it right as well. The word used for "discipline" here carries both ideas - it's the same word translated “training” in 2 Timothy 3:16. The passage isn't saying that all hardship is discipline. It's saying that God uses hardship to train us, like any kind of training can be hard, but we respect it and work with it.<br />
<br />
The NIV translators generally did a great job – it's just about the best translation of the Bible into modern English. But they had a shocker when it got to Hebrews 12:7, and most other translations didn't do a lot better...<br />
<blockquote>“Endure hardship as discipline – God is treating you as his children.” (NIV)<br />
“It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons.” (ESV)<br />
”Be patient when you are being corrected! This is how God treats his children.” (CEV)<br />
”Endure what you suffer as being a father's punishment; your suffering shows that God is treating you as his children.” (Good News)<br />
If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons;” (NJKV)</blockquote>The NRSV is probably the most helpful of the major translations here, except that it still uses “discipline”; “Endure trials for the sake of discipline. God is treating you as children...”<br />
I think Eugene Peterson pretty much nails the sense though in <i>the Message</i>:<br />
<blockquote>God is educating you; that’s why you must never drop out. He’s treating you as dear children. This trouble you’re in isn’t punishment; it’s training, the normal experience of children.</blockquote>The idea is that we should endure difficulties and hardship because God uses them to train us. God is our Father. He hasn't let go of us; he isn't leaving us to the ravages of chance or punishing us for our own weakness. He knows what he is doing, and he is training us to trust him, even in and through the difficult times. Now that's a comfort, and an encouragement to keep going!Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06521625130572179577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-91133263905182823822014-06-03T13:58:00.001+01:002014-06-03T14:00:07.860+01:00Pet Peeves - Misusing "Quantum"<p>One thing which annoys me is when people who don't know what they're talking about abuse scientific language. One of the most egregious examples of this is the word "Quantum". It sounds cool, I know, but it really doesn't mean what most people seem to think it means.</p><p>This is what "Quantum" means:</p><blockquote><p><b>Quantum:</b> the smallest possible non-zero amount of something</p></blockquote><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHeXzsGXtNl3oj588GK38iU3NDJ1KX4uf0rh_eiESmJpMwTwniinN59AdmddljgxR99h94uMKewbwXsJFh5dqBfphq49NzlPVdNhmPvup9PxMLN3OCAmBdsXmdN571TnsrlQVe/s1600/MV5BMTMwNjQ3MjgyMl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMDU0OTIxMw%2540%2540._V1__SX1857_SY891_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHeXzsGXtNl3oj588GK38iU3NDJ1KX4uf0rh_eiESmJpMwTwniinN59AdmddljgxR99h94uMKewbwXsJFh5dqBfphq49NzlPVdNhmPvup9PxMLN3OCAmBdsXmdN571TnsrlQVe/s320/MV5BMTMwNjQ3MjgyMl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMDU0OTIxMw%2540%2540._V1__SX1857_SY891_.jpg" /></a><p>It was actually quite a revolutionary idea to start with. There is a smallest possible amount of water - you can't take a jug of water and keep pouring half of it away - eventually you will end up with the smallest possible amount of water, and you either pour it all away or keep it all. Or I guess you could try splitting it and if you did it really cleverly you might end up with two beryllium hydride radicals which aren't water at all. Quantum is weird because we're used to the real world, where there are normally so many lumps of stuff that it looks smooth to us.</p><p>The same is true of pretty much anything - there's a smallest possible amount of light (one photon), of electric charge, of electricity, whatever. Maybe even of space, which I find quite weird as an idea. This leads to a couple of other common phrases:</p><blockquote><p><b>Quantum Mechanics:</b> the study of how quantum stuff behaves.<br />
<br />
<b>Quantum Leap:</b> a jump between two states with no intermediate stages - i.e. the smallest possible change in something.</blockquote><p>Quantum leaps can be big (I guess), just usually they're really small. A legitimate example would be to say that moving from DVD to Blu-Ray is a quantum leap, because there are no intermediate stages. But the fact it's a quantum leap doesn't imply anything about the size or the significance, just that there's no intermediate step. "On the 100-question multiple choice physics exam, Tony went from 35% to 36%. That's a quantum leap.</p><p>Misusing the word "quantum" is like claiming that Shakespeare was a great novelist. It's a basic error which just makes people look stupid.</P><h3>Examples</h3><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlwNLw2vg9wJDK-2BK2E7aQ_cW7dT4jAelaIWs0ioxkP6EH4MtUZtx3yrh-b6dPweDCNyLHKTGVv3wA1xQGYxOt3WnKS4DgNcJhR4ZdQkVOBspXDwtMsK_v-cl_RXX1CWxByIC/s1600/MV5BMTc4ODQ0MTE5NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwODEyNzEzMQ%2540%2540._V1_SY317_CR10%252C0%252C214%252C317_AL_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlwNLw2vg9wJDK-2BK2E7aQ_cW7dT4jAelaIWs0ioxkP6EH4MtUZtx3yrh-b6dPweDCNyLHKTGVv3wA1xQGYxOt3WnKS4DgNcJhR4ZdQkVOBspXDwtMsK_v-cl_RXX1CWxByIC/s320/MV5BMTc4ODQ0MTE5NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwODEyNzEzMQ%2540%2540._V1_SY317_CR10%252C0%252C214%252C317_AL_.jpg" /></a><p><a href=http://www.royalcaribbean.co.uk/our-ships/quantum-class/quantum-of-the-seas/default.aspx>Quantum of the Seas</a> is a boat. Its name means "smallest possible amount of the seas", and it claims to be the smallest possible step forwards from its predecessors. On that basis, I wouldn't bother.</p><p>Almost every single use of the word "quantum" in relation to the social sciences or arts subjects I've read has demonstrated major misunderstandings - even C.S. Lewis in <i>Miracles</i>. The big exceptions are when the author themselves has a masters or better in physics - e.g. <a hrefhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne>John Polkinghorne</a>.<br />
<p><a href=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0830515/>Quantum of Solace</a> is a film. I think they actually got the title about right - it's like a crumb of solace only much much smaller as Bond continues the transformation from hard man to killer to utterly ruthless and remorseless suave super-agent.</p><p><a href=http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096684/?ref_=nv_sr_1>Quantum Leap</a> can be forgiven just about anything.</p><br />
<br />
Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06521625130572179577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-64895241303810852742014-05-27T11:35:00.001+01:002014-05-29T15:04:32.627+01:00How to Handle Difficult Issues Biblically<p>1 Corinthians 8-10 is an often-neglected bit of the New Testament (except for a few verses in chapter 9, usually read out of context). But actually it provides us with a really helpful pattern for working with difficult issues in the Church.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9Q0baURW_RJAO9L4ZJxgiYJb7fBm7sOyLYI0pFAP-k2zUk9ocl-VY2qOsvG9ByIHaQcsjX3mFg4RbZNmyeLUrT2ogc5sU1Wc1-xE88_CuKVebbMtMtTtcRFpduWWB47m_QtI/s1600/file3181267017620.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9Q0baURW_RJAO9L4ZJxgiYJb7fBm7sOyLYI0pFAP-k2zUk9ocl-VY2qOsvG9ByIHaQcsjX3mFg4RbZNmyeLUrT2ogc5sU1Wc1-xE88_CuKVebbMtMtTtcRFpduWWB47m_QtI/s400/file3181267017620.jpg" /></a></div><p>The problem in Corinth was the issue of meat sacrificed to idols. In first century Corinth, most meat was slaughtered in the context of worship at one or other of the many temples. It was then either served at public feasts, served at guild meals or sold in the meat market. Membership of most trades required being in a guild; they generally met in pagan temples. If you ate meat that had been sacrificed to idols, it was often understood as sharing in the worship of the god to whom it had been sacrificed, just as Communion was seen as sharing in Jesus' sacrifice. The Corinthian church was obviously divided on the issue, and had asked Paul for advice.</p><p>So how does Paul handle this difficult situation?</P><ol><li><b>Come up with the best Biblical-theological case on both sides</b> (8:1-7; 10:1-12; 10:14-22). Some people think Paul is contradicting himself here, but actually he's stating the strongest arguments on both sides before coming to a conclusion. So often when we try to have debates now in the church, people only state one point of view and as a result are rejected by the other side. Paul clearly understands both sides, and states both arguments well. The arguments here are Biblical / theological in character - Paul argues from theology and the Shema (8v4-6), from the history of Israel (10v1-11), from the nature of communion (10v16-21).<br />
<li><b>Recognise that both sides are probably right, and identify the real issue</b>. If both sides are supported by <b>good</b> scriptural arguments, both are probably right. If they look like they contradict each other, we need to see why they don't really. Here, Paul does it by seeing the gap between eating meat and actually participating in the sacrifice, which is an attitude of mind or heart on the part of the worshipper. [It is of course very possible to have bad arguments from Scripture too; I'm not saying those are right.]<br />
<li><b>Recognise explicitly that many people won't have done all the theology, and will be responding from their gut. Honour them and their consciences</b> (8:7-13). This is again something we often miss today, and in some situations one side's consciences may say not to do something and the other side may say to do it, and it's genuinely hard to honour both, but we should try anyway.<br />
<li><b>Follow the example of Jesus, who laid down his rights for others, but don't slip into legalism</b>. Maintain the importance of Christian freedom, but let it be trumped by love. As soon as people start talking about their rights, they show they've missed the point. The point of rights for the Christian is that we lay them down for others. That's what Paul means by "follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ" in 11v1. Jesus, being in very nature God, laid down his rights for us. Paul, having the right to financial support and to live as he wanted within the "law of Christ", gave those rights up for the sake of those he was ministering to. So we should also give up our rights for the sake of each other, even if that means avoiding offending their over-scrupulous consciences.</ol><p>A couple of quick applications to current issues in the C of E:</p><p>People who talk about women's right to be bishops (for example) don't really understand what it is to live as a Christian, let alone to be a bishop. If women do have that right, they should be willing to lay it down for the sake of their brothers and sisters who would be offended by it. And those brothers and sisters should probably lay down their right not to be offended for the sake of preserving unity and allowing women to serve in the capacity of bishop.</p><p>What the homosexuality <strike>squabble</strike> debate desperately needs is people who are willing to articulate both sides of the Biblical argument and show how they fit together. So often what is produced by both camps is hideously one-sided, and sometimes just ignores important pastoral issues or runs roughshod over the consciences of those who in good conscience disagree, even if they do so without good reasons. Yes, if we disagree with someone, we should seek to persuade them, but we should do so in love - whether love for the knee-jerk homophobes or for the "out and proud" types.</p>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02487495921222083129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-74664464259032255152014-05-14T09:48:00.000+01:002014-05-14T09:50:50.039+01:00Communion Services in the Early Church<p>In the early church, there were three main types of service – the <em>agape meal</em>, the <em>synaxis</em> (similar to Service of the Word), and the <em>eucharist</em> (Greek for “thanksgiving”). Over the years, the agape meal largely faded out, and the synaxis and eucharist merged to make the modern Communion Service. In this post, I'll trace very briefly how we got from the Early Church (pre-325) to the modern situation in the Church of England.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKQ7pHFt31qcWab6MWDCm79gbHesBoGg-Pvuz3jugZaj02lytuDm4bNf0fg0QdqzxGH0Xu2TZYy_snWfSQOkUCM4g5kkmL3TmKd0k-Nyi2HdFSOAuQpR3aX3ShYc2bzQdeffw/s1600/christ-administering-holy-eucharist.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKQ7pHFt31qcWab6MWDCm79gbHesBoGg-Pvuz3jugZaj02lytuDm4bNf0fg0QdqzxGH0Xu2TZYy_snWfSQOkUCM4g5kkmL3TmKd0k-Nyi2HdFSOAuQpR3aX3ShYc2bzQdeffw/s400/christ-administering-holy-eucharist.jpg" /></a></div>
<h3>Synaxis</h3>
<p>The structure of the synaxis was as follows: Greeting, Bible Reading, Sung Worship, Bible Reading, Sermon, Outsiders Leave, Prayers, Dismissal. <a href=http://custardy.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/how-did-early-christians-worship.html>I've already written about how some of the elements worked</a>, but one development it's worth noting is that the “traditional” pattern of Epistle, Psalm and Gospel readings developed from the earlier practice of one reading at the start of the service, then a time of sung worship (usually using Psalms), then a second reading which was the basis for the sermon. Outsiders were welcome to attend the service, but were expected to leave after the sermon and before the prayers. Catechumens (people who were preparing for baptism) were welcome to stay for the prayers but were expected to leave before the Eucharist, at what is now the Peace.</p>
<h3>Eucharist</h3>
<p>Dix identifies four key stages in the Eucharist service, which are reflected in the gospels – Jesus took bread (1), he gave thanks (2), he broke it (3) and gave it to the disciples (4).</p>
<dl><dt>Offertory - “he took bread”<dd>Originally there was just one loaf (1 Cor 10:17), but in the 100s AD, members of the congregation brought their own bread to church to share, and it was brought forwards at this point, like the wave offering or the grain offering in the OT. People offering their own bread for the Communion came to be seen as symbolic of offering their lives to God and having them transformed; after people started believing that the bread became Jesus during the prayer, it eventually got confused into the idea of us offering Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. To make it clear that we can only offer ourselves to God because of what God has done in giving Jesus as a sacrifice in our place, Cranmer moved the language of offering ourselves to after the Communion. Sometimes (e.g. 1662) the offertory gets confused with the money offering too. (Wafers are a much later innovation, and in my opinion a wrong one.)
<dt>Eucharist - “he gave thanks”<dd>A prayer was said over the bread and wine, thanking God. The prayer typically followed the pattern: blessing God, thanks for creation, thanks for redemption, thanks for the new covenant (and our place in it), institution narrative (i.e. the story of the Last Supper), prayer for us as we receive communion, praising God again. Later on, the Sanctus came to replace or be integrated into the Thanksgiving sections. The key phrase in this whole section is Jesus' command to “do this in remembrance of me” - reminding us that we are sharing communion to remember Jesus. The Prayer of Humble Access is descended from the minister's prayer for the people as we receive communion.
<dd>Sometimes other prayers were inserted after the Eucharistic Prayer, largely because of the 4th century idea that the prayer of thanksgiving “consecrated” the bread and the wine, and that somehow God was therefore more present then, and so prayer was more likely to be heard. We see remnants of this in the use of the Lord's Prayer in Common Worship Order 1. Sometimes it even went far enough that the prayers during the Synaxis ceased to be used – we don't need two periods of intercession during the service. Of course, originally, the prayers of intercession were in the Synaxis rather than the Eucharist, and I think that's the best place for them.
<dt>Fraction - “he broke it”<dd>The bread is broken so that it can be distributed. Originally this may well have used 1 Cor 10:17, but after the church stopped using just one loaf they switched to using words like “God's holy gifts for God's holy people” or “the body of Christ, broken for you.” Sometimes people today use 1 Cor 10:17 "though we are many, we are one body, for we all share in the one bread", but do it without using one loaf. That seems silly to me. In the medieval church, the Fraction came to be seen as the point at which Jesus' body was actually broken, so Cranmer dropped it altogether. 1662 re-introduced it during the Institution Narrative, which is historically odd.
<dt>Communion - “he gave it to them”<dd>Distribution of the bread and wine was usually done with the ministers standing, and the people walking between them. Afterwards, there was just a short dismissal and the service ended.</dl>
<p>(This is part of an irregular series spinning off Gregory Dix's <em>On the Shape of the Liturgy</em>. The data is almost all from Dix, but I've reworked it in the light of a rather different theology.)</p>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02487495921222083129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-85840715928542392132014-05-07T09:24:00.002+01:002014-05-07T09:28:46.967+01:00The Prepositions of Salvation<p>When we're thinking about how God saves us, it's surprisingly important to get our prepositions right. Prepositions are words like “onto” or “under” which describe how two objects are related to each other.</p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5H1O4CoppG5D61MGZkA3IoNzHwGmj78t913STz9NC7gwf0uIoThMplfEqr41E0EpK_F42aVLO49daOQKdlFyLMJ7kplskEjcGbDExwbCZvx3PGLlMCQMPY1J9DfGnlts-UyY/s1600/Prepositions.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5H1O4CoppG5D61MGZkA3IoNzHwGmj78t913STz9NC7gwf0uIoThMplfEqr41E0EpK_F42aVLO49daOQKdlFyLMJ7kplskEjcGbDExwbCZvx3PGLlMCQMPY1J9DfGnlts-UyY/s400/Prepositions.png" /></a></div>
<p>The Bible tells us we are saved:</p>
<dl>
<dt>from sin<dd>Naturally we all suffer from what one author helpfully describes as “the human propensity to f*** things up”. That means that the way things are by nature, we are cut off from God and when it comes to God's plan to sort the universe out and fix what is wrong; we are part of the problem that God will get rid of rather than part of the solution. That is what we are saved from.
<dt>by grace<dd>Because the way we are is part of the problem, we can't do anything to earn God's favour. We can't do anything to make him like us, because we just mess everything up. But God loves us as we are, even though he knows what we are like. That's called grace – it's God's undeserved love for us.
<dt>of God<dd>It's not grace as some impersonal force in the universe, it's the grace of God. God as revealed in the Bible and in Jesus is not an impersonal force who seeks to make us into better people – he is a person (or three), who seeks to mend us and transform us through our relationship with him.
<dt>through faith<dd> We take hold of God's salvation / forgiveness / transformation through faith, which simply means trust. It is trust on the basis of available evidence, but which goes beyond the evidence – just like we do every day. When I turn the steering wheel of my car, I trust that it will cause the car to turn. I have good reason for that trust – it has worked every previous time, but that doesn't guarantee it will work in the future. Nevertheless, I choose to put my faith in the steering column of my car to do its work. In the same way, I trust God to save me, to forgive me, to transform me. And we're saved through faith, not by faith. It isn't something we do to earn anything – it is simply how we take hold of what God has done.
<dt>in Christ<dd>It isn't just “faith” in the sense of some generic perception of something beyond ourselves that saves us. It's faith specifically in Christ. It's trusting what Jesus did for us when he died in our place on the cross and rose from the dead to offer new life to all those who trust him.
<dt>into Christ<dd>But we're saved “in Christ” in a much deeper sense than that. In a profound sense, when we trust in Jesus, we're united to him so that we receive the blessings which he deserves, we are raised from the dead in his resurrection, and so on. We are saved into Christ, and therefore into his new people, his family the Church.
<dt>for works<dd>We aren't saved by what we do. Our faith which takes hold of God's salvation – the fact that we trust in Jesus – shows itself in what we do, but we are saved by the grace of God so that we might do good works, so that we might be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. You don't have to do good works to become a Christian, but those who have already become Christians should do good works.
<dt>to the glory of God<dd>the aim of all of it is the glory of God. It's not to make us look good or to feel better than other people. It's so that everyone will see how awesome God is. God the Father wants the world to know how amazing his Son is. God the Son wants the world to see the love of his Father and then transformation that comes from the Holy Spirit. God the Holy Spirit wants us to worship the Father through trusting God the Son.
</dl>
<p>We see this wonderfully illustrated in passages such as Ephesians 2:4-10 (NIV).</p>
<blockquote><p>But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions – it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus.</p><p>For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.</p></blockquote>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02487495921222083129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-75174904283989601662014-04-30T09:56:00.000+01:002014-04-30T10:08:52.336+01:00My Problem with "Rev"<p>This week saw the last-ever episode of the TV series <a href=http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0178fhq>Rev</a>, about the vicar of a “failing” church in London. I've watched a fair bit of it, and all of the last series, but I always found it made me profoundly uncomfortable. This is why.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5uIwG3SNa7aCuIHxHdEyzSrYdXRcsik9DUzeMq1Sbrlz75aVkkauB6455zJOl93jtna8z9FbvBrdgT51vPmsvXvbUDK0rdRbl8ACu90WqTwBSRGEubC77Q9x9GwILHIw2u18C/s1600/Rev_-_main_cast.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5uIwG3SNa7aCuIHxHdEyzSrYdXRcsik9DUzeMq1Sbrlz75aVkkauB6455zJOl93jtna8z9FbvBrdgT51vPmsvXvbUDK0rdRbl8ACu90WqTwBSRGEubC77Q9x9GwILHIw2u18C/s1600/Rev_-_main_cast.jpg" /></a></div><p>It wasn't because <a href=http://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/the-one-thing-missing-from-rev/>God hardly shows up</a>, though he doesn't much. It wasn't because <a href=http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/28/rev-tv-comedy-undermines-church-of-england>it's subtly hostile to the church</a>, though it is, particularly in its depiction of all other clergy other than Adam as nasty pieces of work. It was because I found it all-too believable, and it made me face up to one of the fundamental problems faced by the Church of England. When I can do something about problems (or when it's my job to), I think it's important to face them and deal with them, but problems like this I'd rather bury my head in the sand and ignore. In some senses, it's none of my business, but it breaks my heart.</p><p>The Church of England has long been built on a foundation of fudge. We aren't really a denomination – we're a national Church which is a variously dysfunctional association of congregations bound together by a shared history which we disagree about, an often-distant episcopacy, a rough agreement that the Creeds are on the whole a good thing, an immensely flexible liturgy that can be indistinguishable from either Rome or Vineyard, and a slightly grudging agreement to work together for the common good. One of the problems with this is that there are some fairly fundamental things that we really don't agree on but never discuss, in particular the nature of ordained ministry.</p><p>As far as I can tell, there are two main ideas about the nature of ordained ministry in the Church of England – the ontological and the functional, or in less technical language “being a priest” versus “leading the church”. I'll explain what I mean.</p><br />
<h3>Two Views of Ordained Ministry</h3><br />
<p>The <b><em>ontological</em></b> view of ministry is probably the more widely-held view. It's certainly the closest thing to an official view in the C of E. It says that when someone is ordained priest, they become a priest – that is who they are, and it doesn't go away (unless someone does something <em>really</em> bad, and the bishop goes a stage beyond sacking them). Priests are allowed to preside at communion, pronounce official blessing and absolution on people, and so on. Non-priests aren't, but a priest is a priest is a priest, whether they are a vicar, an army chaplain or a retired social worker who helps out in the local church and got ordained so they can help out with communion services.</p><p>The C of E selects people for ordination on the basis of this idea. Their criteria are roughly as follows:</p><ul><li>do they live out some kind of spirituality, and can they articulate why they feel called to be a priest in the C of E?<br />
<li>are they moderately well-adjusted as a person – are they aware of their strengths and weaknesses, wanting to grow, willing to serve and to lead, possessing integrity?<br />
<li>do they have a decent understanding of the Christian faith, including the importance of reaching outsiders?</ul><p>This isn't the view which comes naturally to me, but I've come to see some of its strengths. It's great to be able to appoint people like that as official ambassadors for the church. On the various occasions when Adam had a crisis of calling through the series, it was aspects of this call – the call <b>to be a priest</b> – which he kept coming back to.</p><p>The other view of ordained ministry is the <b><em>functional view</em></b>. It says that there is clearly a call to <em>be</em> different, but that call applies to all Christians. The distinctive call is a call to lead churches – to do something. On this view, a retired vicar is the same as any other member of the congregation, albeit with some skills and wisdom they might like to share.</p><p>The key texts for this view are the Pastoral Epistles – letters written by Paul to church leaders in the 60s AD, along with a few other bits like Acts 20 and 1 Peter 5. These distinguish several different levels of leadership in a church, from people who are involved in running practical areas of the church's life (e.g. Stephen) to people who are involved in appointing church leaders across a wider area (e.g. Titus). The criteria these passages give for someone to be involved in a senior leadership position in a church are:</p><ul><li>Character: good reputation in the community, above reproach, free from addictions, self-controlled, not argumentative, gentle, dignified, sensible, hospitable, not someone who runs after money.<br />
<li>Domestic situation: either celibate or faithfully married, looks after own household well, spouse and children (under 12-ish) believe.<br />
<li>Faith / skills: not a new believer, doctrinally sound, secure faith, good at teaching the Bible</ul><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_Kf_txLG4BqX3x159EhqgbkPBgvN3s_z5LgoBxWKzHO-O-4QxvMyLvnkb9V8_EMdIQ2nerYmMOmlIMWJ5b6crkOfVQWPFtRZCLBrseaTxCpT2oX46q8JCsfd9JTE57_0v2RsI/s1600/p01x1q9r.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_Kf_txLG4BqX3x159EhqgbkPBgvN3s_z5LgoBxWKzHO-O-4QxvMyLvnkb9V8_EMdIQ2nerYmMOmlIMWJ5b6crkOfVQWPFtRZCLBrseaTxCpT2oX46q8JCsfd9JTE57_0v2RsI/s1600/p01x1q9r.jpg" /></a></div><h3>The Problem</h3><p>The problem is that these don't quite match, but the C of E pretends they do. I don't have a problem with people being called to be priests, but the call to be a church leader is different. <b>Just because someone is called to be a priest, doesn't mean they're called to lead a church,</b> but the C of E assumes it as the norm.</p><p>The result is people like Adam Smallbone in Rev. He's a nice guy; he's clearly got some kind of call on his life. But according to that list, he isn't called to lead a church, and the tension in the series comes from fact that no-one quite grasps that he may well be called to be a priest by the C of E's understanding, but he isn't called to lead a church by the Bible's understanding.</p><p>We see the problems shining through in the series. Adam isn't a good preacher; as a result his congregation don't have transforming encounters with God's word and so don't change. We see that painfully clearly when it comes to welcoming a repentant paedophile into the church. Adam understands grace, but he hasn't communicated that understanding to the rest of the church, so they reject him. Adam's wife isn't properly on board with him being a vicar – she clearly resents it and it causes all kinds of problems for her faith, and for his leadership. I know both from personal experience and from that of friends that if a vicar's spouse isn't keen on them following the calling to lead a church, it won't work.</p><p>The tragedy is that Adam has been badly let down by the C of E in its confusion between the calling to be a priest and the calling to lead a church. As a result, everyone loses – Adam, the local church, the wider church.</p><p>That's what breaks my heart. There are people with a real heart for serving God who have been misled into thinking it should be by leading a church, and end up being chewed up and spat out. There are churches where people aren't growing in their faith because they're being led by people who can't preach properly. And all because we confuse two different things – the calling to be a priest and the calling to lead a church.</p>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06521625130572179577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-49158232538221759682014-03-18T18:57:00.001+00:002014-03-18T19:03:19.873+00:00Unapologetic - Francis Spufford<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiH4glijpXGYb_4lAvPAwZziyBAHc-ZCOu-4uZ-Sv46CMgMpOG44Pin583lD2tlAVFdId1rNVLfIPJLn0er1xp_0cAHwyNGzuPFUX3mhU_eOtNd-4XrEM1IgPW7KuIAO-jzaXQ/s1600/unapologetic.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiH4glijpXGYb_4lAvPAwZziyBAHc-ZCOu-4uZ-Sv46CMgMpOG44Pin583lD2tlAVFdId1rNVLfIPJLn0er1xp_0cAHwyNGzuPFUX3mhU_eOtNd-4XrEM1IgPW7KuIAO-jzaXQ/s320/unapologetic.jpg" /></a></div>
<p>This is an utterly remarkable book. Here's part of Spufford's explanation of what the book is for:</p>
<blockquote><p>You can read any number of defences of Christian ideas. This, however, is a defence of Christian emotions – of their intelligibility, of their grown-up dignity. The book is called <em>Unapologetic</em> because it isn't giving an 'apologia', the technical term for a defence of the ideas.</p><p>And also because I'm not sorry.</p></blockquote>
<p>Spufford is a novelist and lecturer in creative writing, and it shows. The book is incredibly well written and saturated in knowing references to modern highbrow culture – not in a showing-off sort of way, but in a way that shows utter familiarity with the Guardian-reading arts scene and much prefers knowing allusions to quotes or references.</p>
<p>He says he seeks to be utterly honest, and that shows too, in a kind of fearless way. He isn't afraid to describe God as a “sky fairy” in a way that gently takes the mick out of those who do, or to explain where his ideas diverge from either popular orthodoxy or Christian orthodoxy (of which more later). It isn't a book of tightly-argued logic; it's a description of how his emotions work as a Christian, written in complete non-Christianese.</p>
<p>Spufford's explanation of sin is just about the best I've ever read for the non-Christian reader. Some of his phrases - “Human Propensity to F*** things Up” (or HptFtU) for sin, or “International League of the Guilty” for church are brilliant, and there are some important ideas he's clearly got a better grip of than many Christian writers, if you aren't offended by the language (and that's only coarse-Anglo Saxonisms, not swearing).</p>
<p>There are some significant weaknesses though. I think the root one is that the church Spufford goes to doesn't seem to believe in the verbal inspiration of Scripture – I'd guess it's fairly liberal catholic C of E. So while Spufford affirms the physical resurrection of Jesus, he's unsure about eternal life for the rest of us, and doesn't believe in Hell. I'd love to sit down and have a chat with him about that – I suspect that the kind of hell he doesn't believe in is a kind I don't believe in either. </p>
<p>The same problem shines through in a number of other areas. There isn't really the idea of a propositional grounding for ethics, his take on the cross seems to be vaguely Girardian. Perplexingly in a book about emotions, the Holy Spirit doesn't get a look in and there isn't really a sense of the exciting growth in experience and knowledge of the love of Christ that you get in Eph 3:14-21. </p>
<p>I'd love to chat to him. On the basis of this book, he's clearly a Christian; he's got a wonderful way with words, a great sense of humour and such a clear understanding of the nature of sin. But there's so much more which God has for those who love him, and I can't help feeling he's missing out on it.</p>
<p>Oh, and whether you're a Christian wanting a fresh look at things, or a non-Christian wanting to understand why Christianity makes sense, as long as you're willing to engage with something you'll disagree with, this book is a great read.</P>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02487495921222083129noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-12178118438135770332014-03-05T21:06:00.000+00:002014-03-05T21:08:17.785+00:00Quick Book Reviews<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiC8uc_yoySdwjtUBkaZLL2Rd9F9ap2yGAX6D1mGtyd_KKzc4oT2nOecGpmyMjAIw3V7HbCHRNjOXZmBjCrgb1jXCflVlogxIjYD50aryNqlwSspe2KKfkzg9YZFBtQqzZwxBDM/s1600/Image1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiC8uc_yoySdwjtUBkaZLL2Rd9F9ap2yGAX6D1mGtyd_KKzc4oT2nOecGpmyMjAIw3V7HbCHRNjOXZmBjCrgb1jXCflVlogxIjYD50aryNqlwSspe2KKfkzg9YZFBtQqzZwxBDM/s200/Image1.jpg" /></a></div><h3>Michael Reeves – The Unquenchable Flame</h3><p>This is a very readable, clear and entertaining introduction to the Reformation. Obviously, it's an area I've studied a bit, and I can't say I learnt a lot new from this book, but I really enjoyed reading it! There are a couple of things he gets wrong – for example he recognises that Calvin wasn't a Calvinist, but I'm not sure he realises that Zwingli wasn't a Zwinglian either. There are, of course, loads of things he could usefully go into more detail on, but as a short (under 200 page) paperback introduction to the Reformation goes, this is as good as it gets.</p><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br />
<h3>Vaughan Roberts – True Friendship</h3><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKe6wirM1cwhhWQGKHKxzB-lqwxI_q4vJBzz5Cd-Xf4RFjjn_cT7t_WhmxEaAfv7lExpOEkQOQfq65WB2vAxHGWHu6_t3Ra1ffVZ-hsvillPTDltlYDlzIkhGHtGeoLWA9KlZ-/s1600/9781909611320.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKe6wirM1cwhhWQGKHKxzB-lqwxI_q4vJBzz5Cd-Xf4RFjjn_cT7t_WhmxEaAfv7lExpOEkQOQfq65WB2vAxHGWHu6_t3Ra1ffVZ-hsvillPTDltlYDlzIkhGHtGeoLWA9KlZ-/s200/9781909611320.jpg" /></a></div><p>This is a very short book (not even 100 pages), but it's brilliant and well worth a read. Vaughan has obviously read and thought a lot on the topic, and condenses it really well. Here are a couple of really helpful ideas I picked up from it.</p><ul><li>Our culture idolises sex in such a way that friendship is dramatically de-valued. It seems a common belief that all truly intimate relationships are sexual relationships, especially for men. As a result, classic Biblical teaching on sexual ethics sounds like it is condemning those who aren't able to marry to a lifetime of loneliness. This might be because they're exclusively same sex attracted like Vaughan is, or because they can't find a suitable Christian mate like several people I know, or for a variety of other reasons.<br />
<li>Don't worry about other people not being good friends to you – make sure you're a good friend to others.</ul><p> </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIqLkvVlgUPjnqMt2LWrP_yVvw00Su-GYtmAi4z3cMvuovSxeZ4BWk-VrxjZfhZMVplh7hvUOhwe2qQ46Rb7S7Mjlds1INgwv93DbUnsnUmLfhoz4UtamuswjwbK1Gl8GAEIJt/s1600/what-the-dog-saw.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIqLkvVlgUPjnqMt2LWrP_yVvw00Su-GYtmAi4z3cMvuovSxeZ4BWk-VrxjZfhZMVplh7hvUOhwe2qQ46Rb7S7Mjlds1INgwv93DbUnsnUmLfhoz4UtamuswjwbK1Gl8GAEIJt/s200/what-the-dog-saw.jpg" /></a></div><h3>Malcolm Gladwell – What the Dog Saw</h3><p>Malcolm Gladwell has become famous in the UK for his book-length popular treatments of social science topics, such as <i>The Tipping Point</i> and <i>Outliers</i>. This is a collection of 20 shorter articles (20 pages or so each) which he wrote for the New Yorker magazine. It's typical Gladwell – he can make pretty much anything seem interesting, even the history of advertising hair dye. It's always thought provoking, always informative, always entertaining.</p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheWjDBRdnAKafjgHtZwdor1m3wQYgyUveveyb_0rV_ZynO3bWBtbmNHIHQdC3CtnjNcqo1eZG4kt60rsOt_2LfdF91cJRlVqg7eJJvfdfyAXljK4ur0r-VxnQogdYxQRE54HKP/s1600/7538.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEheWjDBRdnAKafjgHtZwdor1m3wQYgyUveveyb_0rV_ZynO3bWBtbmNHIHQdC3CtnjNcqo1eZG4kt60rsOt_2LfdF91cJRlVqg7eJJvfdfyAXljK4ur0r-VxnQogdYxQRE54HKP/s200/7538.jpg" /></a></div><h3>John C Maxwell – Winning with People</h3><p>This is a typical John Maxwell book. 25 big points about how to work well with people, explained really clearly, illustrated well, and explained in such a way that they seem utterly obvious. I can see that if someone really needed to learn soft people skills, this book could change their life, but it's got enough helpful advice that pretty much anyone would benefit.</p>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06521625130572179577noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18654361.post-81564477471817574902014-02-25T16:11:00.001+00:002014-02-25T16:13:02.086+00:00What about the Apocrypha?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIKtzQLaXCTlM9Mm0Qmte5wkR_6HSc3Fe7t66-vAb6gHKUp4gVyFe-LZ8wLjFWCel-PMMpDu-HUduV8liL-aNHnKh7DHfbi3p4g0EFW8r7c4Y-OwgqoRpLg4aF-4y-Nql7Qhxm/s1600/Stattler-Machabeusze.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIKtzQLaXCTlM9Mm0Qmte5wkR_6HSc3Fe7t66-vAb6gHKUp4gVyFe-LZ8wLjFWCel-PMMpDu-HUduV8liL-aNHnKh7DHfbi3p4g0EFW8r7c4Y-OwgqoRpLg4aF-4y-Nql7Qhxm/s320/Stattler-Machabeusze.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<p>The first record of the process of writing the Old Testament is God writing the 10 Commandments on stone tablets on Mount Sinai in Exodus 20. But only a few chapters later, in Ex 24:7, Moses has something which is described as the “book of the covenant”, which is probably Exodus 20-23, written down by Moses. From then, the Old Testament grew, through a process of editing and compiling various accounts, and people writing down messages given by God to inspired prophets, and so on. There's lots of detail, but it's very dull and the kind of thing boring academics argue about. It's far more interesting and helpful to talk about what the text means than try to come up with novel theories for how it came to be the way it is.</p><p>Peter sums up the overall process well:</p><blockquote><p>Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.<em>2 Peter 1:20-21</em></p></blockquote><p>The result, over a period of 1000 years or so, was the <em>Tanakh</em>. Tanakh is the Hebrew name for Torah (law) + Naviim (prophets) + Khetuvim (writings), and is pretty much exactly the 39 books of the Old Testament in most modern Protestant Bibles, but in a different order. It's written in Hebrew, with a few bits in Aramaic, which is closely related to Hebrew. It's possible a few bits (Daniel?) might have been written after the Greek conquest, but if so they were written in the old language, for the old culture and set before the conquest.</p><p>After the Exile to Babylon, the Jews gained a degree of independence under the Persian Empire, the beginnings of which are seen in Ezra and Nehemiah. But the Persian empire fell to Alexander the Great in 332BC, and over time Greek rule transformed Israel. Tensions occasionally rose as high as violent revolt, especially the one led by the Maccabees in 164BC, which led to an independent Jewish state until it was swallowed up by the Roman Empire.</p><p>However, most Jews lived outside Israel, in what is now Egypt, Syria, Turkey and Iraq, they spoke Greek rather than Hebrew as a first language and were heavily influenced by Greek culture in a way that the Palestinian Jews had largely resisted. These Jews translated the Tanakh into Greek, so they could read and study it more easily, with the result being the <em>Septuagint</em> (usually abbreviated to LXX). The LXX isn't quite a straight translation though. Some books (Jeremiah) are a bit shorter in the LXX. Others (Daniel, Esther) are a bit longer, with the addition of new stories to Daniel and explicit references to God and prayer in Esther. Some new books were added too - some stories (Tobit, Judith), some history (Maccabees), and some which fit the Greek/Jewish culture, like Wisdom of Solomon, which says how wonderful Greek philosophy is, then points out it's all there and even better in the Tanakh. The books were also in a different order, with the LXX closer to the order you'd find in most Bibles today.</p><p>That meant there were some striking differences between the Hebrew Scriptures, used by Palestinian Jews, and the standard Greek translation of it, used by Grecian Jews.</p><br />
<h3>What about Jesus and the apostles?</h3><p>Jesus and the first apostles were Palestinian Jews and therefore used the Hebrew Tanakh. Paul was at home in either culture – he was brought up in Turkey, but studied in Jerusalem – and although he quotes from the LXX when writing to Greek-speaking Christians, he only quotes from the bits which were translations of the Hebrew/Aramaic original.</p><p>By the end of Acts, however, the majority of Christians didn't speak Hebrew or Aramaic, only Greek, and this was stronger still after the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. After that, the early church almost exclusively used the LXX for their Old Testament.</p><h3>And the Jews?</h3><p>Meanwhile, the Jews met to discuss the problem at the council of Jamnia, which is often seen as the start of Rabbinic Judaism (i.e. after the temple and the destruction of Israel). They agreed that the Hebrew Tanakh was indeed Scripture, but the extra bits in the Greek LXX weren't.</P><h3>St Jerome</h3><p>During the centuries of persecution, the LXX seems to have been fairly readily available. Judaism wasn't persecuted in the same way that Christianity was, and most churches seem to have owned and used the LXX as Scripture. When St Jerome was commissioned to translate the Bible into Latin in 382, he found the problems, and argued against the use of the extra bits in the LXX. Augustine countered, arguing that the LXX itself was inspired by God, even where it got the translation of the underlying Hebrew wrong. Jerome made some compromises and his translation (the <em>Vulgate</em>) became the standard translation in the Latin-speaking world. The Vulgate:</p><ul><li>Translated the Hebrew text of the books in the Tanakh, but noted where the Greek disagreed.<br />
<li>Where there were extra bits in the LXX, translated them too but mostly tagged them on at the end of each book.<br />
<li>Kept the LXX book order, including the extra books.</ul><p>And so it stayed for 1000 years.</p><h3>The Reformation</h3><p>In the 1500s, the Reformers rebelled against the established Latin Church. As part of this, they looked again at the question of which books should be in the Bible, and almost all of them concluded that the Old Testament we use should be the Hebrew Tanakh, not the Greek Septuagint. Luther, for example, translated the Old Testament from Hebrew into German, and relegated the books that were only in the LXX to an appendix to the OT entitled “Apocrypha: These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read”. Luther's idea was widely copied. In the Church of England, the policy was (and remains) as follows:</p><blockquote><p>And the other Books (as Jerome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.</p></blockquote><p>Over time, the Apocrypha was dropped from most Bibles to save on printing costs and to make it clear that they aren't on the same level as Scripture.</p><p>Meanwhile, the Roman Catholic Church met at the Council of Trent to decide how to respond to the Reformation. One of the items on the agenda was which books should be in the Bibles, and Trent ruled that all the books in the LXX were Scripture.</p><h3>The Situation Today</h3><p>By and large, the situation today is as follows:</p><ul><li>The Protestant Old Testament is the Hebrew Tanakh, but with the Greek order of books.<br />
<li>The Catholic Old Testament is the slightly weird Jerome-compromise of a combination between the Hebrew and Greek Old Testaments, but all held to be authoritative.<br />
<li>The Orthodox Old Testament is the LXX, with various slight variations among different groups.</ul><p>And for those who are interested, the order of books in the Hebrew Tanakh is as follows:</p><ul><li>Genesis – Deuteronomy (the Torah)<br />
<li>Joshua - 2 Kings, but missing out Ruth (the Former Prophets)<br />
<li>Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel (the Major Prophets)<br />
<li>Hosea – Malachi (the Minor Prophets)<br />
<li>Psalms<br />
<li>Job<br />
<li>Proverbs<br />
<li>Ruth<br />
<li>Song of Songs<br />
<li>Ecclesiastes<br />
<li>Lamentations<br />
<li>Esther<br />
<li>Daniel<br />
<li>Ezra - Nehemiah<br />
<li>1& 2 Chronicles</ul>
<p>(And that was the simplified version!)</p>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06521625130572179577noreply@blogger.com0