Chesterton on Aquinas

I had very high hopes of G. K. Chesterton’s little book (180pp) on Saint Thomas Aquinas, sometimes known as The Dumb Ox (Orig. Sheed and Ward, New York, 1923) – perhaps foolishly so. I was somewhat disappointed.

The prose is sometimes dazzelling, often amusing and usually engaging. Sometimes I find Chesterton’s non-fiction a bit hard to grasp on a quick-ish reading, though. I suspect he’s saying something clever, but I’m not exactly sure what it is! In places the references are a bit dated but in my edition (Ignatius Press, 2002) there were some useful editor’s footnotes.

There were some revelations about Aquinas’ life and character, although the book is intentionally very sketchy and somewhat impressionistic. I suspect little is actually known and I occasionally felt Chesterton was speculating in a kind of religio-literary riff. Aquinas comes across as a big, thoughtful, committed, gracious aristocrat with a quiet dogged and brilliant intelligence that was easily underestimated. Being dead he yet speaks, and once or twice the Dumb Ox roared.

Chesterton focuses on Aquinas’ philosophy (especially his baptism of Aristotle) where as I would have liked more on his theology. Chesterton is pretty persuasive that Aquinas didn’t sell out to rationalism and I suspect something of Chesterton’s defence of reason and general revelation could be usefully applied to types of Protestant Scholasticism.

Theologically, Chesterton seems to think of the Incarnation as the centre of Aquinas’ thought, and of the Christian faith. I reckon it needs to be thought of rather more in connection with the plan of salvation and the death, resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ than the book stresses. Whilst Chesterton sees the Incarnation as the vindication of nature and creation, perhaps the resurrection better fulfils that role since it also points more fully to the transformation of nature / creation by grace and is more prototypical of the whole cosmos than the unique hypostatic union of God and Man in the Incarnation. Maybe I quibble.

Chesterton also slags off “Calvinists” (which is a bit of a misnomer) and even if I think some of his criticisms might perhaps be on target for some dangers of some people sometimes, I don’t really want someone else criticising my mother even if I feel free to do so with caution and respect in private myself!

So, in short, if you find this book lying around, it’s worth a browse, but I wouldn’t rush out and get it nor feel bound to read every word, nor assume it’s a hugely reliable guide.

I did read every word but the only bits that got a pencil mark in the margin:

In the common phrase, fond as he [St Francis of Assisi] was of the green fields, he did not let the grass grow under his feet. He was what American millionaires and gangsters call a live wire. It is typical of the mechanistic moderns that, even when they try to imagine a live thing, they can only think of a mechanical metaphor from a dead thing. There is such a thing as a live worm; but there is no such thing as a live wire. St. Francis would have heartily agreed that he was a worm; but he was a very live worm. Greatest of all foes to the go-getting ideal, he had certainly abandoned getting, but he was still going (p21)

About this medieval movement there are two facts that must be emphasised. They are not, of course, contrary facts, but they perhaps answer to contrary fallacies. First, in spite of all that was once said about superstition, the Dark Ages and the sterility of Scholasticism, it was in every sense a movement of enlargement, always moving towards greater light and even greater liberty. Second, in spite of all that was said later on about progress and the Renaissance and forerunners of modern thought, it was almost entirely a movement of orthodox theological enthusiasm, unfolded from within. It was not a compromise with the world, or a surrender to heathens or heretics, or even a mere borrowing of external aids, even when it did borrow them. In so far as it did reach out to the light of common day, it was like the action of a plant which be its own force thrusts out its leaves into the sun; not like the action of one who merely lets daylight into a prison. (p26)

We might call it a plundering of the Egyptians or a claiming back of borrowed capital.

Good paragraph on page 26 about proper Doctrinal Development as more like evolution than adaptation and not like evasion; growth to maturity, a puppy turning into a dog; the drawing out of implications and distinctions; the development of internal resources; theology understanding itself.

I think I'll give the companion essay on Francis of Assisi a go, but I don't promise not to flick!

Cult & Culture

Too often culture (our whole way of life) determines cult (churchly worship). We become like the surrounding nations and worship their gods, sometimes without giving up on a type of Yahwistic lip-service. Consciously or unconsciously the minister tries to make himself (or in our culture, herself) attractive, or at least inoffensive to his audience, customers or pay-masters. She tries to be one of the guys and a nice chap, not quite a game show host or a Red Coat entertainer. Even if his chinos and open-necked shirt are a bit dressy compared to most of his clients, its good that he makes an effort – and some of the older folk who have remained in the church wouldn’t like flip flops and shorts, though that’s what the committed core wear for they understand the theology that they’re not doing anything really very special here on a Sunday (and it needn’t be here or on a Sunday, of course). Sometimes this is driven by the mistaken belief that the Sunday morning service is all about being seeker sensitive and then trying to be sensitive to a particular type of seeker. There are times and places and degrees of being all things to all men and the secondary goal of evangelism in worship mustn’t turn us into Cannanites.

Rather, cult is to determine culture. In fact, that’s inevitable. We become like what or whom we worship. The Sunday morning service of covenant renewal is a new start to a new week, even the remaking of a new world. The waters of life flow out from the Garden Sanctuary to renew the land, and their effects are felt even in the far off corners of the world, though most of those who drink them no not whence they came. In God’s temple his people are fed and trained and equipped. We are washed and patched up and after we enjoy fellowship and celebration with our loving heavenly Father. At last we are given our marching orders. As we bring the Eucharistic elements and our tithes and offerings, unworthy as we are, we offer up our ordinary feeble damnation-deserving efforts, done soley by the grace of God alone, to God and he graciously accepts them, and gives them back to us as something he alone can use for his purposes. Here we offer all of our cultural work to God. Our ordinary, daily, individual / family / nation endeavours of worship join with our special corporate public Sabbath sanctuary worship and are transformed as a result.

The whole of life is worship, but not in the same way as special worship and only because it is an outflow of it.

The Son: Equal but Different

This ought to be at the front of my mind, of course, and Mike Ovey would be ashamed of my need to ask, but given that I never studied Christian Doctrine properly (!), I wonder if you could give this the once over for orthodoxy. I'm thinking of preaching this kind of thing on Sunday morning with as few big words as possible.

(1) The Son is ontologically and essentially equal to the Father

(2) The Son is enternally relationally subordinate to the Father. This relational subordination is both according to his nature as Son and voluntary.

(3) According to his human nature, the Incarnate Son is inferior to the Father.

This "equality but difference" provides a model for the submission of wives to husbands in marriage and of members to elders in the church.

Elohim - "the gods is"

With a nervous feeling about my lack of Hebrew…

I don’t remember ever coming across this before:

Donald Macleod points out that the name most commonly used of God in the Old Testament, Elohim, is plural, although when used of God it is always used with singular verbs and adjectives. Macleod says it is as if we were to say, “The gods is”. Macleod argues that God had good reason for calling himself Elohim and that it “fits beautifully with the fact that in him there is a fullness of fellowship. The New Testament disclosure of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is the best, and possibly the only, explanation of God giving himself a plural name.” (p13)

Shared Life: The Trinity and the Fellowship of God’s People (Christian Focus, 1994)

"Goddy"

I found myself telling Baby Jono (a.k.a. Jonathan) today that it was very kind of "Goddy" to give him so many toys.

I'm not sure "Goddy" is an appropriately reverentail title for the Almighty but with all the Mummy and Daddy-ing and so on it seemed to trip off the tongue rather easily.

I guess some might see so kind of justification for the term in Jesus' called the Father "Abba", which is sometimes said to be something akin to "Daddy," although my New Testament tutor at Oxford claimed "Dad" is perhaps closer to the feel of the Aramaic?

Calvin on lay precidency

I guess everyone knows this, for what its worth, but since lay presidency is fashionable in some circles it may just be worth noting that we can be pretty certain Calvin would have been against it, at least as a rule.

Moreover, since God has placed the sacraments as a sacred deposit in his Church, we believe that individuals are not to use them apart, but that the use of them ought to be common to the assembly of the faithful, and that they ought to be administered by the pastors to whom the charge and dispensation of them has been committed.

Confession of Faith of the Reformed Churches of France 1562, section 24

I think lay presidency is certainly possible (you don't need a priest to do his magic) but not the most appropriate. Whilst I can see there could be practical circumstances where it could be helpful, I think its in danger of being a reactionary departure from the tradition of the church (including the Reformed tradition). I reckon there are more important things for us to campaign on! For example, it would be great if the C of E sought to prevent people bowing down to the reserved sacrament before it introduced lay presidency.

Ought we to need Supper?

Calvin is in the habit of saying that the Word of God ought to be sufficient for us for full assurance and confidence, but that because of our ignorance and frailty, God has added the sacraments as helps for us.

Now of course, we ought to believe the Word of God!

But I’m a bit uncomfortable with saying that the sacraments are simply given because we weak and ignorant and somehow ought to be unnecessary. Maybe I’m being uncharitable to Calvin but its almost as if he thinks the Word alone would be better if that were enough for us.

If we take the trees in the Garden of Eden as sacramental, then it would seem that sacraments were always God’s design for man even apart from sin, though I would grant that Adam was weak and ignorant (and “immature”) even before the fall.

Sacraments are appropriate to us as creatures and not just as sinners.

Maybe we need to consider what else the sacraments are intended to be and do apart from teach us and give us assurance to better understand their role alongside the Word.

For example, a wider biblical view of the importance of meals as fellowship-enjoying and covenant-making events might be helpful in understanding why we need to Supper and what its for.

Patterns in Ruth

Barry Webb (Five Festal Garments, pp38-39) draws on the work of Stephen Bertman ('Symmetrical design in the book of Ruth' JBL 84:165-168 (1965)) to point out parallels between Ruth 2 and 3.

In both chapters, Ruth discusses with Naomi, goes to Boaz, who asks who she is, asks her to stay, says she is worthy of blessing and gives her food. Ruth reports back to Naomi and receives her advice.

Further, in the first 3 chapters there is a going out and a returning. In the final chapter, Boaz goes out to the town gate and then goes to Ruth and takes her as his husband. She finds rest in the home of her husband (1:9; 3:1).

Camp Teaching Scheme

On our camp this year we're planning to do some edited highlights of John's gospel, going sequentially through the book (with an introductory talk from the last page first), alternating between main talks in the evenings and dorm group Bible studies in the mornings.

There are lots of ways of skinning this cat and some of my choices are a bit random, but it migt go something like this:

(1) Sat

Talk: 20:24-31, The Purpose of John’s Gospel

(2) Sun

Study: 1:1-14, The incarnation

Talk: 1:15-34, John the Baptist’s Witness

(3) Mon

Study: 1:35-51, The first disciples

Talk: 2:1-11, The first sign

(4) Tues

Study: 3:1-15, You must be born again

Talk: 3:16-21, Why did Jesus come?

(5) Wed

Study: 6:1-24, Feeding 5000 and walking on water

Talk: 6:25-59, The Bread of Life

(6) Thurs

Study: 12:20-36, Jesus predicts his death

Talk: 18:28-19:16a, Jesus & Pilate

(7) Fri

Study: 19:16b-27, The crucifixion

Talk: 19:28-37, The death of Jesus

(8) Sat

Talk: 19:38-20:23, The resurrection

I’ve included some quite long passages. Speakers and Bible study leaders should use their discretion and cut parts of the reading if that seems the best way to focus on the main thing(s) / thrust.

Preaching the Trinity

God willing, I'll be preaching on the doctrine of the Trinity on Trinity Sunday morning (18/5/08).

Any tips or pointers to resources / sermons, esp. free ones on line, gratefully received.

What do you think the most important things to say are?

What are the leading practical applications of the doctrine of the Trinity?

I've chosen John 17:1-26 as the reading, but I guess that isn't immutable.

In the evening the vicar is planning to preach on 'Why the Trinity?' using 1 Peter 1:1-2 but I don't know in detail what he intends to say.

I've got hold of Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity in Scripture, History, Theology and Worship (P&R, 2004) and I'm hoping to spend some time with that in my preparation. His part 4 deals with some "Critical Issues":

The Trinity and the Incarnation

The Trinity, Worship, and Prayer

The Trinity, Creation, and Missions

The Trinity and Persons

Water into Wine

Some jottings for my sermon (in my series in John) on Water into Wine (2:1-11).

The audio version should appear on the Holy Trinity, Eastbourne sermon page in due course.

The text of my handout went like this:

Jesus at a party (10:10)

--> Christians should be cheerful & fun-loving

The significance of the sign (v11)

Our resources fail (v3) but Jesus satisfies (4:13-14)

Jesus the perfect Bridegroom (3:29), the Second Adam

Jesus’ amazing transforming power

generous, extravagant, abundant provision (v6)

“you have saved the best till now” (v10; 1:16-17)

An act of (New) Creation – transformation / resurrection (v1)

Jesus’ hour (v4; 7:6; 8:20; 12:23-24; 32-33; 13:1; 17:1) and glory (v11) – the cross

Jesus’ blood cleanses us from sin (v6)

The Wedding Supper of the Lamb (Rev 19:7-9)

Our response?

--> Invite Jesus

--> Accept Jesus’ invitation

--> his disciples put their faith in him” (v11) - trust

--> “Do whatever he tells you” (v5) – obedience

--> What do you want to drink? Water or wine?

A Beginner's Guide To Parenting

Here are some notes for a sermon from Dt 6 on Christian nurture of our children.

An audio version is also available on the Holy Trinity Eastbourne Sermon page. Unfortunately we were having some trouble with the sound system and the first few mins. were missed off due to the poor quality. At least on my computer the sermon is too quiet (!) but hopefully that'll be rectified with the new MP3 recorder which is now installed.

As originally given

There's a lot of fuss in McGowan's book (The Divine Spiration of Scripture) about the inspiration of the Bible about "hypothetical" lost autographa, the original documents of Scripture. He seems to think of the claim to inerrancy applying only to them and this being a rather bothersome blind alley of pointless speculation.

I was just wondering if a claim that the Scriptures are inerrant "as originally given" would strictly necessarily require inerrant autographa? For example, in the case of a spoken prophetic oracle, would an error in recording the message in writing be excluded by the claim that the Scriptures as originally given are inerrent? If Paul dictated his letters, is it Paul's dictation or the amanuesnsis' scribing that is without error?

I guess so, actually, as terms like Scripture and Bible require a written document. Worth being accurate about that. You could still say the Scriptures were not originally given in written form but I reckon that's stretching it a bit.

Is The Bible God?

No. But Herman Bavinck says that, in 1714, according to A. Tholuck, Nitzsche in Gotha wrote a dissertation on the question of whether Holy Scripture itself was God. Sadly Bavinck doesn't tell us what Nitzsche's answer was.

(Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Prolegomena, vol 1, p416 cited in McGowan, Divine Spiration, p120. )

Scripture and Incarnation

McGowan argues against Peter Enns but along with John Webster and also quoting Thomas F. Torrance, that it is dangerous to use an analogy drawn from the divine and human natures of Christ in the incarnation to speak about the divine and human aspects of Scripture.

McGowan says, “How can the Scriptures have a divine nature, since only God is divine? ... Scripture can share certain divine attributes but it cannot have a divine nature, because it is not God.” (Divine Spiration, pp120-121)

Of course we do not want to say that the Bible is God. The Bible is not a fourth member of the Trinity. Quite right. It’s hard to think that anyone would think that someone would want to say that! What are the names of these bibolators we are all supposed to be concerned about?

But we do want to say the Bible is the Words of God. The Bible is God speaking. Since God also created language and is sovereign over it, God’s words thoroughly reflect his character. God accommodates himself to human beings in his revelation (he speaks baby-language, slowly and loudly) but he does not have a speech impediment. God’s words are true because God is true.

No doubt it is possible to press the analogy between the incarnation and Scripture too far or to do silly things with it, but I still find it helpful.

The incarnation reminds us that something can be fully human and fully divine. We do not have to parcel out the humanity and the divinity of Scripture. Romans can be fully Paul’s words and fully God’s. We don’t need to take 2 different colour highlighter pens to it to mark up God’s bits and the apostle’s bits.

The incarnation also reminds us that humanity does not necessarily imply sin and error since Jesus was a perfect man. Likewise, human language is always subject to limitations (just as Jesus’ humanity was always located in space and not omnipresent) but that does not mean that it is necessary for the Bible to err to be human.

If we're taking votes...

According to Mark Noll:

Most Christians in most churches since the founding of Christianity have believed in the inerrancy of the Bible. Or at least they have believed that the Scriptures are inspired by God, and so are the words of eternal life. The term inerrancy was not common until the nineteeth century. But the conviction that God communicates in Scripture a revelation of himself and of his deeds, and that this revelation is entirely truthful, has always been the common belief of most Catholics, most Protestants, most Orthodox, and even most of the sects of the fringe of Christianity.

Mark Noll, ‘A Brief History of Inerrancy, Mostly in America’, in The Proceedings of the Conference on Biblical Inerrancy 1987 (Nashville: Broadman, 1987), pp.9-10 quoted in McGowan, Divine Spiration, p85.

The Big Event

According to Hans Frei:

No more crucial event has taken place in modern Protestant theology than Karl Barth's break with liberalism. It was the most significant single impetus to the subsequent generation's conception of its task.

PhD Diss., Yale, 1965, p.iii quoted in McGowan, Divine Spiration p62

The error of abandoning inerrancy

I’m not sure this is really what I ought to be getting on with this morning if I want to get my PhD before I retire, but I’ve been browsing in McGowan, A. T. B., The Divine Spiration of Scripture: Challenging evangelical perspectives (Nottingham, Apollos, 2007) (which could be of some relevance to the Grand Project!).

One of his proposals is that we prefer the term “infallibility” to “inerrancy”.

He argues:

In recent years,… there has been a growing dominance of the use of the word ‘inerrancy’ (a word rarely used in Europe) and this, in some of its forms, has represented a turn towards a somewhat mechanical and even rationalistic approach to Scripture, basing its authority on a set of inerrant manuscripts. The argument for ‘infallibility’ is that the final authority for the Christian is the authority of God speaking in and through his Word and that the Holy Spirit infallibly uses God’s Word to achieve all he intends to achieve. It is, therefore, a more dynamic (or organic) and less mechanical view of authority. It also avoids a number of serious problems related to the word ‘inerrancy’… (pp48-49)

Well, perhaps. I’m not so sure.

The Europe / America point seems to get made a few time and I’m not sure its terribly valuable. There seems to be general agreement that originally the terms infallible and inerrant were used interchangeably.

I can’t see that the term inerrancy is necessarily inherently mechanistic.

It seems to me that there is a danger in McGowan’s shift (though perhaps some see it as a merit) of bypassing questions of truth and focussing on questions of effect. Sure, we need a doctrine of the efficacy of God’s word. We need to understand its purposes, but that’s not all the word inerrancy was meant to do. God’s Word is about more than stating true propositions, but it includes that. Surely one of God’s purposes in Scripture was to state truths and where the Bible attempts to do that it is infallible or inerrant in all that it affirms – the traditional doctrine!

I reckon it might be better to say that God speaks his Word or words, rather than that he speaks in and through it. God uses the Bible according to its nature so we shouldn’t expect strange private messages out of the Bible understood apart from the context of what the words mean. A mention of “the west” in Scripture that for some reason seems to stand out to me in my quiet time is not the Holy Spirit telling me to move to Bristol, as if God speaks “through” his word in an arbitrary or magical way.

Neither is the term inerrancy inimical to scholarship. It could be thought to helpfully flag up that it is Scripture as originally given that is inerrant. Strictly speaking the developed doctrine of inerrancy is a reminder that the claim of inerrancy is not being made of any extant version or translation and therefore emphasises the tasks of textual criticism and translation.

It could be worse... and it could get batter

Post-millenialists and other may be heartened by this from Jonathan Fletcher's talk at the recent Reform conference:

In the middle of the eighteenth century the state of the Church of England was far, far worse than it is today. In the mid-1750s on Easter Day in St Paul’s Cathedral there were a total of six people. Six undergraduates were sent down from Oxford for reading the Bible. The celebrated lawyer, Blackstone, early in the reign of George III went out of curiosity from church to church to hear every clergyman of note in London. He says that he did not hear a single discourse that had more Christianity in it than the writings of Cicero and that it would have been impossible for him to discover from what he heard whether the preacher was a follower of Confucius, Mohammed, or Christ.

Yet over the next century things changed dramatically so that by the middle of the nineteenth century a third of the clergy in the Church of England, it is estimated, were evangelical, the great missionary societies had been founded, the Clapham Sect was achieving great things, and at least three-quarters of the societies that were trying to ameliorate the situation were of Evangelical foundation.

...

But those men did make a change - slowly - it took several decades - when the Church of England and the nation was in a far worse state than conceivable today. They stood by their evangelical convictions, they preached the Word, and the situation changed.

We have got an enormous battle on our hands. The situation is not as bad as it was in the eighteenth century, but we are campaigning for the reform of the Church of England and our sights are set on the evangelisation of our nation: that is where we are heading. The lesson from the past is that we must hold fast to our theological convictions; we must continue to strive for that holiness without which no-one will see the Lord; we must have a loyalty to the Church of England and remember that this is the place to be; there must be a boldness as we think outside the box with principled irregularity.

Lastly, an appeal that we maintain unity. For example there is going to be disagreement over what we advise bishops to do about Lambeth. Similarly, there are secondary issues where we will disagree: creationism; limited atonement; annihilationism. I am not suggesting that every position is equally valid on those issues, but we need to trust one another more and have a greater humility towards one another.

A version of the talk has been published in booklet from and is also available on the Reform website.There's also a mini-version (from which the above is taken) that is specifically designed to be reproduced in church magazines and the like.

Trinity, Community, Relationship, Mission and Ministerial Formation

Maybe if we are thinking about how the theological resources of the doctrine of the Trinity can be related to ministerial formation (as I am a bit) maybe relatedness and relationships are highlighted. Ministerial formation is at its best when it is in an ordered community of love, like the Triune life of God himself.

May we say that in the Triune life the Son and the Spirit are "formed" for mission since they are sent out into the world?

By the way, when I was talking about things to mention in the ministerial formation essay I'm working on, I think it may be an unspoken marking criterion that no essay which fails to include the phrase "missio Dei" may be awarded a grade above a lower second (or whatever that is on some new fangled marking scale). Oh for the days of alpha, betta, betta, query minus!

FV Consensus

I wasn't asked and I've only read it once, but I think I would have signed it. Would you?

http://www.credenda.org/issues/19-3statement.php

George Herbert on Theological College

Here's a thought from George Herbert on minsterial formation:

Some [live in universities] in a preparatory way, whose aim and labour must be not only to get knowledge, but to subdue and mortifie all lusts and affections: and not to think, that when they have read the Fathers, or Schoolmen, a Minister is made, and the thing done. The greatest and hardest preparation is within: For, Unto the ungodly, saith God, Why dost thou preach my Laws, and takest my Covenant in thy mouth? Psal. 50.16

(Chapter 2)

George Herbert, A Priest to the Temple or, The Country Parson (1652)http://anglicanhistory.org/herbert/parson.html

Ministerial Formation Essay

The Lord being my helper, I've to write 2500 words by Wednesday on Ministerial Formation (for ordained ministry).

So any comments, questions, corrections etc. most welcome.

The essay gets entered for the Archdeacon Sutton Prize. I don't know what the prize is, but if you say anything helpful, I guess we could split it!

I don't even know who marks it / awards the prize but I guess we ought to think Anglican clergy.

They are after theological reflection and some comments on personal experience, I think.

I thought I might call it:

Theological and Trinitarian Perspectives

for Formation for Ordained Ministry

in Three Dimensions

3 aspects of ministerial formation:
- knowledge
- character
- competence

3 perspectives:
- normative
- existential
- situational

3 dimensions of ordianed ministry:
- diaconal
- presbyteral
- episcopal

3 orientations of ministry:
- the glory of God
- the pain of the world
- the renewal of the church

I hope I could make use of some of the ideas mentioned in previous posts and that I might manage some paragraphs on:

- the incarnation as public ministry
- the economic and immanent Trinity and the minister's private / public life, or inner / outer life
- the priesthood of all believers and a special priesthood
- the priest as example / icon / representative of Christ
- essence and fullness (cf. threshold learning outcomes and ideals)
- simplicity and integrity
- perichorisis and inseperable operation
- praxis and theory (cf. faith seeking understanding and service seeking understanding)
- ontology and function, being and doing, person and work
- creation, providence, salvation and life-long learning
- liturgical / baptismal / eucharistic formation
- ordination and ontological change, a decisive moment of formation
- a word study on "formation" / transformation in the Bible
- the gospel as maturation / transformation / sanctification from one degree of glory to another
- 9:38 apprenticeships and 2 Timothy 2:2
- ministerial selection criteria
- the ordinal
- the impossible vastness of the subject, because of who God is, the greatness of the gospel, the goals of ministry, the uniqueness of every minister and ministry

Any tips?

Blair & God

I have been browsing in my father's copy of Anthony Seldon's Blair (London, Free Press, 2004)and it looks a fascinating book, though I must say I doubt I'd want to read 700 pages about Tony.

Completed in May 2004, 90% of the book is said to be based on 600 specially conducted interviews with unpublsihed diaries and papers being the next most important source. Seldon calls it a work of contemporary history rather than journalism. Every substantive point gets an endnote. Though some of the interviewees wished to remain annonymous, the full details of the interviews will be deposited in an archive library for future reference.

Though Seldon credits 3 other for working on this book with him, its impressive that Seldon, who is the headmaster of Brighton College, has managed to write or edit some 25 books and shows the usefulness of sabbaticals.

This book contains 20 chronological chapters on key episodes in Blair's life interspersed with chapters on 20 people who influenced him, each with a photograph.

Seldon identifies chapters 10, 20, 30 and 40 on Neil Kinnock, Roy Jenkins, Margaret Thatcher and Gordon Brown as giving the political backbone of the book. He highlights the chapters on Blair winning Sedgefield, the abolition of Clause IV, Kosovo and Iraq as showing Blair at his boldest.

Chapter 34 is on God, and opens thus:

Blair's relationship with God is more important than any other described in
this book because, uniquely, it has coloured his relationship with all other
nineteen figures, and it has affected his response in differing measures to
all twenty turning points. Not only has the relationship been all embracing; it
is also peculiarly hard to understand. His religion explains why he became the
person he did, why he entered politics, why he holds his beliefs, how he relates
to others, and from where he derives much of his inner strength and convictions.
(p515)

I also learnt that:

Wilson (a Congregationalist) is the only previous Labour premier to have
made anything of his faith, proclaiming that he was a socialist "because he was
a Christian". He appointed ten practicing believers to his Cabinet in 1964, and
asked for a service to be organised in the House of Commons chapel after the
1964 General Election to bless the new government (p516)

Matthew d'Ancona, who has written persuasively on the subject of Blair and
religion, sees Blair's religious awakening at Oxford as the defining moment of
his life. (p516)

Jesus' home

I saw one of those cross-stitch things that people frame and put up on the wall yesterday that I rather liked. It said:

CHRIST

is the HEAD of this home

the unseen GUEST at every meal

the silent LISTENER at every conversation

I might set Mrs Lloyd sowing!

The home is a marvellous opportunity for building Christian community and civilisation. It can still be a little bit of Christendom and an outpost of the Kingdom whilst an Englishman's home is something like his castle. Of course, Nanny Brown will want to interfere but...

New Exodus, New Time

Revd Dr Peter Leithart points out on his blog:

In Exodus 12:2, Yahweh tells Moses that the month of Abib, the month of Exodus, will be the first month in Israel’s calendar. Israel gets a new time with the Exodus. Yahweh informs Moses using the word “head” or “beginning,” which reaches back to Genesis 1:1. The new time of Israel is a new time for the world; of the Exodus, we might say “In the beginning Yahweh made (new) heavens and earth.”

It is appropriate that in the New Exodus that the Lord Jesus brings we recive a new calendar of A.D.

Words, Signs, Sacaraments, Ideas, Things

Here are a couple of quotations from Revd Dr Peter Leithart's blog that might make it into the Dissasertation:

William Perkins on figures of speech: “There is a certaine agreement and proportion of the externall things with the internall, and of the actions of one with the actions of the other: wherby it commeth to passe, that the signes, as it were certaine visible words incurring into the externall sense, do by a certaine proportionable resemblance draw a Christian minde to the consideration of the things signified, and to be applyed. This mutuall, and as I may say, sacramentall relation, is the cause of so many figurative speeches and Metonymies which are used.”

And:

"I have found Thomas’s explanation of the quadriga convincing. He argues that the multiple spiritual senses are not “located” in the words but in the things that the words name. One might say that for Thomas the words have a single, namely literal, sense; but the things they name are themselves signs, the “words” with which God writes history, and these things foreshadow later things."

Welsh Dragon

I've commented before that it seems a shame that the Welsh national flag should contain a symbol of Satan whilst the English national flag contains a symbol of Christ, the cross of St George the Dragon Slayer.

It's worth noting that George wasn't English, of course, and didn't kill the dragon - that was the Lord Jesus Christ, after all.

But you may also be interested in a bit of blurb about why the dragon is a symbol of Wales. Its not really anything terribly sinister.

The Red Dragon is the heraldic symbol of Wales, and is incorporated into
the Welsh national flag. According to tradition, the red dragon appeared on a
crest borne by Arthur, whose father Uthr Bendragon, had seen a dragon in the sky
predicting that he would be king.

The dragon as a symbol was probably introduced into Britain by the Roman
legions. Medieval Welsh poets often compared their leaders to dragons in poems praising their bavery, for example, Gruffydd ab yr Ynad Coch said of Llewelyn ap Gruffudd Pen dragon, pen draig oedd arnaw ('A dragon's head he had').

Between 1485 and 1603, the dragon formed part of the arms of the Tudor
dynasty, but it was replaced on the royal coat of arms with a unicorn by order
of James I.

The red dragon reappeared as the royal badge for Wales in 1807, and from
then on it was often seen in the regalia of Welsh patriotic societies. At the
suggestion of the Gorsedd of the Bards, it was officially recognised by the
Queen in 1959, and is now widely used as the national flag.

Source: http://www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/274/ - where you can also read about the leek and the daffodil. The same site contains information about Welsh Christmas traditions.

Solo Scriptura

I saw this soundbite on a comment on Daniel Newman's blog by rjs1 and rather liked it:

"Sola Sriptura not solo scriptura".

I've no idea how it mangles the Latin tongue but I think it makes a good point.

It reminds me of an article by Prof Tony Lane in which he points out that even "sola scriptura" is a post-reformation slogan.

The reformers believed in the supreme final authority and unique infalibility of Scripture. They did not believe in hyper-strict version of "Scripture Alone". They accepted other lesser sources of "authority" (such as reason, tradition etc.) in addition to the Bible and knew that Scripture could never be understood strictly "alone" for example, apart from the illuminating work of the Spirit or an understanding of the language in which Holy Writ is writ.

Incarnational Ministry

Could you just remind me what incarnational ministry means and whether or not we believe in it?

In a way incarnational ministry sounds a bit like motherhood and apple pie (who could be against that?) but I think some are agin it, maybe even in a big way?

To my mind "incarnational ministry" suggests two things:

(1) becoming like the people to whom we aim to minister, just as Christ became like us to serve us. As Paul was all things to all men, so should we be, that we might win some.

(2) in a way we are a continuation of the incarnation - we are Christ to people as Jesus lives in us and they see his light in us.

I know some people are nervous about both (1) and (2).

I seem to remember hearing some criticisms at vicar factory of incarnational ministry as advocated by the likes of Pete Ward in relational youth ministry?

Obviously we become like those to whom we minister in some ways but must also remain distinctive. I do not become a prostitute to win the prostitutes. And I also minister to people as they are in the hope that we will both not remain as we are but be transformed into the likeness of Christ. The Christian missionary must not go native in this wicked world.

As far as (2) goes, I can see no problem with viewing the church as in some ways a continuation of the incarnation as long as we remember that Christ is still incarnate in heaven and we are not Jesus in the same way that Jesus is! We are however his body, and he remains the head. Christ and his church are the totus christus, or some equally clever but difficult to remember, spell and understand latin term!

Models of Ministry (and some books)

Shall we make a list of models, metaphors and descriptions of Christian ministers and ministry? We may also consider the roles and functions of the minister.

I've mentioned below priests, deacons, presbyter-bishops and "bishops". Some of these are explored further in Steven Croft's Ministry in Three Dimensions and on the Biblical and historical data, see especially Roger Beckwith, Elders in Every City.

Dereck Tidball's Builders and Fools explores the metaphors for pastoral minisry in Paul.

In The Life and Work of a Priest John Pritchard suggests a three-fold orientation:

(1) The glory of God

presiding genius?

spiritual explorer

artfull story-teller

multilingual interpreter

inquisitive learner

(2) The pain of the world

pain bearer

wounded companion

weather-beaten witness

iconic presence

friendly irritant

(3) The renewal of the church

creative leader

attractive witness

faith coach

mature risk-taker

flower arranger

and finally...

life-fulfiller

Christopher Cocksworth explores the roots, shapes and fruit of ministry in Being a Priest Today.

The NT lists of charismatic gifts may also provide other categories such a prophet, administrator, helper, governor.

Would Jordan's Sociology of the Church with its three-fold particle, wave, field understanding of church as institution / government, people and gathered worshiping community also generate other ways of thinking about ministry as steward, worship leader and father?

The dear old Church of Engalnd's selction criteria for ordained ministry (PDF) could be worth thinking about.

Eve: Queen, Priestess, Prophetess

If Adam is a prophet a priest and a king, I would suggest it makes sense to say that Eve is a queen, a priestess and a prophetess - and not as a king, priest and prophet in her own right , and that is more than a gramatical point.

Under God she gets her being from Adam and her role is not to be independant but to help the man in the mission they share.

Adam: Prophet, Priest, King

We are familiar with saying that the Lord Jesus Christ, the second Adam, was a prophet, a priest and a king.

It seems to me that it would make sense to say that Adam was a prophet, a priest and a king in an embryonic, immature, weak (and after the fall, sinful)way. Jesus perfectly fulfills these roles and will bring them in to completion in his redeemed people.

As a prophet, Adam was a friend of God who spoke to him. Adam should have spoken the Word of God to Eve and maybe to the rest of creation.

The Garden was a like a temple at the heart of the world and Adam was to guard and serve in it, the Tree of Life being sacramental food.

Adam was clearly a king, he was to rule the world under God as his vice-gerent and have domionion over the creatures.

Priest / Elder / Bishop / Apsotles in NT & now for Anglo-Presbyterians

Off the top of my head, are we all agreed that:

(1) The English word "priest" as used in the Book of Common Prayer is related to the English word "presbyter" (elder) and not the Bible word "priest".

(2) When most informed Evangelicals think "priest" they are most likley to think mediator between God and man offering (propitiatory) sacrifices.

(3) Priests in the Bible are perhaps above all guard or guardians and stewards or servants.

(4) The terms elder (presbyter) and bishop / overseer (episcopos) are interchangable and refer to the same persons in the New Testament.

(5) It may be possible to distinguish the roles of "presbyters" and "bishops" in the New Testament (if not the terms) with "bishops" acting as senior presbyters with a wider geographical remit than ordinary presbyters.

(6) So all NT and modern presbyters are NT bishops and NT priests. Modern bishops are (senior) NT presbyters and priests.

(7) There are basically 2 orders of ministry: (1) deacons (2) priest / presbyters / bishops (2a) senior priest / presbyter "bishops"

(8) The Apostles were elders but not all elders were apostles even if eldership is somewhat apostolic. The modern role of bishop may be seen as especially apostolic since the NT figures who correspond to modern bishops were apostolic deligates or substitutes in a more direct way than elders were.

(9) This view may be thought of as a modified presbyterianism or a reduced episcopasy and has eccumenical potential! It is historically and biblically accurate and adapted to contemporary and abiding needs. It represents a classical Anglican understanding even if Anglicans today generally think more in terms of a 3 fold ministry.

Clear? Any corrections, additions?

Trinitarian & Perspectival Ministerial Formation

The so-called Hind Report into ministry training in the Church of England championed the overall concept on Ministerial Formation which has 3 components:

(1) spirituality and character

(2) theological knowledge

(3) ministerial competence

Each of these 3 is an aspect of ministerial formation and they are not quite 3 "parts" of it. They are related and there must be integrity between the 3.

Categories such as insperable operation and mutual indwelling may help to articulate this.

Each of the 3 aspects must be distinguished but not separated.

They may also be perspectivally related. (2) theological knowledge may be the normative perspective. (3) ministerial competence may be the situational perspective. (1) spirituality and character may be the existential perspective.

We may relate theological knowledge (2) to God the Father, the one known and revealed, the covenant Lord. We may relate spirituality and knowledge to Christ, the Word incarnate and made flesh, lived-out, our example and prototype. The Spirit may put this into action in the world (3).

Each component is "equal" and indispensible. There is a case for starting with Christ / charcter / spirituality / disposition / being before doing or even knowing. But arguably, the components would be best re-orderd so that theological knowledge (which is more than theoretical knowledge) takes a kind of prioroty. Who we are and what we do arises out of who God is.

Or maybe something like some of that!?

Ooops

If you see my car keys anywhere, please would you let me know? They are our only set and I'm not quite sure what we should do. We've searched high and low, retraced our steps and been down the nick and they told us to keep calling in.

Update: the car's been towed off to a Fiat dealer's now so on second thoughts it might be kinder to quitely drop our keys down a drain somewhere if you come accross them.

Ordination Vows

I must check the exact terms of the vows I made when I was ordained deacon in Chichester Cathedral last Petertide, but can anyone tell me, were the vows made for life, untill retirement, untill further notice, till I've served my title or something else?

For example, now that the government wants me to be a wonderfull well payed rewarded low work and stress free teacher, do my diaconal vows prevent me switching jobs?

Teaching Needs Me

Graham Holley, the chief executive of the tda has written me a very nice letter to say that they need me and my teaching skills back in the classroom.



Apparently its lovely to be a teacer now, there is more pay and less work and you get helpers.



I'm not sure the staff and students of Westcliff High school for boys (where I used to teach) would agree that I'm quite so essential to the teaching profession, but I must say that the rose-tinted-spectacles and the glossy government propaganda brochure did give me pause for thought!

New biblical songs for today's church

http://www.songsfortoday.com/index.php

The Significance of the Resurrection

In our central mid-week Bible Study yesterday we treid to consider the significance of the resurrection. Here are the jottings from my handout:

§ A neglected subject?

- the centrality of the cross (cf. 1 Cor 15:3-4; Acts 4:2, 33)

- busy defending the empty tomb

Past Event

§ Evidence that Jesus was who he claimed to be

§ Shows there is life beyond the grave (1 Cor 15:12)

§ Shows that Jesus’ God is the living and true God

§ Shows God accepted Jesus’ sacrifice – his death was effective

§ Death defeated (Rom 6:9; 1 Cor 15:54-57; Acts 2:24)

§ Jesus’ vindication / justification and ours (Rom 4:25)

§ Jesus is enthroned as Lord of all (Acts 2:32,36)

§ Jesus is the Son of God in power (Rom 1:4)

§ A man on the throne of the universe – New Adam (Ps 8; 1 Cor 15:44b-49)

§ The New Creation / New Age has begun

- Firstborn from among the dead (Col 1:18)

- Firstfruits (1 Cor 15:20, 23)

Present Effects

§ Jesus is alive – we can know him personally

He is with us (Mt 28:20)

§ Jesus our permanent High Priest lives to intercede for us (Heb 7:24-25; Rom 8:34)

§ We have new birth into a living hope through the resurrection (1 Pet 1:3)

§ We are made alive and raised with Christ (Eph 2:5-6; Col 2:12-13; 3:1-3; Rom 6:4-5; 8:11)

§ The power of the resurrection is at work in us (Eph 1:19-20; Phil 3:10-11)

§ Our labour in the Lord is not in vain (1 Cor 15:58)

Future Hope

§ We will be raised (1 Cor 6:14; 1 Thess 4:14)

§ Jesus will judge all people (Acts 17:31; 10:40-42)

§ We will receive transformed physical bodies (Phil 3:21; 1 Cor 15:42-54)

§ Hope for creation / physicality (Rom 8:18-22)

The Difference the Risen Jesus Makes

My Easter Sunday sermon on John 20 can be listened to here.

The headings are:

Mary Magdalene: Bewilderment (vv1-2) and tears (v11, 13, 15) to testimony (v18)

Disciples: Fear (v19) to peace (v19, v21, v26) and joy (v20)

Thomas: Unbelief (v25) to worship (v28)

The Meaning of the Resurrection of the Son of God

In his 800 page The Resurrection of the Son of God (London, SPCK, 2003), N. T. Wright concludes that for the New Testament writers, the resurrection of the Son of God means that he is the Messiah, the Lord of the World and God the Son.

(1) Messiah

“The first level of a ‘son of god’ understanding of Jesus’ resurrection can therefore be summarized as follows. Jesus is Israel’s Messiah. In him, the creator’s covenant plan, to deal with sin and death that has so radically infected his world, has reached its long-awaited and decisive fulfilment.” (p728)

(2) Lord

“This then is the second level of meaning. The resurrection constitutes Jesus as the world’s true sovereign, the ‘son of god’ who claims absolute allegiance from everyone and everything within creation. He is the start of the creator’s new world: its pilot project, indeed its pilot.” (p731)

(3) God

“… the fact that this Jesus had been raised by this god… drew from the early Christians the breathtaking belief that Jesus was the ‘son of god’, the unique ‘Son’ of this God, as opposed to any other… … he was the personal embodiment and revelation of the one true god.” (p731)

“The resurrection … declares that Jesus really is God’s Son… in the sense that he is the one in whom the living God, Israel’s God, has become personally present in the world, has become one of the human creatures that were made from the beginning in the image of the same God.” (p733)

“… this resurrection [of this ‘son of God’] … was the public announcement, by the one true God, that this Jesus really was, and had always been, his son in this full, self-revealing, self-embodying sense.” (p734)

Chewing Over The Meal Jesus Gave Us

At our agape supper on Maundy Thursday I tried to give some reflections on the Lord's Supper considered as a meal. Here are some jottings from my handout:

The Lord’s Supper in the context of a meal (1 Cor 11)

The Last Supper a Passover Feast (Mk 14:12,16; 1 Cor 5:7)

Early Church: “breaking of bread” (Acts 2:42, 46); agape, love feast (Jude 12)

Man as a needy, dependent, hungry creature fed by God

--> receive with humility not a meritorious good work offered to propitiate God

Cf. eating in Eden (Gen 3) and at Lord’s Supper

--> obedience / faith / gratitude (Eucharist = thanksgiving)

Jesus the True Bread of Life (John 6:35, 51) --> satisfaction and eternal life from Him

Communion (sharing / fellowship) with God

God invites us and offers us hospitality (Ps 23:5)

We are at peace with God and enjoy his company

Jesus’ guest list: eats with sinners and outcasts (Lk 15:2)

We are Jesus’ friends (Mt 11:19; John 15:12-15; Rev 3:20)

--> flee idolatry, shun the table of demons (1 Cor 10:14-22)

Communion with one another

We have Jesus in common – we all participate in him (1 Cor 10:16)

“Com-panion”s – lit. one who breaks bread with another

The family meal – table fellowship, Jews and Gentiles (Gal 2:12)

A sign of unity (1 Cor 10:17) --> table manners (1 Cor 11:20-21, 33): love, sharing

Food & drink – complete provision

Bread – basic staple, essential, satisfying nourishment, strengthens us for service; affirms creation; God uses us --> work

Wine – not water, party drink for glad celebrating (Ps 104:15)

--> Looking forward with hope the Wedding Feast of the Lamb (Mt 26:29; Rev 19:9; 1 Cor 11:26)

Form for Excommunications

Calvin's Form for celebrating the Lord's Supper includes the following general excommunication:

We have heard, brethren, how our Lord makes his Supper among his disciples, and thereby shows that strangers - in other words, those who are not of the company of the faithful - ought not to be admitted. Wherefore, in accordance with this rule, in the name and authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, I excommunicate all idolaters, blasphemers, despisers of God, heretics, and all who form sects apart to break the unity of the Church, all perjurers, all who are rebellious to parents and to their superiors, all who are seditious, mutinous, quarrelsome, injurious, all adulterers, fornicators, thieves, misers, ravishers, drunkards, gluttons, and all who lead a scandalous life; declaring to them that they must abstain from this holy table, for fear of polluting and contaminating the sacred viands which our Lord Jesus Christ gives only to his household and believers.

Calvin's Tracts, vol 2, trans. Beveridge p120


The BCP also directs the curate that "Briefs, Citations and Excommunications" should be read after the Creed and before the Offertory in the Communion service.

Calvin's Grace

I sometimes feel the need for something other than the usual, "Father God, thank you for this food. Amen." so here's Calvin's grace. It's a bit long especially for hot food, perhaps, and I'm not so sure about the "frugal" bit, but...:

BLESSING AT TABLE

All look unto you, O Lord; and thou givest them their meat in due season; that thou givest them they gather: thou openest thine hand, and they are filled with all things in abundence (Ps. civ.27.)

O LORD, in whom is the source and inexhaustible fountain of all good things, pour out thy blessing upon us, and sanctify to our use the meat and drink which are the gifts of thy kindness towards us, that we, using them soberly and frugally as thou enjoinest, may eat with a pure conscience. Grant, also, that we may always both with true heartfelt gratitude acknowledge, and with our lips proclaim thee our Father and the giver of all good, and, while enjoying bodily nourishment, aspire with special longing of heart after the bread of thy doctrine, by which our souls may be nourished in the hope of eternal life, though Christ Jesus our Lord. AMEN.

Man liveth not by bread alone, but by every word which proceedeth from the mouth of God (Deut. viii.3.)

Calvin's Tracts, Volume 2, trans. Beveridge p.97

Anti-Abortion Petition

You can sign the Alive and Kicking anti-abortion petition at:

http://www.aliveandkickingcampaign.org/petition/

Background

Since 1967 there have been almost 7 million abortions, now 200,000 a year, with one in four pregnancies ending in abortion. The 1967 Abortion Act is open to amendment during the passage of the current HFE Bill, so there is now a genuine opportunity to reduce abortion numbers. We must be alert as well to the agenda of the pro-choice activists, abortion providers and some MPs who will push for further liberalisation of the law.

Petition

We believe that 200,000 abortions a year in Britain is far too many. We urge Parliament to SUPPORT amendments to the Abortion Act which will reduce substantially the 24 week upper time limit, end discriminatory abortion of the disabled up until birth, and provide balanced evidence-based information, independently of the abortion service, that gives women a properly informed choice, along with the offer of counseling.

We also urge parliament to REJECT proposed amendments seeking to liberalise the abortion law further such as ending the requirement for two doctors' signatures, allowing nurse-led medical abortion in GP surgeries with completion at home, barring pro-life doctors from seeing women with unplanned pregnancies and extending the Abortion Act to Northern Ireland.

Foetal Communion

Revd James B. Jordan argues that "those who believe that children do not belong at Jesus' table should excommunicate all pregnant women during the terms of their pregnancies."

Jordan sees in Judges 13:7, 14 evidence that symbolic or quasi-sacramental food eaten by the mother applies to the unborn child since Monoah is to observe the Nazarite food regulations until Samson is born.

The Sociology of the Church: Essays in Reconstruction (Eugene, Wipf and Stock, 1986) p249

Preaching and Homegroup Plans (May-Aug)

When we finish 1 John in homegroups we're going to study 2 & 3 John in a session each. Then I'm thinking of 4 sessions on Ruth.


Here are my Sunday preaching plans for May - Aug:

Continuing through John's gospel in the evenings.

It has been "famous texts from the BCP" in the morning. Not quite sure what next.

Sun 4^th May PM – Water into Wine (John 2:1-11)

Sun 18^th May AM – The Trinity (John 17:1-26)
(Trinity Sunday)

Sun 15^th June PM – The Cleansing of the Temple (John 2:12-25)

Sun 22nd June AM - BCP Communion using lectionary (Ps 84:8ff; 1 Kings 19:19-21; 1 Peter 3:8-15a; Luke 5:1-11) at St Nicholas, Pevensey

Sun 6^th July AM – Let the nations rejoice (Psalm 67)

Sun 20^th July AM – Family Service

Sun 10^th August PM – You must be born again (John 3:1-21)

Sun 17^th August AM – The Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:5-15)

I'm thinking of doing a couple of sessions on the Lord's Prayer. I believe there are some sermons by Rev'd Matthew Mason one could plagarise.

After that I'm wondering about a series on the 10 commandments. Would I have plenty to say on each one? And would it be a bit samey?

Bible By The Beach

A new Bible Festival for all ages is being planned by Bishop Wallace Benn for Eastbourne (based at the Congress Theatre), 1st -4th May 2009.

Mrs Lloyd can offer excellent b&b for one lucky couple!

More information is promised soon at:

http://www.biblebythebeach.org/

Calvin's Spoof Proofs

Henry Beveridge describes the Articles agreed upon by the Faculty of Sacred Theology of Paris, in reference to matters of faith at present controverted with the antidote [1542] by John Calvin :

The object being to expel every man whose convictions would not allow him to subscribe, care was taken to exhibit the most obnoxious tenets of Popery in the strongest terms in which it was possible to state them, and thereby render evasion impossible. The effect has been to give an air of absurdity to the gravest of their statements, and make it difficult to treat them with seriousness. To this circumstance, the form which Calvin has given to his Antidote is probably to be ascribed. He first gave an Article, and immediately subjoins what he calls the Proof. You accordingly begin to read, never doubting that the Proof is from the pen of the Sorbonnist who framed the Article, but soon meet with arguments, which, though very much in the manner of a Sorbonnist, tell most powerfully against him, and reveal the fact, that what purports to be a Proof by the Sorbonist is indeed a proof – not, however, of the thing said to be proved, but of its opposite; in other words, is a Reductio as absurdum by Calvin.

This mode of refutation probably told better in Paris than the most solid discussion would have done; but Calvin, apparently aware that ridicule, especially in matters of religion, is a dangerous, and from its very nature an imperfect weapon, fitted only to demolish error, and not to establish truth, immediately subjoins what properly forms the Antidote, viz. a clear statement of sound doctrine, confirmed by passages of Scripture, and supported by numerous quotations from the Fathers.

(Calvin, John, Calvin’s Tracts 3 volumes Calvin Translation Society Translated by Henry Beveridge Edinburgh 1844 (Eugene, Wipf and Stock, 2002) Volume 1, Preface, ppvii-viii)

A Spotlight on the True Light

Here's the text of my handout for a sermon about John the Baptist and Jesus from John 1:6-8, 15, 19-34. More jottings in a Word document here.

1. John the Spotlight (5:35)

v6 - God chooses to use people. He might even use us

v7, v31 – John’s purpose is the same as John’s (20:31)

John’s “testimony” (v19, v32) is about Jesus not about himself

The messenger is not the message (v8, v20)

v21 – John and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11; Mal 4:5; Lk 1:17; Mk 1:6; 2 Kings 1:8; Mt 11:14); The Prophet like Moses – Dt 18:15; cf. Acts 3:22-23

John the Voice (v23)

--> watch out for gurus / “Popes” / personality cults / preachers who are too full of themselves

--> humility (Mt 11:11 yet v15; v27; v30; vv35-37)

--> faithfully play your God-given part in God’s purposes (3:27-30)

--> point others to Jesus

2. Jesus the True Light (v9)

--> it’s possible to be religious and spiritually privileged yet in the dark (vv19-28)

v15, v30 – pre-existent / eternal (v1; 8:58)

v23 – Is 40:3 – “the LORD” – return from exile

v29 – the Lamb of God (Ex 12; Gen 22:8)

v33 – baptises with the Holy Spirit (Ez 36:24-27)

--> Look to Jesus!

Righteous Indignation

Tedd Tripp defends the idea of “righteous indignation”, but he adds this helpful and memorable caution:

People tend to think, “I am right and I am indignant, therefore this is righteous indignation.”

No doubt there are all sorts of considerations and distinctions such as, am I proportionately indignant with the right people for the right reasons?

Here’s how Tripp spins it:

The difference between righteous and unrighteous indignation is illustrated by asking, “Whose honor is being preserved?” If I am angry because God has been dishonoured and that vexes me, I am probably exercising righteous anger. If my anger is the garden variety, “I can’t believe you’re doing this to be, who do you think you are, you little brat,” it is probably unrighteous anger. That kind of anger will muddy the waters of discipline.

Tedd Tripp, Shepherding a Child’s Heart 2^nd edition 2005 (Wapwallopen, Shepherd Press, 1995), p108

Striking Sermon-heading Award

I'd like to nominate Rev'd John Cheeseman for point 3 of "5 Lessons on the Nature & Effects of Sin" from 1 Kings 21:

• Sin will turn a man into an unprincipled moral jelly-fish.

The youth group wanted to challenge the curate to include various other creatures in his sermon headings next week, but thankfully the moment passed.

Holy Trinity Eastbourne Online

Check out our new and improved church website at:

www.holytrinityeastbourne.org.uk

MP3 sermon files to follow soon, we hope.

(We're going to phase out the .co.uk address.)

We were helped on this by Hugh Bourne of Web4Christ, who did indeed give us "honest internet services".

Any feedback welcome.

1 John Bible Study Notes & Commentaries

Here are some notes for homegroup leaders on 1 John (in a Word document).

I've used:

Nathan Buttery, How to be sure: the Good Book Guide to 1 John (The Good Book Company, 2006)

and:

John Stott, Epistles of John Tyndale New Testament Commentary (IVP, 1964)

and bits of:


David Jackman, The Message of John's Letters The Bible Speaks Today Series (IVP, 1988).

I barely opened:

I Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John New International Commentary on the New Testament (Eerdmans, 1978)

and:

Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John Pillar New Testament (Eerdmans / Apollos, 2000)

Jesus the Real One

Another good moment from Stott:

... Jesus called Himself the 'true' or 'real' [ale_the_s] Bread and Vine (Jn. vi. 32, xv. 1), as opposed to the baker's bread and the farmer's vine which are shadows of which He is the substance (and not vice versa)...

on 1 John 5:20 in Epistles of John, Tyndale NT Comm., IVP, 1964, p195

The water and the blood

Toiling away on 1 John for homegroup notes.

There are various theories about what John means by “the water and the blood” in 1 John 5v6-7.

According to John Stott, Luther and Calvin took the water and the blood as references to baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Augustine saw a reference to the water and the blood that flowed from Jesus pierced side after his death (John 19:34-35).

According to John Stott, the most satisfactory reading (which goes back to Tertullian) is to take “water as referring to the baptism of Jesus, at which He was declared the Son and commissioned and empowered for his work, and blood to His death, in which His work was finished.” (p178). The false teachers John is opposing may have held that Jesus was an ordinary man on whom the “Christ” descended at his baptism and departed before the cross. John is thus insisting on the reality of the incarnation and especially of the death of the Christ.

Interpretative maximalists might like to know that Stott is somewhat sympathetic to some place for the other readings:

Having accepted that the primary reference of this verse is to the historical events of the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus, it is not impossible that it also contains secondary allusions, since the past events remain present witnesses (8). 'Water and blood', which occur together in some of the Levitical rituals, are intelligible symbols of 'purification and redemption' (Plummer). ... To these aspects of salvation [justification and sanctification] Jesus himself had referred in the discourses which John recorded in chapters iii, iv and vii ('water') and vi ('blood') of his Gospel. Perhaps John also saw them set forth once in the issue of blood and water from the side of the Crucified, and even regularly in the two sacraments. (p179)

Epistles of John, Tyndale NT Comm., IVP, 1964, pp177-179