Monday, 9 January 2017
Wednesday, 4 January 2017
Festive Illness
I hope you had a great Christmas and I wish you a happy new year for 2017.
As for me, I've been ill since before Christmas with a heavy cold and then a chest infection which has been hard to shift. I'm hoping the second lot of antibiotics will do the trick, but I'm still coughing a lot today and have not yet made it back to work.
It was strange to have to miss going to church right through the festive period. I think I was last at church around 11th December. It's the first year I can remember when I don't think I sang a single Christmas carol or heard a Christmas sermon. And now I've missed the new year sermons as well.
It struck me that my Christmas experience this year was exactly that of most people in Scotland today - a Christmas without so much as "darkening the door" of a church. The big difference being that my absence was forced upon me by illness; most people's is voluntary. Many churches are looking to give a special welcome to visitors at Christmas, but relatively few come, which is sad for everyone.
I also got a glimpse into the lives of people who cannot get to church because of illness. It made me see how important it is to bring church to people who can't come to church. That is something I don't think most churches think about nearly enough.
As we come to Epiphany on 6th January, we continue to remember the message of Christmas, that God became a human being in that baby in the manger is good news for all year round, for all of humanity of every race and nation, and for all eternity.
As for me, I've been ill since before Christmas with a heavy cold and then a chest infection which has been hard to shift. I'm hoping the second lot of antibiotics will do the trick, but I'm still coughing a lot today and have not yet made it back to work.
It was strange to have to miss going to church right through the festive period. I think I was last at church around 11th December. It's the first year I can remember when I don't think I sang a single Christmas carol or heard a Christmas sermon. And now I've missed the new year sermons as well.
It struck me that my Christmas experience this year was exactly that of most people in Scotland today - a Christmas without so much as "darkening the door" of a church. The big difference being that my absence was forced upon me by illness; most people's is voluntary. Many churches are looking to give a special welcome to visitors at Christmas, but relatively few come, which is sad for everyone.
I also got a glimpse into the lives of people who cannot get to church because of illness. It made me see how important it is to bring church to people who can't come to church. That is something I don't think most churches think about nearly enough.
As we come to Epiphany on 6th January, we continue to remember the message of Christmas, that God became a human being in that baby in the manger is good news for all year round, for all of humanity of every race and nation, and for all eternity.
Tuesday, 13 September 2016
Rightwise: Time to recycle an old English word?
Anyone who has
studied New Testament translation, the writings of Paul in particular, and
especially the Letters to the Romans and Galatians, will know that the
δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosune)
word group is crucial to a correct understanding of these key New Testament
documents. The dikaiosune
word group is usually translated as “righteousness” or “justice” and
similar forms.
The problem in English is that there is no single word group that covers both the quality of being “righteous” and the act of declaring someone righteous. Therefore, English translations are forced to use words from two different roots to cover all the usages:
Noun – righteousness ("justice" has a rather different connotation in English though it can also be used.)
Adjective – righteous ("just" is also possible, but has the same issues of wrong connotation and can also be confused with “just” as in “only”)
Adverb – righteously ("justly" is also possible, but has the same issues of wrong connotation)
The big problem is with the verb forms. English has to use compound verbs as there is no verb “to righteous” (although New Testament scholar E. P. Sanders has suggested we just use “righteous” as a verb). Perhaps we should use an invented word like “to enrighen"? So we have to say “to make righteous” or “to declare righteous.” More often, translations turn instead to the “just—” word group for the verbs and associated forms because no standard “right—” forms exist:
Verb – to justify
Actor – justifier
Process/Event – justification
These words can be confusing since "justify" now tends to be used in the sense of something I do to excuse myself from blame rather than something someone says about me. Using both righteous/justify can also result in cross-references and relationships between words being missed in English translations.
Instead of inventing a new word, we could overcome this problem by resurrecting the old English word “rightwise.” Rightwise was used in Wycliffe’s English translation (the very first in English in the 14th century). This is easy word to understand—it sounds like it means “to be in a right relationship” ("I am rightwise before God") or “to declare to be in the right” ("God rightwises sinners because of Christ's atoning work"). It is easy to say. And it avoids any mistaken ideas about "righteous" (which tends to sound like "self-righteous" to the average person).
Most significantly, it can be grammatically used in all situations where the dikaiosune group of words is used in Greek (and the tsedeq group of words in Hebrew too for that matter).
Noun – rightwiseness
Adjective – rightwise
Adverb – rightwise
Verbs – to rightwise (participle: rightwised; gerund: rightwising) or "to be rightwised"
Actor – rightwiser
Process/Event – rightwising
Consider the difference if we compare a couple of key Pauline passages in standard translations and then using my suggested translation:
Romans 2:13 (ESV): For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
Romans 2:13 (“Rightwise” translation): For it is not the hearers of the law who are rightwise before God, but the doers of the law who will be rightwised.
Romans 3:21–31 (ESV): 21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Romans 3:21–28 (“Rightwise” translation): 21But now the rightwiseness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the rightwiseness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are rightwised by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s rightwiseness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his rightwiseness at the present time, so that he might be rightwise and the rightwiser of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is rightwised by faith apart from works of the law.
Romans 4:5 (ESV): And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.
Romans 4:5 (“Rightwise” translation): And to the one who does not work but believes in him who rightwises the ungodly, his faith is counted as rightwiseness.
Romans 4:22–25 (ESV): 22That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness”. 23But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, 24but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
Romans 4:22–25 (“Rightwise” translation): 22That is why his faith was “counted to him as rightwiseness”. 23But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, 24but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our rightwising.
Galatians 3:11 (ESV): Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”
Galatians 3:11 (“Rightwise” translation): Now it is evident that no one is rightwised before God by the law, for “The rightwise shall live by faith.”
Though the terminology may jar the eye and the ear to begin with, I think we would quickly get used to "rightwise". At the very least, when teaching on Paul, it would give us a way of getting at the original Greek better than current English translations allow.
Actually a similar translational problem exists between the English nouns usually translated “faith” or “faithfulness” and the verb forms usually translated “to believe” even though “to believe” something is not exactly the same as “to have faith in” something. Nor can the noun “belief” simply be substituted for “faith” without confusion and loss of meaning. Perhaps we will return to that topic when I find an old English word that covers both “faith” and “to believe”!
The problem in English is that there is no single word group that covers both the quality of being “righteous” and the act of declaring someone righteous. Therefore, English translations are forced to use words from two different roots to cover all the usages:
Noun – righteousness ("justice" has a rather different connotation in English though it can also be used.)
Adjective – righteous ("just" is also possible, but has the same issues of wrong connotation and can also be confused with “just” as in “only”)
Adverb – righteously ("justly" is also possible, but has the same issues of wrong connotation)
The big problem is with the verb forms. English has to use compound verbs as there is no verb “to righteous” (although New Testament scholar E. P. Sanders has suggested we just use “righteous” as a verb). Perhaps we should use an invented word like “to enrighen"? So we have to say “to make righteous” or “to declare righteous.” More often, translations turn instead to the “just—” word group for the verbs and associated forms because no standard “right—” forms exist:
Verb – to justify
Actor – justifier
Process/Event – justification
These words can be confusing since "justify" now tends to be used in the sense of something I do to excuse myself from blame rather than something someone says about me. Using both righteous/justify can also result in cross-references and relationships between words being missed in English translations.
Instead of inventing a new word, we could overcome this problem by resurrecting the old English word “rightwise.” Rightwise was used in Wycliffe’s English translation (the very first in English in the 14th century). This is easy word to understand—it sounds like it means “to be in a right relationship” ("I am rightwise before God") or “to declare to be in the right” ("God rightwises sinners because of Christ's atoning work"). It is easy to say. And it avoids any mistaken ideas about "righteous" (which tends to sound like "self-righteous" to the average person).
Most significantly, it can be grammatically used in all situations where the dikaiosune group of words is used in Greek (and the tsedeq group of words in Hebrew too for that matter).
Noun – rightwiseness
Adjective – rightwise
Adverb – rightwise
Verbs – to rightwise (participle: rightwised; gerund: rightwising) or "to be rightwised"
Actor – rightwiser
Process/Event – rightwising
Consider the difference if we compare a couple of key Pauline passages in standard translations and then using my suggested translation:
Romans 2:13 (ESV): For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
Romans 2:13 (“Rightwise” translation): For it is not the hearers of the law who are rightwise before God, but the doers of the law who will be rightwised.
Romans 3:21–31 (ESV): 21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Romans 3:21–28 (“Rightwise” translation): 21But now the rightwiseness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the rightwiseness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are rightwised by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s rightwiseness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his rightwiseness at the present time, so that he might be rightwise and the rightwiser of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is rightwised by faith apart from works of the law.
Romans 4:5 (ESV): And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.
Romans 4:5 (“Rightwise” translation): And to the one who does not work but believes in him who rightwises the ungodly, his faith is counted as rightwiseness.
Romans 4:22–25 (ESV): 22That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness”. 23But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, 24but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
Romans 4:22–25 (“Rightwise” translation): 22That is why his faith was “counted to him as rightwiseness”. 23But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, 24but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our rightwising.
Galatians 3:11 (ESV): Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”
Galatians 3:11 (“Rightwise” translation): Now it is evident that no one is rightwised before God by the law, for “The rightwise shall live by faith.”
Though the terminology may jar the eye and the ear to begin with, I think we would quickly get used to "rightwise". At the very least, when teaching on Paul, it would give us a way of getting at the original Greek better than current English translations allow.
Actually a similar translational problem exists between the English nouns usually translated “faith” or “faithfulness” and the verb forms usually translated “to believe” even though “to believe” something is not exactly the same as “to have faith in” something. Nor can the noun “belief” simply be substituted for “faith” without confusion and loss of meaning. Perhaps we will return to that topic when I find an old English word that covers both “faith” and “to believe”!
Friday, 19 August 2016
The Case for a Universal Basic Income
For some time I have been supportive of a political idea known as the "Universal Basic Income" (UBI) also known as "the Citizen's Income" or "Basic Income Guarantee" or "Negative Income Tax" is a very simple idea - that every citizen in a country is paid a basic level of income, which is unconditional and universal, irrespective of employment status or other income.
Usuallly the UBI is championed by people on the Left (I believe it is the policy of the Green Party for example). But what I find interesting is that the UBI also has supporters on the Right (both conservatives and classical liberals).
As a way of replacing the bureaucratic welfare state, it is an attractive idea as there is some evidence that it would be either as cheap to run or even cheaper than a plethora of means-tested benefits.
Here are some interesting links I've found discussing UBI, most of them are from a conservative or classical liberal viewpoint.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
http://citizensincome.org/
http://basicincome.org.uk/reasons-support-basic-income/
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/a-neoliberal-case-for-a-basic-income-or-something-like-it
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragmatic-libertarian-case-basic-income-guarantee
http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income#.oz0pbd2:3cP6
http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/why-did-hayek-support-basic-income
This is not a party political issue as the various links show. Across the political spectrum it is an idea that has much to commend it and I think it is an idea whose time has come.
Usuallly the UBI is championed by people on the Left (I believe it is the policy of the Green Party for example). But what I find interesting is that the UBI also has supporters on the Right (both conservatives and classical liberals).
As a way of replacing the bureaucratic welfare state, it is an attractive idea as there is some evidence that it would be either as cheap to run or even cheaper than a plethora of means-tested benefits.
Here are some interesting links I've found discussing UBI, most of them are from a conservative or classical liberal viewpoint.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income
http://citizensincome.org/
http://basicincome.org.uk/reasons-support-basic-income/
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/a-neoliberal-case-for-a-basic-income-or-something-like-it
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2014/08/04/matt-zwolinski/pragmatic-libertarian-case-basic-income-guarantee
http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-case-basic-income#.oz0pbd2:3cP6
http://www.libertarianism.org/columns/why-did-hayek-support-basic-income
This is not a party political issue as the various links show. Across the political spectrum it is an idea that has much to commend it and I think it is an idea whose time has come.
Wednesday, 17 August 2016
Interesting Political Articles
An excellent piece on the Christian critique of Conservatism: http://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/04/the-problem-with-conservatism
And the problem with Liberalism from the Christian point of view is worth reading too: http://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/03/001-the-problem-with-liberalism
And the problem with Liberalism from the Christian point of view is worth reading too: http://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/03/001-the-problem-with-liberalism
Thursday, 21 July 2016
Generous Justice (Repost)
Generous Justice
Timothy Keller
Hodder & Stoughton 2010
I have recently re-read this book and have to say I still agree with my own review of it from a couple of years ago. I think it is worth reposting.
I've pretty much enjoyed everything I've ever read by Tim Keller and Generous Justice is no exception. It seems to me that Keller's central thesis in this book is crucial in our time to the health, vitality and witness of the churches, particularly the evangelical churches, who perhaps need to hear this message most. Keller's thesis is simply that doing justice, in our daily lives as Christians at a personal, social and societal level, is a necessary outworking of the grace of God we have experienced through the gospel.
Keller writes in the introduction for example: "There is a direct relationship between a person's grasp and experience of God's grace, and his or her heart for justice and the poor...I have observed over decades that when people see the beauty of God's grace in Christ, it leads them powerfully towards justice." (p. xix).
It is immediately apparent that Keller wants to challenge several wrong views. To begin with he challenges the secular voices that claim that the Bible is somehow a hindrance to establishing justice in our world. But more interestingly from my point of view, he also challenges the still all-too-typical evangelical mindset that sees the church's true biblical role as "saving souls" and teaching correct doctrines, especially salvation by grace alone, in Christ alone, through faith alone. For too long there has been a false dichotomy in many churches between the evangelical gospel of salvation and the so-called liberal gospel of social justice. Keller is a Reformed theologian and minister of an evangelical Presbyterian church, yet he correctly sees that social justice is fundamental to the church's mission, not as a replacement for the gospel (which is where liberal Christians go wrong) but as a necessary outworking of the gospel.
The rest of the book explores a variety of angles of justice to give a rounded picture of the biblical material.
To begin with, Keller looks to define "justice" and finds that in the Bible it is about far more than simply punishing sinners. Again, too often in evangelical circles, "justice" is restricted to enforcing morality and punishing wrongdoers and we can end up looking simply like the religious equivalent of the "hang 'em and flog 'em brigade"! No, biblical justice is more akin to "social justice" that looks after the poor, the widow and the fatherless. It is about doing what is right for everyone and about living in a "harmonious peace" (as Keller defines the key Hebrew concept of shalom) with our fellow human beings and with all creation. It is about fair treatment of immigrants. It is about making sure workers are paid fair wages and work in decent conditions. The list of applications of the biblical principles could go on and on. Keller also points out that justice in biblical terms is not about doing the bare minimum of good for others, it should be generous. Why? Because when we act like that we reflect God's own character. The Scriptures say that God is on the side with the weak, the poor and the oppressed. And as we claim to be the people of God, so should we.
Later chapters highlights material from the Old Testament, especially the prophets, and the New Testament, especially the teachings of Christ himself, that all back-up the point of view outlined. Keller's treatment of the Parable of the Good Samaritan was a particular highlight.
A later chapter in the book called "How Should We Do Justice?" is very practical and very challenging. In it, Keller gets down to the nitty-gritty of actually putting the theory into practice and I found it useful when he talks about three levels of doing justice called "relief, development and social reform" and how Christians are called to involvement at all three levels. Relief is immediate help given to someone in need. Development is longer term involvement to help someone in need improve things so the need no longer exists. Social reform challenges governments to change the law and/or society to stop the situation that caused the need from happening in the first place. In the example of the old proverb, relief is giving a man a fish, development is giving a man a fishing rod and teaching him to fish, social reform questions the government why the poor have to live off fish while others have plenty to eat.
The book ends with a chapter where Keller links peace, justice and beauty and reiterates the link between the gospel of grace and living out a gospel life of grace that seeks justice for others (in the true biblical scope) and closes with a final challenge to us as Christians. In essence, if we have received so much blessing from God's hand, shouldn't we be more willing to bless others from our hands? In Keller's own words:
Timothy Keller
Hodder & Stoughton 2010
I have recently re-read this book and have to say I still agree with my own review of it from a couple of years ago. I think it is worth reposting.
I've pretty much enjoyed everything I've ever read by Tim Keller and Generous Justice is no exception. It seems to me that Keller's central thesis in this book is crucial in our time to the health, vitality and witness of the churches, particularly the evangelical churches, who perhaps need to hear this message most. Keller's thesis is simply that doing justice, in our daily lives as Christians at a personal, social and societal level, is a necessary outworking of the grace of God we have experienced through the gospel.
Keller writes in the introduction for example: "There is a direct relationship between a person's grasp and experience of God's grace, and his or her heart for justice and the poor...I have observed over decades that when people see the beauty of God's grace in Christ, it leads them powerfully towards justice." (p. xix).
It is immediately apparent that Keller wants to challenge several wrong views. To begin with he challenges the secular voices that claim that the Bible is somehow a hindrance to establishing justice in our world. But more interestingly from my point of view, he also challenges the still all-too-typical evangelical mindset that sees the church's true biblical role as "saving souls" and teaching correct doctrines, especially salvation by grace alone, in Christ alone, through faith alone. For too long there has been a false dichotomy in many churches between the evangelical gospel of salvation and the so-called liberal gospel of social justice. Keller is a Reformed theologian and minister of an evangelical Presbyterian church, yet he correctly sees that social justice is fundamental to the church's mission, not as a replacement for the gospel (which is where liberal Christians go wrong) but as a necessary outworking of the gospel.
The rest of the book explores a variety of angles of justice to give a rounded picture of the biblical material.
To begin with, Keller looks to define "justice" and finds that in the Bible it is about far more than simply punishing sinners. Again, too often in evangelical circles, "justice" is restricted to enforcing morality and punishing wrongdoers and we can end up looking simply like the religious equivalent of the "hang 'em and flog 'em brigade"! No, biblical justice is more akin to "social justice" that looks after the poor, the widow and the fatherless. It is about doing what is right for everyone and about living in a "harmonious peace" (as Keller defines the key Hebrew concept of shalom) with our fellow human beings and with all creation. It is about fair treatment of immigrants. It is about making sure workers are paid fair wages and work in decent conditions. The list of applications of the biblical principles could go on and on. Keller also points out that justice in biblical terms is not about doing the bare minimum of good for others, it should be generous. Why? Because when we act like that we reflect God's own character. The Scriptures say that God is on the side with the weak, the poor and the oppressed. And as we claim to be the people of God, so should we.
Later chapters highlights material from the Old Testament, especially the prophets, and the New Testament, especially the teachings of Christ himself, that all back-up the point of view outlined. Keller's treatment of the Parable of the Good Samaritan was a particular highlight.
A later chapter in the book called "How Should We Do Justice?" is very practical and very challenging. In it, Keller gets down to the nitty-gritty of actually putting the theory into practice and I found it useful when he talks about three levels of doing justice called "relief, development and social reform" and how Christians are called to involvement at all three levels. Relief is immediate help given to someone in need. Development is longer term involvement to help someone in need improve things so the need no longer exists. Social reform challenges governments to change the law and/or society to stop the situation that caused the need from happening in the first place. In the example of the old proverb, relief is giving a man a fish, development is giving a man a fishing rod and teaching him to fish, social reform questions the government why the poor have to live off fish while others have plenty to eat.
The book ends with a chapter where Keller links peace, justice and beauty and reiterates the link between the gospel of grace and living out a gospel life of grace that seeks justice for others (in the true biblical scope) and closes with a final challenge to us as Christians. In essence, if we have received so much blessing from God's hand, shouldn't we be more willing to bless others from our hands? In Keller's own words:
Proverbs 14:31 says, "He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker." The God of the Bible says, as it were, "I am the poor on your step. Your attitude towards them reveals your true attitude toward me." A life poured out in doing justice for the poor is the inevitable sign of any real, true gospel faith.Now, if that doesn't challenge any Western Christian who reads it, what will?
Thursday, 24 December 2015
Merry Christmas
With only a few hours to go before Christmas Day in the UK, I want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and send you a Christmas blessing:
May the joy of the angels,
the eagerness of the shepherds,
the perseverance of the wise men,
the obedience of Joseph and Mary,
and the peace of the Christ child
be yours this Christmas.
Amen.
May the joy of the angels,
the eagerness of the shepherds,
the perseverance of the wise men,
the obedience of Joseph and Mary,
and the peace of the Christ child
be yours this Christmas.
Amen.
Tuesday, 22 December 2015
Dangerous Freedom
A year ago today, Glasgow was shocked by the tragic accident in which a bin lorry went out of control, killing a number of Christmas shoppers and injuring many more.
Today we remember those who lost their lives and those still alive whose lives will never be the same again.
It is not often I quote Roman Catholic archbishops, but I still recall the words of Philip Tartaglia at the funeral of some of the victims. I thought he managed to convey a deep theological truth in his words of comfort, and touched on something of the relationship between divine providence and human freedom that still resonates with me. It certainly challenges the "God did this/blame God" mentality that many people seem to accept, sadly even many Christians, whenever tragic loss of life occurs. The archbishop said:
__
* Philip Tartaglia's funeral address was reported in The Scotsman on 3rd January 2015.
Today we remember those who lost their lives and those still alive whose lives will never be the same again.
It is not often I quote Roman Catholic archbishops, but I still recall the words of Philip Tartaglia at the funeral of some of the victims. I thought he managed to convey a deep theological truth in his words of comfort, and touched on something of the relationship between divine providence and human freedom that still resonates with me. It certainly challenges the "God did this/blame God" mentality that many people seem to accept, sadly even many Christians, whenever tragic loss of life occurs. The archbishop said:
God created us for life and freedom. And in this life we are free. We move as we wish. We are not puppets on a string, not robots controlled from afar. At the same time we are not indestructible, not immune from forces which are too much for us. Our bodies cannot survive everything here on earth. These are the limitations of the human condition.*Great freedom gives us the scope for great joy, love and compassion, but it also gives scope for great evil, danger and loss. We saw the dangers last year on the streets of Glasgow, but we saw also great love and compassion in the response of the people of Glasgow afterwards and it is in the human capacity to love that we find the deepest reason for why God has granted the sometimes dangerous but priceless gift of freedom.
__
* Philip Tartaglia's funeral address was reported in The Scotsman on 3rd January 2015.
Sunday, 29 November 2015
Advent
Today is Advent Sunday. The beginning of a new Christian year and the period when many Christians focus their thoughts on the future "coming" of the Lord ("coming" is what "advent" means).
This takes place in a twofold sense. First, of waiting and looking forward to Christmas and perhaps placing our selves in the position of the nation of Israel waiting for the Messiah to come and then celebrating that coming at Christmas. But secondly, of waiting and looking forward to Jesus the Messiah coming again at the end of time, to judge the world, save his people, and usher in the new heavens and the new earth that is the Christian hope - not so much "life after death", but life after life after death as Tom Wright memorably puts it.
It is this hope and expectation that Paul says the whole of creation, not just God's people, is longing for (see Romans 8:18-30).
This advent, I look forward to singing the great advent hymn "O come, O come, Emmanuel" looking back to the preparation for Christmas and waiting for the Messiah's birth, but the words also help us look forward to Christ's second coming in triumph and glory, when he will make all things new and finally "close the path to misery" as the hymn puts it, once and for all.
This takes place in a twofold sense. First, of waiting and looking forward to Christmas and perhaps placing our selves in the position of the nation of Israel waiting for the Messiah to come and then celebrating that coming at Christmas. But secondly, of waiting and looking forward to Jesus the Messiah coming again at the end of time, to judge the world, save his people, and usher in the new heavens and the new earth that is the Christian hope - not so much "life after death", but life after life after death as Tom Wright memorably puts it.
It is this hope and expectation that Paul says the whole of creation, not just God's people, is longing for (see Romans 8:18-30).
This advent, I look forward to singing the great advent hymn "O come, O come, Emmanuel" looking back to the preparation for Christmas and waiting for the Messiah's birth, but the words also help us look forward to Christ's second coming in triumph and glory, when he will make all things new and finally "close the path to misery" as the hymn puts it, once and for all.
Tuesday, 20 October 2015
The Usefulness of Church Buildings
I have often heard preachers say that according to the Bible "the Church is people, not buildings." Of course such a statement is perfectly true and accurate. The Church according to the New Testament is people. The word translated as "church" (ekklesia) in English bibles really means a "gathering" or "assembly" [of people]. It was applied by New Testament writers to the gathering or assembly of Christians as God's "saints" or "holy people". For this reason, William Tyndale, when he first translated the New Testament into English used the word "congregation" to accurately translate ekklesia.
However, when it came to the translation of the King James Bible in 1611, the King insisted that the word "church" be used rather than congregation or assembly because he was keen to emphasise the powerful institution of which he saw himself as the head on earth, and the tradition of using "church" in English bibles has continued to the present day.
In New Testament times there were no "church buildings". Churches met mainly in people's homes or perhaps sometimes in the open air. And so preachers are correct to point out to us modern Christians, who have grown up with at least 1500 years of a culture in which "church" has come to mean the building where a congregation gathers to worship God as well as serve other people, that when we read "church" in the Bible, we should be thinking of a "congregation" or "assembly" meaning a gathering of God's people and certainly not buildings or even institutions in the modern sense.
Thus far so good. But where problems can arise is in the implications that preachers then want to draw out from the truth. Most preachers I would say simply want to remind us that people are more important than bricks and mortar and that is fine. Who could object to that? However, some people seem to suggest that because the church is people not buildings then somehow buildings do not matter. That implication is not true. Even worse, is where we go a step further and the undertone is that if we are at all interested in our buildings we are somehow less spiritual than those who seem to have no attachment whatsoever to their place of worship. I think that view is open to serious criticism because it is inherently judgemental of others, prideful of self, and can be spiritually manipulative.
Let me clear: I agree that the Church is people and people are more important than buildings. Always. But a congregation having a church building is a good thing and is extremely useful to the work of the congregation and I will go into a few particulars as to why this is. As so often in life, if a good thing is misused, the answer is not to reject the good thing entirely, but to reform its use so that also becomes good.
Here are five reasons why it matters that a congregation has a good and useful building to call home and operate from.
1. Because we are physical beings and places matter. God has made us a unity of body and spirit and so, to put it plainly, spaces matter. We are not incorporeal spirits. We are, literally, "of the earth" (which is what Adam means in Hebrew by the way). We are grounded in physical surroundings. And so the place we inhabit, individually and corporately as a congregation is important. Now it is true that we can gather anywhere to worship God. We can gather in a school hall, in a living room, in an open field and we will still be the church. But that does not mean that it is not better to have a dedicated building for worship, teaching, outreach and service. The analogy I would make is eating a meal. I can perfectly well eat lunch at my desk at work, grab a sandwich and eat on the train, even eat a cold tin of beans sitting in the rain at a campsite. These are all ways that validly constitute eating a meal. But that is not to say that eating a meal in a lovely bistro or at my own dining table at home is not better or preferable. So the first reason why church buildings matter is because they create (or should create) a warm, comfortable, suitable place to conduct the church's activities in a better way than other ad hoc alternatives.
2. Because a church building is more conducive to worship. A building that is designed for the purpose for which it is used is much more likely to meet those needs than a building which is not. The fact that most church buildings are designed for the worship of God and for the church's other activities almost always makes them more useful than a generic, utilitarian hall. The advantages in having a church building in this regard are many. They include acoustics designed to enhance the experience of congregational singing, decor and artwork which helps create an atmosphere conducive to worship and makes use of Christian symbolism to emphasise that the building is there for Christian purposes, church furniture designed to enhance or aid the conduct of worship services, e.g. pulpit, communion table, baptismal font, etc. While I agree that none of these things are essential, this does not mean that they are useless. While it is true that a church can meet in a school hall or a disused cinema or any large room with seating, this does not mean that such places are as good as a dedicated church building.
3. Because a building is a landmark in a local area. Another advantage in having a recognised church building is that it forms a landmark for those in the local area outside of the church. A building is a physical reminder that the church is there for people in a much more tangible way than a fellowship that only meets in people's homes or in a hired hall once a week. Again, if the church has to operate in this way, there is no problem with that, but the question is whether it is not preferable and beneficial to have a dedicated building. The answer to that is very obviously, "yes." It is all too easy for a church without a building to "disappear" from the awareness of outsiders. "Where exactly does that group meet? And when? I'm not sure." It is hard enough to get outsiders to come to events without it being unclear exactly where and when meetings are held. Having a building grounds the church in a community and makes a statement that the congregation is committed to that area.
4. Because they allow a church to conduct a full range of activities. One of the most significant advantages in having a church building is that the congregation is able to decide for itself what events and meetings to hold without having to consult with anyone else. For a church using a hired hall, this is not the case. Such a church may be very restricted in what activities it can put on or host during a typical week. But a fellowship with its own building is free to have as many services, bible study groups, prayer meetings, social events, or any other meeting they feel would be beneficial.
5. Because we should not despise the good gifts God has given us. My final point is not so much regarding the usefulness of having a church building, but rather to point out the fact that every congregation with a building should see it as a good gift given to it by the Lord. As such the correct attitude is one of thankfulness and determination to be good stewards of a crucial resource, not despising the gift, or thinking it a matter of indifference whether a congregation has a place to call its own or not.
In closing, I would say the relationship between a congregation and its building is very similar to that of a family and its home. It is very true that the family is not the house where they live, and the family is infinitely more important than their house. It is also true that the family exists whether or not it even has a house. A homeless family is still a family. But it is not at all true to say that having a house is of no consequence to the family at all. Such a statement would be absurd. Almost everything that family life consists of is helped, accommodated and facilitated by having a home. A homeless family is not, all other things being equal, in as happy a position as a family that has a home to live in. I don't think the situation is all that different for God's family.
So, let us be thankful for the buildings God has given us; let us look after them and appreciate them; and let us use them for the work and witness of the church, to his glory.
However, when it came to the translation of the King James Bible in 1611, the King insisted that the word "church" be used rather than congregation or assembly because he was keen to emphasise the powerful institution of which he saw himself as the head on earth, and the tradition of using "church" in English bibles has continued to the present day.
In New Testament times there were no "church buildings". Churches met mainly in people's homes or perhaps sometimes in the open air. And so preachers are correct to point out to us modern Christians, who have grown up with at least 1500 years of a culture in which "church" has come to mean the building where a congregation gathers to worship God as well as serve other people, that when we read "church" in the Bible, we should be thinking of a "congregation" or "assembly" meaning a gathering of God's people and certainly not buildings or even institutions in the modern sense.
Thus far so good. But where problems can arise is in the implications that preachers then want to draw out from the truth. Most preachers I would say simply want to remind us that people are more important than bricks and mortar and that is fine. Who could object to that? However, some people seem to suggest that because the church is people not buildings then somehow buildings do not matter. That implication is not true. Even worse, is where we go a step further and the undertone is that if we are at all interested in our buildings we are somehow less spiritual than those who seem to have no attachment whatsoever to their place of worship. I think that view is open to serious criticism because it is inherently judgemental of others, prideful of self, and can be spiritually manipulative.
Let me clear: I agree that the Church is people and people are more important than buildings. Always. But a congregation having a church building is a good thing and is extremely useful to the work of the congregation and I will go into a few particulars as to why this is. As so often in life, if a good thing is misused, the answer is not to reject the good thing entirely, but to reform its use so that also becomes good.
Here are five reasons why it matters that a congregation has a good and useful building to call home and operate from.
1. Because we are physical beings and places matter. God has made us a unity of body and spirit and so, to put it plainly, spaces matter. We are not incorporeal spirits. We are, literally, "of the earth" (which is what Adam means in Hebrew by the way). We are grounded in physical surroundings. And so the place we inhabit, individually and corporately as a congregation is important. Now it is true that we can gather anywhere to worship God. We can gather in a school hall, in a living room, in an open field and we will still be the church. But that does not mean that it is not better to have a dedicated building for worship, teaching, outreach and service. The analogy I would make is eating a meal. I can perfectly well eat lunch at my desk at work, grab a sandwich and eat on the train, even eat a cold tin of beans sitting in the rain at a campsite. These are all ways that validly constitute eating a meal. But that is not to say that eating a meal in a lovely bistro or at my own dining table at home is not better or preferable. So the first reason why church buildings matter is because they create (or should create) a warm, comfortable, suitable place to conduct the church's activities in a better way than other ad hoc alternatives.
2. Because a church building is more conducive to worship. A building that is designed for the purpose for which it is used is much more likely to meet those needs than a building which is not. The fact that most church buildings are designed for the worship of God and for the church's other activities almost always makes them more useful than a generic, utilitarian hall. The advantages in having a church building in this regard are many. They include acoustics designed to enhance the experience of congregational singing, decor and artwork which helps create an atmosphere conducive to worship and makes use of Christian symbolism to emphasise that the building is there for Christian purposes, church furniture designed to enhance or aid the conduct of worship services, e.g. pulpit, communion table, baptismal font, etc. While I agree that none of these things are essential, this does not mean that they are useless. While it is true that a church can meet in a school hall or a disused cinema or any large room with seating, this does not mean that such places are as good as a dedicated church building.
3. Because a building is a landmark in a local area. Another advantage in having a recognised church building is that it forms a landmark for those in the local area outside of the church. A building is a physical reminder that the church is there for people in a much more tangible way than a fellowship that only meets in people's homes or in a hired hall once a week. Again, if the church has to operate in this way, there is no problem with that, but the question is whether it is not preferable and beneficial to have a dedicated building. The answer to that is very obviously, "yes." It is all too easy for a church without a building to "disappear" from the awareness of outsiders. "Where exactly does that group meet? And when? I'm not sure." It is hard enough to get outsiders to come to events without it being unclear exactly where and when meetings are held. Having a building grounds the church in a community and makes a statement that the congregation is committed to that area.
4. Because they allow a church to conduct a full range of activities. One of the most significant advantages in having a church building is that the congregation is able to decide for itself what events and meetings to hold without having to consult with anyone else. For a church using a hired hall, this is not the case. Such a church may be very restricted in what activities it can put on or host during a typical week. But a fellowship with its own building is free to have as many services, bible study groups, prayer meetings, social events, or any other meeting they feel would be beneficial.
5. Because we should not despise the good gifts God has given us. My final point is not so much regarding the usefulness of having a church building, but rather to point out the fact that every congregation with a building should see it as a good gift given to it by the Lord. As such the correct attitude is one of thankfulness and determination to be good stewards of a crucial resource, not despising the gift, or thinking it a matter of indifference whether a congregation has a place to call its own or not.
In closing, I would say the relationship between a congregation and its building is very similar to that of a family and its home. It is very true that the family is not the house where they live, and the family is infinitely more important than their house. It is also true that the family exists whether or not it even has a house. A homeless family is still a family. But it is not at all true to say that having a house is of no consequence to the family at all. Such a statement would be absurd. Almost everything that family life consists of is helped, accommodated and facilitated by having a home. A homeless family is not, all other things being equal, in as happy a position as a family that has a home to live in. I don't think the situation is all that different for God's family.
So, let us be thankful for the buildings God has given us; let us look after them and appreciate them; and let us use them for the work and witness of the church, to his glory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)