You think the reformation is over? It is now . . .

Carl Trueman's excellent article on how the advent of mega churches signals the end of the reformation is well worth a read and has really stuck with me in my own struggles with a church which, while hardly mega, is getting to the point where it is difficult to know everybody, and certainly not possible to really know everybody.  However even in small churches I have noticed a tendency to jetison the insights and advances of the reformation without so much as a thought. 

This particular regression can be blamed on the "creative" outlet provided by digital video projectors whereby communion is now not complete without either a slide showing a blood stained figure on a cross, or a pained face with a crown of thorns, or even better yet a youtube video where some american crooner sings about the cross set to slide show put together by a theologically illiterate teenager in their bedroom complete with every cliched Christ image on google.  Suddenly we are worshipping an image in our allegedly Bible believing churches, using a cheesy digital image to focus our thoughts on the suffering of Jesus. 

Don't get me wrong I have no problem with movies made out of the story of Jesus, although some of them are terrible, or pictures in the children's Bibles.  But by playing such images as part of our worship, especially as part of a communion service we take attention away from the image Jesus actually did leave us, the bread and the wine shared among the people of God - which is clearly not Jesus but points us to his presence within and among us, and focuses us on the sad tragic physical suffering of crucifixion which is really not the focus of the Bible when it comes to the cross at all.  Jesus' death really wasn't that tragic in the vast scale of human suffering, others have died longer more painful and humiliating deaths.  The evangelists do not labour the fact that he was in pain, or that it was really sad that Jesus was being hurt, etc, etc.  The focus of the gospel writers was on the meaning of his death, and that should be our focus too, but it is hard to do that when corny gory images of someones idea of Christ are filling up the front of the church.

And to reward you for reading my rant, here is some unrelated light relief from the Sacred Sandwich,

Let me know what you think, :-)

The Religion of Violence

Kim Fabricus, in a typically bombastic post suggests the following bon mot to respond to an antagonistic atheist:

—Religion is inherently violent.
—You mean violence is inherently religious.

Which is a very interesting way of putting it.  Acts of violence do appeal to some essential understanding of the universe, whether it is the will to power, the right of self defence, or the reasonable response to unreasonable provocation, that holds some other thing more valuable than the command to love your enemy.  It is a decision, even if just for one special instance and under irrisistible pressure, to disobey Christ and serve another god entirely.  The iconoclasm of disfiguring a bearer of the image of God with violence is thus at once a moment of sacrilege and of idolatry.

A Two Faced Approach to Idolatry?

I continue my slow but very enjoyable reading of Chris Wright's, The Mission of God (IVP, 2006). (Which also inspired this earlier post.) Wright's treatment of idolatry, the subjectof his second major section, is simply fantastic and he has both answered a number of questions and posed questions I hadn't properly thought of before. In pages 179-188 he finishes his chapter on idolatry with an examination of Paul's approaches. To summarise, in Acts Paul's evangelistic preaching treats idolatry markedly differently to how he does in Romans and 1 Corinthians. Wright suggests that Paul reserves his strongest langauge about idolatry for theological and pastoral discussions with Christians (Rom 1:18-32, 1 Cor 8-10) but moderates his tone considerably when talking to pagans (Acts 14:8-20; 17:16-34; 19:23-41).

Wright, also argues that this approach of Paul's is entirely consistent with the modus operandi of the OT prophets who would accuse the pagan nations of numerous moral wrongs but would only mock idolatry per se when confronting those who should know better, the people of God (e.g. Amos, who lists the sins of the surrounding nations in 1:1-2:3, but only mentions idol worship in connection with Judah in 2:4).

Wright concludes, "in confronting idolatry, we need to be discerning about what responses are appropriate in different contexts, learning from the apostles and prophets as we do so." (p188)

The conclusion then seems to lead us to have two faces with regard to idolatry. When talking to pagans we major on the kindness and mercy of God and don't attack their gods directly, but when dealing with those who should know better we pull out all the stops and expose idolatry in all its depraved sinfulness. Now on one hand this makes sense, there is no point lambasting people for what they cannot help, if you don't know God then you have no reason not to worship others gods (whether they be traditional idols or contempary analogues), but those who do know God are doubly culpable. But on the other hand it does seem like there is potentially going to be some inconsistency between what is said in house and in public. The problem is exascerbated by the way so little Christian discourse is actually in house anymore. We put our sermons on the internet, we publish our books, and our inter and intra denominational disuputes are the stuff of news programs and history books. What we say in private will be shouted from the rooftops one way or another, especially if it is deemed offensive by the general public. The recent furore over Brian Tamaki's oath is a good example of that. While I am convinced by Wright's arguments, I think the onus needs to be on us to make sure that what we say in private is still something we would be happy to be heard in public. And if you aren't, best not to say it at all!

Let me know what you think, :-)

The two lenses of the Christian life

When Paul sums up the way Christian 'ought to live and to please God' (1 Thes 4:1) he uses only two primary concepts:

"and may the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all, just as we abound in love for you. And may he so strengthen your hearts in holiness that you may be blameless before our God and father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with his saints."
- 1 Thessalonians 3:12-13

Love and holiness are so often played off against each other. You get 'love Christians' who know that all you have to do is love and accept and help people and that is Christianity in a nutshell. And you get 'holiness Christians' who are terrified they might accidentally associate with the wrong type of person, or with someone who holds the wrong doctrine, or even watch a movie that is not quite pure. Living in each extreme is pretty easy. Doing things a much harder way are those poor souls trying to be 'balanced Christians' who recognise the law of love but also the importance of holiness and try to find a mediating position between the two masters as if God is some two headed monster with conflicting personalities to be satisfied! But watching the way Jesus, or Paul went about their business it is clear that the love/holiness thing should not be understood as a tension - or a choice of which side of Christianity should be face up this time; like tossing a coin to see if we demonstrate love or holiness in our next action. Instead holiness is only Christian holiness when it is transformed by love, and love is only Christian love when it is transformed by holiness. Holiness without love is mere religion, and love without holiness is idolatry. They are not two sides of a coin, but two lenses in a telescope that both need to be brought into focus for every activity and together provide a view of the Christian life, of each other, and of all, that neither can alone.

Let me know what you think :-)
(BTW this is my 100th post on this blog!! Thanks for stopping by :-))

Idols or something else?

Jeremiah 10:5:

Their idols are like scarecrows in a cucumber field, and they cannot speak; they
have to be carried for they cannot walk.Do not be afraid of them, for they cannot
do evil, nor is it in them to do you good.

The language of idolatry is very popular still (and I'm not just thinking of 'pop idol' TV shows). In fact half the google searches that have picked up this blog have been to do with idolatry, which is interesting given that I dont believe I have dedicated much space to the idea. Now in my observation we (Christians) usually interpret idolatry as anything which we worship (give our 'worth' to) in place of God (the only one who truly has a right to our worship). This often then stands for career, or wealth, status, possesions or relationships that we put up as 'idols' in our own lives in place of God, e.g. instead of seeking to do God's will with our lives we seek what will bring us the most wealth.

But as I have been reading through the prophets I have noticed most of the polemic (attack in argument) against idolatry in scripture has been on the basis of the idols impotence to do anything at all (e.g. Isaiah 46:6-7), whereas career, wealth, status, possesions or relationships are all powerful tools for doing either harm or good.

• Does that mean they are not 'idols' in the Biblical sense?
• If not, then what are they?
• And what are modern day idols?
• Or don't we have any?

Let me know what you think :)

God Doesn't Need Your Help: 1 Samuel 4:1-6:18

So, back in the day, when Israel was still a new kid on the block, a loose alliance of tribes with the same religion and ancestors, the Philistines, a rather more sophsticated group, go out to war to ensure the Israelites know their place (4:9). On the first day of fighting the Israelites get wooped (4:2) so they decide to bring in the artilery, i.e. God. The Israelites are confused, they think God lives in a box, so they get this (very special box called the Ark of the Covenant) and take it with them to the battle the next day. The Philistines hear about this and are terrified, but decide to man-up and try their luck anyway. The Israelites get wooped (again) and the Philistines get the box (4:10-11) and take it home as a souvenir and put in in the temple of their god Dagon. So much for the Israelites having God on their side.

Now God doesn't live in the box, but it represents the covenant God has with the Israelites, so, if you like, it's a bit like a wedding ring represents a marriage between two folks. So God feels pretty strongly about this box and the way people treat it, because God feels strongly about God's relationship to Israel. The next day the Philistines get out of bed, go to the temple of Dagon and find the statue of Dagon on his face before the box (5:3). Now this can't be right because they beat the Israelites, so their god must be stronger. So they pick Dagon up and go about their business. The next morning Dagon is eating dust again, but this time his head and hands have fallen off (5:4). As if to prove the point there is then an outbreak of tumors in the town and surrounding area. The locals are pretty fed up with this so pass the 'victory spoils' on to the next town, who are similarly aflicted (5:8-9). So it goes on (5:10). Eventually they realise that, although they wooped Israel, Israel's God has got them wooped. They are going to have to give the box back (5:11). So they do, complete with a special 'sorry' note in the form of 5 golden tumors and 5 golden mice (representing the rulers of the Philistines, 6:2-6).

Now I love this story because it is very funny. But also because it is loaded with theological content. First, the Israelites try to use God's ark like a magic charm to force God to help them when their own relationship with God is in tatters. They treat God like a slot machine: 'if we carry the Ark, we will win.' God doesn't turn up to help because to do so would only compound the problem. The Israelites think their great need is to win in battle, God thinks their great need is to sort out their relationship with God. Remember this, God is not to be manipulated by religious formulas, God demands a real relationship from God's people. Sort that out first and then let God worry about your circumstances.

Second, the Philistines think that because they have defeated Israel they have defeated God. But God and God's people are not the same thing. The Israelites are defeated, not because God is weak, but because they were being unfaithful to God. God shows God's-self to be so overwhelmingly great that even the statues of the Philistine god has to bow down to the Ark of the Covenant. Remember this, a crappy church, or crappy Christians do not mean a crappy god. Even when God's people are way off course God is still great, and God is still good. Don't use the behaviour of others to justify your unbelief, look at God to make that decision, not people.

Third, it is the pagan Philistines who are the first to start behaving respectfully towards the box. They soon realise that God was not wooped along with his people, and presumably also that if God had been on the Israelite's side they would never have won (see 7:10). After the box is returned to Israel it takes decades for God's own people to learn the same lesson (see 2 Sam 6). Remember this, those who are outside of the church are often showing those of us in it the way to go when it comes to justice and righteousness and honouring God. Don't refuse to learn lessons from people just because they have a different creed to you (or no creed at all).

Fourth, despite the unfaithfulness of Israel, God still cares about the covenant God has with them, and shows it, not by disguising the fact that the relationship is dysfunctional but by demonstrating the supreme holiness (special-to-God-ness) of the box that represented that relationship. Israel is unfaithful, but God remains faithful and works to bring Israel back into right relationship with God. Remember this, when you fail or fall away, God is not defeated, when you make mistakes or are stymied, God is still greater. The answer is not to question whether you followed the right formula or not but to seek to show (in grateful response) the same faithfulness towards God that God continues to show to you.

Potters, Parents and Idolatry: Isaiah 45:9-11

Woe to you who strive with your maker,
earthen vessels with the potter!
Does the clay say to the one who fashions it, 'what are you making'? or 'your work has no handles'?
Woe to anyone who says to their father, 'what are you begetting?' or to their mother, 'with what are you in labour?'
Thus says the Lord, the holy one of Israel and its maker:
Will you question me about my children, or command me concerning the work of my hands?
(Isaiah 45:9-11)

The image of a pot speaking to the potter as he turns it on the wheel is hilarious. Apart from the the misshapen clay actually talking in the first place, there is also the audacity of the clay to be saying 'excuse me, but you've missed a bit!' A kindly potter might say 'I'm not quite finished yet and please hold still while I work.' Even worse is the picture of a child challenging their parents over the event of their conception or birth. My two year old daughter frequently questions my judgement when it comes to biscuit distribution, sun block, or bed time. But to question your parents at the point at which you enter existence or begin to breathe seems absurd in the extreme. In its context in Isaiah this passage is a rebuke to the people of God who are unwillingly to accept God's plan to rescue them with Cyrus, a Persian (and very pagan) king. The idea that God would use an outsider does not fit in with their theology. The irony is that their complaint against Cyrus is presumably that he is a pagan idolator and yet, by insisting that God is unable or unwilling to do something that God is in fact doing, they themselves have committed idolatry. When the clay questions the potter, or the baby her parents, they place themselves above the ones to whom they owe their existence and identity. The ones who are engaged in the very act of forming them. The people of God were not just refusing to let God shape them, they were telling God how to be God.

This is why this blog is not about expanding 'my theology' or 'a theology'. Any theology that looks like a system or complete method for understanding/knowing God is idolatry. It is making God with our own hands/minds instead of letting God be God. That's why I prefer to talk about 'doing theology'. Theology should not be static, a problem solved, a puzzle completed, instead it should be fluid and dynamic, a response to God's reality as it is encountered day by day in personal experience, the community of faith, and in the Bible. This is why it is necessary to read the Bible as a stranger, not assuming that you know what you will find there, because only then can we be allowing the potter's words to shape the clay of our lives. If we read the Bible as a book that we already know what it says and means then all we do is shape the potter into our own idea of what they should look like. I dont want to worship a God I have made. I want to worship the God of transcendant reality, not a figment of my imagination.

Such an approach also breeds humility. Like the half formed clay or the child being born, God hasn't finished with me yet. Of course I dont understand everything about God, or what God is doing with me or the world, but that is OK, because we're a work in progress. Aren't you looking forward to seeing what the master potter and father of the universe has in store?