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.

I don’t think I’ve ever written about this on the blog but given that this blog is supposed to be “thinking out loud about God, the Good News about Jesus and Geography (and things that don’t begin with G)” it seems high time to write about it.

Acts 17:24-27

“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.

Geographically (and historically and anthropologically) the implications of this are stunning. That people are where they are and when they are, is not purposeless happenstance but determined by God. We are told the reason for this determination: God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him. The rise and fall of empires, the movement of peoples and their settlement, all this that God might be known. No one may blame the time and place of their birth or the situations of their life as being distant from God. You are where you are that you might know Him – it is no accident.

For the Christian, who in their going are to make disciples (Matthew 28:19) may be bold in their witness. One’s neighbour or coursemate, work colleague or fellow-mum-at-the-schoolgate are where they are, when they are, that they might know the God who is near and made Himself known in Christ. From our perspective salvation is not certain (‘perhaps reach out for and find him’) but God’s providence and wisdom is clear.

God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

“Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man’s design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”"

Below is a talk/commentary I wrote to follow the watching of an episode of House and to spark discussion. Sadly, I never had the opportunity to give it but this post reminded me of its theme of sin as sickness and Christ as the Great Physician.

The episode that forms the jumping off point is called One Day, One Room in which “House is forced into full-time clinic duty when a rape victim, who is physically healthy and should be seeing a psychiatrist, demands to talk to House instead. Meanwhile, a homeless man with terminal lung cancer refuses palliative treatment and begins playing mind games with (Dr.) Cameron”. It is a complex episode, with a significant level of depth, pathos and sparring of worldviews for which House is famous.

—

Do you know what it’s like when you have questions but no answers? Why is this happening? What’s going on? Moments when your world seems to be falling apart? Maybe you’ve not experienced moments like this or maybe you know exactly what I’m talking about and yet we instinctively know, we believe the world of House isn’t a fantasy world but terribly real.

It’s in these moments that everything gets stripped away until we see what we really believe: “everything is rational”, “nothing is rational” and so we see what we’re really trusting. You see there are many things we believe that we can’t prove. The belief that everything is rational? Could House prove it, in a test tube, by logical deduction without assuming the rationality he’s trying to prove? No the kind of claim he’s is making is one of these worldview assumptions; the basic frame for the interpretive glasses through which we see the world, that help us to try and make sense of the world we live in. Are you aware of yours?

In 2005 the “Edge Annual Question” asked 120 leading scientists and other thinkers the question, “What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?” There were answers about consciousness, origins, knowledge. Certainly many had reasons for their beliefs and yet they are not provable.

This was Ian McEwan, the author’s response:

“What I believe but cannot prove is that no part of my consciousness will survive my death. I exclude the fact that I will linger, fadingly, in the thoughts of others, or that aspects of my consciousness will survive in writing, or in the positioning of a planted tree or a dent in my old car. I suspect that many contributors to Edge will take this premise as a given—true but not significant. However, it divides the world crucially, and much damage has been done to thought as well as to persons, by those who are certain that there is a life, a better, more important life, elsewhere. That this span is brief, that consciousness is an accidental gift of blind processes, makes our existence all the more precious and our responsibilities for it all the more profound.”

Yet, when Ian McEwan and the patient Cameron was with have died and memory of them has faded, when the universe draws to a sleepy or explosive close what was really the difference between any of their actions? What does separates the precious from the mundane, the noble from the detestable when the telescope of history is collapsed. What separates being remembered in the brief span of our existence from not being remembered at all? In the final analysis of this worldview action and inaction, killing or sparing, abuse or care are no different, they are all just the rearranging of deck-chairs on a Titanic of a life, of a world that is going down.

Why do I raise these questions? Why does House? Is House right that, “If you believe in eternity, then life is irrelevant, the same way a bug is irrelevant in comparison to the universe”. Are we freaks in this universe desperately trying to make sense of a senseless world? Or, do we go with the Gladiator himself, Russell Crowe and say that, “What we do in life echoes in eternity”. How would we go about examining these things?

House with Eve

Perhaps you go with Eve who tries to decide was is, by what she feels she needs:  “Then nothing matters if there’s no ultimate consequences. I can’t live like that,” Eve says. “I need to know that it all means something. I need that comfort.” Is this meaning simply the emperor’s new clothes? Is she dressing up reality with a delusion to make it feel more comfortable? Is ignorance bliss, even if the comfort is a hollow evasion of reality?

Do we try and diagnose God, life and the world like House? He’s set up as the diagnostician par excellence, the one who’s way of thinking about the world, “everybody lies” is what makes him good at what he does; it’s what makes him useful. He always has an answer, a quip and yet even House, has to say, “because I don’t know”. Why did Eve choose House? It’s because he’s hurt too. The doctor needs healing as much as anyone else and House leg acts a metaphor for the internal pain and crippling he experiences. He’s sick too.

Is there a doctor in the House?

What if the one who has seen the end from the beginning, the only One who knows perfect health, what if he stepped into space-time? Would he be worth listening to? Do you think he would demand our attention? Do you think he would tell us the truth? Do you think we would like him for it? Many people hate House and yet have this respect for him because he tells them the truth. Oddly enough when you consider most of the judges in reality TV shows, like Simon Cowell, it’s the one who is willing to tell the truth straight that people want to please. When you get a good comment from Simon you feel like it really means something. Truthful judgement makes things meaningful. If the one who is truth in his very being, the one who will be Judge of all stepped into the room, would we want to listen?

In one of the biographies of Jesus’ life recorded by Mark, Jesus is portrayed, amongst other things as the Master Diagnostician, the Great Physician. He said this, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” The diagnosis is that there are sick people and they are the one’s that the Son of God has come for. What is this sickness, this sin?

Tim Keller draws it out in this way:

Sin and evil are self-centredness and pride that lead to oppression against others, but there are two forms of this. One form is being very bad and breaking all the rules, and the other form is being very good and keeping all the rules and becoming self-righteous. There are two ways to be your own Saviour and Lord. The first is by saying, “I am going to live my life the way I want.” The second is described by Flannery O’Connor, who wrote about one of her characters, Hazel Motes, that “he knew that the best way to avoid Jesus was to avoid sin.” … It is possible to avoid Jesus as Saviour as much by keeping all the Biblical rules as by breaking them… It is a Christianized form of religion.

You see, people’s self-diagnosis as righteous, as sorted, as basically good is shaken to the core by the only righteous one, the Doctor who says we’re all infected with this sickness of sin, this terminal condition of our own making.

Some respond, that’s a bit strong isn’t it? It’s not as bad as all that surely, people are basically okay aren’t they? Yet, they are like the knight in Monty Pythons’ Holy Grail who having had various body parts hacked off insists, ‘It’s only a flesh-wound’. What they fail to perceive…, what they fail to perceive will kill them. You see, no self-help techniques are going to work here, the thalidomide of good deeds or moral behaviour is wholly ineffective in dealing with this advanced cancer. Yet we see later in Mark’s biography that Jesus on the cross takes that terminal sickness into himself, strung up there symptom laid on symptom we see there the terrible ugliness of our condition and incredibly we find He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds we are healed. So much could be, should be said here. Jesus is the Judge who was judged, taking the judgement concerning us on himself. The only One who knows what true health is – the only well and whole One, took our sickness that we might be well. He is himself the medicine we need.

House asked, “You gonna base your whole life on who you got stuck in a room with?” and Eve responded, “I’m gonna base this moment on who I’m stuck in a room with. That’s what life is. It’s a series of rooms. And who we get stuck in those rooms with adds up to what our lives are.”

Whether you agree or not with Eve at this moment you’re stuck in a room with me. I’m pointing you to one who was outside the room and came in and finding me sick is making me well, now and on into an eternity with Him. He’s the doctor who has experienced the utter depths of our sickness and uniquely what it means to be truly well. Wherever you are at today, whatever you’re dealing with, whatever answers we lack and may never find, Jesus says to you: the doctor is in the house. Will you let me make you well?

Whilst some find it fun to bash Simon Cowell and the whole X-factor thing and there is some interesting stuff here about the whole spectacle, I was wondering about how much tax Simon Cowell pays. It’s been an exciting morning already, you can tell, right?

Taking figures from government websites about funding percentages in 2007/2008 and taking Cowell’s tax bill as £27.1 million in 2006 (just think what it would be now!) we can see that per week Simon contributes:

£93,808 to the NHS
£53,679 for schools
£121,429 for the OAP’s
£111,006 for those on benefits
£26,058 on the public debt interest
£31,269 for the Army, Navy and Airforce
£15,635 for the roads and rail
£26,058 for Scotland
£13,029 for Wales
£5,212 for Northern Ireland
£18,762 for Universities
£15,635 for tax credits
£5,212 storing nuclear waste
£2,606 the Iraq/Afghanistan wars
£5,212 for the police

I know he does this because he has to (though he could move his country of residence and pay his tax elsewhere) and I know that there’s a lot to gripe about (the vacuity of the celebrity culture he is helping to fuel, blah, blah, blah) but today the university that I go to is being funded by some of his money.

So I want to pause from the moaning and very legitimate issues about how he has made his money and the kind of world he is involved in making and say, “thank you, Simon Cowell and other super rich people out there for paying tax”.

At a prayer meeting this week I found it odd that we sat to pray. To me sitting feels like quite a passive posture and doesn’t help me to pray with the kind of boldness that is available to us. Also, it is difficult to pray with lifted hands whilst sitting!

In terms of worship the Bible is full of exhortation to use our bodies. Bob Kauflin writes:

In addition, physical expression is both commanded and spontaneously modeled in Scripture as a way of giving God glory. (Ex. 12:27; Job 1:20; Ps. 47:1; Ps. 95:6). Those expressions include clapping, singing, bowing, kneeling, lifting hands, shouting, playing instruments, dancing, and standing in awe (Ps. 47:1; Eph. 5:19; Ps. 95:6; Ps. 134:2; Ps. 33:1; Rev. 15:2; Ps. 149:3; Ps. 22:23).

Some have pointed out that the New Testament contains few references to physical expression other than kneeling, singing, and lifting hands (although this last one isn’t emphasized too often). However, it’s not readily apparent that the bodily responses commanded in the Old Testament have been superseded or fulfilled in Christ’s high priestly work, or that we now obey them only in a “spiritualized” manner. (“I’m shouting in my heart.”) Rather, we need to seek to apply these Scriptures in a way that truly honors God and edifies the church.

For more on this check out his essay on Bodily Expression and the Worship of God.

One thing I notice that the people of God never do is to sit. Indeed, Deuteronomy 17 is quite explicit that priests stand and since all believers are now priests I suspect one could apply that the whole people of God too.

What about prayer though? Am I really suggesting we shouldn’t sit to pray? In one sense no, for we have the glorious privilege to be seated with the God who sits in sovereign power and kingly authority alongside Christ who sat down, job done.

However, I do want to suggest that though that may be our position our normal posture should be something else. While God sits, the elders around the throne seated on their thrones fall down in worship before Him.

The Bible makes a really big deal of God sitting (2 Samuel 6:2, 1 Chronicles 13:6, Psalm 2:4, Psalm 9:7, Psalm 9:11, 29:10, 33:14, 47:8, 99:1, 113:5, 40:22, Ezekiel 1:26, Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62, Luke 22:69, Ephesians 1:20, Colossians 3:1, Hebrews 8:1, 12:2, Revelation 4:2, 4:9, 5:1, 5:7, 5:13, 6:16, 7:10, 7:15, 19:4, 20:11,21:5), which is to be a great encouragement to us about the kind of God that He is but also points to how we ought to relate to the one who will one day stand: The Lord has taken his place to contend; he stands to judge peoples. (Isaiah 3)

I think we should think very carefully about what we’re doing with our bodies when we worship and pray. For example, what would it communicate about the kind of God we were worshipping if we had our hands in our pockets?

So, I reckon we should think about if our sitting (if we do)  is an expression of trust in God’s finished work or a troublesome lethargy or passivity on our part? Even if we don’t consciously think of either of these things – that it is just our common practices, our ‘culture’ or tradition – what might we understand differently about the nature of prayer if we did things differently?

Not quite sure what to make of this…

I was struck today by someone praying that a speaker for a CU event would speak ‘clearly’. I realised that first I wasn’t quite sure what that meant and secondly I wasn’t sure that I’d ever seen the phrase in the Bible. In fact I thought it wasn’t there.

Turns out I was wrong: Paul does asks the Colossian believers to prayer that he would proclaim the message clearly.

Still this language is uncommon. You also have:

Speaking the word with boldness (Acts 4:29, 4:3, 14:3 26:26, 28:31,  Ephesians 6:19, 6:20, Philippians 1:14, 1 Thessalonians 2:2)

Speaking the word in power and the in the Holy Spirit (Acts 14:3, Romans 15:18-19, 1 Corinthians 2:4, 1 Thessalonians 1:5) (i.e. with signs and wonders)

Speaking that reasons and persuades (Acts 17:2, 17:4 17:17, 18:4, 18:19, 19:8-9, 19:26, 24:25, 2 Corinthians 5:11)

Speaking the word with all wisdom (Colossians 1:28, 3:16)

Speaking with integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned (Titus 2:7)

Speaking, not to please men, but to please God (1 Thessalonians 2:4)

Speaking sound words (1 Timothy 1:10, 6:3, 2 Timothy 1:13, 4:3)

So whilst clarity is important let’s be praying for the other things too!

My friend Chris is a repository of the quirky and a magpie for the interesting and unusual. The latest link he sent me is no different. Have a listen to the recordings and the video…

While you’re surfing away you may also enjoy his 365 project in which he’s uploading one photograph he’s taken that day giving you a year in his life in snapshot form. You can follow the RSS feed to see how it develops.

Enjoy!

Wow, this is my 400th post! As I did for my 100th, 200th post and 300th post, I thought I’d highlight the top ten most read posts since I started back in April 2008. In brackets is the posts place in the top ten last time.

1. Sarah Palin, Down’s Syndrome and questions of ‘morality’ (1)
2. Beards, Mr. Darcy and Chick Flicks (-)
3. Jesus, the Bright Morning Star (2)
4. An Undercover Theologian? (3)
5. Holiness, Mission and the Incarnation – or, Christians, clubbing and cinema (4)
6. Vampire Christians (5)
7. “How far can we go?” – Relationships, boundaries and holiness (-)
8. A bonfire of dualisms? Thinking theologically about Actor-Network Theory (10)
9. Five ways to spot the good Christian at Uni – part 2 (6)
10. “Hair sin!” | Christian language in the public sphere (part 1) (8)

Just for fun wordpress has a feature where you can also click for a random post.

Thank you for reading and commenting!

So, I have a few thoughts.

There are some pretty snazzy features. Just ‘cos its fun I like that you can ’shake’ one of the windows to make the others disappear. Snap is  also very useful and I can see myself using it quite a lot when I want to view two pages or two programs at once. I think  for most people it’ll be the taskbar changes that are most significant including ‘jumplists’. Personally, I don’t like grouping windows by program so I won’t be using that aspect of the taskbar features. The Libraries and search might be an improvement but perhaps because I organise all my files anyway the feature doesn’t offer me as much gain as it might others. Search is speedy stuff though now which I like a lot.

Visually there are some nice things going on in terms of themes, background and window graphics that build well on Window’s Aero but in Windows 7 aren’t nearly so power-hungry or likely to result in programs hanging. So far I’ve not once had what was fairly common for me with Vista: the blue screen of death.

Is it worth it? Well, my feelings aren’t so strong that I would tell anyone to rush out and buy it, especially for the price that some people might need to pay. Still, I’m glad to be using it and that it works ‘in the way they had always intended that Vista would’.

It won’t take the world by storm, but it does make the experience of using a Windows’s computer that bit easier, more beautiful and in some quirky ways more fun.

What would you do if this week Nick Griffin came to your church?

How would people react? (Supposing they knew who he was and what he believes.)

—

Let me ask some questions…

Do we believe that God requires us to change before we can be accepted by him? Do we believe that people must change themselves before they could be welcomed into the church? Really?

Really?

There are roughly one million people in the UK who voted for the BNP. Could they or would they or do they come to your church?

—

Christ loved wife-beaters, homophobes, heterosexuals, the religious, racists, the A* star student, rapists, the good boys and girls, the drugged up, the environmentalist, liars, the down-trodden, the jihadist, idolaters, drunks, paedophiles, the envious, the depressed, the sexually immoral, the self-righteous and died for them. He did this for us when this was who we were and what our lives were defined by, when we were still going our own way, doing our own thing: “God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved”. He didn’t leave us in our wrong-doing (or in our making good things ultimate) for “such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

He sought me out when in every sense I was repellent and odious. Will we welcome those God welcomes and see change follow as it has in our own lives?

A little while ago I took advantage of a student offer that meant that I could buy Windows 7 for (not too loud: £30). It’s released tomorrow and I’ll try blog a post about what I think it’s like. To my mind though if £30 will buy me half the things everyone was promised with Vista it’ll be worth it.

Anyone else thinking about buy it or already pre-ordered?

… do you, by and large, face the shower, face away from the shower or something else?

Just wonderin’.

Marcus is blogging through the epistle to the Hebrew, the book we’re working through as a church this term.

His post “Announced, Confirmed, Testified; Hebrews 2:3-4″ is a great set of reflections this verses:

This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him. God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. (2:3-4)

Do go read – I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.

If you want someone to stop speeding, putting in a speed camera and threatening someone with a fine (or points) is apparently not very effective, whereas a smiley or sad face seems to do quite a lot. And, it’s 98% cheaper to operate.

If behaviour change is the goal, as I looked at briefly before, a ‘nudge’ can do quite a lot. If you’re not persuaded check out the very funny and interesting video and article at the end of this post.

Thing is though, this is behaviour management rather than change at the ‘heart’ level (out of which Jesus says it is that we act) will only maintain the kind of behaviour you’re after in the right social conditions. Indeed, this is really a form of socially constructed and sustained morality – yes, the result may be good (and I think Christians need to be better at acknowledging that) – but in any ultimate sense the Christian cannot be satisfied with this because change the situational conditions and you’ll reveal that the people haven’t really changed.

Behaviour and parenting

I suspect then that many parents are actually ‘nudging’ their child rather than seeking the change that comes from the gospel of Jesus. If the thing they value is behaviour, then moralism sure seems like the way to go (no matter that Jesus hates it). Marcus communicates really well the difference:

I love the fact that our teens are coming to know God and that the focus of our children’s work is helping them be disciples and worshippers and witnesses – as opposed to creating nice, well-behaved, vaguely christianised youngsters who don’t do naughty things.

Behaviour, violence and change?

To take another example, in a geography lecture we watched a short film (called Macho) about Nicaraguan men who are seeking to reach men to bring to an end violence against women and children. Many of them had (and some still did) perpetrate this kind of violence, but they all had the shared desire that they would change. I was fascinated as to what was going to happen, would they change and if so how, what was the ground of their change? Some did change and you could see that there was a self-righteous pride in this, others could not ‘it goes down so deep’ they said and were beginning to sink into despair.

They sought the forgiveness of the group and practised confession and accountability. Yet there was no absolution or atonement and no heart level change. There was some surface level change in some and I think Christians need to communicate more loudly that they are happy about the fact that a husband is not beating his wife anymore. However, I was aware that they had just swapped one idol for another (control for the high opinion and a position within the group that was now a means of managing their behaviour and for some judgementalism). Sure, it’s more socially acceptable but they are still mastered by idols that they think will liberate them.

Similarly we must ask what sexism, racism or homophobia lurks in us and in others but is contained by social opprobrium (with the occasional outspill and public reaction)?

Another way

The gospel is more ambitious than behaviour change, it seeks the reconciliation of creatures with their Creator, that through the death of Jesus, the power of death, sin and Satan have been broken and that by the indwelling Holy Spirit we are changed and from the heart and its changed desires, different actions come. Ones not based on circumstance or conditioning but based on the faithful work of God and his transforming power.

The Sermon on the Mount and Cain – what happens when society isn’t watching?

Do you recall Jesus’ words about murder and anger against a brother:

You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgement.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgement.

Perhaps you remember too the connection Jesus makes between lust and adultery? I wonder if Jesus connects these things in this way because if these desires where allowed to come to fruition in action (and there were not the social pressure and penalties to mitigate against them) they would result in the actions that Jesus connects them with: anger with murder and lust with adultery.

The life of Cain

I think that the life of Cain gives us the answer: yes. The story is told like this:

the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, but for Cain and his offering he had no regard. So Cain was very angry, and his face fell. The Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” Cain spoke to Abel his brother. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him. Genesis 4

When there was no society to check his behaviour what started as anger became murder. I think this goes some way to answering the findings that perplexes criminologists which suggest that anyone, given the right circumstances, could murder. Yet, this is the scary and serious teaching of Jesus: that I am – separate from him – capable of committing every kind of sin there is to commit. Given my situation and influence the effects might not be as widely felt but, for example, I can’t say, “adultery – I would never do that” because I know the presence of lust in my life.

Yet, with Paul I trust in Christ and say, “Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me”.

—

For more on Nudging check out this fascinating video from a recent TED conference:

It’s been followed up by an equally interesting interview. The key thesis occupying my thoughts is about changing behaviour (and there are quite a lot of ways to do it) not least social pressure.

I knew Marcus (Mumford) and family at primary school. He’s in a band that’s doing very well and is making some really top-class music.

You can find them on spotify and myspace amongst other places.

I particularly wanted to reproduce the lyrics to the song “Roll away your stone” just so I could hyperlink the bit below. Those wanting unambiguous positive propositions will be disappointed and though there is a reflective complexity about the  writer’s experiences to the messages of the songs I’m pretty sure that one of the stories this song refers to is this one and that’s a great place to start if you want to know more and if the link below seems a bit in-depth. Enjoy:

Roll away your stone I will roll away mine
Together we can see what we will find
Don’t leave me alone at this time
For I am afraid of what I will discover inside

You told me that I wouldn’t find a home
Beneath the fragile substance of my soul
And I have filled this void with things unreal
And all the while my character it steals

Darkness is a harsh term don’t you think
Yet it dominates the things I see

It seems that all my bridges have been burned
But you say ‘That’s exactly how this grace thing works’
It’s not the long walk home that will change this heart
But the welcome I receive with every start

Darkness is a harsh term don’t you think
And yet it dominates the things I see
Darkness is a harsh term don’t you think
And yet it dominates the things I see

Stars hide your fires
For these here are my desires
And I won’t give them up to you this time around
And so I will be found
With my stake stuck in the ground
Marking the territory of this newly impassioned soul

And you, you’ve gone too far this time
You have neither reason nor rhyme
With which to take this soul that is so rightfully mine

He was arguing that 2 Timothy 3:16-17:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

meant that all of Scripture is inspired, which is to be fair what the verse says. Yet, some smart person was just bound to pipe up, “well, when Paul was writing to Timothy it is only the Hebrew Scriptures that were the Scripture – that’s the Bible Jesus read”. They said it is not claimed from this passage at least that the New Testament is inspired and considered as Scripture.

Someone, I can’t quite remember who, came back with, “ah, but remember what Peter said in 2 Peter 3:15-16:

And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

You see not only is some Scripture hard to understand but Peter talks about Paul’s letters and the other Scriptures. There you go they’re being put on the same level and seen as being from the same source.”

Now up to this point, this is all stuff I’ve heard before. Then someone else* came in and told me this and this (to me) was new stuff.

“Look at 1 Timothy 5:18″, he said. I did and it says:

For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The labourer deserves his wages.”

“From where is Paul in first (not even second) Timothy quoting?”, he asked. Hmm, let me see, I thought. Well,  (I had to do a little searching) the first one is Deuteronomy 25:4. The second one, well it’s a saying of Jesus and it’s exactly the same as Luke 10:7 – though there is a slightly different version in Matthew 10:10. Well, that is interesting I thought. Looks like Paul is quoting the gospel of Luke as Scripture. Some of the more antsy commentators do try and wriggle out of this by suggesting the Pauline line of, “For the Scripture says”, applies only to the first one and not the second. There was some more though…

“Check out the only other place that Paul’s quotes Jesus directly – it’s in 1 Corinthians 11:24-25. Who’s writings does it correspond with?” He waited and I looked a bit blankly. “Luke?” I offered. “Yep, that’s right, he cites a version shared with Luke , in contrast to Mark and Matthew. This shouldn’t surprise you given Paul’s apparent closeness with Luke.”

A-ha!

—

* This person is an amalgam of John Stott, “The Message of 1 Timothy & Titus, The Bible Speaks Today” and Gordon D. Fee, “1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, New International Biblical Commentary”.