What St Paul Really Said

What St Paul Really Said
by Tom Wright
Lion Publishing, 1997

I don't often re-post old stuff, but I was re-reading What St Paul Really Said by Tom Wright in the last week and thought it worth putting up the review I first did back in 2009. I have only altered the review slightly where my views have shifted since 2009 or where the wording needed changed to reflect that my first reading of the book was four years ago

--

When I first read What St Paul Really Said I was determined not to like it. In fact I was resolute that I was going to hate it, find it heretical, say so in a scathing review and then chuck it in the nearest bin. It was the first book I read by N. T. Wright, one of the world's most eminent New Testament scholars, (then) Anglican bishop and churchman and leading proponent of the so-called New Perspective on Paul.

The truth proved to be a bit different. Not quite a Damascus road experience, but I finished the book convinced that far from being the heretic that some have caricatured him as, Tom Wright has more in common with the spirit of the Reformers than some of his opponents, even if he sometimes comes to different conclusions than them. His sole concern, it seems to me, is to find out what the Scriptures say, over against any traditions, even those of evangelicalism. Of course that does not settle the question of whether he does, in fact, succeed in finding out what the Scriptures say and in showing that his view is the correct one and the more traditional interpretations of say Romans and Galatians are in error, but in reading Wright it always feels as if his heart is in the right place.

"What St Paul Really Said" is his popular-level treatment of Paul's place in Christian theology. It is an engaging read, extremely well-written and fairly easy to read though dealing with a complex subject matter in considerable depth. In fact, it is a fine example of how interesting prose by theologians should and could be.

I am not convinced by everything Wright says. In fact, I strongly disagree with some of his conclusions - he does not always give enough credit to "old perspective" theology, its emphases, and the arguments of its greatest theologians. Often Wright frames the discussion in "either/or" terms when it might just as well be framed as a "both/and" situation. Justification is not just about ecclesiology in my view - it is also about soteriology and I think Wright overplays his hand on this point. Justification is at least partly about salvation, about how a sinner can be in the right relationship (i.e. be righteous) with a holy God, not just about the fact that Gentiles should be allowed to eat with Jews as members of the one covenant people.

That's not to say that the fact that every Christian is saved on precisely the same basis should not have massive ramifications for ecclesiology and the unity of the people of God. I think Wright is on to something when he emphasises those aspects of justification that Reformed and Lutheran theology has traditionally downplayed. To put it another way, I think the Old Perspective is fundamentally right on the substantial points regarding justification, but the New Perspective has valuable insights to offer regarding the implications of the doctrine of justification for the Church's and the individual Christian's life. Our fellowship with other Christians, our being the church, our being the covenant people of God is, after all, on the basis of this justification we have all equally received through faith.

I think it was Howard Marshall who made the comment about accepting what the New Perspective affirms but having a problem with what it denies. I would certainly share that view.

This book and indeed all Wright's work demands to be read by any evangelicals serious about New Testament theology, particularly the New Perspective on Paul, because I believe there are insights here that are valuable and can be taken on board even by evangelicals who reject the central claims of the New Perspective.

For me personally, I think the central planks of the New Perspective are correct and we need to work to bring the Old and New Perspectives together rather than play them against each other. As I said, affirming what the New Perspective affirms without accepting what it denies.

What St Paul Really Said is thoroughly recommended reading for the thoughtful Christian.

The Beginning of Advent

We are now in the season of Advent, the beginning of the Christian Year. Once again we mark enter this season of looking forward to the coming of Christ in two senses. We prepare to celebrate his incarnation at Christmas when he was born as a tiny baby and we anticipate his second coming in glory to reign forever.

Earlier this year I wrote a piece on the Christian year. I decided back then that when this new year began I was going to consciously try to follow the Christian year in my own devotional life. I'm going to be using the lectionary readings as my guide as well as a couple of books: Living the Christian Year by Bobby Gross and Ancient-Future Time: Forming Spirituality Through the Christian Year by Robert Webber.

This advent my thoughts are going to focused on God's plan to bless the world through Abraham's descendants, in calling Israel to be the light of the world and the nation's failure to meet that calling, in the prophetic witness that God himself would act decisively to restore his broken creation and finally in God's sending his own Son to be the one faithful Israelite, the Messiah, who would fulfil the plan that Israel failed to fulfil, to be the prophet, priest and king that would redeem, rescue, rule and recreate the world.

I'm looking forward to the exciting spiritual journey ahead.

Some interesting links around the web 2

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2013/09/interview-with-n-t-wright-on-paul-and-the-faithfulness-of-god/

Two of my favourite New Testament scholars in conversation - Michael Bird and N. T. Wright - on Wright's forthcoming tome Paul and the Faithfulness of God.


http://www.webtruth.org/articles/calvinistic-issues-24/john-owen--double-payment-in-the-atonement-47.html

In this article, the author critiques John Owen's argument for the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement.


http://theaquilareport.com/10-reasons-why-ministry-is-not-for-the-faint-of-heart/

A pastor tells it like it is on the hard side of being a spiritual leader and preacher.


http://christopherfisher.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/countering-open-theism/

Excellent piece by Christopher Fisher on what Calvinists would have to prove in order to prove open theism to be incorrect.

What's So Amazing About Grace

What's So Amazing About Grace
Philip Yancey
Zondervan 1997

I loved this book. I really loved this book. I suppose I am very late arriving at the party as the book is more than 15 years old and is now considered something of a modern classic. I can only say the reputation is well-deserved. Reading it was like a spiritual breath of fresh air.

The first thing to say is that the book is very easy to read. It is targeted at the average Christian; in fact at the average reader. Although it deals with the some of the most important of Christian truths it does so using not only language but a way of communicating that is both easy to grasp and very engaging for any reader. Rather than detailed exegesis of biblical texts or complex theological arguments, which let's face it can be off putting for people who are not theology geeks, Yancey mostly makes his points by telling a number of stories and anedotes. But then teaching by using parables has an impeccable Christian pedigree, doesn't it?

The main point Yancey makes is that grace - that most precious and uncontaminated of Christian concepts - ought to be at the very heart of the lives of individual Christians and of churches, but too often is missing. Grace is unmerited favour. Grace is treating people better than what they deserve. It is the attitude that God shows to sinners when he offers a saving relationship with them, and it is the attitude that Christians ought to show to others inside and outside the church. Yet it is often not there. So often Christians come across as narrow-minded, judgmental, moralistic and legalistic. Yancey uses the umbrella term "ungrace" to cover these kinds of attitudes.

Every church needs to think about its atttitudes and how it actually treats people. Just throwing the word "grace" around isn't enough. Just knowing the theological technicalities of salvation by grace is not enough. What's needed is the embodiment, the very incarnation of grace in people's lives. That is how Jesus lived. His life was the ultimate life of grace. It is what his followers are called to copy.

I can't see how any Christian would fail to benefit from reading this book. Go and get yourself a copy and be prepared to be encouraged and challenged in equal measure.

Looking at Yourself

Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. (James 1:22-24)

I took a good break from blogging over the summer, partly on purpose, partly by necessity. Overall I enjoyed the summer very much, especially the time I spent with my wife and son and other family members. I had a great holiday on the Isle of Bute. I also had a couple of bad chest infections that put me into my bed and onto courses of antibiotics and having to use inhalers.

As well as these things going on, I've also felt this was a significant summer in my spiritual life as a Christian. 

One of the hardest things a person can do is take an honest look at themselves, especially when you look at yourself in the mirror of God's Word. I've always like those verses in the Epistle of James that talk about God's Word as a mirror in which we see ourselves as we really are.

It's not a comfortable thing to do. And it's probably not something that the Bible encourages us to do too often. Our "natural" position should be looking to Jesus and to those around us rather than looking inward. But it is healthy, I would suggest, to have a look at how you are doing spiritually every so often. When I do this, I always find it sobering. Even more so when the process is prompted by something someone else has said that make me really think.

This summer I've had to learn a hard lesson that sometimes I'm not as good at communicating clearly with people around me as I would have liked to think I was. I've had to go re-think some things and try to change how I approach conversations.

It's a slow and difficult to task to turn away from ingrained habits and ways of doing things - sometimes habits of a lifetime. It sometimes feels like turning around an oil tanker with a rather small rudder. But that's what the Bible means by "repentance" - it means turning around and doing things differently, even if the turning around isn't an instant 180 degree spin, but rather a slow turn towards the right direction. The important thing is the desire to change direction, not the speed of turn.

As we enter September, and in many churches programmes of activities begin again after a summer break, this is good time to have a spiritual checkup. How is your walk with God? How are things going with your friends and family? How are things looking in your church or fellowship? Is there anything God is calling on you to change in the days, weeks or months ahead?

Summer Days

Summer in the UK so far this year has been sunny and hot (which is not always the case overseas readers should note) and I haven't been blogging much. The lovely weather has seen me spend more time with my wife and son outdoors than in front of my computer. We've got to know quite a few of Glasgow's many beautiful parks this year on days out.

For a lifelong city dweller, this summer has brought me closer to nature than I can remember at any time for years, from all the spiders, flies and moths in the house from the garden to the little field mouse who ran into our living room the other night and then vanished again just as quickly. Plus there's all the trees and flowers that all look so vibrant in the sunshine.

Reflecting on all this, that God made this beautiful world and he made it to be our home, shows not only what a wonderful artist and designer he is. How write the Psalmist was when he wrote: "Great is the Lord and most worthy of praise; his greatness no one can fathom." (Psalm 145:3)

Homosexuality and Lines in the Sand (Part Two)

In my previous post I began to explore how evangelicals might respond to the General Assembly's decision to continue the path towards ordaining actively homosexual men and women into the ministry.

In this concluding post I want to continue my reflections on how we deal with those with whom we disagree regarding how to interpret the Bible.

There is a tendency in conservative evangelical circles to divide a mixed denomination like the Church of Scotland into "us" who believe in what the Bible says and "them" who don't. But if we're honest that's an oversimplification, is it not? The truth is rather more complex. Over the issue of homosexuality, those who would permit the ordination of practising homosexual ministers are actually composed of at least two broad groups.

First, there are those liberals who do not have as high a view of Scripture as evangelicals do. For them, the Bible is a testimony to God's people's experience of God down through the centuries. The Bible is therefore a fallible human document that reflects the times it was written in, but which may "contain" somewhere in it the actual Word of God, but presumably not in those parts that merely reflect the cultural background of its time. For this group, the Church is not bound by the Bible's teachings as such. This group likely regards contemporary attitudes towards homosexuality as more enlightened, more loving and dare we say more Christlike than the biblical prohibitions of the Old Testament and St Paul. I suspect that most "revisionist" supporters in the Kirk would broadly fall into this group. We could call this group the "liberal revisionists" for convenience.

But second, there is probably also a group who may have as high a view of Scripture as the Word of God as any other evangelical. This group accepts that what the Bible says is true and should be obeyed by Christians, yet rather than interpreting the biblical prohibitions as applying to all homosexual acts, they regard the Bible passages dealing with homosexual acts as merely condemning homosexual activity in certain specific contexts. For example, this group would see the Bible as condemning homosexuality connected to pagan worship and practices, as condemning homosexual rape, as condemning homosexual promiscuity, etc. Such an interpretation would leave the Bible at least silent on the question of same-sex acts within a committed, loving, consensual and monogamous context. This in turn would leave the possibility open that such relationships would not be against God's revealed will for people with a same-sex orientation. We might call this group the "evangelical revisionists" for convenience.

There is not much that can be said about the liberal revisionists. Liberals have been the majority in the Church of Scotland for probably a century or more. It would appear that there is still a liberal majority in the courts of the Kirk—certainly in the General Assembly if the recent votes are anything to go by. Like it or not, we evangelicals are in this kind of denomination and have been all our lives. We have learned to live with this group, share in what work we can, while not really being in meaningful fellowship with it.

The second group is more interesting. People in this group might believe 99% the same as any other conservative evangelical about the big issues - the authority of the Bible, about God, about Jesus, about the Holy Spirit, about sin and and about salvation. They differ from the majority on one point—they interpret the fairly scant references to homosexuality in the Bible not as general condemnations but as context-specific condemnations.

Those who believe this, in good faith, are not rejecting the Bible's teaching. They merely understand it differently than traditionalists do.

Perhaps we should not forget that the "revisionists" in one era become mainstream in another and then "traditionalists" themselves in another era. Just ask Luther and Calvin. And it was only a century and a half ago that mainstream evangelical writers defended African slavery, the subjugation of women, and openly anti-Jewish views, on the basis of biblical texts. Now, few if any mainstream evangelicals would take the same positions as Martin Luther on the Jews, Robert Lewis Dabney on slavery or Charles Hodge on women.
 
So how should we deal evangelicals in this second group, who do not interpret the Scriptures as imposing a blanket ban on homosexual acts even in the context of a same-sex marriage covenant? Conservative evangelicals differ with each other on a whole range of important issues including such important matters as:

• Spiritual Gifts
• Eschatology
• Baptism
• Communion
• Sabbath observance
• Church Government
• Women's Ordination

The list could go on to be a very long one!

We don't normally consider such matters as primary doctrines—we do not normally break fellowship over them when we disagree with other Christians.

The more evangelical revisionist position could be regarded as being on the same level as these other second order disagreements, and on that basis perhaps there can be fellowship with people holding these views. Our relationship with liberal revisionists will be different, but not because of the issue of homosexuality. Rather, the differences are over primary level doctrines and any break in fellowship should be over those primary doctrines, like denying Christ is the only way to God or that salvation is by good works.

Differences in views over Sabbath observance are directly relevant here. Those who insist on a strict Sabbath observance think the Bible is very clear on the issue—as indeed are the Presbyterian creeds—and for such people disobeying the Sabbath commandment is a clear sin issue. Those who do not believe the Sabbath commandments apply to Christians because the Sabbath is part of the Old Testament administration will do things on a Sunday that the others consider is sinful, yet they will be unrepentant about it and in fact refuse to accept it is a sin at all. Should those who accept the validity of the Sabbath laws for Christians refuse to regard those who do not as fellow Christians? After all, they are living in blatant and unrepented of sin. If the answer is no, then why should a different standard apply to those who do not regard a same-sex marriage covenant as sinful?

No doubt in the more strict parts of the Presbyterian world, a person who took a non-Sabbatarian view of the Lord's day would be barred from leadership, but I doubt that many evangelicals in the Church of Scotland would think this an issue worth leaving over. We simply agree to disagree, and each person is allowed to follow his or her own conscience in the matter.

I would like to suggest a similar approach may be possible between those who think the Bible condemns all homosexual acts in any context and those who think that such acts may be morally permissible in the limited context of a same-sex marriage covenant. The question is not whether a person agrees with you or I on every doctrinal or moral question, but whether that person loves God, trusts in Jesus Christ and seeks to follow his teachings as a disciple.

In closing, perhaps we need a timely reminder that our salvation does not rest on getting our doctrines or our ethical stances perfect. None of us are correct in all our views. We do our best to be work out what is right and trust in God to forgive us where we have gone astray. And God accepts us and loves us despite our failings. We are saved in Christ alone, by grace alone and by faith alone, not by our faith plus our views on homosexuality. And so for me, this issue is not a line in the sand.

Where do we go from here? I think those who are committed to the authority of the Bible on either side of this particular issue need to keep talking to each other. One side needs to make sure it is the Bible and not their feelings and tradition that are guiding them. The other side needs to make sure it is the Bible and not their feelings and contemporary opinion that are guiding them.

In the Church of Scotland context, we need to continue to work to guide the Church on the path we believe to be correct in dialogue with others and always showing the love of Christ to those who don't interpret the Bible the same way as us. I suggest that the single most important thing in this whole debate is that whoever wins it in the end makes their first and highest priority looking after and seeking the best for those on the other side.

Homosexuality and Lines in the Sand (Part One)

This post and the next follows in the wake of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland's decision in May to continue on the trajectory of allowing at least some congregations - where the local leadership in the Kirk Session agrees to it—to induct practising gay and lesbian ministers as parish ministers. At the same time, the Kirk is maintaining as its "default position" the traditional Christian understanding that the covenant bond between a man and a woman in marriage is the only God-ordained sphere for sexual activity and that homosexual acts are contrary to God's will and therefore sinful, exactly in the same way as all heterosexual acts outside marriage are considered sinful.

Now, many evangelicals in the Church of Scotland are more than just saddened that the Church seems to be slowly but surely drifting from traditional Christian morality in this area. For them a line in the sand has been crossed here on this issue and it is time either to leave the Kirk now as a few others have done already or at least time to start concrete preparations for leaving in a year or two.

Now, supposing that the proposal does pass all remaining stages and becomes the Kirk's position. What then? What if the Kirk continues to adhere to the historic Christian position but allows individual congregations to depart from it if their conscience will permit it? Should that be an automatic trigger for everyone who disagrees with them to walk out of the Church of Scotland?

There are a couple of thoughts I would suggest we reflect on, in answer to this question, before we jump to any conclusions.

The first thing to point out, as I did in my letter to the Herald newspaper on 23 May, is that there is nothing fundamentally new revealed in this decision about the theological spectrum of views in the Kirk. It is misleading for people to talk about lines in the sand here. Evangelicals and liberals have co-existed in the Church of Scotland despite deep differences in their views on both doctrinal and ethical matters for a long, long time. There are liberal ministers and certainly members in the Kirk today (I think I am fairly safe in suggesting) who would deny such fundamental doctrines as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the deity of Christ, the Trinity as traditionally understood, the reality of sin, Satan or hell; there are those who teach salvation by good works and outright universalism (that all are saved), while others teach that all religions lead to God and many deny that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, and so on and so on. In effect, there are people in the Church of Scotland right now, in membership, in leadership and in ministry who have views that evangelicals would spend our lives opposing with our very lifeblood.

Yet, evangelicals have never seen fit to walk away from the Kirk despite such views being tolerated within the Church of Scotland. We have separated ourselves and our congregations from such false teaching, while remaining within the organisation. Why then is the issue of homosexuality considered such a fundamental thing that it should be the line in the sand when outright heresies have been tolerated (and sometimes more than tolerated) within the Kirk for many years?

I have yet to see a satisfying answer to that most basic question. I have to say that if denominational separation from error or heresy is always right, then even if the traditional view of sexual sin had been upheld at the Assembly, no one who takes that line should have been able to remain, in good conscience, within the Kirk anyway. There are ministers who deny even the most basic tenets of the Christian faith according to Paul himself - that Jesus is Lord and God raised him from the dead. If anyone can remain in a denomination where people can deny that without facing church discipline and removal from office, why then would the fact someone is gay or lesbian in leadership tip the balance towards separation? Compared to denying the resurrection, homosexual acts are small matters in biblical terms. We need to keep things in proportion.

Or perhaps it is merely because this would be an instance of the Church officially taking a position we would disagree with, whereas much of the liberal teaching is "swept under the carpet" of the "liberty of opinion" clause in the ordination vows? Perhaps, but that argument does not really wash. The Kirk's official positions on a number of points are also biblically questionable, for example the Kirk's official position on the nature of the Bible is hardly a ringing endorsement of evangelical Protestant doctrine! The Church has officially adopted non-evangelical positions on a number of issues over the years.

So we are then left with the impression that it is people's gut reaction to this issue that leads them to see it as such a big deal. If we can tolerate resurrection deniers in leadership but not gays, that tells us something about us and it's not a pretty picture.

All that has really happened is that two groups who disagree over what the Bible is have now found that disagreement surfacing over the question of the morality of same-sex sexual activity. The bigger disagreement was already there and both sides have lived with it for a century or more. Evangelicals believe the Bible is the Word of God written. Liberals, to a greater or lesser extent, believe the Word of God is only somewhere "contained" within the Bible. These two positions on the Bible have now been applied to the morality of homosexual acts within committed homosexual relationships and come to different conclusions.

If we walk away over this, we must do so in repentance for our own sin and the sins of our fathers and grandfathers in the faith who stayed within the liberal Kirk all these years and fought their corner, for if it is right to go now, then it was never right to be there in the first place—at least not in the last 100 years or so.

We have to tread very carefully here or it will merely look as if our true motivations are homophobic rather than theological or biblical.

(To be continued)

Pentecost

Today the Christian church celebrated Pentecost (also known as Whitsunday). The day celebrates the coming of the Holy Spirit upon Christian believers in power as recorded in Acts 2. Jesus promised that when he went away he would then send another "helper" (John 14:16).

The word used by Jesus was "paraclete" which is a rich word, difficult to translate by one English word. It means a helper, a comforter, a counsellor, a guide, an advocate, an encourager, an interceder, an uplifter. The meaning of the Greek word parakletos implies that the one helping and so forth gets right alongside the person being helped or comforted. It implies an intimate, close relationship. In the case of the Holy Spirit's relationship with the Christian believer, he could not be closer to us, for the Holy Spirit dwells inside every Christian (1 Corinthians 6:19; 2 Timothy 1:14).

As I sat in church this morning, seeing a wide variety of nationalities present in the service, I couldn't help but imagine the impact of the apostles speaking in foreign languages and being understood by various nations, undoing the events of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) and signalling that God's Spirit and God's Word were now about to go out into all the earth to draw people to the Saviour.

And I gave thanks to God the Holy Spirit for coming like a rushing wind to Scotland over a thousand years ago. May the Holy Spirit come in power upon the Church of Scotland General Assembly this week for what will be a difficult and costly debate no matter what the Assembly decides. We all need his help, guidance and encouragement as much today as ever.

Ascension Day

We never fail to mark Christmas, Good Friday and Easter as Christians, but how many of us forget about the fourth leg of Christ's amazing salvation journey? Today is Ascension Day, when the church marks the fact that 40 days after his resurrection, Christ "ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty" (in the words of the Apostles' Creed). The event is recorded both in Luke's Gospel and in Acts.

The Ascension matters for a number of reasons including

1. It signals the end of his earthly ministry and his physical departure from this world. God the Father had lovingly sent His Son into the world at Bethlehem, and now the Son was returning to the Father.

2. It signified the ultimate success and complete triumph of his earthly work. All that he had come to do, he had accomplished.

3. It marked the return of his heavenly glory. Jesus' glory had been veiled during his sojourn on earth, with one brief exception at the transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-9) but now he is revealed in all his cosmic glory.

4. It symbolises his exaltation by the Father (Ephesians 1:20-23). The Son with whom the Father is well pleased (Matthew 17:5) was received up in honour and given a name above all names (Philippians 2:9).

5. It allowed him to prepare a place for us (John 14:2).

6. It indicates the beginning of a new work as High Priest making intercession for us (Hebrews 4:14-16) and being the Mediator of the New Covenant (Hebrews 9:15).

7. It allowed him to send the Holy Spirit on his disciples (which happened 10 days later at Pentecost) as he promised. (Acts 2).

So let's celebrate the ascension of the Lord Jesus today.

The Christian Year

Why follow the Christian Year?

Recently I have been thinking on the benefits of following the Christian year in our churches. In the evangelical tradition I am part of the emphasis has traditionally been placed on systematic expository preaching through books (or sections of books) of the Bible, Sunday-by-Sunday, with little emphasis given to the Christian calendar except for Christmas and Easter.

Some have argued that there is no biblical justification for following a set pattern of festivals throughout the year marking the significant events of Jesus' life, death and resurrection or significant milestones in the life of the Church. Two things might be said in reply to this. First, there is biblical justification for marking significant events in the story of the people of God by special days and festivals because that is exactly what God commanded Israel to do in the Old Testament and the for the very same reason: so they would not forget their story as a people. There seems to me to be a good case to be made for taking this biblical principle and applying it to the story of God's people in the New Testament, though since the New Testament is not explicit about this, there must be liberty of opinion allowed in this matter. Never again should there be shameful days when one part of the Church would persecute another part of the Church because one part would or would not observe significant days in the Christian calendar. Second though, to those evangelical brothers and sisters who are suspicious of the Christian year and favour systematic expository preaching Sunday by Sunday, the point needs to be made that it is no more commanded in the Bible that we preach through whole books of the Bible or sections of larger books week by week than it is that we follow the Christian seasons in the traditional church calendar. Both are ways of organising the teaching schedule for the church; neither is laid down in Scripture as the right way.

Yet beyond these negative reasons for not prohibiting following the Christian year I think there are also a number of positive reasons why churches might consider following at least the basic pattern of the Christian year. In doing so we are following a rich tradition that has at least the wisdom of many generations of believers behind it. Let's look at a few of the arguments.

First, if we follow the Christian year there is a natural and welcome tendency to focus directly on the life and teachings of Jesus and the key events in the life of Christ's people, the Church. The Christian year is basically marked by reference to the key events in the life of Christ: his birth, his death, his resurrection and his ascension, the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost and the birth of the community of believers. Following the Christian year keeps Jesus and his life and teachings centre stage in our thinking. This is not always the case when pursuing a long series of expository sermons from the Old Testament or on other themes chosen by an individual minister or pastor.

Second, following the Christian year is a demonstration of the unity we share with Christians from many different churches and theological traditions. The Christian year can be a tool to remind us that we are part of a worldwide family and it fosters a sense of unity to be thinking of similar themes throughout the year with a large number of other believers. It gives us a sense that the whole church is sharing in worship together at particular times of the year. This is especially the case if the church is using a lectionary for readings shared across denominations.

Third, following the Christian year gives a pattern to our worship through the year and from year to year. For many people there is great comfort and spiritual benefit in the cycle of observing the great festivals of Christmas and Easter which focus on the two great truths of Christianity - that God became incarnate and came to earth in the man Jesus of Nazareth and that through his sacrificial death and rising from the dead he is shown to be the Lord and Saviour of the world.

Having grown up in a church which did tend to follow the basic pattern of the traditional year, with the addition of other "set days" like Mothering Sunday, Harvest Thanksgiving, Remembrance Sunday and Christian Aid Week I find it difficult at times to now be in a fellowship where such things are either totally ignored or perhaps briefly mentioned to the children but do not often form the backdrop to the sermon.

Perhaps this just means I am more of a traditionalist than I thought. There is benefit to working systematically through "the whole counsel of God". All Scripture is God-breathed and so all Scripture should be read and preached through in church services. That's agreed. But it should be possible to combine systematic expository preaching with marking the significant days in the Christian year. This is particularly the case if a church has two services on a Sunday, where different patterns could be used for morning and evening worship.

What is the Christian Year?

The Christian year begins in late November or early December with Advent and then runs through to twelve months, ending with Christ the King Sunday just before the beginning of the following advent. The seasons and significant days are shown in the following picture:

Advent

In the Christian year, "New Year's Day" is Advent Sunday, which is always fourth Sunday before Christmas and so it can occur be the last Sunday in November or the first Sunday in December. The season of advent follows, which focuses on waiting for the coming of the Messiah, whether that be his first coming as a baby or his second coming as Lord of glory

Christmas

Advent ends on Christmas Eve and then comes the Christmas season or Christmastide, the twelve days of Christmas, beginning on 25th December with Christmas Day and running through the (secular) new year to the evening of 5th January ("Twelfth Night"). This joyful time marks the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem and the coming of "the Saviour, who is Christ the Lord." (Luke 2:11). Christmas Day is, along with Easter, one of the two greatest days of the Christian year. The Christmas period either includes one or two Sundays depending on what day of the week Christmas Day falls.

Epiphany

After Christmastide comes Epiphany on 6th January. The word "epiphany" comes from the Greek and means "manifestation" or "significant appearing". This festival celebrates the revelation of God in the person of Jesus Christ and particularly the fact that God came to earth for all the nations of the world. This was shown in visit of the Wise Men recorded in Matthew 2 which is usually the focus of Epiphany Bible readings. In some churches epiphany is celebrated on the nearest Sunday to the 6th January instead of on the 6th.

Ordinary Time
 
The Sunday after Epiphany is usually used to mark the Baptism of Jesus and the beginning of his public ministry. This jump from his birth to his baptism is in line with the same jump found in the Gospel narratives. The period after this is the first period of so-called "Ordinary Time" in the Christian year. "Ordinary" in this sense has the same root as "ordinal" and means "counted" period. This period of Ordinary time lasts until Shrove Tuesday and can include anywhere from three to eight Sundays depending on when Easter falls in a given year. In terms of the secular calendar, this period occurs from January to either February or March. The teaching during this period usually focuses on Christ's earthly ministry and his teachings in parables.The last day of Ordinary Time is Shrove Tuesday.

Lent

Lent is a period of forty days between Ash Wednesday and the Saturday before Easter (although there are actually 46 days between Ash Wednesday and Easter, the six Sundays are not part of Lent). Lent is a period of re-dedication to God and solemn preparation for Easter through prayer, repentance, self-denial and giving to the poor and needy. The teaching focus during Lent is on Christ's life of dedication to his Father's will and his sacrificial giving of himself on the cross. The forty day period is reminiscent of Israel's 40 year wandering in the wilderness and Christ's 40 days of fasting and temptation in the desert. Many Christians will give up certain luxuries as a token of self-denial and reliance on God (often giving the money that would have been spent to charities working with the poor).

Passiontide and Holy Week

The last two weeks of the Lent period is known as Passiontide and Passion Sunday (the fifth Sunday of Lent) traditionally focuses on the atonement made by Christ on the cross. Passion here refers to Christ's sufferings on behalf of believers.

The final week of Lent is usually known as Holy Week. Beginning on Palm Sunday when Christ's triumphal entry into Jerusalem at the beginning of his last week on earth is commemorated. The following days of Holy Week tie in with the events recorded in the Gospels during this week. The week comes to a climax on Maundy Thursday, the day that Christ celebrated the Last Supper with his disciples and then Good Friday itself which commemorates Christ's crucifixion. Holy Week ends with the Saturday during which Christ was dead and buried in the tomb.
 
Easter

Easter Day is the most important day of the Christian year. It is the Sunday when the whole church celebrates the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The dates of most Christian days and seasons are determined in relation to Easter which is a "movable feast" meaning its date varies from year to year. The date of Easter itself is determined by a very complicated method relating to the full moon near the vernal equinox, but it can be any date from 22 March through to 25 April. This means that in the Northern Hemisphere, Easter comes during the spring season when the land changes from the death of winter and new life comes to the world, which makes a striking backdrop to the new life that comes through Christ.

Easter Day marks the beginning of the Eastertide period or "Great Fifty Days" that run from Easter Day through to Pentecost or Whitsunday. Eastertide is a fifty day celebration of the resurrection. The period corresponds to the fifty days in the Gospels and Acts between Christ's resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It includes Ascension Day which is always on a Thursday, exactly 40 days after Easter.

The teaching themes in this period typically focus on Christ's resurrection and ascension and the implication of these great truths for the people of God.

Pentecost

Pentecost (which means "Fiftieth Day" in Greek as it occurs fifty days or seven weeks after Easter). Pentecost is also known as Whitsunday. It is the day when the church celebrates the coming of the Holy Spirit. Pentecost always occurs in May or June.

Ordinary Time and Kingdomtide

The second period of Ordinary Time begins the day after Pentecost in May or June and runs right through to the day before Advent Sunday in late November or early December.

The first Sunday of this period, a week after Pentecost, is called Trinity Sunday and the church's teaching focuses on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, that the one true God exists as three persons. Other significant dates within this period include All Saints' Day on 1st November, which, in Protestant terms, marks the unity between all Christians (who are all "saints") and the bond between the church militant on earth and the church triumphant in heaven, and Christ the King Sunday which is the last Sunday of the Christian year and focuses on Christ's lordship over his church and the world.

In some parts of the church, the second half of the Ordinary Time period, from the Sunday nearest 31st August through to Christ the King Sunday is known as Kingdomtide and focuses on the concept of the Kingdom of God and the reign of Christ on earth and heaven with all that is implied by that for the world in spiritual, missional and political terms including the need for social justice in the world. Although Kingdomtide is not commonly observed now as a distinct period, I think there is good reason for reviving this season in the church calendar.

As well as these traditional church days and seasons, many churches also observe a number of other annual events and festivals. Among these would typically be in the UK a focus on international aid during Christian Aid Week in May, Harvest Thanksgiving in September or October, Remembrance Sunday in November. Some Protestant churches also have Bible Sunday on the last Sunday in October or perhaps they may mark the beginning of the Protestant Reformation on 31st October.

Ethics in a Permissive Society

Ethics in a Permissive Society
William Barclay
Collins, Fontana Books 1971

I first read William Barclay's little book on Christian ethics when I was a student in the early 1990s. I found a copy in the University library and remember reading it one rainy afternoon. The book was about 20 years old at that point and despite the dated title (the "permissive society" was a term used in the 1960s as shorthand for the huge changes in social, political and moral norms that were taking place in the UK at that time) it still read as an interesting book on Christian ethics. Now the book is over 40 years old and it still reads well as a vision of practical Christian ethics and paints a picture of the good society built on the Christian ethic of loving your neighbour that many of us would like to see.

The book originated in a series of public lectures (the Baird Lectures) that were televised on BBC. That in itself is a sign of how old the book is. Can you imagine a professor of divinity's lectures on Christian ethics being televised on BBC these days? Unfortunately I could find no trace of the broadcasts online but if anyone knows where these can be found, please put a link on a comment!

Barclay was a popular Christian figure during his lifetime. His books and commentaries are still widely read today. Barclay was a liberal Christian and there would be parts of his teachings (denial of miracles etc.) that I would strongly disagree with, but this book on ethics sticks quite closely to lines of biblical thought. Barclay's writing style is easy to read and marked by a welcome clarity and wisdom.

The first three chapters of the book sketch out some of the main ethical teachings of the Old Testament, Jesus and Paul respectively. Then Barclay explains and critiques the then popular ethical notion of "situation ethics" where there are no absolute rights and wrongs, it depends on the situation. From this platform, Barclay then explores a Christian view of work, pleasure, money and community in subsequent chapters and ends the book with a chapter on "Person to Person Ethics".

I found the chapters on the ethics of work and of pleasure the most useful. You don't often see "pleasure" being discussed in Christian ethics books but Barclay's practical approach is very wise and useful. Barclay sums up the view he defends like this:

In life there must be pleasure, and the ideal pleasure is that which is harmless to the person who indulges in it and to all other people, which brings help to him who practices it and happiness to others.

I don't think many Christians would disagree with that.

I also found it interesting that on ethical matters at least, a man who was a prominent liberal in the Church of Scotland 40 years ago would now likely be regarded as holding to very conservative evangelical ethical views. Whatever his other views, I think Barclay is to be commended for his honesty and integrity here. As the Church of Scotland prepares to debate the issue of homosexuality once again at this year's General Assembly in a few weeks, perhaps some might reflect on the words of Barclay's ethical views. Though discussing heterosexual sex outside marriage (I think Barclay would have taken it for granted that homosexual activity is wrong and it would certainly be included in the "sex outside of marriage" that he criticises), his words have a relevance for the forthcoming debate that is hard to miss:

If we support sexual intercourse before marriage or outside marriage, then I do not see how we can continue to call ourselves Christian, for a man cannot be a Christian and flatly contradict the teaching of Jesus Christ. It is one thing honestly to say that we will abandon the demands of Christian morality; it is quite another thing to abandon them and to deceive ourselves into thinking that we are still keeping them.

The book is long out of print but you may be able to find a second hand copy, often at a very low price. It would be a worthwhile purchase even for the chapters on work and pleasure alone, but there is much else here in a short book worth reflecting on.

William Barclay on the Importance of Games and Sport to Church Life

"In the new world, in which the time after work matters so much, the church must become the centre of the community. Of course, a church is a place where men praise and pray, but a church should be far more than that; the church should be the place to which men turn to find the satisfaction of every honest need in life. It is one of the great truths that the better we know a person the more deeply and truly we can worship with him. We can pray best with the man with whom we have played best. The man beside us in church should not be a holy stranger but a living friend."

– William Barclay, Ethics in a Permissive Society (1970)

The Death of Margaret Thatcher

Like most Scots, I have always been politically opposed to Margaret Thatcher and the brand of conservatism that bears her name. She was the prime minister during a large part of my childhood, from I was still at primary school through till my first year at university. In Glasgow and the west of Scotland it was difficult to miss the immense social damage that Thatcherism did to ordinary working-class people, their jobs and their communities.

I don't disagree with everything the Thatcher government did, particularly the defence of the Falkland Islands and the islanders who have always been and always want to be British, not Argentines. And maybe a lot of what happened in terms of failing industries would have happened anyway, but that doesn't remove the hurt that the free market policies she introduced - essentially "the Market is king and to hell with the social cost" - were implemented with such apparent glee and lack of compassion. While her social policies may have their roots in her Methodist upbringing, the harsh monetarist economic policies her government pursued seem to me to owe more to social Darwinism (survival of the fittest) than Christianity (love thy neighbour).

It is hard to forgive the redistribution of wealth from the poorer to the richer as income tax rates were cut while VAT rates were increased. The final straw was the unjust Poll Tax under which a millionaire and his cleaner were both to pay the same amount in local taxation.

So do I mourn her? I could only mourn her as a politician and prime minister. I never knew her any other way. As a person she is a complete stranger to me. I mourn her no more than any other elderly woman's passing I might read about in the death notices. But will I mourn her in the terms in which I did know her? No I won't. The divisive manner in which she governed the country was a blessing only when that government left office. I see no reason to mark her passing as if a national heroine had died. A private funeral, like every other prime minister who has died since Churchill, would have been a much wiser and more healing event than the bloated spectacle being held tomorrow.

The Freedom and Responsibility of the Press

Make no mistake about it: freedom of speech and freedom of the press are fundamental rights in a democratic society. They do matter and they do need protected. And perhaps they need protected most of all from governments. But saying that I do not believe the brouhaha stirred up by the Press this week over plans to introduce a framework of press regulation is anything other than a deeply cynical attempt to protect business interests of papers that peddle scurrilous gossip as news.

Near apocalyptic headlines about the end of press freedom have screamed out from bastions of freedom such as The Sun and The Daily Mail all week long but it just won't wash. The truth is that the tabloid press in this country have operated for years as if freedom of the press means them being above the law. The whole phone tapping scandal is merely the most obvious example of this kind of gutter journalism.

It's a cliche, but it's true: with freedom must go responsibility. Far too often the press has acted with no responsibility and with unfettered licence rather than dignified liberty.

Something needs to be done. I am not sure the proposed scheme is the right thing however. What I would do is even more radical perhaps but expensive and so unlikely to see the light of day. But if we did it, we would retain full press freedom and get rid of the need for a Press Regulator (Censor?). It's simply this - change the law so that individuals pursuing a newspaper or magazine for libel or defamation actions are eligible for civil legal aid. As well as damages, the courts should also have powers to issue orders regarding press apologies, corrections, etc. At the moment only the very rich can afford to sue in such case and I've never thought that was right. Imagine if only the rich could get justice for physical assaults? Why should it be that assaults on character are only protected for the rich and famous?

A Mother's Day Interview on the BBC

Just in time for Mother's Day, my disabled wife, Laura was featured in an interview with the BBC that is on today's BBC Scotland News. As well as the article, there is also a link to a podcast where Laura got the chance to speak in some depth about what it's like to be a mother who uses a wheelchair.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ouch/2013/03/im_a_crawling_mummy_how_one_di.html

Welcome to 2013

A belated happy new year to all my readers.

As we enter another year we enter into the unknown. We don't know what the year ahead will have in store for us in terms of joys and sorrows, hopes and fears, successes and regrets, gains and losses.

One thing I do know though. I would rather go through all these things with Christ as my companion than go through them on my own.

Hebrews 13:8 says: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."

I pray that you will follow him this year and always as your Saviour and Lord.