Thursday, October 22, 2009

Dear Richard Dawkins

It wouldn’t be quite honest
If I now began to lecture
Like I’d never thought my faith
Was psychological conjecture.
It might just sound too confident
And even slightly proud
Not to mention that I question
And have harboured many a doubt.

Yet call it mere naivety
And bash me with your claims;
I believe that having thought
I’ve simply thought again.
I understand the principles
Of all there is to teach,
But there’s a kind of knowledge
Which your method doesn’t reach

Although we’re in a galaxy
Surrounded by the stars
And all of human history
Flies by like racing cars;
There’s something in our friendships
And something in our scars
That makes us feel eternal,
That makes us haunt the past

So though you try to tell me
That it’s all a case of genes
Just elbowing their neighbours
And driving our machines
I submit that - spite our selfishness
And independent dreams -
We’re longing for relationship;
Our lungs are full of screams

Shouting out against reduction
Of our human enterprise
To simple reproduction
And mutation’s chance surprise
I’ll admit that we are tiny
I’ll admit the world is large
But I won’t accept your doctrine
For it contradicts my heart.

It may be that a herd-instinct
Prepared our good-night-kiss
And all our dating games
Are simply mating with a twist
But to boil down our relationships
To chemical reactions
Is to turn us into robots
With pre-determined actions

All the tragedies of history
All the countless slaughtered crowds
Cannot hear a helpful answer
For the pain is just too loud.
But to simply shrug ones shoulders
At an accident of time
Seems to mock our deep conviction
That there’s such a thing as crime

So I won’t bow at the altar
Of the atheist confession
Just because it turns out nifty
For a simple explanation.
It would be cold betrayal of
Humanity’s experience,
Not to mention break my heart and put
A scar across my conscience

For all the work you’ve done
To rescue us from superstition
I’ve got to take my hat off,
Mention my appreciation.
Yet I cannot help but think
That you’ve a frightening omission;
That the fullness of our being
Can’t be seen through an equation

I truly can prove nothing
By my simple observations
Yet many great men in the world
Have followed invitations
To ask about the meaning of
Our world, our lives’ own chapters
To let the sense of the divine
Fill our poor souls with rapture

So listen to the music
Hear the sound of distant drums
Beating out a holy rhythm
Calling us to come on home
I confess: it all means something,
There’s a goal for which we strive
There’s a Father who is waiting
For his children to arrive

Saturday, July 18, 2009

I *heart* N.T. Wright

If you are not a theologian, don't read this or you'll get a headache. If you're a theologian, you might get a headache anyway.

Ok... while I don't feel it's my calling to worship every word that comes from the mouth of the Bishop, I've had enough of the dearly bearded N.T. "Tom" Wright getting burnt at the proverbial stake for his good, helpful New Testament work. My small confession: I've read several of his major books, starting with NTPG, JVG, RSG (partly), SBH, P:FP, Justification and wrote my undergraduate diss comparing his eschatology with Joseph Ratzingers.

The poor battered bishop works with the texts of the New Testament and (shock horror!) sometimes he finds himself giving the odd historic confession a tweak. I think that's what the altprotestantische Orthodoxie called sola scriptura. Anyway, I digress.

What bothers me most is the unfairness of several of his reviewers. Two short and sour examples of people who know far more than me about lots and lots, but are nevertheless to be scolded for their stubborn bumptiousness, are:

Paul Helm (systematic theologian):

"[Wright] routinely thinks of tradition as constraining what is thought in the present, and so anything ‘traditional’ must be rejected or at least viewed with suspicion. (eg 135, 223, and many other places.)”


This is a horrible distortion of what Wright actually wrote on p. 135:

“Part of me recoils from having to question this traditional reading… because I can see a great truth underneath the claim being made… but … we must pay attention to the text…” (Justification, p. 135)


Gerald Bray (systematic theologian):
"... [Wright's] grand picture does not do justice to the
New Testament, where the use of the word ‘justification’ and its many cognates
cannot bear the meaning of ‘covenant faithfulness’ that Bishop Wright attaches
to it." (review of 'Justification' in the Churchman, p.102)


This short sentence reveals lots about Bray's knowledge of Wright's work. Wright does not attach the meaning "covenant faithfulness" (CF) to the word "justification and its many cognates". Wright applies this meaning specifically to "the righteousness of God" (dikaiosune theou). According to Wright, justification is a lawcourt image of God declaring someone to be dikaios, "in the right" - i.e. he's in line with standard reformation thought. That God justifies, declares to be just, is never denied by, rather taught by Wright. The point of contention is whether there is a thing called "God's / Christ's righteousness" which gets transferred across the courtroom. Wright sees this as a 16th/17th Century abstraction of a biblical truth. The problem? Simply: the confessions of the 16th and 17th centuries are written into the constitution of some modern theological colleges/groups. Oops a daisy.

Any reader of Wright will know this, and Bray's sloppy sentence has destroyed much of his credibility when writing / mud-slinging on this topic.

End of rant.

Check out the ntwrightpage.com for lots of his articles
and this blog from some students discussing his work.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

free to minister

"No secret of Christian ministry is more important than its fundamental God-centredness. The stewards of the gospel are primarily neither responsible to the church, nor to its synods or leaders, but to God himself. On the one hand, this is a disconcerting fact, because God scrutinizes our hearts and their secrets, and his standards are very high. On the other hand, it is marvellously liberating, since God is a more knowledgable, impartial and merciful judge than any human being or ecclesiastical court or committee. To be accountable to him is to be delivered from the tyranny of human criticism."


John Stott, The Message of Thessalonians, p. 51f.

Thursday, July 02, 2009

rock with you

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

God's reign

Andy asked me at the Coffee Bible Club if I would say something about God's reign and human freedom. According to the motto "Mistakes are signs of growth" (M. Yaconelli), I will venture to say something:

1a The reality of human responsibility is a big assumption woven into Scripture's stories
1b The reality of God's reign is a big assumption woven into Scripture's stories
1c The expressions of both of these realities have the character of humble confession, and not of dispassionate assertion

2a These realities seem to collide in the context of the persecution of God's people by unbelievers like Pharaoh
2b In such situations of oppression, faith confesses hope in the continuing reign of God
2c This gives birth to the talk of reprobation in some isolated cases (Pharaoh, 1 Pet 2,8)
2d Therefore these isolated cases are best understood as fruit of the confession of the continuing reign of God, and not as an assertion of a general fact of reprobation

3a God's people confess that they have become God's people due to God's grace and work alone
3b The emphasis on the election of God's people by grace is strong and widespread in the stories of Scripture
3c The emphasis on the hopeless inability of God's people to be God's people according to their own strength or willpower is strong and widespread in the stories of Scripture
3d These emphases give birth to the talk of God's choice, because this gives God the glory for all the good work of his Spirit in dark hearts
3e Therefore talk of God's choice is best understood as a confession of faith in the lostness of man and in the love and power of God's Spirit, and not as an assertion of an abstract fact

4a Turning the bible into a book about election and reprobation distorts the bible's story
4b The bible is about the holy creator God whose will is to bless all people in all nations, particularly (although not exclusively) through people who live in special covenant with him.
4c soli deo gloria

Sunday, February 08, 2009

On the Sacraments

I once read an article by someone who had had an incredibly low view of the sacraments as a young Christian. His view had been challenged and changed by reading Calvin's Institutes on the topic, which had lead him back to the way Paul talks about things in the New Testament.

So I thought I'd share some of the good things I discovered there:

It seems to me that a simple and proper definition would be to say that it is a outward sign by which the Lord seals on our consciences the promises of his good will toward us in order to sustain the weakness of our faith...


Calvin's got a bit of a reputation for being a scary chap, but - without wanting to defend all his theology - something that strikes me about his writing is that he's very aware of his own weakness and of the gentleness of God with battered saints. What a great way of thinking about the sacraments: the whole point is to strengthen our feeble selves. Check out his descriptions of our faith, and of God:

As our faith is slight and feeble unless it be propped on all sides and sustained by every means, it trembles, wavers, totters and at last gives way. Here our merciful Lord, according to his infinite kindness, so tempers himself to our capacity that, since we are creatures who always creep on the ground, cleave to the flesh, and, do not think about or even conceive of anything spiritual, he condescends to lead us to himself even by these earthly elements.

Those quotes are from Book 4 Chapter 14: 1 and 3 of the Institutes. This counts as one of my two contributions to the Calvin-Year thing, by the way :) The second is a poem, here.

Monday, January 19, 2009

Bus adverts

Cartoonist Noel Ford comments on the atheist bus campaign... classic!!!:

HT: Dan Hames