Two Awesome Adverts

Here's one about being welcoming (or otherwise): (hat tip)

And here's probably the best advert of the year. Acts 20:35.

The Word on the Wind - Alison Morgan

This is the best book I've read to give to members of “sleepy churches that are being woken up”. It starts off at a very general middle-of-the-road Anglicanism, even to the extent of having an introduction by Rowan Williams, and it ends up fairly close to charismatic evangelicalism.

Alison Morgan is a good and clear writer, who has obviously got lots of experience of helping people know God better and seeing him working, both in England and Africa. The only bits that got on my nerves were the bits about science and religion, where Morgan sometimes gets out of her depth. For example, in chapter 2, Morgan says that the scientific revolution was largely due to a recovery of the Greek way of thinking as compared to the Hebrew. That may well be the way things often function today, but it's just plain wrong when thinking about the history of science (for a better view, see e.g. Peter Harrison, The Fall and the Foundations of Natural Science).

But that's being picky. It's not Morgan's main point and in general this is a great book – the kind of book that made me go out and look for other stuff she's written – the kind of book I'd like to work through with folks in a church that needed waking up. She even has a poem with the reflection questions at the end of each chapter, which really isn't my style but I recognise will work well for others.

Heaven - Randy Alcorn

I would never normally have picked this book up, and that would have been my loss. It's by a chap called Randy, and has a smiling cheesy photo of him on the back. The top paragraph of the blurb is “We all have questions about what Heaven will be like, and after twenty-five years of extensive research, Dr. Randy Alcorn provides the answers.” How cheesy and yet subtly threatening! What sort of research has he done – tracking down nice people and killing then reviving them?

But actually, despite appearances, and despite one or two minor quibbles (of which more later) this is just about the best book I have ever read on the topic. The “extensive research” turns out to be detailed study of all the relevant Bible passages and reading and engaging with just about every book ever published on the topic of heaven.

What I particularly liked about it was the valuable stress on the physicality of heaven and the importance of the Old Earth at its best as at least a vague picture of the New Earth. Alcorn's picture of the afterlife is God-centred, but it has a lot of enjoying God by enjoying his (new) creation, which is something I rarely see in books which try to give a Biblical perspective.

Another thing I liked was the sheer depth of his background reading.

I shall rise from the dead... I shall see the Son of God, the Sun of Glory, and shine myself as that sun shines. I shall be united to the Ancient of Days, to God Himself, who had no morning, never began... No man ever saw God and lived. And yet, I shall not live till I see God; and when I have seen him, I shall never die.
John Donne

I've got a few small quibbles though. Alcorn talks about the Millennium far too much for something that only gets one Bible verse on it (and that contested and in a highly symbolic passage). Maybe that's because he knows loads of people who think it is really important. I don't, but then I don't do loads of stuff with Christians in America. I don't dramatically disagree with him, I just don't see the point of him mentioning it so much, but maybe that's because he's in a different context from me.

About 40% of the book (>200/550) is a section entitled “Question and Answers About Heaven”, which is sometimes weak and gets a bit repetitive. For example:

In heaven, will we be able to do time travel and go back and watch exciting events from the past?
Yeah, that would be pretty cool. I don't see any good reason why not. Hey – if you did that we could go back and watch the Sermon on the Mount or the parting of the Red Sea. That would be great!
And will we able to live in fairytale castles with knights and dragons like in medieval times?
Ooh wow – some people would really like that. I don't know – let's say “yes”, but I'm not going to say where all the peasants would come from.

(not a real quote, but you get the idea.)

Alcorn also sometimes errs a little on the side of literalism for my taste, but at least he admits it. For example, he suggests that the streets in the New Jerusalem will literally be made of gold (p.478). But those are only minor quibbles and actually it is a really good book. The Q&A section does work if it's being used as a reference book, and some of the questions (e.g. on animals in heaven) are handled really well.

He reports one conversation between a young bibliophile and an older wiser Christian. The young man asks “Will we have books in heaven?”, and the older Christian replies “Yes, but only the ones you've lent out or given away.” This is a really good book, and I suspect I will indeed be lending it out! One final quote:

What if the resurrection of the dead is an actual, bodily resurrection? What if the New Earth will be real? What if Heaven will be a tangible, earthly place inhabited by people with bodies, intellect, creativity, and culture-building relational skills? What if a physical Heaven is God's plan and has been all along? What terminology would God have to use to convince us of this? How would it be different to what he has actually used in Scripture? (p.479)

Wi-Fi and Individualism

From where I am sitting at the moment, my computer can pick up 13 home wireless internet connections. There are so many that they block each other's signals, and each home will be paying roughly £15 per month for theirs, which they don't use all the time.

The solution should be obvious - neighbourhood wi-fi. A group of 6 or so nearby houses pays for a really good uncapped internet connection, with 2 or 3 transmitters. They get less signal interference, it costs the householders less, and the first company to offer a deal like that makes pots of cash. But it isn't happening because we're too individualistic, don't know our neighbours and so on. Oh, and this way the ISPs make more money in total.

Dealing with Discrimination

Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution.
Acts 6:1, ESV

How does the early church deal with discrimination? And what can that teach us today?

1. Discrimination is Inevitable

At this stage in Acts, the early church hasn't done much wrong. They are sharing everything they have with each other; they are growing rapidly; they are taking care of the poor. And yet the perception of discrimination arises. Maybe it's because the Hellenists (Greek-speaking Jews, probably from outside Israel) didn't speak the language as well as Hebrews (Hebrew-speaking Jews from inside Israel). Maybe it's because the Hebrews knew people better or were pushier because they were in their home town and the Hellenists were visitors. But whatever the reason, the Hellenists felt that they were being discriminated against. No human system is ever good enough to completely remove the perception of discrimination against someone.

2. The Perception of Discrimination is Itself a Problem

According to various bodies, if someone thinks they are being discriminated against, then they are. I used to think that was stupid, but as time has gone on, I've seen the wisdom of it. It is importance not only that justice is done but that justice is seen to be done.

3. Avoiding Discrimination Really Matters

The apostles convene a full meeting of the whole church to discuss the issue (Acts 6:2).

4. Discrimination Shouldn't Stop Preaching

The apostles recognise that the problem of discrimination has the potential to stop the central work of preaching and prayer, so they choose 7 other people to deal with it. That's not to say that discrimination doesn't matter – of course it does. It can even be a central issue – God includes all sorts of people in his kingdom, and the Jerusalem Council was convened to deal with the question of Jews and Gentiles in the Church. But other things matter too, and we should take care that dealing with discrimination doesn't stop us from doing those things.

5. The Victims of Discrimination Should Be Put In Charge of Righting It

The Seven are an interesting group. The dispute, remember, was between Greek-speaking Jews and Hebrew-speaking Jews. And the group appointed to sort it out were: Stephen (Greek name), Philip (could be Hebrew or Greek), and Prochorus (Greek), and Nicanor (Greek), and Timon (Greek), and Parmenas (Greek), and Nicolaus (Greek – and he wasn't even ethnically Jewish). 6 of them were from the group that felt that they were being wronged. And that's important, because putting them in charge removes the perception of discrimination as well. The Greek-speaking Jews can't complain that they're being discriminated against because they are now the ones in charge of food allocation.

6. The Non-Victims Should Be Protected

Of course, in trying to right any discrimination, there's the possibility of overreaction. And so it's important that the apostles protect against this as well. The Seven are described as “seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom”. They weren't going to mistreat the Hebrew widows to try to get revenge or anything like that.

Application

So which groups in the church feel discriminated against? Women in ministry can feel discriminated against. And those who oppose women in ministry certainly do feel discriminated against.

The Biblical solution then is to put those who feel discriminated against in charge of the protection against discrimination. Legislation for women bishops should therefore be drafted and agreed on by two groups – godly, committed women in ministry and godly, committed people who oppose them.

What's With Paul and Women? by John Zens

When we debate with others, we need to make sure we understand their point of view too. Otherwise we run the risk of being deluded into believing our own bluster.

One area where this is particularly true is the debate about women in leadership in the church. For one side, the issue is one of fairness, of not arbitrarily saying that 50% of the church should not be allowed to teach or lead. For the other side, the issue is one of striving to be faithful to the Bible (or to tradition), especially when it doesn't fit with our cultural preconceptions.

What is needed in the debate, therefore, is for people who bridge the gap – who either seek to show how restricting the ministry of women is fair, reasonable and just or to show how allowing women to teach, preach and lead is compatible with the Bible. This book is an attempt to do the latter.

Zens takes the key passage of 1 Timothy 2:8-15, and tries to show that it addresses a specific situation in the church in first-century Ephesus rather than being a general injunction for all time. And he makes some good points. For example, by arguing that Paul's instructions to women all match up with specific features of the Ephesians Artemis-cult, he provides the first decent explanation I've seen of how v15 follows on from v8-14.

Some bits of the argument could be unpacked better. For example, I don't remember him making the specific link between the women wearing fancy hair styles to worship Artemis, or their leadership, and them seeking protection in childbirth. It is implicit in what Zens writes, but if he'd spelt it out a bit more, and then unpacked that Paul is showing them that there is a better way...

But the book's big weakness is how it treats people who disagree. The foreword is full of invective against people who restrict women's ministry. And regardless of whether it is true or not, that is not the way to win an argument with people who are honestly seeking to follow what they think God is saying. Ditto with Zens' argument in v12. He translates the verse “I do not now permit...”, and then makes his main point from the word “now”. However, it isn't in the verse in Greek. If Paul had wanted to put a “now” in, he could have done and he didn't. Zens is right of course that the verse could be describing Paul's practice at that time and in that situation, but grammatically it could also be describing his settled and permanent policy. That question can't be settled on grammar alone, so in implicitly saying that it can, Zens makes the serious mistake of over-arguing. I don't like people using bad arguments in debates because 1) it makes it look as if they don't have any good arguments 2) it makes it look as if they've already decided what the “truth” is before considering the arguments.

Other things about the book grated as well. When Zens wants to make a point I think is controversial, the sources he refers to to establish it are mostly non-peer-reviewed ones – he seems disturbingly fond of putting blogs in his references. Now I quite like reading people's blogs, but I don't always assume they're true. If I'm reading the blog of a noted Biblical scholar, I expect them to be right on the Biblical stuff and to have done their research. But Zens sometimes comes across as having the attitude “It says it on the internet, therefore it must be true.”

All in all, a thought-provoking read, and he makes some good points, but it could have been so much better if this book actually looked like an attempt to understand the verses rather than an attempt to have a go at people who disagree.

"Healing" Homosexuality?

There is quite a bit of controversy at the moment about the possibility of therapy that is said might lead to gay people becoming straight. Albert Mohler, for example, has written an article about it which misses the point.

People argue about whether it is ok to condemn homosexuality. But that is surely neither here nor there in the argument! Consider this:

• It is acceptable to be either male or female.
• However, there are some people who are biologically male who wish to be female, or vice versa.
• In modern culture, that too is acceptable.
• We as a culture do not have a problem with men who wish to become women undergoing therapy to help them make that change.
• Biological gender is clearly "hardwired" in a deeper sense than sexual "orientation".
• Hence if we allow someone who wishes to change their biological gender to undergo therapy to do so, then we should also allow someone who wishes to change their sexual orientation to undergo therapy to do so (whether straight -> gay or gay -> straight)
• Therefore, even in an areligious secular liberal state, we should allow therapy for people to change their sexual orientation.

Note that this argument does not assume that homosexuality is right, wrong, neutral or disordered. It does not assume anything about the authority of Scripture. It is therefore much more likely to be accepted as an argument by people who don't agree with those points. I don't understand why it isn't used more.

Three Books That Should Be on Ministry Reading Lists

Here are three books I wish had been on at least one of my reading lists. (And one that I'm glad wasn't!)

Instruments in the Redeemer's Hands by Paul Tripp

This is the best book I have ever read on pastoral care. It is the best book I have ever read on pastoral counselling. It is one of the best books I have ever read on psychology from a Christian point of view. It is one of the few books I have read that seems to understand the depths of idolatry in the human heart, and that seeks to bring people to proper worship of God. Brilliant.

Deliverance by Michael Perry

This a book version of the official guidelines from the Church of England working group on Deliverance ministry. Given that fact, it's surprisingly good. They don't seem to have any anti-supernatural bias or anything, and have done their research into the nature of the phenomena and best practice very well. Well worth a read for anyone in ministry who comes across situations where deliverance is requested or an option. Recommended by my Training Incumbent.

Retirement

There is one Biblical reference to retirement on any grounds other than ill health. And it's in Luke 12.

Then Jesus said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.” And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest. He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no place to store my crops.’
“Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store my surplus grain. And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of grain laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’
“But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded from you. Then who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’
“This is how it will be with whoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich toward God.”
Luke 12:15-21, NIV

And it's great to see that John Piper's on the same page...

HT to What's Best Next? for the video.

Were Adam and Eve Historical?

This article is a good summary of the current state of a very interesting debate. Lots of the points made in the debate are very good ones, and some of them see difficult to reconcile with other very good points.

For what it's worth, I'm not compleltely sure exactly what I think, but I want to affirm the following two points:

1. Adam and Eve really existed.
2. The scientific evidence is not deceptive.

It isn't obvious how to reconcile those points - here are a few ideas.

Were Adam and Eve the only people alive at the time? That probably depends on what you mean by "people". I think Biblically it is clear that they are the first real humans, because they are the first ones to be given the divine image, which was subsequently spoilt, and being human is fundamentally about the capacity for relationship with God. Were there other members of the genus homo alive at the time? Maybe, but if so Adam was their representative head and so after the Fall they share in his image, which is fallen from the image of God.

Although the scientific evidence is not deceptive, the study on that evidence may have been done badly for various reason. It may be there are factors of which they are unaware. They might have been using faulty models.