Justification

Justification

Latest issue of Credo magazine now online.

seeing glory//being sent (an observation)

Moses saw a bush ablaze, yet not consumed. The ground where he stood was holy, because the living God was present in his burning majesty. And Moses was made to keep his distance.

Isaiah saw the LORD, high and lifted up and the train of his robe filled the temple. All was smoke and sublimity. And he was so deeply conscious of the holiness of God that his own uncleanness became a palpable, damning reality.

Peter listens to the man on the shore and casts his nets where he had no expectation of finding fish. He and his friends were overwhelmed by the haul. In the catch, he caught a glimpse of God’s otherness; in that sign, he saw his sin and was humbled to his knees.

Three men, awed by God’s majesty, made deeply aware of their own fractured and soiled humanity.

And in each case the LORD deals graciously with them: Moses the exile is reminded that this is the God of his fathers, the God of promise; Isaiah’s lips are scorched by coals and told his sin is atoned for; Peter is simply told not to fear, presumably because fear has to do with judgement and he is now in the presence of the source of redeeming love.

And in each case the LORD speaks to them of his mission to rescue a lost and broken world and calls them into the service of that rescue plan: “So now, go…”; “Go and tell this people”; “From now on you will fish for people”.

Three men shown God’s glory - not to crush them but to commission them; to humble them that they might be raised into serving God and his gospel of grace.

Colonialist, proselytizing missionaries...

The Surprising Discovery About Those Colonialist, Proselytizing Missionaries: They didn'€™t set out to change history. But one modern scholar's research shows they did just that.

A positive assessment of the impact of missions.

A different kind of low and high church

These words by Steven Covey (HT: Matt Perman) are very challenging when applied to church culture:

A low-trust culture is filled with bureaucracy, excessive rules and regulations, restrictive, closed systems. In the fear of some “loose cannon,” people set up procedures that everyone has to accommodate.

The level of initiative is low — basically “do what you’re told.” Structures are pyramidal, hierarchical. Information systems are short-term. The quarterly bottom line tends to drive the mentality in the culture.

In a high-trust culture, structures and systems are aligned to create empowerment, to liberate people’s energy and creativity toward agreed-upon purposes within the guidelines of shared values. There’s less bureaucracy, fewer rules and regulations, more involvement.

What sort of environment are we fostering? Are people flourishing, truly?

Seven Standards for Good [Preaching]

Seven Standards for Good [Preaching]

What is good writing? This book isn’€™t very good. That one is. But what is this ‘good’€? Some might say good writing is only a matter of preference, but that gives too much power to one with limited …

The article is actually about what makes for good writing but if you substitute ‘sermon’ for ‘writing’ and ‘preacher’ for ‘writer’ then there’s a heap of stuff in here to provoke preachers to helpful thinking about their work.

Lessons from a quirky preacher

If I say, 'I heard someone preaching recently who….', promise me you won’t try to guess who it was. Just relax; it wasn’t you - ok? Because I heard someone preaching recently who I really struggled to listen to and I’ve been thinking about that experience and what it teaches me about my own preaching and how it might be perceived.

So here’s how it was (for me):

• His manner seemed really quite unnatural - the guy was very different in personal conversation to how he was when preaching. Now, of course, that’s probably true of all preachers to varying degrees - preaching isn’t, in the nature of it, a face-to-face over a coffee somewhere. But this was more than that. His verbal delivery and the use of his body bordered on being odd at times. I’m trying not to be unkind, but that’s how it was. It left me feeling strangely disconnected from him and from his message, because it was disconnected from his own norms.
• He was very passionate about what he was preaching on - hooray; nothing worse than insipid preaching. It’s not a talk about Tupperware, after all. But there was something about the intensity of his passion that acted as a kind of force-field around him and around the whole experience of trying to engage with him. You could enter but only if you were willing to let it be wholly determinative for you, if you were willing to ‘surrender to the void’.
• He really wanted to do justice to the Bible, to convey its message and to persuade us of its importance and application. I have no doubts about that and, again, it was a very welcome trait. But there were aspects of what he was saying that raised legitimate questions - questions about interpretation, questions about application - yet the whole manner of the address left me feeling that they simply could not be asked. What he was saying had to be received in toto, as a job-lot, or not at all.

The whole experience - the quirky, unnatural manner; the intensity of the delivery; the brook-no-argument style, even where it would be legitimate - left me feeling unable to really engage with what he was saying and, ultimately, standing outside his world. And, if I’m honest, a little judged for being outside.

It’s the last thing he would have wanted, I’m sure. And it’s the last thing I, as a hearer, wanted. Yet it happened.

I think there are significant lessons in that whole experience for me as a preacher:

• I need to try to minimise the differences between how I come across in a public-speaking situation and how I am in more regular scenarios. There has to be more continuity between the two, not less, even whilst acknowledging that there will be valid differences.
• I want to preach with passion but it has to be a passion that breathes a genuine invitation, that speaks of a world that is open and that can be engaged without an uncritical capitulation to the personality of the preacher.
• I want to preach faithful to the Bible yet in a manner and with words that encourage further reflection, that open a dialogue. It strikes me that this is especially important when people who are not Christians are listening.

In the bare winter trees

Today would have been Dad’s 94th birthday. He passed away shortly before his 86th.

And from my window I’m looking at trees that are bare of all life and silenced in the almost complete stillness of the morning air. An occasional bird stops by to see if they hold anything for them, but soon continues on its way, unfed. The ground holds last night’s frost to itself, dense and compact, admitting of no release. A life has gone.

And the sky is the blue of his eyes and the sun is rising still.

Leah: pain and praise

Genesis 29:31-35 records the birth and naming of Jacob’s first four sons by Leah. Interestingly, it is she who names the children, not Jacob (is he really that disinterested?) and the names, along with the reasoning behind them, give us insight into Leah’s handling of the pain of her situation.

When the first son is born, she names him Reuben because she believes the LORD has seen her misery, being relatively unloved by her husband. Her hope is that Jacob will love her now.

But that seems not to be the case. When her second son is born, she names him Simeon because the LORD has heard she is (still) not loved. The fond hopes that surrounded the birth of Reuben were clearly not fulfilled; Jacob loves Rachel only.

Leah’s pain evidently continues. When her third son is born she names him Levi, ardently hoping that now, at last, his birth will cause her husband to be attached to her. It seems a forlorn hope. She has been placed in an intolerable situation and not by her own choice. She is deeply pained at Jacob’s rejection of her and longs for him to have a change of heart in order to heal the pain in hers. But it seems Jacob is unmoved by the LORD’s giving sons to them and is blind to the LORD’s favour towards Leah.

Yet when her fourth son is born, she names him Judah saying, "This time I will praise the LORD". No mention now of her husband, nor of her desperate desire to be loved and accepted by him (an entirely understandable and legitimate desire).

Leah, so slighted and demeaned, is not abandoned in her misery and with the birth of Judah she recognises this. No doubt the pain remains but she is able now to praise the LORD out of her pain. Reconciled to her situation, she is able to rejoice in the God who is ever-loving and ever-loyal to his people. "This time" her focus is higher than her husband and her joy greater than he could arouse or sustain. To be loved and accepted by the LORD and to know his favour means more than anything else could.

The struggle with her sister and her husband would be a running sore and would return soon enough (see the next chapter) but maybe it’s no coincidence that at this point, for a time at least, "she stopped having children".

16 Resolutions for Preachers in 2014

16 Resolutions for Preachers in 2014. | Scribblepreach

Some helpful stuff in here for preachers to chew over.

behaviour, not bad exegesis

In Lk. 20:45ff, Jesus “does not challenge the scribes for their misreading of scripture but for their behaviour. Behaviour, not bad exegesis, disqualifies them as interpreters." DA Garland, Luke (ZECNT) emphasis mine

a preacher's humility

"true doctrine eliminates arrogance through reflection, because right teaching attacks arrogance in the teacher’s heart. It ensures that the humility it aims to instill in the listeners’ hearts is actually preached by a humble man. For humility, the mother of virtues, teaches by word and demonstrates by example. 

The goal of true doctrine is to express humility among disciples more by deeds than by words. When Paul tells his disciples, “These things command and teach with all power” (1 Tim. 4:11), he means the credibility that comes with good behaviour rather than the domineering exercise of power. When one practices first and preaches afterward, one is really teaching with power.”

Gregory the Great (ironic, huh! But I guess that’s what others called him) from Awakening Faith

grace leads to repentance

"I do not think that an emphasis on grace leads to a soft ministry on sin and the severe demands of the law. Actually, it seems to me that such grace teaching makes it possible for sinners like us to hear the hardest things said about our sin patterns, and that can lead into a healthy sorrow which then leads back to sanity, i.e. repentance."

Jack Miller, The Heart of a Servant Leader, p.60

creation: preparing for worship

When God acts on Day 4 to create the sun and moon to separate day from night, the stated purpose is very anthropocentric, very Israel-centric, and focussed on the worship of the God who creates.

How so? Well, the lights in the vault of the sky are there to “serve as signs to mark seasons, and days and years” (Genesis 1:14, NIV 1984). But ‘seasons’ speaks to more than just phases of the year - the term is associated with the cultic calendar, with the set times for festivals. You can’t go far into the Old Testament without seeing that the overwhelming use of the term is for the tent of meeting and the feasts associated with it. Hence the NIV 2011 translation of ‘seasons’ in Genesis 1:14 as ‘sacred times’ - appointed times for feasts and festivals.

Sun and moon are created not simply as markers of the changing seasons for practical purposes but, deliberately, to allow for sacred times - the hallowing of time, the ordering of engagement with the God who created all things. Those markers are clearly tied to the provisions of the Old Testament (and therefore created with OT Israel in view), for as Paul notes in Colossians 2:17, those festivals and days were “a shadow of the things to come; the reality…is found in Christ.”

And so, in the new heavens and earth, when all things have been made new, we discover that there will be no sun or moon (Rev. 21:23): no regulation of festal times, for all time will be festal and filled with the fulness of the presence of God; no longer will there be seasons, for the tree of life will bear fruit every month (Rev. 22:2), its leaves for the healing of the nations, bathed in the light of the reconciling God and of the Lamb.

no more night

The Bible begins with darkness - a darkness that was over the surface of the deep. As the Bible draws to a close, a future is promised where “there will be no more night” (Revelation 22:5); no more darkness or chaos. But that darkness will be dispelled without the light of a lamp or the light of the sun. How so? “The LORD God will give them light.”

The creation of sun, moon and stars for light on the earth is seen to have been a temporary and prophetic provision, pointing forward to a day when the whole creation will be ablaze with true light, the light of a glory that is full of grace and truth, a glory that banishes the curse, that brings to an end the old order of things, that presages a future without pain, that ushers in a future healed of sorrows - the glory of the eternal God, seen in the face of his Son, Jesus Christ.

And so we say, with longing and hope, “Amen; come, Lord Jesus.”

not praying for revival, but

still praying for it. David Murray links to this post by Mike Leake and says he would add to it, ‘Send Holy Spirit-led revival’ but then adds, “Or maybe these five prayers would be a revival.” Seems to me he’s onto something there - praying for those things that would, when they occur, constitute revival. It makes our prayers much more specific and focussed and, I’d argue, more biblical.

the sanity of repentance and praise

Terrific quote from Jack Miller to end one year/begin another in ministry:

“One thing that can be hard for a minister is just the enduring. After you have been in the pastorate for a decade or more, you begin to see many weaknesses and sins in yourself, many failures in the ministry, and become increasingly aware of the resistance in God’s people to change. As our insights grow, so do our temptations to increase in despair. As a friend in Christ I would urge you to resist that temptation. Frequently take time to look over the church, your ministry, your family, and give God thanks for each good thing you see. So not only endure in the ministry but blossom with thankfulness and praise. Perhaps you have heard me say this before, but I like to think of repentance and praise as allied to each other - both forms of sanity. Repentance is a return to God as my centre. Praise is the lifting up of God in honour as my centre. But to move out away from the centre without repentance and praise is to be eccentric, irrational and insane. But what a simple thing it is to humble the heart and return to sanity by repentance and praise.

(The Heart of a Servant Leader, p.56)

A Bonhoeffer Advent Reflection: “Nazareth”

A Bonhoeffer Advent Reflection: “Nazareth”

So why does Matthew say they said he would be a Nazarene? HT: Mike Bird

The passing of the prophets: a note on 2 Peter 2:1

Peter’s second letter is very clearly written with the end of the apostolic age in sight. His own death is near (1:14) and most of the other apostles have already finished their course. He wants to make sure that his readers - people he has pastored, either in person or at a distance - are grounded in the settled truth of the gospel, that they would grasp that the prophetic message is completely reliable (1:19). They may not be the apostolic generation and, as such, may not have witnessed the astonishing events that Peter and others did (1:17f), yet they have a faith which is as precious as that of the apostles (1:1). They haven’t been sold short.

In that light, the first verse of chapter 2 is very interesting. Peter wants them to be on their guard because, just as there were false prophets among the people previously (he is referring to Old Testament times) so there will be false teachers among them. Do you see what Peter did there? Blink and you’ll miss it. The future, for them, will have no equivalent of the prophets of old. Yes, there will be false teachers - those who will take and twist, distort and deny the settled, received truth he has referred to. But it seems that the age of prophets who bring fresh revelation is past - the whole tenor of his letter breathes that air; it has a finality of truth, a finality that is inherent in the coming of the Messiah.

That’s not to say terms such as ‘prophet’ or ‘prophetic’ cannot be used in other ways, with a more nuanced meaning. But it is to say that something has ended. Peter seems to be quite clear about that. The fact that he doesn’t need to labour his point suggests that it wasn’t something his readers were unfamiliar with either.

a velvet church

Seth Godin quotes Brian Eno as saying that, although the first Velvet Underground album only sold 1,000 copies, all those who bought it formed a band. He goes on to note that, “many of us sell ideas, not widgets, and …ideas are best when used, and the more they get used, the more ideas they spawn.”

It strikes me that is what we ought to be looking to do as churches - not being consumed by wanting to sell more records ourselves but gladly seeing other bands forming.

who can forgive sins?

In Luke 5, Jesus tells a paralysed man, ‘Your sins are forgiven’ (v.20). The Pharisees respond by accusing him of blasphemy and ask, ‘Who can forgive sins but God alone?’ - a rhetorical question that expects the answer ‘no one’.

It’s a good question - and a moot point.

In his account of the incident, Matthew tells us that the crowd who saw the miracle responded with awe and praise because, as they saw it, "God…had given such authority to men." (Mt. 9:8) Authority to do what? To heal? Yes. And to forgive? Well, that would certainly seem to be part of the package they have in mind.

The Pharisees were angered because, as they saw it, God alone can forgive sins. The crowd are amazed because, as they see it, God has conferred that authority on men (not just the Man). So who is right?

It’s often said (by preachers, at least, and I know because I’ve said it) that the Pharisees were at least right on this point: only God can forgive sins. Where they went wrong was in not recognising that God was among them in the person of his Son. So they were right and the crowd was wrong.

But let’s think for a minute about what the Pharisees actually believed. They knew that the LORD had delegated his power of forgiveness and attached it to the sacrificial system, presided over by the High Priest. That reality runs throughout the Old Testament: sacrifices are offered and atonement is made and the people are pronounced 'forgiven' (see Lev. 4:20,26,31,35 etc - the references are copious).

So perhaps their question is, in fact, a shorthand way of saying, ‘God alone can forgive sins which we all know he does via the delegated authority of the Law and via the priestly system.’ The forgiveness is still God’s to give but he chooses to give it in that context.

In which case it seems that the Pharisees were actually questioning Jesus’ positioning of himself as one who takes the place of the sacrificial system and the work of the High Priest. In so doing, it would seem to them that he was making himself equal to God by insisting he was in a position to make such a change to the Law.

But it goes even further than that. In Matthew’s account, as we noticed earlier, the people praise God for giving such authority to people (the word translated ‘man’ is in fact plural). They recognise in Jesus not a usurping of God’s authority but a delegation of it, to human beings (not just to this human being) and outside of the provisions of the Law.

Of course, it might be argued that the crowd knew very little and were hardly sophisticated in the finer details of the sacrificial system (no doubt the Pharisees would choose to argue along those lines). But Matthew, writing after Jesus’ resurrection and with a fuller grasp of such issues, in no way writes negatively of the people’s assessment. There is not even a hint in how he writes up this incident that the crowd were wrong in their conclusion, that they were enthusiastic but misguided. No, Matthew doesn’t suggest that at all.

But does God - has God - given the authority to forgive sins to people? Jesus apparently believes that he has. In fact, he himself extends that authority on God’s behalf to his people: "If you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven" (Jn. 20:23); "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Mt. 18:18).

We might want to call a halt at this point and caution that the matter of forgiveness would then be open to all sorts of possible abuses, including abuses we thought it had been rescued from in the Reformation. Is God bound to forgive anyone whom I choose to forgive? What if that person isn’t truly repentant? And will God withhold his forgiveness from someone who is genuinely repentant because I’ve decided they aren’t really sincere in seeking it? Not to mention the potential for pride and the rise of an unbiblical priestliness.

That was my first reaction, too. People don’t need to ask me for forgiveness; they go to God through Jesus. He alone can forgive sins. Except he tells me to forgive others, not just in the passages just referred to but in a whole host of others. I am to act in a priestly capacity as authorised by God, in light of Jesus’ once-for-all sacrifice for sin, the true fulfilment of the whole sacrificial system of the OT. And not in any sense because I happen to be a minister but simply because I am a Christian, as part of the universal priesthood of all believers.

So what about those pitfalls - people getting forgiven when they oughtn’t to be and vice versa? Well, no one ever said God’s hands were tied on this matter, any more than they are tied by the 'ask anything in my name and it will be done' strand of Jesus’ teaching. God is big enough to handle our fallibility.

But he has commissioned us to proclaim forgiveness in Jesus’ name and to enact it in our relationships. Yes, that takes place via gospel preaching (the way some would apply the John 20 text) but not only so; Jesus makes it far more personal. He enacts it in the presence of the Pharisees and God is glorified for it by the people. The old was passing, the new was being unveiled. Decisive atonement was being located in Jesus’ death and forgiveness on the basis of his atoning sacrifice was to be actualised through his people, as indwelt by his Spirit (John 20:22).