Historical posts available

While I’m trying to sort out what I’m going to do with my website, I’ve managed to import all of my old blog posts onto WordPress.  It’s more for neatness than anything else, but feel free to explore.

is back

So I’ve finally got round to sorting out getting my blog back online.  Only question is, will I have the brain-time/space to write anything again.

How should Christians think about the War on Terror?

I’ve not got that much time to blog at the moment so that kind of says how much I like the book that I’ve just finished reading. I was away on holiday last week and managed to read all the way through one of IVP’s new releases: The War on Terror. Suffice to say that I thought it was great. Nick Solly Megoran is “A lecturer at Newcastle University, specializing in geopolitics, religion and the War on Terror”. Which means that he’s pretty well placed to write on the subject. That and the providential timing and passages of a number of sermons that he had to preach means that this is a great book.

The first half of the book is a series of expositions which put the War on Terror into perspective. Specifically the perspective of the gospel and salvation history. The second half consists of three short, academically sound but easy to understand chapters covering the background to world and Christian thinking on war and the war on terror.

This is a thought provoking and helpful book, starting with some of the major questions of our time and going back to the Bible for answers. I didn’t always agree totally with his application and there are some questions that are posed but not really answered in the way that you would expect or necessarily satisfactorally but in some ways this is a strength because it means that you have to think for yourself.

Plus, because it’s mostly based on a series of sermons it’s practically applied all the way through. It really does do what it says on the tin and answer the question “how should Christians respond”.

There is plenty here to start anyone off thinking about the war on terror, or just war in general from a Christian point of view and overall I just really enjoyed the perspective. Read this book, and let it take you back, to encompass the vista of salvation history and how the war on terror sits within.

No Post for ages and then all this…!

Last Sunday I preached at Kew Baptist Church on Genesis 22. It’s quite long but for those of you who are interested, here’s roughly what I said:

Abraham’s life, as you have seen over the last couple of months was one of ups and downs. Still, through times of joy and times of trouble, God has been faithful to Abraham.

Having been called out of his comfortable life to go to a foreign land Abraham gets to Canaan only to find that it is full of foreigners. Then, forced by famine to head South to Egypt, Abraham gets into a spot of bother with Pharaoh when he passes off Sarai as his sister and the Pharaoh takes a fancy to her. Yet God manages to sort the problem out and, after being deported from Egypt, Abraham heads back to Canaan where his nephew Lot gets caught up with the locals and ends up in all sorts of trouble. Unfortunately Abraham doesn’t seem to be that great at learning from his mistakes and he again passes Sarah off as his sister. Of course, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is one definition of madness, and he gets into trouble again when the ruler of the land, Abimelech carts her off to be his wife. Again, God digs Abraham out of a tricky spot.

Yet it’s not all been tricky situations. All through Abraham’s life God has stuck by Abraham, protected him and given him success. Three times so far God has made or confirmed His covenant with Abraham. A covenant to bless Abraham, to give him land and descendants as numerous as the stars. And God has promised to bless the whole world through Abraham’s seed, through one of his descendants. In fact, God has been quite specific: in chapter 15 we saw that God had told Abraham that it would be through Isaac that this promise would be fulfilled.

Now, we come to the end of chapter 21. When Abraham was 100 years old Sarah gave birth to a son. Now, finally, Abraham is seeing God’s promise being fulfilled. Abraham and Sarah have had to wait over 20 years for God to come good on this part of his promise. And now, at the age of 100 and when Sarah herself was a long way past child bearing age, she gives birth to the son through whom God’s promise is going to come true.

So Abraham and Sarah have a son, and Abraham makes a deal with the ruler of the land he is a refugee in. Everything is set for an happy family life. Abraham again has sheep and oxen to provide for his family, the land is at peace, he plants a tree – it doesn’t look like he’s expecting to be leaving any time soon. His family will be provided for for generations to come. All Abraham has to do is sit back in his rocking chair, wait for his son to grow up, find him a wife, marry him off and wait for the grand kids to start appearing. And Abraham, Sarah and Isaac lived happily ever after.

Chapter 22 -

After these things, God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “here am I.” He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”

All of a sudden nothing looks quite so peachy as it did. Don’t suppose you’ve seen Shrek and Shrek 2? The end of Shrek is the end of a fairy tale, they live happily ever after – until Shrek 2 when Shrek has to meet the in-laws!

What’s going on? Let’s follow the story and find out.

1. Abraham trusts God’s covenant

What is this thing that God commands Abraham to do? Is it not a terrible thing, that God commands Abraham to sacrifice his only son? The request , no the command of God must have seemed horrible to Abraham for many reasons. On the surface the request is a gruesome one. To any parent the thought of seeing your child die must be unthinkable. To out live your children must be a terrible thing.

Moreover, for it to be your only child, your only son, must truly be a nightmare. Abraham has already sent away his son Ishmael, he has already lost one son, so to speak. And now God asks him for his only son.

In the words of God’s command we see how difficult it must have been for Abraham to even hear this instruction, for God says to him, “Take your son”, your only son Isaac, whom you love”. God requires not simply Abraham’s only son, but his beloved son. His son who he has nurtured and taught for 15 or maybe even 30 years. His son who has come out with him on his shoulders to see the flocks and gone from his boy running and playing with the sheep to his boy learning how to heard the sheep with Abraham’s servants, to being put in charge of some of those sheep, managing some of the servants.

And yet still, the dagger goes deeper into Abraham’s heart. For it is not just his son whom he loves, it is Isaac, the vessel of God’s promise. The son who was promised, and for whom Abraham and Sarah waited patiently for 30 years. The son through whom God’s covenant with Abraham was to be completed. For “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned” God said in chapter 21. And he was the son through whom the whole world would be blessed. The salvation of the world depended on Isaac, and now God was asking for him back.

We should take note from the immediacy of Abraham’s obedience to God’s word. For Abraham acts quickly and does not question the word of God. However God spoke to Abraham, whether in a dream or a voice in the wilderness, Abraham was as sure that it was God’s voice as we are that the Bible is God’s word. So our obedience to the commands of his word, however difficult they may seem must be the same.

See how Abraham reacts to God’s word: “Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about.”

God believes that the promises of God will be fulfilled, he trusts that what God has said to him before will come true. And God had spoken to Abraham, and told him that Isaac was the means through which the covenant was to be fulfilled. So, Abraham is able to trust and follow God’s command now, even though it does not make sense to him. Abraham trusted God’s covenant and knew, that what ever God’s plan in the short term, somehow he would have many descendants through Isaac.

Perhaps Abraham thought something like this – God has promised to give me many descendants through Isaac, therefore God must have some plan, that even though I must kill Isaac, he will still be the means through which God will give me grandchildren and great-grandchildren and great-great-great-grandchildren. God promised to me that I would have a son, and that promise came true in Isaac. Now, God has promised me descendants through Isaac and God does not change, so he will, somehow, make that promise come true as well.

God’s ways do not always make sense to us, but we are to trust Him. God’s way is to work through our weakness, it is to work through humility and what seems like foolishness to the world.

2. Abraham trusts God’s power

So Abraham, Isaac, their two servants and the donkey travel for three days until “On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance.”

Abraham is not about to sacrifice his son on a whim. Abraham’s decision is a considered one. One which he has deliberated over for three days. “[This] was not merely from a sudden pang of devotion, but a matter of choice” (Whitefield). Abraham has had three days to reflect on God’s character and the way that God has treated him in the past. To think of his faithfulness in rescuing him from Pharaoh in Egypt, from Abimelech, in fighting for him against the kings to rescue Lot. For three days Abraham walks with his son. Sometimes, perhaps, he walks close to him and talks to him, at other times falls behind a little, and turns his face away and weeps at the thought of killing him.

After three days, Abraham looks up and sees the place where he is to return his son to Yahweh who gave him to him and he says to his servants “Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you”.

Abraham trusted God’s covenant, here we see how Abraham believed that God would keep his promise. He trusted in God’s power to raise the dead. Whether he had realised this at the first, or whether he had come to the conclusion after meditating on the character of God while they were walking, Abraham trusts God’s power to raise Isaac back to life. The writer to the Hebrews commends Abraham for his faith, pointing out to his readers in chapter 11, that “Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead”. (Hebrews 11v19a).

Abraham knew that Yahweh was the God of creation, that in His hands lay the power of life and death.

His hands were the hands that flung stars into space, that designed the orbits of the planets. His was the breath that breathed life into Adam, who brought life from dust and ashes. Abraham himself knows that he is nothing “but dust and ashes” as he says in chapter 18v27.

Had God not given Isaac to Abraham and Sarah in the first place? Given him to them when Sarah was well past the age of child bearing? Why should Abraham not believe that the God who had worked a miracle to give them Isaac, could not work a miracle of resurrection in order that his covenant might be kept.

Abraham’s hope lies in the hope of the resurrection of Isaac and he trusts his God whom he knows holds the power over life and death.

Is our view of God so tainted by the world that we do not attribute the power that he deserves to him? We were talking at home group on Thursday about God’s healing power, and someone said, quite poiniently, “You can’t put God in a box”. Do we fear death,

3. Abraham trusts God’s provision

Then “Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife.”

Up until this point, Isaac has been silent, submitting quietly to his father. The story does not record that he spoke until now. Now, Isaac speaks and asks his father, “The fire and the wood are here, but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?”

Isaac is not beyond working out what is going on, he evidently understood what was involved in worship. His father had taught him well what worship involved when “he called on the name of the LORD, the eternal God” in Beersheba. (Fathers/those with spiritual responsibility for your children, take note).

Even before the institution of the Levitical sacrifices, there was a realisation that the burnt offering, the offering that was for sin required a lamb. Abraham and Isaac knew that they did not deserve the relationship that they had with God, they evidently understood that their natural position before God was not a good one and that God demanded a sacrifice to put them right.

They had everything they needed, the wood, the knife, the kindling for the fire, but they did not have the lamb. There is no doubt that Isaac knew what his father was doing. He knows that there should be a lamb, he knows that there must be something offered to God as a payment for sin. And I think that he knows that he is to be returned to the God who gave him life.

Abraham replies “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son”. Abraham trusts in God’s provision, he trusts in God’s provision of a lamb who would take the punishment for their sin.

–

“When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood.”

Now the story slows, the narrative becomes more detailed. Isaac carries the wood to the top of the mountain and at the peak he places the wood down. Then he stands and watches as his father gathers rocks and builds an altar. I cannot imagine what Isaac would have been thinking as he watches his father build the altar, then carefully arrange the wood on it.

With the altar complete Abraham binds his son and lays him on the altar. Isaac is completely in agreement with his father’s actions. By this time, Isaac is, the scholars say somewhere between 15 and 30, and Abraham is well over 100. There have been many points when Isaac could have left his Father. When they left the servants and donkey, Isaac could have refused to carry the wood to the top of the mountain, when they reached the top, Isaac could easily have out run the 100 year old Patriarch, and there is no doubt that he could have escaped as his father brought the rope and tied him, and laid him on top of the wood.

“Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.” “I think I see the tears trickle down the Patriarch Abraham’s cheeks; and from his heart his cries, Adieu, adieu, my son, the Lord gave thee to me, and the Lord calls thee away; blessed be the name of the Lord” (Whitefield) and as he leans over, aiming for the neck, or an artery to make it quick, as he puts his knee upon the altar to gain some leverage and raises the knife above his head,

“Abraham!!!”

The angel of the Lord called out from heaven, “Abraham, Abraham”! Just as Abraham was about to strike his son, God calls out, “Do not lay a hand on the boy, Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.

And thus Abraham did receive his son back from the dead. Again Hebrews says: “Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.” Abraham had trusted in God’s power over life and death, his trust was not misplaced. God showed that his covenant promise, the promise to Abraham that it was through Isaac that the world would be blessed was true. That God’s covenant is true and trustworthy.

Here we learn an important lesson. This is the crux, the turning point of the story – What does God say was the purpose of the testing? It was to know whether Abraham feared God. To prove that Abraham had a right view of himself before God. Did he show that?

Did he trust that God was the only true and living God who is faithful to his promises? Who’s covenant is sure? Did he show that he saw himself as insignificant as compared to God? That he was but dust and ashes, given life by the life giver himself? That He who had given him life, and who had given him a son had every right as the giver to call for it back at any time? That he who was the giver of life has the power to give and to take away. That the God who called him, and promised to bless him was worth far more, was far more valuable than any treasure given on earth or in heaven? That to remain the friend of God, was worth exceedingly more than even his own son, his only son Isaac.

–

Abraham trusted God’s provision, and now, “Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram, caught by it’s horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. So Abraham called that place “The LORD will provide.”

And to this day it is said, “On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided.”

Is it strange how the LORD provided a ram, and not a lamb for the offering? Had not Abraham been sure on the plain that God would provide a lamb for the offering? And why is the proverb that comes from this story in the future tense? It will be provided? Was it not provided for Abraham? There’s something more here, something missing. This is not just about Abraham,​ it is looking forward, looking forward to another sacrifice, on the same mountain. The name of that mountain is Moriah, it is the mountain on which the temple in Jerusalem was to be built. A temple where lambs were to be sacrificed, from whence a river of blood would flow, from burnt offerings sacrificed for the sin of the people of God.

The same mountain where, outside the city wall, another Isaac would set out with wood on his back. Carrying the wood for his own sacrifice, a sacrifice for sin. Another Isaac who would speak to his Father, but for whom there would be no consolation, for whom there would be no substitute lamb. Another Isaac who would lie on the cross, and watch the Roman soldier raise the hammer above his head, and who’s father could, at any moment stop the hand that would strike the nail through his wrist, but who would not be spared death, who would suffer and give up his life as willingly as Isaac did. “Isaac is saved, but Jesus dies. A ram is offered up in Isaac’s [place] but Jesus has no substitute. Jesus must bleed, Jesus must die; God the Father has provided this lamb for himself.” (Whitefield).

On the mountain of the LORD a sacrifice was provided for your sin. A perfect, spotless lamb was provided to die in your place. How was it that Abraham was saved? He put his trust in God, in God’s promise that a descendent of Isaac would bless the whole world – Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. It is the same today, it is by putting our trust in Jesus, the God of Abraham that we are saved. By believing that he is the God of the new covenant of his blood that speaks a word of peace between man and God.

We are saved by putting our trust in the provision of Jesus, that his death on the cross pays for our sin, and that he has power over life and death to raise us to new life with God.

For he who died accursed on the tree and was buried, and lay in the ground for three days, is the same Lord who took up his life again and was resurrected on the third day. He has power over life and death, to give it and to take it away.

This is the same faith that Abraham had, it is the same faith that made him righteous when he believed God. He looked forward to the day of Jesus’ death and trusted that it was enough to make him right with God. He saw what God would do for him, that God would give up his only son for him, and he prized God more than anything else in the world.

Apologies

Apologies indeed for disappearing of the face of blogdom for a while there. This has been mostly due to starting a new job a month ago and the fact that I’ve been pretty busy (and tired! sic.!) since then. That and having to do my Christmas shopping.

Anyway, hopefully I’ll still be blogging at some sort of frequency, maybe I’ll manage to write some posts on the big commute.

The likelyhood of that happening before Christmas is, well, slim unfortunately. Oh well, since we’ve already had our Christmas lunch and Christmas work party, I have no quarms about wishing you a very happy and Jesus centred Christmas.

The Cross and the Ring

How are we to respond to a sudden interest in the apparent persecution of Christians in the UK? A Google News search for “Chastity Ring” or “BA Cross” reveals a myriad of newspaper and other articles discussing two interesting situations.

Of course I can in no way know the full story in either case, but as it is reported I understand that the situations are – A member of BA staff is asked not to wear her crucifix over the top of her uniform and a school girl is told that she cannot wear a ring showing her intention to remain celibate until she is married.

Now here’s the thing, there is one thing that unites both of these situations: Both parties are breaking the rules by wearing these ‘items of faith’. “British Airways said company policy said employees must wear jewelry, including religious symbols, under their uniforms” (Source: BusinessWeek.com). Similarly, Millais School has a “no-jewelery policy, which only allows pupils to wear simple single stud earrings” (Source: The Daily Mail).

As Christians we are to expect persecution, Jesus himself told us as much. At the same time, Paul writes to two churches telling one that slaves are to submit to their masters, to the other “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God” (Romans 13v1). What does this have to do with the a fore mentioned situations? The situation of slaves and their masters is, in many ways, similar to that of employees and employers today. It is a working relationship and one is authority, the other subject to it. What does this mean for the BA employee? It means that she should submit to her employers dress code, she is permitted to wear a crucifix under her cravat, let her do that.

For the schoolgirl? Her parents have delegated their authority over her, given by God in the fifth commandment, to the school. Therefore she too should obey the dress code. If pupils are only allowed simple stud earrings, she should wear no more than simple stud earrings.

It is commendable that these two people are keen to demonstrate that their personal faith is not just personal, that it affects how they live their lives. However, we are to “Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us. Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men” (1 Peter 2:11-13) “For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God” (1 Peter 2:19,20).

That is not to say that if there is a case for religious discrimination it should not be answered, and this is where things get more tricky. For Paul puts great responsibility on the shoulders of those in authority. They are “Not a terror to good conduct but to bad … [and] God’s servant” (Romans 13v3,4). We live in a democracy where to love our neighbour can mean holding those democratically elected to authority to account, to encourage them to “love mercy, act justly and walk humbly before God”. What that means in situations like these is, as I said, more tricky and needs careful thought.

Christians in a changing society

How long before marriage is illegal?

Theology For All Photos

Here are a couple of photos from the day:

Theology Today

Sep 30, 2006 – 4 Photos

Theology For All 2

In the second session, Carl Trueman addresses the Contemporary Challenges to Theology and Church Life. He divided these into two sections, those from society, and those inherrant in Evangelicalism.

The two main challenges from society presented were that of our visual culture and our consumer culture.

Most of the time in this session was spent looking at those challenges that come from existing withing evangelicalism. They were: the emphasis on Christian experience, especially in conversion, it’s transdenominational nature, it’s view of scripture, and the issue of church discipline (or lack of it).

All three of these issues it seems have their positives and their negatives which were nicely summarised. The difficulties that Trueman saw in each of these issues were:

In it’s emphasis on Christian experience, that in spending so much time talking about conversion and experience it is possible to neglect doctrine, to become self-indulgent and, in extreme cases to trump true teaching. Though I don’t remember him making the connection explicitly, there is a link here with the subject of assurance. Luther would have answered a question, “Am I really saved?” with “Are you baptised?”, or, have you confessed Jesus as Lord.

In it’s transdenominationalim, while there are many positives, there is a danger of becoming indifferent to important doctrines. I especially found this helpful, having grown so much as a Christian whilst involved in UCCF. I can see in my own past where I have agreed to disagree with people over issues, and demonstrated that, in reality, those particular doctrines are not important enough for me to really be bothered about. Having said that, there is a need to stand together on what is of ‘first importance’. Though I think, I might have given up too easily in some arguments, or not thought things through thoroughly enough because of this.

In scripture, Carl suggested that there is an unhelpful tendancy to disregard the writings and history of the church in the last two thousand years in holding solely to the Bible. Here he was clear to state that the Bible is our highest authority, but warned against ignoring all of the teachings and the things learned by the church since its inception. They are to be weighed against the Bible’s teaching but should not be ignored.

Finally, in this session, Carl looked at the difficulty of exercising church discipline in a culture of church consumerism. This has lead, he said, to a ‘collapse in moral accountability’ within the church.

As a church historian, it seems he has the advantage of being able to raise issues without answering them (Which he himself admitted), and there were many things to think about which arose from this session. The answer, as always, is to get stuck into the Bible.

Theology For All

I’ve just got home from the Theology for All conference at Duke Street and am making an attempt to get in there before Bish and Rosemary. I feel at a distinct advantage only living 20 minutes bike ride away.

Carl Trueman’s brief it seems was to explore Church and Theology Today: What is Really at Stake? I have to admit, I went along expecting to be be informed just how bad the New Perspective on Paul really is. Fortunately, Carl Trueman is a much wiser guy than me and gave three very helpful talks that, almost, completely avoided that particular topic.

In the first session he covered ‘Thelogy and Everyday Life. The Reformation and Beyond’. This was a very helpful look at church history, (it’s his speciality) showing that theology arises out of practical, pastoral issues and that it should finish in practical, pastoral issues. There seemed to be two central issues that Carl thought were idiomatic: The identity of Jesus, and assurance.

He went on to explain the key ‘discoveries’ of Luther that sin was not, as the Catholic church taught, like a wound but that it was death. That baptism was not just a washing but that it is was resurrection and new birth. The realisation of the seriousness of sin led Luther to see that, in indulgences, people were being conned into buying the grace of God. This in turn is connected to the value of Jesus death, that only Jesus’ death can purchase God’s grace for us.

After this, Carl gave a concise exlanation of Luther’s Theology of the Cross, verses the dominant Theology of Glory. Whilst the Theology of Glory makes God and his actions in our image – God would act like this, because this is how I would act, Luther’s Theology of the Cross is a complete inversion. Instead of what we think God’s power, righteousness, love and kingship should look like being the reference point, God’s revelation of each of these is. And of course, God’s revelation of himself is seen most clearly in the cross. God’s power is demonstrated in the weakness of the cross, his righteousness in punishment for sin, his love in sacrifice and his kingship in servitude.

The practical implications of this? If God acts how I would act, he would want to be impressed by how good I am. Therefore, I must do works to impress God. If God’s love is demonstrated in the cross, I must trust Christ’s death to purchase God’s grace.

Having explained the costlyness of grace and the costliness of the cross, Carl went on to conclude the session talking of Luther’s centrality of preaching. The belief in a speaking God leading to a commitment to the preaching of that word, “a declaration of God’s word for here and now”. Preaching is not just the communication of information, it is the word of God. A helpful reminder as a preacher.

Sessions 2 and 3 to follow.