watching, reading, thinking...applying the gospel

Some themes and thoughts on Slumdog Millionaire

2009-11-03T01:21:00.001-08:00

I haven’t blogged for a while, but I am starting again. I thought I would start with the notes I made as I prepared for our last Reel Life film event at the Electric Cinema. As I was watching the film I tried to summarise the themes of the film in 4 words, this is what I came up with:

Innocence, suffering, destiny and love

Innocence because we see a progression through the film – of innocence lost –following the death of Jamal and Salim’s mum – and particularly the descent of Salim – the older brother to become a gangster and murderer.

Suffering – Latika and Jamel see and do things they would never have ended up doing – had their lives not been so tragic. One of the things that adds to the pace of the film is the fact they always seem so vulnerable as little kids – and yet their suffering which you tolerate as viewer on the understanding that there is some purpose in it.

And that’s the role of destiny – the fact that Jamel’s very limited life experience has prepared him amply (not just for who wants to be a Millionaire) but to fulfil his destiny in life...

Which is the forth theme - to find his lost love. In Jamel you see a pursuit of Latika regardless of personal cost because of the overwhelming belief that when he is reunited with Latika that everything will be OK.

And those themes are interesting to watch in a film – evangelistically the question they provoke for us is :: is this film itself a parable – for everyone? To what extent are we to transfer meaning from the film into the real world? Are there resonances with how life is meant to be?

2 questions the film prompts:

1. So do our sufferings mean something? When we are suffering intense emotional or physical pain are those sufferings purposeful in any way? Is there an overwhelming sense of destiny that makes purpose of life and means that everything isn’t undone by suffering and death– that is a significant question.

2. And secondly is there a love that can bring about a return of innocence. Is there love that delivers more than just fuzzy feelings but innocence - worth pursuing at any cost?

Having asked those questions I’m not sure what the writer and director would say to them – but there are no shortage of people who say there is no meaning or purpose – everything happens by chance – the film challenges that notion – and says there has to be some purpose to suffering – there has to be some underlying reason for hope & purpose – its unusual in a film!

So listen here’s my 2 pence worth from a Christian perspective:

As a Christian I often get asked about (on a philosophical level – about other people’s) suffering– not a question I’m, going answer here (you can ask me later) but the film asks a deeper more personal question – can any good come out of personal suffering? As a Christian I am able to say yes to that – not because there is an impersonal sense of destiny that eventually makes sense of life – but because there is a personal God who uses the things we go through to challenge and shape our characters. Actually we see it absolutely in the life of Jesus – the innocent man who is willing to die a terrible and lonely death – and yet knowing that through his death (through his sufferings) – he is bringing about rescue. In that way actually that story of Jesus is similar to the end of Salim - the older brother (not because Jesus was a carpenter turned gangster) – but because his death – like the death of the older brother - sets other people free. So in the film - for both brothers – there is a sense of destiny – but for one it means life, for the other death. So is there a destiny that makes sense of our lives (and our sufferings)? To which the answer from a Christian perspective (at least) is yes - but his name isn’t destiny that is too impersonal for God.

2. The flow of the characters draws us into the story – the fact that Latika is twice let down by Salim (and also raped by Salim in the hotel) there is a progression we see in Latika and Jamel and Salim – of innocence lost. What’s interesting by the end Jamel and Latika end in a Bolywood dance – and that (I think) is emblematic of an innocence regained by the end of the film. It is as if the reunification of those 2 characters can restore and (to some degree) undo the suffering they have been through. The physical and emotional scars are wiped away by this love that brings innocence.

Again I just see some parallels with what is promised by Jesus of a love that does brilliantly restore wounded people. Not with a romantic (and slightly sentimentalised) view of love – (getting the girl) but reunited with the author of love itself. A love that can bring a permanent return to innocence – a total and complete forgiveness.

As you chat about the themes of the film keep thinking about those 2 question:

1. Is there a purpose (a destiny) to our sufferings?

2. Is there a love that can bring a return of innocence – to wipe away suffering?

Well those are my 2 pence worth.

Calvin – 500 years on and still changing the world

2009-07-28T01:56:00.001-07:00

I find it fascinating that Time magazine puts Calvinism no. 3 on the “Ideas changing the world right now”. This was an interesting article, particularly now the neocons have left Washington the American media are charting the demise of the political influence of “conservative” Christianity.

How refreshing that an idea (or theology) can still be regarded as influential even when it is not primarily political. It should also cause us to reflect on whether theological ideas still govern and influence the British church. It is sad that many churches do not seek a theological renewal with a passionate return to reformation theology but remain convinced that changing the world comes only through what we do not what we believe. If we make the mistake of putting our theology behind our activity rather than allowing our theology to govern our activity then make an idol of activity and changing the world becomes our goal over and above activity that finds its ultimate goal in the worship and praise of God.

Who are our enemies?

2009-07-27T04:13:00.001-07:00

I was deeply concerned to see the BNP exploiting the growing anti-Islamic sentiment that bubbles within the Christian mainstream, combined with the marginalisation of Christian values in order to win more support for the BNP.

This tactic of the BNP plays on the concerns of Christians who feel let down by the growing secularisation and “islamification” of Britain. There are 2 deeper questions:

1. Are concerns about marginalisation and islamification legitimate?

We see many things that ought to make us legitimately concerned about how Christians are increasingly politically marginalised by the wave of secularism and also the introduction of Sharia law. Both of these things may reduce the ability of Christians to be vocal about the gospel and the glory of Jesus - this ought to concern us.

2. What do you do with these concerns?

This is the key question :: just because we are being marginalised does not mean we are free to ally with anyone who seeks to return a Christian voice to the centre of society. It is deeply distressing if (normally level-headed) Christians chose to ally themselves with groups like the BNP for the sake of political expediency. To do so values certain political outcomes above our motives. In the face of the obvious enemy (secularisation) we can blinded to our true enemy Satan. To refute the enemy of secularisation by embracing the enemy of bigotry and racism is not an honourable action or outcome and will not serve the church well and may well acceleration any marginalisation. Our approach to increasing marginalisation would be better served by seeking renewal of society by proclamation of the gospel and praying Paul’s prayer of 2 Thessalonians 2:

16May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who loved us and by his grace gave us eternal encouragement and good hope, 17encourage your hearts and strengthen you in every good deed and word.

New scientist expects the economic downturn to be good for churches

2009-05-28T11:07:00.001-07:00

The suspicion of rationalism towards faith makes the humanists scared that the economic downturn will be a boom time for religion:

SCIENCE has allowed us to smooth over many of the natural ups and downs of human existence. We have predictable harvests, food on supermarket shelves, savings and pensions that will help us get through difficult times, and economies that provide most people with what they need to survive. Alongside these developments a rational, scientific world view has become the dominant mode of thought.

Take the comforts away, however, and the rationality often evaporates too. When human beings lose control over their lives, they become more prone to superstition, spiritual searchings and conspiracy theories.

There are some interesting and depressing conclusions the editor makes here (including the whole article), this is a bit rushed but here are a couple of thoughts.

The idea that science is now, and ought to be recognised as our super saviour. Yet if he were to be honest he would remind us there are great battles within science; eugenics, Stem Cell Research, GM farming, modern nuclear & chemical weapons all these things has made the wider public aware that science does not go on in a moral vacuum. The ethic that seems to guide many scientists; “we can and so we do”, just doesn't wash with the rest of us, not taken in with the saviour promise of humanism. The fact that science has brought some control to areas of our lives has never been a good enough reason to abandon faith in God.

Searching for answers, for realities outside our circumstances, is not a sign that we have abandoned our brains, willing to believe anything. Rather without the constant noise of consumerism, materialism etc. during a downturn, we are able to see through the folly of things that promised but failed to impress or satisfy – e.g. the technological revolution. May touch screen phone doesn't actually make me happier. And as our debts catch up with is maybe we might catch a glimpse of the hollowness of our existence and become desperate for more significant and meaningful answers.

Similarly as the economic cycle turns south the thin veneer of control is finally rubbed off. We realise that science, an excellent pursuit in truth, in itself cannot provide the answers we are most searching for, and as a saviour in itself has failed to provide the security that it promised & we hoped for.

Britain has got talent and its name is Stavros

2009-05-26T00:46:00.001-07:00

Review of Symphonic Theology

2009-05-26T00:14:00.001-07:00

I’ve really enjoyed reading Vern Poythress’s Symphonic Theology.

His most helpful insight I found towards the end; the reminder that the study of Christian Doctrine isn’t something we should do on our own. Instead it should be a cooperate discussion within the church family and the value of the diversity of perspectives within the family of Christ. Conforming to Christ only “destroys only the bad forms of diversity”. Instead we are confronted to identify the “the grain of truth” in others arguments and practice deliberately shifting our perspective to advance our understanding. This is because the aim of doctrine is more than just the correct answer discovered by one who owns entire knowledge about a single subject but instead the whole church body contributes to, and receives from, a shared body of knowledge of growing and developing perspectives. All share the commitment to “a single ultimate perspective on truth, God’s perspective” and all benefit from the exercise as a worshipping and loving family.

His central method is:

1. using a variety of perspectives on a doctrine or topic

2. Pre-emption method of argument – where you take the “grain of truth” from the other person’s argument no matter how wrong they may be.

3. Dissolution of poorly posed questions and debates that are based ultimately on semantic questions – I love this section where he basically accuses theologians who desire greater and greater semantic accuracy of desiring for human omniscience (albeit of a single word or phrase).

4. Enrichment by reconciliation of opposite emphases.

The new equalities bill has Christians in its sights…

2009-05-22T14:43:00.001-07:00

I try not to be alarmist in my approach to government policy, and want to submit myself to the rule and authority of my civic leaders (I do now rigorously obey the speed limits) - I am not an anarchist! However I see the new Equality Bill as the greatest institutional threat to the freedom of independent churches – far more significant than the religious & racial hatred bill. I believe this a law I may be forced to disobey…

“The circumstances in which religious institutions can practice anything less than full equality are few and far between” so says Equalities Minister Maria Eagle (pictured) addressing a UK conference on Faith, Homophobia, Transphobia and Human Rights in London.

Worryingly the new Equalities Bill (claiming to be anti-discrimination) is actually the means for the state to take greater religious control over churches forcing churches to conform to a particular state endorsed religious ideology (even where that ideology is thoroughly secular). Where the state insists that churches must accept members regardless of their sexual (or otherwise) activity, is wrong because:

1. Any church’s first responsibility is to God not the state. The association between Christians (and the individual and God) comes before their association to the state.

2. The authority of the state is exclusively derived from God’s authority over the state.

3. A church is subject to the state insofar as its members are citizens and (where the two are not in conflict) submission to the state is obedience to God. Romans 13v1

4. A failure of the church to discipline its members (for either confession of faith and/or practice) according to God’s law is serious leading to moral and spiritual decay within the church - it is nothing less than the church refusing God’s authority and instruction. See Matt 18 & 1 Cor 5.

5. Since state authority is derived from God any request by the state for a church to defy God’s law is itself a tyrannical action substantiated by false religious claims.

6. Therefore the church is compelled to disobey the requests of the state that conflict with the command of God.

Now that’s what I’m talking about

2009-05-22T08:10:00.001-07:00

Hat tip MA – how about this for the example of redeeming an art form. Scratch Kanye – this guy should be poet laureate.

2 reasons I like listening to rap!

2009-05-21T10:57:00.001-07:00

After watching a cogent and amusing Eminem on Jonathan Ross on Friday night it reminded me of how much I enjoy listening to rap. When in the car I’m as likely to sing along to Kanye West as I am Rolf Harris! And seeing as many Christians aren’t into rap I thought I’d write down what I think is great about Kanye (and rap generally)!

Most Christians rightly give rap a hard time – because it often encourages misogyny, violence, bad language etc. But having listened to Kanye it strikes me just what a brilliant art form rap is (even thou many of his lyrics are grotesque). Let me give you 2 reasons why I like rap:

1. Rap is an art form deliberately designed to communicate unlike lots of music (bar humbug) which seems to exist only to sell records. Rap is a didactic communication – man with microphone communicating his message. The lyrics are carefully considered with a deliberate message employing humour, and repeated memorisation etc.

2. The mastery of an artist like Kanye West (notwithstanding his current album) is in combining and interweaving the story of the lyrics with the flow and style of the music. Some musicians does don’t seem to integrate their lyrics and their music (remember the hideous smiling during lyrics like “there are people dying…”). Rap works by combining the music and lyrics to not just make a pleasurable sound – but the flavour of the music supports and relates to the message of the lyrics. I like that!

Some people believe that there are art forms that are more cultured and developed forgetting that the so-called “higher arts” can be just as consumed and obsessed with sin albeit in a more polite way. So may I suggest Kanye West as a poet laureate for our age!

Hattip MP: This guy has mixed loads of youtube videos together - I like the rapper!

Swine Flu and the allusion of control

2009-05-19T09:44:00.001-07:00

We received the government advice on swine flu through our door the other day. It basically says what my mum said to me when I was 2: use a tissue when you sneeze!

I’m pretty sure swine flu is coming, swine flu is contagious, swine flu is horrible – its flu. But ultimately – swine flu can’t be controlled!

I suspect we get these leaflets through our doors only because the government has to be “seen to do something”, when actually it knows it can do nothing. Does this leaflet expose how control is a modern day idol?

When swine flu comes, and when people die – I won’t blame the government – they are powerless with flu – I’ll blame the fact we all have to die. And I might be mildly annoyed with the swine!

MP’s expenses and approaches to morality

2009-05-18T06:07:00.001-07:00

The present fuss over MPs expenses illustrates a question about how we tackle moral evils in our age. Firstly it demonstrates the weakness of many politicians (regardless of political affiliation) to succumb to a system that “no-one” (after the event) thought was right or appropriate yet so many were willing to exploit - believing that either they would not be exposed or that the electorate would not be surprised by their expenses (although given the fuss over freedom of information I certainly believe it is the former).

What concerns me is the number of MPs who have insisted consistently that they have obeyed the letter of the rules – as if adherence to the rules was all that the electorate cares about. Some MPs have appeared more contrite and willing to pay money back – recognising their moral inappropriateness regardless of legality – and how it was viewed.

The insistence that “no rules have been broken” to my mind exposes a Roman’s 7 approach to government by many MPs – the belief that the “law can set us free” – make enough laws and make them robust enough and every moral ill can be addressed. Of course this crisis demonstrates how foolish such an approach is – no system can be made watertight – because no system can effectively govern the human heart. What is actually required is not simply new or better law – but we need to be saved from ourselves. It is not the opportunity for greed that needs to be removed but the very greed itself. It is Romans 8 we need – a life lived by the power of the Spirit able to bring true and lasting transformation! Laws are good but they are not enough – because they cannot have jurisdiction over the human heart.

One a good note – praise God that people still care about integrity – and that so few share the views of Stephen Fry on this.

Amos 5:11ff You levy a straw tax on the poor and impose a tax on their grain.
Therefore, though you have built stone mansions, you will not live in them;
though you have planted lush vineyards, you will not drink their wine.
For I know how many are your offenses and how great your sins.
There are those who oppress the innocent and take bribes
and deprive the poor of justice in the courts.
Therefore the prudent keep quiet in such times, for the times are evil.
Seek good, not evil, that you may live.
Then the LORD God Almighty will be with you, just as you say he is.

Text from Jade’s funeral

2009-05-04T18:47:00.001-07:00

Having written this a long time ago – I was really struck a few weeks ago at the death of Jade Goody and someone (hattip JW) sent me a link to this, the sermon from her funeral (quoted below). Any of us who vilified her in life (some still even in death - Parky) need to be reminded that no-one is beyond the pail – that the love and grace of Jesus can reach anyone.

Hope is what is offered by the Christian faith, the Christian faith into which Jade herself was baptised just four weeks ago today. And that hope is not found in the rules or rituals of an ancient religion, but in a living person, Jesus Christ…

I know that Jade liked reading the gospel of Luke in the New Testament. Why not read it for yourselves? It’s interesting that Jade liked Luke’s gospel in particular as it’s the one that highlights God’s love for unlikely people. She will have read there, in Luke’s gospel, how Jesus welcomed those who weren’t particularly religious, and how Jesus spent time with people like herself: down to earth people whose lives, like Jade’s, were at times flawed and difficult, but whose lives were precious to God. And she will have read there, in Luke’s gospel of Jesus bringing the hope that we all need.

Jade discovered that turning to Jesus brought comfort and peace for herself and her children.
She discovered it late on, but she discovered it in time. Why not discover it for yourselves now?

Best You tube video for a while

2009-04-09T05:01:00.001-07:00

After some time off blogging (during the birth of Ffion – it wasn’t a month long labour, don’t worry) here’s my first post. Thanks to NP for sending me this, but I thought it both amusing and insightful – particularly the comment about how quickly the world owes us stuff – and what an ungrateful generation we are…

ME Church!

2009-03-08T00:38:00.001-08:00

Ok – here’s another great film about the reality of how people choose a church with themselves not Christ at the centre!

Praying for a daughter

2009-03-05T19:19:00.001-08:00

Given the imminent birth of our daughter – I have been wondering what to pray for her – my worst fears immediately leap to a teenager bringing boyfriends home etc (I was intrigued by the title of this book after it was recommended by Doug Wilson: What He Must Be: If He Wants to Marry My Daughter). In truth my greatest concern is how we raise her such that she sees the Lord Jesus at the centre of our home. I wonder if the 2 things are not related. This letter is quoted in One with a Shepherd it was sent by Adoniram Judson to his fiancé’s parents.

I have now to ask whether you can consent to part with your daughter early next spring, to see her no more in this world? whether you can consent to her departure to a heathen land, and her subjection to the hardships and sufferings of a missionary life? whether you can consent to her exposure to the dangers of the ocean; to the fatal influence of the southern climate of India; to every kind of want and distress; to degradation, insult, persecution, and perhaps a violent death? Can you consent to all this, for the sake of Him who left His heavenly home and died for her and for you; for the sake of perishing, immortal souls; for the sake of Zion and the glory of God? Can you consent to all this, in hope of soon meeting your daughter in the world of glory, with a crown of righteousness brightened by the acclamations of praise which shall redound to her Saviour from heathens saved, through her means, from eternal woe and despair?

I pray that my daughter will see the Lord Jesus and become a Christian. I pray that she will be raised by parents who are faithful in telling her the gospel and live the gospel faithfully. And I pray that if my daughter ever brings home a boyfriend then she will looks for a guy who loves Jesus more than he loves her.

Salvation and Starbucks

2009-03-04T01:04:00.001-08:00

Great debate on the Today programme (although it was actually more consensus than debate) about the news that Starbucks have started serving instant coffee. What I found so interesting (and something I agree with) is that in drinking a cup of coffee we are addicted to 2 things:

1. We are addicted to the pleasurable hit of caffeine.

2. We are addicted to the ritual associated with the drinking of coffee (it is a drug of reward).

This second point explains why, when I don’t particularly want a caffeinated coffee – I drink a decaffeinated coffee in my favourite cup – and it just doesn't taste as nice when its not in my favourite cup!

It also explains the success of the modern coffee shop as a cultural expression of success, pleasure, intelligence etc. So taste doesn’t matter so much as the method of delivery – we don’t just like the taste of coffee – we like drinking it in a place and mug that makes us feel comfortable and successful.

So as Starbucks market instant coffee they have tried to make it ritualistic so that we associate the benefits not just with the taste but the ritual of drinking it!

To take this one step further we might argue that the coffee shop is a modern day religious experience – rituals that make us feel good about ourselves and achieve feelings of success and satisfaction – not from the taste but the surroundings!

And because I am in a very cheeky mood – let me compare Starbucks with Hebrews 10v11(totally out of context):

Day after day every priest [read Barista] stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.

I am Legend

2009-03-03T01:21:00.001-08:00

T his weekend a few of us watched the movie I am legend and had a thoroughly good discussion afterwards.

From Damaris:

‘I can save you! I can save everybody!’ Dr Robert Neville (Will Smith) is desperately trying to develop a serum, an antidote to a mutated killer virus that has destroyed most of the world’s human population. He lives alone in a city devoid of human company, feeding off the contents of deserted supermarkets, hiding from the mutated humans who emerge at night, and hunting escaped wildlife from the city zoo. For three years he has lived like this, bolstered by the hope of finding a cure in his improvised laboratory, talking to the pet German Shepherd dog that is his only companion, and remembering how things used to be. We follow his routines, the carefully constructed rituals that keep him going, the talking to shop-window mannequins, the radio broadcasts pleading for a response, and the meticulous security measures to keep out the ‘dark seekers’ – the mutated ones.

It has the same film DNA as Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later, where but here humanity is almost wiped out (not with rage) but a similar dehumanising disease that kills 90% of the population, 1% (like Neville) immunity and the remainder become less than humans, monsters of the dark.

What intrigued me most on my 3rd viewing, was the relationship between science and faith not least because, with the anniversary of Darwin’s birth this year, the conflict between science and faith is once again a common topic for discussion. Interestingly in I am Legend no such conflict exists.

Some reviewers panned the film because of the reliance of “God bothering” and the critique of science; the disease that threatens the future of mankind is actually a bi-product of a scientific cure for cancer. By the end of the movie Dr Neville has to yield his thirst for control “I can fix this” and leave his discovered cure in the hands of a woman who believes she is being guided by God.

Leaving aside the Christian imagery of the film; the chief question is whether there is a conflict between science and faith – or at least Christianity. Many would like to say “yes” but since all truth is God’s truth why are Christians so scared of engaging the scientific community with the truth of the lordship of Jesus? Interesting Dr. Neville has always relied on an alternative to science to provide answers, he listens endlessly to Bob Marley: “He had this idea. It was a kind of virologist idea. He believed that you could cure racism and hate – literally cure it – by injecting music and love into people’s lives.”

The film is probably not anti-science; afterall at the conclusion a cure is found and can be distributed. However the film is all to aware of the limits of scientific progress: “The world is quiet now. We just have to listen. If we listen, we can hear God’s plan.”

The solution is not to expect science to provide answers to ethical problems. Science might be able to limit some areas of human suffering, but it cannot explain why humans suffer. To that end it can provide no grand vision in which humans suffer no longer. In reality our ethics must define the benefits of scientific progression. Hearing God’s voice is not at odds with science but provides the limits to the questions science can answer.

Toynbee on faith schools

2009-03-02T08:16:00.001-08:00

I was reading this (for Oakhill) today:

The US constitution forbids religious worship or teaching in state schools. Now is the time to follow suit. For once some are allowed sectarian education, there is no reason why others shouldn’t be allowed their schools too – New Agers, astrologists, Moonies or any other sect or cult with a sufficient number of followers. After all, if you really believe the stars govern our everyday lives, then of course children should be taught the details of the movements and influences of the planets and the zodiac. If you think that’s all nonsense but the bible is the literal truth, be warned, for there is no satisfactory legal definition of a religion. A religion is just a cult with more followers.

Polly Toynbee, Independent Newspaper 23th Oct 1997

It seems to me that Polly Toynbee makes 3 mistakes:

1. She presumes it is quite possible – indeed virtuous - to teach children in school without teaching them a religious worldview; without teaching ethics, right & wrong, the origin of morality and the basis for truth – which is (it seems to me) a religious belief - albeit undeclared. Secularism teaches (inherently) that atheism is the worthy norm. What she actually wants is atheism/secularism taught as the only worldview in schools.

2. The very fact that there is no satisfactory legal definition of a religion is not the same as Toynbee’s conclusion that:

Christianity = a cult + power/popularity

Actually all truth claims (including Toynbee’s atheism) ought to be considered on their own merits. I do not believe that children ought to go to a “Moonies school” because I do not believe the Moonies truth claim. I do not believe that my children ought to go to a secular/atheist school because I do not believe the secularist/atheist truth claim. To that extent atheism = cult + followers too! Similarly the fact that faith schools as a principle might encourage really weird “faith schools” (think New Age, astrologers etc) in practice does not seem to borne out by example.

3. I guess I just don’t buy the whole argument that there is such a thing as a non-faith school. Isn’t a secular school (where we do not speak God’s name) just a faith school for atheism? In fact I would prefer faith schools of the Moonies where their faith was open for discussion and question, this fits with the parents responsibility to instruct and raise their children. Where Atheism is permitted to be taught as normal or respectable without being considered a cult making truth claims beyond question is unreasonable and indefensible.

God is changing us

2009-03-01T14:08:00.001-08:00

I was preaching on Romans 6 this morning. Although I didn’t use this quote I thought it articulated some of Romans 6 in a way only C.S. Lewis can:

Imagine yourself as a living house. God comes in to rebuild that house. At first, perhaps, you can understand what he is doing. He is getting the drains right and stopping the leaks in the roof and so on: you knew that those jobs needed doing and so you are not surprised. But presently he starts knocking the house about in a way that hurts abominably and does not seem to make sense. What on earth is he up to? The explanation is that he is building quite a different house from the one you thought of - throwing out a new wing here, putting on an extra floor there, running up towers, making courtyards. You thought you were going to be made into a decent little cottage: but He is building a palace. He intends to come and live in it Himself.

From Mere Christianity – C.S. Lewis

We cannot lose!

2009-02-28T00:45:00.001-08:00

When I was only 9 I played for a local team and was part of a 21-0 drumming. The next week we only lost 15-0. How sad it is is that a whole generation of youngster will be deprived of feeling that same level of success in the face of defeat as the FA considers a ‘mercy rule’ limiting defeats to 9-0.

The serious consideration is what advantage is there to isolate feelings of failure from our children. Surely it’s positive for our children to experience failure – especially when losing things in life is an essential part of growing and maturing. The decreased self esteem felt when having failed is essential to help re-ground your life on things that really matter. Coming home after letting 10 goals past you - you really need your mum to tell you that she still loves you – and that's a good thing!

Psalm 73v26: My flesh [my goal keeping] and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.

So there I dropped you on your butt!

2009-02-20T13:12:00.001-08:00

When I was growing up someone at my youthgroup read out the footprints poem as an articulation of what it means to be a Christian. I don’t think I have ever felt less masculine than at that moment. I wish they’d read out this instead:

How do you choose a church?

2009-02-20T03:32:00.001-08:00

I thought this was a really good video about how to choose a church. There are plenty of other comparisons that could be made:

Is every resource of the ship committed to winning the greater battle?

Is the ship sending troops into enemy territory?

Is the field hospital providing the best care for those wounded in service?

Is the ship serving as part of a wider navy?

And on and on…!

When a feminist concludes: feminism doesn’t work

2009-02-13T03:47:00.001-08:00

I thought this was an interesting statement of where feminism goes…from Wednesday's Mail…

My mother - a film-maker - was a hippy who kept a pile of dusty books by Germaine Greer and Erica Jong by her bedside. (Like every good feminist, she didn't see why she should do all the cleaning.) She imbued me with the great values of choice, equality and sexual liberation.

As a result, I fought with my older brother and won, and at university I beat the rugby lads at drinking games. I was not to be messed with.

But, at nearly 37, those same values leave me feeling cold. Now, I want love and children, but they are nowhere to be seen.

When I was growing up, I was led to believe by my mother and other women of her generation that women could 'have it all', and, more to the point, that we wanted it all. To that end, I have spent 20 years ruthlessly pursuing my dream of being a successful playwright. I have sacrificed all my womanly duties and laid it all at the altar of a career. And was it worth it? The answer has to be a resounding no.

The sad thing for the whole article is that despite her disappointment she still hopes in “having it all” as the dream to be relentlessly pursued – it’s just that “the all” has changed from career to family. The problem isn’t simply that Feminism is wrong its that all our worldviews that fall short of Christ are wrong! No career, family or home will give our lives sufficient meaning and satisfaction to replace Christ – because the thing about idols is that they will always fail us – we need the real deal, we need Christ.

Isaiah 40:

6 A voice says, "Cry out."
      And I said, "What shall I cry?"
      "All men are like grass,
      and all their glory is like the flowers of the field.

7 The grass withers and the flowers fall,
because the breath of the LORD blows on them.
Surely the people are grass.

8 The grass withers and the flowers fall,
but the word of our God stands forever."

18 To whom, then, will you compare God?
What image will you compare him to?

19 As for an idol, a craftsman casts it,
and a goldsmith overlays it with gold
and fashions silver chains for it.

20 A man too poor to present such an offering
      selects wood that will not rot.
      He looks for a skilled craftsman
      to set up an idol that will not topple.

21 Do you not know?
      Have you not heard?
      Has it not been told you from the beginning?
      Have you not understood since the earth was founded?

22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
      and its people are like grasshoppers.
      He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
      and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

23 He brings princes to naught
and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing.

24 No sooner are they planted,
      no sooner are they sown,
      no sooner do they take root in the ground,
      than he blows on them and they wither,
      and a whirlwind sweeps them away like chaff.

28 Do you not know?
      Have you not heard?
      The LORD is the everlasting God,
      the Creator of the ends of the earth.
      He will not grow tired or weary,
      and his understanding no one can fathom.

29 He gives strength to the weary
and increases the power of the weak.

30 Even youths grow tired and weary,
and young men stumble and fall;

31 but those who hope in the LORD
      will renew their strength.
      They will soar on wings like eagles;
      they will run and not grow weary,
      they will walk and not be faint.

Very helpful reflections on suitability for Christian leadership

2009-02-11T03:45:00.001-08:00

Someone (thanks DS) just sent me this pdf from Tim Chester outlining some thoughts identifying and examining potential leaders within church. I thought it was so excellent I’ve put the first section on Character below – you really ought to read the rest though! I thought it would make a good post for anyone considering Christian leadership or just as a simple articulation of how our leaders ought to assessed, affirmed and challenged!

1. Character

Leaders love Jesus, delight in his grace, manage their own households well,
and walk in daily faith and repentance so that their lives are an example to others.

1 Timothy 3:1-7 (Titus 1:7-8)

Potential Indicators

(These indicators are not a checklist that people must ‘pass’. They are an aid to assessing a person’s potential as a leader and a description of the kind of leaders we aspire to be.)

1. Do they show joy, excitement, confidence, awe and gratitude when they talk about Jesus?

2. Are they confessing sin and welcoming accountability?

3. Are they respected by believers and unbelievers?

4. Does their mood affect their conduct?

5. Do they serve their wives so that their wives flourish spiritually and in ministry?

6. Do their children respect them?

7. Are they slow to contradict other people? Are they rarely in quarrels? Do they confront people with gentleness and humility?

Do they have a living confidence that:

Proverbs 16-19

2009-02-09T08:10:00.001-08:00

Here is a wordle of proverbs 16-19. Enter text from biblegateway.com and make your own wordle – Brilliant!

8 reasons why this isn’t heaven

2009-02-07T09:40:00.001-08:00

As we began a new term at Streetsoul – our youthclub we decided to use the World We All Want course, which starts with our ideas of heaven and from there explains the gospel. I started my talk by showing this clip from Ice Age…

Revelation 21:

1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." 5He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!" Then he said, "Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true."

So here are 8 reasons why Scrat isn’t in heaven:

1. Jesus isn’t at the centre (Rev 22v3)

2. At the centre is the object Scrat desires most - an enormous acorn – Scrat’s functional saviour!

3. Christ isn’t being worshipped and his light and glory isn’t hidden behind a giant acorn (Rev 21v22)

4. The reason that Scrat craves a giant acorn is because life for him is centred upon his own survival – he buries his acorns to survive the cold. In truth all creation serves the universal purpose of glorifying God.

5. Central to the Christian future is the physicality of the new creation. There may well be (massive) acorns but there won’t be disembodied floaty walking-on-clouds malarkey Is 65v17.

6. Heaven isn’t concerned with fulfilling each of our own personal fantasies but is occupied by a single central person in whom we all delight together – Jesus. Rev 7v9-17

7. For that reason the new creation isn’t a solitary experience. The new creation will express the glory of God with his people united and perfected Rev 21v26.

8. The business of heaven will of course be rest in Christ (Heb 4v9)be it shall be more than just finding satisfaction! Heaven will involve us praising and worshipping

8. Where as Scrat turns up in heaven relatively unchanged – we shall be – we shall share Christ's purity and he shall delight in us Eph 5v27

But then it is just an animation about an animal…

Having had a vision of “heaven” scrat is eager to return…

Great Tim Chester quote of the day

2009-02-05T23:45:00.001-08:00

From You Can Change p169

Verse 31 says: “Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice.” These behaviours all have 2 things in common

1. First they all involve other people

2. Second they’re all symptoms of threatened and thwarted sinful desires.

Often we can’t spot sinful desires. But when they’re threatened or thwarted by other people, we respond with bitterness, rage, anger, brawling, slander and malice. One of the great things about living as part of a community is that in community people walk all over your idols. People press your buttons. They wind you up. That’s when we respond with bitterness, rage and so on. And that gives us opportunities to spot our idolatrous desires.

God is using the different people, the contrasting personalities, in your church to change your heart…Remember that the next time someone is rubbing you up the wrong way that God is smoothing you down! God has given you that person as in his love as a gift to make you holy.

What is a Grand Design?

2009-02-05T01:09:00.001-08:00

I’m sitting enjoying the new series of Grand designs a programme I both like and dislike.

Like because the programme brilliantly demonstrates the best of human ingenuity, creating and design that well illustrates humankind’s conquering of creation – especially the “eco” designs (Gen 1v28). Regularly the designs are innovate solutions to interesting problems.

Dislike because of the unapologetic pride of those who seek absolute architectural perfection building their own self manufactured piece of heaven. This is seen best in the lengths people are willing to go to in order to achieve their dreams; financial risks, living in caravans, accruing loans on credit cards, borrowing off friends, separation from families. All these show the extent some of these people will go to for their dream home. It does make me consider what it is about the idea of building a perfect home that is so satisfying. With the good ruling of creation there is also some expression of Babel (Genesis 11) in building a Grand Design. Is it not building a place so pleasurable and satisfying it displaces any requirement for the gospel and an effort to establish ourselves as kings over our environment in denial of God?

For one thing it doesn’t work; last night’s episode who’s dream turned to nightmare. Kevin McCloud said it well: “You can’t build a dream house to escape the world – because the world and all its bureaucracy will follow you there.” [Paraphrased from memory]

Whilst we might have the luxury of one day building our own house what liberation is the new creation that we need not find comfort from buildings to be our final home: John 14:23 “Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.” Since true rest comes not from our relationship with our building but our relationship with the living God.

And 2 Corinthians 5:6: Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord.

The 20 best websites about Birmingham

2009-02-04T00:39:00.001-08:00

Over the last years I’ve bookmarked the best websites about Birmingham I could find. For local authority stuff; this is the last week to comment on the Big City Plan, concerning Birmingham's future outlining some pretty interesting ideas. Have a look at Birmingham’s plans for 2026 which outlines what issues and problems the local authority thinks the city faces as well as how they are going to tackle them. For local news I read the Birmingham Post.

There are loads of new buildings planned and under construction for the City centre not least the cube, the V-Tower, the new snow hill tower, the new magistrates courts, the leisure tower, the new (and beautiful) New Street Station, the new snow hill etc as well as the new West side developments.

There are some decent blogs around brum including this on the creative arts, for visitors and attractions, or even better is this one, for getting around this new integrated travel map is the best application of google maps yet.

City Church, Grace church and Midlands gospel partnership

For good views of Birmingham you could watch this vid and if Telly Savalas likes Birmingham then so do I…

My favourite line: “It was an over forties competition…incredible”

Consumerism is our language of love

2009-02-03T02:50:00.001-08:00

On Sunday I was preaching from Hebrews 12. In preparation one thing that struck me was how our culture (wrongly) equates love with indulgence.On the TV programme 1/2 Ton Son the boy became so overweight (partly) because his mum said “I wanted to give him everything he wanted”. That is an extreme example of our culture that says you can measure the amount of love by the size of Santa’s sack. “Stuff” is a consumer society’s language of love, we recognise love by receiving stuff. I took this photo in HMV this morning…”You don’t love them enough unless you buy them this” for an ipod and BOSE dock. That’s their approach to Valentines.

If we apply this sort of thinking to our Christian lives then we only understand or recognise God’s kindness if we experience perpetual blessing. So no wonder we can’t recognise what God is doing when circumstances aren’t brilliant...But as Hebrews 12 says; the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he chastens everyone he accepts as his child." 7 Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as his children.

Being a Christian doesn’t sort out all our problems! When bad things happen in life we are not simply victims – we are now children whom God is raising. And he aims at growth/maturity above comfort.

Caveat 1: I am well aware we might not always see the value of such discipline for a long time, even in this live.

Caveat 2: This sort of teaching should not necessarily be our first line of pastoral care when someone is experiencing pain.

The BBC and their political involvement

2009-01-26T06:05:00.001-08:00

Today BBC chief Mark Thomson explains that the BBC will not broadcast an appeal highlighting the humanitarian crisis in Gaza because it would be “running the risk of reducing public confidence in the BBC's impartiality…[and] could be interpreted as taking a political stance on an ongoing story” It raises interesting questions about what an appropriate response to watching the news ought to be – do we just watch the news as entertainment – or ought it be food for our prayers and gifts?

What I find so deeply ironic (and hypocritical) is that the BBC has no such concerns broadcasting a highly emotive and politically motivated film about euthanasia (a short stay in Switzerland) the day before it is discussed in the House of Commons. Why doesn't this “run the risk of reducing public confidence in the BBC’s impartiality”? My guess is that there the BBC has no concern for impartiality in this story – the BBC is quite determined to use all its clout for political ends – it just has to be the “right kind of cause”.

Lily Allen – The Fear

2009-01-20T00:40:00.001-08:00

Chris Moyles, this morning, played the new Lily Allen single The Fear. As I wait for my daughter to be born this song is a sobering expose of the modern success story that my daughter will be encouraged by her peers to trust in. Lily vocalises what so many young girls actually thirst for, and expresses the bleakness of human existence without the gospel. For the Christian it acts as a warning of just what Satan is promising if we reject God – it is not liberation but bondage to fear. I find it interesting that whilst Lily can critique (at least I hope that's what she is doing) she cannot offer hope; in her lyrics there is no solution. This drives me to pray fro our nation…

(Warning – Youtube video contains strong language).

I want to be rich and I want lots of money
I don't care about clever I don’t care about funny
I want loads of clothes and ffffloads of diamonds
I heard people die while they are trying to find them

I'll take my clothes off and it will be shameless
'Cuz everyone knows that's how you get famous
I'll look at The Sun and I'll look in The Mirror
I'm on the right track yeah I'm on to a winner

I don't know what’s right and what's real anymore
I don't know how I'm meant to feel anymore
When we think it will all become clear
'Cuz I'm being taken over by The Fear

Life's about film stars and less about mothers
It's all about fast cars and passing each other
But it doesn't matter cause I’m packing plastic
and that's what makes my life so ffffing fantastic

And I am a weapon of massive consumption
and its not my fault it's how I'm program to function
I'll look at The Sun and I'll look in The Mirror
I'm on the right track yeah I'm on to a winner

Forget about guns and forget ammunition
Cause I'm killing them all on my own little mission
Now I'm not a saint but I'm not a sinner
Now everything is cool as long as I'm getting thinner

God needs you…not!

2009-01-19T07:16:00.001-08:00

Looking at 2 Sam 7v1-11 this morning Don Carson points out the following things I found challenging.

At this point in 2 Sam David had been king for 7 years and things were going very well, he has brought peace to the land etc. So he notices, that whilst he (the King) lives in a palace, God only has the tent of meeting. All the other nations had great temples for their God – not so the Israelites. So David (seemingly honourable) decided to build a palace for God, something that also seems good also to the prophet Nathan.

But rather than being grateful for this plan - God’s response has a sharp rebuke:

v5-7 It is God who always takes the initiative in salvation history – never man. Abraham did not start the conversation in Genesis 12, Moses did not set alight the burning bush etc. etc.

v8-9 God makes his kings great; they never make him great. This is the asceity of God. In fact though David has decided to “bless God with a temple” God chooses to further bless David – for this is the way it always goes – we cannot contribute anything to God that doesn’t already belong to Him or flow from Him.

v11-17 So the pun: “I will build God a house” – God will make David a house (dynasty).

All this was a sharp rebuke in my mind to 2 areas where we think we “bless God”:

Apologetics – God does not need our arguments in order to make him sound credible, logical or intelligent. God does not need liberating to make him sound sophisticated. God requires no defence of his greatness or right to rule over my life – or anyone else's.

Church growth – when we develop strategies or events to “see the gospel grow” we are not building these things for God – that his name may be greater than it already is. Rather because God is who he is – he prospers these works and it is grace alone that means we play any part in them. Many modern mechanisms of church growth place far too greater emphasis on “what we can do for God” and too little on who He is – as if God needs us, any more than he needed David to build him a temple.

thoughts…?

Slumdog Millionaire

2009-01-17T11:05:00.001-08:00

Without spoilers (I think)

Purely on the number of Bafta nominations we trekked to the cinema to see Slumdog Millionaire this afternoon. Can so many critics get it wrong? Yes - but not about this film! If this is not the best film of 2009 then it will have been a good year for films!

Reading the plot on Wikipedia (which I recommend you don't before seeing it) the plot sounds silly, far fetched and, well, cheesy! It is in fact gritty, hard edged with a real bite (warning – it is tough in places). I was expecting a film with the glitz of bollywood - what emerges is covered in Mumbai filth. It is City of God meets LA Story but far far exceeding either of those films along the way (especially LA Story).

Are there weaknesses? It appears to perform a rather cheap trick - telling a chillingly dark story to then pull you back to the ecstasy of a happy resolution (make 'em cry then make 'em laugh) - however there is nothing cheap about it. The characters are complex, the cities (slums) stunningly shot, the acting and script are superb and the whole film adds up to a whole lot more than the sum of its parts. The story is a simple fable well told and cleverly constructed. It quickly returns to the central idea of destiny and love. There is an interesting relationship between belief in destiny (Jamal) and ignoring destiny and making terrible life decisions (Jamal's brother). Their destiny is connected but ultimately opposite. The main difference appears to be how “destiny” changed their lives and their decisions. As the crescendo builds it is a mastery of story telling that you don't care so much about the outcome of the questions as the destiny of the love story - or is that because I am more a romantic than a materialist?

More comments from a Christian perspective regarding "destiny" when I am at less a risk of ruining the film.

Here's an interesting article lamenting the paucity of Bollywood (also doesn't contain spoilers) and why it took a Brit to make this film.

5 Best pieces of free software I’m enjoying this week

2009-01-17T03:00:00.001-08:00

Live writer – Like word – but just for blogging – and free.

Windows 7 beta: Like Vista – but better

Fonebook: Syncs all my facebook friends with my outlook & phone contacts

Skyfire: allows me to watch bbc iplayer through my phone!

Evernote: Keeps all my little notes collected in one place

Review of Memento

2009-01-16T04:03:00.001-08:00

Along with other films (Dumb and Dumber etc) when people knew I hadn’t seen Memento they said to me “you would love it”. So on their advice – yesterday I watched it. And sure enough – my friends know me well (especially my brother in law)!

It is a marvel of directing a film; shot in just 25 days, within 15minutes of watching I was captured by the paranoia and debilitating effect of memory loss.

Guy Ritchie plays Leonard, a character who cannot process new information – he has, due to the events surrounding his wife’s rape and murder, no short term memory. He becomes entirely dependant on the taking of Polaroid photographs and tattooing his body to retain information as he tracks and kills his wife’s attacker. The film is played backward and forward at the same time – the main story is played in a series of backward steps mimicking the individual units of short term memory Leonard can retain, whilst he tells another story (from his past) sequentially.

Because he has no short term memory - anything can be true, and he cannot interpret who he can trust - people use him all he has to go on is the instinct of his personality – with all of the usual objective information gone.

As with all modern thrillers the plot twists and turns at the end - however the turning point (unlike most thrillers) depends not on a key plot change, or new information – but on the main character and the choices he makes. It raises the question; “how do you define who you are?” Leonard shows how memory is crucial to making sense of even simple things – like our feelings; guilt, happiness, sadness – how can you interpret these things without knowing why you feel them. However this, for Leonard, turns from debilitating to liberating as becomes free from guilt and the usual binds of a human conscience. He makes his own choice about destiny, as he relies on his own personality – a decision based on information he initially knows is not true – but he acts on it all the same. In this regard the film strikes at the very heart of what it means to be a human being, how do we we know what we are, how do we make choices based on reason, outcome or consequence. It highlights the necessity for a right understanding of our history to properly interpret who and what we are – that we might act rightly and responsibly.

Once again – I find myself going back to the gospel to understand the answer – part of the freedom the gospel delivers is the information concerning my past. The gospel gives me understanding about why I feel notions of guilt or fear, happiness or sadness. The gospel helps me correctly understand what it means to be a human being and where my ancestry in Adam has brought me. Consequently I can understand my new place in the world belonging in Christ – with a new identity and a new consciousness. And this understanding liberates not just from guilt and fear (as Leonards memory loss does) – but also towards truth and hope; living with Christ now and the promise of coming home to him in the new heavens & earth.

It also has one of the best websites for a film.

Politically correct bedtime stories

2009-01-16T01:06:00.001-08:00

So in recognition of how the world has changed – I realise I need some cultural re-education. As such I have taken to reading the politically correct bedtime stories. Here’s the end of the 3 little pigs…

At the house of bricks, the wolf again banged on the door and shouted, "Little pigs, little pigs, let me in!"

This time in response, the pigs sang songs of solidarity and wrote letters of protest to the United Nations.

By now the wolf was getting angry at the pigs' refusal to see the situation from the carnivore's point of view. So he huffed and puffed, and huffed and puffed, then grabbed his chest and fell over dead from a massive heart attack brought on from eating too many fatty foods.

The three little pigs rejoiced that justice had triumphed and did a little dance around the corpse of the wolf. Their next step was to liberate their homeland. They gathered together a band of other pigs who had been forced off their lands. This new brigade of porcinistas attacked the resort complex with machine-guns and rocket launchers and slaughtered the cruel wolf oppressors, sending a clear signal to the rest of the hemisphere not to meddle in their internal affairs. Then the pigs set up a model socialist democracy with free education, universal health care and affordable housing for everyone.

Please note: The wolf in this story was a metaphorical construct. No actual wolves were harmed in the writing of the story.

Antiques Rogue Show

2009-01-15T06:41:00.001-08:00

A couple of weeks ago I watched a fascinating drama on BBC2 called the Antiques Rogue Show. The BBC website describes the programme:

…tucked away in the garden shed, Shaun Greenhalgh was creating fake paintings, antiques and sculptures that would dupe the art world out of hundreds of thousands of pounds…aided by his octogenarian parents…who concocted elaborate back stories for each forgery. Their trump card came with a fake Egyptian statue, supposedly passed down from George's grandfather, which they sold to Bolton Museum for nearly half a million pounds. Despite the windfall the family continued to live a frugal lifestyle, revelling instead in the satisfaction derived at deceiving the art experts.

Proof that the one-off TV drama/documentary is far from dead, well written with dark characters you can’t help having some compassion for, telling a true story raising issues about morality and justice.

One of the prevailing views of our culture is that any behaviour is acceptable so long as you “aren’t hurting anyone”. Greenhalgh’s forgeries certainly fitted into that category since in art fraud everyone gets something: fraudsters get money – and the museums or collectors receive a piece of art they treasure and people enjoy. To some extent art fraud exposes how far the art world has travelled from beauty to mere commercial exercise, since the entire value of a piece is not tied to its beauty but only to who made it and its place in art history. Throughout the story there is little compassion for those duped by the fraud, and a sense of injustice stands over Greehalgh’s lengthy prison sentence as a “misapplied talent” – a fact reflected by his forgeries which are now growing in financial worth because of the notoriety of their creator. In many ways the journalist (through whose eyes the story is told) is as unlikeable as the family at the centre of the story.

However, for all the sympathy one feels for Greenhalgh as an artistic genius gone wrong, you can’t help but remember that morality is not just measured by the harm one does, but by transgression of the law. And therefore forgery, however exquisite and innovative, is wrong. Losing the language of absolute morality opens a discussion we ought not be having – whether guilty people ought to go free because their crime has had no ill effects (except to those who should have known better & can afford their mistakes). What a wonder the gospel is by comparison – that the guilty do go free – but only because Jesus has paid our debt, a debt not to society – but to God alone.

Article from the Guardian online: Curtain falls on antiques rogue show as last of family forgers convicted

Advert close to home

2009-01-14T02:56:00.001-08:00

This advert (for the Prince’s Trust) near my home in Stirchley is a good illustration of a previous post (see below for the review of Kung Fu Panda) about what happens when a whole generation of young people believe they have to be the hero – not they need a hero.

The work of the Prince’s Trust is highly commendable in re-energising young people who, through lack of opportunity, family background, poor social foundations etc. have lost hope in finding work and playing a valuable part within society. What I find striking in the words of this advert is the location where our hope ought to be placed; belief in God is dismissed and relegated to the same category as Father Christmas – because what is most important in our individualistic society is self-belief. Whilst I don’t want to deny the importance of personal ambition and awareness of the skills and gifts God has given us (I believe these things do need to be recognised and God should be thanked), what frustrates me is that self-belief has become the ultimate belief to bring salvation. Yet when we consider modern history there are no shortage of “baddies” who oozed self-belief to the point of obscuring all else. What happens when some of these young people fail through no fault of their own, or when they face serious moral choices about corruption or tax returns. What happens when they have to deal with a colleague or employee who fails them. What happens when their job or company fails to bring them the sort of self-worth they longed for. Self belief is not all that matters, self belief can be highly deceptive, and can only properly understood by people who understand the nature of sin and our total alienation from God apart from the gospel. Therefore belief in God (the God) remains the central belief that governs all others.

Our personal and national social health depends not a belief in ourselves as the providers of our destiny – lest we think we are our own personal saviours – but depends absolutely on belief in Jesus as the only means of understanding not just the origin of our gifts and skills but also our place in the world and a correct and healthy view of ourselves.

3 articles I have found interesting over the past few days, written by a usually sceptical left-wing media have begun to recognise the same thing:

From the Guardian on Monday: Religions have the power to bring a passion for social justice to politics

From Roy Hattersley in the Guardian a couple of years ago: Faith does breed charity -
We atheists have to accept that most believers are better human beings

From Matthew Parris in the Times a couple of weeks ago: As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God

thanks JW for sending me all of these!

Review of Kung Fu Panda

2009-01-12T02:17:00.001-08:00

Contains spoilers – but would that really ruin the film for you…

This weekend involved a lot of baby sitting and I’ve watched Monsters Inc, Finding Nemo (twice) and Kung Fu Panda (although the last one was not with any children present).

It is very funny and undoubtedly a further development of animated movies – away from that single generic type to a further sub-division...Kung Fu Panda has a real “look” and “style” all of its own. But it left me with a single question in my brain – would I want my kids watching this, or if they did what things would I want to discuss with them subsequently? And not because of the violence, nudity or swearing (it only contains lots of violence – but directed at other members of the animal kingdom – who deserve it). Because as with so many kids films there is more than a teaching moral – but a worldview on offer - and it seems that in the world of animation the same one keeps cropping up.

Kung Fu Panda follows Panda Po; the unexpected selection as the “Dragon Warrior” – the saviour of the valley from the evil Tai Lung (snow leopard). Key to this journey of self discovery and belief that he can defeat his enemy is the revealing of the secret mystery (the reading of the precious scroll) which turns out to be blank. This leads Po (who is the typically likeable, mildly sarcastic outcast) to the deepest revelation of all : “there is no secret ingredient” – there is nothing that makes someone or something special. It sounds a like a smoltzy life-affirming message, but actually it is right at the heart of the human condition – the pride that says “I can do life my own way, I can have salvation on my own terms.” When in fact the reverse is true – we need a saviour to come and redeem us. We do not contain the truth within ourselves. The irony of the whole film is that this is exactly what Tai Lung believes about himself – the very thing that has made Tai Lung evil is the very thing that Po must believe in order to defeat him. The guilt of Tai Lung is assumed – just as the innocence of Po is assumed. I was never sure, in the worldview of the film at least – what it was that Tai Lung had done wrong.

I cannot help but imagine what happens spiritually, socially and psychologically to a generation who accept the worldview - in order to achieve all you need is self-belief – without question. What despair will befall a generation of twenty somethings who awaken to discover self-belief is not enough because it cannot change the disposition of the human soul – nor the disposition of God towards sinners. This is a generation brought up to believe they are the hero – not they need a hero.

There are other interesting themes: a strong denial of the coincidences of life “there are no accidents”, and the exclusion of Po by the famous five (or whatever they are). Make no mistake this is the slickest animation since Toy Story 2, and by far the funniest and snazziest script for an animated film for a long time – it reminded me of the first time I watched Shrek! Jack Black has taken on the excellent mantle of Mike Myers! But as with all things – the funniest and slickest films are the ones easiest to sneak under the radar of gospel thinking!

Damaris article

Buy it at Amazon

Biblical theology of Photography – Part 1 - Derived beauty

2009-01-03T01:11:00.000-08:00

I love photography - I have done for the past 3 years. In my conviction to submit everything under the Lordship of Jesus last year I wrote a long discourse on a biblical theology of photography. Then my hard disk drive failed and DOH...it was gone! Rather than trying to put together the same piece of work I thought I might periodically post pieces of ideas as they come back to me. Please do leave comments and sharpen my thinking on this. So...

Part 1: Photography recognises that all beauty is derived from God.

One thing that always strikes me about the claims of some contemporary artists is their believe they have “created” something innovative and genuinely original. I balk slightly at some of those claims because all beauty is God’s beauty and the aesthetic qualities of a work of art ought to testify not simply to the skill and originality of the artist but also to the derived nature of all art as representing and reflecting a creation we had no part in making. In that sense all art ought to express our creatureliness - art is derived from the greatest artist of all – the Lord God himself. So whilst photography is no more noble than painting or sketching there is an honesty about the derived nature of beauty for the photographer – because they can never (truly) claim to have created a photograph. As the photographer looks through the viewfinder he is admitting he is only an "observer" and "enjoyer" of creation, an honesty only manipulated by the darkroom or Photoshop. For this reason the limit on a photographer is more obvious than other artists - for the photographer the understanding of beauty is always derived, since the beauty of the photograph is always limited by the thing being photographed.

So when the shutter fires there is the testimony of something I have seen, recorded and enjoyed. But at the same time - there is the understanding that I didn't make this - I couldn't make this - the best I can do is enjoy this, record it and praise God for making it.

Above is a photo from our summer holiday as blokes ferried suppliers up the side of the Eiger.

Taking Criticism Christianly

2009-01-02T16:14:00.000-08:00

I've been reading an article by Alfred Poirier who notes that how we take criticism is a marker of our understanding of the gospel. The reason we invest so much emotional energy in what people have said to us is because these issues are not minor or insignificant. We defend that which we deem of great value. We think it is our life we are saving. We believe something much larger will be lost if we do not use every means to rescue it. Our name, our reputation, our honour, our glory. How we react to criticism shows our pride and our need to self-justify our existence.

So, he argues, criticism is something that ought to be encouraged, because the bible has teachability as an important quality, the best quotes ones are:

A rebuke impresses a man of discernment more than a hundred lashes a fool (Prov. 17:10).
He who scorns instruction will pay for it, but he who respects a command is rewarded (Prov. 13:13).
Instruct a wise man and he will be wiser still; teach a righteous man and he will add to his learning (Prov. 9:9).
He who ignores discipline despises himself, but whoever heeds correction gains understanding (Prov.15:32).
So we are better able to take criticism “through understanding, believing, and affirming all that God says about us in the cross of Christ.”

So he says:
1. In Christ’s cross I agree with God’s judgment of me: I see myself as a sinner.
And similarly someone who “knows that he cannot defend himself against God’s judgment by trying to offset his sin by his good works...To claim to be a Christian is to agree with all God says about our sin.”
2. In Christ’s Cross I Agree with God’s Justification of Me: “My goal is to boast in Christ’s righteousness, not my own.”
Pride breeds quarrels, says Solomon. Quarrels are often over who is right. Quarrels erupt in our idolatrous demand for self-justification. But not if I am applying the cross. For the cross not only declares God’s just verdict against me as a sinner, but His declaration of righteousness by grace through faith in Christ.
Consequently we know that since Christ accepts us who can condemn us? Hence we are unable to “self justify” but also the only one who’s opinion actually matters (Jesus) has himself justified us – what great news!

Conclusions:
No-one can criticise me more than the cross does! We do not fear man’s criticism because we already have God’s! So take all criticism as coming fro the Lord – a reminder to be humble and an opportunity to learn and reapply the gospel.
Similarly we do not fear man’s approval (or loss thereof) because we already have God’s.

He finishes with some excellent questions of application:
1. Self Critique:
How do I typically react to correction? Do I pout when criticized or corrected? Do I tend to attack the person? To reject the content of criticism? Are people able to approach me to correct me? Am I teachable? Do I harbour anger against the person who criticizes me? Can my spouse, parents, children, brothers, sisters, or friends correct me?
2. Ask the Lord to make me wise – not a fool:
3. Focus on my crucifixion with Christ:
First, if I continually squirm under the criticism of others, how can I say I know and agree with the criticism of the cross?
Second, if I typically justify myself, how can I say I know, love, and cling to God’s justification of me through Christ’s cross?
4. Learn to speak nourishing words to others.

What are your resolutions for 2009?

2008-12-31T16:47:00.000-08:00

Having read You Can Change by Tim Chester in the summer (thanks for lending me your copy JB – I’ll buy my own at some point!) it was a reminder of just how futile legalism to motivate life transforming change as a Christian. However because of our new identity in Jesus (and the power of his spirit) we can be so hopeful as Christians to see transforming change in each others lives.
So as we make resolutions for 2009 lets avoid the idolatry of the “new me”. For Christians the promise of the “new me” has been amply delivered in the Lord Jesus – who does away with the need for resolutions for an “inner wellbeing” since he gives us his Holy Spirit.

However if you are in the mood for resolutions, instead of vowing to leave behind junk food etc etc, why not make a resolution to read the bible in a year.

Here is a useful free tool I came across the other day – to help you read the bible in a year. The programme loads bible passages everyday (from the ESV) you just select the plan you want to follow and Robert’s your father’s brother (or summat)! I’m using it and it works pretty well. It also includes the option to share your thoughts with other people following the same bible plan.

P.S. To get the ESV click the icon top right!

P.P.S. Watch out for the idol of clicking the “done reading” button at the end! So tempting to think that successful quiet times come from completing the reading not from having engaged and been challenged by Jesus from his word.

Review of Gone Baby Gone

2008-12-30T01:15:00.000-08:00

Warning – contains spoilers – but I’ve deliberately avoided speaking plainly so I don’t totally ruin the film for you.

Well I didn’t know anything about this film before watching it, in fact, from the title, I thought it might be about an 80’s pop song – oh how wrong I was! The film is excellent (mostly) however be warned it has very strong language, some violence, and themes of child abuse and drug abuse. Given all this I am surprised it was passed a 15 rating – it is not one to watch with Grandma. It is a splendid film that builds suspense slowly and steadily to a crescendo of an ending that has the required plot twists and triple back flips. Casey Affleck puts in a sterling performance and his brother has written a blinder of a screen play – although I did get lost in some of the “gansta speak”.

Initial thoughts and comments:
It raises interesting themes about whether one always ought to act rightly even if one knows (with certainty) that the outcome of being honest will necessarily be worse than the outcome if one had been corrupt. At what price is integrity too higher price to pay? For Patrick the price is extremely high, costing him integrity, relationships etc. It is the old story of the family hiding in the cave with the Nazi’s searching for you. When a baby starts crying – do you kill the baby to save the others or let the baby cry and so be discovered. Patrick faces a conflict throughout the film and the film turns on a single event where Patrick gives in to (and is widely commended for) expediency for a swift judgement of an individual at the cost of his moral absolutism.

The issue is one of morality and how one takes moral decisions. There are a wide range of views and film explores 2 views:
1. The ethics of outcomes, that is ethical decisions should be taken not on the grounds of a moral absolutism but based on weighing the likely outcomes from a moral decision. I.e. if my wife asks the question “do these trousers go with this shirt” I choose to say yes, not because it’s true but because the outcome doesn’t matter (to me) and I know she will get frustrated and we will be late for the restaurant if I say no! It is this view the film broadly condemns and rightly so – since it is morally dubious and permits all manner of evil (including child abduction) to be justified on the grounds of positive outcomes. This is no small thing since this is the prevailing view of our culture –used to advocate eugenics, euthanasia, even ethnic cleansing. And it does matter – it is the prevailing view of a society that has broadly given up on notions of justice and absolute right and wrong.
2. The ethics of Patrick (Affleck’s character) is evident throughout the film. His voice at the start of the film asks his Priest how he could get to heaven without being corrupted by the world. His Priest replies from Matthew 10, “You are sheep among wolves. Be as wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” This is the Christian worldview on ethics – there is a moral absolutism that is derived from God’s perfection. There is a call for humanity to act rightly in an immoral world. So the contrast in the film is between people who simply believe we are the product of our circumstances trying to make decisions that have the best outcomes and Patrick who believes in an absolute standard of morality in the choices we make.

The film also raises interesting themes about the moral degradation of society and how one ought to reform society. The police act as social arbitrators, deciding who deserves to have a child – and who does not, based on the best interests of the child. However the final conclusion of the film is that the police are morally bankrupt, acting without judge and jury, and with no rest for the law themselves they are free to establish their own rules. This is actually the natural end point of a society with no moral absolutes and where the police effectively function as a street gang. They have given up on social services to provide any care and only face the solution of sorting out the world themselves – with their own view of justice. In the wake of the furore surrounding those involved in the baby P scandal the movie reminded me of the impossible situation social services are perpetually under, the difficult and stark moral choices the state has to make intervening in families – and made me realise what an excellent job often happens without praise or acknowledgement, and how we cannot afford to give up confidence in them to do their job lest with degrade ourselves into moral relativism.

Damaris have interesting articles here.

Amazon have the movie here.

The credit crunch and Alain de Botton

2008-12-28T10:34:00.000-08:00

I’ve been reading a bit more about the causes for the credit crunch. As a lifelong committed capitalist (to some degree at least) I can’t help but confront the fact that capitalism is fatally flawed on 2 fronts; consumerism and debt. Capitalism encourages a consumerism that encourages an exploitation of the poor and the ignorant – in desperation to encourage us to spend money on things we do not need with money we do not have. The weekly letters from my bank encouraging me to go into further debt the television adverts and TV programmes picturing the comfortable, attractive who all have lives filled with the latest and greatest gadget actually act as a raping of the soul – an encouragement to find comfort in stuff not Christ.

Reading Alain de Botton’s Status Anxiety this week (he’s not a Christian as far as I know – but is very good value) he quotes from a wide number of sources but these 2 quotes really put their finger on it for me. First is Adam Smith, the father of modern economic theory:
“Man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren. [However], it is in vain for him to expect this from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their ‘self-love’...It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity, but to their ‘self-love’.”
This underlines perfectly the problem with capitalism – it rests in the bosom of pride and self interest. Without greed capitalism fails. The reason it is such a successful economic system is a testimony not to man’s intelligence – but to our capacity for sin and our lust to replace God with stuff as the ground for our comfort and security. De Botton poses Marx as saying this modern economics is a move away from an earlier age where “Christian teachings helped to foster an atmosphere of concern for the vulnerable and hungry – and a tacit agreement that, in difficult conditions, they would be cared for.” Whilst Christianity ruled capitalism couldn’t thrive in all its exploitative glory!

De Botton also quotes from Marx:
“[Economics] knows the worker only as a working animal – as a beast reduced to strictest bodily needs...[The wages paid to employees are] just like the oil which is applied to wheels to keep them turning. The true purpose of work is no longer man, but money.”
On this I can’t help agreeing more with Marx than I can Smith (what a world-view shift in my mind!!!) but we know that work was instigated by God for Adam before the fall and before any need for work to provide. So the prevailing view of our friends – that we work to eat – is a victory of capitalism over the gospel. Such a view dehumanises us and reduces us to working animals. Rather we need a more holistic view of work that has to do with more than just provision but work as a function and distinction of our humanity. Sadly the result of the credit crunch will mean more than just a failure of workers to provide for their families but the impact of depression, social change and state dependency that ravages communities and the overwhelming sense of personal failure that accompanies self-love is the resulting fallout from capitalism...rant over!

P.S. I don’t think I’m likely to become a communist – in fact I think socialism assumes moral perfection in order to work and as such is seemingly ignorant of sin. I’ll rant about socialism some other time.

P.P.S. The whole credit crunch might just be over-hyped...

The Assassination of Jessie James by the coward Robert Ford

2008-12-27T05:13:00.000-08:00

Contains spoilers – but seriously read the title!

Ah I love the Christmas holidays – not only does my kind brother-in-law buy me this excellent film as a gift but I also have the time to watch it. If one of the functions of film is to transport a viewer to a different time and place then I know of no better film that this. Every shot and set has been lovingly pored over to create one of the most visually dramatic films. But combined with 2 marvelous performances by Pitt and Affleck (Casey – not his Pearl Harbour brother!) make for one of my favourite films of all time. Yes it’s slow and yes not a whole lot happens - but none of this film is wasted. Every detail is drawing you further into the story and characters so that when the action arrives you not only understand what is happening and why it’s happening, but you care sufficiently to become caught up in the emotional intensity of the moment.

I haven’t had the chance yet to properly think through the themes raised by the film so here are my initial comments about the character of Jessie James:
• He is clearly very sane; he has a gentle soft side that gives him a loveable common touch with people. He dresses well, sustains a seemingly loving and normal family life, he is not a comic book rogue with all the obvious evil and stupidity of typical Hollywood villains. There is an air of regret about him in his latter days; feelings of an internal conflict.
• And yet he is so feared – Bob’s brother has this constant anxious laugh that makes you feel like everyone (apart from his family) are walking on eggshells the whole time around Jessie. He has a psychotic glow about him that makes him feel like a time bomb on screen waiting to explode. It is very uncomfortable to watch (but quite compelling).
• He has a desire for infamy; part of his attraction to Bob Ford is that he enjoys the idealising and deifying Bob feels towards him. It’s probably why he lets Bob to his home towards the end – he trusts a man who idealises him.
• Quite why he is so idealised as part of modern American mythology is not explored particularly in the film although it relates in part to his views on the independence of the Southern States. Much bigger is his infamy and celebrity brought by the horrors of his crimes. He appears as a modern day Barabbas – the loveable rogue that everyone holds a soft spot for (like the Cray brothers or Buster Keaton). A victor against the system. In fact what is most revolting about the film is not his barbaric criminal acts (bloody though they are), but his celebration by the masses; a worship on the level of Diana after his death. A fact confirmed following Bob Ford’s murder; 7,000 people lobby for his murderer’s pardon. It is the horror of common humanity in confrontation with the seeming civility of a man capable of loving kindness exposed in the final scenes that leave the lasting impression. It is the condemnation of the liberator and the exoneration of the persecutor that makes the greatest statement of the human condition.

You can buy it from here

Why sinful human beings are terrible historians

2008-12-23T16:34:00.000-08:00

I was discussing with fellow preachers recently 2 Samuel 22 (since one of us was preparing this for a sermon), and we were trying to reconcile how this passage below (told at the end of his life) can be sung of David given what the writer had already shown about David’s sin with Bathsheba...

20 He brought me out into a spacious place;

he rescued me because he delighted in me.

21 "The LORD has dealt with me according to my righteousness;

according to the cleanness of my hands he has rewarded me.

22 For I have kept the ways of the LORD;

I have not done evil by turning from my God.

23 All his laws are before me;

I have not turned away from his decrees.

24 I have been blameless before him

and have kept myself from sin.

25 The LORD has rewarded me according to my righteousness,

according to my cleanness [f] in his sight.

We concluded upon reflection that the song expresses the certainty of Ps 51 as being true – that God truly does remember the sin of his people no more - that since our sins are fully dealt with in Christ he remembers them no more and one day we shall look back upon our lives not with regret but delight in the glory of God.

It made me think that when we look back on our lives before we were Christians filled with regret we are acting as historical revisionists – seeing our lives only from our view – not from God's perspective. We ought to see our lives as belonging in Christ displaying his glory.

Review of A Mighty Heart

2008-12-21T10:31:00.000-08:00

Contains spoilers – although you probably already know the plot.

From Damaris:

“Michael Winterbottom’s A Mighty Heart traces the true story of Mariane Pearl (Angelina Jolie) in the wake of her husband’s kidnap in 2002. Adapted from her memoir of the same title, we join Mariane’s reflections on the unfolding crisis that swallowed her world and ultimately left her a pregnant widow.”

The strength of the film depends on the shining performance by Angelina Jolie, one has to wonder how and why she ever made things like Mr and Mrs Smith, when she was capable of this! It is a moving performance and one that leaves you in no doubt as to the strength and character of Marianne Pearl in the face of her husbands’ abduction and execution.

The whole shape of the film (screen play, cinematography, choice of locations etc) leaves you feeling that everyone (including the viewer) is a spectator in a cruel situation that leaving feelings of horror and hopelessness in the face of such terrorism. It also enables us to see first hand the horror of Islamic extremism in a personal way, telling the human story in a way that statistics cannot.

Comparing it with other hostage films, like Man on Fire or Proof of Life and the brilliance of A Mighty heart begins to shine – it is sensitive, clever and deeply human and compassionate with a bold central performance of a truly compelling character. Not even showing the kidnapping but sticking only to what is factually known means that we, like Marianne, only have glimpses of knowledge to work with. Also we get to know Marianne as the film goes on, mirroring her friendship with Asra, who she barely knows at the start but increasingly relies upon.

The portrayal of the horror of death, particularly in the wake of such a brutal murder is a powerfully moving display that communicates how most of us feel in the face of the death of a loved one. It is a powerful reminder of what a revolting enemy death is compared with the normalisation and acceptance of death that is often portrayed in films. You get a sense that death is an enemy...

Given some of the discussion in the wake of Daniel’s killing the whole story raises questions of forgiveness and reconciliation towards one’s enemies. I read this from Marianne: “But forgiveness is too lame as an answer to extreme situations. It’s not a value strong enough to stand on. You have to win some sort of victory over the people who have hurt you” that reminds me that God’s forgiveness of us is so astonishing given what enemies we were of God, and also how true it is that forgiveness comes at an extraordinary price. Likewise what a reminder of Christus Victor and that Christ not only defeats his enemies but humiliates them too – that is the future of death itself.

I just love funny pictures, esp when they are Christian leaders

2007-02-07T06:54:00.000-08:00

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/bio/contempreform.html

Jensen's article arguing that biblical and systematc theology belong together

2007-02-07T06:48:00.000-08:00

Notes on “Teaching doctrine as part of the pastor’s role”: Peter Jensen

Jensen’s argument is that “without biblical theology, doctrine is arbitrary; but without doctrine, biblical theology is ineffective”, hence his conviction that teachers need to teach the bible systematically and regularly teach doctrine too, and that is a part of teaching the whole counsel of God al la Acts 20v27. Rather than seeing these 2 disciplines as opposites we should see them as self supporting, such as we see the Reformers frequently doing providing both a systematic commentary on the text and a topical systematic to provide a framework of Christian belief (e.g. Calvin’s commentaries & Calvin’s Institutes). That is to say we do our biblical theology in light of every book of the bible.

Systematics needs biblical theology:

Jensen is unhappy at the narrow definition some give to biblical theology as “the total message of the canonical books on this or that subject” (Packer), preferring a broader approach seeing a necessary thematic approach to the bible as an important step from moving from passage to biblical theology to systematic theology. Biblical theology will:

1. stepping back to consider the context of the whole, e.g. interpreting a Psalm will involve the theological content of the Psalm feeding “into the topical understanding of the bible via its place in the development of revelation. Biblical theology is indispensible to the task of comparing scripture with scripture”.

2. Without biblical theology texts can be distorted and used as “proof texts” robbing them of their context. Liberal scholars will struggle even more since denying the inspiration of the scripture makes it an impossible role to draw a theology from the unifying whole, they prefer to be highly selective in their choice of material.

3. Without biblical theology systematicians will choose subjects for consideration that lack biblical reality. If we consider the work of systematics to put order to the doctrines of God, man, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the church, and the future. However even this is something of an imposition on the text, e.g. maybe “the future” should mean eschatology which the bible speaks much ore fully about than simply “the future”. So we need to be wary of sterile approaches towards Christ as prophet, priest & king, or the attributes of God etc.

Jensen argues that systematics needs to be critically reviewed (specifically the order of most treatments: God, man, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the church, and the future) and believes that it should begin with eschatology lest we end up with a rather abstract list of doctrines that we have ended up with.

Biblical theology needs Systematics:

The danger of the discussion so far is that we begin to see systematics as the enemy; “imposing false categories on the text, using an arbitrary collection of proof texts to create a Christianity far removed from [the bible]”. So in defence of systematics:

1. Systematics is a valid approach (albeit not on its own) but yields more insights from the text as a whole than can be gained from reading individual texts/books in isolation. The hole can be used to weigh the individual, so the particular can be interpreted in the light of the whole, and visa versa, the individual text can add to the body of the whole on a subject.

2. Biblical theology is itself based upon a series of systematic statements; such as the inspiration, canon, unity & sufficiency of scripture & that any teaching of the bible is reliant on a wider commitment to a theology of the bible. “The bible only exists as a collection because of the belief that God speaks uniquely in its pages. If that belief is abandoned, the logical result is...the abandonment of biblical theology.”

3. In order to apply biblical theology to a series of statements on a particular issue to say “the bible says..” we need systematics to reorder and structure the material to restate the faith topic by topic in order to have value in application to apologetics, liturgics, ethics etc.

The bible as doctrine:

1. The bible itself seems to give room to people who systematise and teach doctrine, in the OT teachers of the wd were systematising and applying Torah: Deut 4v1, 4v10, 24v8 etc, in the NT: Rom 6v17, 16v17, 1 Tim 1v3 etc.), these are a series of truths systematically communicated that convey faith. It is not uncommon for NT writers to be systematising the OT as they present it in the new.

2. Secondly the lesson from church history is that there have been moments where only a credible systematic on a particular topic (e.g. the deity of Christ) has been sufficient to oppose serious error.

In summary then we my conclude that biblical theology on its own would be fail to be effective. “The findings of biblical theology must be gathered up and presented to the bible reader in a way that the bible teaching can be assimilated, remembered, reproduced and used.”

The uses of doctrine:

1. It allows us to understand the whole of the bible: so we can understand the righteousness of an OT character against the background of the universal fall, to be able to deal with the difficulties and tensions in scripture, e.g. the emphasis on human effort or divine power we understand one in the light of the other against the backdrop of the whole of scripture.

2. Systematics help us remember scripture: catechising children has not happened for may years but it undoubtedly helped children recall the teaching of the bible simply and usefully. Systematising helps our congregations remember and conceptualise the faith that they are being taught.

3. It enables us to be discriminating Christians, people who know what we do and don’t believe. Hence the significance of the UCCF doctrinal basis allow us to guard the purity of faith, bringing unity and excluding heresy. It allows the pastor to identify and refute error and reject experiences that do not accord with righteousness.

4. T allows us to apply the bible “doctrine stands on the border between the bible and the world” since through doctrine the pastor is able to relate doctrines to bring them to bear in a range of teaching and pastoral situations. Studies in ethics, for example, stand or fall on the pastors understanding of Christian doctrine.

Pastors/Preachers have a much more difficult task than that of the theologian since they must be masters of each passage and masters of historical systematics in order to take apart their teaching and put it back together in such a way as to continually be teaching the congregation. “A sermon which is mere exegesis is no sermon”, the sermon is dependant upon good exegesis followed by a wider study of thematic biblical theology, d the topical study of doctrine and then put all these parts together. Follow the example of Calvin: exegete and systematicians or Baxter with his door to door catechising.

Anyone for a bit of biblical Criticism?

2007-02-05T13:15:00.000-08:00

Biblical Criticism and the Gospels...

Some musing and notes from Blomberg's excellent book "Jesus and the Gospels". Also listened to Muse whislt writing this - what an excellent band they are!

Biblical Criticism is often presumed to be an inherently negative thing – something sceptical and suspicious. However it is not necessarily sceptical but rather refers to the technical investigation and therefore the good practice of reading the word of God in way that examines closely the purpose and meaning of the text. It is not only compatible with belief in the gospels as the inspired word of God, but demanded if we’re to do justice to the gospels. The most interesting type of criticism is also the most recent: narrative criticism. Hopefully I will be able to discuss that another time. That being said there are weaknesses with these criticism techniques but they do attempt to make a good fist to answer some of the issues the gospels throw up...

As we approach the gospels we see problems of difference relating to the wording, ordering, emphasis and particular details that differ between the gospels. So what do we do with problems like these:

Matt 19v9 c.f. Mark 10v11 – differing view on divorce

Mark 10v46 c.f. Luke 18v35 – When was Bartemeus healed?

Matt 5v1 c.f. Luke 6v17 – was the sermon on the mount or the plain?

Resurrection accounts differ etc.

Instinctively we want to immediately harmonise the gospels to make the accounts identical. But lets just think why were the gospel accounts written? Some ideas: death of the eyewitnesses, to spread the good news beyond the realms of the apostles, to settle theological problems emerging in the churches and combat heresies, for liturgy and worship and because writers were interested in recording and cataloguing who Jesus was and what he did!

If these were some of the reasons the gospels were written, how have the gospels been read by theologians over the years?

History of criticism...

Firstly distinguish 2 approaches to the text:

Lower Criticism is concerned only with the sorting and comparing of exisiting manuscripts (5,000 in the case of the NT) in order to work out the relative accuracy and usefulness of each of the sources to build a foundational accurate text.

Higher Criticism is concerned with the process of how the texts came into being and examines what sources the author used, how they were put together, under at circumstances etc.

History of critical scholarship of the 4 gospels:

Whist there do seem to be distinctive emphasises each gospel writer brings out, there has always been a desire to harmonise the gospels into one single consistent account and the first harmonies of the gospel accounts appeared in the late 2nd Century. The early church fathers thought that the gospels were written in the order in which they appear in our bibles.

Enlightenment thought started to treat the gospels as “myths” as rationalists argued away the miracles and Hegelians (like Baur) partitioned off the NT into “Peter” and “Paul” theology. Theologians of the 19th Century seemed determined to claim to be moving closer from the myth to the “historical” Jesus, each reflecting back the ideology of each theologian, seemingly crafting Jesus in their own image, removing awkward and uncomfortable truths about Jesus. Throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries source criticism became the most influential model of interpretation, looking at the sources behind each of the gospel writings. Mark was seen as the earliest gospel that Matthew and Luke drew from alongside a further source: Q. In the 1950s redaction criticism came to the fore, arguing that we should not see the gospel writers as just editors but redactors who wrote accounts that brought out a particular theological stress as required, tailored to the audience they were reaching. Since the 1970s here has be resurgent scholarship examining “Jesus the Jew” helped by a better understanding of documents originating from the 1st Century taking us into the world of Christ.

Consider the different forms of higher criticism

Historical criticism: the pre-history and influences upon the writer as the text came into being.

Source Criticism: The similarities of the gospel accounts draws us to conclude that there was some overlap of material, some sections are verbatim identical, Matt 3v7-10 c.f. Luke 3v7-9, translation form Jesus’ Aramaic seems identical – showing a reliance on 1 or 2 dominant sources, similar parenthetical comments “let the reader understand...”, the order of particular episode.

Were there 2 sources used: Mark and “Q”?

There is good case for Markan priority as lots of Mark appears in Matthew and Luke, the stories appear in the same places with an agreement in wording, but often “cleaning up” Mark’s Greek along the way!

Strengths:

• Mark’s details seem more vivid with the touches of an eyewitness report.

• Mark’s is the roughest, least refined grammar, using doubled negatives, loads of “and” etc...

• Mark narrates tougher episodes that the other writers omit or reword.

• Mark is the shortest of the gospels yet the material he includes is often the most detailed, giving the impression that the other 2 abridged his work.

• Almost everything is recounted in the other gospels – if he was the last to write, why would he include so much that had already been included?

• Mark is the middle term between Luke and Matthew on agreement.

There is slightly less support for the existence of Q (first posited by Schleiermacher) as an additional source drawn upon by Luke and Matthew.

Strengths:

• There is a parallelism that exists between Matthew and Luke, in areas tat Mark does not mention.

• Distinction between Luke and Matthew suggest that they were prepared independently but drawing on a common source.

• Eusebius records Matthew as having already collected and translated oracles or quotes of Jesus – could this be Q?

• Any reconstruction of Q give it theological and stylistic harmogony.

Because Q has never been discovered perhaps it was just an oral tradition or a number of shorter written and/or oral works.

English theologian Streeter (in the 1920s) proposed that Matthew and Luke also had separate sources from which they also drew from (called M & L). He also controversially suggested that Luke wrote a proto gospel before consulting Mark and then amended his version to include Markan accounts explaining why there is such a mix between Markan and additional information in Luke.

Why this is important:

If Q existed it would be very early – within 20 years of the crucifixion and therefore a highly authoritative source.

Understanding a commonality/overlap of traditions allows us to see the individual emphasis of the evangelists they draw upon, or ignore, these common sources

Form Criticism: Undergirds so much of modern theological scholarship and examines the setting of each original periscope (small passage) on its own terms (each as a mini genre). It argues that each gospel writer had a group of stories about Jesus and selected and grouped a series of stories together based upon their theme. So Mark chapters 1-4 became a number of series each grouping selection of stories under a different theme: conflict, parable or pronouncements. Form criticism also argues that some of the says came from the early church putting their “spin” on the stories, rather than from Jesus himself. So stories got longer, with embellishments, and details being placed into the text where they had been absent. So it was the job of the form critic to strip these things away, to get to the kernel of the story.

Form criticism does attempt to make sense of the oral period and in that sense help us understand so exegesis – emphasis placed upon the underlying point or form of a story. It also helps us to see the kernel in each story – examining the form of each unique section.

The assumptions:

• No one wrote anything down whilst Jesus was alive

• Oral tradition was made up of many separate units of information, all with separate teaching points

• Little or no genuine detailed information was preserved

• The construct of how oral tradition is used was taken from very diverse origins in Africa and Asia and laced onto this Mediterranean context.

Useful to see the hermeneutical value of the teaching point of the separate units and groups of stories.

As an historical tool it is seriously questionable whether there was latitude in the oral tradition to embellish the stories or just contribute to their books stories that have a unique teaching point to them. In fact in how the gospel writers went about their research it seems their methodology is much more rigorous than we might give them credit for under the form critical approach (see Blomberg p85)

Redaction Criticism: Sees the gospel writers as editors rearranging their material to suit the needs of their audience. So it has us asking the questions: “why did this gospel writer choose to include this story in the way he has?” and assumes that the gospel writer has a strong desire to communicate effective theology through the story. Often, however, this is done at the expense of seeing the gospel writer as both theological and historical recorder of history, since many radical scholars labour under the misapprehension that if it has theological emphasis then it must be less historically trustworthy. Redaction criticism is concerned with the editorial decision of how material is presented, the logical ties, summaries introductions and conclusions expecting to learn load about author intent. There are 2 types:

• Reading horizontally across the gospels to identify the different treatment of the material

• Reading vertically at the specific decisions made by a particular gospel writer in the organisation of their material. This avoids the blurring of uniqueness of each gospel that can happen when conservative scholars attempt harmonies turning the 4 into a simple synthesis, since God inspired 4 gospels, not 1!

Its strengths allow us to see the unique contribution of each gospel writer – with their desire to do good theology and keen teachers. I also treats the gospels as wholes (something missing in form criticism).

Others:

Canon Criticism: The work of Childs and Sanders (1970s-90s) argued for a greater consideration of the place of the gospels as they appear in the canon. This looks beyond the diversity of the narratives to identify the unifying themes of each of the gospels and their relationship with the rest of the NT – e.g. the relationship between Jesus sermon on the mount and Paul’s view of the OT law.

By the mid 2nd Century it seems that the 4 present gospels had the acceptance the wider church as the authoritative texts concerning the life, death and resurrection of Christ. The same tests were used of the gospels as the rest of the NT: Apostolicity, orthodoxy & relevance!

Literary Criticism: the features of the final form of the text. So contrast Matt, Mark & Luke and compare them with John, what draws the first 3 together to make them the synoptics compared with John?

Textual Criticism: we can be certain of most of what we have in the NT (98%) is what the original documents said, only Mark 16v9-20 (where a number of differing endings are offered) & John 7v35-8v11 seems to fit with what Jesus would teach but seems to have been added by a later scribe.

Narrative Criticism: will deal with another time, in lots of depth!

Lessons from the life of Augustine

2007-01-30T16:24:00.001-08:00

Conversion

Augustine was born in 354 to a Christian mum, Monica and non Christian father, Patricius. He was highly intelligent, and like many highly intelligent people he left home and became a university student aged just 17 in Carthage. Whilst there he led the typical student life. He rejected his Christian upbringing, and lead the wild life, he says; "I went to Carthage, where I found myself in the midst of a hissing cauldron of lust.” He got shacked up with a girl who would his concubine for the next 15 years. They had a son Adeodatus. When he was just 19 became a professor of rhetoric (the art public speaking and philosophical debate). From that time on his career grew, by the time he was 29 he had moved to the capital of the empire Rome and was regularly lecturing before grand audiences including the Emperor. But he was so deeply troubled, he was well aware that his life was dominated by sin and he struggled greatly with lust and an insatiable desire for sex. He became increasingly lead to feelings of despair. On reflection he said; "my sin was this, that I looked for pleasure, beauty, and truth not in God but in myself and his other creatures, and the search led me instead to pain, confusion, and error."

Augustine’s philosophy also changed, in his early life he had been influenced by a group called the Manicheans – who taught him that his sexual depravity was something over which he had n control. But he eventually rejected that ad when he took a teaching job in Milan he became increasingly involved in a pagan philosophical movement called the neo-Platonists. But even as his philosophy changed he remained spiritually unfulfilled, he longed inwardly for ultimate truth.

And so Whilst in Milan he started to go to church to hear a chap called Bishop Ambrose. Like many converts to Christianity initially it was Ambrose’s intellect and preaching style that Augustine found attractive but it was his personal moral integrity that impressed him the most. While Augustine had become intellectually convinced of the truth of Christianity by speaking to Ambrose he was increasingly confronted with his own glaring lack of moral integrity, and his total inability to live up to God’s moral standards he read in the bible. Augustine was embarrassed that he had encountered so many people whose moral lives put his immoral life to shame. These were people who couldn’t come close to matching his intellectual brilliance and speaking eloquence, but their commitment to moral living made Augustine envious.

Augustine’s dramatic conversion to Christianity came in the summer of 386. It came after much sorrowful reflection concerning his sinful state before God. As he was walking with a Christian friend Augustine describes what happened:

"I was asking myself these questions, weeping all the while with the most bitter sorrow in my heart, when all at once I heard the singsong voice of a child in a nearby house. Whether it was the voice of a boy or a girl I cannot say, but again and again it repeated the refrain "Take it and read, take it and read." At this I looked up, thinking hard whether there was any kind of game in which children used to chant words like these, but I could not remember ever hearing them before. I stemmed my flood of tears and stood up, telling myself that this could only be a divine command to open my book of Scripture and read the first passage on which my eyes should fall."

Augustine opened the bible to Romans 13 and read: "Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissention and jealousy. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature."

"I had no wish to read more and no need to do so. For in an instant, as I came to the end of the sentence, it was as though the light of confidence flooded into my heart and all the darkness of doubt was dispelled."

Augustine immediately informed his mum, Monica, who was overwhelmed with joy. He and his son were baptised a year later.

10 years on and Augustine travelled to a place called Hippo along the African coast to preach there one Sunday. He preached so well that within weeks they made him bishop.

Conflict

Much of the rest of Augustine’s life was spent doing theological battle with the ideas of a British monk called Pelegius.

Pelagius travelled to Rome in 383, about the same time Augustine was there. Pelagius was astonished by the godlessness of so of the Christians in Rome and made it his mission to help them clean up their lives. In an effort to teach the people the consequences of sin he taught things that we can summarise in the following points:

1. That men and women are intrinsically good. That where we would argue from the bible that Adam and Eve and their sin in the garden of Eden, were representing the whole of humanity. Pelagius denied that – he argued that all human beings, everyday were effectively living in Eden again – with every power to choose to sin or to not sin. He argued that Adam and Eve set a very bad example for us. And now today we are free to choose whether to sin or not.

2. Secondly he taught that because we can chose not to sin, we must choose whether or not to be saved or not. He argued that God had left all decisions about salvation up to humanity. That because men and women are intrinsically good, God let human beings decide whether they wanted to be free from sin, or whether to continue in sin.

3. Thirdly he taught that Jesus’ death on the cross was important for Christians not because on the cross Jesus paid the price for or sin, act5ing as a substitute for sin, but because Jesus, the perfect man led a perfect life. Where Adam had set humanity a bad example, Jesus set us a good example.

In response Augustine knew from his own experiences of sin that man was not capable of choosing never t sin again For years Augustine had battled with al manner of lust and knew the deceitfulness of the human heart. He found his experiences were utterly consistent with what the bible says about mankind. That we are powerless to chose to do good.

Psalm 14 says:

2 The LORD looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. 3 All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.

Secondly Augstine saw that mankind is so sinful we re not even able to chose our own salvation – we are so disobedient we are unable an unwilling t choose Christ – without God’s help. He quotes verses like this one in Ephesians 2:

“8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast.”

...to show that even our faith is given to us from God.

Thirdly Augustine saw the death of Jesus as paying the price of sin to set us free from sin. That Jesus’ death was more than just a good example to us but that it was powerful and effective to save from sin and death. That Jesus stood in the breach -= he was punished so we were not.

Legacy

It should be said that Pelagius’ teaching was welcomed and accepted when he started teaching these thing and the wider church had no idea of what to do with him, since what he was teaching seemed harmless enough, since hews just encouraging people to live holy lives. However it was Augustine that saw what the gospel became according to Pelagius, a gospel of works not of salvation, a gospel that would lead to people trusting in their inherent goodness rather than the cross of Jesus Christ. And through Augustine’s writing and teaching the wider church became alerted to the threat that in Pelagianism the gospel was being changed to become all about man and not about God.

Very briefly can I suggest 4 things to do with Augustine:

1. Firstly we should praise God for giving the church a man wit such a superb intellect but also an incredible weakness. It was only a man like Augustine who having battled with all sots of lusts and temptations combined with the philosophical brains that could have seen through the teaching of Pelagius.

2. We need to recognise that it is a constant temptation for all Christians in all generations to say that we can save ourselves by our own actions. The doctrine of original sin – that is that all human beings are sinful is always under attack. I heard this morning that the Birmingham CU constitution is under legal investigation as to whether it is legal t say that all humans are sinful. That temptation for us is always present – to desire a gospel of works rather than a gospel of grace – and Augustine should inspire us to depend the gospel of grace.

3. Augustine argued very strongly that because our salvation is secure in Jesus we should never use that as an excuse for sin. To quote Ephesians 2 again: 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” We are saved to obey and to be transformed from sin to life in Jesus.

4. We should praise God that whilst we deserve death and hell , and are powerless to do anything about it – that God does act to save people, and saves many. As one theologian put it: “… the bible does not present us with a God who chances upon neutral men and women and arbitrarily consigns some to heaven and some to hell. He takes guilty men and women, all of whom deserve his wrath, and in his great mercy and love he saves vast numbers of them. Had he only saved one, it would have been an act of grace; that he saves a vast host affirms still more unmistakably the uncharted reaches of that grace.” That was the message of grace that Augustine devoted his life to.

What would Jesus say to Jade?

2007-01-29T07:39:00.000-08:00

What would Jesus say to Jade?

Within minutes of leaving the Big brother house a little over a week ago Jade Goody was confronted with 2 montages played back to her. The first was the reaction outside the house to all the goings on inside; over 45,000 complaints, a minor diplomatic incident, questions asked during PMs questions. The second was a montage of her time in the house including the incriminating episodes of her bullying and alleged racism directed at fellow housemate Shilpa Shetty.

In response Jade said she was shocked and disgusted by her behaviour saying; “I'm disgusted in myself for saying what I have just seen myself saying. I do not approve of any of my actions and I do not approve of the words that came out of my mouth." At the end of the interview Davina McCall asked her what she had learnt from the Big Brother experience, Jade concluded: "I have learnt that, by watching that, I am not that person at all. I am sincerely upset by what has happened and I am embarrassed about what has happened."

In a house where every word and action is recorded to replayed later the experience has taught Jade Goody that she is separated from her words and actions and those things don’t define who she is. Because we all believe underneath it a we are good, we are good people. Jesus does not agree, in Mark 7: 20 Jesus says: What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean'. For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean'.

It is precisely these things that tell us who we are – that our hearts are not intrinsically good – our heart are intrinsically sinful. So sinful that even when we are confronted with this truth about ourselves we can conclude “that I am not that person at all”.

So the firs thing Jesus would say to Jade is that w cannot deny the truth about ourselves. The second thing is that we cannot accuse others without seeing this universal problem of sin in all our hearts.

In India effigies of Jade have been burned. In Britain the papers have vilified Jade showing not just the strength of feeling in this issue but also the ability of British tabloids to stick the boot in on individual they identify as being even more morally bankrupt than they are. The Sun editorial said of Jade: "She has left the house with her true personality laid bare - a vile, pig-ignorant, racist bully consumed by envy of a woman of superior intelligence, beauty and class."

However at the same time The Independent editorial argued the programme was holding up a mirror to modern British society. The realities that if we or anyone else were to live in a house where every word and action were recorded and broadcast there is a inevitability that the heart of the human condition would be exposed in our words and actions . And whilst we might like to think we might perform better, the reality is all of us, if our lives are placed under the microscope there is every possibility f disgrace and shame.

Because every day we live outlives before a God who sees our every word, action and indeed thought. That al those things if they were to be displayed before us as a montage would shock and appal us. So on reflection rather than vilify people like Jade- Christians ought to remember that God has seen every word, action and thought that expose our moral bankruptcy and in the gospel though he has seen them - he has forgiven them.

So 2 lessons:

1. words and actions expose what we are like!

2. Secondly when we see these things in others is should not lead to moral superiority but God’s grace in the gospel.

Powlison on biblical counselling

2007-01-20T10:58:00.000-08:00

Read a sort article (here) by David Powlison on how biblical counselling differs from secular models of counselling. An interesting article given that many Christians feel unable to contribute to within the church to helping others through some sort of counselling because they do not have a secular qualification. Yet what the gospel does give us is a reasoned and structured order to the universe and explanations for the meaning, actions and responses for the this people do and feel. Further than that he bible sets out for us many f the things to say and a framework for helping people in the midst of desperate circumstances. Powlison asks 4 questions of non-Christian models of counselling and compare them to the gospel:

1. How is God portrayed? Defective counselling models w see with n the church leave God emancipated, not sovereign, not just, not powerful to defeat sin, the exclusive being to which we owe worship.

2. How is human nature portrayed? How do we explain the actions o human beings. Defective counselling models leave the centre of the will out of it to blame our DNA, parental upbringing unmet needs etc. Whilst we need to understand are to some measure the people crafted by the bumps of life... “none of these get at what’s really going on. Biblical wisdom considers all human phenomena while keeping in view, “Who are you now loving, trusting, serving, and fearing?”

3. How are circumstances weighed? Powlison says: “Most approaches give a deterministic weight to one piece of our overall life situation. For example, “You have an eating disorder because your needs for love and self-esteem were not met by your parents” is equivalent to “You are in slavery to food obsessions because a demon of addiction has gained a stronghold” is equivalent to “You suffer from an eating disorder because you have a genetically-wired obsessive-compulsive disorder.” It may be true that your parents were unloving; Satan does prowl; and you might have been born with certain tendencies, not others. But none of these is decisive. Biblical wisdom considers every part of our circumstances significant, but it gives final cause to the heart.”

4. How are the goals and activities of counselling conceived? Powlison contrasts biblical counselling’s goal s the restoration of a sinful soul back to the image of Christ by the grace of Christ. He contrasts this with secular models that see God as a life-coach giving you a game plan for successful living.

There, I hope that’s some help to give confidence that even if you cannot help everybody in every circumstance, knowing the gospel well leads us to knowing the centre of the human heart and the centre of the greatest human need. That a Christian with no counselling qualifications can rely on the word of God to help others.