The Unlearning of the Will

Don’t you think we spend copious (ridiculous?) amounts of time debating the nature and extent of God’s sovereign will without hardly ever mentioning the sinful mess of our own wills? It appears to me that if the mind really is fallen and sin permeates every part of our wills (Rom. 7:21-25), it’s at very least rather handy and comforting to know that there is an exhaustively sovereign God who ‘works all things together for the good of those who love him’ (Rom. 8:28). I mean, doesn’t falleness necessitate sovereignty in a system of unconditional grace?

Rom. 12:2 tells us not to conform to the patterns of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of our minds. THEN you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is – his good, pleasing, and perfect will, [emphasis mine]. Thus in the renewing of our minds to become more like the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16) we are transformed to a place where we can truly understand God’s will. Further, becoming Christlike in our minds is shaping our minds like the eternal sovereign mind of God, making our pilgrimage of Christlike holiness an eternal, inexhaustible path… i.e. there’s always more way to go!

In fact, the way in which Paul qualifies the quote from Isaiah 40 in 1 Cor 2:16 seems to suggest that to know the mind of the Lord necessitates having the mind of Christ. This is strengthened by the parallel immediately preceding this. Paul there tells us that no-one can know the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God, then goes on to tell us that we have the Spirit of God within us, thus our words are God’s words flowing from His thoughts/will (vv.10-14).

So it’s possible that the reason we’re so stuck in debating the nature and extent of God’s sovereign will is because we’re not discussing, sharpening, and encouraging each other to submit our wills/minds to God for his sanctifying. This is of course a process of grace.

Grace is unconditional, and entirely unmerited. We cannot earn God’s favour, we in fact are totally blind (2 Cor. 4:4) and dead (Eph. 2:1-5) before we meet God, and then when we meet Him we are His far off enemies (Luke 15:11-31; Rom. 5:10). However, in contrast to blind we have sight, to death we have life, and to our blind, dead will we a have God’s completely seeing, alive will. If God’s will was not all sovereign, then the renewing, transforming of my own will through grace alone and not by any effort of mine, would be impossible.

If we believe in Grace, then let’s begin by submitting our minds to God, becoming holy and blameless through Him in our cognitive self. If we seek to understand the will of God, and be driven by God-glorifying motives, then let’s begin with our sinful state and the work of Christ and submit our minds to Him. God’s exhaustive sovereignty is a sweet taste when it’s not viewed in a test tube but instead experienced as a need, and a cure to our sinful selves. When we view God’s character in a test tube, we approach it with a false objectivity. Lets observe ourselves, and submit to God; not the other way around.

Aggression and John 2.

So I’ve been working a lot recently with my youth groups on the place of ‘aggression’ in the hearts of young men, and what the Bible may have to say about it. A passage that keeps coming up is John 2:13-16 where Jesus cleanses the Temple. (Also see Matthew 21:12-16; Mark 11:12-19; Luke 19:4-47).

A key feature of this passage is it stands in dramatic contrast to the classic, westernised picture of Jesus as the ‘meek and mild, lamb-on-the-shoulder, socks and sandals’ kind of guy. Instead we have a picture of Jesus who makes a weapon, a whip of chords, and drives out those who were buying and selling in the Temple.

One member of my youth group responded to this passage by saying, ‘Well, He didn’t actually hit anybody though did he?’ It’s true, nothing is technically said about him physically ‘attacking’ anyone, however he has a weapon, he is driving people out, turning over tables, and scattering money. Thus it takes a lot for us to think Jesus was being careful not to hit anyone.

This represents much of what is taught to youth and children in churches these days. For instance, if a young person in a Sunday School (particularly a boy) shows any sign of aggression, immediately this young person is told off. Even if this aggression was defence from subtle and more worrying manipulation from another child, the aggression must be immediately snuffed out; rather than contextualised, replaced, corrected, or disciplined.

So because of this, when we get to the Temple cleansing, we need to first say, however obvious it may seem, that weapons making and using, table turning, and money scattering is an act of aggression.

Next we need to affirm that Jesus was totally without sin, never disobeyed the law, and only did what He saw His Father doing. Thus this act of aggression and its origins were not wrong or sinful.

So finally we need to think through the origins/motives of this aggression. Where did it come from, what did it spark? Lets start with what Jesus says…

“My house will be called ‘a house of prayer for all nations’, but you are making it a ‘den of robbers.’” [Mark 11:17].

This we know is zeal for His Father’s house consuming Jesus (John 2:17), but His choice of quotation is very important. The Temple was a whole load of things; it was a house of prayer, but perhaps more clearly it was a house of worship, of sacrifice, of meeting, of teaching; it was the house where God’s glory dwelled, etc.; so why does Jesus pinpoint on a house of prayer for all nations?

Jesus focus is on clear communication with God. This is what the Temple was, a place of communication with God. In fact, when you really think about it, all the Temple was was a place of communication with God. Sacrifices, worship, fellowship, teaching, were all used for the purpose of opening the people up to hear God's voice clearly, and then respond to Him appropriately.

In the same way now, Jesus, our Temple, is our place of communication with God. Godward Communication is clear, open, and not cluttered by hidden things. A ‘den’ of ‘robbers’ in contrast to this is a hiding place for people who wish to hide themselves, and hide their loot.

Thus, Jesus’ aggression is driven by responding to a cluttering of the means of communication with God. Its origins are to open up the communication channels.

This is especially important in light of the latter part of the first quote, ‘for all nations.’ All nations includes those outside Jewish nations who understand the Temple, the law, and the language of communication with God. The house of prayer should be so clear a communication space so all nations can find God accessible.

Furthermore, Jesus creates space in the Temple. He doesn’t just drive out the people; he drives out the animals, and turns the tables. He makes space. The aggression in Jesus made space; space for clear communication with God.

This seems to me to be a good parable of and test for Godly aggression. Is aggression always wrong, and where can it be right? Jesus used aggression here; it was motivated by responding to a cluttering of a means of prayer/communication with God. Put another way, it was motivated by seeing a lot of hidden things in a place where everything should be clear; the prayer space.

Jesus aggression came from and concluded with a longing to be close to, talk to, and hear from God clearly. Thus aggression can glorify God if it seeks to make space for God to be God, and to speak clearly. This can probably be applied in a variety of ways; I believe it should validate those who feel guilty because they know that should someone attack their wife/children, they would aggressively respond in order to protect. If it creates space for God’s love of justice, leadership, care, and self-sacrifice, then defending a loved one can be a righteous aggression.

However there is one far more accessible application from the passage and that is aggressively defend your prayer space. This doesn’t mean set booby traps around your bedroom; however it does mean passionately guard your heart and its space. Satan is a robber that desires your heart to be His den, and he will try to clutter up the space in your heart which should be used for prayer. Defend your prayer space. Spend time actively creating -space- to pray; go for walks so you can talk with God, get up the hour early, spend time looking at and mediating on God’s Word and God’s creation. Ask God to talk to you more clearly and show you hindering clutter. Meditate on the God you’re praying to, allow that to fill you up, and believe in the majestic privilege of prayer. Defend your prayer space.

Just one more application linked to this; defend your Jesus. In the same passage (John 2:19-20) Jesus refers to Himself as the Temple. Our house of prayer now is Jesus Christ. He is the Temple, the only way to the Father. It is through Him we come to God. Spend time with Jesus and you will spend time in the perfectly clear house of prayer. So read His word, meditate on His life, and think deeply about His last days on earth.

This deep thinking, meditating, getting up and hour early, forcing our minds on the Bible etc., takes a good deal of heart, and dare I say a deal of aggression also. Godly aggression creates space and that space is space to talk to and hear from God. So don’t simply snuff out aggression, instead ask yourself, ‘does this aggression make things hidden, or create space for God.’ The beauty of this question is it takes a lifetime to work with and grow with; so start with God. Why don’t you pray now that God will teach you about all the areas and reflexes of your heart so you can more fully and completely know Him.

The mystery of God found in the fathomability of Creation.

A popular apologetic idea is that creation is not-fathomable, but mysterious. Thus there must be a God. - The easy response to this is 'we'll figure it out' thus God-of-the-gaps philosophy comes in, academia fills in the gaps and squeezes God out of the picture. Needless to say its not a very good apologetic to start with. The apologetic should run, creation is fathomable, thus God is not, therefore God *is* God.

The very mystery of life itself is not that its mysterious, but that it is fathomable. Its fathomable because it is revealed. A revelation from the divine creator. In every hum and whistle, branch and bark there is the imprint of the eternal attributes of God. Mystery does not stop with creation (nor ideally should it start there), the magni-finitude of creation all bears the fingerprints of the magni-infinitude of another, and thats where mystery exists in its true form; the being, nature, person, and character of God.

Creation (contra to popular belief) is exhaustible, because its exists in time and space, it has bounds and contexts. It of course is not exhaustible or even attainable apart from revelation, but the fact remains that all is revelation. God however is not created, all things were made through him, thus, He is not made.

This is what sets Christianity apart from all other eastern religion, and new-age westernism. We don't stop at creation. As much as life, and essence flows through all things and connects all things, that is not an impersonal 'Soul of the World.' The very essence is not creation itself - it is creator. Behind every finite piece, there is infinite person. The eternal God.

Language In Its Purity: Creational/Communicative?

As a believer in Sola Scriptura, I love Words, the Word of God is indeed infallible and the final uncompromising revelation of God. However as a musician and a poet I believe Words are not black and white, in fact as a note can sing a thousand songs, a word can progressively colour and create God's true revelation.

Sometimes it seems, Reformed writers talk about the Sola Scriptura as the 'exegetically exhausted doctrines of God' rather than the living, breathing, fluid, inspired, universally-and-intergenerationally-applicable, creational, double-edged (s)word it actually is. Or, another way, if we apply all our exegetical techniques to verses x, y, and z, and derive at a premise or two in those verses, that is the meaning of this portion of God's Word. Now there are 31,103 verses in the Bible, and if we apply this principle to all of them we will have exhausted God's revelation; and perhaps therefore the finality of God-revealed also in no time at all, a couple of gifted exegete's lifes work perhaps. There is obviously a problem with this.

The first words spoken were God's words, and they were creational, i.e. they created. Every time God spoke, something was made, light - stars - earth - plants - people - laws. When man spoke however, he named things so as to communicate. God's language was creational, it was man who made it communicative. Thus when man overdoes communication (Genesis 11) God disrupts what? ... their Language! Their abilities of communication.

God's language however is creational. This creational language is profoundly metaphoric. A metaphor can be thought of as an illustrative, poetic use of language which gives substance to something which isn't readily seen without the metaphor. Thus everytime God spoke in creation it was a metaphor, for the true form of the words did not exist until they were uttered.

Metaphor, Poetry, and sometimes even Parable is often viewed in evangelicalism as a form of lesser language, at best fluffy, and at worse dangerously-misinterpreting. However, responsibly embrace, the language of metaphor is far closer to the language of God than the language of communication. It still sends shudders down my spine to see how some exegetees exhaust meaning and prose and doctrine from lamentations, and the psalms, and parts of Isaiah, without ever mention the movement in the language, the meter, the rhyme, the allegory, the illustrations, the metaphor; the poetry.

Language in its purity is pre-Babel, it is creational, it is Godlike, it is focally-metaphoric. Do read God's word as creational language, seek to understand the poetic as more than just poems, and do speak to God from the metaphoric-language center of your heart.

The Pentatonic Scale and Godly Communication

Godly communication; that is communication to and from God, not communication about God, can be perhaps likened much more readily with music than with words, the latter in submission to the former.

The pentatonic scale is the mother of all blues and rock and roll, it is the Guitar-Soloists dream, and the Celtics heartbeat. In its most basic form a pentatonic is a scale with five pitches per octave. For instance a G pentatonic would have the following notes: G (root), Bb, C, D, F. During mastery of this scale the notes would be played in order at a certain tempo over, and over, and over. This gets the musician to recognise and retain the scale though logic, sound, and physical habit.

But this is not the end, and not the music, because once the scale is mastered and its forms/boundaries are submitted to, there is no end to its musicality. The notes can be played in any order, with any eventuality of tempo, over any timing and chord structure. Techniques can be added, and 'feel' can be introduced. The more a piece of music is 'felt' the more the music communicates. Heart - owns - this scale. Notice that the notes themselves are not changed, in fact in order for the music to be felt, the individual notes must ring out all the more clearly.

God's eternal attributes are clearly seen since the creation of the world, not in communicative-words, but in nature and image and sound and sense and experience (Rom. 1:19-20). Thus deep truths of God, enough to know Him, are revealed in means of communicate expressed in ways other than words. These things stir and communicate not just to our reason, but deep to our hearts. Do we 'understand' God in a sunset, or do we 'experience' His assurance (as taught in His word) in our hearts? God supports His truths with our hearts. Our heart/feelings are not the context for truth, they are the truths (or notes), themselves, 'played with feeling.'

The difference between dry truths and heartfelt truths is how they exist in our beings, how they are played. Are they static and repeated, or moving and dynamic? Scales are never meant to remain in order, they are meant to backbone music, to colour and create music, to be ordered and move in ways which makes us 'feel each note.' If the notes are the truths, then we must hold them, interweave them, resound, resonate and sustain them to create the music that holds our heart. Only then will we retain and love these individual truths.

The pentatonic scale as a scale of heart, teaches us this. Our heart when filled with truths (notes in the scale) and Spirit (playing the notes) breathes sounds to God, it sings and colours our words, it makes sentences real and not simply recited, it makes works worship and not duty.

At what level do we communicate with God? Do we pray/act out of a legalistic exegetically-exhausted thesaurus of words/actions (a repeated and ordered scale), and expect them to move us? Or does our moved, Spirit-filled and steered heart submit to, take, offer, sacrifice, bless, hold, and play the words and actions as creational-musical-living-language to God? Do we embrace God in prayer as we embrace the movement and melody of our favourite song? Do we caress the heart of God like our fingers caress the fretboard of our guitars? - Does he communicate to us through static scale, -or- dynamic solo? How do we feel when God reveals himself to us? Static?... or moved?

Submit your heart, your life, your circumstances, and your realities to God. Let Him stir your heart where it is meant to be stirred. Don't let His truths remain static, allow them to penetrate your heart, and allow you heart to be stirred up within your life, circumstances, and realities.

Preliminary reflections on the Psalms.

Everytime I sit down at my blog I feel a twinge to write something about my view of the psalms... frustratingly however I still feel hugely unprepared to do so. The emotional spectrum paletted throughout the grace+spirit-meeting-humanity+dependency sights, sounds, tastes, smells, and touches of the psalter is universally unique. So unique in fact that it not only gives us an inspired song book, but also a reflection on how we are to live and breathe our very lives in full open-handed worship. The psalter is where we learn the majesty of lament, the legitimacy of the metaphor, the power of Spirit-warfare, the soul-longing for justice, the presence of God in His songs, and the place and power of full,powerful,artistic expression in Worship. The psalms are a river of doctrine flowing as doctrine should out of and through and towards a heart of praise. Sing the psalms, chant them, breathe them out, memorise them, read them again and again, love them, pray them, need them, search through them, ... reflect them.
These are obvious random expressions of my thoughts...but the papers met the pen now, I've committed myself, so watch this space.

t.

Teenagers on the edge of the Kingdom

'Can I buy a fag off yer?'

I shrug, and exhale slowly with my mouth closed, as if I wanted nothing better than to sell this young man a cigarette.

'Sorry mate I don't smoke.'

He turns away, I walk on around the corner and past the familiar old house which I recently discovered was where my mother grew up. Coming back around the house I see another 13 or 14 year old boy, on a bike, a Liverpool shirt on sporting 'Gerard' on his back. He spares me a glance and turns away.

'Vicky!' He shouts, a booming, possibly taunting, whisper affect in his voice. Then he disappears into the adjacent alley. I continue, now walking back towards the park I just came from. The boys are still there, possibly approaching me.

'Thought you didn't smoke,' mocked one as the others grinned.

'Just saw you with a fag' another joined, although he was cut off mid sentence from the lad that approached me before I rounded the corner just before,

'Where'd you get that lighter'?

I grinned what I thought was a charitable grin, then continued on my way into the park as the lads continued on their way. I of course don't smoke, they didn't see me smoking, and I wasn't carrying a lighter.

Going further a teenage girl is trying to squeeze through the children's playpark boundary bars but getting stuck in the process. A similar aged lad, possibly older, in a spurt of misplaced or distorted chivalry jumps over them just next to her. A third girl walks away from behind them. There's a makeshift rope swing hanging from a tree on my path just past the young 'gymnasts,' I push it and listen to it swing on the tree as I pass by. I continue, out of the back exit of the park and onto a main road where yet more, and slightly older, teenagers are parading.

I'm sure many would find this pastime a little odd, perhaps even offensive. But watching young people is life to me. Not so much that they inspire me, or make me envy what they have. I don't. I don't even want to watch their culture so I can learn to become more of a part of it in order to reach them. No. Placing myself among them renews in me the burden for them, as people who should be inheriting the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, the savior. Being around them, behind them, in their 'natural habitat' makes the burden in my mind, not more fresh, but more raw. Some burdens are not meant to remain fresh. Some burdens are meant to sting, to bite, to grip, and to cling. This is, for me, one of those burdens.

Another thing I observe and 'catalogue' so to speak in these times, is the similarities and differences; between me and them, them and me, them and Christ, me in Christ and the world, Christ and the world. When it comes to me and them, the differences flow too easy, whereas the similarities are so much harder to process and deal with. 'God make me strong.'

I love these young people, and a yearn for God to keep them close to His heart, I will battle them into His kingdom, and tear Satan from them with my teeth if I must. But I feel God needs me to be more 'me' with them. To be the counter culture -with- them. Not of their culture, not an imitation of their culture either. I've seen 14 year old lads crumble under the piercing stare and wise words of an 80 year old, and I've seen 16 year old girls sit riveted at the feet of a 50 year old professor. I long to be the real, firmly gentle, Christ-like presence in their life. To be an arm and a shoulder, to share footsteps with, and to counter their world with Christ...and see who stands. It is Jesus in these young people that attracts me so tenderly, and Jesus who calls from them. And it is to Him who I must respond.

Reflections on the absence of borrowed words as thought stimuli. The Glory of God's Spirit-Fuelled mind.

I find myself in an odd place of present; for the first time in some years I have no access to my books. After graduating from seminary, my books were packed and remain packed as I'm now awaiting another move to London to start a new job. I find the absence of littered bookshelves, and smoulden-used books daunting and slightly intimidating. The places in which I found solitude, wisdom, and general grace-empowered fuzziness are sitting in boxes in lockup 273 behind an old Hammond organ and several cases of clothes.
But God is good. My Spirit-owned mind is having to solidify its allegiance to God on its own prayer-fuelled searching. I need to stretch it not only through written gifts of inspired implications, but to the first pieces and causes provided usually by the big volumes of Jonathan Edwards, or the pencil-littered pages of John Piper. And I must tell you - the mind, devoid of borrowed words to be used as thought stimuli can be a real treasure chest of goodness and grace.
Now hear me right, I'm not saying the mind of tim gough or of any other human (other than Jesus) is especially gifted or movable...no, far from it; but the mind that is created by, filled with, and depending on God for sustenance is like a showering avalanche of admonishment and edification. Not just thought stimuli, but building and creating and life-changing grace.
So a word to all, who like me, love their books for Spiritual-encouragement. Use them with discretion as tools to receive understanding to more of the promises of life indeed... but do not neglect the power and gentle-grace contained in its own extensions. Sit. Walk. Be quiet. Think prayerfully. Love the prayers of a broad-thought mind. Worship God with all your mind.

Blessings.
t.

Pauline Theology is Primarily -Theological- not Primarily -Christological-

Nearly all modern mainstream scholarship has claimed Paul to be primarily Christological above all else; which, although in some regards is true and vitally important its missed something quite substantial: Paul is not primarily Christological...he is primarily theological! Paul's focus is not Christ at the expense of the Trinity, but Christ to the extent that he operates in and expounds the Trinity...Paul's focus is God, three in one....working inseparably together, mutually indwelling eachother...this has got to be Paul's focus...not just Christ.

In nearly all of Paul's introductions to theologies, prayers, prologues, epilogues, grace givings, and doxologies there is a huge intertwining of the work and glory of the Trinity. So in Rom. 1:1-7 The Gospel of God is of the raising of Jesus ( v.3) by His Father (vv.2,4,7) through the Spirit (v.4). Or Rom. 5:1-5 - we are justified through faith in Jesus (v.1) sealed in the Spirit (v.5) so we have peace with God (v.1). Or Rom. 8:1-4 - God sent His own Son (v.3) so that through Jesus ( vv.1-2) the Spirit sets us free (v.2). <- Note, all this is simply going through Romans...but its all the way through Paul! Its not just that Paul teaches the Trinity, but its that Pauls theology is profoundly Trinitarian over and above all else and all His theology falls under the governance of the three in God.

I guess a lot of people would agree with that until you start to apply it; I've been studying 1 Corinthians 12 for the past few weeks and if you take thiis particular section into play with this Trinitarian reading in mind: 1 Cor. 12 - The unity of the body and giving of the gifts and ordering of the church is done by who? The Spirit, in order to Build the Body of Christ is the classic view... and in some ways this is right, but its oh so much deeper than this...the Spirit gives -> what he gives builds the body of Christ....that just seems to imply a very distinct separation between Spirit and Son...and the emphasis ends up with the Son ( i.e. primarily Christological). However, lets read with a little more emphasis on some unfortunately neglected verses:
vv.4-6:
'There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit.
There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord.
There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.'

(The Lord is of course the Lord Jesus)...So the gifts which edify come through the Spirit; cool, but the services which edify the church and build it come through the Son too (i.e. not just the Spirit)...and all this is worked together by God...and he arranged all the parts just as he wanted them to be ( v.18) and He too has combined the members to order their honour (v.24). So all three members of the Trinity are involved in the equipping of the Church...not just the Spirit.

But what about the Second part? Is the equipping for edification just for the honour of the Son like the classic interpretation suggests? Well no it can't be...v.7 says that the manifestation of The Spirit is given ...not the Son...but the Spirit....the Spirit is to be manifested, to be seen...and when God (in Spirit in this case) reveals himself he must be responded to appropriately! The Spirit is to be seen, to be honored, to be glorified as the divine, Christ-exalting, gift-giving, grace-sustaining, church-loving, sovereign ( v.11) God that He is! And so to is the first member of the Trinity, for God arranged just as he wanted (v.18), so the church is a reflection of His desired will for His worshippers...therefore its set up for His praise and glory!

This is profound! All the members of the Trinity are distinct, they all have the subtleties of their tasks...but yet they are all worthy of direct Glory an Adoration together as the one perfect spotless divine God. King of kings and majesty on high! Christ indeed is to be highly exalted, and I do believe that is the primary role of the Spirit, but oh to make this Paul's primary focus at the expense of the holistic worship of our Triune salvation-effective God is just madness! But this is what so many people do! Its incredible. God is God! God as Trinity is to be magnified together in Trinity as such, and that makes life in His church incredible! The threefold focus is a beautiful aim...and a lot more actuate than a single point.

Paul is primarily THEO-logical, not Christological

Some thoughts arround eschatology and ministy

Return
Jesus Christ is coming back! This is a promise of God foreordained, he will come on the clouds of heaven and every eye will see him, he will make all things new. He will be the instigator of the New Heavens and the New Earth. This is a fantastic promise, and because of the assurance of the hope to which we are called we should be faithfully anticipating this day with great joy and certainty. This event should cast a shadow of optimism over every aspect of Christian Ministry. If there was no second coming perhaps Hegelatarian ideology of the world realising itself dialectically may make an appearance. This, however, would not only make a dramatic difference to our Biblical doctrine of God, and distort Ministry. Ministers would not be able to provide adequate reason for persevering under suffering for instance.

Christ’s return is the origin and propagator of the hope and optimism that Ministers live by and teach to their flock. His return brings the New Creation, where we will be like Christ, perfected, clothed completely in righteousness, and sinless. His return ‘will be the decisive inauguration of the next stage in God’s history.’[*1]

Resurrection
Everyone will be resurrected, as all were born in Adam, all will be raised with Christ, believers to eternal life and non-believers to eternal punishment. This resurrection will be the transforming of our existing bodies, completing them in Christ through his victory over death. ‘In the very arena where death has done its worst, in the body, God proposes to achieve his victory for us and in us.’[*2]

In light of this, a Ministerial understanding of eschatology, which doesn’t allow for bodily resurrection, is denying Christ’s victory over death and the continuity of the old creation. Ministry with an incorrect understanding of resurrection may have a more mythological view of heaven, which would be out of step with the Biblical picture of paradise where we experience to some degree like we do now. These paths may also lead Ministry to Gnostic routes of ‘anti-flesh’ doctrines.

Judgement
Everyone will be judged. No sin goes unpunished, it will be justly paid for either by the cross or eternal judgment in Hell. Christ himself is the judge of the living and the dead, and the benchmark by which humanity is judged. Jesus will separate the sheep from the goats easily and permanently. Note the fundamentally Christological focus of this, which should be reflected in ministry.

This makes Ministry crucial, to encourage believers to work out their salvation with fear and trembling, and to warn those who do not believe. Without final judgement there will be no need for Ministers to teach fleeing from sin and the wrath to come and no need to warn/witness to unbelievers.
There is a Heaven and a Hell; again, if there was not, then Ministry need not focus on witnessing or warning non-believers or encourage believers to be assured of their salvation and flee sin. Further, if there is no Judgement then a mockery is made of the cross, for God’s righteous and just wrath had to be satisfied, if there will be no judgement then there need not have been a cross, if there will be no judge, there need not have been a resurrection.

The future that the God promises in his Word lends much to our understanding of Ministry: Ministers should be teaching believers faithfully from the Word that Jesus is returning and with him the New Creation, that God will wipe every tear from our eyes, there will be no more effects of the fall, we will be perfectly united to Christ, and it will be paradise. Ministers need to know this joy in their own hearts so to lead by example and teach. Ministers, who will be judged more strictly, need to be guarding their hearts from sin so to be above reproach in order to faithfully teach, administer the sacraments, and discipline in light of the resurrection and judgement to come.

[*1] P. Jensen, At The Heart of the Universe (IVP, Leicester, 1991), p. 30
[*2] Jensen, At The Heart of the Universe, p.31

A couple of paragraphs from my longer book review of John Frame's 'The Doctrine of the Knowlegde of God.' (DKG)

Frame’s key theological and philosophical endeavour is to accentuate the Lordship of God, and in doing so, underline his universal knowability and emphasize the appropriate response to Him. He does this in three parts; the ‘Objects of Knowledge,’ focusing particularly on who God has revealed Himself to be in relation to us and the basis of our response. The ‘Justification of Knowledge,’ which delves deeper into the pool of God’s revelation and relation to us and the possible shapes of our responses thereof. Finally; the ‘Methods of Knowledge,’ which further helps the Christian to respond and relate appropriately to the revealed Lord God shown in the first two parts in terms of life and moral evaluation before Him.

DKG shows us God as He has revealed himself to be, how he relates to us through creation, Scripture, and His Son, and further how we should appropriately respond. Frame shows this in such a way that makes us evaluate holistally our lives in relation to our Lord, and encourages us to joyfully and humbly respond to Him in repentance, faith, and obedient submission.

[J. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, (P&R Publishing, Philipsburg, 1987)]

Tim's Argument Summary of K. Popper 'The Open Society and its Enemies.'

Every wanted to read this two volume beast of a book? No? Well you should! You haven't got time? Well here is my 1 paragraph per chapter summary of the book. Enjoy.

1. Historicism + the Myth of Destiny. Historicism – Racialism + Marxism
2. Hesiod + HERACLITUS – comes us with the problem of change
3. Theory of Forms/Ideas. 1. Central to his theory of Knowledge which depends on gaining access to the “essence of things” in the world of ‘Ideas’ or unchanging forms; 2. Provides regularities that maintain continuity behind chaos; 3. Provides the rationalization of the quest to achieve the unchanging social order which approximates to the Ideal of the State. Essentialism (know the essence, the definition, and the name). ‘The Ideas or Forms are earlier and better than their changing and decaying copies and are themselves not in flux.’
4. * Change and Rest. Plato’s political program to create a stable, totalitarian state. ‘He thought of existing states as decaying copies of Form or Idea of a state.’ He tried to reconstruct the ‘idea’ from Sparta and Greece – and so tried to replicate it by eliminating the ‘germs’ of disunion and decay as radically as possible. So the master class is esteemed which guaranteed its economics, its breeding, and its training. State must take control, people are human sheep; right breeding is essential; writing includes strict censorship as does some music.
5. Nature and Convention. The moral demands of our new and changing world is for equality, freedom, and helping the weak. Three purposes: 1. Views on critical dualism, does not lead to the conclusion: one system better than another; 2. Critical dualism = one important difference between closed and open societies; 3. He shows how Plato fudged the distinction to support his political program.
6. * Totalitarian Justice. Plato created an influential theory of totalitarian justice as an alternative to equalitarian/individualist justice. Plato said individualism is not compatible with altruism. He exploited weaknesses used to defend equalitarian justice. These weaknesses are theories of natural rights etc.
7. The Principle of Leadership. Who shall rule the state = accepted as the fundamental question...Popper says this is unhelpful and misleading + results in confusion about realistic + rational objectives of democratic reform. Sec.1-3 outlines his alternative approach to democracy; Sec.4-5 criticises Plato’s theory of ‘leadership of the wise’ and attacks Plato’s theory of education which prepares ‘philosophical kings for their role.’
8. The Philosopher King. Expansion of Ch.7, more detail on breeding and training.
9. Aesthetism, Perfectionism, Utopianism. SOCIAL ENGINEERING – shouldn’t be aiming for the greatest good, but instead eliminating urgent evils. Plato’s method leads to huge human suffering (n.b. this is pre Soviet Disaster, Pre-Cambodia, Pre Mao’s China). Control of past = essential, and so the future has to be re-written. Moral principles in CHAPTER 5 minimize suffering rather than maximize happiness, promote tolerance and avoid tyranny. Fit with piecemeal reform and democratic government because most people can agree on concrete steps to address suffering and the problems of people in need whereas there are likely to be many conflicting views on the way that happiness should be sought. Killing people is not a reversible process.
10. The open society and its enemies. Tribal/collectivist society = closed. Society in which individuals are confronted with personal decisions = open. Plato genuinely hated tyranny + desired to make people happy by relieving the strain of social and political change. Popper believes society is progressing from closed to open, Plato’s idea makes people sit where they are which leads to fundamentalism and cults. ‘We must go on into the unknown, the uncertain and insecure, using what reason we may have to plan as well as we can for both security and freedom.’ [Last Page, Vol. 1]
11. NEW VOLUME YAY! – ‘The Aristotelian Roots of Hegelianism.’ Popper critiques methodology and epistemology that seeks true definitions and detailed conceptual analysis and labels this essentialism. Aristotle did not like democracy. – Meaning of terms is v-unhelpful (says Popper), essentialism is an unhelpful obsession with terms
12. ‘Hegel and the New Tribalism.’
13. *(NOTE. Christian authoritarianism of the middle ages) Marxism = the most dangerous form of historianism. Marx places great stress on scientific prediction – which led him astray.
14. Marx rejected the idea that motives or psychological factors provide adequate explanation of socioeconomic structures and historical events.
15. Marx was not a vulgar Marxist, or a vulgar materialist. Marx says that the social sciences coincide with historical or evolutionary method, and especially with historical prophecy. Marx also says that the economic organisation of society is fundamental for the society’s historical development. (Popper disagrees with these two claims).
16. The Classes. The Marxist theory of classes is a dangerous over-simplification.
17. The Legal and the Social System. – Marx’s theory of the state. Marx asserts (and Popper denies) the need to use political power to control economic power. Abuse of power is not supposed to be a problem under socialism. Rules need to be impartial and not discretionary orders.
18. *’The Coming of Socialism.’ Popper tests the coherence of the chain of predictions that Marx made for the coming of socialism following the revolution. Can we assume that a classless society will emerge from the battle?
19. ‘The Social Revolution.’ – Marx, social prophecy that struggle would end in violent war between the classes (last class standing). Marxist rhetoric undermines democracy and opens the way for fascism.
20. ‘Capitalism and its Fate.’ Marx gives way to basically a theory of exploitation. Marx was completely wrong in his prophecies, yet justified in reacting against oppressive capitalism.
21. ‘An Evaluation of the Prophecy.’ Free market will minimize (or tend to correct) overproduction and underproduction, and will ensure a fairly rapid recovery form busts
22. *’The Moral Theory of Historicism.’ Marxism cannot provide either reliable prophecies (nothing can) or advice on the piecemeal reforms that might achieve desired outcomes (Marx regarded that as Utopian) what accounts for the power and impact of Marxism? OPEN SOCIETY GIVES SPACE TO CREATE NEW OPTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES. Marx determinism was in conflict with his activism and his moralism, those who take on the whole package confuse themselves.
23. *’The Sociology of Knowledge.’ Whatever objectivity and rationality we can achieve cannot be attributed to special qualities of mind but to the give and take of criticism in a community. Popper talks against two emerging ideas, one was controlling social change by means of largescale central planning, the other was the theory of social determination of scientific knowledge.
24. ‘Oracular Philosophy and the Revolt against Reason.’ Rationalism / Reason?
25. *‘Has History any Meaning?’ ‘In this chapter Popper is revealed as something like an existentialist (without hysteria) with the message that history has no meaning but we can give it meaning.’
a. Outlines the importance of theories to organise historical data
b. Theories in Scientific research
c. Role of problems/issues/points of view in compiling historical narratives
d. Meaning and purpose in history
History has no meaning. A universal history of mankind would have to be the story of all men and women, “the history of all human hopes, struggles, and sufferings” because nobody is more important than anyone else (a highly egalitarian view!). But that history cannot be written, it is far too rich, all narratives have to be selective and focused.
He discusses the extent that the Christian view of history helps/hinders good historical research and writing. He criticises Kierkegaard.
“History has no meaning, we can give it a meaning.”

Thoughts on the mysterium tremendum et fascinans

Mysterium Tremendum et Fascinans was a phrase coined by R. Otto to refer to something one finds to be absolutely frightening yet awe-inspiring at the same time, something one feels helplessly drawn to yet wants to violently flee from in the same instant. Broken down is basically this:

mysterium - the 'wholly other' (Otto) that which is totally transcendent and apart, although is open to some degree to our experience
tremendum - the terror, awfulness, dread, overpowering, majesty, of God. Often linked with this is Otto's 'Creature Consciousness 'theory, (which I think is probably right in a sound context): a feeling of absolute 'nothingness' in comparison to and approach of God, or - , a feeling of total depravity and dependence upon God
fascinans - an attractiveness, wonder, obsessive interestedness in spite of fear

One may link this to Ezekiel's, Isaiah's, or John's revelation visions. The feeling of approaching the throne of our saviour - do we hope for it daily? Do we usher it in by our prayers? I find sometimes when I pray or meditate, this feeling of fear and awe, this knowledge of God's awesome wrath and his Fatherly love, this mysterium tremendum et fascinans, and it is such a wonderful dynamic of God's character, our place in light of Him, our appropriate response to Him, and our relationship with Him.

(some readers who have read Otto or Ninian Smart may recognise that I haven't entirely used this concept in the original context but linked it to Biblical and Christian experience.)

Some thoughts around William James and his views on mystical/religious experience

A couple of years ago I spent some time playing around the thoughts and ideas of William James as they present themselves in 'The Varieties of Religious Experience,' (As you do). This is a basic summary of his thesis followed by some of the thoughts that came to mind.

Religious experiences contain usually four distinguishable traits, namely, passivity, ineffability, noetic quality, and transience; by these four can we claim an experience to be 'religious.' (N.b. by religious in this sense, James is referring primarily to the mystical spectrum that accompanies religion.) These four basically mean:

Passivity - the individual within the experience has little or no control over the experience
Ineffability - the individual finds the experience near impossible to explain to someone who has not had a similar experience
Noetic Quality - the experience provides some degree of insight into truth, such as interpreting the present, explaining the past, or predicting the future
Transience - the experience was induced by deity/deities above and beyond rational understanding and perceptions

James would not classify himself as a believer in the deity of classical theism (or he is not a Christian for those of us that speeketh English) but I do feel a degree of truth resounding through this...once we distort it and make it our own :P I believe it was Mark Twain who famously said 'First get all the facts then distort them as you please.' With that infallible statement I'll continue.

It just really struck me that theologically, when we 'experience' God it contains an aspect of all of these traits. Lets take a couple of reasonably uncontroversial examples. When we read the Word of God in scripture, there is a degree of transience, the authority of one much bigger than ourselves, and with that an acclamation of authority and the necessity of submission. There is definitely an element of Noetic Quality, interpreting the place of humankind, the universe and its response to God on a large scale, and individual heart-warming situational guidance in obedience and faith; this is not to mention the prophecies such as the return of Christ in glory. There is an element of ineffability, the inability to explain the immensity of grace and the totality of the riches of the gospel as they have impacted our life and how they resonate in beautiful melody when we flick through its pages. Finally there is an element of passivity, a feeling of 'this is something actively leading me into truth and revealing to me the nature of God.'

Or lets take another example of singing praises to our God. There is obviously transience, worshiping Him who is so much bigger than me and so worthy of it. There is definitely a noetic quality in finding ourselves aware through the stirring of our hearts and the words we are singing, of our place before almighty God, and the appropriate response to Him; a recontexualising of our being. There is a passivity, knowing that we are to follow his command in praising Him and connecting with the truths we are claiming through song, submitting to those truths by asserting them (maybe). And there is a degree on ineffability, its difficult to explain the joy of singing praise to God to someone who doesn't see God as a true recipient worthy of praise.

I think the main reason I find James helpful is that it creates an awareness in my life of the multifaceted and spiritual connection I make with my Father God as I live to serve and love Him. It reminds me that each action of my life with I make to be worship (which should be every action), is drenched in a transience, in a revelation of truth and intimacy, in a passivity, or submission and obedience, and in a separateness from the world. Praise God for such a powerful and obvious relational connection in our lives!