My next speaking engagement is on June 1st at our fortnightly Bible study. We have been going through James, and I get chapter 5.
I disagreed strongly with the chap who did chapter 1, so it will be hard to resist deliberately contradicting him. I think I will stick to a relatively light hearted and humourous registration of my dissent as part of the introduction, and leave it at that.
Anyway, they will probably all disagree with me as I manage to weave Tom Wright's ideas of justification into it all.
The truth is - the apparent tension between James and Paul is much diminished by the so called new perpective on Paul.
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 12
Justification - Tom Wright II
Well, I finally poughed my way through Tom Wroight's book.
I repeat my previous assertion that it is very hard to read -dense, repetitive, and with over-long sentances. But that's theology for you.
So know I have some knowledge of 'the new perspective on Paul' and some of the debate around it.
Personally, Tom Wright's approach does seem to me to be correct. It makes an awful lot of sense. Not that very question is answered, and not that it does not provoke more questions. But I like his methods, and criteria, etc.
I was concerned that he would teach a doctrine of salvation by works, but he does not. I was concerned he would negate salvation by faith, but he does not. What he does do is flesh out what those things mean.
By way of illustration, my Brethren doctine of slavation by faith, with a massive focus on the cross, was like a child going into a theme park and then turning round to admire the turnstile, ignoring the fanatastic theme park that it lead to. Tom Wright also loves the turnstile - he does not deny that entry is through it, and he doesn not instist that it rotates in the opposite direction. BUt having agreed about the turnstile, his atention focuses on the theme park itself. What have we come into? What is it all for? What does it mean for our day to day life?
Someone who has entered the theme park will tell you of the wonderful rides enjoyed. You don't enter the theme park by riding, but the prupose of entering is to ride. If the preson has no 'ride' stories, you don't believe they have entered the park. So, good works are the purpose and the sign of membership of the kingdom of God, not the entry ticket.
As Tom Wright writes: the Torah was not a ladder by which the Jews could enter the covenant, because they were already in it.
the other main themes of the book are that in Evangelical circles we use the words 'Justification' and 'Righteousness' incorrectly. They have specific meanings in terms of your status in relation to the covenant. Justification only refers to the judicial process of being set right in the eyes of the law. Righteusness does not mean being nice, kind, morally virtuous and a jolly decent chap. It means being right in the eyes of the law. Justification is through the penal substitution of Jesus. Righteousness is received by the penal substitution of Jesus. So Tom Wright does not contradict what I always thought: he just points out how carelessly we have used these words.
But those words and their use are only part of the big theme park, which is the Kingdom of God, or in Tom's book, God's single plan to bless the world through Israel, fulfilled through the faithful Israeilte Jesus. Which is pretty much the same as what I already believed following my time in a charismatic house church, only using different language.
Tom's view comes under the broad heading of 'the new perspective on Paul', but of course that is not a single united new perspective, and much of the mud thrown at the said perspective and much of the alleged negative consequences probably do not apply to the new perspective as outlined by Tom Wright. I don't feel my Evangelical credentials are at all diminished by taking on Tom's teaching on the subject.
I repeat my previous assertion that it is very hard to read -dense, repetitive, and with over-long sentances. But that's theology for you.
So know I have some knowledge of 'the new perspective on Paul' and some of the debate around it.
Personally, Tom Wright's approach does seem to me to be correct. It makes an awful lot of sense. Not that very question is answered, and not that it does not provoke more questions. But I like his methods, and criteria, etc.
I was concerned that he would teach a doctrine of salvation by works, but he does not. I was concerned he would negate salvation by faith, but he does not. What he does do is flesh out what those things mean.
By way of illustration, my Brethren doctine of slavation by faith, with a massive focus on the cross, was like a child going into a theme park and then turning round to admire the turnstile, ignoring the fanatastic theme park that it lead to. Tom Wright also loves the turnstile - he does not deny that entry is through it, and he doesn not instist that it rotates in the opposite direction. BUt having agreed about the turnstile, his atention focuses on the theme park itself. What have we come into? What is it all for? What does it mean for our day to day life?
Someone who has entered the theme park will tell you of the wonderful rides enjoyed. You don't enter the theme park by riding, but the prupose of entering is to ride. If the preson has no 'ride' stories, you don't believe they have entered the park. So, good works are the purpose and the sign of membership of the kingdom of God, not the entry ticket.
As Tom Wright writes: the Torah was not a ladder by which the Jews could enter the covenant, because they were already in it.
the other main themes of the book are that in Evangelical circles we use the words 'Justification' and 'Righteousness' incorrectly. They have specific meanings in terms of your status in relation to the covenant. Justification only refers to the judicial process of being set right in the eyes of the law. Righteusness does not mean being nice, kind, morally virtuous and a jolly decent chap. It means being right in the eyes of the law. Justification is through the penal substitution of Jesus. Righteousness is received by the penal substitution of Jesus. So Tom Wright does not contradict what I always thought: he just points out how carelessly we have used these words.
But those words and their use are only part of the big theme park, which is the Kingdom of God, or in Tom's book, God's single plan to bless the world through Israel, fulfilled through the faithful Israeilte Jesus. Which is pretty much the same as what I already believed following my time in a charismatic house church, only using different language.
Tom's view comes under the broad heading of 'the new perspective on Paul', but of course that is not a single united new perspective, and much of the mud thrown at the said perspective and much of the alleged negative consequences probably do not apply to the new perspective as outlined by Tom Wright. I don't feel my Evangelical credentials are at all diminished by taking on Tom's teaching on the subject.
Sunday, April 5
Justification - Tom Wright
Everyone raves about Tom Wright. And I haven't yet read anything by him. So I was just getting round to the idea that I shold, and was going to ask my wife to get me something for my birthday, when I found myself in the Cathedral bookshop, holding Tom Wright's 'Justification' in my hand.
I openined it and read a few lines, and had that same experience that I did when I picked up Rob Bell's Velvet Elvis. "OOOohhh, that's HOT!......and disturbing......I have to read this, but maybe not just yet....it will rock the boat and change my theology."
It's always painful handing over cash at the till, but once over that hurdle I brought it home.
I have now finsihed the introduction.
It is indeed as deep and disturbing as I thought, but in a positive sense of building upon wwhat I already believe (as far as I can tell so far). I don't think I will have too much trouble coming round to his way of thinking. It is very good, and I don't see a conflict between this and my Evangelical upbringing - yet.
My problem is that everybody raves about how readable he is, wheras I find him rather turgid. Sentances that go on for 8 lines with five subclauses leave you lost as to what the sentance stareted off with. And he keeps refering to variosu former theologians. THat's great for a scholastic audience, but not really for those as low ranking as me. Rob Bell was grabbed by my son and read avidly. I can't see the same happening with this.
Nevertheless, I shall struggle on, because I think I shall find it worthwhile.
I openined it and read a few lines, and had that same experience that I did when I picked up Rob Bell's Velvet Elvis. "OOOohhh, that's HOT!......and disturbing......I have to read this, but maybe not just yet....it will rock the boat and change my theology."
It's always painful handing over cash at the till, but once over that hurdle I brought it home.
I have now finsihed the introduction.
It is indeed as deep and disturbing as I thought, but in a positive sense of building upon wwhat I already believe (as far as I can tell so far). I don't think I will have too much trouble coming round to his way of thinking. It is very good, and I don't see a conflict between this and my Evangelical upbringing - yet.
My problem is that everybody raves about how readable he is, wheras I find him rather turgid. Sentances that go on for 8 lines with five subclauses leave you lost as to what the sentance stareted off with. And he keeps refering to variosu former theologians. THat's great for a scholastic audience, but not really for those as low ranking as me. Rob Bell was grabbed by my son and read avidly. I can't see the same happening with this.
Nevertheless, I shall struggle on, because I think I shall find it worthwhile.
Wednesday, February 4
Advice for theological students: ten steps to a brilliant career
I'm sure my regular readers have already seen this, but if not, read, and laugh at yourself
http://faith-theology.blogspot.com/2009/01/advice-for-theological-students-ten.html
http://faith-theology.blogspot.com/2009/01/advice-for-theological-students-ten.html
The Dark Clouds of Conservatism
I have come to a new way of seeing my life.
I was brought up in a very conservative church. It taught me what I needed to know about salvation by faith, and about subsequently living a life worthy of that calling. Also, it gave me many tools: hermeneutics, exegesis, a broad knowledge of the Bible, etc. But it was very strict – not to me – I had a great childhood and having been brought up that way it just seemed normal. It was only as an adult that I started to look around, and found that other churches, with the same devotion to scripture, came to radically different conclusions.
My first move was to accept the baptism and gifts of the Holy Spirit as being for today, not just the apostolic era prior to the completion of the Bible.
My second move was to understand that women can indeed have a role to play, speaking and leading in the church. And they don’t have to wear a hat in church.
After that He moved me to an Anglican church. I found that some fairly sensible people believe in infant baptism, and the Lord has not yet struck them down!
Next I realised that not everything taught by the Roman Catholic church is inherently wrong. The Lord has his chosen ones within that organisation.
And I learned the value of church history, and how it can help us to understand the Scriptures. It shows us where the church has got it wrong in the past, and helps us to see that often our own interpretations, which I was brought up to believe were a return to the original scriptures, are actually just a perpetuation of errors introduced relatively recently.
I have also moved on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage.
I feel that I have moved out of the darkness and into the light; out of a narrow, self-perpetuating, insular perspective of the Christian life, and into a much broader, more inclusive, more tolerant, less arrogant way of looking at it.
I suppose this is illustrated by my avatar – the fern leaf reaching out from the dark shadow and into the light.
I hope that I continue to expose myself to the light of God, and that he will protect me from the twin errors of going too far and throwing out the baby with the bath water.
I thank my parents for the start they gave me, and find it sad that I can’t tell them how I have moved on from it.
I was brought up in a very conservative church. It taught me what I needed to know about salvation by faith, and about subsequently living a life worthy of that calling. Also, it gave me many tools: hermeneutics, exegesis, a broad knowledge of the Bible, etc. But it was very strict – not to me – I had a great childhood and having been brought up that way it just seemed normal. It was only as an adult that I started to look around, and found that other churches, with the same devotion to scripture, came to radically different conclusions.
My first move was to accept the baptism and gifts of the Holy Spirit as being for today, not just the apostolic era prior to the completion of the Bible.
My second move was to understand that women can indeed have a role to play, speaking and leading in the church. And they don’t have to wear a hat in church.
After that He moved me to an Anglican church. I found that some fairly sensible people believe in infant baptism, and the Lord has not yet struck them down!
Next I realised that not everything taught by the Roman Catholic church is inherently wrong. The Lord has his chosen ones within that organisation.
And I learned the value of church history, and how it can help us to understand the Scriptures. It shows us where the church has got it wrong in the past, and helps us to see that often our own interpretations, which I was brought up to believe were a return to the original scriptures, are actually just a perpetuation of errors introduced relatively recently.
I have also moved on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage.
I feel that I have moved out of the darkness and into the light; out of a narrow, self-perpetuating, insular perspective of the Christian life, and into a much broader, more inclusive, more tolerant, less arrogant way of looking at it.
I suppose this is illustrated by my avatar – the fern leaf reaching out from the dark shadow and into the light.
I hope that I continue to expose myself to the light of God, and that he will protect me from the twin errors of going too far and throwing out the baby with the bath water.
I thank my parents for the start they gave me, and find it sad that I can’t tell them how I have moved on from it.
Thursday, January 22
What if it was one of my children?
I was asking one of my work colleagues – a Bulgarian member of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church -about reports I have heard that between 500Ad and 1300AD the Orthodox Church developed liturgies for what amount to gay weddings. (Boswell J, (1994) The Marriage of Likeness: Same Sex Unions in Early Europe, London, Harper Collins) And as part of this conversation I explained my new position to him.
He did not agree with me at all!
Amongst his comments were:
1) The Orthodox Church has never changed its liturgies
2) Even if they did do this, it doesn’t make it right. Sooner or later some Bishop will decide that it’s OK to marry your dog!
3) Common sense tells us it is wrong
4) How would you feel if it was one of your children?
My responses:
1) Either my colleague or Boswell is wrong. Do you choose the academic who's done research, or the church member? [I have not read Boswell - just seen quotes from him in an internal church document]
2) Good point
3) Different people have different ideas of common sense. Conservatives' common sense is that we are made for heterosexuality. Gay people’s common sense tells them it’s their God-given nature. And in the past, common sense told us that women are subordinate and slavery is OK.
4) If it was one of my children? Well his is what this post is really about. There was a time when if one of my children told me they were gay, I would have been fairly distraught. I would have told them they could never fulfil their urges, even in a gay marriage. I would have advised them not to tell people. I would have imposed great burdens on them. They would be left in a position where they felt I was ashamed of them. I don’t want to be ashamed of my children! So now, if my child tells me he/she is gay, I can affirm them for what they are, and help them to live a happy and fulfilled life in partnership with God, not resenting him. So I’m not sure my friend’s question had the effect he intended! [PS none of my children is gay – as far as I know]
He did not agree with me at all!
Amongst his comments were:
1) The Orthodox Church has never changed its liturgies
2) Even if they did do this, it doesn’t make it right. Sooner or later some Bishop will decide that it’s OK to marry your dog!
3) Common sense tells us it is wrong
4) How would you feel if it was one of your children?
My responses:
1) Either my colleague or Boswell is wrong. Do you choose the academic who's done research, or the church member? [I have not read Boswell - just seen quotes from him in an internal church document]
2) Good point
3) Different people have different ideas of common sense. Conservatives' common sense is that we are made for heterosexuality. Gay people’s common sense tells them it’s their God-given nature. And in the past, common sense told us that women are subordinate and slavery is OK.
4) If it was one of my children? Well his is what this post is really about. There was a time when if one of my children told me they were gay, I would have been fairly distraught. I would have told them they could never fulfil their urges, even in a gay marriage. I would have advised them not to tell people. I would have imposed great burdens on them. They would be left in a position where they felt I was ashamed of them. I don’t want to be ashamed of my children! So now, if my child tells me he/she is gay, I can affirm them for what they are, and help them to live a happy and fulfilled life in partnership with God, not resenting him. So I’m not sure my friend’s question had the effect he intended! [PS none of my children is gay – as far as I know]
Monday, January 5
2009 Position Statement
So where do I stand on homosexuality? Confused as ever!
On one level, I have moved away from my conservative interpretation of Leviticus and 1 Corinthians 6 – having looked into it I now believe these refer to temple prostitution. I previously rejected this as liberal excuses, but it does actually work.
On another level, the doctrine of ‘one flesh’, which underpins the doctrine of marriage, does not seem to transfer well into a homosexual context. In response to this problem, one could say that ‘one flesh’ is not relevant to homosexual relationships, but the corollary of this is that the principles of fidelity, abstinence etc do not apply either, and you then have an unequal situation where gays have a free-for-all while heterosexuals are subject to the constraints and limitations that arise from ‘one flesh’.
Therefore, if one is to accept the validity of homosexual relationships, then one has to have some kind of theological framework in which those relationships would work. I would like ‘one flesh’ to be transferable, but if it is not, I would look for something of equal weight, depth and importance. And I can’t find it yet. I get the feeling that this is something where there is diversity of opinion in the homosexual Christian community, with no consensus as to the place of ‘one flesh’ or civil unions.
This makes me turn again towards conservatism. But I don’t like the things I left there. No matter how much one talks of loving the sinner but hating the sin, the fact is: they don’t feel loved. And if they don’t feel loved, it’s because they are not loved.
So my present position is this:
I would rather sin by tolerating something that might be sexually immoral than sin by perpetuating something that is definitely unjust.
But I am still looking for that framework to explain how homosexual relationships should work in a Christian context. Please point me in the right direction!
On one level, I have moved away from my conservative interpretation of Leviticus and 1 Corinthians 6 – having looked into it I now believe these refer to temple prostitution. I previously rejected this as liberal excuses, but it does actually work.
On another level, the doctrine of ‘one flesh’, which underpins the doctrine of marriage, does not seem to transfer well into a homosexual context. In response to this problem, one could say that ‘one flesh’ is not relevant to homosexual relationships, but the corollary of this is that the principles of fidelity, abstinence etc do not apply either, and you then have an unequal situation where gays have a free-for-all while heterosexuals are subject to the constraints and limitations that arise from ‘one flesh’.
Therefore, if one is to accept the validity of homosexual relationships, then one has to have some kind of theological framework in which those relationships would work. I would like ‘one flesh’ to be transferable, but if it is not, I would look for something of equal weight, depth and importance. And I can’t find it yet. I get the feeling that this is something where there is diversity of opinion in the homosexual Christian community, with no consensus as to the place of ‘one flesh’ or civil unions.
This makes me turn again towards conservatism. But I don’t like the things I left there. No matter how much one talks of loving the sinner but hating the sin, the fact is: they don’t feel loved. And if they don’t feel loved, it’s because they are not loved.
So my present position is this:
I would rather sin by tolerating something that might be sexually immoral than sin by perpetuating something that is definitely unjust.
But I am still looking for that framework to explain how homosexual relationships should work in a Christian context. Please point me in the right direction!
Wednesday, October 22
Theology, pills, and sacraments
I went to the rheumatology specialist with my wife recently, and was well impressed by her knowledge of the subject, compared to the registrar who saw us the previous week. She had some students with her, and was explaining to them how to diagnose the disease and distinguish it from other inflammatory arthritis forms, and how to medically describe the deformities in my wofe's hands and what their impact on the diagnosis is. And loads of stuff like that. i am always fascinated by biology, and drink in all that information.
But all that information was bonus - what we really needed to hear was "take these pills", "have this injection". That is the root of the matter. That is how theory is translated into healing.
Back home, sitting on the loo is the only chance I get to read and I was dipping into McGrath's Historical theology and his bit about Baultmann (spelling?), and it twigged - theology is just the same. We can have all the knowledge in the world about the Bible, the great theologians and their ideas, etc etc, but when people come to us what they really need to hear is "take this bread", "drink this wine".
(apologies to my evangelical theology of sacraments)
But all that information was bonus - what we really needed to hear was "take these pills", "have this injection". That is the root of the matter. That is how theory is translated into healing.
Back home, sitting on the loo is the only chance I get to read and I was dipping into McGrath's Historical theology and his bit about Baultmann (spelling?), and it twigged - theology is just the same. We can have all the knowledge in the world about the Bible, the great theologians and their ideas, etc etc, but when people come to us what they really need to hear is "take this bread", "drink this wine".
(apologies to my evangelical theology of sacraments)
Monday, March 31
Theologically Conservative, Liberal at Heart 4
Regular readers will know that I am due to present the ‘liberal’ case on homosexuality to my church, while a colleague presents the ‘conservative’ case. Not that he is conservative and I’m liberal, just that those are the cases we have been asked to represent.
Well, the ‘conservative’ guy has dropped out, claiming to be busy.
So: it will probably be down to me to present both sides.
In some ways this is a pain because it means more work for me. But overall, I am pleased because to present just one side of the debate would not be true to myself. Doing both means that I will be able to fully express my conservative head and my liberal heart, applying compassion to the conservatism and presenting a more academic and theologically balanced background to the liberalism.
A date for the event has also been set – 3rd June. But how can you really do justice to this topic in one evening? Please pray for this event, that I may be the mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit, that he might bring the right mix of people into the congregation, and that the church may find the way forwards on this difficult issue.
Well, the ‘conservative’ guy has dropped out, claiming to be busy.
So: it will probably be down to me to present both sides.
In some ways this is a pain because it means more work for me. But overall, I am pleased because to present just one side of the debate would not be true to myself. Doing both means that I will be able to fully express my conservative head and my liberal heart, applying compassion to the conservatism and presenting a more academic and theologically balanced background to the liberalism.
A date for the event has also been set – 3rd June. But how can you really do justice to this topic in one evening? Please pray for this event, that I may be the mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit, that he might bring the right mix of people into the congregation, and that the church may find the way forwards on this difficult issue.
Wednesday, March 19
Interesting BBC news items
It's official. it's not just pie in the sky. Christians are happier then athiests NOW.
The least biased BBC article on homosexuality ever.
The least biased BBC article on homosexuality ever.
Remarriage after Divorce reconsidered
A colleague – one of our Alpha Course success stories from last year - is being chucked out by his wife. They are currently negotiating about custody and dividing the house. There has been no formal application for divorce, but it looks like this will be the outcome. Obviously I only get one side of the story, but he clearly feels that he has been used by a woman who now wants to just cast him off like old clothes. My colleague is certainly not the initiator of the split.
So he asked my views on remarriage……should someone turn up in the distant future.
It’s easy to be conservative when arguing theology on a blog, but it’s much harder when face to face with a man who has lost his marriage against his will in this way.
I gave him the range of theological opinion on the topic starting with a liberal interpretation of the verse he quote to me, and said that I was drifting towards being more conservative and don’t believe in serial monogamy. So I think I have been fair and truthful without breaking the cardinal rule of counselling – ‘don’t give advice’.
But it made me question again if my present position is right. And if I am wrong on this what else am I wrong about?
And was I an encouragement to him? Or did he leave with a heavier heart? He is certainly reconsidering how quickly and willingly he should travel along the ‘divorce’ conveyor belt.
So he asked my views on remarriage……should someone turn up in the distant future.
It’s easy to be conservative when arguing theology on a blog, but it’s much harder when face to face with a man who has lost his marriage against his will in this way.
I gave him the range of theological opinion on the topic starting with a liberal interpretation of the verse he quote to me, and said that I was drifting towards being more conservative and don’t believe in serial monogamy. So I think I have been fair and truthful without breaking the cardinal rule of counselling – ‘don’t give advice’.
But it made me question again if my present position is right. And if I am wrong on this what else am I wrong about?
And was I an encouragement to him? Or did he leave with a heavier heart? He is certainly reconsidering how quickly and willingly he should travel along the ‘divorce’ conveyor belt.
Tuesday, March 18
Theologically Conservative, Liberal at Heart 3
Well, it looks more definite. The Vicar mentioned at PCC that we need to have a debate on the topic of homosexuality. This is a massive shift for him!
He has now arranged in principle for a weekday evening near the end of May. I have been asked to present the liberal case, while a friend – not the university professor I mentioned before but a retired teacher who is also a Licensed Reader – will present the conservative view.
But now that I am starting to think about what I will say, I find myself drifting towards conservatism again making it hard to speak from the liberal perspective. I keep losing sleep about this whole business. I think it is so vital not only that we present clear guidance but also that the guidance should point in the correct direction. [1 Cor 14 “7Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the flute or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? 8Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle?”] And who really knows whatis the right direction?
“we who teach will be judged more strictly” [Jas 3.1]
If I teach the conservative view but it turns out the liberals are right, I will be judged for giving gays a hard time and placing obstacles to their faith.
But if I teach a liberal view and it turns out the conservatives are right, I will be judged for condoning and even encouraging sin [1 Cor 5:1-3 “1It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. 2And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? 3Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present.”, Ezekiel 33.6 “6 But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of them, that man will be taken away because of his sin, but I will hold the watchman accountable for his blood.”]
So, please pray for me
- to have the right words for my presentation
- to compassionately lead people into righteousness.
Thursday, March 13
A model for Free Will and Divine Sovereignty
Christians often fall into two camps. (that is a statement in itself!)
On one hand we have those who take a high view of the power, omniscience etc of God. He controls everything, selects who will become a Christian, etc. I call these people ‘Calvinists’. Their opponents state that this makes God responsible for sin and evil.
On the other hand we have those who emphasise mankind’s free will. It is mankind’s choice to rebel or serve God. Anything else would be just slavery. This view makes man responsible for his own sin. I call these people Arminians. Their opponents argue that it leaves God as a helpless observer, wringing his hands in despair at the sidelines.
Of course neither of these are fair caricatures.
But I propose the following model.
Imagine that a person is a ball – free to roll around [the free will bit]. But God has provided a channel for it to roll along. [the God’s sovereignty bit]. The ball can wobble a bit within the channel, but is constrained by the sides and the slope.
This model has its limits. It still leaves God responsible for sin. So: extend the channel, and make it branch in different directions like a tree. Some of those branches will end in places of blessing; others will end in places of sin. The whole channel system, the whole tree, is made by God. He is in full knowledge and control of the whole thing. And he rolls human balls down the channel system. When the balls come to a branch, they have a choice – left or right? Easy option or hard option? Sin or not sin? Many of the branches have signposts: “do not go down to the harlot” – “love your neighbour”, etc. So the balls rattle down the channel system, eventually ending at the destiny that God has warned or promised that he has made that branch they have chosen lead to.
In this model, God has absolute sovereignty – he made the channel system and you are never out of his will – and yet we have choices, hour by hour and minute by minute, that will affect our passage through life and our final destiny.
The next stage of development of the model would be to talk about a forest of these decision channel trees, and we could talk about how where the branches of one person’s tree touch the branches of someone else’s, the passage of the ball in one tree can open or close branch channels in the other. So my sin can hinder other people, or lead them into sin, while my righteous deeds can unlock the path of blessing in someone else’s life (even if they never use that branch to experience the potential blessing so unlocked)
Well, I like this model.
What do you think?
On one hand we have those who take a high view of the power, omniscience etc of God. He controls everything, selects who will become a Christian, etc. I call these people ‘Calvinists’. Their opponents state that this makes God responsible for sin and evil.
On the other hand we have those who emphasise mankind’s free will. It is mankind’s choice to rebel or serve God. Anything else would be just slavery. This view makes man responsible for his own sin. I call these people Arminians. Their opponents argue that it leaves God as a helpless observer, wringing his hands in despair at the sidelines.
Of course neither of these are fair caricatures.
But I propose the following model.
Imagine that a person is a ball – free to roll around [the free will bit]. But God has provided a channel for it to roll along. [the God’s sovereignty bit]. The ball can wobble a bit within the channel, but is constrained by the sides and the slope.
This model has its limits. It still leaves God responsible for sin. So: extend the channel, and make it branch in different directions like a tree. Some of those branches will end in places of blessing; others will end in places of sin. The whole channel system, the whole tree, is made by God. He is in full knowledge and control of the whole thing. And he rolls human balls down the channel system. When the balls come to a branch, they have a choice – left or right? Easy option or hard option? Sin or not sin? Many of the branches have signposts: “do not go down to the harlot” – “love your neighbour”, etc. So the balls rattle down the channel system, eventually ending at the destiny that God has warned or promised that he has made that branch they have chosen lead to.
In this model, God has absolute sovereignty – he made the channel system and you are never out of his will – and yet we have choices, hour by hour and minute by minute, that will affect our passage through life and our final destiny.
The next stage of development of the model would be to talk about a forest of these decision channel trees, and we could talk about how where the branches of one person’s tree touch the branches of someone else’s, the passage of the ball in one tree can open or close branch channels in the other. So my sin can hinder other people, or lead them into sin, while my righteous deeds can unlock the path of blessing in someone else’s life (even if they never use that branch to experience the potential blessing so unlocked)
Well, I like this model.
What do you think?
Monday, March 10
Theologically Conservative, Liberal at Heart 2
Regular readers will know that I feel the Lord has called me to some form of ministry with homosexual people, and that I want this work to bring together my conservative theology and my liberal heart.
Our Sunday evening service was lead by a team from another Anglican church, and ended in a time where people wanting prayer for one reason or another could go forwards. Now, normally, they ask you to go to the font. This time, since the team had spent the afternoon running a seminar on healing for our church, the team members paired up in the aisles, and we were supposed to go to them. And then, since the theme was ‘bringing people to Jesus’, they would bring the victim/candidate down to the front. This was also supposed to be less intimidating, but in fact it was worse.
Now as I have said, it was largely about bringing people to Jesus. During the week I had discussed with my wife my urge to work among Homosexuals, and had floated to her my idea of some kind of bridge-building event. She helped me to understand my naivety – that while there would be many gays willing to co-operate sensibly with a bridge-building barrier-breaking event, there could also be a small number with a much more militant, or even malicious agenda, and that I could get me, the church and the family into serious difficulty getting into this kind of thing with strangers.
So I was a bit lost. Nothing has come of my involvement with TFT –maybe I’m rushing? – and nothing was now likely to come of my new idea. I needed a fresh direction. So in church, surrounded by anonymous visitors from another church, quite late in the proceedings when one of them came free, I went forward and asked for prayer regarding my sense of calling in this field. That’s when I got stitched up, because it turned out he was just co-ordinating and he led me to one of the pairs and so I had to reveal my thoughts to a member of my church, whom I have known for a long time but not really someone to whom I would share this kind of thing. You can know people too well!
Anyway, the prayer was good – my church member prayed that any plans would be right for the whole family, and the visitor quoted the verse ‘he will direct your paths’.
Assured of confidentiality, I went back to my seat and opened the Bible. It was a psalm of empowering and commissioning – possibly relevant but not definitely so.
Afterwards, the co-ordinator guy, reputed to have a prophetic ministry and therefore under pressure to come up with clever words, came to me at the coffee area and said the Lord had given him the word ‘compassion’. Yeah well, maybe it was the Lord, but maybe it was also his own human wisdom, trying to stop me rushing in with dogmatic and judgmental biblical pronouncements. Or both. I explained to him about my ‘conservative theology/liberal heart’ dilemma. And I explained that I think this truly represents God, except He is able to square the circle where I cannot.
Then later still, I found myself standing next to the Vicar, who is very rarely free enough for a simple chat. And he was still and quiet for once. And so I took the plunge, given the thrust of the evening, and asked to have a session with him. No session was booked, but we did discuss my sense of calling, and this has developed into a plan to have an extra ‘teaching’ meeting for the church. Two views will be presented, a conservative view and a liberal view. The plan is that the conservative view will be presented by a member who happens to be a university professor, while the liberal view will be presented by me. Not to say that he is conservative and I am liberal, just that we will each present that case respectively.
I think his is really great. It’s right up my street, and gives me the chance to teach some very liberal stuff without being labelled as a liberal, and also to enable me to be conservative without people thinking I am heartless and dogmatic. So God is indeed good.
I hope that I will reap a harvest of righteousness, in the form of conservatives being less judgemental and liberals recognising the authority of scripture.
Our Sunday evening service was lead by a team from another Anglican church, and ended in a time where people wanting prayer for one reason or another could go forwards. Now, normally, they ask you to go to the font. This time, since the team had spent the afternoon running a seminar on healing for our church, the team members paired up in the aisles, and we were supposed to go to them. And then, since the theme was ‘bringing people to Jesus’, they would bring the victim/candidate down to the front. This was also supposed to be less intimidating, but in fact it was worse.
Now as I have said, it was largely about bringing people to Jesus. During the week I had discussed with my wife my urge to work among Homosexuals, and had floated to her my idea of some kind of bridge-building event. She helped me to understand my naivety – that while there would be many gays willing to co-operate sensibly with a bridge-building barrier-breaking event, there could also be a small number with a much more militant, or even malicious agenda, and that I could get me, the church and the family into serious difficulty getting into this kind of thing with strangers.
So I was a bit lost. Nothing has come of my involvement with TFT –maybe I’m rushing? – and nothing was now likely to come of my new idea. I needed a fresh direction. So in church, surrounded by anonymous visitors from another church, quite late in the proceedings when one of them came free, I went forward and asked for prayer regarding my sense of calling in this field. That’s when I got stitched up, because it turned out he was just co-ordinating and he led me to one of the pairs and so I had to reveal my thoughts to a member of my church, whom I have known for a long time but not really someone to whom I would share this kind of thing. You can know people too well!
Anyway, the prayer was good – my church member prayed that any plans would be right for the whole family, and the visitor quoted the verse ‘he will direct your paths’.
Assured of confidentiality, I went back to my seat and opened the Bible. It was a psalm of empowering and commissioning – possibly relevant but not definitely so.
Afterwards, the co-ordinator guy, reputed to have a prophetic ministry and therefore under pressure to come up with clever words, came to me at the coffee area and said the Lord had given him the word ‘compassion’. Yeah well, maybe it was the Lord, but maybe it was also his own human wisdom, trying to stop me rushing in with dogmatic and judgmental biblical pronouncements. Or both. I explained to him about my ‘conservative theology/liberal heart’ dilemma. And I explained that I think this truly represents God, except He is able to square the circle where I cannot.
Then later still, I found myself standing next to the Vicar, who is very rarely free enough for a simple chat. And he was still and quiet for once. And so I took the plunge, given the thrust of the evening, and asked to have a session with him. No session was booked, but we did discuss my sense of calling, and this has developed into a plan to have an extra ‘teaching’ meeting for the church. Two views will be presented, a conservative view and a liberal view. The plan is that the conservative view will be presented by a member who happens to be a university professor, while the liberal view will be presented by me. Not to say that he is conservative and I am liberal, just that we will each present that case respectively.
I think his is really great. It’s right up my street, and gives me the chance to teach some very liberal stuff without being labelled as a liberal, and also to enable me to be conservative without people thinking I am heartless and dogmatic. So God is indeed good.
I hope that I will reap a harvest of righteousness, in the form of conservatives being less judgemental and liberals recognising the authority of scripture.
Monday, February 25
Vicar interferes with sermon again
Well, my latest sermon, based on “Velvet Elvis” by Rob Bell, seems to have gone down well. This despite the Vicar doing his usual act of interfering and asking me to do things differently form what I had planned. Fortunately I am used to him doing this now, and almost expect it. And to be fair, it is usually an improvement. But it does rile me that he does not implement his recommendations in his own sermons.
My son was on the PA system that night, and resisted all urges to turn me off.
My sermon was primarily about spiritual maturity, not getting dogmatic about things but being able to stretch ones faith and work with people who disagree rather than building exclusive doctrinal walls. Since it was a communion service, I was going to ask people as a practical exercise to approach the table with either a more or a less sacramental idea than they normally would. Mr Vicar extended this, by making me ask people to get up form their chairs and form groups – i.e. transubstantiation in that corner, consubstantiation over there, symbolic remembrance over here, etc. The idea was that people would then discuss these ideas, and possibly move to another group. Of course the groups comprised like-minded people, so it wasn’t 100% successful. But it made people think, and that was the main thing.
The disturbing thing is that our Vicar didn’t really seem to be aware of the range of opinion, and found this line of teaching to be quite informative. Since the Eucharist is central to Christian worship, I would like to think that an ordained minister in the Church of England has been fully trained in the theology around it.
My son was on the PA system that night, and resisted all urges to turn me off.
My sermon was primarily about spiritual maturity, not getting dogmatic about things but being able to stretch ones faith and work with people who disagree rather than building exclusive doctrinal walls. Since it was a communion service, I was going to ask people as a practical exercise to approach the table with either a more or a less sacramental idea than they normally would. Mr Vicar extended this, by making me ask people to get up form their chairs and form groups – i.e. transubstantiation in that corner, consubstantiation over there, symbolic remembrance over here, etc. The idea was that people would then discuss these ideas, and possibly move to another group. Of course the groups comprised like-minded people, so it wasn’t 100% successful. But it made people think, and that was the main thing.
The disturbing thing is that our Vicar didn’t really seem to be aware of the range of opinion, and found this line of teaching to be quite informative. Since the Eucharist is central to Christian worship, I would like to think that an ordained minister in the Church of England has been fully trained in the theology around it.
Monday, February 18
Theologically Conservative, Liberal at Heart
So God has sorted me out. Fed up of me clamouring to Him for an answer, He has put me into the True Freedom Trust – a place where I could be theologically conservatively comfortable while at the same time acting in a fraternal and accepting manner to my gay brothers and sisters in Christ.
This in itself is a miracle, for which I thank Him.
So why am I still tossing and turning at night?
Well, my next sermon, based on Hebrews 6, is about realising that the simplistic black and white faith I had as a child is not a reflection of the full glory of god, and that as I grow older and wiser, it becomes more complex and less clear cut.
Now if you preach, you have to practice what you preach.
So is now the time to become less black and white about homosexuality?
What I want – what my heart truly wants - is to be in a church where people who find themselves to be gay can have their partnerships celebrated; free from persecution; finding full acceptance.
But our faith is not about easy, convenient answers. And just because we think something is loving and beautiful does not mean it is right in the eyes of God – witness the case of the man who had his father’s wife and the church was proud, proud but wrong. Our faith is not about making God rubber stamp what WE think is OK. It is about examining our lives in the mirror of Scripture; to see if we match up. And if there is a difference, it is us who must change. And it is about inconvenient obedience.
So I remain theologically conservative, but liberal at heart. And if I was a pew filler, it might not matter, but as a licensed Reader with a little bit of influence on church policy, it does matter what I say and think. And it matters that what I say and think has to be correct. I don’t want to teach or encourage error. I don’t want to condemn what is good, or condone what is bad. And the conflict between my conservative and liberal views – held with equal passion – tears me apart.
And if I feel this way, when I am not even gay, how do my gay brothers and sisters feel?
Lord God, send me clarity of vision, to love as you love, to be pure as you are pure, to teach as you teach.
This in itself is a miracle, for which I thank Him.
So why am I still tossing and turning at night?
Well, my next sermon, based on Hebrews 6, is about realising that the simplistic black and white faith I had as a child is not a reflection of the full glory of god, and that as I grow older and wiser, it becomes more complex and less clear cut.
Now if you preach, you have to practice what you preach.
So is now the time to become less black and white about homosexuality?
What I want – what my heart truly wants - is to be in a church where people who find themselves to be gay can have their partnerships celebrated; free from persecution; finding full acceptance.
But our faith is not about easy, convenient answers. And just because we think something is loving and beautiful does not mean it is right in the eyes of God – witness the case of the man who had his father’s wife and the church was proud, proud but wrong. Our faith is not about making God rubber stamp what WE think is OK. It is about examining our lives in the mirror of Scripture; to see if we match up. And if there is a difference, it is us who must change. And it is about inconvenient obedience.
So I remain theologically conservative, but liberal at heart. And if I was a pew filler, it might not matter, but as a licensed Reader with a little bit of influence on church policy, it does matter what I say and think. And it matters that what I say and think has to be correct. I don’t want to teach or encourage error. I don’t want to condemn what is good, or condone what is bad. And the conflict between my conservative and liberal views – held with equal passion – tears me apart.
And if I feel this way, when I am not even gay, how do my gay brothers and sisters feel?
Lord God, send me clarity of vision, to love as you love, to be pure as you are pure, to teach as you teach.
Thursday, January 24
Velvet Elvis, Rob Bell, Book Review
Velvet Elvis – Repainting the Christian Faith
Rob Bell
Zondervan
I bought this book when I was at the Excel men’s conference at the Abundant Life Church in Bradford.
I dipped into it in the bookshop – and it burned my fingers and it burned my soul. I knew I had to buy it. But I also knew that it was a deep book, which would challenge my faith. I wasn’t ready for that challenge at the time. You don’t set off fireworks in an explosive factory – and I had to wait until I could read it in a way that would enhance my faith, not wreck it. (I am adopting the same principle with “Hail, Holy Queen” by Scott Hahn – I haven’t dared lift it off my shelf since 2003)
So, now I have read Velvet Elvis.
I plucked up the courage, picked it up, opened the cover, and was immediately swallowed by it. I had to emerge occasionally – work, food, toilet, supervising kids, etc, but spent most of the time sitting on the step next to bookshelf with my nose between the pages – totally captivated. When I did emerge for the chores, I kept telling my sons “you must read this book”, and telling my wife all the things I had been reading.
To give you a clue as to how important I think this book is, I am thinking of changing my "Bullets of truth" column on the left there as a result of things Rob says.
Now, in all this, I also have to be frank and admit that it does [in my view] tail off towards the end. For me the better stuff is at the start.
Here is a sample of stuff I have picked up.
(SPOILER WARNING – Rob Bell tells it much better than me – read the book)
Trampolines
If you build your faith like a wall in which the doctrines are the bricks, when one brick is removed the wall falls down. But if you use the analogy of a trampoline in which the doctrines are springs, when one is removed you can still jump.
Similarly, the brick wall example requires your church to be full of people who think exactly the same – the walls then become lines of division and dispute. But a trampoline is a place where you can invite anyone – yes anyone – to jump with you as you explore God together.
Jesus the Rabbi
Jesus was not a Christian. He was an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi. This leads on to loads of really good insights, especially ‘binding and loosing’ (see below).
The Gates of Hell
This refers to the worship of the god Pan at Caesarea Philippi, and about how the church will triumph over paganism, sexual immorality, and the trends of society.
Binding and Loosing
Whoa! This is a biggie, for me. Subject of my next post!
Universalism
I think Rob lost me a bit on this one. He is so busy redefining heaven and hell, and redirecting evangelism (hence my possible changes to my 'Bullets of Truth'), that while I am clear and in agreement with him over heaven, I’m not sure what he thinks about future hell and if/why anyone goes there. Not sure if this is because he is not sure himself, or just didn’t explain it well, or if I just missed what he was saying.
SUMMARY
I was very glad that I read this book. I think everyone else should too. It expanded my mind. It changed my mind. It challenged me. Buy it. Read it. Cogitate on it.
Rob Bell
Zondervan
I bought this book when I was at the Excel men’s conference at the Abundant Life Church in Bradford.
I dipped into it in the bookshop – and it burned my fingers and it burned my soul. I knew I had to buy it. But I also knew that it was a deep book, which would challenge my faith. I wasn’t ready for that challenge at the time. You don’t set off fireworks in an explosive factory – and I had to wait until I could read it in a way that would enhance my faith, not wreck it. (I am adopting the same principle with “Hail, Holy Queen” by Scott Hahn – I haven’t dared lift it off my shelf since 2003)
So, now I have read Velvet Elvis.
I plucked up the courage, picked it up, opened the cover, and was immediately swallowed by it. I had to emerge occasionally – work, food, toilet, supervising kids, etc, but spent most of the time sitting on the step next to bookshelf with my nose between the pages – totally captivated. When I did emerge for the chores, I kept telling my sons “you must read this book”, and telling my wife all the things I had been reading.
To give you a clue as to how important I think this book is, I am thinking of changing my "Bullets of truth" column on the left there as a result of things Rob says.
Now, in all this, I also have to be frank and admit that it does [in my view] tail off towards the end. For me the better stuff is at the start.
Here is a sample of stuff I have picked up.
(SPOILER WARNING – Rob Bell tells it much better than me – read the book)
Trampolines
If you build your faith like a wall in which the doctrines are the bricks, when one brick is removed the wall falls down. But if you use the analogy of a trampoline in which the doctrines are springs, when one is removed you can still jump.
Similarly, the brick wall example requires your church to be full of people who think exactly the same – the walls then become lines of division and dispute. But a trampoline is a place where you can invite anyone – yes anyone – to jump with you as you explore God together.
Jesus the Rabbi
Jesus was not a Christian. He was an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi. This leads on to loads of really good insights, especially ‘binding and loosing’ (see below).
The Gates of Hell
This refers to the worship of the god Pan at Caesarea Philippi, and about how the church will triumph over paganism, sexual immorality, and the trends of society.
Binding and Loosing
Whoa! This is a biggie, for me. Subject of my next post!
Universalism
I think Rob lost me a bit on this one. He is so busy redefining heaven and hell, and redirecting evangelism (hence my possible changes to my 'Bullets of Truth'), that while I am clear and in agreement with him over heaven, I’m not sure what he thinks about future hell and if/why anyone goes there. Not sure if this is because he is not sure himself, or just didn’t explain it well, or if I just missed what he was saying.
SUMMARY
I was very glad that I read this book. I think everyone else should too. It expanded my mind. It changed my mind. It challenged me. Buy it. Read it. Cogitate on it.
Monday, January 7
More on divorce and remarriage - like I'm an expert or something!
Deut 24v 2 1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled.
Verse 2 clearly permits the divorced woman to remarry, even though it seems she is the one guilty of adultery.
In fact, this whole business of 'giving her a certificate', is because the one holding the certificate needs to prove something - in this case the divorced woman needs the certificate to prove that the first man has relinquished his claim on her and she is available - for remarriage of course.
Taking this verse in conjunction with Matt 5:32 and 19:9, where the man divorces his wife becasue of adultery, he too is free to remarry - the exception applies. So, where there has been adultery, the 'one-flesh' bond has been broken, and both partners are free to remarry.
However, where adultery has not occurred, the 'one-flesh' bond still stands. therefore, although legally free to remarry, and in fact the phrase 'causes her to commit adultery' assumes/implies/acknowledges that in practice she has no option but to remarry, such remarriage would be adulterous.
Thus, if your marriage has been broken by adultery, you are free to remarry. But you can't use the divorce laws to legitimise a proposed wife-swap: it's still adultery, and you can't use divorce laws to legitimise serial monogamy: its still adultery, and if you do divorce without adultery, the one-flesh bond remains until death and further marriages or relationships are adultery.
And, where there has been adultery, although divorce is permitted, it is not mandatory. It is not even desirable.
God wants us to remain faithful to our first marriage partner, and to keep the marriage bed pure.
Verse 2 clearly permits the divorced woman to remarry, even though it seems she is the one guilty of adultery.
In fact, this whole business of 'giving her a certificate', is because the one holding the certificate needs to prove something - in this case the divorced woman needs the certificate to prove that the first man has relinquished his claim on her and she is available - for remarriage of course.
Taking this verse in conjunction with Matt 5:32 and 19:9, where the man divorces his wife becasue of adultery, he too is free to remarry - the exception applies. So, where there has been adultery, the 'one-flesh' bond has been broken, and both partners are free to remarry.
However, where adultery has not occurred, the 'one-flesh' bond still stands. therefore, although legally free to remarry, and in fact the phrase 'causes her to commit adultery' assumes/implies/acknowledges that in practice she has no option but to remarry, such remarriage would be adulterous.
Thus, if your marriage has been broken by adultery, you are free to remarry. But you can't use the divorce laws to legitimise a proposed wife-swap: it's still adultery, and you can't use divorce laws to legitimise serial monogamy: its still adultery, and if you do divorce without adultery, the one-flesh bond remains until death and further marriages or relationships are adultery.
And, where there has been adultery, although divorce is permitted, it is not mandatory. It is not even desirable.
God wants us to remain faithful to our first marriage partner, and to keep the marriage bed pure.
Apocrypha (2)
So here is my interim conclusion on the Apocrypha.
I have tried to find out if anybody better educated than me knows whether or not Jesus and the disciples would have used the Apocrypha, but unfortunately my enquiries came to a dead end.
The following is therefore limited and probably full of errors, but here we go. Also, I shold link to all my sources but I've lost half and don't have time for the others. It's more feeling than substantiated theology.
- The Masoretic text excludes the Apocrypha.
- The Septuagint includes the Apocrypha.
- The Masoretic text derives from Jamnia, which rather than being a council as some suggest was simply a group of Jewish Scholars who over a period of time around 90AD eliminated the apocryphal texts because Christians were using them to support the doctrine of the resurrection. Ergo, early Christians used the Apocrypha.
- Early Christians used the apocrypha because many if not most were Greek speaking, and used the Septuagint.
- The doctrine of the Virgin Birth derives at least in part form the Septuagint translation of Isaiah, where the Hebrew ‘young woman’ becomes the Greek ‘virgin’.
- At the stoning of Stephen, he quotes the Septuagint talking about angels, which is why it seems different to the OT we have.
- Protestants who reject the apocrypha state that it is not quoted by Jesus or the Apostles. I found a website – which I have now lost – which had a long list of places where Jesus and the disciples quote the apocrypha. No doubt some are a bit dodgy, but I expect some work out just as well as alleged quotes of the remainder of the OT.
- The Council of Carthage, which most Protestants would cite as the agreement of the canon, included the Septuagint and hence the apocrypha.
- Jesus condemned the Saducees for not believeing in resurrection because they didn’t know the scriptures. As said above, the Apocrypha supports resurrection, so I speculate this is what jesus was talking about.
- Moving on to Luther, he believes in Sola Scriptura, but wants to be fairly selective about which Scriptures he is ‘sola’ about. He tries to get rid of those he feels support Roman Catholic doctrines such as James (and even Esther, which I would have thought was fairly innocuous) and is more successful with the apocrypha.
- Early versions of the King James Bible included it, and it was only dropped in the late 19th century.
So, my conclusion is that we should in fact include the Apocrypha. In view of its disputed status, we should be cautious about basing doctrines on it that we can’t substantiate elsewhere in Scripture, but that does not mean we can’t do it at all.
So, as a confirmed Prod, what am I going to do about the apocryphal verses that support the RC doctrines that I despise?
16th Century Replayed
I have just been hauled over the coals by the Catholic lady in my workplace fellowship. You may recall a few posts ago, I discussed her views on praying to saints. Well, apparently she took offence at me because I was too forceful, appeared to be trying to convert her, and kept quoting the Bible when she couldn’t respond in those terms because as she herself says Catholics don’t study the Bible. She also took the opportunity to assert her church’s position about tradition being equal or superior to Scripture, and that they are the oldest church so they are right.
Hmmmm.
I hold my hand up to the accusations of coming on too strong etc. I am passionate about what I believe, and I believe it is right….obviously if I didn’t believe it was right I wouldn’t believe it.
And yes, I do want to ‘convert’ people – if I believe that what I believe is right then obviously I want to convince them that that is so.
But I don’t want to upset people. I don’t want to browbeat them into submission, or leave hem stewing in anger over the Christmas holidays. I want them to hit me back! I want them to tell me why I am wrong, to challenge my assumptions, to show me scriptures I have missed, to show how my tradition is of less value than theirs. I expect them to treat me the way I treat them.
The trouble is, in any sphere of communication, although both people may be speaking English they may still be speaking a different language. In this case, I can quote Scripture at her till I am blue in the face, and she won’t budge an inch. She can quote tradition at me till she is blue in the face, but I only regard it as interesting and informative not authoritative – full of blunders as it is – and I won’t budge an inch.
So I can only pray for the Holy Spirit to illuminate us – to take from tradition what is right and good, and to understand the Scriptures and how they apply to us. To know what is worth mutual excommunication, and to know what is just diversity within the kingdom. For me particularly, in my role as a Licensed Reader and hence a recognised Teacher, to know how to go about that Teaching without being obnoxious about it.
Hmmmm.
I hold my hand up to the accusations of coming on too strong etc. I am passionate about what I believe, and I believe it is right….obviously if I didn’t believe it was right I wouldn’t believe it.
And yes, I do want to ‘convert’ people – if I believe that what I believe is right then obviously I want to convince them that that is so.
But I don’t want to upset people. I don’t want to browbeat them into submission, or leave hem stewing in anger over the Christmas holidays. I want them to hit me back! I want them to tell me why I am wrong, to challenge my assumptions, to show me scriptures I have missed, to show how my tradition is of less value than theirs. I expect them to treat me the way I treat them.
The trouble is, in any sphere of communication, although both people may be speaking English they may still be speaking a different language. In this case, I can quote Scripture at her till I am blue in the face, and she won’t budge an inch. She can quote tradition at me till she is blue in the face, but I only regard it as interesting and informative not authoritative – full of blunders as it is – and I won’t budge an inch.
So I can only pray for the Holy Spirit to illuminate us – to take from tradition what is right and good, and to understand the Scriptures and how they apply to us. To know what is worth mutual excommunication, and to know what is just diversity within the kingdom. For me particularly, in my role as a Licensed Reader and hence a recognised Teacher, to know how to go about that Teaching without being obnoxious about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)