Update: I knew it was too good to be true! Oh well…

—

Albert Einstein is attributed (in a peer reviewed journal) to have said:

“As a young man, my fondest dream was to become a geographer. However, while working in the customs office I thought deeply about the matter and concluded it was far too difficult a subject. With some reluctance, I then turned to physics as a substitute.”

Is the Christian “simul justus et peccator”, simultaneously just and sinners as Martin stated or no longer “a sinner” but a new creation, “a saint” as Terry argues? (Please do read his posts to get his argument rather than just going from my summary.)

Do Terry and Martin disagree?

Or, are saying the same thing differently?

So I hear this reported from Alan Shlemon (via: JT) who recently gave a defense of the pro-life position at Central Michigan University and he focused on just two claims:

(1) the unborn is a distinct, living, and whole human being from the moment of conception;

(2) abortion is discrimination: it disqualifies a group of human beings (the unborn) from being valuable because of an arbitrary quality or characteristic.

He then fielded objections from the audience. The vast majority of objections against the pro-life view, he says, come in one of two forms.

They either assume the unborn is not a human being.

Or, they disqualify the unborn from being a valuable human being based on an arbitrary quality or characteristic.

It is point two that I am particularly thinking about. What do you make of it?

See, I think some Christians would agree but get tripped up because they suggest that humans are valuable because they are made in the image of God and then if pressed about what the image of God means do suggest certain qualities of characteristics, certain capacities or capabilites. Let me put it this way:

I don’t think God loves us because we image him.

I think he loves us because he loves us. This is the shocking undeserved and even ill-deserved love of God. Let me push it further:

I don’t think God loves us because we’re made in his image.

Now some people might be persuaded of the first statement but not the second but I’ve got to ask are you imagining ‘the image of God’ as being something static, like a badge we wear or is it as Genesis seems to suggest more to do with likeness (in certain qualities and actions which re-present Him)? Do we understand that the image is still present  (James 3:8-9) but distorted because of sin? Do we understand that because God loves those in Christ and being made more into His image that we might be like Christ who perfectly and completely images and represents His Father?

See I do believe that all humans are alike in value, dignity and worth and that the many differences between humans (age, race, class, gender, dis/ability, intelligence, capabilities etc) neither contribute to or take away from that value, dignity and worth. I believe this to be so because as I wrote elsewhere:

Something has value because it is valued. To say that something has value is to make a statement about a judgement that has taken place about something’s worth. Of course many very different criteria may be used but nevertheless a judgement has been made. Value is located then, not in the object of value but in the relationship between the ‘valued’ and the personal, reasoning ‘valuer’.

So, as I have argued before, the Christian recognises that value is contingent, it does not come from within, nor relies on others but comes from God. He values us, regards us, loves us (because he loves us) and was willing to take on flesh, live the life we could not lead and die the death that should have been ours that we might be remade in the Image of the Son. Praise God!

So, apparently, dogs are significantly more damaging to the planet than SUVs. I’ve never been much of a fan of dogs since I was bitten by one when I did my paper round as a teenager. Still, cats ‘carbon “pawprint”‘ aren’t that much better either.

But, get this, according to the research:

Growing and manufacturing the 164kg of meat and 95kg of cereals a border collie or cocker spaniel eats every year takes about 0.84 gha. (“Global hectare” (gha) is the amount of land it takes to support a given activity.)

A bigger dog such as a German shepherd consumes even more – its pawprint is more like 1.1 gha.

By their reckoning, that is more than the environmental footprint of the average Indian person, who uses just 0.8 gha of resources.

Those with fish as pets may be happier to hear that “the most carbon efficient pet is a goldfish. Its tiny “finprint” requires just 0.00034 gha.”

So it is Time to Eat the Dog? as one new book asks or is it time to bring the pet to a service at church, which according this news report is a rising phenomena. (No jokes about the church ‘going to the dogs’ please.)

Add into this discussion the claim that:

“The British give more to animal charities than to charities for the disabled. One donkey sanctuary in Devon has higher income than all the main charities fighting abuse against women combined.”

So, I don’t know whether to be happy that something is challenging for the British what is nigh-on an idol where “Pets at Home – where pets come first” seems to provide the cathedrals. Or, whether instead to be troubled by that fact that it is being challenged by a form of environmentalism that is often profoundly anti-human.

On the other hand I don’t know whether to be happy that some churches are reaching out by whatever means, even if with questionable motives. Or, whether to be troubled by the fact that they seems to be buttressing and even endorsing people’s idols. And don’t even get me started on the whole ‘my pet is my baby / child’, ‘don’t want kids but we’ll have pets instead’ thing. Argh!

Okay, so I will say this. Christians need to be clear about what Francis Schaeffer illustrates this way:

The personal-infinite God of the Bible is the Creator of all else. God created things, and he created them out of nothing. Therefore everything else is finite, everything else is creature. He alone is the infinite Creator. This can be set out as follows:

He created man [sic], the animals, the flowers and the machine. On the side of infinity, man is as separated from God as is the machine. But, says the Bible, when you come on to the side of man’s personality, you have something quite different. The chasm is at a different point:

So man, being made in the image of God, was made to have a personal relationship with him. Man’s relationship is upward and not merely downward. If you are dealing with twentieth century people, this becomes a very crucial difference. Modern man sees his relationship downward to the animal and to the machine. The Bible rejects this view of the man who is. On the side of personality you are related to God. You are not infinite but finite; nevertheless, you are truly personal; you are created in the image of the personal God who exists.
p 34-36, Escape from Reason, Francis Schaeffer

This really should make a difference both to how we think about the plant and stewardship and our relationship with other creatures, both humans and animals, plants and machines (one example being set out in the eight points raised here). But on the note, for now, ’nuff said.

An interesting discussion is taking place here about church and personality types after a friend from King’s noticed that of all of the interns for the church over the last five years only 8 out of 38 where T’s and the rest F’s on their Myers-Briggs indicators. (For an introduction the Myers-Briggs see here). If you’re not on facebook to join in the discussion then check out the blog post here that started it off.

Is this proof after all that Christianity is nothing but emotional froth? That as human feelers that it is an air-head heart-driven mode which rules today in which we feel Christianity? Does this mean that some churches are doing well at reaching some types of people and other churches others? Any thoughts to add to the conversation?

I recently listened to this talk (with notes) by Bruce Ware with the same title as his book, How to Bring Big Truths about God to the Young Hearts of our Children (H/T: JT).

I listened to it again because I found it so helpful (this is certainly not a talk just for children or parents – far from it!). One things that particularly struck me was that knowing the truth doesn’t necessarily lead to living the truth. I think I knew this but he brought out how we must distinguished between believing the truth of the truth and believing and trusting in the wisdom, the beauty, the glory and the goodness of the truth. There are so many areas one could apply this to.

He speaks of the progression of truth in this way:

• The mind’s understanding (knowing the truth) is necessary for the heart’s engagement with that truth (loving the truth). Knowing the truth provides the possibility and basis for loving the truth.
• The heart’s engagement with truth (loving the truth) is necessary for the hand’s activity in applying that truth (living the truth). Loving the truth provides the possibility and basis for living the truth.
• The hand’s applying the truth (living the truth) is what makes possible the transformation of others and our cultural environment (transformed by the truth).

The order is crucial:

Head -> Heart -> Hands -> Habitat

Knowing -> Loving -> Living -> Transforming

Check out the rest here though the notes don’t have the talk’s great illustrations!

In one of the more bizarre new items I have come across in a while…

David Dimbleby has missed chairing BBC One’s Question Time for the first time in more than 15 years after being injured in a “minor farming accident”.

Hope you have a speedy recovery David!

Fascinating stuff in the latest theologynetwork Table Talk where Mike Reeves talks with Ellis Potter, a former Zen Buddhist monk, about Zen, monism, trinity and lots more.

I think this is great stuff (from here, via Tim Chester):

Every person and culture has a storyline that includes…Creation, Fall Redemption and Restoration. They don’t all have the same stories within these movements, but they all have these movements in some form:

CREATION: Everyone has a fundamental belief about their Origin – who or what gave them their existence, made them who they are. For some this is another being, god, process, etc… for others, they believe each person is really a self-made person.

• The Key Question here is: Who or What do you credit for who you are?
  We believe God is our Creator and we are made in His Image.

FALL: There is a reason for why people, community and the world is broken. Each person has a fundamental belief about the cause of brokenness. Some blame their parents, family, friends, boss, government etc… Others blame evil forces, demons, etc…

• The Key Question here is: Why are things and people not the way they are supposed to be?
  We believe it is because of our sinful rebellion against the Creator God

REDEMPTION: Everyone has a solution they believe in, a remedy they look to or savior they believe in to redeem the brokenness in their life and world. Many are looking to a philosophy. Others look to a plan for self-improvement. Many believe some kind of reform in education or politics will change things. Everyone believes in a Redeemer.

• The Key Question is: Who or what will rescue me and redeem what is broken?
  We believe only God can rescue us from our sin and redeem our lives from brokenness. We believe Jesus is THE REDEEMER who came to save us through his life, death, resurrection and ascension.

RESTORATION: Every person has a picture of the future when everything is as it should be. Some see a utopia with humans all living at peace with one another. Others believe Mother Earth and humanity will be one. Still others see another world they will go to where they will be at the center. Some people’s future hope is to be married…have children…get a job…be rich…etc…

• The Key Question here is: What will the world or your world look like when all is as it should be AND Who or what will be the focus of this world?
  We believe Jesus will return and make all things new – a New Heaven and a New Earth – and He will be at the center of everything with us worshiping Him.

It was recently Reformation Day. Although I’m running a little late on that it’s never too late to consider and enjoy such things (indeed God forbid that it be reserved to conversation on only one day in the year!).

“Faith therefore must be purely taught: namely, that thou art so entirely joined unto Christ, that He and thou art made as it were one person: so that thou mayest boldly say, I am now one with Christ, that is to say, Christ’s righteousness, victory, and life are mine. And again, Christ may say, I am that sinner, that is, his sins and his death are Mine, because he is united and joined unto Me, and I unto him.”

- Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians (H/T: Jared)

If you haven’t already do check out Mike Reeve’s talks from the theology network website. Definitely worth putting on the ipod and giving four hours to listen to:

Justification 1: Removing the Shackles
In the first of four parts, Mike Reeves explains this great and beautiful truth.

Justification 2: Union with Christ
Part two in Mike Reeves’ exploration of this great and beautiful truth.

Justification 3: Challenges Today
Mike Reeves looks at the doctrine of justification in the context of the Reformation and the modern developments of the Catholic-Lutheran ‘Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification’ and the New Perspective on Paul.

Justification 4: Beauty for the Bruised
The final instalment. Mike Reeves looks at how the doctrine of justification by faith alone works out practically in our lives through the lenses of Richard Sibbes, John Bunyan and Martin Luther.