Lighten up your church

I must admit that I was skeptical about our recent church lighting project. I could see well enough and it cost an awful lot of money that I thought perhaps could be used better for preaching the gospel.

Having said that, however, I was very pleasently surprised by the results. The church building seems much lighter! It's given things a much more friendly, lively, welcoming, vibrant feel, I think. Looking back, I'd say the church was a bit dark and gloomy before - even perhaps a little oppressive in contrast to the new - but I'd not especially noticed it then.

The lights are dimmable and more flexible now.

There are noticable spotlights on the table, the font and the pulpit. Worth thinking about whether you want these and what messages they might send. It's perhaps especially odd for us to have the font super-illuminated when we never use it!

The new lighter light does show up the need for a spring clean (in the inacessible heights) and a lick of paint though....

Sacred space and time

As there is sacred time in the New Covenant (the Christian sabbath, the Lord's Day), does it also make sense to think there is sacred space? I ask this question from complete ignorance, but don't sciencey boffins kinda tell us that space and time go together?

Clearly the Lord Jesus has transformed sacred space. His body (physical and ecclesial) is the Temple. Jerusalem is no longer a holy city in a holy land. Church meetings can take place anywhere.

I guess we could all agree that heaven is a sacred space. And we pray that earth will become like heaven. Heaven will one day come down to earth.

This is actually a question about holiness. In the Old Covenant there are degrees of holiness from unclean, clean / common, right up to holy of holies.

Jesus has saved and cleansed the world. The world has in some way taken over from the promised land. All space is clean. Is all space holy? Are some places more holy than others?

Similarly, Jesus declared all foods clean - though the Supper remains a holy food.

Thinking allowed.

To ask the whole question again, all the sacred space stuff in the OT, only applicable to Jesus?
Does anyone know of any good stuff to read on sacred space (especially from a Reformed perspective)?

Sacrifice and Altars in OT and Lord's Supper

We need to say often and loudly that the Lord's Supper is not a meritorious or propitiatory sacrifice. But I'm inclined to think that there might be sacrifice-ish things about it. Anglicans are committed to saying with the Prayer Book that the Supper is a sacrifice of thanks and praise.

James B. Jordan argues that:

The word "sacrifice" (zabhahh) is used only for communion meals in the Hebrew Bible. Hence it does not mean "sacred slaughter" per se, but "slaughter to prepare a sacred meal."

Foootnote:

Unfortunately, in English the word "sacrifice" is also used for all the ritual "nearbringings" (qorbanim) of the Levitical system. Thus, we speak of the "sacrificial system" and of the "five basic sacrifices." In Hebrew, however, the verb "sacrifice" is only used of the animal sacrifice to provide a communion meal - in the Levitical system this is the Peace Sacrifice - and is never used in connection with any of the others. In Hebrew, one never "sacrifices" a "burnt offering" or a "meal offering" or a "sin offering," etc., though "sacrifice" can be used to cover the entire process if one of these is linked with a Peace Sacrifice (See Ex. 20:24 and 24:5).

This is why the early Church, and some traditional churches, call the Lord's Supper a sacrifice, because it is a communion meal with God. Similarly, since altar means "place of communion," the Church's table is often called an "altar." In terms of Hebrew usage, this is entirely appropriate.

Back to the main text:

Accordingly, the related word "altar", mizbeahh, means "place of communion," not "place of slaughter." Communion, not slaughter, is the idea common to all altars, including the incense altar and the symbolic altar of Joshua 22.

The Case for Covenant Communion, p52 - bold emphasis added

Interpreting metaphors (and covenants): continuity and discontinuity

Miss Clarke's discussion of the interpretation of the poetry of the Song of Songs has provoked me to blog this:

Rev'd Dr Peter Leithart is discussing 'Sacramental Hermeneutics and the Ceremonies of Israel', arguing that Old Testament "ceremonial laws" (though the category is clumsy) play a part in regulating the ceremonial life of the New Testament church, with both continuity and discontinuity. Such an approach requires us to be "able to pick out those features of the two ceremonies [of Old and New Testaments] which are common" to both. He continues:

As stated, it appears to be a mystical and well-nigh impossible undertaking, but we perform similar operations all the time. We know, for instance, that Solomon's similie comparing his beloved's eyes to "doves behind your veil" (Song of Songs 4:1) does not mean a) the woman's eyes are feathery, b) the woman's eyes are pure white, c) the woman's eyes are equipped with small claws, d) the woman's eyes can fly, e) the woman's eyes each have two dark eyes of their own, f) the woman's eyes have a beak, or any of a hundred other possible analogies. How do we know this? It is difficult to say, but we do. And it is eaqually difficult to say exactly what the analogy is in this case: how are a woman's eyes like doves? That question has no straightforward or simple answer, but that does not make the comparison nonensical. Discovering appropriate analogies between baptism and circumcision, Passover and Eucharist, is much easier. The point is that we navigate through similie and metaphor and analogy every day, without a second thought.

in The Case for Covenant Communion (Athanasius Press, 2006) p117

Blessing Inanimate Objects

I must admit to a certain nervousness about the idea of blessing inanimate objects, but this from Bishop Ray R. Sutton gave me pause for thought:

St. Paul speaks of the "cup of blessing which we bless." [1 Cor 10:16] Note that an inanimate object, a "cup of blessing," is blessed. This was the biblical argument against the Puritans by the Anglicans for the Scriptural allowance of blessing things as well as people. The blessed cup of blessing in some way was therefore set apart for use by God to apply His grace. In this sense, the sacrament becomes a means of grace. God is not trapped in a material object, but He clearly associates His presence with it such that it is a blessing used by Him to convey grace.

in Gregg Strawbridge (ed.), The Case for Covenant Communion (Monroe LA, Athanasius Press, 2006), footnote 5, p72

Even if you want to say that Paul is using a figure of speech, you'd have to conclude that talk of blessing a cup is a legitimate manner of speaking.

The Resurrection Sabbath

The Resurrection Sabbath that we celebrate is not identical to the Exodus Sabbath of the Old Covenant. That Sabbath, with its ceremonies and sacrifices, died with Christ and rose again on the first day of the week as the Lord’s Day of the New Covenant.

Bruce A. Ray, Celebrating the Sabbath: Finding Rest on a Restless World (P&R, 2000) p94

Work, play & worship

As some unknown observer has described modern America, “We worship our work, we work at our play, and we play at our worship.”

Bruce A. Ray, Celebrating the Sabbath: Finding Rest on a Restless World (P&R, 2000) pp4-5

Planet Narnia

Having just watched The Narnia Code on BBC i player I'm very interested in reading Planet Narnia. I'd not heard of The Discarded Image before either, which might be well worth a look.

Some notes on the Holy Spirit

Like Father and Son, the Spirit is a divine person, God the Holy Spirit. The Spirit should always be called “He” not “it” since He is personal. The Spirit is not some impersonal force, like electricity.

The word “holy” means special or set apart. The Holy Spirit is unique and as God is set apart from all evil and sin.

The Spirit’s primary work is to draw us to Christ and to glorify Him (Jn 16:14). We are united to Christ in the Spirit. Indeed, the Spirit is called the Spirit of Christ (Rm 8:9; 1 Pt 1:11).

Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Mt 1:20), was filled with and empowered by the Spirit (Lk 4:1, 14, 18) and offered himself to God on the cross through the Spirit (Heb 9:14). After he ascended into heaven, Christ sent his Spirit to his people.

Jesus calls the Spirit another counselor / advocate / comforter / helper (lit. one who is called alongside, like a defense lawyer) to the disciples (John 14:16, 26; 15:26). It is as if Jesus was their counselor in his earthly ministry and in his bodily absence, the Spirit takes his place as another counselor (although of course Jesus is with his disciples always Mt 28:20 – by the Spirit?).

The Holy Spirit convicts us of sin (John 16:7-11).

Believers are given new life by the Spirit (cf. Ez 37:1-14).

The Holy Spirit is a deposit or down payment (a kind of first installment) guaranteeing our salvation (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:14).

The Spirit assures us that we are children of God (Rm 8:16).

The Spirit is the author of Scripture. The Bible is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16). The word for “breath” or wind is the same word for “Spirit” in both the Hebrew of the Old Testament and the Greek of the New Testament.

We should pray for the Spirit’s help when reading the Word he has caused to be written.

All Christians are indwelt by the Spirit (Rom 8:9). Though we should go on being filled with the Spirit (Eph 5:18) we should not expect a second stage “Baptism in the Holy Spirit” as if there are two grades of Christians, Spirit-filled Christians and Spirit-less Christians.

Christ gives gifts of the Spirit to the church (1 Cor 12:1-11; Eph 4:11-16). It is good for us to consider what our gifts might be and try to use them for the common good (1 Cor 12:7). But the key is serving others, not focusing on being fulfilled by using our gifts. If there are needs and opportunities we might sometimes serve in areas where we don’t feel particularly gifted. Perhaps having a go at something will show us that we might have gifts we didn’t think we had. Sometimes others might see gifts in us we didn’t recognize ourselves.

The gifts of the Spirit are of course controversial. Bible-believing Christians disagree about them.

It seems in the Bible that the gift of “tongues”, or “languages”, is the supernatural ability to speak in foreign human languages that one has not learnt (Acts 2:4-12; 1 Cor 14:10-11, 21, quoting Is 28:11; with the “tongues of angels” in 1 Cor 13:1 not referring to the gift of tongues but seen as a rhetorical flourish describing eloquence). The Bible is clear that tongues should not be used in church unless there is an interpretation / translation and then only in an orderly manner, one speaker at a time (1 Cor 14:27-28).

Some have argued that there are two levels of prophecy in the Bible: Old Testament infallible “thus says the LORD” prophecy and a less authoritative New Testament prophecy along “I think the Lord might be saying to us…” lines. But it is hard to find this distinction in the Bible. The Bible warns against the terrible sin of false prophecy, where someone claims to say something that God does not say.

Many Bible-believing Christians would argue that tongues and prophecy were foundational gifts for the church and that since the completion of the New Testament canon of Scriptures and the end of the apostolic period these gifts are no longer needed and have ceased. See further O. Palmer Robertson, The Final Word: A Biblical Response to the Case for Tongues and Prophecy Today (Banner of Truth, 1993).

The Scriptures warn us of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders (2 Thess 2:9).

Whatever we say about the Holy Spirit, he wouldn’t want us to distract from the fullness and finality of the revelation in Christ (Heb 1:1-2) or the sufficiency of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17).

The Spirit works in us to produce in us the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22), which we might sum up as Christ-likeness.

How to keep the Sabbath

In addition to defending the Sabbath nap (p541), John Frame also writes:

… it is important to keep in mind that by its very nature the Sabbath is a feast, not a fast. It is a time of abundance, not deprivation. It should be a delight, a time of play and joy.

The Doctrine of the Christian Life (P&R, 2008) p546

:)

"I've told you a million times not to exaggerate!"

Sabbath in the New Creation?

Frame suggests:

… it is likely that Sabbath observance will still be a norm for human beings even in the eternal state following the last judgment, for it is given to man as man. In that eternal state, it will celebrate continuing works of God and provide a weekly opportunity for man to consecrate to God the fruit of his labors.

In the footnote he adds:

… there seems to be no reason why the Sabbath should not continue. Most likely there will still be work for human beings to do, in finite (though glorified) bodies that continue to need rest. And I see no reason why worship in the new heavens and the new earth should not have a weekly rhythm as it does today. The Sabbath in the eternal state would also be a reminder that God’s work and man’s have a structure and meaning, whereby everything that happens is periodically consecrated to God’s glory.

The Doctrine of the Christian Life (P&R, 2008) p533

Frame on Kline

Here is John M. Frame on Meredith G. Kline:

I regard him as the most impressive biblical theologian of my lifetime, and his teaching and writing have greatly influenced my own thinking. His work is orthodox, yet often original, and it always provides us with rich analysis of Scripture. I do not, however, follow him uncritically…

The Doctrine of the Christian Life, (P&R, 2008) p520

New Sabbath

In the Old Covenant the Sabbath recalls both the creation (Ex 20:11) and the exodus (Dt 5:15). Since in the New Covenant there is both a new creation and a new exodus, it is appropriate that there is also a new Sabbath.

He bacame sin

Martin Luther said:

All the prophets did foresee in spirit, that Christ should become the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, thief, rebel, blasphemer, etc. that ever was….for he being made a sacrifice, for the sins of the whole world, is not now an innocent person and without sins….Our most merciful Father…sent his only Son into the world and laid upon him the sins of all men, saying: Be thou Peter that denier; Paul that persecutor, blasphemer and cruel oppressor; David that adulterer; that sinner which did eat the apple in Paradise; that thief which hanged on the cross; and, briefly, be thou [that] person which hath committed the sins of all men; see therefore that thou pay and satisfy for them. Here now cometh the law and saith: I find him a sinner…therefore let him die upon the cross.

(found at Galatians, ed. Philip S. Watson (London: James Clarke, 1953), 269-271; on Gal 3:13)

Meditation on Psalm 22 for Good Frisay

Athanasius called this Psalm the 5th gospel account of the crucifixion.

Here is a remarkable description of the death of the Lord Jesus about written about 1000 years before Jesus’ birth.

Listen out for the turning point in the Psalm:
It begins pitifully but it ends in praise.
God’s king is forsaken then vindicated.
Here is the pattern of cross and resurrection; suffering then glory.

How dreadful sin must be that it could do that:
that it could transform God the Son into a worm:
that the Lord of Glory should become such an object of derision

(With a debt to Revd Dr Steve Jeffrey, who is preached on this Psalm last week)

Meditation on Genesis 22 for Good Friday

This sacrifice takes place on a mountain in the land of Moriah. The only other mention in the Bible of Mount Moriah is as the site where the temple is built, on Mount Jerusalem. The place where one day the sacrifice of God the Son would take place.

Isaac climbs the hill with the wood for the sacrifice on his back, as the Lord Jesus would climb the hill of Calvary carrying his cross.

When Abraham came to sacrifice his only son whom he loved, the Lord stayed his hand. But God the Father would give his one and only Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whom he loved and would not stay his hand.

“He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all - how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?” (Romans 8:32)

What love of God for us that he would give the most precious thing he had for us:

“This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.” (1 John 4:9-10)

Abraham said: “God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering” and indeed God does provide Abraham with a ram to sacrifice in the place of his Son. Abraham called that place “The LORD will provide” and it was said, “on the mountain of the LORD it will be provided.”

Praise God that he did indeed provide the one full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice for sin. The Lord Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Meditation on Genesis 3 for Good Friday

In the Garden of Eden, the first sin brings fear of God, consciousness of nakedness, shame, curse, exile, exclusion from the blessings of God’s presence and death.

Jesus will be crucified, naked, shamed for us, facing the terror of God’s wrath. He went into the exile of death, abandoned by God, shut out from his loving presence. As Jesus was hung on a tree he bore the curse for us. He wore a crown of thorns, thorns that were a sign of the curse of sin. Jesus died the death that sin deserved, that we might live.

As Adam chose rebellion in the Garden of Eden, so the Lord Jesus, the Second Adam, chose obedience in the Garden of Gethsemane.

In the place where Jesus was crucified there was a garden. As Adam ate the forbidden fruit in the garden, so Jesus drank the cup of God’s wrath in a garden.

Jesus was placed in a tomb in a garden. Adam begins to die in a Garden, and Jesus rises to new life in a Garden.

As we face our sin, we praise the Lord Jesus for his victory, his obedience.

Already in Genesis 3, hot on the heals of the first sin, there is the promise of the Gospel. God puts enmity between the serpent, Satan, and the woman and between the serpent’s offspring and hers. The offspring of the woman will crush the serpent’s head, and the serpent will strike his heal. On the cross, Satan strikes Jesus with what appears to be a fatal blow, but Jesus crushes Satan’s head. Jesus is the long-promised serpent-crusher. Jesus’ victory is full and final. Jesus is afflicted for a time, but Satan is crushed for ever.

We thank God that his promise is fulfilled, the ancient battle is won.

From the very beginning God’s judgement is mixed with mercy. The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. As soon as Adam and Eve sin, the shedding of innocent blood is required. The Lord provided for their nakedness through a death.

We praise God that the spotless, innocent Christ has died for guilty sinners like us. We praise God that he has clothed us with the perfect righteousness of Christ – that the Father sees us united to his beloved Son with whom he is well pleased. On Good Friday, Jesus endured the terrible frown of God, that we might enjoy the Father’s smile.

(With a debt to Revd Pete Jackson's thoughts on gardens)

Rod Liddle on the C of E and Islam

In an article in the Spectator dated Tues 7^th April, Rod Liddle argues that the C of E has accommodated itself far too much to pleasing society at large and has sold out to modern liberalism, current political fashions and multiculturalism. It’s horray for the Bishop of Rochester and for the Bishop of London and boo to the Bishops of Oxford and Manchester and the ABC.

The C of E has forgotten its purpose. Why, exactly, does it exist?

Rod Liddle offers an Easter message to the leaders of the Church, who have ditched its traditions and reduced it to a sort of superannuated ad-hoc branch of social services. It has lost all sense of mission and direction. Whatever happened to muscular Christianity?

…

We do not hear very much from the Church of England about the plight of Christians, and particularly Anglicans, in hostile foreign environments. Under the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, the church does not like to make too much of a fuss about murdered priests in the Sudan, the constant fears of samizdat believers in Riyadh, the continued state persecution in Turkey, the perpetual discrimination in Indonesia and Malaysia and Bangladesh. Or about the Punjabi Christian dragged before a court in Pakistan accused of having sent a blasphemous message on his mobile phone, the Muslim hordes screaming for the death sentence outside the court. The thousands of Christians in Bauchi, Nigeria, watching their homes burned to the ground and their leaders attacked by, again, Muslim mobs. The beatings and murders in liberated — yea, praise the lord! — Afghanistan. We don’t hear much about that stuff from anyone, be it the BBC, our politicians or most notably the Church of England.

You might expect the C of E to feel at least a little bit uncomfortable that Anglicans were being strung up or burned alive in the middle east and elsewhere. But it does not seem to be an enormous issue for the prelates. The problem being that it would bring Rowan, and the church, into conflict with the very Islamists with whom they are thoroughly enjoying their important ‘inter-faith dialogues’, by which they seem to set so much store. These inter-faith dialogues have never, ever, to my knowledge, touched upon Islamic persecution of Christians: all the traffic is in the other direction, and the Church of England thinks it is all going swimmingly.

The C of E is very pleased and proud of its inter-faith dialogues — largely, I suppose, because when conducting them it always adopts a strategy of total capitulation, much as it does before any and every assault upon its ideology, be it from Islam or from the decadent depredations of modern Britain.

There may be another reason for Nazir-Ali’s Lenten undertaking, then. It may be that he is sick to the back teeth of the leadership of the Church of England. He has not said that he is, but he is a polite and affable chap apparently. But he has had this to say recently; he has lamented a ‘gradual loss of identity and cohesiveness in (British) society’ which he feels is down to the abandonment of biblical values. He thinks that we reside in a ‘values vacuum’. He has also complained that British people suffer from a ‘historical amnesia’ — by which he means that we prostrate ourselves to apologise for slavery while forgetting that we also ended slavery, while the Africans cheerfully continued with it.

We forget to celebrate our tolerance and diversity, our willingness to allow the freedom of speech and the freedom of worship. Nazir-Ali concluded by saying: ‘The church is seen simply as the religious aspect of society, there to endorse any change which politicians deem fit to impose upon the public.’ You could not get a better description of the Church of England today, I would argue. It is a church which has manipulated itself into a position whereby it can accommodate any adjustment to its own faith and ideology in order to make sure that it is in step with what it believes to be popular thinking.

…

But that is the view the Church of England, or much of it, has of itself these days. As a sort of superannuated ad-hoc branch of social services: non-judgmental, non-partisan, wholly secular, not Christian at all really, when it comes down to it.

Good Friday Poem?

I'm thinking of including a poem in our Good Friday "Hour at the Cross" service. Any suggestions?

It would be good if it was fairly accessible and not too long.

The "sermonettes" might be on Old Testament types of the cross, perhaps Gen 3:15, 21; 22; Ex 12.