A Prayer for 2012 (Adapted from Jonathan Edwards’ Resolutions)

A Prayer for 2012 (Adapted from Jonathan Edwards’ Resolutions)

Found this on Trevin Wax's blog and thought it was great and worth sharing.

Happy New Year

A very happy new year to all our readers. I hope 2012 is a peaceful and blessed year for you.

2011 Review of the Year

What a year of ups and downs this has been!

The year couldn't have got off to a worse start when my dad died on 1st January. Because of the need to have a postmortem exam and delays because of the Christmas and New Year backlog, his funeral didn't take place until 17th January. That period of time is a strange mixture of sharp memories of certain things and a total blur of winter days that passed so slowly while we waited for the funeral.

January was followed by a difficult February as the period of mourning continued. All this happened in the middle of our trying to start a family.

Then at the end of March we found out that Laura was pregnant and suddenly the year took on a completely different complexion as we began the nine month journey towards our baby's birth (a journey we are still on as the due date of 8th January approaches).

All this happened against the backdrop of world events in which the so-called Arab Spring swept through a number of Middle East countries as popular uprisings led to changes in governments.

The same could not be said in Scotland as the SNP was returned for the first time as a majority government at the Scottish Parliament elections in May.

In May too, the minister at our church retired and since then we have been "in vacancy". However, the number and range of good preachers that have taken services since May have been great.

In June, we took our summer holiday to our favourite cottage on the Isle of Bute. It was a good holiday although Laura's morning sickness was quite bad at that stage.

The Scottish summer wasn't great this year. I can hardly remember more than a week of hot sunny weather throughout the three months of June, July and August.

From September through to December, our main focus has been on getting ready for the new arrival. It is amazing just how much needs done around the house and how much equipment needs to be sought, reviewed, bought and assembled. But by Christmas we got there. Because there's no way to know when the bambino will decide to come, you have to be on standby all the time. That makes things exciting, but it also makes things tense, especially now we are in the last few weeks.

As far as my faith goes, it has also been an up and down year, but I feel that I have grown this year in understanding of theology and in trusting the Lord. I feel very content as we head into 2012.

Reading the Bible for Life

Are you looking for a Bible reading plan for 2012? I came across the "Reading the Bible for Life" plan today: http://www.bhpublishinggroup.com/readthebible/

What I thought was interesting was that it seeks to put the readings in roughly chronological order. If you are like me, you will always have found it tricky to work out where the prophets fit in with the Old Testament historical books, and also why the New Testament letters do not come in the order they were written.

This plan will help you get an overview of the Bible's story line by ordering the readings into a timeline and you can use it with whatever Bible translation you normally use.

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to everyone. We pray that you will know and experience the blessing of God this Christmas day and always.

I've been struck this year by this verse in Luke's Gospel that I've heard now at 2 or 3 services and bible studies during the last few weeks: "Today in the town of David a Saviour has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord."

Three titles in a single verse, each with something important to teach us about the baby born in Bethlehem whose birth we celebrate today.

Saviour - The name Jesus means "The Lord saves". And Jesus is the Saviour of the world, the one appointed by God to rescue humanity from its wickedness and stupidity. It is only by trusting in him that we can escape the punishment that we all deserve for rejecting God and failing to love either him or our neighbour as we should. The baby born in Bethlehem is therefore of supreme important to the lives of each one of us.

Messiah - The word "Messiah" in Hebrew means "the anointed one". In Greek, the same name is "Christ". This is the title of God's chosen and anointed King, foretold in the Old Testament. He would be a descendant of King David, born in Bethlehem, who would grow up to rule God's people and all the nations of the world. This is a reminder that Christianity is grounded in Jewish history and Old Testament prophecy.

Lord - The "Lord" is also the title accorded a king, but "Lord" (Adonai in Hebrew or Kurios in Greek) is also the way the personal, covenant name of God was normally referred to in Scripture. It is very likely Luke is here telling us that Jesus the Messiah is none other than Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob come to earth as a human being. As another title of Jesus says - he is Immanuel, which means "God is with us".

Putting these three things together, the birth of Jesus is about the promised King of the Jews coming to earth and revealing himself to be God incarnate, God become human flesh and blood, with the purpose of delivering and rescuing sinners, bringing them into God's kingdom, and preparing them to live for all eternity in a relationship of love with God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

No wonder we celebrate his birth with this great Christian festival year after year. No wonder we also sing with the angels:

Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those who have his goodwill (Luke 2:14).

Providence and Prayer

Providence and Prayer: How Does God Work in the World?
Terrance Tiessen
Inter-Varsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois 2000

This book on providence and prayer is great. It is one of the best Christian books I have read this year. In it, Tiessen explores various models of God's providence and how the various views have an impact on how we might view intercessory prayer.

Tiessen presents a total of eleven different models of providence. The first ten models he presents with meticulous fairness, presenting each model in as positive a light as possible (as if being presented by a proponent of the view) without negative criticism. The models presented range in a spectrum from "semi-deism" at the one extreme through to "fatalism" on the other extreme. The viewpoints explored include:

• The Semi-Deist Model
• The Process Model
• The Openness Model
• The Church Dominion Model
• The Redemptive Intervention Model
• The Molinist Model
• The Thomist Model
• The Barthian Model
• The Calvinist Model
• The Fatalist Model

One of the most interesting aspects of the book is that Tiessen presents a fictional scenario to begin with in which a man's son who is a missionary has been kidnapped with two others and is being held for ransom in a foreign country. The father then goes to his church prayer meeting and people pray for the men who have been kidnapped. Each chapter ends with how a person holding to each of the models of providence might pray in the circumstances in line with what each model teaches.

Towards the end of the book, Tiessen changes approach from a neutral presentation of facts to a more polemical approach favouring an eleventh model of providence which is his own preferred choice. Tiessen calls this view "Middle Knowledge Calvinism" (hereafter "MKC"). MKC is an attractive model somewhere between Molinism and Calvinism.

MKC differs sharply from Molinism because it rejects libertarian free will and accepts compatibilist free will - that we have a free will to make choices voluntarily, but not independently of our own desires, characteristics, circumstances, etc. Because God can influence these things, he is able to achieve his plans and purposes through the free choices of human beings without using anything like force or coercion. In effect, God has an infallible ability to influence us to do what he wants through doing what we want.

MKC is basically a form of infralapsarian Calvinism. The only difference being that in Tiessen's MKC, God does not need to positively foreordain everything in order to foreknow it will happen. Because he has middle knowledge of everything a free creature would do in any set of circumstances in any one of an infinite number of possible worlds, God merely has to choose to realise or "actualise" the particular world in which what human beings do what he wants to fulfil his purposes. God's will is then perfectly carried out while human beings act perfectly freely in the world God chose to actualise. The difference in Tiessen's view from standard Calvinist models is that MKC gives a much greater place to God's permission of events to achieve his purposes. If God knows what creatures would do in particular circumstances, all God has to do is create this particular world in which those circumstances arise to render certain future events without having to directly control them or even cause them. Due to middle knowledge, much of what happens in history only has to be left to happen because it is foreknown, though God is still free to intervene or display his power in direct action whenever he wishes to do so.

It seems to me that MKC is an excellent model of God's providence that preserves the biblical teachings on God's sovereignty and on human responsibility and freedom. Tiessen's view combines the sound aspects of several different models of providence. Although basically Calvinist, it also incorporates the key idea of middle knowledge from Molinism, and the concept from Open Theism that God's emotional responses to events are real and not merely anthropomorphisms.

Tiessen's book concludes with a chapter on how MKC offers a useful background to a sound doctrine of prayer.

Though not an easy read in that it deals with some of the most complex issues in theology, Providence and Prayer is not a technically difficult book. The chapters are all well-written and clearly explain the ideas involved in each model presented. It deserves to be better known that it is. It is a classic treatment of the doctrines of providence and prayer.

Understanding Advent

I don't think I've ever understood the waiting for the birth of a baby through the advent season as well as I do this year. As we wait for the birth of our son due on 8 January, I really felt a fresh insight into what Mary and Joseph experienced in those months, weeks and days before Jesus was born.

Of course there is a lot of emotion and sentiment in this as we have a unique "study guide" to advent in our lives this year, but this is something that will stay with me forever.

When you see a pregnancy close up, I can't help but think it gives some kind of extra insight into the mystery of the incarnation itself. The creator of the world really did come to us through the wonder of a pregnancy, the trauma of a birth, and the helplessness of a new born baby.

A Short Guide to Just War

On Remembrance Sunday when the nation remembers the War dead in two world wars and in post-war conflicts since 1945, I thought I would outline briefly why I think the concept of "Just War" (or Bellum iustum) is an acceptable ethical position for Christians to take, as opposed to outright pacifism that regards all military action as an evil to always be avoided no matter what the circumstances are.

The first thing to say is that for followers of Jesus, war is never an inherently good thing - it is always an evil, even though sometimes it may be the best choice and thereby an excusable one.

The way of Christ is the way of love and peace. The Christian ethic is to love our enemies, not wage war against them. And there are no exceptions. We are to love all our enemies, just as God loves all his enemies. So war is never good, it is always evil. And it is always a failure of politics and a sign of broken human relationships. There is never "glory" in war, only regret and sadness that "it came to this."

Now, this must be set alongside a second important point. This world is fallen in sin and imperfect. All human beings are fallen in sin and imperfect, and so all governments and nations are by extension fallen in sin and imperfect. This state of affairs means that sometimes we only have the choice between two courses of action that in themselves are evils. And in this situation, we should choose the lesser of two evils. This seems to me to be a pragmatic necessity in a fallen world. In such circumstances, the lesser evil is ethically excusable.

Just War theory is a particular application of this principle. It recognises that there are occasions when war is the lesser of two evils and it can be justified where it prevents a greater evil from taking place or where it will lead to greater evils being prevented.

Just War theory is often thought of as a Christian theory, which of course it is in one sense as many Christian thinkers have taught versions of Just War theory. However, its origins go back further than Christianity to Ancient Rome and philosophers such as Cicero. And it has also been advocated as a theory by non-Christian philosophers like Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill.

There are two main parts to Just War theory: Ius ad bellum - the right to go to war and Ius in bello - the right conduct of war. Some theorists have also added a third category: Ius post bellum - right actions after war is ended. They can be briefly outlined as follows.

Ius ad bellum – the right to go to war

1. Just cause: There must be a just reason for the war. War is never justified simply to punish a nation, or to gain territory or for economic gain. There must either be danger of great loss of innocent life or gross violations of basic human rights.

2. Comparative justice: There are always rights and wrongs on both sides of a conflict, but war can only be justified when the injustice suffered by one party is significantly greater than on the other side.

3. Competent authority: Only properly constituted governments or authorities can wage war.

4. Right intention: Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose, not as a pretext to implement other intentions.

5. Probability of success: War should not be waged for a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success.

6. Last resort: Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical.

7. Proportionality: The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the ius in bello principle of proportionality in how the war is conducted.


Ius in bello – right conduct in war

Once war has begun, Just War theory also has a bearing on how a conflict should be fought.

1. Distinction: We must distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. And acts of war should only be directed towards enemy combatants. Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of distinction.

2. Proportionality: Just War conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. An attack cannot be launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.

3. Military Necessity: Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction.

4. Fair Treatment of Prisoners of War: Enemy combatants who surrendered or who are captured no longer pose a threat. It is therefore wrong to torture them, mistreat them or kill them.

5. No use of means malum in se: Soldiers may not use weapons or other methods of warfare which are simply considered as always evil in themselves. Examples would be mass rape, forcing soldiers to fight against their own side or using weapons whose effects cannot be controlled.

Ius post bellum – right post-war conduct

1. Just cause for termination: War should be terminated when there has been a reasonable vindication of the rights that were violated in the first place, and if the aggressor is willing to negotiate the terms of surrender. These terms of surrender include a formal apology, compensations, war crimes trials and perhaps rehabilitation. Alternatively, a state may end a war if it becomes clear that any just goals of the war cannot be reached at all or cannot be reached without using excessive force.

2. Right intention: War should only continue until war aims are reached. Revenge is not permitted. The victor state must also be willing to apply the same level of objectivity and investigation into any war crimes its armed forces may have committed.

3. Public declaration and authority: The terms of peace must be made by a legitimate authority, and the terms must be accepted by a legitimate authority.

4. Discrimination: The victors must differentiate between political and military leaders, combatants and civilians. Punishment should be limited to those directly responsible for the conflict.

5. Proportionality: Any terms of surrender must be proportional to the rights that were initially violated. Draconian measures, crusades and any attempt at denying the surrendered country the right to participate in the world community would not be permitted.

Conclusions

It is clear from these criteria that a war started, conducted and concluded in a completely just manner is a rare thing indeed in history and there have often been wrongs and excesses on all sides in historical and modern conflicts. It is also clear that while a conflict such as the Second World War was a "just war" overall (in that Nazism, Fascism and Japanese Militarism surely had to be stopped), there were parts of the conduct of the war that were not right.

Finally, I think it is important to distinguish between approving of a war or its conduct and supporting those who fought in it. Whatever view we take of military conflict we have to love and care for those who have served in the armed forces, and on this day, everyone should remember those who gave their lives that we might live in freedom.

God in the Shadows

God in the Shadows
Brian Morley
Christian Focus Publications 2006

This book is subtitled "Evil in God's World" and is a good overall textbook on what theologians and philosophers call "the problem of evil". This treatment of the subject is written from an evangelical Christian perspective.

The problem of evil can be stated quite simply in this question: How can it be that there is evil in the world created by a all-good and all-powerful God? The problem being, so philosophers state, that if God can stop evil but doesn't then he isn't wholly good, yet if God cannot stop evil but would, then he isn't all-powerful.

Brian Morley's book looks at this issue and these presuppositions and subjects them to biblical and theological examination.

The book begins with looking at what Morley - and Christian theism generally - would say are wrong answers to the problem which include:

1. There is no God
2. There is no real evil
3. God is not really all-powerful
4. God is not really all-good

He then examines a number of answers that have been put forward to show that there are reasons why an all-good and all-powerful God might nevertheless permit evil to exist in the world he created. These include the following arguments:

1. The free will defence - God gives human beings real choices. We are not mere robots or actors who don't realise we are acting out a pre-written play. As soon as freedom is given to a moral creature, it is possible to choose evil instead of good.

2. That suffering is used to build character - in other words, that there are ways in which our character can be shaped through the suffering we go through. For example, suffering the grief of losing someone close to us might give us the empathy, sympathy and compassion to help other people who are grieving in ways that wouldn't be the same if we hadn't gone through it. I don't think this is a strong argument as it doesn't really explain why there is suffering in the first place; rather it is an argument for how some good can come out of evil, but for me that's a different point.

3. The justice defence - that the world is sinful and we are all sinners. Sometimes, "evil" or suffering comes to us in response to our own actions. On some occasions, the link is natural: if we do harmful things to ourselves like over drinking, taking drugs or smoking, for example, then there is a price to pay for this. If our health suffers as a result, such suffering should be expected. Sometimes the link is moral: although it is unpopular to say it, Morley doesn't shy away from saying that sometimes bad things happen to bad people. Finally, there are times when there is no link and a person suffers who has "done nothing to deserve it." However, in a fallen world where sin has consequences, there is often what military theorists would call "collateral damage". Morley points out the Bible has a different understanding of responsibility to our western philosophical ideas. Sometimes there must be corporate responsibility and individuals suffer because of the sins of a nation or a society.

There are a number of other chapters dealing with subjects such as illness, war, poverty, etc. And there is a useful chapter on looking at the world from the eternal viewpoint of heaven and hell to come (putting suffering now in perspective).

I thought this was an excellent book addressing some of the most difficult theological and pastoral problems. Definitely recommended.

Anti-Abortion and Pro Death Penalty

According to an online article by N. T. Wright: "You can't reconcile being pro-life on abortion and pro-death on the death penalty."

This is in many ways a typically pithy Tom Wright remark. Unfortunately, it is absurd. Maybe Wright cannot reconcile it in his mind, but I can't see anything inherently illogical about affirming both. What he seems to leave out of the equation is justice. He puts an absolute value on life so that it is wrong to take life no matter what the circumstances. Presumably Wright is a pacifist who would also oppose all military action or war no matter what the reason for it? Otherwise I would say: "Wright can't reconcile being pro-life on abortion and the death penalty and pro-death on just war."

The Bible takes a different view and I would argue a more realistic view. The biblical teaching, it seems to me, can fully reconcile opposing abortion (with exceptions such as where the mother's life is physically in danger or where the pregnancy has been caused by rape) and supporting the death penalty for murder. The first opposes the deliberate taking of a baby's life that does not deserve to die; the latter supports the judicial taking of life in just punishment for having taken another person's life.

Now, that's not to say I would support re-introduction of the death penalty in the UK at this time. In our current system I wouldn't. We would need far greater safeguards than we have before I think the death penalty could be sanctioned (such as the death penalty for perjury where the false evidence results in someone being executed and the need for two witnesses before the death penalty would be justified).

I know many Christians and others take different views on these matters. That's okay. But it does no good to overreach ourselves in argument as Wright does from time to time. It's quite possible to argue against abortion and against the death penalty - that's fine. But it's not illogical to argue differently in the two different cases. On this one, Wright is simply wrong.