We all have faith (according to the Onion)

Link to the Onion on Darwinism

It's easy to talk within Christian circles about there always being faith behind doubt... How you have to believe one thing to doubt something else.  Smarter men than me have spent time showing that the process by which we arrive at so-called "values" and so-called "facts" are essentially the same (Newbiggin does it well in "The Gospel in a Pluralist Society").  That the supposed divide between public indisputable "facts" and private whatever-works-for-you-as-long-as-you-don't-push-them-on-the-public-square "values" is a false one.

The trouble is, these kinds of arguments are tough to distill into soundbites, or to write on the back of a beer mat down the pub!  Most casual conversations don't provide the opportunity to lay out the framework and assumptions, and then start to highlight the inconsistencies or over-reaching often done in the name of science. 

Speaking for myself, I'm not as good as I'd like to be at chipping away at this particular "defeater belief".  So it's nice that the Onion are gently poking fun... 

Downplay the failing & remove the need for forgiveness...

I was doing the PA on Sunday afternoon as a congregation we are part of gathered together. It’s not a tricky job – basically hitting the down arrow when you want the powerpoint slide to change. 

With one particular song, the first verse and chorus (i.e. first two slides) repeated twice before the final verse (i.e. the third slide). So the order went 1-2-1-2-3. But being a bit slow, I just kept hitting the down arrow. 

The problem is clear: When we got the repeated bit, the congregation saw slide 3 when the musicians were playing a tune that coincided with slide 1. Everyone knew this. And everyone knew that I was responsible for the slides - hence the looked at me instead of the screen waiting for the problem to be fixed. 

OK.  It's not the biggest mistake of my week, but my response was revealing...

My response in the instant of the mistake? To shrug my shoulders and smile as if to downplay the mistake. My instinctive response to my mistake was to imply to the congregation “it’s not a big deal and doesn’t really matter”. 

My priority in that instant? That the folks in the room not think any less of me. ("Mark isn't such a bad guy.  It's not much of a mistake.  It could have happened to anyone. It didn't really matter.  I don't have to revise my assessment of Mark's competency...")

It struck me afterwards how revealing that is of the state of my heart.   The effect of my lack of diligence was to break the focus of the congregation upon the Biblical truths that they were singing to encourage each other and to praise God. If I really thought that was important (which it surely is) I'd have taken 60 seconds to check the slides beforehand.

The right response once the gaff was made would surely have been first to recognise that we were engaged in something significant which I had in a sense spoiled, and second to signal my apology to them, and to ask God’s forgiveness for having too small a concern for His reputation. 

Instead - without pausing to think - I acted to protect my own reputation.

How often to I downplay my failures in order to remove the need to seek forgiveness?  How often is my primary concern my reputation before others rather than the reputation of God?

For the response to be instinctive, the answer is probably not one I like...

Human equality (1) - It isn't rooted in what we can do...

I was chatting with a colleague the other day about the intrinsic value we have as human beings. That we do have dignity as people... Most people would agree that we have value. That their being human carries a certain (possibly inherent) dignity, but where does it come from? 

Here's a survey of possible explanations that don't work... 

a) Is human equality about our physical value?

The raw materials that make us up are mainly water, carbon, nitrogen, calcium, some iron, some phosphorous... But even though commodity prices have shot up recently, our raw materials probably aren't worth more than a few quid. But we understand that value is not determined by raw materials. A BMW 7-series is worth more as an arrangement of molecules than the raw materials it comprises - value is more than that. It has to do with benefit that can be enjoyed - the utility that can be gained! 

How does that apply to individuals? (because surely we are a pretty impressive and complicated arrangement of molecules!).  Is it about what can be done with us as an arrangement of molecules?  (That's the reason why a BMW is more valuable than it's component parts, which in turn are more valuable than the same BMW written off and crushed.) 

b) Human equality isn't about our economic potential

Is value linked to potential to do work?... To produce things?... Entertain people?... Serve others?... What does it mean to say that? 

To make it concrete, how would we rank the following individuals?: 

• John is 30 years old at the height of his physical power. He has a wealth of accumulated skills, knowledge and experience. He has plenty of energy to work and thrives on pressure. Economically, he has begun to be highly successful, and the future augers well. 
  
• Gene is 70 years old. She has raised a family, and worked part and full-time for decades. However, she is getting frail, and is starting to forget things. Under pressure she tends to get flustered and confused. 
  
• Grace is 4. She is full of life, very inquisitive, and chatty for her age. However, she's only 2'6" tall. She's no good for physical work, and - if her drawings at nursery is anything to go by - can't yet do much productive work! When put under pressure, she tends to hide behind her mother's legs. Realistically, Grace will require at least another 10 if not 20 years before she is able to produce more than she consumes (i.e. provide a net economic gain to her community). It will take decades of investment for her to acquire the wealth of skills and knowledge John already has, and that will help her to be more economically productive. 
  

These thumbnails suggest that - based on economic potential - Gene and Grace are less valuable than John. We might argue between Gene and Grace (based on economic potential), but with a bit of upfront investment you would probably reap a good return from Grace. So perhaps she is more valuable...? 

In which case, would we be happy to say "John is more valuable than Grace, who in turn is more valuable than Gene"? 

John > Grace > Gene ? 

To even speak in those terms is pretty unsavoury. 

And where does this kind of rampant age-ism leave you? An EU official was quoted a while back as saying that long term, (with an aging unproductive population consuming increasing amounts of resources), euthanasia would be an important tool in maintaining the economic competitiveness of the EU compared to other parts of the globe. If that's the logical conclusion of deriving value from economic potential, can we stomach it? (And if we can now, will we stomach it as easily in 30 years when we are no longer economically productive?!) 

And what if I introduce fictional Gordon who empties John's bins at work, (and who conveniently shares John's birthday)?  

Gordon doesn't have John's skills, knowledge or experience. The confluence of his genetic material, family upbringing, nature, nurture etc... mean that Gordon will almost certainly never be as economically productive as John. Does that mean Gordon is less valuable as a human being than John? And how would we reflect that in the running of society? 

And how would Gordon compare to four year old Grace - with her promising IQ tests and pushy middle-class "nurturing" parents. Arguably Gordon is less valuable then Grace. 

Ought we to think seriously about giving Gordon less of a vote than John? in fact, should we confine the vote to people like John and Grace's parents? 

Historically, people who talk in this way have oppressed minority groups, denied the vote to non-landowners, worn jackboots... 

Our value as human beings can't be based on economic potential... 

That's good news if you lose your job and your economic potential is diminished. It's good news if you are old like Gene, or dependent like Grace or not gifted in the way the world economically recognises like Gordon). It "feels" right to rule that out as the measure. But it doesn't offer an alternative answer where our value comes from. 

Here's something else that it isn't: 

c) Human equality can't be based on what the market is willing to pay... 

That is usually the golden rule for valuing things. If you are lucky enough to be a homeowner, then your house isn't worth the price-tag you (or your commission hungry estate agent) put on it. A house is worth what people are willing to pay for it. (Which might mean your having to reassess the economic value of your home at the moment with mortgage acceptances at record lows...). 

But we obviously can't apply that to people! I don't know anyone who would countenance the buying and selling of human beings. Whatever people think of Wilberforce's evangelical convictions, we look back and celebrate the abolition of human slavery in the British Empire. (We want to see the enslaved and exploited around the world freed - even if we can't yet explain why). We accept that slavery is demeaning, and that for one human being to own another doesn't sit well with the human dignity we want to uphold. 

You can't put a value on human life using the slave market... 

Economic potential can't be the measure. It's too unsavoury and the logical outworkings are sufficiently unpleasant that I'm willing to rule out the assumptions that point to them. (Besides there is more to life than money!).

What if we change tack slightly and make it about a different kind of potential. Say, the ability to participate generally in society, to enjoy life to the full and generally to experience life...

Where does that lead?

d) Human equality isn't based on our potential to experience life... 

 Based on potential to experience life, we would have to re-order our fictional trio: 

• 4-year old Grace has her whole life ahead of her. 
  
• John is in his prime, but has been round the block a few times already. 
  
• Gene has so many miles on the clock that it's started back at the beginning. 
  

So by this alternative measure - potential to experience life - Grace is more valuable than John who is more valuable than Gene. 

Grace > John > Gene ? 

Gene is still not coming out of this very well! And with each Birthday that passes, I feel less comfortable with sidelining Gene! 

But even if we can live with that statement. What about Grace's fictional identical twin - Hope? 

Hope, through an accident early in life, is blind. She has less "potential to experience life" as she can't see. Is she less valuable than her sister for being blind? Were back in jackboot territory again! 

Or what about Grace's fictional unborn brother Joshua? He is 20 weeks old. He would probably survive outside of the womb (in a Western hospital), so he has the "potential to experience life". And he is younger than Grace... Is Joshua more valuable than his older sister? Would that have been different 4 weeks ago when, at 16 weeks gestation, he would have been much less likely to survive outside of the womb? Was he less valuable then, but has suddenly stepped up a notch now that he could survive in an ICU incubator? (It was this argument about the potential for life that raged in the House of Commons a while back. Should the abortion limit be reduced to allow for advances in medical science? Should we ratchet it down with every medical innovation?) 

But here's the thing: Does the value of human life change with medical science? If that is the case, then it is not something intrinsic to ourselves. It must be linked to our ability or potential to do things once medicine has fixed us up to do them (whether that be "do" economic work, or "do" life experience or whatever). To assert that abortion limits should change based upon the ability of the (medically supported) foetus to survive outside of the womb, then we are asserting value based on potential. 

If my value as a human can't be linked to what I do, then that rules out my ability or potential as the measure (whatever measure I might choose).   The basis for human equality must be something to do with what I am... Something intrinsic to my humanity, and therefore common to all.  Otherwise, we can cannot claim universal equality. 

But what could that inate quality of our humanity be? 

Why sin is like a big mac...

It looks so appealing. So tender… so juicey… so satisfying…. In the advert it looks like everything a hamburger should be. Succulent. Flavoursome. Filling. 

The advert whispers all kinds of promises. They sound so reasonable. So enticing. The picture is convincing. My mouth begins to water.

And yet - if I think back - I know the truth. I know how the story ends: 

The burger is never as big, nor as juicey, nor as satisfying as it promises. It always seems small after the money is handed over. And it never fills me up for long. Last time, I felt hungry again only an hour afterwards. What’s more, I felt slightly queasy,… slightly “greasy” after I’d eaten it – the fat in the air seemed to stick to me. I wasn’t satisfied, I was merely distracted from my genuine hunger. I still needed a proper meal.

So why am I tempted to go inside?... Why do I entertain the empty promises of the advert?

Because time has passed, and eventually I forget the truth.  I forget that the all too plausible promises are empty. I forget what happened last time.  And what's more, I forget to speak truth to myself - to remind myself of the satisfying meal that awaits me at home at no cost. 

How sad - how foolish - that often my relationship with sin and temptation is like my experience with Big Macs.  Time passes, and I fail to see them for what they are.  Too often I listen to the lies. 

Prince Caspian - the honour & shame of being an image-bearer

[On Caspian being told by Aslan that he is descended from human pirates who entered the world of Narnia from "our world" generations before...]

“Do you mark all this well, King Caspian?”

“I do indeed, Sir,” said Caspian. “I was wishing that I came from a more honourable lineage”.

“You come from the Lord Adam and the Lady Eve,” said Aslan. “And that is both honour enough to erect the head of the poorest beggar, and shame enough to bow the shoulders of the greatest emperor on earth. Be content.”

Caspian bowed.

(Prince Caspian, C.S. Lewis)

How good is your heaven?

Lots of people believe in some a heaven or after life of some kind. Not usually in a very thought through way - or with much evidence to back it up - but its easy to see how folks could derive some kind of comfort from a vague conviction that death isn’t the end.

A lot of folks go further than that and suggest what comes after death is an improvement on now. They’re thinking of more than an eternal supply of cream cheese. Hence comments like “He’s gone to a better place”... “She’s gone to meet her maker” “He’ll be smiling as he looks down on us”…  

In fact – without knowing it - a lot of people hope for part of the Bible’s description of heaven – a place where there is “no more death or mourning, or crying or pain” (Rev 21v4).

a) This imagined heaven fails to recognise what people are like!

I wonder about this secular, God-free, ‘analgesic’ heaven - the “better place” that wishful thinking invents. Stop and think about it for too long and this heaven falls apart. It disappoints, not only because its promises are without foundation, but because this view fails to recognise what people are like. It suffers from a massive dollop of wishful thinking!

Don’t get me wrong, I want a heaven where there is “no more death or mourning, or crying or pain”. (I don’t think that’s coincidence, I think that’s written on all our hearts by the God who made us. It’s written on our souls, and consequently its what we yearn for when death strips away the distractions and trappings of day-to-day life). But here’s the thing: If this imagined heaven goes on forever then there will be all of those things! Crying, pain and the rest! At least there will be if I am there! In my selfishness I cause people pain. Give me long enough, and I’ll make people cry. Give me forever, and sooner or later I’ll kill people.

If I’m allowed into heaven unchanged, then it won’t be heaven any more! I would spoil it. And so would you, and your nice kind Grandpa Joe, sweet old Aunt Lucy and anyone else you care to think of.

b) This imagined heaven is no heaven at all! 

If you think of this your idea of heaven – God-free & without any mechanism for personal change, then let me say: it’s rubbish! All you’ve done is daydream death away. And you’re left with something which is pretty unappealing. At best it’s just life now, but it goes on forever.  

But “wait!” you say, “the really bad people won’t be there, so it will be better than life now!” Without getting side-tracked clarifying God’s true entry criteria, I think that fails to recognise what I’m like underneath, and equally what you are like. Given long enough we’ll spoil your made-up heaven for each other. I’ll cause you pain. You’ll make me cry. As eternity unfolds, feuds will develop. I’ll get more and more stuck in my ways. And so will you. (That’s generally what old people do! Why will we be different in eternity).

There is nothing in human history which gives me any grounds for hoping that if you get rid of death, that people will relate to each other any better – even the “nice” ones. It’ll end up being just as messy and painful, and hopeless and unresolvable as life is now, but there will be no end and no escape! 

We need heart change. The question is who would we trust to perform that operation? And who has the power to do it?

c) We don’t just need God to forgive us, we need him to change our hearts

“I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean... I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you, and move you to follow my decrees and keep my laws… you will be my people and I will be your God.” (Ezekiel 36v26-28) 

The Bible’s promises for the future are far more glorious than most people realise! Christians talk lots about Jesus’ death on the cross absorbing God’s justice, and for good reason. Without forgiveness, heaven would be empty. The way we treat God and one another, no one can approach God with any confidence. If God is just and takes wrong-doing seriously, then – absent forgiveness - heaven would have a population of one: Jesus.

But the Christian faith provides for more than just an “entry ticket” to heaven. That wouldn’t be enough. The Bible promises God’s power to transform lives made possible because of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. Jesus’ resurrection is the guarantee of what’s to come. It’s the guarantee that those who trust him, will be made like him – that is: perfect! Morally… Physically… Spiritually…

Not that Christians already are. Far from it. But we will be. Not because of our deserving it, but because God chooses to showcase his generosity and mercy by transforming the lives of people who had previously hated him. He brings them to love him perfectly and to love what he loves, to be faithful as he is faithful, to hate evil as he hates it, to seek justice and show mercy just as he does. He undoes the effects of our sin, and restores them so that they can live with him forever.

The Bible’s promise of heaven is realistic and comprehensive. Its better than we dare admit, because it recognises what we are like.

Here’s what God said after he promised a world with no more crying, mourning, death or pain:

“These words are trustworthy and true…”

That sounds a lot better and more certain than a made-up heaven, with or without Philadelphia.

Baxter – On balancing monologue preaching and dialogue-based teaching

Here are two quotes from Richard Baxter’s “Reformed Pastor” which are interesting viewed side by side.  In one he raises the bar for preaching through the roof, in the next he clearly identifies the importance of dialogue-based teaching with individuals (and families and groups by implication from the rest of the book).

What skill doth every part of our work require! – and of how much moment is every part! To preach a sermon, I think, is not the hardest part; and yet what skill is necessary to make the truth plain; to convince the hearers, to let irresistible light in to their consciences, and to keep it there, and drive all home; to screw the truth into their minds, and work Christ into their affections; to meet every objection, and clearly to resolve it; to drive sinners to a stand, and make them see that there is no hope, but that they must unavoidably either be converted or condemned – and to do all this, as regards language and manner, as beseems our work, and yet as is most suitable to the capacities of our hearers. This, and a great deal more that should be done in every sermon, must surely require a great deal of holy skill. So great a God, whose message we deliver, should be honored by our delivery of it.

Chapter 1, The Reformed Pastor

It’s tough to criticise Baxter for not taking the act of preaching seriously!  His list of what a sermon preached should do is extensive and exciting (if a little daunting!). Amazingly, he finishes with “this and a great deal more should be done in every sermon”! 

And yet he goes on to speak of the limitations of monologue preaching (for want of a better term), even of the type which he aspires to (and arguably achieved to a considerable extent for his congregation).

For my part, I study to speak as plainly and movingly as I can, (and next to my study to speak truly, these are my chief studies,) and yet I frequently meet with those that have been my hearers eight or ten years, who know not whether Christ be God or man, and wonder when I tell them the history of his birth and life and death, as if they had never heard it before. And of those who know the history of the gospel, how few are there who know the nature of that faith, repentance, and holiness which it requireth, or, at least, who know their own hearts? But most of them have an ungrounded trust in Christ, hoping that he will pardon, justify, and save them, while the world hath their hearts, and they live to the flesh. And this trust they take for justifying faith. I have found by experience, that some ignorant persons, who have been so long unprofitable hearers, have got more knowledge and remorse of conscience in half an hour’s close discourse, than they did from ten years’ public preaching.

I know that preaching the gospel publicly is the most excellent means, because we speak to many at once. But it is usually far more effectual to preach it privately to a particular sinner, as to himself: for the plainest man that is, can scarcely speak plain enough in public for them to understand; but in private we may do it much more…

Chapter 3, Motives from the Necessity of Work

Now I’m loathe to argue purely from someone's experience or from pragmatism. But here is a man whose evangelical convictions of word ministry I find hard to question, much less dismiss. 

It raises for me an important question:what ought the right balance to be between monologue preaching and catechizing individuals/families/groups in private in what is surely a more dialogue form, as the rest of the paragraph makes clear:

…In public our speeches are long, and we quite over-run their understandings and memories, and they are confounded and at a loss, and not able to follow us, and one thing drives out another, and so they know not what we said. But in private we can take our work gradatim, and take our hearers along with us; and, by our questions, and their answers, we can see how far they understand us, and what we have next to do. In public, by length and speaking alone we lose their attention; but when they are interlocutors, we can easily cause them to attend. Besides, we can better answer their objections, and engage them by promises before we leave them, which in public we cannot do. 

And next he drops the bombshell.  It appears that public preaching serves in Baxter's mind evangelistically, but even then (and especially for discipleship) more is required.  You need dialogue... 

I conclude, therefore, that public preaching will not be sufficient: for though it may be an effectual means to convert many, yet not so many, as experience, and God’s appointment of further means, may assure us. Long may you study and preach to little purpose, if you neglect this duty.

Food for thought...

Baxter is now public domain (having died in 1691!)  I cut and pasted from here.

Proverbs – Taking advice

Another survey of Biblical wisdom from the Bible's proverbs. This time looking at taking advice and dealing with correction, instruction or rebuke. (Again vaguely grouped).

The benefits of heeding discipline & advice
He who heeds discipline shows the way to life,
but whoever ignores correction leads others astray. (10v17)
He who ignores discipline comes to poverty and shame,
but whoever heeds correction is honored. (13v18)
Plans fail for lack of counsel,
but with many advisers they succeed. (15v22)
He who listens to a life-giving rebuke
will be at home among the wise.
He who ignores discipline despises himself,
but whoever heeds correction gains understanding. (15v31-32)
Whoever gives heed to instruction prospers,
and blessed is he who trusts in the LORD. (16v20)
Stop listening to instruction, my son,
and you will stray from the words of knowledge. (19v27)

Wisdom in taking rebukes & advice
Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge,
but he who hates correction is stupid. (12v1)
The way of a fool seems right to him,
but a wise man listens to advice. (12v15)
A wise son heeds his father's instruction,
but a mocker does not listen to rebuke. (13v1)
Pride only breeds quarrels,
but wisdom is found in those who take advice. (13v10)
A fool spurns his father's discipline,
but whoever heeds correction shows prudence. (15v5)
A rebuke impresses a man of discernment
more than a hundred lashes a fool. (17v10)
Flog a mocker, and the simple will learn prudence;
rebuke a discerning man, and he will gain knowledge. (19v25)
A man who remains stiff-necked after many rebukes
will suddenly be destroyed—without remedy. (29v1)

Wisdom in giving rebukes & advice
Better is open rebuke
than hidden love.
Wounds from a friend can be trusted,
but an enemy multiplies kisses. (27v5-6)
He who rebukes a man will in the end gain more favor
than he who has a flattering tongue. (28v23)
As iron sharpens iron,
so one man sharpens another. (27v17)

Wisdom in seeking guidance & instruction
Listen to advice and accept instruction,
and in the end you will be wise. (19v20)
Make plans by seeking advice;
if you wage war, obtain guidance. (20v18)
Apply your heart to instruction
and your ears to words of knowledge. (23v12)

Wisdom in accepting praise
The crucible for silver and the furnace for gold,
but man is tested by the praise he receives. (27v21)

Proverbs - Well chosen words...

A brief survey of the Bible's wisdom on the effects of well chosen speach from Proverbs (loosely grouped).

...Encourage
An anxious heart weighs a man down,
but a kind word cheers him up. (10v25)
A man finds joy in giving an apt reply—
and how good is a timely word! (15v23)
A cheerful look brings joy to the heart,
and good news gives health to the bones. (15v30)

...Bring healing & peace
A gentle answer turns away wrath,
but a harsh word stirs up anger. (15v1)
Reckless words pierce like a sword,
but the tongue of the wise brings healing. (12v18)
The tongue that brings healing is a tree of life,
but a deceitful tongue crushes the spirit. (15v4)
Pleasant words are a honeycomb,
sweet to the soul and healing to the bones. (16v24)

...Bring rescue & life
The mouth of the righteous is a fountain of life,
but violence overwhelms the mouth of the wicked. (10v11)
The words of the wicked lie in wait for blood,
but the speech of the upright rescues them. (12v6)
The tongue has the power of life and death,
and those who love it will eat its fruit. (18v21)

...Bring wisdom & knowledge
The lips of the righteous nourish many,
but fools die for lack of judgment. (10v21)
The mouth of the righteous brings forth wisdom,
but a perverse tongue will be cut out. (10v31)
The tongue of the wise commends knowledge,
but the mouth of the fool gushes folly. (15v2)
The lips of the wise spread knowledge;
not so the hearts of fools. (15v7)
The wise in heart are called discerning,
and pleasant words promote instruction. (16v21)
A wise man's heart guides his mouth,
and his lips promote instruction. (16v23)
Gold there is, and rubies in abundance,
but lips that speak knowledge are a rare jewel. (20v15)

So speak carefully...
A man who lacks judgment derides his neighbor,
but a man of understanding holds his tongue. (11v12)
He who guards his lips guards his life,
but he who speaks rashly will come to ruin. (13v3)
The heart of the righteous weighs its answers,
but the mouth of the wicked gushes evil. (15v28)
A man of knowledge uses words with restraint,
and a man of understanding is even-tempered.
Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, 

and discerning if he holds his tongue. (17v27-28)

Church - Is it in part about image too?

“Ought I iron my shirts for tomorrow, or meet with a friend in the hope that an evangelistic opportunity might result?” “How do I decide whether to pursue paid gospel ministry, or to continue in my so-called “secular” job?”   As a church how can we most appropriately be a blessing to the community are part of?  Should Bibles and Barbells

The risk can be that we often set up a false-polarity between different types of work - evangelism and ministries of mercy, “spiritual” activities and “stewardship” activities... However, these false extremes are unhelpful. Few people would advocate evangelism to the exclusion of mercy ministries, or that all Christians ought to enter paid gospel ministry to the exclusion of “secular employ”. The question then becomes how to identify a scriptural balance. I wonder whether that balance is found by reference to God’s revealed character.

Evangelism is a right expression of the character of God, as the LORD who exercises his mighty arm to seek and save the lost. But His character also extends to caring deeply for the Fatherless and the widow, to the point of judging people on the basis of their treatment of the marginalised (Sheep & Goats - Matt 25v31-46).  He also displays spectacular creativity in creation... Wonderful order and predictability (and I would argue elegant beauty) in scientific laws... Abundant goodness in his generosity, right down to the rain failing on the wicked and the good... Ought we not to be imaging that as well?   Surely our Christian communities in the light of the gospel ought to be doing no less than Israel in drawing the nations through attractive and wise community life (Deut 4v6-7).

I wonder whether in failing to image God’s character and concerns in all its balanced richness, we inadvertently risk caricaturing God for the watching world...

What is a caricature if not taking particular true aspects of an image and over-emphasising to the exclusion/distraction of other aspects. A caricature of Mick Jagger follows a well-trodden pattern: The head is exaggerated to the exclusion of the body. Within the head, his lips are taken as the most prominent feature. The result - a tiny little body supporting a massive head with a huge mouth.

Now I know that no individual or even local church can do everything. Resources are limited. God doesn't gift his church is identical ways in every community.  But what do we talk about? What do we prize? What do we aspire to be, to influence and to change? What do we speak out for and against? Whose cause are we defending or prosecuting?

As the world looks on at the collective body of Christ, what distortions might it see of God’s image in the church?  Are we inadvertently caricaturing Him?  And isn't that a really serious thing?...

(I know there risks a slight mixing of metaphors here between individuals made "in God's image", and the church as "the body of Christ".  However, given it is mankind in community you are made in God's image and likeness, I'm not too worried about the gentle slight of hand!).

Work - Its all about image...

I’ve been struck recently by the connection that the Bible repeatedly makes between the purpose/role of human work and our identity as image bearers. 

A few disconnected thoughts...

1) Creation - The human “job description” is rooted in who we are as image bearers

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."  (Genesis 1v26)

As men and women, we have the awesome privilege of being created to be vice-regents of the King of the universe! He is given delegated authority to rule over the earth in a manner consistent with the will of the King. And to do so in a way that reflects the character the King has already displayed in His creative works…  To order and develop creation so that it might remain “very good”, and bring glory to God.  Uniquely man can reflect God’s character and represent/enact His will because man is made in God’s likeness to be His image-bearing representatives.

It is as God’s image bearers that humans are called to rule over the created order (a connection reiterated in the next two verses). 

So working and taking care of creation (2v15), filling and subduing it (1v28) is not a punishment for sin, but a right expression of man’s identity as image-bearing vice-regent. That role is worked out in a way that is consistent with the working, creator God whose character man images and whose will he is to represent.

 

2) Fall - Human sin twists the purpose of work and ruins our ability to carry it out.

When man seeks to exchange his vice-regency for autonomous rule, his identity as image bearer is forever distorted. His relationship with God broken, the controlling parameters for his work of filling and subduing become twisted. He proceeds ever eastward, bent on his own autonomy and glory (Cain, Lamech, Babel,...).

The mandate is preserved, but the context is distorted. After the flood, the cultural mandate is repeated (Gen 9v1-2), but the context for its outworking is now distorted. Whereas previously mankind was to “rule over” the other creatures1, now man inspires “fear and dread”. The picture is one of conflict inspired by claims to autonomy.

3) Redemption - Christ restores us as image-bearers to work

In Christ, we are renewed in the image of God: ...you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator  (Col 3v9-10, also 2Cor 3v17-18)

Work is to be done for the Lord (as vice regents): And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. (Col 3v17).

Work is to be characterised by service (in the image of the servant King): It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. (Eph 4v11) (also Matt 20v26-28, Eph 6v7-8, 1Pet2v16...).

4) Consummation - work is glorified

God’s image is perfectly recreated in God’s people: “...we eagerly await a Saviour from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.” (Phil 3v21).

The cultural mandate will be perfectly enacted through Christ & His people: “You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth”. (Rev 5v10)

You can change (link)

Tim Chester (Total Church, Busy Christians Guide to Business, Good News for the Poor, The Message of Prayer,...) has written a new book for IVP due out on 20th June.  

You can find a sample chapter on his blog here entitled "What truths do you need to turn to?" exploring the idea that behind every sin is belief in a lie...

Pre-fab church or cosy coffee table chat? - Walking the line in church planting…

Let me lay my cards on the table.

I am persuaded that the local Christian community (church) is God’s strategy for mission… That Christians are called to be as a city on a hill shining before men… That we are to live in communities which declare the wisdom of God to the watching world (Deut 4v6-8)… That we are to be communities of light shining like stars as we hold out the word of truth (Phil 2v15-16)… That corporately we are to declare God’s marvellous deeds to the wider community (Psalm 96v3). Church is the appropriate expression of the Christian identity as those made to be a kingdom by Christ’s blood (Rev 1v5-6).

I’m 100% persuaded that church planting is a good thing...  Multiplying communities of light… Filling and subduing the world & culture with groups of image-bearers… I’m all for that. 

But here’s the thing...

There are ways and ways of church planting.  Let me paint two grotesque caricatures to make the point:

Caricature #1: Pre-fab church:

With an undergirding of prayer, this church plant’s priority is to establish a church meeting (which then gives the scope of the church community). Their model is the sending church’s meetings, but they lack the economies of scale that their larger sending church enjoyed. The time and energies of the small planting team are consumed with the practicalities of the main meetings. They set up, take down, mount programmes, do admin, and produce a meeting which mirrors their parent church’s in form, language, right down to the type-face. 

The “bringers” within the team struggle to bring because they are pulled into the church rotas at the expense of spending time with non-Christians in the wider community. The meetings and Bible teaching prove inaccessible for a wider community whose cultural defeaters, use of language and forms of worship are very different to the sending church whose model the plant follows. 

Caricature #2: Coffee table church:

The church planting team place huge importance on relationship and community formation within the team (Jn 13v33-35). They are concerned to get to know one another well in order to commend the depth and quality of Christian relationships to the watching world. They are anxious not to run before they can walk - taking plenty of time to get a feel for the area they are planting into, in order that they might contextualise the gospel when they go on to meet publicly. For the time being however, their “meetings” are preparatory - focussing on prayer and equipping, and largely invisible to the world around them.  Meantime, they work hard to build relationships with members of the local community through which they can share the gospel, and over time introduce people to Christian community.  

The team fails to recognise that for many people they encounter, the intensity of their community is a turn-off, whereas a more conventional church service would provide a culturally acceptable pathway into the church community.

Harsh & not fair... but helpful

These are obvious and harsh caricatures. I have never encountered plants that are this extreme or ill-fitting to their context. But polar opposites highlight the issues… They reveal some of the strengths and weaknesses of the two extremes.

More helpful terms would be Community-led Plants and Meeting-led Plants to imply a gentle emphasis or bias in a plant rather than an overwhelming preoccupation.  This seems right as both will always be present to a greater or lesser extent.  Christian community will inevitably meet… meetings will create community.  Ideally a plant will create a wonderful feedback loop between community and meeting with the each being shaped and being challenged by the other.  e.g. 

• The community will critique/challenge the church’s practices where they are cultural imports (or not functionally gospel). 
  
• The gospel word proclaimed and applied will critique/challenge both the church subculture and wider culture.  
  

Meetings and community will both provide pathways into Christian community of varying appropriateness...  They are both necessary and inevitable.  

The question is where to focus energies in the early stages.

As the caricatures highlight, I think it is possible for church planting to be a less good thing than it can be.  It is not clear to me that church planting is always a good thing where this tension between meeting and community is not rightly held.  However, I think for every situation there is a church planting model (walking the line between the extremes) that is good. 

Here are some brief thoughts as to when each might be more appropriate. 

For me, the question to ask boils down to:

How wide is the cultural gap between the planting team and each of: 

(i) the local churched culture, and 

(ii) the local unchurched culture.

a) Community-led plants

The cultural gap is significant. The watching world is largely unchurched and requires time to have their misunderstandings and stereotypes addressed through the sharing of lives (1 Thess 2v8-9). In this context, church meetings ("services") are not a fruitful point of contact or a suitable pathway into church community and the proclamation of the gospel.  People will not walk in off the street. Time is required to contextualise the communication of the gospel and the church’s practices, which will then shape the public meetings as they emerge. 

b) Meeting-led plants

The cultural gap to either the local churched or unchurched cultures is not great. Church is an appropriate pathway for some in the community, allowing the planted community to expand quickly and rapidly spread through the wider culture (initially through transfer). 

• Where the wider cultural gap is significant the church will need to listen to the local joiners and be critiqued by them. The perennial question will be: “Which differences are "gospel" and which are not?”  (i.e. people don't have to become like me in every way to become like Christ.  Then certainly don't have to become middle class!).
  
• Where the cultural gap between the planted community and the wider community is not great, it may be appropriate to more closely mirror the practices of the planting church. Some risk of cultural inertia may exist (never questioning forms, language or style) through being blind to the differences which will exist however small.
  

Under God, a right balance between these two foci will mean a plant can always be a good thing!  But it seems to me we only make life harder for ourselves if we are inappropriately wedded to one or the other.

Couldn't it mean anything I want it to? - What are the boundaries on interpretation?

I was chatting with a colleague the other day at lunch. She made a common suggestion: that a person's understanding of communicated truth is dependent on the subjective interpretation of the individual.

I guess Christians tend to encounter the corollary of this: We can't draw any firm conclusions from (for example) the Bible, because it is open to a host of subjective interpretations all equally valid.

It struck me that we don't live like that(!). We act in all our decisions and relationships as if we have confidence in language to communicate truth with identifiable and limited ambiguity so that interpretation isn't subjective. (That is we can identify potential ambiguities in language and, where they arise, have available to us well understood methods for limiting the scope of meaning to that which the writer intends).

If that weren't true, we couldn't ever say anything or write anything with any confidence in how it would be understood. Then contract law would be a joke, love letters a waste of time, and friendships built on very dodgy ground (how could I know what my friend really meant when they said "such-and-such"? Common experience wouldn’t be common because their subjective interpretation of our conversation could be completely different). I wouldn't be able to write these words with any confidence that you would interpret my words in a way that is consistent with my intentions in writing them!

a) Is interpretation of language really that subjective?

To take a concrete example: We live in a culture that prizes home ownership. I take it generally people are confident that the deeds to their home secure their ownership (given the increasingly crazy amounts of money people are handed over to each other!). Ultimately a buyer’s confidence rests on a document with a particular form which is presumably "open to interpretation". If someone rocks up on your doorstep saying they have a different interpretation of your deed (that it has expired, or actually applies to a different flat or a different person,... that the separate storage room isn't actually yours or whatever...), I take it most of us wouldn't consider their interpretation equally valid alongside our own at that point! They'd probably be more than happy to tell the other person they were wrong - that their interpretation was nonsense! Subjectivity wouldn't enter into it!

The answer must be that, in practice, the way we interpret language cannot be that subjective. Our confidence in language stems from an assumption that in practice ideas, concepts and desires can be communicated with sufficient ambiguity removed so as to be useful... We take it for granted that an asserted truth (or at least a very narrow set of possible truth claims) can be understood from, say, the deed to my flat ("I own it"), the bank contracts I sign ("you owe me") or all sorts of other documents (e.g. "it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught" Luke 1v3-4).

So, in answer to the question: "Isn't it all just subject to interpretation?"...

In a word: "No!"

Or in five words: "No one really believes that".

b) Why is it easy to think that way?

I think in practice, we have a host of intuitive ways in which we rule out certain interpretations as "invalid"... A variety of ways in which we "rule out" potential ambiguities, and narrow the scope of "valid" acceptable interpretations when we dealing with documents, conversations, letters, literature, poetry, history, or whatever... The thing is, in the ast majority of cases, it is instinctive! We are so used to applying rules of interpretation that we don't think about it.

The instinctive nature of these rules for interpretation would explain why its only when we enter the realms of the unfamiliar (e.g. reading the Bible) that we try to assert that the modes of communication we entrust our lives to daily (e.g. "please mind the gap"!) aren't as reliable as our lives say that they are.

c) So how can we be consistent in our approach?

As I pondered it on the bus, I tried to piece together what these instinctive rules for interpretation might include. It seems to me that we follow two steps:

- "Step 1" of interpretation is to identify possible word meanings based on cultural usage. This provides a set of "technically possible" interpretations.

- "Step 2" is to rule them in (as valid) or out (invalid) according to other considerations (cultural setting and references, personal knowledge of the author and his other writings, internal consistency within a document...). This leave a smaller set of "valid" interpretations

"Step 1" is a language thing (the universe of possible word meanings is determined by cultural usage) and is probably less controversial for anyone whose every used a dictionary. "Step 2" I think is more intuitive, but would include:

i) We trust the cultural context to limit the scope of "valid" interpretations within those which are "technically possible".

We do not communicate in a vacuum, we do so against a backdrop of authorial intent, the purpose of the document, the prevailing culture etc...

So when a cheesy poet writes "your eyes are like the stars" it is not written in a vacuum. Knowledge of the author, his intent, and relationship with the recipient allows us to intuitively narrow the scope of any ambiguity. When he says "like the stars" he is unlikely to be referring the recipient's eyes as being similar to enormous natural fission reactors melding elements at mind-boggling temperature and pressure, emitting vast quantities of energy in the process and possessing a gravitational pull sufficient to hold planets and move comets. If you've read cheesey poetry before, you don't even consider the possibility that it might(!). In the same way, when a cosmologist writes about "...acts as sources of the heavier elements like the stars" he's not referring to the experience of seeing a brilliant pinprick of light against black sky. The phrase "like the stars" possesses limited ambiguity within our use of language. You can (linguistically) attribute either interpretation to both these fictitious writers but the two interpretations are not equally "valid" because the context does not permit it.

ii) We demand logical coherence:

Where a given interpretation conflicts with other writings by the same author, how do we handle that? Does coherence narrow the universe of valid interpretations? (e.g. Luke's gospel says it is an eye-witness account, some people claim that later parables told are not the words of Jesus, or that the miracles are symbolic. Has Luke changed his mind/purpose half-way through? Is he a liar? Is the "symbolic" interpretation a valid interpretation giving the internal contradiction required?).

All language is open to interpretation. When anyone is confronted with a variety of interpretations (of the Bible or anything else), the question must be: Are they all equally valid? Is the one being advanced fair? We ought to ask ourselves:

- What rules of interpretation are being applied to reach these various conclusions?

- Are the rules of interpretation appropriate and being applied rightly?

- Does the cultural background, the use of language or the intent of the author allow me to narrow down the universe of "technically possible" interpretations to a smaller set of "valid" interpretations?

Only once done, can we take a view on what the author is saying. But in practice we're not left with a very large set of possiblities, and the scope for subjectivity is small to tiny.

Nobody lives as if interpreting language is as subjective as some people try to suggest. In engaging with the Bible, it seems to me often the claim to subjectivity stems from a combination of intellectual laziness and lack of familiarity with the Bible itself (i.e. applying the same interpretive grid we apply to our house deeds, love letters and everything else).

Having recognised it's not a legitimate objection, the first step is surely to read the material, and to start to interpret...