As the blog has morphed and been renamed a few times in the ten years I've been writing, I thought it might be interesting to re-post some of my favourite pieces from years gone by over the next few weeks.
My stats show that few people go back to read old posts and so this might bring some stuff I've written to a new audience.
I'll try to keep the "repeats" to a minimum, unlike the BBC!
Monday, 25 May 2015
Friday, 17 April 2015
The Time for Thinking is Over?
At the beginning of the great documentary series of the 1970s, The World at War the narrator, Laurence Olivier, intones as we watch how the Nazi Party rose to power in Germany that "the time for thinking is over."
These words came into my mind as I read Alex Massie's article in The Spectator this week about how the SNP has replaced the Church of Scotland as the dominant voice of "being Scottish" in Scotland today. I'm not sure how correct Massie is in his "replacement theology" but he does hit on one truth – that for many people Scottish independence and the Scottish nationalism that seeks it is now a quasi-religious faith rather than a matter of rational thought for many of its followers.
Independence becomes heaven, unionists are heretics opposed to the true faith, the way to salvation is by faith in the SNP alone and they are the sole guardians of the Nation's eternal life. Outside the SNP, for many, there is no salvation. Any facts which suggest that independence may not be heavenly bliss or that there are other paths to heaven can be dismissed as lies of the devil. Any SNP speaker in any debate is automatically the winner because of who they are and what they stand for rather than what they actually say.
Now let me be clear that I am not comparing the modern SNP with the Nazis, though there were historic links between Scottish nationalists and European fascists in the 1930s and 1940s. Clearly that would be as absurd as comparing the Labour Party to the Soviet Communist Party because both are socialist parties.
What is comparable though, because I would argue it is inherent in all nationalism, is the elevation of emotion over reason, the Romantic idea of the Nation as "sacred" community, often accompanied by the idea of hidden power within the Nation which needs to be liberated from an imagined oppressor who is blame for suppressing this hidden strength, and who needs to be removed in order for the Nation to flourish.
This is why the SNP often speaks as if it is Scotland and the Scottish people and to be against the SNP is to be against Scotland. I genuinely believe it is not about arrogance; it's just the inevitable mindset of nationalism: the interests of nationalists and the Nation are indivisible and inseparable even conceptually. This is how nationalists genuinely think.
Admittedly, this is not the case for every SNP supporter. For many independence is viewed as a rational choice to achieve a better society and I totally respect that. I genuinely believe that folk in this category would support unionism if they believed it would lead to a better society (as I do). But that is far from being the case for everyone. For many (and this includes the SNP leadership), from what I have observed in the past six months, independence is a matter of faith rather than reason, a matter of the heart not the head. Such people want independence no matter what the consequences. Echoing the words of Milton's Satan in Paradise Lost, they would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven.
The opinion polls point towards the SNP gaining anywhere from 30–50 out of 59 seats at the General Election. The nationalist faith is in the ascendancy. For many Scots – too many I fear – it seems the time for thinking is over once again.
These words came into my mind as I read Alex Massie's article in The Spectator this week about how the SNP has replaced the Church of Scotland as the dominant voice of "being Scottish" in Scotland today. I'm not sure how correct Massie is in his "replacement theology" but he does hit on one truth – that for many people Scottish independence and the Scottish nationalism that seeks it is now a quasi-religious faith rather than a matter of rational thought for many of its followers.
Independence becomes heaven, unionists are heretics opposed to the true faith, the way to salvation is by faith in the SNP alone and they are the sole guardians of the Nation's eternal life. Outside the SNP, for many, there is no salvation. Any facts which suggest that independence may not be heavenly bliss or that there are other paths to heaven can be dismissed as lies of the devil. Any SNP speaker in any debate is automatically the winner because of who they are and what they stand for rather than what they actually say.
Now let me be clear that I am not comparing the modern SNP with the Nazis, though there were historic links between Scottish nationalists and European fascists in the 1930s and 1940s. Clearly that would be as absurd as comparing the Labour Party to the Soviet Communist Party because both are socialist parties.
What is comparable though, because I would argue it is inherent in all nationalism, is the elevation of emotion over reason, the Romantic idea of the Nation as "sacred" community, often accompanied by the idea of hidden power within the Nation which needs to be liberated from an imagined oppressor who is blame for suppressing this hidden strength, and who needs to be removed in order for the Nation to flourish.
This is why the SNP often speaks as if it is Scotland and the Scottish people and to be against the SNP is to be against Scotland. I genuinely believe it is not about arrogance; it's just the inevitable mindset of nationalism: the interests of nationalists and the Nation are indivisible and inseparable even conceptually. This is how nationalists genuinely think.
Admittedly, this is not the case for every SNP supporter. For many independence is viewed as a rational choice to achieve a better society and I totally respect that. I genuinely believe that folk in this category would support unionism if they believed it would lead to a better society (as I do). But that is far from being the case for everyone. For many (and this includes the SNP leadership), from what I have observed in the past six months, independence is a matter of faith rather than reason, a matter of the heart not the head. Such people want independence no matter what the consequences. Echoing the words of Milton's Satan in Paradise Lost, they would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven.
The opinion polls point towards the SNP gaining anywhere from 30–50 out of 59 seats at the General Election. The nationalist faith is in the ascendancy. For many Scots – too many I fear – it seems the time for thinking is over once again.
Monday, 13 April 2015
The Resurrection Body
I heard an excellent sermon yesterday on the resurrection body (based on 1 Corinthians 15:35–58) by our minister, Jonathan de Groot. You will soon be able to find it on our church's website here.
It might come as a surprise to some people that the Christian teaching on life after death is NOT that we go to heaven forever as disembodied spirits or that we end up us angels, complete with white robes, halos and dove-like wings, but that we will ultimately have bodies again. New, improved, unfailing, perfect bodies fit to live in a new, improved, unfailing and perfect world, yet still the world: a physical reality, not just a spiritual one.
While most Christians do believe that the faithful do go straight to heaven when we die and enter God's presence there, that is not our ultimate destination or state of being. As N. T. Wright has put it memorably, Christians believe in "life after life after death." The final chapter of the Christian's story is not our soul going to heaven, but the resurrection of our bodies to spend eternity in a renewed heaven and earth where there is no separation between the two places, where God and humanity live together in love and peace forever.
And it is important, I think, to note that this is not some "extreme" position nor is it the "party line" of any one tradition or denomination within the church. It is a central truth, arguably one of the defining truths of the Christian faith contra almost every other faith and world view, which is why we find it expressed in the ancient creeds, accepted by all Christians. In the Apostles' Creed, we confess "I believe in...the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting."
The passage in 1 Corinthians 15 says this is exactly what we are to believe as Christians. One day we will be raised to a new kind of life, with a new kind of body, just like Jesus Christ was raised at Easter. In that sense, he was the first fruits, the pioneer, of what will one day happen to every believer - resurrection in a new physical and spiritual body.
One thing Jonathan didn't mention in his sermon particularly was what these new resurrection bodies will be like. He did mention, following Paul's words, that they will be glorious, sinless, incorruptible, imperishable and perfect. But what will they look like and what will we be able to do with them that we cannot do in our current earthly bodies?
While much of this remains a mystery, the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus give us some idea of what our resurrection bodies will be like.
1. Recognisably the Same
The first thing to note is that whatever our new bodies will be like they will still be recognisably us. They are new but they are not completely different from what we were before. His disciples could still tell even after the resurrection that the risen Jesus was still Jesus. He still had the holes from the nails in his hands and feet. Thomas could still touch him. He was still a physical being, who cooked meals and ate food with other people. He was still a human being of substance, not a ghost or spirit.
2. Undoubtedly Different
Yet although he was still recognisably Jesus, the risen Christ was also a very different human being. His face would seem to have been somehow different from it had been - the disciples on the Emmaus road did not recognise him when they first saw him - yet not completely different. Maybe after the resurrection Jesus became somehow "ageless"? But there were other differences as well. He was able to enter into a locked room without opening the doors. He was apparently able to move at superhuman speed between different locations. And he seems to have been able to disappear from view when he wanted to.
Taking these two aspects of the risen Jesus' body it seems reasonable to conclude that after the resurrection we too will remain ourselves, rather than becoming something completely different. We will have our own personalities and memories intact and though our physical appearance will be changed, other people will still recognise us. Yet at the same time, we will have many of the limitations that are currently part of our physicality removed. In short, we will be perfected, super versions of ourselves, the best of what we are now combined with everything we will need to be to inherit and inhabit the new earth in eternity.
It sounds unimaginable, even as I write about these things. But we have God's word assuring us it is the truth, and we have the risen Jesus showing us the truth. And what would I say to someone who claims this is all too good to be true and couldn't possibly happen? I'd say: tell that to a beautiful butterfly who was once a wriggly green hairy caterpillar.
It might come as a surprise to some people that the Christian teaching on life after death is NOT that we go to heaven forever as disembodied spirits or that we end up us angels, complete with white robes, halos and dove-like wings, but that we will ultimately have bodies again. New, improved, unfailing, perfect bodies fit to live in a new, improved, unfailing and perfect world, yet still the world: a physical reality, not just a spiritual one.
While most Christians do believe that the faithful do go straight to heaven when we die and enter God's presence there, that is not our ultimate destination or state of being. As N. T. Wright has put it memorably, Christians believe in "life after life after death." The final chapter of the Christian's story is not our soul going to heaven, but the resurrection of our bodies to spend eternity in a renewed heaven and earth where there is no separation between the two places, where God and humanity live together in love and peace forever.
And it is important, I think, to note that this is not some "extreme" position nor is it the "party line" of any one tradition or denomination within the church. It is a central truth, arguably one of the defining truths of the Christian faith contra almost every other faith and world view, which is why we find it expressed in the ancient creeds, accepted by all Christians. In the Apostles' Creed, we confess "I believe in...the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting."
The passage in 1 Corinthians 15 says this is exactly what we are to believe as Christians. One day we will be raised to a new kind of life, with a new kind of body, just like Jesus Christ was raised at Easter. In that sense, he was the first fruits, the pioneer, of what will one day happen to every believer - resurrection in a new physical and spiritual body.
One thing Jonathan didn't mention in his sermon particularly was what these new resurrection bodies will be like. He did mention, following Paul's words, that they will be glorious, sinless, incorruptible, imperishable and perfect. But what will they look like and what will we be able to do with them that we cannot do in our current earthly bodies?
While much of this remains a mystery, the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus give us some idea of what our resurrection bodies will be like.
1. Recognisably the Same
The first thing to note is that whatever our new bodies will be like they will still be recognisably us. They are new but they are not completely different from what we were before. His disciples could still tell even after the resurrection that the risen Jesus was still Jesus. He still had the holes from the nails in his hands and feet. Thomas could still touch him. He was still a physical being, who cooked meals and ate food with other people. He was still a human being of substance, not a ghost or spirit.
2. Undoubtedly Different
Yet although he was still recognisably Jesus, the risen Christ was also a very different human being. His face would seem to have been somehow different from it had been - the disciples on the Emmaus road did not recognise him when they first saw him - yet not completely different. Maybe after the resurrection Jesus became somehow "ageless"? But there were other differences as well. He was able to enter into a locked room without opening the doors. He was apparently able to move at superhuman speed between different locations. And he seems to have been able to disappear from view when he wanted to.
Taking these two aspects of the risen Jesus' body it seems reasonable to conclude that after the resurrection we too will remain ourselves, rather than becoming something completely different. We will have our own personalities and memories intact and though our physical appearance will be changed, other people will still recognise us. Yet at the same time, we will have many of the limitations that are currently part of our physicality removed. In short, we will be perfected, super versions of ourselves, the best of what we are now combined with everything we will need to be to inherit and inhabit the new earth in eternity.
It sounds unimaginable, even as I write about these things. But we have God's word assuring us it is the truth, and we have the risen Jesus showing us the truth. And what would I say to someone who claims this is all too good to be true and couldn't possibly happen? I'd say: tell that to a beautiful butterfly who was once a wriggly green hairy caterpillar.
Friday, 2 January 2015
Happy 2015
Happy new year to all my readers.
2014 was a difficult year for me in some ways. I seemed to be always catching colds and stomach bugs. I don't think I had a whole month in 2014 without being ill at some point. I went to my doctor to talk it over and he said I shouldn't be too worried about it. It's just sometimes you get a run of things, especially when you're the dad to a two-year old who is always picking up bugs from his friends in play groups and mother and toddler groups.
I'm hoping things will improve in 2015 on that front.
At church, we have much to look forward to in the coming year. For one thing, we are enjoying having a new minister at our church after a vacancy that lasted more than three years. Jonathan de Groot has really hit the ground running at Sandyford Henderson. I've heard many people commenting on how much they have enjoyed his preaching since he took up post in November. We're all looking forward to hearing his new ideas for taking the church forward in 2015 under the Lord's guidance.
On the political front, having got through the Referendum in 2014 we can now focus on normal politics again with the UK general election due to take place in just five months' time in May. It promises to be a very difficult election to predict. At the moment, the most likely result is likely to be a hung parliament with a significant increase in SNP MPs and UKIP MPs likely at the expense of all the main UK parties. However, we need to remember Harold Wilson's famous adage that "a week is a long time in politics." Five months is an eternity and things could look very different come the spring than they do now.
Whatever the year holds in store for us, I wish you every blessing for happiness, prosperity and peace.
2014 was a difficult year for me in some ways. I seemed to be always catching colds and stomach bugs. I don't think I had a whole month in 2014 without being ill at some point. I went to my doctor to talk it over and he said I shouldn't be too worried about it. It's just sometimes you get a run of things, especially when you're the dad to a two-year old who is always picking up bugs from his friends in play groups and mother and toddler groups.
I'm hoping things will improve in 2015 on that front.
At church, we have much to look forward to in the coming year. For one thing, we are enjoying having a new minister at our church after a vacancy that lasted more than three years. Jonathan de Groot has really hit the ground running at Sandyford Henderson. I've heard many people commenting on how much they have enjoyed his preaching since he took up post in November. We're all looking forward to hearing his new ideas for taking the church forward in 2015 under the Lord's guidance.
On the political front, having got through the Referendum in 2014 we can now focus on normal politics again with the UK general election due to take place in just five months' time in May. It promises to be a very difficult election to predict. At the moment, the most likely result is likely to be a hung parliament with a significant increase in SNP MPs and UKIP MPs likely at the expense of all the main UK parties. However, we need to remember Harold Wilson's famous adage that "a week is a long time in politics." Five months is an eternity and things could look very different come the spring than they do now.
Whatever the year holds in store for us, I wish you every blessing for happiness, prosperity and peace.
Friday, 12 December 2014
The James Bond Gospel
I don't know if you like Bond movies? They used to be a staple on British television over the festive period, though maybe not so much these days. The plot in most of the Bond films is quite straightforward. For me, Goldfinger is
the archetypal Bond film and most subsequent Bond films use the same
basic plot. An evil genius has a plan to take over the world and James
Bond has to stop him (or her? though I don't think there has been a
female Bond villain yet).
This plot line is actually a pale reflection of the reality of what the Bible tells us has happened to the world. An evil super-villain, a spiritual being called the devil or Satan, rebelled against God at some point before human beings came into existence. Later, when the first human beings were created, he schemed successfully to lead them into rebellion against God as well and give up their position of God's stewards and viceroys over creation to come instead under his evil influence, control and ownership as slaves of sin. Satan's work was like unleashing a terrible virus into the atmosphere that would then infect and poison the whole of creation.
Something is wrong with the world and with us. Deep down we know it. All human beings are "not quite right." We're not the people we feel we should be. Often we're not the people we even want to be ourselves. The Bible tells us we're right to feel that way. We're not imagining it. And the Bible calls the thing that's wrong with us is a deadly disease called "sin."
Sin is like a virus that infects and affects every part of us - our bodies, our brains, our hearts - and all their functions including our thoughts and our feelings. It is a disease that is, humanly speaking, incurable, and it only has one prognosis - death. In biblical terms, "death" is not just physically dying, but an eternal state of "un-life." Not only that, the symptoms of this disease ravage our behaviour and manifests as pride, cruelty, anger, hatred, lust, envy and many other utterly horrible human traits. All the particular evils trace their origin back to the disease of sin that has infected humanity, and we every single one of us catches the disease from birth. It is inevitable for everyone born into this world that they will be infected, even if there is a latency period during childhood before the disease goes "full blown".
Another horrible aspect of the disease is that it is completely debilitating. We are paralysed by sin. Unable to find a cure. Unable to even want to be cured.
That's the position we all find ourselves in. That's the way the world has always been right from the earliest period of human history.
The story of the Old Testament in the Bible is largely about God calling on one nation, Israel, to be the people through whom the disease of sin would be dealt with and through whom the world would be put right. It is also the story of how that people failed again and again in their mission, finding out that they themselves were infected with the same disease as all the other nations.
The New Testament tells the story of how God came to earth himself, which it turns out had always been the plan, in the person of his Son, his "second self" who was born and lived as a faithful Israelite called Jesus of Nazareth. He showed the character and the wisdom of God, and then in his death he took on himself the entire disease, to rid the world of it once and for all, thereby defeating the Evil Mastermind who was behind it all. He rose from the dead so that not only would the disease have no more power over him, but that the cure he had created and the immunity from it he had gained could be passed on to everyone who wants it for themselves. Not only that, but once we are given the medicine, the power of the disease is broken and we start the long process of recovering from the effects of the disease, knowing that one day we will be totally free of it and able to live forever, even though our body goes through death.
So how do you receive the cure? It's very simple. You trust in Jesus to save you and ask him come into your life and cure you. When you ask him, he will do it. Then you become his friend and stay in a loving friendship with him forever, getting to know him, learning to see what a life without the disease looks like and trying to copying him in your life. You'll also find that there's a great crowd of people who have also been saved and now live in a new kingdom. The group is called the church, which means "the gathered ones." The church gets together to thank Jesus, meet his Father who is now our Father too, and to be energised by his Spirit to live as we should and deep down really want to live. Among other things, we continue to work to help other victims of the disease in practical ways in this world and spread the good news that there is a cure available for everyone.
This plot line is actually a pale reflection of the reality of what the Bible tells us has happened to the world. An evil super-villain, a spiritual being called the devil or Satan, rebelled against God at some point before human beings came into existence. Later, when the first human beings were created, he schemed successfully to lead them into rebellion against God as well and give up their position of God's stewards and viceroys over creation to come instead under his evil influence, control and ownership as slaves of sin. Satan's work was like unleashing a terrible virus into the atmosphere that would then infect and poison the whole of creation.
Something is wrong with the world and with us. Deep down we know it. All human beings are "not quite right." We're not the people we feel we should be. Often we're not the people we even want to be ourselves. The Bible tells us we're right to feel that way. We're not imagining it. And the Bible calls the thing that's wrong with us is a deadly disease called "sin."
Sin is like a virus that infects and affects every part of us - our bodies, our brains, our hearts - and all their functions including our thoughts and our feelings. It is a disease that is, humanly speaking, incurable, and it only has one prognosis - death. In biblical terms, "death" is not just physically dying, but an eternal state of "un-life." Not only that, the symptoms of this disease ravage our behaviour and manifests as pride, cruelty, anger, hatred, lust, envy and many other utterly horrible human traits. All the particular evils trace their origin back to the disease of sin that has infected humanity, and we every single one of us catches the disease from birth. It is inevitable for everyone born into this world that they will be infected, even if there is a latency period during childhood before the disease goes "full blown".
Another horrible aspect of the disease is that it is completely debilitating. We are paralysed by sin. Unable to find a cure. Unable to even want to be cured.
That's the position we all find ourselves in. That's the way the world has always been right from the earliest period of human history.
The story of the Old Testament in the Bible is largely about God calling on one nation, Israel, to be the people through whom the disease of sin would be dealt with and through whom the world would be put right. It is also the story of how that people failed again and again in their mission, finding out that they themselves were infected with the same disease as all the other nations.
The New Testament tells the story of how God came to earth himself, which it turns out had always been the plan, in the person of his Son, his "second self" who was born and lived as a faithful Israelite called Jesus of Nazareth. He showed the character and the wisdom of God, and then in his death he took on himself the entire disease, to rid the world of it once and for all, thereby defeating the Evil Mastermind who was behind it all. He rose from the dead so that not only would the disease have no more power over him, but that the cure he had created and the immunity from it he had gained could be passed on to everyone who wants it for themselves. Not only that, but once we are given the medicine, the power of the disease is broken and we start the long process of recovering from the effects of the disease, knowing that one day we will be totally free of it and able to live forever, even though our body goes through death.
So how do you receive the cure? It's very simple. You trust in Jesus to save you and ask him come into your life and cure you. When you ask him, he will do it. Then you become his friend and stay in a loving friendship with him forever, getting to know him, learning to see what a life without the disease looks like and trying to copying him in your life. You'll also find that there's a great crowd of people who have also been saved and now live in a new kingdom. The group is called the church, which means "the gathered ones." The church gets together to thank Jesus, meet his Father who is now our Father too, and to be energised by his Spirit to live as we should and deep down really want to live. Among other things, we continue to work to help other victims of the disease in practical ways in this world and spread the good news that there is a cure available for everyone.
Wednesday, 19 November 2014
The Gospel and the Message of Salvation
You would think that one of the simplest questions that any evangelical Christian would be able to answer is this: What is the gospel?
After all, isn't that the very defining aspect of everyone who identifies himself or herself as an evangelical, that they are committed to the evangel, the gospel?
A number of scholars have pointed out that what evangelicals usually call "the gospel" is not quite the same as what the biblical writers meant by "gospel". Examples of this would include N. T. Wright and Scot McKnight among others. Evangelicals tend to think that the gospel is exactly the same thing as the message of salvation – a step-by-step guide for how sinners can be forgiven, find peace with God and start a new life – but these scholars distinguish between what is specifically meant by "the gospel" itself in the New Testament and the message of salvation which is always one of the New Testament's great implications of the gospel. But the call to trust and follow Jesus in order to find salvation is not the "gospel" itself as narrowly and specifically defined in the New Testament.
The gospel or good news is the proclamation or announcement of a fact, the fact that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the King of Israel, died for our sins and has risen from the dead to be the rightful the Lord and Saviour of the world. The gospel is in fact the story of Jesus which shows that he is the King and Saviour of the world.
The message of salvation is obviously closely linked with the gospel, but not identical to it. The message of salvation for us flows out of the story-fact that Jesus came to earth as Saviour and Lord.
The salvation message is that no one is right with God as they are, everyone needs Jesus to save them because he is the King and Saviour of the world, and Jesus is willing to save anyone who comes to him. The gospel or good news is the proclamation of who Jesus is and what he has done. Both parts are important because it is only because of who he is that he could do what he did and it is only because of what he did as well as who he is that his gospel can then become our gospel – good news for people like you and I who are not right with God and need salvation.
After all, isn't that the very defining aspect of everyone who identifies himself or herself as an evangelical, that they are committed to the evangel, the gospel?
A number of scholars have pointed out that what evangelicals usually call "the gospel" is not quite the same as what the biblical writers meant by "gospel". Examples of this would include N. T. Wright and Scot McKnight among others. Evangelicals tend to think that the gospel is exactly the same thing as the message of salvation – a step-by-step guide for how sinners can be forgiven, find peace with God and start a new life – but these scholars distinguish between what is specifically meant by "the gospel" itself in the New Testament and the message of salvation which is always one of the New Testament's great implications of the gospel. But the call to trust and follow Jesus in order to find salvation is not the "gospel" itself as narrowly and specifically defined in the New Testament.
The gospel or good news is the proclamation or announcement of a fact, the fact that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the King of Israel, died for our sins and has risen from the dead to be the rightful the Lord and Saviour of the world. The gospel is in fact the story of Jesus which shows that he is the King and Saviour of the world.
The message of salvation is obviously closely linked with the gospel, but not identical to it. The message of salvation for us flows out of the story-fact that Jesus came to earth as Saviour and Lord.
The salvation message is that no one is right with God as they are, everyone needs Jesus to save them because he is the King and Saviour of the world, and Jesus is willing to save anyone who comes to him. The gospel or good news is the proclamation of who Jesus is and what he has done. Both parts are important because it is only because of who he is that he could do what he did and it is only because of what he did as well as who he is that his gospel can then become our gospel – good news for people like you and I who are not right with God and need salvation.
Friday, 18 July 2014
A Political Phase
I haven't been blogging much in the last couple of months. One of the reasons for this is that I haven't been that well. I've had quite a few colds and then hay fever, the odd chest infection, and most recently I got a molar tooth out and its been infected and sore as well. I'm hoping to have a better second half of the year than I have in the first half healthwise.
The other reason I haven't been blogging much is because I've been reading more. I've always been interested in politics and current affairs and have been reading some more political books. I have always believed there is a strong link between faith and politics. I suppose I wanted to test out what I believed about politics and how I saw the gospel impacting on political views. I read material from across the political spectrum from right wing Thatcherites and Neoconservatives through Liberal, Socialist and Marxist thinkers.
In the end, having tried to see what is good and bad in all systems I came back to pretty close to where I started - I'm in the Centre of the political spectrum on most issues. My wife summed up my views more succinctly than I ever could myself. She said something like "You think that to be a really Right-wing conservative is incompatible with the gospel." I guess that is so.
There are a few political opinion tests and questionnaires I found useful online. If you want to think about your political views and where you stand, check out the following websites.
http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/
http://www.politicalcompass.org/index
http://uk.isidewith.com/political-quiz
Monday, 9 June 2014
Pentecost 2014
Yesterday was a remarkable Pentecost in Sandyford Henderson Memorial Church in Glasgow.
I have only been present once before at a service where a congregation was hearing and then deciding whether to choose a new minister and then I was only a boy.
Yesterday, Sandyford Henderson heard Rev Jonathan de Groot preach as sole nominee. The atmosphere in the service was electric and the sense of the Holy Spirit's presence was almost palpable.
I am happy to go on record as saying that during the whole service I felt very strongly that the sole nominee was indeed the person God wanted for our congregation, and afterwards speaking to a few others, I wasn't alone in this.
The fact that the vote after the service, by secret ballot, was unanimous in favour of Jonathan's election as our new minister is testimony, I think, to the true unity that only the Holy Spirit can bring to the body of Christ.
There are a number of procedural hurdles to cross in both presbyteries, but God willing, we will have a new minister at Sandyford by late summer/early autumn and the long vacancy, which has lasted since Easter 2011, will be over.
I have only been present once before at a service where a congregation was hearing and then deciding whether to choose a new minister and then I was only a boy.
Yesterday, Sandyford Henderson heard Rev Jonathan de Groot preach as sole nominee. The atmosphere in the service was electric and the sense of the Holy Spirit's presence was almost palpable.
I am happy to go on record as saying that during the whole service I felt very strongly that the sole nominee was indeed the person God wanted for our congregation, and afterwards speaking to a few others, I wasn't alone in this.
The fact that the vote after the service, by secret ballot, was unanimous in favour of Jonathan's election as our new minister is testimony, I think, to the true unity that only the Holy Spirit can bring to the body of Christ.
There are a number of procedural hurdles to cross in both presbyteries, but God willing, we will have a new minister at Sandyford by late summer/early autumn and the long vacancy, which has lasted since Easter 2011, will be over.
Tuesday, 17 December 2013
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.
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.
Sunday, 1 December 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)