Slides for Sunday's talk:
"If God is sovereign, then his lordship must extend over all of life, and it cannot be restricted to the walls of the church or within the Christian orbit." Abraham Kuyper Common Grace 1.1.
Showing posts with label talks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label talks. Show all posts
Sunday, 12 October 2014
Sunday, 14 September 2014
The drama of Scripture II: The fall
Here are the slides and notes from my talk on Sunday. It was the second in a series based on the excellent book by Goheen and Bartholomew.
It’s
been said that the history of the world can be told with three apples:
The
apple Adam ate, the apple that fell
on Newton’s head and the Apple Steve Jobs gave us. Of course, that’s not quite
true as nothing in the biblical text suggests that it was an apple Adam ate!
The apple is a good image for what happened.
…And
then there was sin.
One
thing is certain sin has tarnished, disrupted and distorted God's good
creation.
Because
of the "apple" humanity, God and the world are estranged (Gen 3:17; 9:2). This
decisive biblical event is well described by Walther Eichrodt:
This
event has the character of a "Fall", that of a falling out of line of
the development willed by God.
The
fall is a falling out of line of the development willed by God. It’s not the
way it’s supposed to be. As Romans 8 has it the creation is now groaning. God’s
intention in creation was for humans to fill and subdue the earth, to till and
to keep it: in other words to build civilisation. When we think of creation we
think of solar systems, sun, sea, sky, sharks, starfish and spiders. But
creation is more than that; within the creation order there is culture and
civilisation. Humans were to develop and help the whole of creation to
flourish. This unfolding of creation was to result in institution such as
government, education, farming, art and music, business, science and
technology.
However,
Adam and Eve disobeyed God. They didn’t want to do things God’s way, they
wanted to be their own bosses. That is the essence of sin – it wasn’t just what
they did it was about the heart, an act of the will, an act of defiance. In
essence it’s: We don’t want to be ruled by God we want to rule ourselves.
It
might seem odd to suggest that science, technology, government, work and so on
were part of creation. But look at the activities that Adam was doing before
the fall.
Genesis 2: 19
God
bought the animals to Adam – and Adam had to name them. He would have to
distinguish between each animal, numbering them – the start of mathematics, he
had to name them, observation and classification, the start of science. We could go on.
Genesis 2: 5
There
was no man to work the ground – so humans were created. We were created to
work! We don’t work to get money, we work as part of our God-given creational
task.
So
what went wrong? There was a falling out of line of the development willed by
God. It’s not the way it’s supposed to be!
God
placed humans in a garden. The Bible ends in a city, the new Jerusalem. That
involves development and the production of culture and civilisation. But then
came the fall – a falling out of line. That, fortunately, is not the end of the
story. God is in the business of redemption.
Structure and direction
The
distinction between structure and direction is important here. Structure refers
to the form in which things have been created; direction refers to the pull of
sin or grace on that structure. The fall means that it is the direction not the
structure of the world that has altered.
In
Genesis 1:28 we were given what has
been called the cultural mandate; it
has not been annulled because of the fall.
Be
fruitful and increase in number
Fill
the earth
Subdue
it
Rule
over the animals
Genesis 2: 15
Placed
in the garden of Eden to
Work
it and
Take
care of it
That
is still our task and our calling.
What
has happened, though through the fall, is that it has been made all the more
difficult.
Genesis 2: 16
Filling
the earth is made all the more painful as childbearing pains are increased.
Rulership
becomes deformed: "the husband shall rule over the wife".
Genesis 2:17-18
Subduing
is made all the more difficult as work in the garden will be a "painful
toil".
Most
initiatives of the development of creation such as cities, music and technology
(metal working) arise out of the line of Cain (in Genesis 4). The development
of clothes also comes as a result of the fall (Gen 3:7, 21). Were humans
intended merely to remain in a pristine garden?
If
we take the example of cities we cannot declare them inherently evil, because
the new heavens and earth are pictured as a city in Revelation. To see all
human post-fall development as evil is to confuse the structure and direction
of creation. Cities, music, fashion, science, technology, art ... all have a
creational structure, the fall has not affected this but has changed their
direction of these God-given aspects have been distorted and mis-directed. They
can be developed obediently or disobediently to creational norms.
The
task of civilisation, however is rooted in the creation narrative. When God
created the heavens and the earth he first formed it and then began to fill it.
It is this task that humans have to continue. This is what civilisation is
about; it is part of the human task to be the image bearers of God.
Ironically
it seems that it is a step of rebellion that leads to a development of
"civilisation". God works all things together for good. God wasn't taken by surprise.
No
area of life is left untainted by sin. Sin affects every area of life.
All relationships are broken: with God, with the world, with other humans and
with ourselves.
Adam
and Eve are banished from the garden. It appears that out of defiant rebellion
God is working out his purposes for the fulfilment of the cultural mandate.
Adam's expulsion from the garden means that the rest of the world can be
"civilised"; similarly with the tower of Babel it means that humanity
is scattered throughout the globe and as they are they take the image of God
with them.
We
may live in a world that is not the way it’s supposed to be, a world that has
fallen out of line of the development willed by God. But God is working on
that. The expulsion from the garden is the beginning of redemption. The
remainder of the Bible is the story of God redeeming, through Christ, his good
but fallen creation.
As
sin has affected every area and aspect of life, so too does redemption.
And
that’s the story that will be unfolded in the next few weeks.
Sunday, 26 January 2014
Affairs of the heart: The Sermon on the Mount 5:21-
My notes for this morning's talk. (Slides in previous post)
The Danish philosopher Soren Kirkegaard apparently loved to tell stories. Here’s one of them:
Jesus also loved to tell stories. Stories that were hard hitting. People would gladly gather to listen to Jesus to tell his stories – even gather on a mount to listen.
The Sermon on the Mount is packed with wisdom, insight, understanding and it packs no mean punch. It subverts the dominant worldviews. This is an upside down kingdom.
I’m a great believer in putting things in context. In fact there are three things that are crucial to understanding the meaning of any biblical passage: context, context and context.
The biblical, historical-cultural and today’s contexts. We can’t do all that this morning. But let’s quickly look at the first. Where does the SoM fit into Matthew’s Gospel? And where does the passage we are looking at now fit into the Sermon on the Mount?
Matthew is split into 5 main parts with an introduction and an ending.
Intro – the coming of the king
Conclusion – the crucifixion and resurrection – the fulfilment of the kingdom
The 5 main parts have a narrative section and close with a teaching section.
The first main block of teaching is 5-7 the Sermon on the Mount – the kingdom values
The second is ch 10 the sending out of the disciples with the kingdom message
Third ch 13 are the parables of the kingdom
Fourth ch 18 sermon of the community of the kingdom
Fifth 23-25 is the coming of the future kingdom
We’ve had the be-attitudes. It’s important to note that they are not called the do-attitudes! The sermon on the mount is about conduct and character. But Jesus starts straight away by laying the foundation it’s about character first. Out of character comes conduct.
Jesus then looks at our role in society as salt, light and a city. We are the light of the world, but we can only be the light if we are resting in Jesus who is the light.
He then looks at his relationship with the law. He comes not to do away with it but to fulfil it. Our conduct flowing out of our character, shaped by Jesus is us, should out do even the teachers of the law!
We then come to 5:21 onwards. Our section for today. Jesus pick us the theme of the law but gives it an important twist.
He uses the phrase You have heard it was said …. But I tell you …
He uses it six times about:
murder
adultery
divorce
oaths
revenge
love
What Jesus was doing was not reinterpreting the law, he was deepening, not destroying, its demands
Jesus wants us to go deeper. It’s about character not just conduct.
This passage raises many important questions – which we can only gloss over here. (For those concerned about the issues of divorce, I wrote a paper for discussion here.)
Law looks at the surface act: murder and adultery, but Jesus takes it to its root.
The root of murder is anger.
The root of adultery is lust.
It’s all about the heart. What’s in our hearts overflows into our action.
Jesus gets to the heart of the matter and what matters is the heart.
It’s character not just conduct.
Anger obviously doesn’t lead to murder in every situation. But what Jesus says here is that it is liable to the same judgment –it’s the same to God.
Does this mean that anger is always sinful? Not necessarily. Jesus was angry. He didn’t sin.
Anger is a created part of human life. At times it can be the right response to sin.
Paul wrote Eph 4: “In your anger do not sin”. Implying that there was an anger that wasn’t sin.
Anger is part of the created structure.
We can take it in one of two directions: obediently or disobediently to God’s ways.
There is then a created structure to it which is good, but a direction in which we can take it. Anger can be good, but it can also be perverted and used wrongly.
We need to sanctify not suppress anger. One way to sanctify anger is reconciliation.
Jesus then goes on and focuses on reconciliation. Murder is the opposite of reconciliation.
Settle matters – get it sorted. Jesus is very serious about this. He gives two examples: the temple and the court.
For those who ha come to the temple it wasn’t a short waddle! They may have travelled for hours or even days to come. But Jesus says – leave your gift and go back home if you need to sort something out. Then do your worship.
Nothing says kingdom as reconciled relations.
Will we waddle or will we fly?
Jesus then turns to adultery. But again he takes it deeper. He goes to the root of the issue.
The law is not enough – it begins with our hearts.
It’s all about the heart. What’s in our hearts overflows into our action.
Jesus gets to the heart of the matter and what matters is the heart.
It’s character not just conduct.
In the culture of the time it was the women who had to dress modestly, so as to prevent the males falling into lust. Jesus turns it around – he expects the men to control themselves.
Again Jesus shows how serious he is: cut out your eye or chop of your right hand if they cause you to sin. Some took this literally Origen of Alexandria chopped off his privates, Democritus blinded himself. In AD 325 the Council of Nicea had to forbid the practice.
Neither Origen nor Democritus found it solved the problem! The problem is the heart.
From adultery, Jesus moves on logically to the issue of divorce.
Scott McKnight has this important insight:
Gary Thomas wrote a book on marriage called Sacred Marriage. The subtitle of the book is a challenging question: What if God designed marriage to make us holy more than to make us happy?
We have swallowed the lie that marriage is primarily for us to be happy. Love is not about romance, self-expression and sexual satisfaction. It is that but it involves so much more than that.
Love is about commitment, self-sacrifice, it’s an act of commitment not feeling it’s about discipleship. When we get married the commitment we make to each other is I will not I do. Do is how you feel in the present but I will includes the future; it’s making a commitment. When we get that right then lust, divorce and adultery will be much less of a problem in the church.
The Sermon on the Mount is about conduct and character. Our conduct comes from our character. Our character comes form hearing and obeying what Jesus has said. It is difficult and hard it is challenging – but we need to stay close to him. He’s the one who helps us fly.
Will we waddle or will we fly home today?
The Danish philosopher Soren Kirkegaard apparently loved to tell stories. Here’s one of them:
There once was a little town of Ducks. Each Sunday the ducks waddle out of their homes and waddle down the High Street to their church building. They waddle into the sanctuary and squat in their proper pews. The duck choir waddles in and sings the opening psalm. Then the duck minister comes forward and reads from the duck Bible: “Ducks! God has given you wings! With wings you can fly! With wings you can mount up and soar like eagles. No walls can confine you! No fences can hold you! You have wings. God has given you wings and you can fly like birds!” All the ducks shouted “Amen!” and all waddled home.
Jesus also loved to tell stories. Stories that were hard hitting. People would gladly gather to listen to Jesus to tell his stories – even gather on a mount to listen.
The Sermon on the Mount is packed with wisdom, insight, understanding and it packs no mean punch. It subverts the dominant worldviews. This is an upside down kingdom.
I’m a great believer in putting things in context. In fact there are three things that are crucial to understanding the meaning of any biblical passage: context, context and context.
The biblical, historical-cultural and today’s contexts. We can’t do all that this morning. But let’s quickly look at the first. Where does the SoM fit into Matthew’s Gospel? And where does the passage we are looking at now fit into the Sermon on the Mount?
Matthew is split into 5 main parts with an introduction and an ending.
Intro – the coming of the king
Conclusion – the crucifixion and resurrection – the fulfilment of the kingdom
The 5 main parts have a narrative section and close with a teaching section.
The first main block of teaching is 5-7 the Sermon on the Mount – the kingdom values
The second is ch 10 the sending out of the disciples with the kingdom message
Third ch 13 are the parables of the kingdom
Fourth ch 18 sermon of the community of the kingdom
Fifth 23-25 is the coming of the future kingdom
We’ve had the be-attitudes. It’s important to note that they are not called the do-attitudes! The sermon on the mount is about conduct and character. But Jesus starts straight away by laying the foundation it’s about character first. Out of character comes conduct.
Jesus then looks at our role in society as salt, light and a city. We are the light of the world, but we can only be the light if we are resting in Jesus who is the light.
He then looks at his relationship with the law. He comes not to do away with it but to fulfil it. Our conduct flowing out of our character, shaped by Jesus is us, should out do even the teachers of the law!
We then come to 5:21 onwards. Our section for today. Jesus pick us the theme of the law but gives it an important twist.
He uses the phrase You have heard it was said …. But I tell you …
He uses it six times about:
murder
adultery
divorce
oaths
revenge
love
What Jesus was doing was not reinterpreting the law, he was deepening, not destroying, its demands
Jesus wants us to go deeper. It’s about character not just conduct.
This passage raises many important questions – which we can only gloss over here. (For those concerned about the issues of divorce, I wrote a paper for discussion here.)
Law looks at the surface act: murder and adultery, but Jesus takes it to its root.
The root of murder is anger.
The root of adultery is lust.
It’s all about the heart. What’s in our hearts overflows into our action.
Jesus gets to the heart of the matter and what matters is the heart.
It’s character not just conduct.
Anger obviously doesn’t lead to murder in every situation. But what Jesus says here is that it is liable to the same judgment –it’s the same to God.
Does this mean that anger is always sinful? Not necessarily. Jesus was angry. He didn’t sin.
Anger is a created part of human life. At times it can be the right response to sin.
Paul wrote Eph 4: “In your anger do not sin”. Implying that there was an anger that wasn’t sin.
Anger is part of the created structure.
We can take it in one of two directions: obediently or disobediently to God’s ways.
There is then a created structure to it which is good, but a direction in which we can take it. Anger can be good, but it can also be perverted and used wrongly.
We need to sanctify not suppress anger. One way to sanctify anger is reconciliation.
Jesus then goes on and focuses on reconciliation. Murder is the opposite of reconciliation.
Settle matters – get it sorted. Jesus is very serious about this. He gives two examples: the temple and the court.
For those who ha come to the temple it wasn’t a short waddle! They may have travelled for hours or even days to come. But Jesus says – leave your gift and go back home if you need to sort something out. Then do your worship.
Nothing says kingdom as reconciled relations.
Scot McKnight: “we must be intentional about reconciliation for it to become a pervasive lifestyle”
Lesslie Newbigin: "A gospel of reconciliation can only be communicated by a reconciled community"
Will we waddle or will we fly?
Jesus then turns to adultery. But again he takes it deeper. He goes to the root of the issue.
The law is not enough – it begins with our hearts.
It’s all about the heart. What’s in our hearts overflows into our action.
Jesus gets to the heart of the matter and what matters is the heart.
It’s character not just conduct.
In the culture of the time it was the women who had to dress modestly, so as to prevent the males falling into lust. Jesus turns it around – he expects the men to control themselves.
Again Jesus shows how serious he is: cut out your eye or chop of your right hand if they cause you to sin. Some took this literally Origen of Alexandria chopped off his privates, Democritus blinded himself. In AD 325 the Council of Nicea had to forbid the practice.
Neither Origen nor Democritus found it solved the problem! The problem is the heart.
From adultery, Jesus moves on logically to the issue of divorce.
Scott McKnight has this important insight:
Divorce confuses the church today because marriage confuses. And marriage confuses the church today because love confuses.
Gary Thomas wrote a book on marriage called Sacred Marriage. The subtitle of the book is a challenging question: What if God designed marriage to make us holy more than to make us happy?
We have swallowed the lie that marriage is primarily for us to be happy. Love is not about romance, self-expression and sexual satisfaction. It is that but it involves so much more than that.
Love is about commitment, self-sacrifice, it’s an act of commitment not feeling it’s about discipleship. When we get married the commitment we make to each other is I will not I do. Do is how you feel in the present but I will includes the future; it’s making a commitment. When we get that right then lust, divorce and adultery will be much less of a problem in the church.
The Sermon on the Mount is about conduct and character. Our conduct comes from our character. Our character comes form hearing and obeying what Jesus has said. It is difficult and hard it is challenging – but we need to stay close to him. He’s the one who helps us fly.
Will we waddle or will we fly home today?
Sunday, 26 May 2013
The Trinity for Trinity Sunday
“If you think you understand the Trinity, you don’t understand the Trinity.”
Dan Brown in his 2003 book The DaVinci Code claims that the Trinity was a fourth century invention. He wasn’t the first person to suggest this, but his book placed doubt regarding the historical origins of the Christian faith and the role of the Gnostic gospels.
All good errors are based on a partial truth. And Brown was partially right. There was a fourth-century council and there are gnostic gospels. There are many so-called gospels that didn’t make the cut and get into the canon of scripture. But not for the reasons that Brown maintains! I’ll leave aside discussions of the gnostic gospels – but let’s look at the Trinity, as it’s appropriately Trinity Sunday.
Despite writing a work of fiction Brown maintained that his book was based on fact. But what are the facts behind the Trinity? Is it really a fourth-century mash up?
It was in the fourth century that the council of Nicea affirmed the idea of God as Trinity. But they didn’t come up with the idea, they drew together and clarified Trinitarian beliefs. Beliefs that were held from the early days of Christianity.
The idea of a Trinity has always caused problems, the one time president of the United States Thomas Jefferson wrote of the “incomprehensible jargon of Trinitarian arithmetic”!
On one level it does sound ridiculous. How could three be one?
The physicist Richard Feynman is alleged to have said that “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics”! The same could be said of the Trinity, “If you think you understand the Trinity, you don’t understand the Trinity!”
Numerous illustrations have been used unsuccessfully in an attempt to describe the Trinity:
We’ll look at the problems with these illustrations and I’ll give you a better one! So, a small incentive to keep listening!
There are three important aspects to the Trinity:
Threeness, oneness and equality.
To help us remember this think of a TOE!
However, I want to slightly change the order:
The Trinity is human attempt to see God as he has revealed himself as three (persons) in one (nature). There is a unity and plurality in God: a unity within diversity.
God has revealed himself as one “what” but three “whos”!
Let’s look at these three aspects: One-ness, three-ness and equality.
One-ness
The Bible is clear God is one cf. Deut 6 - the shema.
This stresses the oneness of God. But the Hebrew word for one here is not an arithmetic one, but a unity within diversity. So, even in this oneness there is a suggestion of plurality.
The Jews held very strongly to this belief in one God (aka monotheism).
Three-ness
However, it is also clear that from the New Testament Jesus is God and that the Holy Spirit is God.
It wasn’t the council of Nicea that out of the blue came up with the concept of Trinity. It was there in the early church from the beginning:
In Matt 28 Jesus commissions the disciples –he uses one name.
Paul in one of the earliest letters wrote (2 Cor 13:14)
It was clear to the early Christians that Jesus was truly human. He had human emotions, experiences - he became tired and hungry, he at times was angry, he was tempted.
But he is also God.
But let’s look a little closer at the divinity of Jesus. This is perhaps the most important question we can be asked: What do you think of Jesus? It’s a great question for evangelism. People don’t like much to talk about religion, but they have time for Jesus. To be an effective witnesses we can ask questions rather than make statements.
One great question is what do you think of Jesus?
Most will agree that he was a good human, but is he more. We looked at toes – now it’s time for HANDS! (I’ve borrowed some of these ideas from this book: Putting Jesus in His Place)
Honour
Glory, worship, prayer and honour are all given to Jesus and he accepted them.
Attributes
He is pre-existent
Eternal
Uncreated
This is clearly seen in the opening of John’s Gospel:
Names
Name above every name
The first and the last (Rev 1 cf Is 41:4)
God and Lord
"Before Abraham was I AM" John 8: 58 Jesus declared. The Jewish crowd's response was to stone him – the punishment for blasphemy. The crowds knew who Jesus was claiming to be.
Deeds
Creator (John 1:3)
Forgiving sins
Judge
Seat
Ruling for ever
God’s highest throne
The Holy Spirit is a person
But he is also God.
Equality
Each person of the Trinity is equally God. They have different roles but there is no hierarchy in the Trinity.
God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equally God.
There is a mutuality not a hierarchy.
A mutual submission to each other and a mutual glorifying of each other.
As Basil of Caesera puts it:
If we over stress one-ness we overemphasis God’s unity. We have One God in three forms (modalism) – those of you have read the Shack, may recognise this version of the Trinity portrayed there. The analogy of ice, water and steam is also promoting this modalist view of God.
On the other hand if we stress the three-ness, we can have three gods: this has been called tri-theism. Another version of this is partialism: Seeing God as the three parts of an egg or as a three-leaf clover, falls into this trap.
If we deny the equality aspect – then we fall into subordinationism. There are different forms of this, but most entail some sort of hierarchy in the godhead: Jesus and the Holy Spirit are creations of God the Father, that become gods.
So, what is a better model? This is not without its faults – but I’ll put it out there.
You may recall in Harry Potter Hagrid has a dog that guarded the Philosopher’s Stone called Fluffy. (In Greek myths, Cerberus, a three-headed dog guarded the gates to hell.)
It is one dog, but with three personalities: each head would have independent thought, but they work together as one.
But, I hear you ask: So what?
The so what?
The Dutch theologian Herman Bavinck wrote:
1. The distinguishing mark of orthodox Christianity.
Every cult or sect gets the Trinity wrong.
2. Salvation
If Jesus were not God and he were not human then we cannot be saved.
Do all religions lead to God? The Trinity shows they can’t.
All other religions are about humanity trying to get to God through some way or another.
It is only in Christianity that God comes to us, in the form of Jesus. If Jesus was not God then what he did for us on the cross would be of no effect.
God reveals himself and redeems creation in a Trinitarian way.
3. Prayer
The Trinity is involved in our prayer:
We pray to the Father, though the Son by the Holy Spirit.
When we don’t know what or how to pray, the Spirit helps us – he enable us to cry Abba Father, all on the basis of Jesus as the mediator, our great high priest.
4. Relationships
Relationship is at the heart of God. Within the Godhead there is a unity within diversity. There is difference but acceptance. There is co-operation, self-giving love, equality. Each person of the Trinity has a role, each works together as one. What a model for family, for church for life! We can accept difference without division; not everyone will be like us and that’s good! The Trinity provides a model of loving unity within real diversity. Difference doesn't have to mean division.
5. Family life
This my be a little controversial for some – but I’ll throw it out anyway.
All too often people of my gender have been all too keen to stress: wives submit to your husbands. We forget the context: the previous verse: mutual submission. It’s like that in the Trinity, why should it be any different in the family?
6. Mission
All too often we can get stressed out by mission. We know it’s something we should be doing and often fail at it. But we forget – we don’t have to do it! We have to let God do it through us. Stop struggling, stop striving rest in God’s grace.
As the Father has sent me so I send you.
Receive the Holy Spirit.
The disciples had to wait in Jerusalem for the Holy Spirit, that gave them the power to be disciples. That Spirit is the same Spirt that raised Jesus from the dead.
We are more than equipped by the Holy Spirit to enable us to be witnesses. So we can make disciples in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
It is by knowing God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, knowing the three distinct persons as one God that our worship, our mission, our relationships and the whole of our lives can be lived in faithful obedience.
The Trinity from Steve Bishop
Dan Brown in his 2003 book The DaVinci Code claims that the Trinity was a fourth century invention. He wasn’t the first person to suggest this, but his book placed doubt regarding the historical origins of the Christian faith and the role of the Gnostic gospels.
All good errors are based on a partial truth. And Brown was partially right. There was a fourth-century council and there are gnostic gospels. There are many so-called gospels that didn’t make the cut and get into the canon of scripture. But not for the reasons that Brown maintains! I’ll leave aside discussions of the gnostic gospels – but let’s look at the Trinity, as it’s appropriately Trinity Sunday.
Despite writing a work of fiction Brown maintained that his book was based on fact. But what are the facts behind the Trinity? Is it really a fourth-century mash up?
It was in the fourth century that the council of Nicea affirmed the idea of God as Trinity. But they didn’t come up with the idea, they drew together and clarified Trinitarian beliefs. Beliefs that were held from the early days of Christianity.
The idea of a Trinity has always caused problems, the one time president of the United States Thomas Jefferson wrote of the “incomprehensible jargon of Trinitarian arithmetic”!
On one level it does sound ridiculous. How could three be one?
The physicist Richard Feynman is alleged to have said that “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics”! The same could be said of the Trinity, “If you think you understand the Trinity, you don’t understand the Trinity!”
Numerous illustrations have been used unsuccessfully in an attempt to describe the Trinity:
- A three-leaf clover
- An egg: with a shell, albumen and yolk
- The three states of water: ice, water and steam
- Humans as being in the image of God: Body, soul and spirit.
We’ll look at the problems with these illustrations and I’ll give you a better one! So, a small incentive to keep listening!
There are three important aspects to the Trinity:
Threeness, oneness and equality.
To help us remember this think of a TOE!
However, I want to slightly change the order:
- Oneness
- Threeness and
- Equality
The Trinity is human attempt to see God as he has revealed himself as three (persons) in one (nature). There is a unity and plurality in God: a unity within diversity.
God has revealed himself as one “what” but three “whos”!
Let’s look at these three aspects: One-ness, three-ness and equality.
One-ness
The Bible is clear God is one cf. Deut 6 - the shema.
This stresses the oneness of God. But the Hebrew word for one here is not an arithmetic one, but a unity within diversity. So, even in this oneness there is a suggestion of plurality.
The Jews held very strongly to this belief in one God (aka monotheism).
Three-ness
However, it is also clear that from the New Testament Jesus is God and that the Holy Spirit is God.
It wasn’t the council of Nicea that out of the blue came up with the concept of Trinity. It was there in the early church from the beginning:
In Matt 28 Jesus commissions the disciples –he uses one name.
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Paul in one of the earliest letters wrote (2 Cor 13:14)
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.These are not proof texts for the doctrine of the Trinity; but they do show that the early church were starting to see Father, Son and Holy Spirit as one.
It was clear to the early Christians that Jesus was truly human. He had human emotions, experiences - he became tired and hungry, he at times was angry, he was tempted.
But he is also God.
But let’s look a little closer at the divinity of Jesus. This is perhaps the most important question we can be asked: What do you think of Jesus? It’s a great question for evangelism. People don’t like much to talk about religion, but they have time for Jesus. To be an effective witnesses we can ask questions rather than make statements.
One great question is what do you think of Jesus?
Most will agree that he was a good human, but is he more. We looked at toes – now it’s time for HANDS! (I’ve borrowed some of these ideas from this book: Putting Jesus in His Place)
The New Testament teaches that Jesus deserves the honors only due to God, He shares the attributes that only God possesses, He is given names that can only be given to God, He performs deeds that only God can perform, and he possesses a seat on the throne of God.
Honour
Glory, worship, prayer and honour are all given to Jesus and he accepted them.
Attributes
He is pre-existent
Eternal
Uncreated
This is clearly seen in the opening of John’s Gospel:
John 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.
Names
Name above every name
The first and the last (Rev 1 cf Is 41:4)
God and Lord
Thomas said to Jesus after he had felt his words: “My Lord and God” John 20:28. Jesus didn’t argue with him!I AM
"Before Abraham was I AM" John 8: 58 Jesus declared. The Jewish crowd's response was to stone him – the punishment for blasphemy. The crowds knew who Jesus was claiming to be.
Deeds
Creator (John 1:3)
Forgiving sins
Judge
Seat
Ruling for ever
God’s highest throne
The Holy Spirit is a person
But he is also God.
3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”The Trinity is a way of acknowledging that there is one God in three persons. It was a way of coming to terms with the deity of Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Father and yet maintain the faith in one God.
Equality
Each person of the Trinity is equally God. They have different roles but there is no hierarchy in the Trinity.
God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equally God.
There is a mutuality not a hierarchy.
A mutual submission to each other and a mutual glorifying of each other.
As Basil of Caesera puts it:
We perceive the operation of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit to be one and the same, in no respect showing differences or variation; from this identity of operation we necessarily infer the unity of nature.Each of the three aspects of one-ness, three-ness and equality are important to the whole. If we overstress one aspect or deny another we get into heresy. The sort of heresies the early church were addressing and dealt with at Nicea and other church councils.
If we over stress one-ness we overemphasis God’s unity. We have One God in three forms (modalism) – those of you have read the Shack, may recognise this version of the Trinity portrayed there. The analogy of ice, water and steam is also promoting this modalist view of God.
On the other hand if we stress the three-ness, we can have three gods: this has been called tri-theism. Another version of this is partialism: Seeing God as the three parts of an egg or as a three-leaf clover, falls into this trap.
If we deny the equality aspect – then we fall into subordinationism. There are different forms of this, but most entail some sort of hierarchy in the godhead: Jesus and the Holy Spirit are creations of God the Father, that become gods.
So, what is a better model? This is not without its faults – but I’ll put it out there.
You may recall in Harry Potter Hagrid has a dog that guarded the Philosopher’s Stone called Fluffy. (In Greek myths, Cerberus, a three-headed dog guarded the gates to hell.)
It is one dog, but with three personalities: each head would have independent thought, but they work together as one.
But, I hear you ask: So what?
The so what?
The Dutch theologian Herman Bavinck wrote:
The doctrine of the Trinity is of incalculable importance for the Christian religion. The entire Christian belief system, all of special revelation, stands or falls with the confession of God's Trinity. It is the core of the Christian faith, the root of all its dogmas, the basic content of the new covenant. It was this religious Christian interest, accordingly, that sparked the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. At stake in this development - let it be said emphatically - was not a metaphysical theory or a philosophical speculation but the essence of the Christian religion itself. This is so strongly felt that all who value being called a Christian recognize and believe in a king of Trinity. The profoundest question implicit in every Christian creed and system f theology is how God can be both one and yet three. Christian truth in all its parts comes into its own to a lesser or greater degree depending on how that question is answered. In the doctrine of the Trinity we feel the heartbeat of God's entire revelation for the redemption of humanity." (Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2: God and Creation, Baker, 2006, p. 333).
1. The distinguishing mark of orthodox Christianity.
Every cult or sect gets the Trinity wrong.
2. Salvation
If Jesus were not God and he were not human then we cannot be saved.
Do all religions lead to God? The Trinity shows they can’t.
All other religions are about humanity trying to get to God through some way or another.
It is only in Christianity that God comes to us, in the form of Jesus. If Jesus was not God then what he did for us on the cross would be of no effect.
God reveals himself and redeems creation in a Trinitarian way.
The Father sends his Son by the SpiritWe are born into God’s family in a Trinitarian way:
Jesus does the work of his Father (John 5:17) by the power of the Spirit (Luke 3:22; 4:18)
The Father raises Jesus from the dead (Acts 2:24) by the power of the Spirit (Rom. 1:4).
We are born of the Spirit – the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son
It is the Spirit that helps us to cry Abba father.
3. Prayer
The Trinity is involved in our prayer:
We pray to the Father, though the Son by the Holy Spirit.
When we don’t know what or how to pray, the Spirit helps us – he enable us to cry Abba Father, all on the basis of Jesus as the mediator, our great high priest.
4. Relationships
Relationship is at the heart of God. Within the Godhead there is a unity within diversity. There is difference but acceptance. There is co-operation, self-giving love, equality. Each person of the Trinity has a role, each works together as one. What a model for family, for church for life! We can accept difference without division; not everyone will be like us and that’s good! The Trinity provides a model of loving unity within real diversity. Difference doesn't have to mean division.
5. Family life
This my be a little controversial for some – but I’ll throw it out anyway.
All too often people of my gender have been all too keen to stress: wives submit to your husbands. We forget the context: the previous verse: mutual submission. It’s like that in the Trinity, why should it be any different in the family?
6. Mission
All too often we can get stressed out by mission. We know it’s something we should be doing and often fail at it. But we forget – we don’t have to do it! We have to let God do it through us. Stop struggling, stop striving rest in God’s grace.
As the Father has sent me so I send you.
Receive the Holy Spirit.
The disciples had to wait in Jerusalem for the Holy Spirit, that gave them the power to be disciples. That Spirit is the same Spirt that raised Jesus from the dead.
We are more than equipped by the Holy Spirit to enable us to be witnesses. So we can make disciples in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
It is by knowing God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, knowing the three distinct persons as one God that our worship, our mission, our relationships and the whole of our lives can be lived in faithful obedience.
Wednesday, 10 August 2011
Beginnings
Beginnings - unlocking the OT
View more presentations from Steve Bishop
Slides from my talk on Sunday morning
Tuesday, 19 July 2011
1 Cor 1:10-17 division part 2: boundaries
It’s a word we will need to look at again and again.
Susie and I have been reading this book on Boundaries by Cloud and Townsend – it is very insightful and helpful.
Boundaries are good – but not if they divide us.
Here in this passage boundaries became walls to divide.
But boundaries are also God-given. When God created he created different kinds. Each developed according to their own kind. If we look at creation we have a rich variety and diversity. That rich diversity and variety is what makes creation so great. So too in the church.
Each of us has a calling – that calling forms a boundary. It shows us where our limits, roles, authority, responsibilities and reach lies.
Boundaries are important – we need to know when to say No and when to say yes – boundaries can provide focus to what we do. It prevents us stretching beyond our responsibilities, going beyond what God has called us to do. We need to ask God where are our boundaries.
Boundaries are not meant to be walls to keep us in, or others out; boundaries can be fences with gates. To let the bad out and the good in. Boundaries provide freedom. The fall was the crossing of a boundary – God told Adam and Eve they could eat of any fruit but not one particular one, they were boundaried. But what did they do? Crossed the boundary – and the result was the fall.
Boundaries are important, but they should not be used to divide us.
A lot of people I’ve spoken to recently have mentioned boundary problems; though they haven’t expressed it in those terms; it might be work-home life balance, parent-child issues, job roles, the list could go on. I’ve a few boundary problems at work – I have two part-time jobs at which there is some overlap, I’m also a personal tutor for some students; the boundaries can become challenged. Everywhere I turn at the moment the question of boundaries comes up.
Another book I have been reading recently also dealt with boundaries. Richard Mouw’s brilliant book on Abraham Kuyper. Have I mentioned Kuyper before?
Anyway – as I read one section it made much sense to me and made some issues clear. I hope for some of you it will do the same – it may for some be a word in season, as it was for me, or it may be something to ponder, or it may be something you can disregard with the response He follows Kuyper!
Quote from page 25:
The way in which a parent exercises authority over a child should be different from the way a manager exercises authority over staff, or a professor over students, or a coach over team players. This means too that the skills associated with a specific mode of authority do not automatically transfer to other spheres.
Imagine a woman and a man who are related in three different ways. She is the young man's mother. She is also an elder in the church where their family worships. And she is the academic dean at the university where her son serves on the faculty. Suppose, though, that the young man commits a serious crime — using, for example, a university computer for illicit sexual purposes. As his dean she will be required to fire him. As his church elder she might participate in a decision to place him under some form of ecclesiastical discipline — requiring, say, some special expression of penitence to God and to the community as a part of a process of spiritual restoration, and if he is not repentant, she may have to agree to a decision to excommunicate him from church membership. But as his mother she continues to love him unconditionally as a member of the family; she never entertains thoughts of "disowning" him as a son.
In each case her authority role is a different one, as is also the basis for her acceptance of him within each relationship. In the university she judges his fitness to remain a member of the community by some straightforwardly formal standards of vocational performance. In the church, she also enforces certain norms, but here with a pastoral openness to repentance and spiritual renewal. In the family, the ties go much deeper — so much so that the bond is not easily broken by either bad performance or unrepentant sin. In short, the authority exercised by a dean is different from that of an elder, and each differs from the parental role. And this is because families are families, churches are churches, and the academy is the academy. So if the young man were to complain to his mother, "How can you fire me from my teaching job? — I'm your son," he would be blurring the boundaries of the spheres.
Other important word is perspectives. We all see things from our own perspective, we can’t help but!
But we need to see that we don’t see it all.
We need to try and spend time in other people’s shoes.
Proverbs 17:18
The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.
Our view of things is only partial – as this advert for the Guardian newspaper shows.
Monday, 18 July 2011
1 Cor 1:10-17 division part 1: Introduction
The section we are looking at chapter 1: 10-17 is about division in the church – when we think of division three images come to mind: boundaries, nuts and stews! So, I want to look at this passage with those three images in mind.
As you all know Paul was a prolific letter writer. Here’s a story about another letter and letter writer:
Paul wrote at least four letters to Corinthians. 1 Corinthians is actually the second letter.
Paul evangelised Corinth on his second missionary journey – he stayed there for about 18 months. The story is told in Acts 18.
Corinth is a major Greek city and it was a major trade city. It was a Roman colony in Greece and so Roman laws and customs were important.
It was mainly a non-Jewish church, most had a background in paganism. This letter was written in response to a letter written to him and some issues raised by others.
We can see the outline of the letter here: all beginning (sort of) with the letter D:
introDuctio, Division, Discipline, Difficulties, Division, Doctrine and enDings. (See slides)
It was written by Paul around 53-55AD at the end of his time in Ephesus.
The passage we are looking at this evening looks at some of the divisions that seem to have split the Corinthian church.
This time the outline if bought to us by the letter P:
Plea for unity,
Parties of division,
Principle of being one in Christ and the
Priority of preaching.
It seems they had split into different factions or cliques: Paul, Apollos, Cephas and Christ followers
The first group: I follow Paul
If I was Paul I’d be pretty chuffed at that – I could probably justify why they should follow me (for example, I’m always right! Ask my wife!!)
But Paul isn’t – he has more in view than self-glorification; his desire is for the glory of the risen Lord (a theme he picks up later in the letter)
What is it that motivates us? Who are we seeking to glorify in what we do?
I follow Apollos
I follow Cephas
I follow Christ – here are the 'super-spirituals' – but it’s said in a way that is condescending, they follow Christ because they can get one over on the others! It’s like playing the trump card.
But Paul is not having it – even such an attitude is divisive.
That was first century Corinth – what about 21st century Bristol? What has that to do with us? There are just as many factions today – if not more:
What about I’m for Rob Bell, or I’m for Tom Wright?
Or even I’m for Spring Harvest, I’m for Greenbelt or I’m for New Wine?
Or dare I say it. I’m 9.00, I’m 10.30 I’m 6.30 service?
We have a tendency to compartmentalise or label people to put them in boxes! We should label jars not people!
Now diversity is good – but if those diversities divide us then that’s sin. And sin needs to be repented of.
Whose church is it? Is it the 9 o’clock’s, the 10.30’s or the 6.30’s? No – it’s Jesus’! let’s not forget that!
As you all know Paul was a prolific letter writer. Here’s a story about another letter and letter writer:
A father was amazed to see that his son’s bed was made and everything was tidy, no discarded socks or clothes anywhere. Something was obviously very wrong!
Then he saw an envelope, on the pillow. It was simply addressed: ‘Dad.’
The father opened the envelope fearing the worst. He read:
Dear Dad:
It is with great regret and sorrow that I’m writing you. I had to elope with my new girlfriend because I wanted to avoid a scene with Mum and you. I have been finding real passion with Stacy and she is so nice.
But I knew you would not approve of her because of all her piercings, tattoos, tight motorcycle clothes and the fact that she is much older than me and works as a lap dancer.
But it’s not only the passion…Dad she’s pregnant. Stacy said that we will be very happy. She thinks that it could well be my child. She owns a trailer in the woods and has a stack of firewood for the whole winter. We share a dream of having many more children. We hope to get married as soon as her divorce comes through.
In the meantime we are praying that science will find a cure for AIDS so Stacy can get better. She deserves it.
Don’t worry Dad. I’m 14 and I can take care of myself. Someday I’m sure that we will be back to visit so that you can get to know your grandchildren.
Your loving son John
P.S..Dad, none of the above is true. I’m over at Andrew’s house. I just wanted to remind you that there are worse things in life than the report card that’s in my desk drawer.
I love you. Call me when it’s safe to come home.
Paul wrote at least four letters to Corinthians. 1 Corinthians is actually the second letter.
Paul evangelised Corinth on his second missionary journey – he stayed there for about 18 months. The story is told in Acts 18.
Corinth is a major Greek city and it was a major trade city. It was a Roman colony in Greece and so Roman laws and customs were important.
It was mainly a non-Jewish church, most had a background in paganism. This letter was written in response to a letter written to him and some issues raised by others.
We can see the outline of the letter here: all beginning (sort of) with the letter D:
introDuctio, Division, Discipline, Difficulties, Division, Doctrine and enDings. (See slides)
It was written by Paul around 53-55AD at the end of his time in Ephesus.
The passage we are looking at this evening looks at some of the divisions that seem to have split the Corinthian church.
This time the outline if bought to us by the letter P:
Plea for unity,
Parties of division,
Principle of being one in Christ and the
Priority of preaching.
It seems they had split into different factions or cliques: Paul, Apollos, Cephas and Christ followers
The first group: I follow Paul
If I was Paul I’d be pretty chuffed at that – I could probably justify why they should follow me (for example, I’m always right! Ask my wife!!)
But Paul isn’t – he has more in view than self-glorification; his desire is for the glory of the risen Lord (a theme he picks up later in the letter)
What is it that motivates us? Who are we seeking to glorify in what we do?
I follow Apollos
I follow Cephas
I follow Christ – here are the 'super-spirituals' – but it’s said in a way that is condescending, they follow Christ because they can get one over on the others! It’s like playing the trump card.
But Paul is not having it – even such an attitude is divisive.
That was first century Corinth – what about 21st century Bristol? What has that to do with us? There are just as many factions today – if not more:
What about I’m for Rob Bell, or I’m for Tom Wright?
Or even I’m for Spring Harvest, I’m for Greenbelt or I’m for New Wine?
Or dare I say it. I’m 9.00, I’m 10.30 I’m 6.30 service?
We have a tendency to compartmentalise or label people to put them in boxes! We should label jars not people!
Now diversity is good – but if those diversities divide us then that’s sin. And sin needs to be repented of.
Whose church is it? Is it the 9 o’clock’s, the 10.30’s or the 6.30’s? No – it’s Jesus’! let’s not forget that!
Thursday, 30 June 2011
Temptation 5: examples 3 oranges not peaches?
• The temptation to be oranges and not peaches
An orange is segmented – a peach is a peach all the way through.
How do we see our Christianity? The temptation is to segment it – rather than let it go all the way through.
The temptation is to split life up into sacred and secular.
The temptation is to say that Christianity is only for certain areas.
But as we know
When it comes to our work – are we confessing Christians but practicing atheists?
Christianity is more than a leisure activity: what we do on Sundays and some evenings. Our faith has to permeate all of our lives. Our thinking, our behaving and our desiring.
Let’s avoid the temptation to live as if God doesn’t exist in our business, our politics, the way we spend our time, the way we spend our money, the way we save our money, the way we spend our working hours ….
We need to be peaches not oranges!
An orange is segmented – a peach is a peach all the way through.
How do we see our Christianity? The temptation is to segment it – rather than let it go all the way through.
The temptation is to split life up into sacred and secular.
The temptation is to say that Christianity is only for certain areas.
But as we know
Nothing matters but the kingdom. But because of the kingdom everything matters.If we take the lordship of Christ seriously we can’t live like oranges, we can’t split our lives up by putting a Christian icing on our secular cake.
When it comes to our work – are we confessing Christians but practicing atheists?
Christianity is more than a leisure activity: what we do on Sundays and some evenings. Our faith has to permeate all of our lives. Our thinking, our behaving and our desiring.
Let’s avoid the temptation to live as if God doesn’t exist in our business, our politics, the way we spend our time, the way we spend our money, the way we save our money, the way we spend our working hours ….
We need to be peaches not oranges!
Tuesday, 28 June 2011
Temptation 3 examples 1: cruise ship or battleship?
For most of us temptations can be classified into three types: money, sex and power.
But there are some more subtle temptations that we face. It’s those I want to finish by looking at.
• The temptation to see church as a cruise ship and not a battle ship
The temptation is to see church as a cruise ship – where we are entertained, where our needs are met; but a better image of the church is as a battleship – where we have to play our part, where we are equipped and trained, where what we do is not for ourselves but for others? The temptation is to think: what can I get out of it but it should be: what can I give?
But there are some more subtle temptations that we face. It’s those I want to finish by looking at.
• The temptation to see church as a cruise ship and not a battle ship
The temptation is to see church as a cruise ship – where we are entertained, where our needs are met; but a better image of the church is as a battleship – where we have to play our part, where we are equipped and trained, where what we do is not for ourselves but for others? The temptation is to think: what can I get out of it but it should be: what can I give?
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
Universalism: will all be saved?
What is it?
Universalism is a massive subject.
A theologian and an astronomer were talking together one day. The astronomer said that after reading widely in the field of religion, he had concluded that all religion could be summed up in a single phrase. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," he said, with a bit of smugness, knowing that his field is so much more complex. After a brief pause, the theologian replied that after reading widely in the area of astronomy he had concluded that all of it could be summed up in a single phrase also.
"Oh, and what is that?" the astronomer inquired. "Twinkle, twinkle, little star; how I wonder what you are!"
So, at the risk of oversimplifying Universalism it is the idea that all will be saved.
There are two main forms of universalism.
1. All religions lead to God - so it doesn't matter what you believe (or don't believe)
2. God through Jesus has accomplished salvation for all – all will (eventually) be saved.
Advantages
There are a number of advantages to this position:
1. We don’t have to bother with evangelism. All will be saved, so what’s the point?
So, no more guilt from not sharing your faith.
If all religions lead to God then evangelism is arrogant, sectarian, intolerant and divisive. So, it would be sinful to evangelise!
2. We can do what we want! We can sin and sin and it doesn’t matter we are saved.
3. We can believe what we like - it doesn’t matter. Theology becomes irrelevant.
4. We can ignore the teachings of Jesus, they can be a bit radical at times!
5. We don’t have to take discipleship seriously.
Popular view
Some statistics: Rodney Stark in his book What Americans Really Believe (cited here)
In 1964 52% said that one had to receive Christ to go to heaven.
(whatever going to heaven means!)
Now 29% think half or more of non-religious people will go to heaven.
Only 20% think that nonreligious people won’t get to heaven.
Listen to former US president George Bush:
Mahatma Ghandi: “My position is that all the great religions are fundamentally equal.”
Rama Krishna: “truth is one; sages call it by various names”.
One NT scholar, Scott McKnight, calls it the biggest challenge facing [American] evangelicals.
Before I look briefly at the two forms of universalism we need to look at three models of salvation: pluralism, inclusivism and exclusivism (first proposed in 1983 by Alan Race in his book Christian and Religious Pluralism London: SCM).
1. Pluralism: all/most religions lead to God.
The atheists might be a bit shocked!
Q: Did you hear about the Dial-a-Prayer service they have for atheists now?
A: You dial the number and it rings and rings but nobody answers.
Q: Did you hear about the dyslexic atheist?
A: He didn't believe in Dog.
Si looked at this idea a few weeks ago. But is worth looking at it again as it’s a question that keeps reoccurring.
All religions agree there is something is wrong and something needs to be done about it.
The problem is not all are agreed as to what is wrong, or more importantly what is the remedy.
They don't even agree on what is the divine!
Sometimes this looks like "it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are sincere".
However, we can be sincerely wrong!
What about the serial killer who sincerely believes he is doing the will of God, or the rapist or paedophile? They may well be sincere, but they are wrong!
This religious diversity is not a modern phenomenon.
There have always been a diversity and range of different religions, each contending to be the dominant religion. The difference is that today, these religions are on our doorstep and not across an ocean. God said ‘Go”, we stayed so they came. The world religions have come to us.
2. Inclusivism – this view maintains that one religion is the main way to God, but some may make it in other ways. People may be saved by Jesus even if they don't believe in him.
3. Exclusivism or particularism - there is only one way to God. And that is through Jesus Christ.
This seems to be a very arrogant claim. And it would be if we were making that claim of ourselves and of Christianity. But it isn't us that makes it: listen to Jesus:
I am the way, I am the truth, I am the life.
Jesus made it very clear – He is the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except by me.
The way isn't a path to follow, the truth isn't a set of rules to obey - it is a person: Jesus.
He is claiming to be the way, the truth and the life.
Christianity is different from all other religions and beliefs. All others are humanity's atte,pt to get to God, it might be through knowledge, asceticism, good deeds, living a moral life and so on. But we can never be good enough - Christianity is different; in Christianity God comes to us!
But the charge of arrogance is double-edged. Isn't it arrogant to say that Christianity is wrong?
Pluralism seems to be the most tolerant of the three views. But truth is not measured by how tolerant it is! However, the pluralist appearances can be deceptive. Rather than seeing them as a spectrum of views they are more like a circle. Pluralism is Exclusivism dressed up in more acceptable clothes.
Exclusivism claims that if something is true then if I reject that truth it means that I am wrong.
The pluralists claims his view is true and thus the exclusivist is wrong. So, they are really exclusivists!
As Gavin Da Costa puts it: "the pluralist is in fact, no different from the exclusivist, except in the criteria employed for what counts as truth."
Pluralists claim to have the monopoly on religious truths - that makes them exclusivists!
There is no absolute truth except the truth that there is no absolute truth.
Some key passages
Universalists tend to base their alleged biblical support on three groups of texts:
1. Those which seem to teach that the cross ensured universal salvation,
2 Cor 5:19; Col 1:20ff; Tit 2:11; Heb 2:9; 1 Jn 2:2.
2. Those which seem to teach that God intends universal salvation,
1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9.
3. Those which seem to teach universal salvation explicitly,
Acts 3:21; Jn 12:32; Rom 5:18-19; 1 Cor 15:22-28; Phil 2:9-11; Eph 1:10.
(from here)
Unfortunatley, we don't have time to look in detail at each passage.
Is it right?
Why pluralist universalism isn’t true (all religions lead to God)- Jesus is clear he is the only way. Christianity is the only religion whereby God comes to us and rescues us. We can’t rescue ourselves. We are the problem!
Exclusivist universalism may be true - I don’t know - but even if it is; it doesn’t mean that we don’t evangelise, we don’t take sin and morality seriously.
Problems
I started by looking – tongue in cheek- at some of the advantages of universalism. But these are also the problems of universalism.
Evangelism – if universalism were true, then why evangelise. However, we are told explicitly that we need to go and share the good news, heal the sick and raise the dead.
Discipleship – if universalism were true, then why bother with discipleship? What does it matter what we do now, how we behave now? Yet we are called to be disciples, followers of Christ.
Hell – we often hear or ask the question – how can a God of live send anyone to hell?
It’s the wrong question! Apart from the fact that God doesn’t send anyone. If we deny him we have to face the consequences.
The right question is, “How can a just God of love not us the guilty to hell? How can we who deserve hell, not be sent there?”
The Scriptures are clear hell is real; it is a place of suffering.
Exclusivist universalists get round this by saying it’s a place of purifying.
The so what?
So What? By Miles Davis – a key question.
What’s the take home on this?
Ideas have legs!
Archbishop Temple once asked his father why don’t the philosopher’s rule the word? His reply? They do, decades after they have died. Ideas have consequences.
We are commanded to be transformed. How? By the renewing of our minds. It’s not an optional extra – it’s a command! Renewing our minds means under the direction and leading of the Spirit to think through and tackle these difficult issues.
The question shouldn’t be how does if affect me? But how does it help me to help others.
One issue that the topic of universalism raises is what is the purpose of salvation? Why are we saved?
Is it to escape hell? No!
The gospel isn’t turn or burn!
The purpose of salvation is not to make us feel good either! The purpose of salvation is to glorify God.
Why are we saved? It isn't so we escape the fire of hell!
If there was no hell would you still follow Jesus? Would you still want to share the good news?
Preaching the gospel is not an optional extra, it is a command.
However, preaching and sharing the gospel involves respect for others, we do not manipulate or force the gospel down people’s throats. The motive of evangelism is love for others, not the fear of hell.
God reveals himself in three ways: a creational revelation, and inscripturated revelation and an incarnational revelation. Other faiths and religions can see truth by looking at God’s creation, but it can only be seen clearly when viewed through the corrective lenses of scripture, because creation is also fallen. But there is also the incarnated word: Jesus, and his Holy Spirit who comes to live in us, he is the one who leads us into all truth.
It’s not what we are saved from that matters it’s what we are saved for.
We are saved for the kingdom of God, we are saved for the world.
Is church a cruise ship or a battle ship?
We are not here to be entertained; we are here to be trained. Training is hard work, and for many of us that involves thinking through hard issues. Thinking through what it means to disciple nations, to transform culture, what it means to be a Christian in our work. We haven’t even begun.
Lesslie Newbigin:
We are to be a battle ship not a cruise ship.
Universalism is a massive subject.
A theologian and an astronomer were talking together one day. The astronomer said that after reading widely in the field of religion, he had concluded that all religion could be summed up in a single phrase. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," he said, with a bit of smugness, knowing that his field is so much more complex. After a brief pause, the theologian replied that after reading widely in the area of astronomy he had concluded that all of it could be summed up in a single phrase also.
"Oh, and what is that?" the astronomer inquired. "Twinkle, twinkle, little star; how I wonder what you are!"
So, at the risk of oversimplifying Universalism it is the idea that all will be saved.
There are two main forms of universalism.
1. All religions lead to God - so it doesn't matter what you believe (or don't believe)
2. God through Jesus has accomplished salvation for all – all will (eventually) be saved.
Advantages
There are a number of advantages to this position:
1. We don’t have to bother with evangelism. All will be saved, so what’s the point?
So, no more guilt from not sharing your faith.
If all religions lead to God then evangelism is arrogant, sectarian, intolerant and divisive. So, it would be sinful to evangelise!
2. We can do what we want! We can sin and sin and it doesn’t matter we are saved.
3. We can believe what we like - it doesn’t matter. Theology becomes irrelevant.
4. We can ignore the teachings of Jesus, they can be a bit radical at times!
5. We don’t have to take discipleship seriously.
Popular view
Some statistics: Rodney Stark in his book What Americans Really Believe (cited here)
In 1964 52% said that one had to receive Christ to go to heaven.
(whatever going to heaven means!)
Now 29% think half or more of non-religious people will go to heaven.
Only 20% think that nonreligious people won’t get to heaven.
Listen to former US president George Bush:
Mahatma Ghandi: “My position is that all the great religions are fundamentally equal.”
Rama Krishna: “truth is one; sages call it by various names”.
One NT scholar, Scott McKnight, calls it the biggest challenge facing [American] evangelicals.
Before I look briefly at the two forms of universalism we need to look at three models of salvation: pluralism, inclusivism and exclusivism (first proposed in 1983 by Alan Race in his book Christian and Religious Pluralism London: SCM).
1. Pluralism: all/most religions lead to God.
The atheists might be a bit shocked!
Q: Did you hear about the Dial-a-Prayer service they have for atheists now?
A: You dial the number and it rings and rings but nobody answers.
Q: Did you hear about the dyslexic atheist?
A: He didn't believe in Dog.
Si looked at this idea a few weeks ago. But is worth looking at it again as it’s a question that keeps reoccurring.
All religions agree there is something is wrong and something needs to be done about it.
The problem is not all are agreed as to what is wrong, or more importantly what is the remedy.
They don't even agree on what is the divine!
Sometimes this looks like "it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are sincere".
However, we can be sincerely wrong!
What about the serial killer who sincerely believes he is doing the will of God, or the rapist or paedophile? They may well be sincere, but they are wrong!
This religious diversity is not a modern phenomenon.
There have always been a diversity and range of different religions, each contending to be the dominant religion. The difference is that today, these religions are on our doorstep and not across an ocean. God said ‘Go”, we stayed so they came. The world religions have come to us.
2. Inclusivism – this view maintains that one religion is the main way to God, but some may make it in other ways. People may be saved by Jesus even if they don't believe in him.
3. Exclusivism or particularism - there is only one way to God. And that is through Jesus Christ.
This seems to be a very arrogant claim. And it would be if we were making that claim of ourselves and of Christianity. But it isn't us that makes it: listen to Jesus:
I am the way, I am the truth, I am the life.
Jesus made it very clear – He is the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except by me.
The way isn't a path to follow, the truth isn't a set of rules to obey - it is a person: Jesus.
He is claiming to be the way, the truth and the life.
Christianity is different from all other religions and beliefs. All others are humanity's atte,pt to get to God, it might be through knowledge, asceticism, good deeds, living a moral life and so on. But we can never be good enough - Christianity is different; in Christianity God comes to us!
But the charge of arrogance is double-edged. Isn't it arrogant to say that Christianity is wrong?
Pluralism seems to be the most tolerant of the three views. But truth is not measured by how tolerant it is! However, the pluralist appearances can be deceptive. Rather than seeing them as a spectrum of views they are more like a circle. Pluralism is Exclusivism dressed up in more acceptable clothes.
Exclusivism claims that if something is true then if I reject that truth it means that I am wrong.
The pluralists claims his view is true and thus the exclusivist is wrong. So, they are really exclusivists!
As Gavin Da Costa puts it: "the pluralist is in fact, no different from the exclusivist, except in the criteria employed for what counts as truth."
Pluralists claim to have the monopoly on religious truths - that makes them exclusivists!
There is no absolute truth except the truth that there is no absolute truth.
Some key passages
Universalists tend to base their alleged biblical support on three groups of texts:
1. Those which seem to teach that the cross ensured universal salvation,
2 Cor 5:19; Col 1:20ff; Tit 2:11; Heb 2:9; 1 Jn 2:2.
2. Those which seem to teach that God intends universal salvation,
1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9.
3. Those which seem to teach universal salvation explicitly,
Acts 3:21; Jn 12:32; Rom 5:18-19; 1 Cor 15:22-28; Phil 2:9-11; Eph 1:10.
(from here)
Unfortunatley, we don't have time to look in detail at each passage.
Is it right?
Why pluralist universalism isn’t true (all religions lead to God)- Jesus is clear he is the only way. Christianity is the only religion whereby God comes to us and rescues us. We can’t rescue ourselves. We are the problem!
Exclusivist universalism may be true - I don’t know - but even if it is; it doesn’t mean that we don’t evangelise, we don’t take sin and morality seriously.
Problems
I started by looking – tongue in cheek- at some of the advantages of universalism. But these are also the problems of universalism.
Evangelism – if universalism were true, then why evangelise. However, we are told explicitly that we need to go and share the good news, heal the sick and raise the dead.
Discipleship – if universalism were true, then why bother with discipleship? What does it matter what we do now, how we behave now? Yet we are called to be disciples, followers of Christ.
Hell – we often hear or ask the question – how can a God of live send anyone to hell?
It’s the wrong question! Apart from the fact that God doesn’t send anyone. If we deny him we have to face the consequences.
The right question is, “How can a just God of love not us the guilty to hell? How can we who deserve hell, not be sent there?”
The Scriptures are clear hell is real; it is a place of suffering.
Exclusivist universalists get round this by saying it’s a place of purifying.
The so what?
So What? By Miles Davis – a key question.
What’s the take home on this?
Ideas have legs!
Archbishop Temple once asked his father why don’t the philosopher’s rule the word? His reply? They do, decades after they have died. Ideas have consequences.
We are commanded to be transformed. How? By the renewing of our minds. It’s not an optional extra – it’s a command! Renewing our minds means under the direction and leading of the Spirit to think through and tackle these difficult issues.
The question shouldn’t be how does if affect me? But how does it help me to help others.
One issue that the topic of universalism raises is what is the purpose of salvation? Why are we saved?
Is it to escape hell? No!
The gospel isn’t turn or burn!
The purpose of salvation is not to make us feel good either! The purpose of salvation is to glorify God.
Why are we saved? It isn't so we escape the fire of hell!
If there was no hell would you still follow Jesus? Would you still want to share the good news?
Preaching the gospel is not an optional extra, it is a command.
However, preaching and sharing the gospel involves respect for others, we do not manipulate or force the gospel down people’s throats. The motive of evangelism is love for others, not the fear of hell.
God reveals himself in three ways: a creational revelation, and inscripturated revelation and an incarnational revelation. Other faiths and religions can see truth by looking at God’s creation, but it can only be seen clearly when viewed through the corrective lenses of scripture, because creation is also fallen. But there is also the incarnated word: Jesus, and his Holy Spirit who comes to live in us, he is the one who leads us into all truth.
It’s not what we are saved from that matters it’s what we are saved for.
We are saved for the kingdom of God, we are saved for the world.
Is church a cruise ship or a battle ship?
We are not here to be entertained; we are here to be trained. Training is hard work, and for many of us that involves thinking through hard issues. Thinking through what it means to disciple nations, to transform culture, what it means to be a Christian in our work. We haven’t even begun.
Lesslie Newbigin:
“If the gospel is to challenge the public life of our society, if Christians are to occupy the “high ground” which they vacated in the noon time of “modernity,” it will not be by forming a Christian political party, or by aggressive propaganda campaigns. Once again it has to be said that there can be no going back to the “Constantinian” era. It will only be by movements that begin with the local congregation in which the reality of the new creation is present, known, and experienced, and from which men and women will go into every sector of public life to claim it for Christ, to unmask the illusions which have remained hidden and to expose all areas of public life to the illumination of the gospel. But that will only happen as and when local congregations renounce an introverted concern for their own life, and recognize that they exist for the sake of those who are not members, as sign, instrument, and foretaste of God’s redeeming grace for the whole life of society.”
We are to be a battle ship not a cruise ship.
Sunday, 8 November 2009
Idolatry: narcissism
When I was asked to speak on narcissism I thought you must be joking - can’t I just talk about myself?
Last week we kicked off this series with an introduction to idolatry and he looked at 1 Cor 10 to identify some characteristics of idols. What I’d like to do tonight is look at one idol in particular – the idol of self. Or if you want to be flash about it narcissism.
But first I want to underline some important points about idolatry.
Bob Dylan sang:
You gotta serve somebody
It may be the devil
or it may be the Lord
But you gotta serve somebody
He was right. We all serve somebody – the question is who or what is it?
We are all worshippers, that is the way we are created we all worship someone or something it is in our very nature to do so. The Bible is full of injunctions not to serve other gods, primarily because it is so easy to do so! Idolatry can be very subtle, particularly contemporary idolatry. Since the fall it is a human disposition to worship the created rather than the Creator.
Idolatry is misplaced allegiance. The Lord our God is a jealous God: he demands our complete and total allegiance. He will not tolerate being displaced by a rival, therefore he demands that we are to keep from idolatry. (Cf Ex 20: 5 (Deut 5:9).)
History is a story of idolatries. We are so fickle: we find the lure of other gods so tantalising. And yet God is a jealous God.
Implications
There are several important implications for today:
• Idolatry is not an old problem. It is not a byproduct of a primitive worldview. Contemporary idols are not things we put on our mantelpieces and bow down to; they are often concepts and ideas.
• Idolatry is very subtle: it creeps up on us without us noticing.
• We become idolaters by a process of osmosis, slowly absorbing ideas.
1. Idolatry is a consequence of being a worshipper: we all have to worship something.
There may not always be a cultic or ceremonial aspect to our worship, but it is worship nonetheless. 2. Idolatry is worship of the created rather than the creator.
It is elevating something in creation to a place it was not meant to have. Treating the good – no mater how good it is - as God.3. Idolatry is misplaced commitment.
It is putting our trust in something other than the Lord. It may be something laudable and worthwhile, such as the family or church or even the Bible, and yet if it takes a place it was not meant to have it can become an idol.4. Idolatry dehumanises and we image what we worship
Ps 115:8
Such is the nature of idolatry that it distorts us and shapes us into their image.
[Daily Mirror piece: Computers turned my boy into a robot] Paul Bedworth – the first person to be convicted under the Computer Misuse Act, charged with hacking.
Anyway, enough about idolatry, let’s get back to me … I mean narcissism.
If we want to know what our society idolises look at its adverts.
Here’s one:
Cheryl Cole advert: You’re worth it!
I’m worth it.
It’s all about us – it’s all about me: narcissism
We have become a society that is self –focused.
I mentioned Bob Dylan’s song – You’ve gotta serve somebody. John Lennon, responded to that with a song of his own: “You got to serve yourself”
Have a guess: How many books are there on amazon with “self” in the title?
Over 1/3 of a million!
And Friday’s Telegraph had this story [see slides]
Narcissism was first used to describe this self-love by the psychologist Carl Jung. It is named after a Greek myth. (Most heresies can be traced back to the Greeks!)
Narcissus fell in love with his own reflection in a pool of water and destroyed himself in self-absorption and self-love. He withered away staring at his own image. He was so much in love with himself that he couldn’t do anything else. Idolatry is like that it dehumanises us.
Sociologists like to classify different generations; one way of classifying them is by letters.
The generation born between 1961-1981, the baby boomers, were known as Generation X
Post 1981 as Generation Y, but a better term for those born between 1981 and 1999 is the iGen or even Generation Me a generation shaped by shaped by technology.
We had friends reunited (remember that?) bebo and my space then along came facebook; we had blogs and now twitter.
Blogs – online web logs or journals told anyone and everyone what we were doing.
Facebook used to ask us ‘What are you doing?’ now it’s ‘What’s on our mind?’ – it’s all about us. Our thoughts and feelings can be transmitted around the globe with the click of a button. We matter or so it seems!
It was Jean Twenge who was one of the first to call it the Me generation – or generation Me.
She includes everyone between the ages of 9 and 39. The generation that takes it for granted that self comes first.
We have expressions like:
Be yourself
Believe in yourself
Love yourself
Express yourself
Stand up for yourself
If it feels good to you do it!
This cartoon sums it up well.
Typical characteristics:
Me first- usually me as a celebrity (blog, twitter, facebook, X-factor, Britain’s got Talent) and me as having money
It’s all about me
Self-esteem
Self-actualisation
Unwillingness to take personal responsibility
Focus on celebrity and money
Narcissism is a worldview. Every worldview is the product of faith commitments. Every worldview provides answers to key questions such as:
Where are we?
In a world that has no meaning or purpose other than what I choose to give it.Who are we?
I am me! What’s the problem?
Society, family, everything but me What’s the solution?
Be me – be myself, do what feels good!How can we respond to this idol of narcissism as Christians?
The narcissist responds to the question: who are we with: I am me – the Christian responds to the question what’s wrong with: I am.
As Paul Vitz puts it “For the Christian, the self is the problem not the potential paradise. Understanding this problem involves an awareness of sin”.
A few decades ago The Times asked several prominent authors to answer this question: “What’s Wrong with the World?” G K Chesterton responded:
Dear Sirs,
I am.
Sincerely yours,
G. K. Chesterton
The solution to living for self is to die to self.
What does it mean to die to self?
It is putting others before our self.
Dead to self - alive to Christ. That’s what it means to be a Christian: Jesus and not self is on the throne.
It is being a living sacrifice.
However, dying to self, it is not wearing a hair shirt or living on a pillar to escape the world. It is not a total denial of self.
Self is a creation and as such it is good.
Idolatry consists of the good becoming a god.
Taking a place it was not created to have. A partial truth becomes the whole truth.
This is the sort of thing that happens.
The creator and the creation are different and distinct. As C S Lewis puts it:
To say that God created Nature, while it brings God and Nature into relation also separates them. What makes and what is made must be two, not one.” (Reflections on the Psalms p. 80)
Self is a good aspect of creation – however, self starts to become more and more important, it starts to distort the whole of reality and eventually self becomes a counterfeit god, an idol. It becomes absolutised.
It is important that we have a good self-image and that we have self-esteem, but that is not the be all and end all. We need to know who we are in Christ – that is where our self-image comes from, not the type of shampoo we use or clothes we wear.
What are we in Christ:
- We are joint heirs
- Sons of God
- Adopted as sons
- More than conquerors
- Set free
- The power that raised Jesus from the dead is in us
- In Christ we have abundant life – that comes with dying to self and living for Him.
Exposing idols
These few points are no solution to escaping idolatry, but they may help:
• Ask God to reveal any idolatrous areas in our lives.
• It needs to be a communal activity: we are blinkered by our own idolatry. It is often easier to see the splinter in our neighbour’s eye than the plank in our own (and very often the splinter is a reflection of our plank)!
• Read critiques of our culture by adherents of other worldviews.
• Watch out if an area of life tries to take over.
• Go to other cultures and return.
• Watch adverts critically.
• Say YES to the Jealous God who demands full allegiance.
Sunday, 30 August 2009
James 5: 7-12 Be patient
James 5 Be Patient
View more documents from stevebishop.
7 Be patient, then, brothers, until the Lord's coming.
There are three important hermeneutical principles that need to be taken into account:
1. Context;
2. Context; and
3. Context.
The biblical context, the cultural and social context at the time it was written and our own context, we read scriptures through our own worldview. With that in mind we need quickly to look at the biblical context of this passage.
The RSV starts this verse with a therefore. There’s an old adage that says, ‘Whenever you see a therefore, you have to look what’s there for’. So, what’s the therefore there for? It’s there because of the preceding passage. James 5:1-6 the rich oppressors: injustice and greed. In light of such oppression there is the need for patience. James turns from judgment of the rich to encouragement to the faithful.
It is in the light of the unfairness of life that we need to learn the message of patience.
We need to restrain from revenge or retaliation.
It’s obvious that James is addressing Christian here – he used the term ‘brothers’ three times. (v 7, 9, 10, 12)
What is patience? It’s countercultural and subversive. Watch this Samsung Jet advert: “impatience is a virtue”.
Patience is knowing you're bored and doing nothing about it. Impatience is a virtue.(The voice over is by James NcAvoy, with more than a nod to the film Trainspotting. The music is by the The Mae Shi, the title the Lamb and the Lion.)
Impatience is in first, on top, at the front…
Faster.
Brighter.
Better.
If you want to know what a society idolises watch its adverts. What’s idolised here? Progress.
Here the message is that impatience is a virtue. Patience is a waste of time. The biblical message totally subverts this view point.
What do the scriptures tell us about patience? (See slides)
What’s linked with patience here in this passage in Jmaes?
Verses 7 and 8: The Lord’s coming.
Patience here has an end in view and a reason: the Lord’s coming. It’s not mindless waiting and doing nothing – it has a purpose in view.
The Lord’s coming gives us a goal – until
And a reason – because
Motivation?
Look at this question
What would you be doing now if you knew Jesus was coming tonight?How would you answer it?
What is stopping you doing it?
These questions are a great way to see if there is any dualism!
Luther, when asked what he would do if the world would end tomorrow, said: "I would plant a tree today."
Why would he want to do that?
How we answer these questions reveals theological position: continuity or discontinuity/ dualist or not.
Will what we do now make a difference on the new earth?
If it does then planting a tree is important.
Our role as image bearers of God is not (just) to populate heaven!
Here are some responses to the question from the Internet
If you knew Jesus was coming back in the next few hours what would you do differently?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080804184411AA9qI9u
Here are some
I'd let everything else go and make sure I was "prayed up." Then, I'd call my family and friends and tell them the urgency of accepting Jesus as saviour.
Not Applicable.
He's not coming, he never came, and he never will come.
Cancel my party room reservation for December 21, 2012.
Better get on those dishes.
Nothing. I try to be ready whenever He comes.
I would not go to sleep tonight.........I would stay awake.........and sing Holy, Holy, Holy, Come Oh Lord.
I'd be staring out my window and praying.
would fix the hair, cosmetics, possible shower.
pack all the bare necessities
Get my ghostbusting equipment.
Party Time with some good lookin' ladies! May as
well go out with a smile on my face!
Put all my online sales accounts on vacation, make
sure my husband knows where our wills are, and write goodbye notes for my kids.
I would quickly go back into my bank account online and cancel all of the bill payments I just made.
A Right doing
B Example
A’ Right doing
C Right speaking
D God’s character
B’ Example
B’ Example
D’ God’s character
C’ Right speaking
ABA’CDBBD’C’
There is a parallel between these two sections, both have as the centre the examples. The examples would be very familiar to James’s hearers – predominantly poor Jewish Christians. Many would be farmers and all would know of the prophets and Job. James is showing continuity between what he is teaching, everyday life and the Old Testament.
We too need to know our history, not only the OT history but also church history; we too need to be able to link our theology with everyday living. All of life is important to God.
9 Don't grumble against each other, brothers, or you will be judged. The Judge is standing at the door!
Some themes keep cropping up – right speaking and judging.
There are three main things a good teacher needs to get his point over: repetition, repetition and repetition. And James makes good use of it!
10 Brothers, as an example of patience in the face of suffering, take the prophets who spoke in the name of the Lord.
11 As you know, we consider blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job's perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.
12 Above all, my brothers, do not swear—not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your "Yes" be yes, and your "No," no, or you will be condemned.
James’s desire is for Christians who are mature, who have an authentic faith is shown in deeds, single minded and characterised by integrity in all that we say and do. Because what we say we do we will do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
