Notions Incognito

Moral Transformation is now Published!

2011-03-13T08:17:00.008+13:00

It's taken 6 years, but it's finally published!

http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Transformation-Original-Christian-Salvation/dp/1456389807/

Here's a little blurb about it copied from the back cover:

Recent scholarship has challenged post-Reformation ideas about the early Christian doctrines of salvation. This ground-breaking book draws together the conclusions of recent scholarship into a compelling and clear view of the early Christian paradigm of salvation. It presents the case that the early Christians focussed not on Christ's death on the cross or 'saving faith', but on moral transformation. They saw Jesus as God's appointed teacher, prophet, and leader, who died as a martyr in order to teach them a new way of life. Their paradigm of salvation centred upon this way of life taught by Jesus, and on following faithfully his example and teachings.

Part 1: How the Gospels present Jesus explores the way in which the early Christians understood the teaching of Jesus. It highlights five themes of Jesus' message: economics and wealth, moral purity, social equality, the temple system, and physical and spiritual affliction. It shows why people viewed Jesus as a divinely appointed teacher, prophet, and leader, and saw his death as a martyrdom for his cause and movement.

Part 2: Doctrines of the early Christians presents the key early Christian doctrines of salvation and shows why several post-Reformation doctrines conflict with their views. It shows that the early Christians believed God's final judgment is made on the basis of character and conduct. They believed that by following Jesus and transforming their lives morally, they would obtain positive judgment and resurrection. This part shows how the early Christians' ideas of faith, justification, forgiveness and grace all fit into this paradigm.

Part 3: The importance of Jesus looks at why the early Christians considered Jesus so significant; they focussed on the moral transformation he brought to their lives. This part highlights what they believed Jesus achieved for them, and how they used sacrificial language to explain these beliefs. It explores the evidence for viewing Jesus' death as a martyrdom, and for seeing his resurrection as equally important.

Part 4: Ideas throughout history shows that Christians held this paradigm of salvation for several centuries. It outlines the key changes that occurred from the 4th century through to the Reformation, which moved tradition away from the early Christian ideas. Finally, it offers a critique of modern post-Reformation doctrines of salvation.

We're currently trying to spread the word about this book. So, please spread the word!

The forest

2008-07-08T22:09:00.002+12:00

Under the rustling ferns and bushes
Lies green moss, dripping with winter dew.
Woody roots dig silently below, concealing their strength
With seasons of autumn leaves that keep their secret.
Happy earthworms devour the mulch of browns and greys
In which the mushrooms grow.
If you listen carefully, you might hear the earthworms eating.
Beneath them lies the soil of ages past,
Dark and still, visited only by the roots of tallest trees.
The soil knows nothing of the chirping forest above,
That leaf by leaf it fed.
Down there, amid the rocks and clay, forgotten,
lies who I used to be.

Fundamental differences between early Christianity and modern Christianity

2008-07-06T21:32:00.004+12:00

As I've been trying to write an introduction for a nearly completed book on early Christianity, I've been trying to figure out the best way to break to people the news that there are fundamental differences between early Christianity and modern Christianity. These differences are surprising, even shocking, but are not easily recognized by many Christians today.

Of course, whatever people think about the idea that such differences exist, it won't change what the early Christians believed. So if they happened to believe a set of doctrines that were indeed different, then not even the strongest of opinions or the loudest of objections will change that fact. Now nearing the completion of a book outlining early Christianity, I think there is so much evidence that their doctrines were substantially different that it is very difficult to see how this could not be the case. The problem is that the news that early Christian doctrines were very different is an uncomfortable one for many Christians today.

I can't think of any way I can make this news more comfortable for Christians. This is especially true for older Christians, who have invested decades of their lives and identities in doctrines that the early Christians simply didn't believe. The idea that the doctrines they had built so many years of their lives on arose not with Jesus but many centuries after him would surely be a hard pill to swallow.

One thing that may make the news more tolerable is that it fits better with current trends that emphasize social action and responsibility. I was thinking about this last Sunday, when the sermon so passionately related Jesus' concern for the poor and underprivileged. It was followed by some songs about theology that struck me as completely disconnected from such a message. At least the early Christian doctrines were, in this sense, quite modern.

Perhaps I don't need to worry about making the news less uncomfortable for modern Christians. It's hardly a new thing to be saying. Countless people who have pointed it out in the past have been largely ignored by the general Christian population. This news won't make people uncomfortable if they ignore it. Even if they take heed, it is not my job in life to make other people feel comfortable.

Yet in the case of the book I'm co-authoring, it is important, since I hope that some people will take the time to read it. How they react to such news might affect how they read the book, and how they feel about their own faith once they have. So does anyone have any ideas on how I could best let people know that there are major differences between early and modern Christianity?

Paul's view of grace

2008-06-03T19:39:00.006+12:00

Apparently, there are still some people reading my blog out there. So here's my theological thought of the day.

I was doing some writing on the topic of justification today, and I noticed something about the times Paul says we're justified by grace through faith. Here are the passages I have in mind, which I'll abridge to highlight what I noticed:

Rom 3:21-30:

But now, irrespective of law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed... the righteousness of God through faithfulness to Jesus Christ^*²³²⁴²⁵²⁸²⁹³⁰ for all who believe. For there is no distinction... they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus... Then what becomes of boasting [of being Jewish]? It is excluded. By what law? By that of works? No, but by the law of faithfulness. For we hold that a person is justified by faithfulness apart from works prescribed by the Torah. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of faithfulness and the uncircumcised through that same faithfulness.

Rom 4:13-16:

For the promise that he would inherit the world did not come to Abraham or to his descendants through the Torah but through the righteousness of faith. If it is [only] the adherents of the Torah who are to be the heirs, faithfulness is null and the promise is void... For this reason it depends on faithfulness, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants, not only to the adherents of the Torah but also to those who share the faithfulness of Abraham...

Eph 2:1-16:

You [Gentiles] were dead through the trespasses and sins in which you once lived... But God, who is rich in mercy... made us alive together with Christ^*⁶⁷⁸⁹¹⁰—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness towards us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faithfulness, and this [grace] is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— not the result of works [of the Torah], so that no one may boast [because of their Jewishness - see Rom 3:21-30]... So then, remember that at one time you Gentiles by birth... were at that time without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, so that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it.

What I noticed is this: Paul speaks of being justified by grace through faithfulness in the context of emphasizing that God accepts Gentiles as his people too. The common Jewish belief at the turn of the first century was that only Jews were God's people, and that Gentiles could not be - as least without fully following the Jewish way of life, their Torah. Following Jesus, though, Paul says that God will not judge people based on their Jewishness but based on whether they are faithful to live in a godly way like Jesus taught and exemplified. Paul saw the highly controversial implication - people who did not follow the Torah could be considered righteous by God. In other words, God did not limit his favour (aka. "grace") to the Jews, but also extended it to the Gentiles. This is why Paul talks of grace in the context of justification and the inclusion of the Gentiles as people whom God considers righteous.

For Paul, the boundless favour of both God and Jesus was evident in the activity of Jesus, who revealed a way for both Jews and Gentiles to be saved from sinfulness, and thus be considered righteous before God. I do not have time here to explain why I have emphasised that this salvation was from sinfulness, as opposed to something else. (Perhaps that is the topic of another post.) It was truly gracious of God to commission Jesus to save sinful Jews from their unrighteousness, but this grace even extended to Gentiles also. The inclusiveness of God's grace was the point that Paul laboured, and the very issue that got him in so much trouble with the Jews who zealously protected their exclusive claim as God's people.

Who's still reading my blog?

2008-06-01T21:44:00.003+12:00

It just dawned on me that my blog is over 4 years old. That's a long time. It's captured many of my ponderings, and as I look back on it I think it captures many of the ways I've grown in the last 4 years. I've been pondering the idea of breathing some life into my blog once again, but there wouldn't be any point if no one reads it.

So, is there anyone out there who still reads my blog? Or, has it come time for my blog to be no more?

Stones

2008-04-07T07:09:00.001+12:00

Oh curse this heart of a thousand stones
And find a home to grow alone
A heart of more than flesh and bones
And things I can’t imagine.

For every smile upon my face
Is laced with bitterness and hate
Of things I cannot change,
And things I cannot fathom.

I was a pawn in the hands of fate,
Picked and placed without a way
To break the chains of my skin.
Now I sit again stagnating
With pen and hand and heart still shaking
Upon the path my soul is taking
Or being taken from.

Yet I will find a way to grow
More hope along this narrow road,
Load my heart with brighter tones
And throw away the stones.

God™

2008-02-20T17:11:00.007+13:00

It seems to me that a Relationship with God™ has for many Christians come to serve as a convenient psychological panacea for all of the deep issues people struggle with, which promotes not a healthy maturity but an infantile dependence. Let me explain...

Without God, Christians say, you won't be able to live with any purpose, meaning, or significance. You'd be just a seething mass of proteins slithering toward oblivion. Without God, you'll feel empty inside in the God-Shaped Hole™ in your heart. Unless you've got an active relationship with him through prayer you'll never be able to find a car park when you need one, a great job that perfectly suits you, or a house that's just what you were hoping for. Nothing in your life will fall into place smoothly, since God reserves that sort of Blessing™ for Christians and gives non-Christians Wrath™. You'll feel unhappy and incomplete without God, and never be able to mature as a person without having him Work in You™ and knowing his Perfect Plan™. And in case you're looking for why, he is The Reason™.

The problem with selling God and the full God product line like this is that these claims are untrue. Just because God had an intention in creating us it doesn't give us purpose. He could have made you to be a paperweight, but that wouldn't mean you'd get a warm fuzzy feeling whenever you stood on loose paper. Significance and purpose is something that comes from the nature of what people do. Being a paperweight is not as significant as saving a child from the clutches of fearsome death. Whether or not you were created to save children from angry bears doesn't have any bearing on how meaningful that act is. A person's sense of significance, meaning and purpose is determined from their mental map of the world - and for many people that map doesn't include God. Anything can feel significant, meaningful and purposeful if people deem it to be so, based on their values and ethical compass. People don't need God to tell them their True Purpose™ to live purposefully in positive ways that are meaningful and significant even by Christian standards.

The God-Shaped Hole™ of unhappy incompleteness is a dangerously ambiguous name for the implacable but deeply felt shortcomings in people's lives. If people feel an emptiness in their life Christians all too quickly assume it's because they're disconnected from God rather than because they need to learn to build deeper friendships. If they're feeling depressed, they don't need to deal and resolve the underlying issues, they just need to rest in God's loving grace and allow Him to resolve it. In fact, you can adopt a very harmful mental map of the world, and think the problems in your life will all go away if you have a good Relationship with God™ without dealing with the actual reasons you are making your life into suffering.

What I'm saying is that many Christians have a paradigm that prevents them from maturing into healthy people. Rather than addressing and leaning to competently deal with some of the deep issues in life, some Christians look to their personal Relationship with God™. I have learned that many of the issues I've discussed above are caused by poor mental maps of the world and patterns of thinking about life, and that these can be corrected through very down-to-earth means. Christians, though, seem to dismiss such ideas and instead misdiagnose the cause and cure of these kinds of problems as revolving around their Relationship with God™. A common Christian mindset is that we should be dependent on God. We should not learn to stand on our own two psychological feet as mature and capable adults; instead we should learn to be as dependent on God as possible, because that's allegedly healthy. So it comes as no surprise to me that many Christians give away their own Relationship with God™ when after several years the reality dawns on them that it isn't a cure-all that will exempt them from having to deal with the issues of life like everyone else.

So where does this little foray into the psychology of religious belief leave me, as someone who chooses to think that God does somehow exist and that he is benevolent towards us? Well, I can't help but think about the courageous examples of Christians who chose to serve others rather than be served by God. It is this kind of faith that inspires me, not religious consumerism. I think that's the kind of faith God wants too. As an analogy, I think about my biological parents. They are wise and helpful in many ways. But while I'm away from them I recognize that they want me to be strong and mature enough to live without needing them to feed me, clothe me, attend my every need and shelter me from real life. Rather, they want me to mature in a way that I too can deal with life and enjoy living as well as they can as I build friendships with those around me.

That's how I think about God. I think he is able to help and sometimes does help me in ways that perhaps I don't have to understand, but I think he also wants me to be a mature human being who experiences the full depth of friendship with other human beings. He doesn't want to simply fill up the space in my God-Shaped Hole™; he wants my heart to grow big enough to fill it with the same kind of love and kindness that he has. He doesn't want me to think my life has purpose and meaning just because he says it does; he wants me to live purposefully as I learn to value the same things he values, and see significance and meaning in the same kind of things he sees as significant and meaningful. He doesn't want me to focus on what I get from a Relationship with Him™, but to serve others and be helped by them also in a loving community of people who recognize that love is precious not because God says so, but because it really is.

I freely confess that I may consider myself too independent from God, perhaps like an adolescent who foolishly thinks he's old enough to look after himself. Perhaps I should pray for more Blessing™. Perhaps I should worship him more in case that's my True Purpose™ in life. Perhaps I should just learn to better comprehend his complete iWork™ package that is somehow operating somewhere in the background of my mind. But I would rather risk being too independent from God than being so immaturely dependent on him that I don't develop into the kind of person he'd want me to be. I'll let him give me the benefits of as many of his spiritual products as he'd like to give me while focusing instead on living in the way he would want me to. I'll follow Jesus' teachings and example, and those who have exemplified how to follow in his footsteps. I'll use all the tools I can find to become a mature and joyful person, even if they don't have his official trademark. And if he wants me to give him more attention in this life before I die, then he couldn't be more welcome to get it. Otherwise, I'll trust he is patient enough to wait until then.

Confidence and credibility of biblical interpretations

2007-12-16T09:57:00.000+13:00

What gives people confidence in how they understand the New Testament? Here are some approaches I've seen people use to gain confidence that their interpretations of Scripture are valid (and by extension, that their theological ideas are too) :

Just "believe the Bible": The bible doesn't need "interpretation". The important things are clear and cannot be misunderstood - so we can be confident that we understand key Scriptures correctly.
Listen to the Holy Spirit: The meaning of Scripture is made clear to us through the working of the Holy Spirit as we read it, which gives us confidence about our interpretations. God wouldn't allow his Word to be misunderstood by those who listen to the Holy Spirit.
Follow tradition: "Fifty-thousand Frenchmen can't be wrong", especially if they lived over the last few centuries. We can be confident of our interpretations if lots of other people have thought and still think the same thing.
See what fits: Learn how passages can be interpreted differently, and choose the way that best fits with the "big-picture". We can be confident of interpretations that fit the big picture, and can confidently reject alternatives that don't fit.
Comprehensively detailed research and reasoning: Consider a range of big picture frameworks to see how each passage of Scripture can be interpreted within each one. Then assess the collective evidence of all Scriptures for each big picture to determine which one is best by using criteria like:

Internal consistency with the whole of the text
External consistency with the socio-cultural context of the text
Explanatory power
Explanatory scope
Lack of being ad hoc

Some combinations of these are possible, especially those involving revelation of the Holy Spirit and tradition. Each approach provides a different degree and quality of confidence in the interpretations they support, as I will try to explain.

Bible-believing does not recognize the inevitable process of interpreting texts. As a result of this ignorance, people adopting this approach have high confidence that the way they have been taught to interpret Scripture is the right way. This often goes hand in hand with ignorance of alternative explanations and trust in the teacher's opinion. There is a place for trusting the opinions of more qualified people, but the validity of such opinions isn't determined by how much we trust them. To gauge the real credibility of views held through this method, we must understand the reasons behind the original interpretation. This approach thus leads us to look to other grounds for confidence.

Revelation by the Holy Spirit provides the most confidence if it is authentic, but the least authoritative otherwise, because it would be an illegitimate claim to authority. History shows that people who have all claimed revelation by the Holy Spirit have held quite different interpretations of Scripture, which can be resolved by holding one of two options:

There is more than one legitimate meaning in the text.
One or more interpretations are not faithful to the intended meaning of the passage.

The problem with the first way is that it leads to a very incoherent conflation of ideas that are often mutually exclusive. The problem with the second way is that it demonstrates that not all claims to divine revelation are valid. So if we want a coherent way to interpret Scripture, we need a method to determine whether or not the claim to a divinely reveled interpretation is valid - and that method obviously cannot rely on divine revelation. So this approach leads us to look further again.

Following tradition provides no inherent grounds for credibility, as it is simply following other people. Yet people tend to be much more confident in their ideas if those around them are like-minded. There is some weight to the collective thought of many people, but the majority opinion can be wrong - and sometimes disastrously so. For this reason, the serious enquirer must investigate the origin and basis of the Scriptural interpretations themselves, and not simply assume that commonly held interpretations are well-founded.

The fourth method of choosing what fits is at least more informed than the previous three. It is a common method, and one that gives people high confidence in their interpretations. Many who use this method are unaware of the implicit framework they use to assess the various interpretations, though. They may quite correctly discern what interpretations best fit their framework, but be ignorant of whether or not their presupposed framework is a good one or not. So what is needed is to assess not only how interpretations fit a given framework, but also the frameworks themselves.

That is what the fifth approach does. This method weighs not only different interpretations, but it considers each within the range of possible frameworks. It looks at both the broad picture and the details to determine the best set of interpretations. Only scholars usually attempt this approach because it is very time consuming and difficult. It is made even less appealing to many because other methods allow people to feel more confident of their interpretations. This hard approach just doesn't suit Christians who want great confidence in their own beliefs without taking the time and effort to break out of their relative ignorance of other views.

Yet can people justify having confidence in their interpretations if they don't understand the options nor take into account the possibility that they are wrong? They might think their interpretations were revealed by God, but what if they weren't? In-depth research and reasoning lessens both naive confidence and questionable claims of authority. Instead it fosters a richer and deeper kind of confidence that comes from a thorough research and careful consideration. This confidence may even be strengthened through the Holy Spirit and a knowledge of tradition, since it doesn't exclude these other approaches.

It is for all these reasons that I think in-depth study provides far more credibility in interpreting the bible. I use the word "credibility" because confidence doesn't always correspond with the accuracy of ideas. Credible and thorough research and thought does lead to confidence, though, and I have found it to be a confidence that is far more able to weather the storms of debate. Having followed this last method for several years now, I have learned that it is important to discern the degree of authority held by others, and the degree of their in-depth study also makes a good gauge for this purpose. My opinion can be summarized simply: there is no better approach to interpreting the bible than comprehensively detailed research combined with sound reasoning, humility, and a commitment to follow Jesus.

Heretosis - dissent from "religion"

2007-12-13T21:33:00.000+13:00

In the churches I've attended all my life, I've often heard Christians claim that while Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and so on are "religions", Christianity is not. While many in the church often seem to agree that some Christians are tied up in "religion", most invariably think they themselves are not. Curious.

Over the years my Faith has grown a great deal. The most amazing thing to me now is how much a lot of popular Christianity is a religion. By religion, I essentially refer to buying into a mindset that subjugates common sense, reason and reality to "faith" in ideas that are not consistent with reason and reality. It seems to me that many Christians have crises of Faith during their lives because they notice this dissonance. There seem to be three ways people who face this deal with it.
1) They suppress it until a later life crises.
2) They give up their Faith.
3) They find ways to rationalize their Faith.

But there are many approaches to rationalise one's Faith. Following Calvin and the Reformed tradition, many Christians would consider subjugating their beliefs to reasoning to be forsaking true "faith". So they adopt the kind of religious mindset I mentioned above, and change their reasoning to fit their Faith. Almost by definition, this approach of people seeking to resolve their faith crises in this way doesn't seem to truly resolve and discrepancies between reality and their Faith. Instead it drowns out those problems by other ideas and reasoning that fit their Faith, and hides them quietly under the carpet of ideas that are really problems because we just don't understand things as they really are. The reason I don't like that approach is that I've seen it make people unwittingly hold on to ideas that really don't help, and in some cases cause harm.

The second way to reconcile one's Faith is to change it to fit common sense, reasoning and reality as best we can. Many Christians would see this as a process of becoming a heretic: a kind of "heretosis". It is heretosis precisely because it questions the accepted religious mindset with the aim of finding a faith that is consistent with our reasoning and experiences of reality. Care is needed, of course, because of course we don't know everything, and so a keen awareness of what's clear and what's uncertain is helpful.

Fortunately for me, I've found other Christians who share my desire for a Faith that makes sense. I think they too share my distaste for "religion", and accept a kind of heretosis in discerning and holding less tightly some of the unhelpful traditions within popular Christian ideology. It seems we share the concept that instead of being "Christians" in a religious fairyland we can be people who follow Jesus in a very real and very down-to-earth way that makes a lot of sense.

An unexpected effect of my dissent from religion, though, is that I've actually come to feel more comfortable discussing Jesus with non-Christians than I do with Christians. I can easily understand why now - to me following Jesus isn't about believing a whole lot of inconsistent and thus unconvincing ideas, but about living in a better way that makes a lot of sense and helping others to also.

So where does that leave me? Various Christians think I am not one, which saddens me for several reasons - both personally, and because it highlights how quick Christians actually are to judge people because of their religious attitude. But I believe one can be a Christian without adopting a religious mindset, perhaps it's even better not to. I say that because many Church services leave me cringing and thinking of things Jesus said about people like the Scribes and Pharisees, perhaps that makes me a little judgmental too - perhaps wrongly, perhaps rightly. Yet I hope for a new kind of Christianity that could be much more like the original than the popular modern version. I suppose I am a bit of a rebel. But then I think of how Jesus' was rejected and even hated by the religious authorities of his day and I see that perhaps I'm not such a rebel after all... and that in my heretosis from the mass-produced modern Christian religion, I might be able to learn more orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

Things we can and cannot change

2007-10-04T12:39:00.000+13:00

There is a wise proverb: "We must accept what we cannot change." The hard thing is to figure out what we can change, how we can change it, and the way we should change it.

Important factors for Scriptural interpretation

2007-09-21T16:36:00.000+12:00

It's amazing just how few Christians realise how small their set of particular scriptural and theological ideas are compared with the vast number of ideas that have been and are held by other Christians. I've been thinking about ways to help people understand the concept of other interpretations of Jesus and Scripture, and came up with the following diagram. Hopefully, it might also show how we can stand a much better chance of understanding Jesus if we understand what influences the interpretations of his ministry and person.

Essentially, I think the NT authors interpreted Jesus in the context of their culture and their own inspiration and thought. So they wrote these interpretations down in the NT, which have now become Scripture. Later Christians have taken the NT writings, and interpreted them in the context of their own cultures and inspired thoughts. Each generation tends to take the ideas of previous Christians and interprets them in their own context. The problem with this recontextualisation is that if people aren't aware of this, they are inclined to misunderstand writings written in different cultural contexts. It is through many generations of such misunderstandings, I think, that several cherished doctrines exist today. In contrast, the best way to understand the NT authors, and ultimately Jesus, is to understand not only the culture that influences us now, but also the cultural context of the NT writers and Jesus. Understanding their cultural context helps us interpret what they say more accurately.

However, it seems common for Christians these days to be aware of only a very small subset of the ideas held within the whole of Christendom, both past and present. So, I think it's very useful to dialogue with people who understand other ideas. Only when we have understand a range of interpretations do we really have any choice about how we understand Scripture. For this reason, I think I like to help give people more informed choices about how we understand Scripture by sharing other ideas with them.

Why people are more than biological machines

2007-09-20T22:03:00.000+12:00

Imagine a program which reprogrammed and developed its own programming based on inputted information. The original program could be quite simple – as simple as that first sentence, in fact. Yet very quickly the complexity of the program would exceed its initial complexity. This program would, in a way, be alive.

This, I believe, is an appropriate analogy of the human mind. This effect is why I believe our thoughts can in some way transcend our biology. Our thoughts are not constrained by our DNA, our biology, and our physical environment because we are to greater or lesser extents metacognitive. We think about how we think, and can change how we think accordingly – just like the above example of the self-programming program. We are an example of complex adaptive systems - and very complex ones at that.

The reason I thought all that is because I’ve just heard that some people reduce thought and will to naturalistic, socio-biological phenomenological effects. The conclusion of such argumentation is that ethics and morality has evolved by socio-biological mechanisms, and that we are basically just biological zombies, robots, or animals. Because we are metacognitive, I believe our thoughts are not solely determined by biology and social phenomena. We are human, I think, precisely because we have this capacity to transcend the physicality of the atoms, proteins, cells and organs that make up our physical bodies. Instead, we can engage with ideas and thoughts which don’t exist in physical stuff – but which exist nonetheless. Perhaps even more amazingly, we can experience life consciously, rather than simply being biological machines with no self-awareness of our existence. Our cognitive processes emerge into a level above merely biological processes. In other words, I think that what it means to be human cannot be reduced to the atoms, proteins and biological processes in us. Recent advances in artificial intelligence (e.g. the controversial HTM) do seem to provide support for the idea that intelligence can indeed emerge from complex adaptive systems composed of natural, physical components.

We are somewhat like words – on a physical level, words are just markings on a page, but on another level, words convey meaning far beyond their physical nature. Another analogy would be one of Beethoven’s great pieces of music; on one level it can exist as written music, but it is not confined to that level of existence. It can be played and heard. It can be transcribed to other sheets of paper, and in doing so it transcends the physicality of the original written score. There are many examples of a system of physical or “natural” components creating more complexity than the sum of the physical components themselves. People, I think, are a very complex example of the same thing. And we are even more complex because we change our "program" based on the inputs we receive – both of physical things and of ideas that exist somehow beyond the physical realm.

This, I think, is why being human is so wonderful.

Getting information vs learning wisdom

2007-09-19T21:06:00.000+12:00

I'm not very good at teaching. I fail, I think, precisely because I try to be too accurate in what I say. There's an example. As a consequence, I fear that what I write does little to help people but simply gives them reason to dislike me or my views.

Trying to explain ideas precisely sometimes looses the whole gestalt of what's being explained. It would be like describing the Mona Lisa by a very accurate list of Cartesian coordinates and colours. It might be very accurate, but you miss the whole effect of the painting (a cool part of it, from memory, is how it appears she is always looking at you). It is much better to bring someone to the Mona Lisa so that they know the painting on more than just a level of factual information.

Giving people facts and information sometimes doesn't really help them in the way they need to be helped. I think I'm about to begin considering opinions and even true statements in that category. People can learn more facts, but more facts don't necessarily make someone any wiser.

I think I've placed far too much emphasis on trying to convey facts and information, and far too little on the skill of wisdom. I mean, if we knew all the facts and information in the world, what good would it do us? Facts cannot ever tell us how it is good to think. They cannot guide how we should interpret them and see the world. Facts are facts. Information is information. What I would like to do is not merely give people information, but to teach them wisdom.

You'll notice, especially when I point it out, that I didn't say "give people wisdom". That's because wisdom is not something you can "give" like information. It's more like the skill of playing a piano, for example. I can play it for you, explain some useful concepts to help playing, and serve as a guide to help you learn - but you have to learn it. Just telling you things isn't what will ultimately get you to play the piano well.

So, I see that on this blog especially, I've been basically trying to convey my ideas about things. Information... As if that is what would actually benefit people. I'm not sure such information is of much benefit to people. But helping people to be wise, that is something of great benefit to people. Perhaps I can learn not only more wisdom myself, but the wisdom of how to nurture wisdom in others too. Perhaps. I think I have much to learn... so to begin my learning, I will stop typing.

My summary of Reformed logic...

2007-09-15T10:02:00.000+12:00

Focussing on wants rather than opportunities

2007-09-14T17:44:00.001+12:00

I’m sick of wanting things. I want more free time. I want to be successful, liked, and funny. I want to fit in but somehow be respected and esteemed because I’m unique. I want to know more but not grow older. What don’t I want? Ironically, I don’t want this desire I have of wanting things. Wants are never fulfilled, because if they are, they become “haves” instead of “wants”. All wants ever do for me, or perhaps to me, is make me more bitter for not having what I think I should have. It’s stupid, really.

What will I do? Trying to not want things doesn’t work. It just leaves this temporary vacuum in my mind that quickly slurps in more things to want when I’m not looking, like a mischievous little child beside an empty cookie jar… Trying to want different things doesn’t work, because I’d still be wanting things and it would just shift the target.

No, a much better idea I had today is to replace this want of things all together with something better. The thought I had today was that maybe I could look and be glad for what opportunities I have instead. Looking at opportunities seems better, because instead of being off in a daydream wishing I had what I wanted I could be engaging the real world. Looking at opportunities is seeing what I can actually do instead of being distracted by what I wish I could do, and it might help keep my outlandish expectations more realistic.

This idea gives me the opportunity to start thinking in a different way, and perhaps prevent myself from becoming a bitter old man who never got what he wanted and never wanted what he got. See, I didn’t say that I want to start thinking in a different way, I said it was an opportunity. That way, if I don't manage to take this opportunity, I won't be depressed that I haven't got yet another thing to add to my enormous pile of things I don't have. Yes, that's the pile I'm sick of. But missed opportunities don't pile up on top of me like wants, they just drift of out of sight if you're looking ahead for more opportunities.

I now have the opportunity to end. =)

Solid faith despite uncertainty and doubts

2007-09-12T18:05:00.000+12:00

So what do you do as a Christian when you're confronted with skepticism, doubts, and uncertainty not from other people, but from your own mind? The postmodern perspective has let people see that the complexity of life and Christianity doesn't really fit the small tidy filing cabinet filled that apparently contains "the truth" that people should believe. Doctrines and Christian ideas once safely treasured suddenly find themselves out in the messy world, where people ignore or trample on them. What do you do when the faith once based on believing those doctrines also finds itself out in the cold, struggling to survive?

Let me tell you of what I did, because it seems to have worked. It's quite simple really. I reestablished my Christianity not on dogma, but on principles. To base my Christianity on dogmas that I questioned was inherently unstable, so I based it instead on principles that withstood the tide of skepticism. So what were these principles? Let me investigate my own mind and hope it is coherent...

Given that I don't know everything, I need to figure out how to live with the relatively limited understanding I have. More important than my current knowledge is my approach and attitude to the knowledge I don't have. Postmodernism seems great at establishing a lack of certain knowledge, but I think we need to go beyond that to deal with that lack - a kind of post-postmodernism. This attitude in light of what I don't know, I think, is what wisdom is all about. If you found yourself lost in a place you had never been before, the most important thing for you is not where you should be, or where you are, but how you go about getting back to where you want to be. Wisdom is not about where you are, but about how you make progress. Similarly with knowledge, wisdom is not about what you know and what you do, but about how you learn and grow. Growing as a person seems to be not about accumulating life experience, but about becoming richer in wisdom, which makes our life experiences somehow better. For my Christianity, this helped me see that how we go about life in our relative ignorance of is far more important than what we know. This in itself somehow made my doubts and uncertainties seem in a strange way irrelevant. So wisdom, I think, is my first principle. And my second would be to grow in wisdom, for obvious reasons - a great wisdom is to seek more wisdom.

So given that I currently don't know most important facts in the world, and even if I did I wouldn't have the capacity to do nearly enough about them - I have to make a few working assumptions about how to live. They might not be the best, but I need to assume them or else I couldn't do anything - and that, I believe, is worse (because it seems to contradict the first two principles). So what principle can I use to guide my assumptions? I can't see that life would be particularly like living without it involving other people. So the on e such principle is that of community - that I should live in relationship with others.

Given that life involves other people, then, I consider as basic the idea that "I" could have been one of the other people, so I should treat as equals - and want as much good for them as I want for me (I know, sounds a lot like what Jesus taught). That, I think, is what love is about. Now I may not know the best way to act for the good of others, or my own good, but that's where wisdom comes in again.

I think life also somehow involves God, perhaps in a significant way. I don't know that with certainty, but I don't need to, because I can live according to the limited wisdom I currently have. Wisdom provides a way to live in the midst of uncertainty. I believe that God wants us to mature into experiencing life in better ways (by becoming wiser, more mature) , so I see no significant difference between a wise way to live if God exists, and a wise way to live if he does not. I seek to grow in wisdom, and I think that is both good and Godly. Because I believe God wants us to grow in wisdom as people, I don't think he will mind my uncertainty about whether he exists or not - that will all be cleared up in a few short decades anyway. And if God does indeed exist, I think he would want to help me grow in wisdom to become more like the person he'd want me to be (which I consider to be a sort of ideal "me").

So I suppose my Christianity is built upon not ideas or doctrines or theories, but upon a disposition towards wisdom. This disposition is about growing and developing in wisdom for the good of both myself, others around me, and maybe even God. That is what my heart is set on. That is what I am committed to. That is what my faith is all about. Uncertainties about doctrines don't really seem to shake that foundation. The philosophies and cultures I am exposed to can't seem to shake it. In fact, I've not come across anything that can shake it. It is basic. It is my foundation. But it wasn't always, and seeing Christians around me trying to balance their Christianity on their own wobbling doubts, I wonder: what do other people base their faith on?

The guise of authority, arrogance, and ambiguity

2007-09-11T21:18:00.000+12:00

Here's what I've been thinking lately... distilled as a rant.

There is a cacophony of stupid doctrines resounding around the Christian community because people often don't seem to realize that teachers who (arrogantly) claim to teach "the truth" can in fact be mistaken. The common appeal to the authority of tradition isn't valid if the tradition is wrong. Yet many just seem to believe what they're told because someone says "it's the truth" without investigating what warrants that claim. The thing is, the many "true" doctrines out there are not harmonious - they don't all fit together. So what seems to be happening is that they are becoming blurred by ambiguity.

People increasingly pick and choose whatever doctrines suit them, but they keep all the same language to talk about them. So superficially, it sounds like everyone believes the same thing. But in fact Christians can mean very, very different things by the same words. This is what I mean by ambiguity.

So take the idea of "grace" for example. According to scholars, the Greek word (charis) was originally quite a clearly understood word used in the ancient Favour System, where it referred to having someone's favour or a favour given to someone. These days, I have read and heard "grace" being used to describe pretty much anything good or pious-sounding that involves God. It's perhaps the most non-meaningful word used by Christians now precisely because it's used to mean so many things. It's not only God's act of sending Jesus. It's his willingness to forgive us. It's the new covenant we're under. It's the means of our redemption. It's God empowering us, even "working in us" like we're some kind of marionette being pulled by the strings of grace. It's how God's looks at us, what he gives us, why he gives us it. It's the opposite of "law", "legalism", "striving", "effort", "works" and any other equally ambiguous terms that Christians don't like. It's everything Christians want and the opposite of everything they hate. Don't think, just "rest in grace".

Then there's "faith". When directed towards a person such as Jesus, the Greek word pistis seems to have originally referred to ideas of faithfulness, obedience, loyalty and commitment to the person. These days, though, "faith" is used to justify whatever people can't justify through normal means. "Faith" is what assures believers that whatever they happen to believe is true (which of course isn't much assurance at all). It is a gift from God, but if you struggle to have it then it's your own fault, your own "disbelief". "Faith" justifies whatever ideas you want to hold and provides a firm and solid foundation from which to reject any ideas that don't like. It is the answer to all problems, the cure for all uncertainty, and the carpet under which to sweep all contradictory evidence. All pain, evil, trouble and intelligence suddenly disappears if we just have "eyes of faith." Don't think, just "have faith".

Complementary to faith is the idea of revelation, especially in Reformed circles. This is the truth divinely revealed by Scripture, which both the Jews and the early Christians needed to be interpreted carefully. The same Scripture can be interpreted in sometimes widely different ways. Many people who hold quite contradictory views can claim to have a divine revelation of truth - but they can't all be right. People often seem to ignore this though. Instead, they appeal to the authority of a divine revelation of Scripture, but they seem to actually be appealing to the authority of their own interpretation of Scripture (whatever than interpretation may be). The consequence is that people use this idea of having a "revelation" to justify whatever silly interpretations of Scripture they may have, and they arrogantly dismiss any and all opinions contrary to their own.

Then of course, there's the Holy Spirit. Now I'm not sure how the early Christians understood this, but I suspect that very few Christians these days correctly understand how they did. It seems to me that the early Christians saw this Spirit as a kind of disposition of character, and that by sharing "the mind of Christ" we share his Spirit also. Today, the Holy Spirit is often thought of as some kind of external invisible cloud that floats around near the ceiling of church buildings, or that lurks around the dim corners of our hearts. It has become so mystified with ambiguous and subjective personal cognitive experience that it has almost become meaningless. There may be authentic experiences with God, but Christians seem to welcome all manner of psychological effects masquerading as the Holy Spirit. The emotional and physiological results are often seen as authentic "experiences with God" - but they seem to bear little fruit beyond the physiological high. Of course, if you express skepticism about the validity of some of these religious experiences, you just don't have enough faith and you need to accept more of God's grace...

And there's the often mentioned "personal relationship with God". Now I think God can still interact with people personally, and the early Christians probably did too, but the modern idea of a "personal relationship with God" seems quite dangerous. It's dangerous because it's almost entirely subjective, and so can potentially be used as an invalid source of authority. These days God seems to have become the ultimate emotional substitute for an intimate relationship. In whatever ignorance they may enjoy, people seem quite happy to project onto God whatever thoughts, feelings, and views they want. There seems to be no clear doctrine of a "personal relationship with God" and everyone is left quite at liberty to imagine what God might be telling them. For example, how many times have you heard young Christians think God's telling them to marry the girl they're attracted to? Here's where the ambiguity and Christian terms and the cacophony of stupid doctrines really come into play, because people use them to construct their idea of God and his relationship with them. They reinforce their own ideas with "faith" and the experience of the "Holy Spirit", all the while taking comfort in "grace" if their character and lives don't seem to be moving in the direction Jesus taught.

So because of the ambiguity afforded by modern Christian terms, the likelihood of some Christians these days believing biblically accurate doctrines seems alarmingly low. Yet their eagerness to assert the authority and truth of their beliefs is alarmingly high. Does Christianity make these people arrogant, or would they be arrogant whatever they believed? Does Christianity attract a certain kind of person? How should Christians and non-Christians respond to these issues?

And what happens for the other people, who like me want to follow Jesus, but don't wish to believe stupid doctrines and imagine a inaccurate relationship with God that will meet their psychological needs? I suppose their Christianity will be as difficult and rewarding as it is authentic, and I suppose they will be humble in proportion to the amount they are willing to learn and grow. As for me, I will continue to pursue God and what is right, to do what I can to understand the bible accurately, and to be willing and open minded in sharing my thoughts with others while using all my faculties to discern what to believe as best as I am able. To help with this, I will try to be clear about my ideas rather than ambiguous. And with luck and some concerted effort, perhaps I will be able to avoid arrogantly claiming authority for my ideas, and instead to let them stand or fall on their own merits.

Pierced for our Transgressions: a critique - Part 2

2007-07-08T11:21:00.000+12:00

Read the first part of this review here.

Part II – “Answering the Critics”

Chapter 6: “Introduction”

The authors are to be applauded for their intention here to interact with objections commonly raised to penal substitution (PS). Furthermore, this introduction contains a far less accusatory tone the introduction to Part 1, which is quite refreshing. They give their motivation for Part 2 as being that “we believe penal substitution is thoroughly biblical, but it would not be good enough simply to ignore our critics.” (p205-206) In this chapter they don’t frequently offend their critics as in the introduction to Part 1. Instead, they keep them in mind and say they will “try to present all the evidence, and invite readers to make up their own minds.” (p206) The hope of the authors is that “this second part of the book will benefit people starting from a range of different positions.” (p207) One point they make could not be truer: “it helps nobody if one side of the debate simply opts out of the dialogue.” (p207) The chapters in this part of the book are much shorter. Each chapter contains discussions of objections, grouped thematically by chapter as follows:

Chapter 7: “Penal substitution and the bible”

1. Penal substitution is not the only model of the atonement

This “objection” isn’t really an objection to PS, it’s simply an observation. The authors simply note “in response” that “a comprehensive doctrine of the atonement must include other themes besides penal substitution.” (p210) Nothing lost, nothing gained, little of importance said.

2. Penal substitution is not central to the atonement

The objection here is a valid one if it can be substantiated – that other perspectives are more important than PS and that PS only deserves a peripheral place. The response given here is to refer back to the “big-picture” of the theological doctrines which they tailored to fit around PS in Chapter 3. They use this to argue that “it is clear from our discussion in chapter 3 that many biblical doctrines would be compromised if we were to remove penal substitution from the picture.” (p211) Other views of what Christ achieved are dismissed by claiming that “far from being viable alternatives to penal substitution, they are outworkings of it.” (p211) Many people who do not hold to PS as strongly as the authors would see this very differently. They thus fail to adequately deal with this objection, because the theological picture they painted was tailored to PS. By claiming that PS is central to that picture, and thus central to the atonement in general, the authors demonstrate not only circular logic but an illogical extension of their argument. The response of the authors here is inadequate and leaves this objection still bearing its full force.

3. Penal substitution diminishes the significance of Jesus’ life and resurrection

The authors have again correctly highlighted a common objection to PS. They quote Stuart Murray Williams, Green and Baker, Tom Smail and Paul Fiddes as raising this type of objection. Their response to the first part of this objection is that Jesus’ life was significant in PS because “he lived in perfect obedience to the law,” (p213) which they imply is so that he could be a perfect sacrifice. Because this is all the significance the authors seem to seek in Jesus’ life, it is claimed that “this integrates perfectly with the doctrine of penal substitution.” (p213) Yet again the authors demonstrate ignorance of broader perspectives, for Jesus could have simply washed people’s feet his whole ministry or perhaps run an orphanage and still been perfect. Yet why did Jesus do the specific things he did? PS cannot answer this question. The idea of “living a perfect life” simply doesn’t give any significance to the specific things Jesus did and taught. Again, the response given is inadequate to lessen the force of this objection, and other atonement theories are required.

Regarding Jesus’ resurrection, the authors respond with a list containing aspects of its significance which are held by proponents of PS and claim that “these theological themes are integrated into a coherent theological framework in which penal substitution plays an indispensable part.” (p214) What they fail to recognise is that the significant things listed actually have nothing to do with PS – they do not require nor indicate a framework of PS to be held. The claim of the authors here is simply untrue. Thus, this whole objection still stands in full force.

4. Penal substitution is not taught in the Bible

The authors respond to this rejection in an obvious fashion – by pointing out the evidence they have given in Chapter 2. Indeed, it is difficult to defend the position that PS is not taught in the bible at all, and they have simply presented and refuted this objection.

The far stronger objection is that PS is a minor theme in Scripture; that it is not taught in the bible very much. By seeking to give biblical evidence for PS and ultimately providing only a handful of verses, the authors have in fact fuelled this stronger objection further. PS is not given the centrality and prominence in the NT that Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach portray it as having. The verses they give in support of PS are simply not very significant in the arguments of the NT authors. Thus while refuting this over-generalised objection that PS is not taught at all in the bible, the authors have ignored far more glaring facts that bring into question the prominence of PS asserted by this book.

5. Penal substitution is not important enough to be a source of division

Firstly, this objection is not a biblical one, and it is wrongly categorised into this section on biblical objections. They again present an objection few would use against PS, that major differences in theology (like PS) should be down-played in the name of “unity of believers”. The authors simply refute this objection by pointing out that “when the gospel itself is the thing being debated, there is nothing around which to unite.” (p216) Yet they do nothing here to defend their case for the centrality of PS against objections on biblical grounds.

Conclusion:

In this chapter the authors have successfully refuted one “objection” that is not really an objection to PS at all. They have failed to adequately deal with two strong objections, which remain bearing full force. The fourth objection is over-generalised to conceal a much more powerful objection that also remains in full force. Lastly, they successfully refute a completely irrelevant point. In this way, Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach have demonstrated the opposite of what they sought to show. They intended to defend their position against objections on biblical grounds, but instead they have failed to. Furthermore, there are many other strong biblical objections to their theological framework that includes PS which were not even discussed here. Lastly, there are many theological doctrines given far more attention in the NT than PS, which brings into question the authors’ claim for the prominence of PS. If this chapter was intended to silence their critics, the authors have instead earned more criticism here.

Chapter 8: “Penal substitution and culture”

1. Penal substitution is the product of human culture, not biblical teaching

In essence, this objection is that PS was not a major teaching of the early Christians and instead has developed its prominence only several centuries after Jesus (i.e. later than the 4^th century). The authors respond: “the claim that penal substitution is a relatively late doctrinal development is unsustainable in view of the historical survey we have presented in chapter 5.” (p220) They seem to see the single paragraph they found from the first three centuries as enough evidence to base this claim upon, but such logic is demonstratably false simply because this paragraph is insignificant amid the 6500 pages of Christian writings from this period. Furthermore, this and several of the quotes within the next few centuries they reference are contestable over their support of PS. In light of this, most critics would simply not view their response here as valid. The authors continue for a page discussing irrelevant details and failing to deal with this objection any further, leaving it with much of its original force.

2. Penal substitution is unable to address the real needs of human culture

An issue raised by some is that penal substitution is not culturally relevant in many cultures. While an interesting point, this doesn’t inherently provide grounds for rejecting PS. Nevertheless, the authors respond to this objection by simply saying that we cannot let our doctrine be shaped by culture, and instead need to find ways of explaining the gospel in a given culture. This objection does little to oppose PS, and their response also does little to support it here.

A related objection which the authors fail to deal with here is that Christians in several other cultures don’t seem to even notice PS in the bible. PS seems only to be observed by people in certain, mainly western, cultures who have been taught it. This brings into question the centrality and prominence of the theory. However, this objection is not even dealt with by the authors.

3. Penal substitution relies on biblical words, metaphors and concepts that are outdated and misunderstood in our culture

The authors quote extensively from Green and Baker here, whose approach is portrayed as being to “change our theology to fit our culture.” It is unlikely critics of PS seriously hold this position. Such a position is easily refuted, and that’s exactly what the authors do: “the claim that the concepts connected with penal substitution are outdated… and must therefore be abandoned… must be firmly resisted.” (p225) There is, however, a different important aspect of this objection that overlaps with the previous objections highlighted in this chapter. Green and Baker suggest that PS is based on anachronistic readings of New Testament words, and that if these words were understood in the 1^st century context penal substitution would not be an obvious interpretation. To this objection, Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach provide a completely inadequate response, simply agreeing that because of this, “considerable care must be taken to avoid misunderstanding.” (p225) Of course, there is not room in the book to delve into this objection in detail, but nevertheless the objection that PS is based on anachronistic readings of Scripture remains unaddressed here.

Conclusion:

The authors fail completely to defend against the objection that PS was not a major teaching of the early Christians, and that was instead a later development. They successfully refute a point that provides little basis to object to PS, thus helping their case little. A related objection is completely overlooked. Finally, a misrepresented objection is refuted, leaving the objection that PS draws on anachronistic readings of Scripture unanswered. Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach have again helped their case little in this chapter.

Chapter 9: “Penal substitution and violence”

1. Penal substitution is rests on unbiblical ideas of sacrifice

There are two components to this objection. The first is that PS misunderstands the nature of the sacrificial system outlined in the bible that was understood by the authors of the bible and misapplies it to Christ’s death on the cross. The second is that these misunderstandings of the sacrificial system come from paganism. It is to this second, much weaker, component that the authors respond to because they don’t seem to recognise the first component. They point out the differences between Judaic sacrifices and pagan ones, that “the biblical understanding of sacrifice is poles apart from pagan sacrificial ideas.” (p228) So they rightly dismiss this “supposed dependence [of PS] on paganism.” (p228) It is implicitly assumed that the view of sacrifices held by the authors is accurate, yet earlier in the book they demonstrated a poor understanding of the sacrificial system. Thus, while they adequately respond to the weak part of this objection, they fail to defend against the objection that PS draws on an inaccurate understanding of the sacrificial system.

2. The violence involved in penal substitution amounts to “cosmic child abuse”

This is the now infamous objection attributed to Steve Chalke. Simply stated, this objection is to the idea that according to PS, the Father “willingly caused his son to suffer” for a reason which seems objectionable. (p230) Jeffery, Ovey and Sach respond by highlighted that Jesus went to the cross of his own volition, and that his death was not for the gratification of God as a “child abuser.” (p230) Furthermore, they quote Isa 53:10 and argue that we must accept God truly willed his son to suffer: “we can reject this idea only by rejecting the word of God.” (p231) They scarcely recognise that Jesus could have suffered for reasons other than achieving a death for PS, if it was part of a different redemptive strategy. The central point of this objection is the idea of God willing Jesus to suffer specifically for the reason of Jesus being a penal substitute, not of him wilfully allowing Jesus to suffer as part of the redemptive strategy Christ undertook.

The authors seem to wrongly assume that if God didn’t prevent Jesus’ suffering, it must have been because an atonement of PS was required. Arguing from this assumption, they claim that God was in some sense willing Jesus’ death because God obviously let it happen. They use the idea of “God’s sovereignty” (by which they mean “control over his creation”) to argue that “in some sense God caused Jesus’ suffering and death.” (p231) Finally, they bring in the idea of predestination to complete their case that “God foresaw, planned and was in full control of the death of Christ” (p232). None of this is at the heart of this objection to PS, though, for this objection is made on different grounds; God willing Jesus to suffer specifically for the purpose of being a penal substitute (not for some other, valid reason) does not accord with the biblical revelation of God’s character and moral code. Hence, the authors have only partially defended against this objection, and the core of the objection remains unaddressed.

3. The retributive violence involved in penal substitution contradicts Jesus’ message of peace and love

The authors recognise that “at first sight, this objection appears compelling.” (p234) This is the first of several objections regarding the idea that in the PS system, God never allows sin to go unpunished. This attitude seems to contradict the portrayal of God in other parts of the bible. Yet the authors distort this objection to be simply that God is setting “an unworthy example.” (p234) Their response is to point out that “the bible does not urge us to imitate all of God’s actions or every aspect of his character.” (p234) Examples of God’s worship and vengeance are given. They rush to conclude that because God doesn’t tell us to imitate his action in PS, this “right understanding of the Bible’s teaching silences [this criticism of PS].” (p235) Yet Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach have entirely missed the point of this objection by distorting the objection to one of merely about the example of Jesus, and ignoring the heart of the objection that PS appears to contradict the message of Jesus and the heart of God. The authors seem to have simply ignored the many verses which appear contradictory to their conclusion, and they have failed to convincingly refute this objection.

4. The violence inherent in penal substitution is an example of “the myth of redemptive violence”, which can never overcome evil

Essentially, this objection observes that in PS, God’s problem to the suffering caused by sin in the world is to impose more suffering, “which merely increases and compounds the problem.” (p235) The authors respond firstly by undermining the alleged foundation of this objection. The author's correctly highlight that Rene Girard raised this objection. However, they wrongly imply this objection can only be held on the basis of his framework, and proceed to highlight several of his unbiblical positions (p236-238). After several pages of this, the objection is finally addressed. Three arguments are given in response.

The first is that Jesus willingly went to the cross. With only a framework of PS in mind – in which it is the suffering of the cross that is significant – they assert that Jesus would not have done this if he had not seen that the violence of the cross was the answer to sin. (p238) This argument is narrow-minded and fails to consider other frameworks for his death. Secondly, the authors appeal again to the sacrificial system – where their biases toward PS lead them to see the violence of the sacrifices as the significant element. (p238-239) Lastly, it is argued that the motivations behind the violence of the cross are different to those behind acts of human violence. (p239) As an after-thought, the authors add that Jesus’ death was obviously violent, as if that supports the idea that God was the perpetrator of that violence. (p239)

Yet none of these four arguments actually address the heart of this objection. All of them are based on the presupposition of PS combined with the violent elements in Christ’s death (or sacrifices) to conclude that God’s solution to sin was in the violence of the cross. PS forms necessary a presupposition for their arguments, and thus their logic here is circular to support a framework of PS. Here, the authors successfully defend a position that is not being attacked, while they fail to defend the position that the objection targets. The original objection remains.

Conclusion:

The authors fail to address the central issue of the first objection in this chapter, and respond to only a weakened form of it. By presupposing a framework of PS and ignoring alternative ones, Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach fail to address the second objection to how PS portrays God. They fail to answer the objection that PS seems inconstant with the message of Jesus and the heart of God, and instead simply respond to a misrepresentation of the objection. Finally, again presupposing PS in their argument, they fail to address the last objection to the logic of PS. A casual reading of this chapter may leave the reader thinking that the objections have been successfully refuted. Yet in fact the authors have attacked very minor aspects of these objections, and left the heart of these objections unaddressed.

Chapter 10: “Penal substitution and justice”

1. It is unjust to punish an innocent person, even if he is willing to be punished

This objection to PS is well summarised by the authors, who distil that “guilt and punishment simply cannot be incurred by one person and transferred to another.” (p242) The authors begin by asserting that the biblical authors believed God judged in a just manner. Penal substitution is then implicitly assumed to be what the biblical authors believe. Thus the authors reach the conclusion of a blatantly circular argument, that “it is unbiblical to charge penal substitution with injustice.” (p242)

After this ridiculous initial defence, the authors appeal to the idea of a spiritual, ontological “union with Christ,” which “exists by faith.” (p243) Using this idea, it is argued that guilt and innocence are not transferred at all but simply “imputed.” (p243-245) They argue that “this objection to PS arises from a failure to understand the significance of union with Christ.” (p245) Two objections can be made in response. Firstly, this position separates Christ and believers where and when it is convenient, but unites them at other times when it is convenient for the argument. It holds that before we are united with Christ, he is seen as righteous and we are seen as sinful. When we are united with Christ, we would expect that either a) both become considered righteous or b) both become considered sinful. This is not what happens, though. Christ is considered sinful to take our punishment, yet at the same time he is also considered righteous as our representative. Likewise, we are considered sinful in that our union with Christ allows God to treat him as sinful, yet at the same time we are also righteous because Christ was righteous. It is argued that each party is simultaneously considered sinful and righteous. As such, the argument of “union with Christ” it is not a sensible explanation of the imputation of guilt and righteousness inherent in PS. Secondly, this assumes a logical progression that first we are unified with Christ, then by this we are saved. The bible presents the logic as being reversed, we are saved and then by this we can be unified with Christ. It is beyond the scope of this critique to explain this further, but needless to say the authors fail to deal with this problem.

The authors note that “Jeremiah 31:29-30 and Ezekiel 18 appear to deny that individuals will bear the responsibility for the actions of anyone but themselves.” (p247) They then present a false dichotomy, that either PS is true and scripture contradicts itself or that these apply in circumstances different to those of PS. Of course, the obvious third option is that it is PS which is contradicted by these verses. They successfully argue that Old Testament characters symbolically suffer for the guilt of others, (p248) as if it proves it is possible and just to actually suffer for the guilt of others, and these demonstrate “transferred punishment.” (p248) However, their argument here fails to be persuasive.

Finally, again in complete ignorance of other theological frameworks, the authors state that in “denying that our guilt could be imputed to Christ,” “the theological and pastoral casualties are severe.” (p248) This fails to recognise that a whole set of other doctrines can be held apart from PS. The logic here is founded upon ignorance and bears little strength. Hence, despite a long discussion, the authors have not successfully refuted this objection to PS.

2. Biblical justice is about restoring relationships, not exacting retribution

The authors misrepresent this objection as being that God should never justly exact retribution or final judgment. Yet at the heart of this objection is the idea that retributive justice does not make sense specifically in the framework of PS. Jeffrey, Ovey, and Sach give their response to this objection the most discussion of all.

To claim they present an argument that addresses this objection would be an exaggeration. The authors begin by talking at length about three “penal systems,” or “ways of construing the proper relationship between crime and punishment.” (p251) They highlight the retributive theory (p252-253), deterrent theory (p253), and the corrective theory (253). It is then argued (wrongly) that this objection is based on holding the corrective theory and denying that the other two are biblical. The authors proceed to simply show that the other two theories are supported biblically as if that is all that is required to defend their position. Yet their premise that this objection relies on only the corrective theory being biblical is incorrect.

Furthermore, they proceed to undermine their own argument by looking at “the biblical criteria” to assess the fairness of retribution. They highlight that

1) “guilty people, and only guilty people, should be punished” (p253)

2) “punishment must be proportional to the crime” (p254)

3) “punishments must be equitable… equivalent punishments must be imposed on different people who have committed the same crime.” (p254)

The authors then spend seven pages not discussing these at all. Instead they return to defending the idea that the bible teaches not only the corrective theory of punishment, but also the deterrent and (most importantly) the retributive theories. At one stage they also dubiously argue that it is morally right according to the corrective theory to punish people before they have offended so long as they are “likely to commit a crime” (p257), using the film Minority Report as support.

Yet their very “biblical criteria” to assess the fairness of retribution fuels further objection to PS. PS breaks one of the principles of fair retribution. It is clear that the innocent Christ, rather than the guilty people are punished – which directly contradicts their first criteria for fair retribution. In PS, retributive punishment is exactly what is not inflicted on those who deserve it – for saved sinners are not punished at all. Thus by defending the idea of retributive justice, the authors have in fact added weight to the objections of PS.

As a postscript, the authors discuss how it is fair that believers still suffer in various ways. It is argued that “the bible does not conceive of painful experiences that come upon Christians as punishment,” they argue instead these are instances of discipline. (p262) This section adds nothing to their overall argument. What remains at the end of their response is a stronger objection, not a weaker one.

3. Penal substitution implicitly denies that God forgives sin

The main point of this objection is that PS implies that God does not forgive sin, but instead exacts “every bit of the debt owed him by humans.” (p263) The authors sideline this objection by replacing it with a very different second objection: that it seems silly that “God himself pays the debt we owe in the person of his Son.” (p263) They proceed to use conceptions of the Trinity to try to refute the second objection (unpersuasively). Finally, they return to the original objection and assert that stories in which God forgives without reference to an atoning sacrifice must be read “in the context of a gospel that reaches its climax as the Son of Man dies a rises again.” (p265) Hence, they simply assert that the biblical stories where God forgives without a sacrifice do not portray what they actually seem to portray, and instead they insist that the additional framework of PS to be read into them. Their response here seems weak, and leaves the original objection in full force.

4. Penal substitution does not work, for the penalty Christ suffered was not equivalent to that due to us

This objection is simple: “how could the suffering of Jesus for a few hours constitute an equivalent punishment to an eternity in hell?” (p266) The response given here is the standard one of equivalent value. “Christ’s suffering, though it lasted only a finite time, was infinite in value because he is infinitely worthy.” (p267) Thus they correctly observe that “it is true that the punishment Christ suffered at Calvary was not identical to that due to us.” (p267)

The underlying assumption here is that infinite suffering can be transformed into a different kind of suffering for only a short duration because of the worth of who is being punished. Other than the obvious problems with that, there are more problems. The assumption is that these different punishments are equivalent. Maybe, in the eyes of God that could be so, but maybe this idea breaks the principle of impartial retributive justice. God seems to be playing favourites. If normal people sin, they are to be punished forever for it; but if God’s favourite son is to be punished for the same sins, he need only be punished for a few hours.

The logic of the authors also leads to the problem of “why the cross?” Essentially, the argument is that infinite punishment can be distilled into a small finite suffering of Christ. Thus, Christ could have taken on this infinite punishment anytime. He could have been effectively taking on the infinite punishment of the world by stubbing his toe, or cutting himself shaving. The fact that he received insults could be considered equivalent punishment for the sins of the world. The shame of the cross could have been considered equivalent. In other words, there is no need to associate Jesus’ punishment with his physical suffering on the cross.

5. Penal substitution implies universal salvation, which is unbiblical

This objection of universalism only arises when our salvation is conceived of as purely objective, in which our faith plays no part. A common evangelical view is that Christ died for all, but that only those who place their faith in him are saved. Hence, PS does not imply universal salvation. Jeffery, Ovey and Sach reveal their Calvinistic background strongly here, because they seem to not even consider the place of our faith in salvation. (p268) They assert that “Christ’s death does not just make salvation possible, but actually achieves the salvation of God’s people.” (p273) Thus, they assert the doctrine of limited atonement, where Christ died and saved only the predestined elect. (p269) Hence they claim that “God did not will to save all” (p270), which is an idea that many Christians rightly find incompatible with a loving God. If this were true, God ultimately sends people to suffer eternally in hell on a whim to not save them. What sort of God would do this? The authors spend the next few pages attempting to justify their view, using ideas of predestination, false dichotomies, and theological hand-waving. The original objection and their response are both based on ignorance the doctrines of faith and human free will.

Conclusion:

The first objection is responded to by a circular argument, a dubious appeal to “union with Christ”, misuse of Scripture and ignorance of alternative theological frameworks. The objection remains in force. The authors fail to understand the second objection, and instead respond to a misrepresented position through making invalid assumptions. Their discussion fails to address this objection, and instead highlights another objection to PS. The third objection is first sidelined, then it is simply claimed that this objection is not valid. Finally, they present a poor objection to PS and attempt to refute it by using a doctrine many Christians find objectionable. Their response here does not help their case. Hence, this chapter presents another disappointing effort to deal with common objections to PS.

Chapter 11: “Penal substitution and our understanding of God”

1. Penal substitution implies a division between the persons of the Trinity

This objection is based on a misunderstanding of the Trinity, and few who understand the Trinity and disagree with the centrality of PS would do so on the grounds of this objection. The authors correctly explain why this is an invalid objection. (p279-285) The 6 pages taken in response seem excessive here, but nevertheless the rebuttal of this objection is largely coherent and well made.

2. Penal substitution relies on an unbiblical view of an angry God that is incompatible with his love

Like the last objection, this one can only be made against a caricature of PS. Thus, it is easily and successfully rebutted by Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach, who simply show that the fact that God is angered at sin invalidates this objection. (p287-294) There are differences in opinion about why God is angered at sin, and some would argue that how God is portrayed by PS is inconstant with his character. However, these are not discussed here. The objection that is discussed is shown to be a poor one.

3. Penal substitution misunderstands the relationship between God’s wrath and human sin

Rather than considering the reasons for God’s anger at sin, they portray this objection as being to deny a final judgment by God, in which not all people are judged favourably. Hence, the authors have an easy task to demonstrate biblical evidence that in support of a final judgment to rebut this objection. (p296-300) There are also a number of irrelevant asides here that. This objection is successfully rebutted, but it doesn’t help their case in defence against the critics of PS.

4. Penal substitution generates an unbiblical view of a God constrained by a law external to himself

This rhetorical objection is often used to express how for the sake of PS, God is portrayed as acting in ways thought unfitting for his character. As such, it is not an objection in itself, but it points to the idea that if PS is true then God acts in ways thought by many to be unfitting. The authors, however, wrongly interpret this argument as being that God is constrained by something. Again, they have an easy task to demonstrate the fallacy of suggesting God is subject to anything. (p300-302) While they successfully refute this “objection”, they do not deal with the issues that underlie it.

5. Penal substitution is an impersonal, mechanistic account of the atonement

Critics of PS can interpret the same doctrine as proponents of PS in different ways. This is exactly the nature of this “objection” – it is simply a different perspective on the same doctrine, in which PS is seen as “a mere formula.” (p304) The authors simply respond by giving their perspective of the same doctrine and explaining why they simply don’t think the perspective of this objection is valid. This neither helps nor hinders their case, but it does take three pages.

Conclusion:

In a unusual chapter, the authors successfully refute a number of objections. Yet this doesn’t help their case because the objections are based on misunderstandings, and the portrayal of several objections misses the point of the critics. The first objection is based on misunderstanding the Trinity, while the second is based on misunderstanding PS. The third objection is misrepresented, and that misrepresentation is then successfully refuted. The essence of the forth objection is missed, and an unlikely position is presented and refuted in its stead, but the underlying issues behind the objection are not addressed. Finally, they present and refute an “objection” which is simply a difference of interpretation of the same theory, and thus neither weaken nor strengthen their case. Hence, the authors refute “objections” to PS which few scholars would use against PS, and in doing so only appear to strengthen their case.

Chapter 12: “Penal substitution and the Christian life”

1. Penal substitution fails to address the issues of political and social sin and cosmic evil

Unfortunately, the authors have limited this objection to only political and social sin, and cosmic evil. Yet more broadly, objection can be made that PS says little about actual transformation of people, families, communities, societies and our world. It says little about freeing them not only the guilt of sin, but its power. PS simply doesn’t seem to directly include the idea being truly liberated from a life of sin to experience the kind of life God intended for us.

The authors confine the objection to only the political, social, and cosmic dimensions of this objection, and highlight “that a belief in penal substitution does not preclude a concern” for these issues. (p310) This, of course, is true. Yet throughout five pages of their response, the authors devote most of the discussion to irrelevant side-issues. Like magicians, they spend most of their effort in distracting the reader from the core of this objection. Occasionally, they simply deny the objection carries force by asserting the opposite claim, saying that in PS, sin is the “root problem that it treats.” (p311) This fails to recognise the objection, which highlights that PS deals with the guilt and the punishment for sin, but has little to do with actually preventing it or freeing people from its power.

The authors claim that PS “deals with [sin] inasmuch as… those who are transformed by this gospel will have an impact on society around them.” (p313) Yet this is simply denying the heart of the objection that PS has little to say regarding actual transformation to be freed from sin. Thus, the response here is merely to deny the objection carries weight, and distract the reader onto side-issues. The objection not only remains in full force, but it is stronger and larger than the two aspects they mention.

2. Penal substitution is an entirely objective account of the atonement, and fails to address our side of the Creator-creature relationship

This objection is simply that PS is an objective “event” that involves no involvement by us, and thus that PS downplays the importance of our choices in following Jesus. (p131-215) Such an objection is particularly relevant within the framework of a Limited Atonement held by the authors. The response is to deflect the objection away from PS by emphasising that other atonement models provide what is lacking: “Those who make this objection fail to recognize that penal substitution is not proposed as the only biblical facet of the atonement, and certainly not as the only implication of the death of Christ.” (p315) This sudden emphasis of other atonement models seems the opposite of the author’s thesis in the book of the central, prominent and foundational position given to PS. By appealing to other atonement theologies, the response here also implicitly admits that the objection carries weight – the PS is indeed deficient in this important area.

The authors assert without any justification that these other ideas are “intrinsically related” to PS (p316), despite the objection pointing out that this is not the case. As a last defence, they attempt to assert that there are subjective implications of PS (namely assurance and confidence before God). The authors simply assert that if we find difficulty in making these subjective connections to PS, “the fault lies with us, not with the doctrine of PS” (p317) – a simple denial of the original objection. While their closing remark is true that “an objective understanding of the atonement is in many ways the pathway to a renewed spiritual life” (p318), this does not mean that PS in particular is required. The full force of the original objection remains.

3. Penal substitution causes people to live in fear of God

The book “Saved from what?” is firmly based in PS. In it, R C Sproul argues that “what we are saved from is really a who - God Himself.” It is in this context that critics object that PS causes people to see God as a fearfully unreasonable judge. (p318) The heart of this objection is not simply that God’s judgment should be feared, but that penal substitution portrays his judgement as being unreasonable, and thus the sort of fear it induces is unjustified.

The authors divorce this objection from its context and give no indication that they even understand the context. Hence they refute an over-generalised idea that ‘God’s judgement should not be feared.’ (p319-321) Having attacked this over-generalisation, they even suggest that “a lingering fear of God may actually arise from a neglect of penal substitution,” (p320) demonstrating ignorance of the reasons behind this objection. In this way, Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach fail to address the real issue behind this objection.

4. Penal substitution legitimates violence and encourages the passive acceptance of unjust suffering

In a similar way to the last objection, this one claims that the ideas of PS in particular use the story of Jesus’ death in a way that portrays violence and being passively oppressed as acceptable. In essence, this objection is that PS portrays God as setting a bad example. This objection is not a particularly strong one to begin with.

Regarding the violence of the cross, the authors respond by presupposing the accuracy of PS and their previous arguments, and proceed to create a number of circular arguments. They draw on previous sections of the book to assert that “the Bible does not set forth God’s judgment as an example for us to follow, on the contrary, it is something to avoid.” (p323). They say this despite there being several verses advocating us to forgive as God forgives, and to imitate him, thus imitating his judgments.

With regard to the example of “passive acceptance of unjust suffering,” they assert that this objection “pertains not to penal substitution but to the so-called ‘exemplary theory’ of the atonement” (p324). In this way, they first attempt to deflect the objection away from PS. However, it is true that Jesus did not use violence to avoid his suffering, and thus the authors go on to reasonably conclude that Jesus’ passivity “hardly constitutes a valid objection to penal substitution.” (p324)

Conclusion:

The first objection is responded to by distraction and denial, and leaves an even broader objection to PS in full force. The authors implicitly concede the second objection carries weight by appealing to other atonement theories, then simply deny the second objection is valid without justification. Poor understanding of the third objection is shown, and the authors instead succeed in refuting an over-generalisation. The weak fourth objection is responded to by circular logic and misdirection away from PS, but nevertheless it is shown to be a weak objection. In this way, the authors succeed only in refuting one weak objection, while stronger objections remain.

Chapter 13: “Final word”

The authors conclude by dealing with “two objections of a different kind to those discussed above.” (p325) These are called the “vague objection” and the “emotional objection.” They respond to the first by correctly pointing out that it is not valid to object to PS in a vague sense without providing reasons behind the objection. (p325-326) To the second, they also correctly highlight that it is not a valid objection to use emotionally charged language against a theory without providing a reasoned argument. (p326-328) This second concludes the author’s responses to criticisms of PS, and unfortunately there is no summary or concluding chapter. This seems to an abrupt end to Part II of the book.

Appendix: “A personal note to preachers”

In a useful appendix, Jeffrey, Ovey and Sach provide guidelines to ensure the explanations of PS given do not falsely portray key elements. They list 7 important points for illustrations of PS, which should:

1) Not deny the active, consenting involvement of the Father and Son

2) Not imply any conflict between God’s law and God’s will

3) Not imply that God’s action in averting our punishment is unjust

4) Not imply and conflict between God’s wrath and God’s will

5) Not imply a conflict between God’s attributes

6) Not imply that God did not foreordain Christ’s atonement work

7) Not imply that no-one actually benefits from God’s saving work

They authors point out the difficulty of finding any analogy which fulfils all these criteria simultaneously. (p334-336) Indeed, it is hard to imagine any analogy which fulfils all these criteria. The authors exhort teachers “not to abandon illustrations in preaching, but to make sure we use them carefully.” (p334) Again, there is no concluding section to this chapter, or the whole of Part II.

Overall critique of Part II:

While the intent of this part is good, the quality of the arguments is poor. Many of the objections are over-generalised or mistaken for other ideas, and the underlying issues are not addressed, some of the objections to PS are even strengthened by their responses. In cases where the objections have been addressed, invalid assumptions, faulty logic, and ignorance of alternative interpretations dominate their arguments. The response of the authors here leaves most of the strong objections to PS in full force.

The biggest problem with this Part, however, is how limited in scope it is. The authors only address objections to PS as an interpretation of what occurred on the cross. The theological system in which PS plays a central part is largely ignored. Yet many strong objections to the system of PS can be made, bearing a weight of evidence from the New Testament authors and early Christian fathers. These objections bring into serious doubt the centrality of PS in early Christian theology, yet they were not even mentioned here.

In short, it is unlikely that this part of the book will silence the objections being made to both the specific doctrine of PS, and the theological system in which it is central. Despite the authors’ frequent assertions that their responses will silence their critics, this poor defence of PS will likely give them even more cause for criticism. Most discerning critics of PS will be not be persuaded by the responses here. At the start of this part the authors “invite readers to make up their own minds” (p206), and no doubt readers will. It seems likely that whatever the opinion of readers prior to reading this part, it will not be changed.

Pierced for our Transgressions: a critique - Part 1

2007-07-05T22:13:00.000+12:00

Pierced for our Transgressions: a critique

The authors summarise the purpose of their book as being to “argue that penal substitution is clearly taught in Scripture, that it has a central place in Christian theology, that a neglect of the doctrine will have serious pastoral consequences, that it has an impeccable pedigree in the history of the Christian church, and that all of the objections raised against it can be comprehensively answered.” (p31) This review will go through the book part by part here with the goal of critiquing the book and explaining why it fails in its goal.

The book is structured in two parts as follows. After a brief introductory chapter of Part I, Chapter 2 is an investigation of the bible aiming to show in a way that is “absolutely decisive” (p33) that “the doctrine of penal substitution is clearly taught within the pages of scripture” (p33) and is “a central emphasis of some foundational passages in both the Old and New Testaments.” (p33) They argue from these scriptures that PS “has such prominence that it cannot be sidelined.” (p34) They continue in Chapter 3 by discussing other relevant doctrines with the aim to show that “penal substitution has a foundational place in Christian theology” (p148) and that “to exclude it would distort or undermine many other theological themes.” (p31) A brief Chapter 4 discusses the pastoral implications of penal substitution (hereafter PS), arguing that “the implications of penal substitution for the Christian life are profound, and a great deal is lost if it denied.” (p150) A survey of historical Christians writings in Chapter 5 aims to “amply prove” (p204) the “long and distinguished pedigree” (p203) of PS that “has been affirmed from the earliest days of the Christian church” to the present. (p203) It aims to show that “lots of people throughout church history have believed it” (p203) and even that throughout this time “penal substitution was considered central to the Christian faith.” (p203) Part II concludes by responding to biblical, subjective (cultural), ethical, judicial, theological and pastoral objections to PS, arguing in each case “that the objection does not successfully undermine the doctrine of penal substitution.” (p206)

Part I – “Building the case”

Chapter 1: “Introduction”

The authors provide a brief synopsis of the current debate around PS here. Yet this introduction is laced with judgements against those who disagree with the authors which are neither agreeable nor justified. For example: “The more disturbing thing is that some of the more recent critics of penal substitution regard themselves as evangelicals, and claim to be committed to the authority of Scripture.” (p25) They liken those who disagree with the centrality of PS to those described in 2Ti 4:3-4 who will “turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.” (p24) They say that “the most pressing reason why this book is necessary is that the misconceived criticisms of penal substitution show no sign of abating.” (p31) They write that “those who want to deny the doctrine [of PS] and yet own the label ‘evangelical’ would do well to recognize just how far they are departing from their heritage. Few if any of their forefathers would stand with them.” (p32) While these derogatory assertions may well seem justified to the authors, they certainly do not win any favour with the readers they are seeking to persuade.

Chapter 2: “Biblical foundations of Penal Substitution”

They preface their biblical survey by saying that the verses they list in support of PS “are not the only places in the bible where penal substitution is taught,” and claim to have “selected a small number for the sake of simplicity and to allow space to explore each in some detail.” (p34) However, they cover all the main verses used in support of PS, and it looks very much like they have not omitted any verse that might provide good support for PS. This chapter will be looked at in detail here because of the importance of Scripture, following the sections of the book as follows:

Exodus 12 (Passover)

They argue that during the Passover “it was through the substitutionary death of a lamb… that [Israel’s] firstborn sons were spared” during the plague of the firstborn. (p41) They note the comparison with Christ and the Passover and thus infer PS into his death also. “That penal substitution should be taught here of all places is to give the doctrine a high prominence,” they claim. (p34, emph. added) A sceptical view of the same material would point out that the fact they have to search here of all places to try to prove PS shows the exact opposite.

Their argument that the Passover was PS in nature is based on the dubious assertion that in this last plague, “the Israelites were to be delivered not from Pharoah, but from the judgment of the Lord.” (p36) The fact that they had to mark their doorposts in order to not suffer the plague is used to infer that God was intent on punishing the Israelites. (p37) This is evidently poor logic, as God not only desired to rescue them, but he told them exactly how to not be harmed by the plague because he did not want to harm them. They recognise the obvious, that “this might seem puzzling.” (p38) To justify their view, they refer not to Exodus, but Ezekiel 20:4-10 to suggest that they deserved God’s judgement because they participated in Egyptian idolatry. (p38) Yet this reference is taken grossly out of the context of a long list of occurrences where God withheld judgment. The point Ezekiel is making is that God did not “poor our fury” upon them but patiently worked with them “not according to your wicked ways or corrupt doings.” (Eze 20:44)

In addition, they draw attention to the sacrifice of the lamb as the important element in the story involving the lamb. However, Exodus makes the role of the lamb with respect to the plague quite clear: “the blood shall be a sign to you, on the houses where you are. And I will see the blood, and I will pass over you.” (Exo 12:13) It was the distinguishing mark that was important – and what more distinguishing and symbolic of cleanliness than red blood? There is no need to assume the sacrifice itself was the reason the plague did not visit the Israelites when such a clear reason is specified. If anything about the lamb was important, it was the blood, not the death of the lamb per se. Additionally, the feast would have served to sustain the Israelites for the beginning of the Exodus the next day, which is itself a good reason to sacrifice the meat.

Despite the weak and highly contestable argument, they wrongly conclude that “the substitutionary element in the Passover is therefore beyond dispute.” (p38, emph. added) They refer to Jesus’ last-supper statements in Mark 14:22-24 as being penal-substitutionary in character, and do not consider any other possible frameworks for this passage (e.g. martyrdom, suffering righteous). So combining poor analysis of the Passover with a narrow-sighted reading of the Last Supper, they argue that the Passover proves Jesus’ death involved PS. (p38-41) It is a poor beginning to their case for biblical support of PS.

Leviticus 16 (Day of Atonement)

The significance of the scapegoat used on “Yom Kippur” (the Day of Atonement) is looked at next. They point out that kipper can mean to forgive, or to cleanse, which are obvious meanings in Yom Kippur. Yet continuing, the authors speculate that “a third possible meaning for kipper is ransom” (p44) and use this to argue that in reference to the Day of Atonement, it refers to averting God’s wrath. (p45-47) They conclude that the Day of Atonement “refers to the propitiation of God’s wrath through the offering of a substitutionary animal sacrifice.” (p48) Thus, they assert that God’s wrath is a central idea in Yom Kippur, and they use that to argue that the day was about propitiating God’s wrath.

Any scholar who is well familiar with the Day of Atonement will recognise not only the tenuousness of their argument here, but also that these claims are simply incorrect. Scholars such as Stephen Finlan note that the function of the scapegoat was seen as being to carry away the curses of Israel incurred by their sins and thus ritually cleanse the people. Yet the authors here go even further in their illogic. They dubiously assert that the term “cut off” refers primarily to death rather than separation, and use that to argue that sending the goat away was not to separate the sins from the people, but instead to die bearing their sins. (p49-50) In fact, the ritual was considered complete without the death of the scapegoat, and stories are told of the scapegoat wandering back alive to the camp after some days. They assert that God’s wrath was propitiated by the death of the scapegoat, (p48) but the scapegoat didn’t die as part of the ritual at all! They do not even mention that the goat that was actually sacrificed to God did not carry any sins at all, but instead was to remain pure. In contrast, it would have been seen as a great offence to sacrifice the sin-carrying scapegoat to God, so it was sent out to the desert alive.

Hence they very wrongly conclude that the scapegoat ritual demonstrates PS: “the scapegoat is depicted… as bearing the sin, guilt and punishment of the people, and being condemned to death in their place.” (p50) Later, “Leviticus 16 depicts the propitiation of God’s wrath by the substitutionary death of an animal.” (p52) In this regard, a very limited understanding (in fact, a deceptive misunderstanding) is shown of the ancient Jewish rituals. Nevertheless, the alleged conclusion to this poor logic is that “penal substitution is central to God’s dealing with sin,” (p50) as if this one particular ritual is the key to understanding how God deals with sin in all cases.

The authors completely ignore the weight of biblical stories in which God forgave people without sacrifice, which completely undermines their case. Take Nineveh, for example, where: “When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it.” (Jon 3:10) They do look at God’s forgiveness of David’s adultery and murder in Ps 51, but do not recognise that it undermines their argument. They reinterpret David’s statement that “You [God] do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings” (Ps 51:16) as referring to sacrifices of praise, incorrectly using his earlier reference to hyssop to provide the illusion of support for their argument. (p51) Far more likely is that David recognised there were no sacrifices prescribed by the Torah to atone for sins of adultery and murder, and thus appealed to God for merciful forgiveness apart from sacrifice. Indeed, for this very reason Paul points out that David was forgiven despite not “working” the Torah in Romans 4:4-8. At the end of the authors’ argument, they give a blanket disclaimer that explains Hebrew’s statement that “blood of bulls and goats can never take away sins,” and indeed any situations of God’s forgiveness that don’t fit with their ideology: “The Old Testament sacrifices provided a window through which they looked in faith to their Messiah who was yet to come.” (p52) Thus it is argued that despite being thousands of years in the future, Christ’s death was what actually atoned for people’s sins all along. (p52) Such appeals to a time-travelling cosmic atonement of the cross combined with the dubious assertion that the Old Testament people of God had in mind Jesus being on the cross centuries in the future hardly strengthen their case.

Isaiah 52:13-53:12 (suffering servant)

The suffering servant of Isaiah 53 apparently is used to support PS, and this is perhaps their strongest case for PS being present in Scipture. (p52-57) Of course, it is widely accepted that the original author of this passage wrote it in reference to Israel, not Jesus. The New Testament (hereafter NT) references this passage in the context of writing about Jesus, though. When dealing with these, Jeffery, Ovey and Sach adopt unlikely interpretations to fit their position. They choose to not see the meaning of the NT references to this passage as being defined by the context in which the authors quote verses from it. Rather, they assert that the penal substitutionary theme of the passage is what the authors refer to – despite recognising the objections that have been raised to this idea. (p63-65) Despite no NT quote occurring clearly in the context of PS ideas they claim: “The New Testament uses this passage to speak of Christ’s death in penal substitutionary terms.” (p67) Again, they show complete disregard for other ideological frameworks of the Scriptural authors into which these quotes would fit, and do not even mention the obvious ones.

Mark

Moving to the New Testament, the authors begin by completely omitting the Gospels of Matthew and Luke – perhaps because they found no support for PS in these gospels. Of course, one would wonder how if it is such a “central doctrine” that these Gospels could be considered complete without it. This problem is glossed over by simply beginning with the heading “The Gospel of Mark.”

One would expect a discussion of the story found in Mark, but instead the authors simply argue about the meaning of biblical words to find support. Firstly, they chose to interpret the word lytron (which refers to payment for release) in Mark 10:45 as connoting substitution rather than its plain meaning (p67). In addition, they choose to interpret anti (normally translated “for” in Mk 10:45) as meaning “in place of.” Hence they see Mk 10:45 as proving “a substitutionary payment in the place of others.” (p67) Rather than deal properly with the other frameworks into which this verse fits sensibly, they attempt to support a PS framework by looking at the context of Mk 10:45 through the eyes of PS. (p68-70) They make an un-compelling argument that because the Old Testament uses a “cup” in the context of wrath a few times, Jesus’ request that God “take this cup from me” involves God’s wrath rather than simply the suffering of his death which he foresaw. (pg 68-90)

They continue by looking at Mk 10:33-34 and a third word definition for support. This time, they focus on when Jesus was handed over (paradidomi) to the Gentiles to be killed. They argue that in this case, paradidomi, “admits an extra shade of meaning” – which they assert is that of God’s wrath while providing virtually no support for this tenuous claim. (p70-71) Again, by completely ignoring other explanatory frameworks for the verses, they conclude that Mk 10:45 proves that Jesus was “handed over to God’s wrath” in giving his life for many. (p71) Final brief appeals to Mk 15:33-34 and 14:27 as proving PS exhaust their look at Mark, and appear to be “clutching at straws” for support.

John

John 3:14-18 is first looked at in some detail to prove the trivial idea that God’s wrath remains on those who do not follow Jesus. (p73-74) They continue to point out that “death is the penalty for sin, imposed as God’s sentence of condemnation on sinful humanity.” (p74)

Having established a theme of God’s wrath, they connect it to John 11:47-52, 8 chapters later, by again looking at controversial word definitions. (p75) Here they attempt to argue that hyper (“for”) “conveys a substitutionary sense on Caiaphas’ lips.” (p75) Caiaphas probably means here that they thought it better to kill Jesus than risk suffering under military action by the Romans to crush what they might consider a rebellion. John’s connection of Caiaphas’ statement to Jesus as being “prophetic” is then regarded as definitive, not an aside. (p75) The authors continue to completely ignore the many occurrences of hyper that obviously do not mean “in stead of” and proceed to read their interpretation into John 18:14; 6:51; 10:11, 15. Thus choosing to define hyper in a way that suits them, they conclude that John “teaches clearly that Jesus’ death was substitutionary.” (p77)

They end their conclusion by making a completely unwarranted step in their argument, concluding that because death is the penalty for sin and Jesus’ death was substitutionary, that it proves atonement worked via penal substitution. This is hardly compelling. Yet they use it to assert that “to ‘perish’ in John is to suffer the punishment for sin under God’s just condemnation. This is penal. [It proves] penal substitution.” (p77) So after looking a sprinkling of verses from the Gospels and drawing some tenuous conclusions, they leave the Gospels, as if they have proven PS is a major theme throughout them all.

Romans

Their attitude and approach to Romans is summarised in their opening sentence: “the book of Romans teaches the doctrine of penal substitution so plainly that the steady stream of attempts by some recent commentators and theologians to evade the obvious is both surprising and a little tiresome.” (p77) So after again condescending upon those whom they seek to persuade, they adopt a standard Reformed reading of Rom 1-3. Despite this being a relatively easy position to try to defend, they choose to defend it again by grasping at specific words selectively throughout the text, rather than assess Paul’s overall argument. (p78-79) Of course they completely omit any reference to Rom 2:5-16, which would greatly trouble their argument. They simply use Rom 1-3 to prove that “we stand under the just wrath of God.” (p80)

Yet none of that proves PS. So they first hold Rom 3:21-26 as their first passage in support. Despite this being a highly controversial passage amongst scholarship, they suggest that to prove it teaches PS is simple. It is clear that through Jesus’ death we are no longer under God’s wrath, and thus they state “we need only to establish that it was by Christ’s death in our place that this was accomplished.” (p81) All they actually do is highlight Jesus’ death, our subsequent favour with God, and suggest they have proved their case. They seek to strengthen their argument through their wishful thinking: “the mere fact that Jesus died, in the context of the thought-world of Romans, constitutes an argument for penal substitution.” (p81) Given the near non-existent evidence they give in support, it seems to be in fact their own thought-world that leads them to write, “we cannot conceivably imagine that the punishment for sin has been overlooked! God must punish sin, and in the death of Christ he has done so.” (p81) They illogically argue that because God left past sins unpunished, he must have punished sin in Christ, simply because they do not see any of the plausible alternatives. (p81) Finally, they spend four pages “proving” that hilasterion means “propitiation” – as if that in itself proves that PS is the mechanism that turns away God’s wrath from us. (p82-85) It is amusing they even quote at length from N.T. Wright to support other meanings of hilasterion also, who called their book “deeply, profoundly, and disturbingly unbiblical.” (The Cross and the Caricatures, 2007) Despite their weak argument, they conclude that “the undeniable teaching of Rom 3:21-26 is that the Lord Jesus Christ was set forth as a propitiation, to turn aside God’s wrath from his people by suffering it in their place.” (p85, emph. added)

After spending eight pages on Rom 3:21-26, their argument drastically looses content as they look to Rom 4:25 for support. They make the astoundingly weak argument that because the “handing over” (paradidomi) of Christ refers to his death, “penal substitution is plainly in view.” (p86) Again by completely ignoring alternative atonement frameworks, they look at the use of “blood” in Rom 5:8-10 and assert that “once again, the doctrine of penal substitution underpins the logic of Paul’s argument.” (p86) They move to Rom 8:1-3, which occurs after Paul’s metaphors of “dying with Christ” to sin and during his lengthy discussion about living by the “Spirit” rather than the “Flesh.” Despite these themes being clearly in Paul’s mind, they assert that the reason there is “no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus” (v1) is not because they are “set free from the law of sin and of death” to “walk according to flesh, but according to Spirit” as Paul continues directly to say in the very next words. Rather, they say it is because God literally “condemned sin in the flesh” (v3) of Jesus. (p86) This constitutes poor exegesis of scripture to attempt to support a point that Paul is simply not making here. Yet they falsely claim that “this amounts to an explicit statement of the doctrine of penal substitution.” (p87) The conclude their look at Romans by saying PS “is woven into the fabric of these chapters,” (p88) as if restating their claims makes them sound more convincing.

Galations 3:10-13 (Mosaic curse of those hung on a tree)

Central to their next argument is that despite the huge controversy over interpretation of this passage, “we shall merely demonstrate that the doctrine of penal substitution remains secure, regardless of which path is taken with respect to the issues of recent controversy.” (p89) They fail to demonstrate this. Three pages are spent arguing that we are still under the curse of the law. Yet again, no thought is given to other redemption frameworks, and so they wrongly conclude “there is no way of evading the conclusion that all people need Christ’s substitutionary death to redeem them from the curse that would otherwise be due to them for their failure to meet the requirements of God’s holy law.” (p93) Most Jews, of course, believed they were keeping God’s law and thus were not under a curse.

The authors hinge their argument around the phrase that Christ “become a curse for us; for it has been written, ‘Cursed is everyone having been hung on a tree.’” What they fail to point out is that if the passage in Deut. 21:23 did not exist, Paul would have said no such thing. In other words, Paul’s motivation for mentioning this is not because it is central to his theology, but because he must explain Deut. 21:23. The authors simply ignore this, and say “the doctrine of penal substitution emerges plainly.” (p95)

1 Peter

The meaning of lytroo (“redeemed”) in 1 Pet 18-19 is argued. The authors speculate upon a connection with Isiah 53, and use that to suggest Peter speaks “clearly about the penal substitutionary death of Christ.” (p96) Moving on to 1 Pet 2:21-25, while they recognise that the passage refers to the exemplary significance of Jesus’ death, they argue that this “cannot, however, account for all of the teaching in the passage.” (p97) This claim itself is debatable, yet the passage probably provides one of their stronger biblical arguments. They continue by ignoring the context and by connecting words in the passage to their previous arguments regarding Gal 3, Isaiah 53, and their dubious assertion of a substitutionary meaning of hyper. Apparently one single verse gives them grounds to claim that “Peter draws extensively on the imagery of the Servant of Isaiah 53 to explain the penal substitutionary significance of Jesus death.” (p99, emph. added) Yet Peter is talking about an exemplary framework in this context, not a penal substitutionary one. While far from being their weakest argument, this one is still unconvincingly made.

Conclusion

After all this, they claim that “the Bible speaks with a clear and united witness” (p99) in support of PS. What it striking, of course, is that they have simply not compared PS with any of the other frameworks for understanding the significance of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection. They also omit mentioning that they found no support for PS in two of the Gospels, and very little support in Mark and John. In fact, the diversity of these other “witnesses” and the consistent emphasis of the New Testament authors of different frameworks for understanding the significance of Jesus (which they don’t mention) would suggest that their assessment is simply untrue.

Even if we generously double the number of New Testament verses referenced, they still only find that only a handful of NT verses could possibly support PS. They state that their “aim in this chapter has been to demonstrate that penal substitution is taught in Scripture.” (p99) So even if these verses do “clearly teach” PS and their assessment that “this cannot be denied” (p99) is true, they have certainly failed to evidence that PS “has such prominence that it cannot be sidelined” (p34, emph. added). Perhaps that’s why they added the word some here: saying that PS is “a central emphasis of some foundational passages in both the Old and New Testaments” (p33, emph added), for judging by the evidence they give PS is hardly emphasised at all!

Chapter 3: “The Theological Framework for Penal Substitution”

Pages 100-148 are spent outlining the “big-picture” of Christian theology, to “place [PS] in its proper theological context.” (p101) It is fitting that the chapter is entitled “the theological framework for penal substitution,” because that is exactly what it is – a set of doctrines they have selected especially for PS. They proceed to present a number of doctrines which are used to support the theory, and omit any doctrines that don’t fit in. They seek to justify their gross bias by distinguishing between “understanding something truly and understanding something exhaustively.” (p101-102) So then at the end of the chapter, after presenting all the peripheral doctrines that specifically relate to PS, they misleadingly claim that PS lies at the heart not simply of the doctrines they have selected, but that “penal substitution has a foundational place in Christian theology.” (p148)

They begin by providing a helpful one-page summary of their view of the doctrine of PS. (p103-104). This provides the foundation from which they assess primarily only three doctrines: human depravity, God’s unwillingness to forgive sin, and redemption. These doctrines are split up between the following headings:

Creation

“The doctrine of creation is plainly important for a right understand of redemption,” (p105) or more accurately, of penal substitution. Thus, after a brief recount of God’s powerful words that created the universe, they highlight: “the fact that the universe continues to function… needs to be seen in the light of God’s continued, intentional, active, sustaining involvement.” (p107) This point is used to argue that “since the moral consequences of sin are willed in this way, they have the character of divine punishment.” (p107) The same point can also be used to argue God is responsible for all evil in the world and that God is therefore evil. Their logic simply overlooks any concept of humans as moral agents, and so it is unclear how their point here helps their case. They continue by emphasising a legal aspect of Creation, where the hierarchy of command proceeded from top to bottom as God, Humanity, The rest of Creation. (p108-109)

‘Decreation’ (the fall)

The preceding chapter is used as required background for this chapter describing the sinfulness of humankind. They argue that “the sin of Adam and Eve also overturns the order God has established in Genesis 1-2.” (p111) Hence they present that due to the fall, the “hierarchy of Creation” was reversed: The rest of Creation, Humanity, God. They use this view to argue that “nothing less than another act by God, on the scale of creation, can set things right.” (p112) This becomes a set-up to make the cosmic act of PS seem necessary later on. Five pages are then wasted discussing “false faith” (p112-117), which seems largely irrelevant to their argument and doesn’t aid their case at all.

The consequences of sin

After another irrelevant discussion on the nature of death (p118-121), it is argued that “death is God’s punishment for sin.” (p121-123) There is nothing wrong with this conclusion, but it doesn’t help prove PS as they would like. Lastly, they assert that “sin is a personal affront to [God]” (p123) based on nothing more than a few examples where God is portrayed as being angry at sin.

Truth, goodness, justice and salvation

They begin by asserting that “sin, as an act of decreation, is a denial of God’s truthfulness and justice.” (p124) No support is offered for this creative assertion. Further claims regarding the nature of God and what it means for sin and salvation don’t further their case much. (p125) The reason for this section appears as this: to make the point that God’s nature requires him to “find a way to restore his creation to its original goodness, without compromising his promise that sin will bring death.” (p126) Sadly this point does little to strengthen their argument for PS as the specific way in which God does that.

Relationships within the Trinity

Here is it highlighted that the different members of the Trinity can act upon other members and yet be unified in purpose. (p127-132) This becomes important for their rebuttals to objections in Part 2 of the book, but is largely irrelevant to their main point in this chapter. It is simply concluded that “these aspects of God’s character… [are] reflected in God’s work of redemption.” (p132)

Redemption

This section contains two central themes: “not only does the Father give the Son to believers, but he also gives believers to his Son.” (p132) In the first of these, the perfection of the Son is highlighted as being suitable for a sacrifice for PS. (p132-137) This section is loaded with presuppositions suitable for PS. A few pages are given to looking at how this very biased view of Christ and PS fits into other atonement ideas of victory, reconciliation and ransom. Lest these detract from their point, they conclude that “we should not see these perspectives on the cross as alternatives to penal substitution, but rather outworkings of it. Penal substitution underpins and enriches them.” (p144, emph. added) Having loaded the chapter with ideas that fit with PS, they give their reasoning behind this claim by saying “to dispense with PS would distort these other perspectives.” (p144) This is a classic circular argument. Due to shear ignorance of other frameworks, they then make the completely inaccurate claim that without PS “the very elements of these other perspectives that are praised with such passion in Scripture… would have to go as well.” (p144, emph. added) Following this, they describe a Calvinistic interpretation of God drawing believers to himself and unifying them with Christ in order to perform the double-imputation of PS. (p144-147) It is claimed from all this that “penal substitution emerges as a central aspect of God’s redeeming work in Christ.” (p147)

Conclusion

Perhaps their statement that “penal substitution has a foundation place in Christian theology” (p148) is a valid point, but it is not at all a valid conclusion from their argument. Their argument is simply far too ignorant of alternative viewpoints and too lacking in sound logic to prove their thesis here. In this chapter the authors have selected only certain doctrines that fit and even suggest PS, mixed them with many suggestive remarks connoting PS, and omitted all views and doctrines which do not fit with PS. In their conclusion, they suggest that PS is not simply central to the particular doctrines they have outlined, but that it is the foundation of all Christian theology. Yet the majority of the important other doctrines of Christian theology can be held without believing PS. Their rhetorical conclusion here is not based on a solid argument, but instead a biased and incomplete portrayal of Christian theology.

Chapter 4: “The pastoral importance of Penal Substitution”

In this short chapter, the authors outline how they see PS as impacting our Christian lives. (p150) They discuss the assurance of God’s love (p150-153), confidence in God’s truthfulness (p153-156), a passion for God’s justice (p156-158), and realism about our sin (p158-160). None of these are particularly controversial points. Yet they present them as if PS is the only basis for having them, by saying that “the implications of penal substitution for the Christian life are profound, and a great deal is lost if it is denied.” (p150) In fact, one can hold all the things they have presented here without holding PS. Thus, their above assertion is simply untrue, and this chapter does little to help their case.

Chapter 5: “The historical pedigree of Penal Substitution”

The authors correctly observe that “we ought to be worried if what we believe to be a foundational biblical truth remained entirely undiscovered from the days of the apostles right up until the middle of the sixteenth century.” (p162) In comparison with their biblical analysis, here they “have tried to be fairly exhaustive up to and including Gregory the Great” in the 6^th century to demonstrate support for PS. (p163) They are confident that “the weight of evidence is quite overwhelming.” (p163)

However, it should be sufficient to cause concern if PS was not a prominent view even in the first 300 years of Christian tradition. For the first three centuries, they only find one single paragraph from Justin Martyr (2^nd century) which may support of PS. (p164-166) Justin wouldn’t even have included this paragraph if not for the existence of Deut. 21:23, and supporting PS is clearly not his main point. Nevertheless, the authors claim a total of one paragraph that supports PS out of an estimated 6500 pages of Christian writings extant from this period. The New Testament contains 260 chapters, averaging about one page each. Roughly scaling the 6500 pages of these Christian writings to the size of the New Testament, their paragraph in support of PS would be the equivalent to about one word in the New Testament. This is hardly an overwhelming “weight of evidence.” In fact, their own evidence shows the PS is hardly mentioned at all by the early Christians within the first three centuries. This seems to prove exactly the opposite of what the authors present it in proof of.

They find about one or at most two paragraphs to support PS from each of Eusebius (p166-167), Hilary of Poitiers (p167-169), Athanasius (p169-173), Gregory of Nazianzus (p173-174), Ambrose of Milan (p174-175), John Chrystostum (p175-176), Augustine of Hippo (p177-179), Cyril of Alexandria (p180-181), and Gregory the Great (p183). They also present a paragraph from an unheard-of Gelasius of Cyzicus (p181-183), who by their admission “has almost no significance as a theologian” (p183) and “was somewhat lacking in integrity as a historian.” (p182) Thus, they exhaust the references in support of PS written prior to the 13^th century. Of course, from this time we have a vast amount of Christian works extant, and thus their “exhaustive” list of quotes is hardly compelling. The fact that 21 pages are taken to present only about 20 paragraphs of quotations also reveals how padded with irrelevant discussion the section is. It is clear that even in these quotes in support of PS, the writers had no intention of focussing on PS or emphasising it as an atonement theory. Thus even if these quotes do refer to PS, none of these writers considered it a theory worth emphasising at length. Furthermore, they omit any mention of several key aspects of the modern PS theory. Thus, it is unclear exactly in what way this evidence is “overwhelming” – whether it is in support of the chapter’s case or contradictory to it.

After a brief quote from Thomas Aquinas (p184-185) in the context not of PS, but of satisfaction, the authors nestle into the comfortably supportive quotes of the Reformed tradition. They go through quotes that are far more supportive of PS from Calvin (p185-186), Francis Turretin (p186-187), John Bunyan (p188-189), John Owen (p189-191), George Whitefield (p191-193), Spurgeon (p193-194), D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (194-195), John Stott (p196-197), J. I. Packer (p197-200), and throw in quotes from the UCCF and the EA for good measure (p200-203). Of course, they fail to mention the objection of the Catholic church to some of the Reformers ideas. They do not quote here the numerous people who have challenged PS throughout this time. Their case is built mainly on quotes from the Protestant tradition.

Despite this, the authors conclude that “lots of people throughout church history have believed [PS]” and that it thus has “a long and distinguished pedigree.” (p203) They neglect to mention the obvious fact evident from their “exhaustive” evidence from the first three centuries – that the vast majority of Christian writers didn’t even mention PS, and the one that allegedly did certainly didn’t consider it worth more than a passing mention. So far from finding this data “reassuring” (p203) and their conclusions “amply proven” (p204), a more accurate conclusion is the very one the authors sought to avoid – they ought to be worried because PS is hardly mentioned at all in the extra-biblical Christian writings of the first 300 years.

Overall critique of Part I:

This book fails to prove its main thesis regarding the importance of penal substitution in the minds of the biblical authors and the early Christians. The conclusions of this book are founded upon ignorance, poor logic, and misinterpretation of evidence. Alternative views are not even considered. Biblical texts which contradict their conclusions are ignored. Circular arguments are used extensively. Claims of “clearly proving” conclusions are prolific, yet almost never supported by the arguments. Lastly, the very small amount of evidence found in support of PS in the writings of the early Christians is grossly misinterpreted. It is wrongly concluded from this evidence that PS was “a central theme” to the authors, rather than a peripheral theme that is barely even mentioned. Some claims are simply misleading from the truth. It is little wonder that N.T. Wright considered this book “deeply, profoundly, and disturbingly unbiblical.”

Part 1 of this book is unlikely to persuade any of its critics, and indeed it seems likely to be heavily criticised by scholarship. Yet the condescension and cursory dismissals of those who hold different opinions in the introduction make it even less likely to be well-received by any who do not already agree with the authors. Hence, it is unlikely that this part of the book will have the effect desired by its authors.

(The second part of this review is continued in this next post.)

What "faith" really means

2007-06-09T14:49:00.000+12:00

I have recently completed a detailed study regarding the New Testament meaning of “faith”. I studied all occurrences of the pistis-group words in the New Testament, their usage in extra-biblical works, and recent scholarship regarding the words. Pistis is typically translated as “faith” or “belief” in many English versions. I thought I would briefly share my findings here.

Its range of meaning

Pistis is a word that has a much larger range of meanings than the English words “faith” or “belief”. In understanding how it has such a range of meanings, I have realised that pistis denotes a general concept of a firm and stable “connection” between two entities. These connections of pistis can be formed between a wide variety of entities: people, God, Jesus, traditions, practices, groups, purposes, facts, or ideas. The English terms that suit this connection depend on the nature of those entities, which I’ve tried to outline in the table below:

*From (who/what is characterized by having pistis)*	To	Suitable English ideas relating to the connection
Person	Message, idea, proposition, etc	Belief / assent / trust
Person	Person	Commitment / Faith-fulness / fidelity / reliability of a person / loyalty / trust / a pledge
Person	Purpose, tradition, practice, things, etc	Commitment / faith-fulness / perseverance / endurance / being made faith-ful, being entrusted
Proposition / Fact	Conclusion	Evidence / reliability of a statement / proof

This concept that pistis refers to a stable, firm connection between two entities is consistent with all the occurrences of pistis that I found both in the New Testament and in extra-biblical sources. It is also consistent with a range of opinions scholars have put forward as it’s meaning (e.g. Pilch, Malina, DeSilva, Stowers, Crossan, Reed, Campbell, Howard, Lindsay, Hay).

New Testament usage

I found a total of 563 occurrences of pistis-group words in the New Testament. Only 62 occurrences clearly refer to pistis toward propositions, ideas, or statements. Far more commonly, pistis is directed towards people rather than propositions. The NT denotes pistis towards the person of Jesus 94 times by name, which far outweighs occurrences of pistis toward ideas concerning him. Pistis towards God is mentioned 20 times, and we also mention of it directed towards Paul, Peter, John the Baptist, Moses, the Prophets, false teachers, spirits, and masters. Jesus followers are described as having pistis about 149 times, but there are others who are described as having pistis. For example, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, Joseph, Moses' parents, Moses, the Israelites, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel, and the prophets all had pistis. Jesus is characterised by pistis, similarly, God’s pistis is referred to a number of times. “Words” are also described as having pistis.

Concepts strongly related to pistis in the New Testament

Five concepts that pistis is strongly related with became obvious. These concepts occur frequently in the context of pistis, and are sometimes used synonymously. I found that pistis is strongly paralleled with:

Faithfulness
Obedience
Loyalty and “following”
Endurance and perseverance
Right thoughts and behaviour

I have used over 170 of the New Testament occurrences of pistis-group words as references for these related concepts, so I do not have room or time here to list them. In percentage terms, these five parallels of commitment are evident in about 30% of the occurrences of pistis-group words, and are typical when pistis towards Jesus is referred to. Only about 10% of occurrences clearly refer to mental belief in propositions or ideas, but a similar theme of commitment towards those propositions is evident. The remaining 60% of occurrences are “abstract” usages of pistis, in which no related concepts are evident to help clarify what pistis means.

Some conclusions

Based on the New Testament usage of pistis, I would describe pistis towards Jesus as something like this:

Pistis towards Jesus: being faithful, obedient, and loyal to follow Jesus, his teachings, his way of life, and his mission; with endurance and perseverance, and ensuring our lives, thoughts, and behaviour are consistent with this.

Comparable connections between pistis towards Jesus and belief in propositions and theories regarding his work on the cross and atonement are negligible, especially measured against the strongly related themes listed above. In addition, other Greek words which refer to concepts like trust, assurance, being convinced, confidence, being persuaded (e.g. peitho, plerophoreo, pepoithesis, or hupostasis) are also hardly used in connection with propositions and theories regarding his work on the cross and atonement. If pistis towards Jesus was about mental belief concerning these matters, these lack of parallels are difficult to explain in light of the massive number of parallels with ideas of faithfulness, obedience, loyalty, following, endurance, perseverance and right thoughts and behaviour.

After doing this study, it seems clear to me that the New Testament uses pistis to convey an idea of following Jesus that is perhaps quite different to the ideas many Christians today mean by “faith”. For me, this New Testament idea of pistis towards Jesus seems far more meaningful, powerful, and practical than mere belief.

Will my iPod make me happy?

2007-05-21T22:36:00.000+12:00

Let me break the silence of my blog once more... to say something that will probably get lost amidst the loud hubbub of our busy lives.

I recently was given an iPod for my birthday. It's great. But the thing that struck me is this: I was quite happy without one. I didn't feel like I was missing out on anything. Having got one, I am not more happy than I was before.

In a flurry of thought I have reached the following conclusion: we can be just as happy without things as we can with them. Beyond the basic needs of survival and safety, happiness simply doesn't seem to be dependent upon the things we own. This makes me wonder what it is that does actually make us happy. Is happiness an attitude? An outlook on life? I think so.

My thought is this: if you can't be happy without what you don't have, you probably won't be happy with what you do have.

Of course, I also question the value our culture culture on "happiness". I think there are is a deeper kind of joy that is somehow much more satisfying than getting good stuff or having good things happen. And maybe that's it - maybe happiness is something that's based on successes or positive turn of events. Maybe it is built on the idea of things changing for the "better". Perhaps that sort of attitude is bound to lead to disappointment when we find life doesn't just keep getting "better".

So perhaps instead, there is a kind of joy that isn't built on change, but on somehow appreciating and en-joy-ing the things that you already have. Even when things change undesirably, perhaps that kind of joy might somehow learn to see that as an acceptable part of the roller-coaster ride of life. Perhaps one can actually be joyful in the midst of undesirable events. Perhaps joy is a skill that you can learn to have whenever and wherever you are.

Perhaps I have tasted a little bit of this joy... like those fleeting moments that seem significant but are over before you have a chance to understand why, or those times where you see something little that makes you smile for a second but you don't know why. But I would like to discover something beyond the happiness that our culture ascribes to getting good things. I want to find the sort of joy that never gets drowned out by the drone of traffic, the wet squish of rain in my shoes on a cold winter's day, and the music from my iPod.

Assuming we're "in"

2007-01-28T08:44:00.000+13:00

It's amazing how many people who call themselves "Christian" assume that they are following Jesus in the same way as the apostolic church and that they can be included in that group. People can read Paul's letter, for example, where he refers to the apostolic church with words like "you" (plural), "we" and "us" and assume that they are automatically included in those groups where it suits.

Let me explain using two brief and arbitrary examples:

Rom 5:1: Then being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Rom 8:16-17 The Spirit Himself witnesses with our spirit that we are children of God. And if children, also heirs; truly heirs of God, and joint-heirs of Christ, if indeed we suffer together, that we may also be glorified together.

I have heard Christians simply assume that they are part of the "us" group being discussed in verses like these, and I think I've worked out why. Whatever they think it is that makes them "Christians" (often something like believing, trusting and accepting Jesus and his atoning death for our sins), they assume the apostolic church had the same view. They assume that the group of Jesus-followers Paul means by "we" and "us" and "our" was also defined by similar beliefs or behaviors - even if it wasn't. So they think they really are part of the same "us" group - even if they aren't. And so they think statements that applied to the early Jesus-groups also apply to them - even if they don't.

As a result, I have observed Christians often experience a kind of dissonance, a tension in their minds. They read and earnestly feel certain things apply to them, and yet they don't always seem to experience these things in their real lives. Their beliefs and observations don't line up. Yet often, Christians seem to deal with this by saying "well it must be true because it's in the bible, so I'll just believe it" rather than considering whether or not they are included in the group referred to. They muster up "faith" to believe what doesn't seem to be true rather than face the frightening thought that they might not be in the "us" group. "Faith" becomes the rug under which reality is swept.

I think a large number of Christians are blinded by such "faith". Instead of realising that they really aren't authentically experiencing the sort of life Jesus was on about, they remain stagnant and unaware that they're missing out. They think they're experiencing authentic Christianity and so they don't search to discover it and truly experience it. This, I think, is sad.

Did Jesus NEED to die on the cross?

2007-01-18T21:22:00.000+13:00

There is a tacit assumption made by many Christians that Jesus had to die on the cross. This kind of death was needed - no one even questions the idea even though the gospels never say that.

The need for Christ's death on the cross is not questioned because it is indeed necessary if penal substitution and the surrounding doctrines are true. I do not believe this theory is taught by the New Testament. Once we look beyond this theory, though, we can notice the obvious - Jesus died as a martyr. He was put to death by authorities who did not like his teachings and actions. Jesus taught a message of social and cultural revolution. He gathered a following to further this revolution so that people could enjoy the benefits of experiencing this new kind of life that he called being in the "Kingdom of Heaven". Jesus brought people into the Kingdom of Heaven, and that is why he was killed.

The cross, then, is naturally a symbol of Jesus' life and message. A powerful symbol, but a symbol nonetheless. The apostle Paul referred to the cross in this way to encapsulate Jesus and his message. For early followers of Jesus it would have been obvious to Christians that his death was not significant because of some atonement theory only voiced centuries after Jesus. Rather, the cross is significant because of his life and teachings. Likewise, his resurrection is important because of both his life and his crucification.

Christians don't like this idea because it means that the cross was not needed to fulfill the Great Spiritual act of Atonement through penal substitution. They might think that this makes the cross meaningless. But they would be missing the message encapsulated and symbolized by the cross.

Jesus used the cross as a symbol of what it meant to follow him:

If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and let him bear his cross, and let him follow Me. (Mat 16:24)

Go, sell what things you have, and give to the poor. And you will have treasure in Heaven. And come, follow Me, taking up the cross. (Mar 10:21b)

Whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me, he cannot be My disciple. (Luk 14:27)

St. Paul used a mixture of analogies and symbolism to discuss Jesus and his message. He too used the cross to symbolise the Way of life Jesus lived and encouraged:

Be fellow-imitators of me, brothers, and consider those walking this way, even as you have us for a pattern. For many walk as hostile to the cross of Christ... (Php 3:17-18a)

Jesus often opposed the Torah as it was being practiced, and Paul appears to have followed Jesus' teachings. Those faithful to Jesus' teachings were thus often persecuted by Jews who wanted to enforce Torah (such as the Pharisees) because they saw the "offense of the Cross" (Gal 5:11). Paul refers to their persecution by saying they are "persecuted for the cross of Christ" (Gal 6:12). Then he says that he does not boast in the Torah, but in the "cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Gal 6:14) in which circumcision makes no difference (verse 15).

In Ephesians he describes how the message of Jesus overcomes cultural and social barriers, thus uniting people in a new way within the culture of the "Kingdom of God". Specifically he refers to it breaking down the division between Jews and Gentiles that comes from the radical new values Jesus taught. Paul uses powerful, emotive symbols of both the cross and Jesus' blood (which also carries connotations of kinship) to encapsulate the message of Jesus. Perhaps he is referring also or instead to the fact that without Christ's martyrdom and subsequent resurrection Christianity probably wouldn't have got started. Listen to what (I think) Paul writes:

But now, in Christ Jesus you [Gentiles] who then were afar off, came to be near [to us Jews] by the blood of Christ. For He is our peace, He making us both one, and breaking down the middle wall of partition, in His flesh causing to cease the enmity [created by the commandments of the Torah], that He might make these two groups united into one new man - his "body", making peace, and that He might reconcile both in one body to God through the cross, slaying the enmity [within His body]. (Eph 2:13-16*, see also Col 1:20)

But Paul doesn't refer to the cross in only this way. He uses it's significance in many ways to make many different points. For example, like the Gospel and other New Testament writers, notes the shame of his death on a cross (Php 2:8). In another passage, Paul uses the imagery of a list of things against us being nailed to the cross (Col 2:14). Paul's point when referring to the cross is not always the same. Combined with penal substitution, Paul's use of many different images and metaphors can make it hard to recognize that the cross found its significance because of Jesus' life and teachings.

In summary, the question "Why did Jesus need to die on the cross?" is based in a number of presupposed theological ideas that don't help us understand why he did die on the cross, and what his death came to symbolize for his followers. His death is significant because of his life. And while there was no "need" for him to die on the cross, without his crucifixion and resurrection, his following would have probably died instead. Without the cross, we might not even know who Jesus was. But that doesn't mean the cross was needed for some Great Spiritual Act of Atonement, nor is it what the cross means. The cross represents what Jesus lived, taught, and was ultimately killed for.

NOTES:

* In quoting Eph 2:13-16 I have intentionally changed the phrases "in Himself" to reflect that I think this phrase refers to people who are "in Christ" - and thereby in his group, his disciples, his "body".

"Christian" vs "Christ follower" Mac/PC ad parady video

2007-01-18T21:20:00.000+13:00

I think this short video parodying the Mac/PC ad series captures some truth. Check it out.

Optimism

2007-01-12T13:30:00.000+13:00

I've decided to try to be more optimistic, because I think it's actually a lot more enjoyable than being pessimistic.

Some people think life is mostly bad. Others, mostly good. I think, philosophically, life is neutral. It's not good or bad, it just happens and it is what it is. The events of our lives have no ethical, moral, or emotional significance in and of themselves - we give them significance through our beliefs about them. It is our beliefs about situations that make them "good" or "bad" (and this is a good thing, otherwise life would be pointless).

So then by being careful what we think about situations, we can actually see them as being more "good" and less "bad". Let me explain more, borrowing a useful insight about our reactions to the events of life that I found on Lieslnet.com, an interesting site:

Dr Albert Ellis, prominent psychology researcher developed the ABC model to explain our reaction to adversity.
A is the adversity.
B is our belief about the adversity and
C is the consequence of our belief.
Our reaction to adversity is not so much a result of the adversity but a result of our belief about the adversity.

Interesting. There are a series of articles on the site discussing this and what makes us optimistic or pessimistic here, here, and here.

So perhaps our overall philosophy isn't what makes us optimistic or pessimistic, but rather it is the sum of each thought we have in response to each situation. Our habits of thought become "bedded in", and become quite hard to change. The trick, I think, is understanding what our habits of thought are and finding other ways to think about situations.

It's not a magical "3 steps to a happy life". Life doesn't work that way. But I think it's possible to see more good in life so that we can deal better with the bad, and I intend to try.

Carpe diem

2007-01-10T20:27:00.000+13:00

Quintus Horatius Flaccus, the great Roman poet at the turn of the first century, wrote:

Even as we speak, envious time is running away from us. Seize the day, and trust as little as possible in the future. (Odes 1.11)

"Carpe diem", he wrote in latin. "Seize the day". I never used to understand, but now I realise that life does indeed pass us by if we let it. It's the default option. We have at least some power to make life fulfilling, enjoyable, and rich both for us and for others, and I have resolved to not just let life go by. I want to grab it by the horns, and not just wish my life would look a different way. There are still things I can't control, but I think I will feel much happier if I am at least doing what I can.

The idea is not to manage to increase the quantity of my life, but increase the quality of it. By paying attention, I hope it's possible to refine what I'm doing with my time. Weed out the things that are not really worth spending time on, and instead intentially planting things that are worthwhile. It's like making the most with the garden you have, rather than getting a bigger one to make a mess of.

The concept extends to my hopes and dreams for what I want to do with my life. I need to get a few goals and figure out what I want to put my energy into. Then, I need to actually start doing something toward those goals. It's a bit like chores that don't really need to be done. It's so easy to think, someday soon I'll do this or that. But "someday" never comes unless we make it come.

Too often, I think we seem to rely on life just "happening" to us, hoping that it will happen well as if by chance. I don't think it does. Living life to the fullest doesn't happen by chance. I need to recognise my life is my own, and start owning my life. Little things first. Walk before running. Master managing a few minutes of my day before trying to master the remaining years of my life. It's a simple concept really. I'm surprised it's taken me so many years to grasp it.

I would challenge you to not just sit there as consumers of life, hoping that other people will make you feel fulfilled, make you happy, make you feel like someone you'd look up to. Life isn't a product we can buy, it's an art that we do. Life is not a spectator sport. So get some vision. See some worthwhile, challenging but great things to do - not for yourself but for other people. Take initiative. Involve yourself and other people. Work out what you're going to do differently. Show people you do care, because a fulfilling life doesn't come from only caring about ourselves. Love beyond yourself.

These are the thoughts that have been challenging and changing me, all bundled up into two words:

Carpe diem.

Live now.

On people lost in forests...

2006-12-27T12:39:00.000+13:00

Picture this. A man is lost in a dense forest. He's been lost for a few days. Hungry. Cold. Tired and wet. He's in trouble.

Fortunately, one of his best friends realises he hasn't returned as expected and goes looking for him, calling out every few seconds. Just after midday on the second day he's been searching for him, he hears his friend.

"Geoff, is that you?!"

"Sure is mate!" Geoff says as he catches a glimpse of his lost friend, Jamie, through the trees.

"Thank God you found me!" The two exhange a warm brotherly hug and sit down, and Geoff gives his friend some warm dry clothes, a few energy bars and a drink.

After a few minutes, Geoff sees that Jamie's got plenty of energy left to walk back out. He gets up and motions Jamie to follow him. "Let's get going. I've got a GPS and a map, so I can lead you out. We're having a party at my place - they'll be a spit roast, BBQ, plenty of drinks - it'll be great. We'll be able to make it there before dinner if we leave now."

But instead, Jamie makes himself comfortable where he's seated. "No, it's hard walking through the forest and it's so great to have you with me here, so I'd rather just stay and talk with you. All I need is to have you here with me."

Of course, you'll probably think that Jamie is being a bit silly, and this response seems very unlikely. Yet I think it reflects a little of what Christians sometimes do. They sometimes make having a "personal relationship with God" so all-important that forget about following Jesus. The forest represents behaviour and character attributes that are harmful to us - "sin", to use some Christian jargon. The party outside the forest represents the righteous way of life that Jesus showed people to live. The point of the story is that Jesus wanted to free us from sin into righteousness in a real, tangible way. God loves us too much to not mind if we continue to hurt ourselves and others with wrong thoughts, words and behaviour.

Perhaps it doesn't occur to some Christians that there is in fact a righteous way of life that is (at least comparatively) free of sin. They can't see the proverbial wood from the trees and think "it's all forest" out there, so there's no use in trying to escape sin because we can't. But Jesus' message was good news precisely because he showed them a way to be free from the hurt of sin - his message is that there really is a place outside of the forest and he can show us the way.

But being freed means we need to actually follow him, just like in the story above. Jesus wanted to help us learn the art of living so that we could truly enjoy a fulfilling life and help others do the same. That means we have to take some responsibility to take some action. Yes, Jesus said it comes at a price. He said it would be difficult sometimes. But he also said it would be worth it, and I am finding that it is.

So, the moral of the story is that Jesus came to show us "The Way" to live, not to just give us "The Personal Relationship" to have. When he said "follow me", I think he meant it.

People are a mixture of good and bad

2006-12-17T22:00:00.000+13:00

A quick thought... Christians often take a very black and white view of people - completely perfect OR "sinner". I think this often leads to people not noticing all the good in people, even those who don't call themselves "Christians". I see people as not all bad, but a mixture of good and bad.

It's tempting for Christians to think that the good in people is "tainted" by their bad. And this is true in one sense, but adding mud to pure water. But also think we can see true goodness in people despite their other bad character traits. I like to think of the good parts of people's characters as being like nuggets of gold, treasure in the midst of more mundane clay and hard stone. Stones represent bad aspects of character. Clay, though, has potential to be shaped, and I think it can eventually turn into either stone or gold (just go with the analogy here, don't think too hard about the chemistry of that). In other words, as people grow older they create more stone or gold in their hearts - more self-centredness or kindness, more bitterness or joyfulness, more short-temperedness or graciousness...

And the scary and beautiful thing is that I think other people can have a huge affect on what sort of character traits develop in people. Scary because people often promote bad character traits in people, but beautiful when we encourage each other on toward goodness.

So, my thought was simple - see the good in other people and encourage that good in them. Praise them for it, rather than picking on their flaws. Because I think that's a great way to actually help the good in other people grow and at the same time make them feel less gloomy.

PS: If you read this, how about leaving a comment? I like comments =)

The challenge of what my life is about

2006-12-17T14:37:00.000+13:00

My life has typically been about me. It's so easy to put myself first. Not only first, but way before other people in terms of priority, focus, and energy. I think I tend to do this because I think I need to put priority on me for my life to be the wonderful personal utopia that our Western culture tells me I should have. But lately I've started seeing that this selfish focus is not what makes our lives full, but what strips them of the very things we want.

It's the sort of silly-sounding idea that Jesus spoke of, that those who "find their lives will lose them, but those who lose their lives for his sake will find them." (Although I suspect this verse is based more in a martyrdom theology than in social psychological theory, and more about being willing to die to Jesus' and his cause than what I'm using it for, but I'll say it anyway.) My point is this, that by giving some other people equal (or greater) priority as ourselves our own lives become far richer, "bigger" and more complete than if we are selfish. Our world isn't a one-person world that revolves around ourselves, but instead is filled with other people we love.

It has been an ongoing challenge for me to actually be less self-centred. I often speak warmly of the concept and idealise it, but my life doesn't change. And I think I've worked out why: I'm too afraid I'll somehow come out worse off, I am not sure I'm willing to take the risk of really loving other people like this. I mean, if I let go of myself - maybe I really will lose myself. It's hard enough having my own life to worry about, let alone expanding my heart to include more people.

And I'm still figuring out how to really put this idea into practice. But I think I've stumbled on a helpful concept. I've realised that I have been trying to my my life special. My hopes, dreams, and aspirations have all been centred around trying to make my experience of life good. But what if I instead made my aspirations, dreams, and goals about making the lives of those I love good and special? What if my life's work was not about me, but about giving joy, friendship, love and life to others? What if my life was not so much about me, but instead about other people?

This idea sounds both appealing and frightening to me. It sounds noble and wonderful and honourable and good; and scary and risky and difficult and difficult and difficult... I know it's easier said than done. I know I need people who have mastered some of this art of real love more than I have to show me how it's done. And I'm excited and a little afraid of the prospect of slowly, painfully slowly, learning this art myself - but I think I'll be glad I did, so I hope I'm bold enough to try.

Becoming gods

2006-12-14T20:45:00.000+13:00

I chose that title purely to get your attention, but it is relevant... as you'll see. Irenaeus wrote:

"we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods...." [Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4:38:4, in ANF 1:522.]

What I'm about to say might not have been Irenaeus' point, but I'll say it because I think it's true anyway...

These days, I think we don't appreciate spiritual growth nearly as much as we could, or perhaps should. There are many ways in which Christianity is significant for people.

It can be something that meets my needs. It becomes for me. I am hurt, I am fearful, I feel sinful and bad and I find acceptance and love from God. This can be true and important and good.

It can be about what I do for others. Something from me. I help others, I show compassion, I give my time and energy and friendship and love for the sake of those around me. This also can be true and important and good.

But I have recently been thinking that Christianity is also about who I am. Something in me. It's about my very person, my thoughts, my emotions, my heart - and all those things about who I am that I just can't express.

I think this because I see many people (Christians and others, and myself at times) whose hearts are small, timid, and weak. We live in a generation of lonely people. People who are not satesfied and not able to understand why. People who can hardly handle being alive and scarcely manage being in love. People think it's acceptable that they can be this way, because they have love and acceptance and care from God, and with luck other people. And it is acceptable...

But we could be so much more than small, timid, weak spiritual infants. And I think God wants us to be more, to be more mature, because it's better. I think he wants us to help us become people with hearts that are big, bold and strong. Not always remaining as children - with childish minds and feelings and problems - but becoming fathers and mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers... The wise old men and women we look up to because they are people who have learned to be people well.

This ties in with my previous post about salvation. I don't think God wants to save us so that we can merely be forgiven of our shortcomings and not feel so bad about our faults. He surely doesn't want to leave us as we are - children. He wants us to grow. You could even say he's saved us from the death of not growing into life... because to live is to grow. He wants us to transform us, to teach us the art of living. The skill, the discipline, the art, and the beauty of being people who are people well, people who are truly alive. He wants to give us the wonderful pleasure of becoming persons with hearts that aren't immature, but have become and continue to become like God's heart. Because I think it is wonderful that in this way we should become, so to speak, little "gods".

I want to be one.

Salvation and grace

2006-12-11T18:28:00.000+13:00

Someone recently told me that "salvation is not by works but that 'it is by grace we are saved'", and they couldn't see how I can reconcile Final Judment based on our character and behaviour (which I believe) and salvation by grace (which I also believe). Let me have a go at explaining this now...

There are two ideas here: 1) Salvation 2) Grace.

1) Salvation

Evangelicals have made this word refer to "being saved from hell". In biblical usage "saved" had a more general, this-worldly meaning. Israel was saved from captivity, for example. When the NT talks about salvation, it is a really big assumption to say it's talking about salvation from hell (especially seeing as I doubt they even had the modern concept of hell, which I think was a Persian/Greek idea).

It seems clear that in the context of many verses, the NT writers mean that God has saved us not from hell, but from the harm of sin: sickness, oppression, immorality, and even death (think of some people Jesus healed, for example).

Furthermore, the early Christians kept the Jewish tradition that final judgment was in fact based on our character and behavior (I'm not going to prove this here). In Jesus, they saw that God had shown them how to be and live in such a way that was favourable to God. In other words, they believed that Jesus had shown them that if they follow his way of life, they would receive a favourable final judgment.

2) Grace

And here is where grace comes in. You see, they had a problem. Not only did they not know how to live in a way that pleased God, but they needed help to change. In Jesus, they saw God as graciously coming and helping them while they were still sinners - to help them become righteous, to free them from sin and show them give them a new way of life. He didn't have to help them. They didn't deserve his help, but he helped them anyway. Because of all this and their new way of life, they could be sure that he had indeed forgiven their sins. God not only forgave them, but he freed them from sin. God was graceful in an active, helpful way... not simply a passive "I've not send you to hell" way.

This concept of grace becomes even more powerful when we realize that it is exactly this kind of grace that Jesus taught us to display to others. Just as Jesus showed grace to free sinners from sin, we are to show grace to free more sinners. We are to carry on his work, his mission and ministry to further his vision - the Kingdom of God. So it is not merely God who shows grace, but it should be followers of Jesus also. The kind of grace is exactly the same.

The conclusion...

In these ways, I can affirm the biblical concept of judgment based on our character and behaviour (not mental belief that Jesus took away our sin on the cross) and I can also affirm the passages that speak of being saved by grace. We are saved the grace of both God and his human agents in the world from sin (ours and others') into a righteous way of life, and this is here, now, in the present. As a result, we become righteous. God wants heaven to be for righteous people - and that’s what we become because God has graciously led us to that way of life. We can now stand in God's GRACE (i.e. favour) because he has helped us to be people who do actually please him (the NT authors used grace both in the sense of "a favour" and also in the sense of being "in someone's favour").

Let me mention that we don't "earn salvation" by being righteous. Rather, God saves from our unrighteousness so that we may be righteous. Nor do we "earn access into heaven" by being righteous, because God helped us to be righteous in the first place. And being righteous doesn't even make us deserve to go to heaven, or force God to let us in - it still depends on his grace.

Let me give an analogy (which, like all analogies, shouldn't be taken too far):

Imagine only surfers will get into heaven. God's decided that heaven is just for surfers. You don't know how to surf. Tragic, you're doomed. But God is graceful toward you - he comes and shows you how to surf. Then, having then been taught how to surf and saved from not being able to surf, you can get into heaven. But you also can also surf before you die, and teach others how to have fun by surfing. And what if this was the whole point? That surfing is the ultimate thing to spend you time doing, that it was what God made us for.

Here's the parallel. Surfing is analogous to living in a righteous way, the way that is ultimately best for us, and for this reason it is the same way of living that God is pleased with.

So we are still "saved from hell" by grace, if you want to say that... it just works in a different way to the evangelical gospel. In my opinion, this is how the NT writers understood things and is a far more consistent view. It is also consistent with modern scholarship and historio-social investigations of recent years.

The difference between Christianity and religion

2006-11-29T19:21:00.000+13:00

I venture that the last thing Jesus wanted to do was to start a new religion. Further, I suggest that Christianity has in fact become a religion, whether Christians choose to admit it or not. This leads me to conclude that on the whole, Christianity is missing Jesus' message.

Let me explain. Jesus was a revolutionary. Jesus wanted to right our relationships not only with God, but with others. His vision was the Kingdom of God, a radical new culture and society in which people experienced and enjoyed life as God had intented. This would be a life of freedom, love, compassion, kinship and kindness. It would free people from thinking about things wrongly, and from treating each other wrongly as a result. Jesus called people to follow his vision and believe in it, live for it, suffer for it, and even to die for it. And why? Because it is the only way the world will ever be free from the hurt of people's wrong thinking and wrong behaviour, and it is the only way we will ever experience such a world. Continue to live in this way, even into the new life after death promised to those who live in this way. This was the message of Jesus.

There was nothing particularly religious about his message. To the contrary, Jesus opposed the religious systems and thinking of the day. He opposed it because it missed the point of loving others, and even loving God. Jesus know God doesn't want people to concentrate on rituals, rules and propostional theories, but on loving others in a way that fits those called "children of God". Jesus didn't want to put in place more rituals and rules, but bring a whole new way of life that is built on the principle of love for other people.

What can we see of Christianity today? Thankfully, there are many followers of Jesus who have remained true to his message, and live according to it by loving others. Surely, these Christians deserve great commendation, because they increasingly seem to be a minority. It seems that more commonly, Christians have made Christianity a religion based on rules, rituals, and propositions.

Surely not! I hear you say. We are not saved by following rules! We only need to:
1) Accept that we are sinful and need Jesus to save us from hell
2) Believe and trust that Jesus paid the price for our sin on the cross so that God would give us access to heaven
3) Recieve the free gift of salvation.
4) Show our gratitude to him by praising and worshiping him.

And surely rituals aren't part of Christianity today? We merely go to church, sit in the pew, sing songs repeditively, close our eyes, lift our hands and mouth "Jesussss" quietly. We make our Christian network feel completely foriegn and religious to those outside Christian circles by the sort of language we use and the things we talk about - but that's not a sign of any rituals, is it? The secular world, who have not grown accustomed to our rituals, often see Christianity as being full of rituals.

These two things may not be the worst, for modern Christianity has born a whole new kind of religion - a religion based on propositions, doctrines, and beliefs. Of course, these things are necessary foundations for living in the way of the Kingdom of God - we need to see things more like Jesus did, think more like he did, and believe things more like he did. But these ideas are not the goal. They are not the message. They are not loving God and loving others.

Modern Christianity has made ideas, doctrines, beliefs and propositions more important than the practice of following the way of life Jesus urged us to follow. It has become so focussed on the glamourous, exotic, and esteemed "beliefs" that Jesus' down-to-earth, every-day, flesh-and-blood message has often been left aside. This is why I call modern Christianity a religion, because it has forgotten its cause and instead filled its vision with philosophies - as if philosophies were the point of the gospel.

Let me venture something even further - that propositional ideas, theories, doctrines and beliefs matter only in the extent that they affect how we love God and love others. Now I see many people who put Christians to shame in how they live, for they follow Jesus' message more faithfully than many Christians. Does it matter that they do not share the "Christian" doctrines of propitiation, soteriology, escatology, trinity and grace, when they have understood Jesus' message better than many Christians who believe these ideas? Far too many of the perspectives, ideas and doctrines in Christianity today bear no correlation to how we live - I dare say some even promote the very opposite of what Jesus wanted. These ideas don't matter because they aren't part of Jesus' message to love God and love others.

It is little wonder, then, that so few people in the world outside of Christianity are inclined to "convert" to Christianity these days - to attend our religious services and believe our religious ideas. They see it for what it is, religion, and people today want more than religion. But I wonder what would happen if Christianity regained the original focus that Jesus had, and began again to live as Jesus lived and love and Jesus loved. If Christianity returned to the simple, non-religious message to love that Jesus taught, perhaps it would be something worth other people believing in once again. I hope so, because it has made all the difference to me.

Ambiguity of Christian language and the science of faith

2006-11-14T07:50:00.000+13:00

I’ve noticed recently that many people don’t explain what they mean very clearly. This lack of clarity is rampant in Christianity. Here, analogy and metaphor seem to dominate conversations and doctrine.

For example, I hear people often talk of “God working in us” or doing things “in God’s strength” – but very few people ever actually try to spell out what these actually mean. These “loaded” phrases encapsulate much more than the simple English interpretation (which often doesn’t make sense). Even single words become “loaded” with meaning that is sometimes quite different to the normal English usage. For example, I heard “grace” used to mean things like “favour”, “blessing”, “forgiveness” and “tolerance” – all in one Sunday morning service yesterday. These are only two of the endless examples.

For some reason, Christians don’t use language that is particularly clear. Now it’s fine if the people someone talks to share the same idea of all the words and phrases – but what if they don’t? I think this happens often, and people don’t realised that their using the words and phrases to mean slightly (or significantly) different things. This opens up room for misunderstandings (especially with people unfamiliar with the terms). More commonly, though, I find that when pressed to describe some of the loaded terms clearly, Christians either use other loaded terms or simply say “it’s a mystery.”

It is this last response that troubles me. Most Christians these days have no problem with the idea that they don’t clearly understand their Christian faith and how it “works”. It’s “beyond our ability to understand”. It’s “the unfathomable depth of the gospel”. We “don’t need to understand it, just believe it”.

But if you don’t understand what you believe, then you don’t really know what you believe. If you can’t explain it clearly using normal English language, then you don’t really know what your faith really is. And this is exactly what we see – Christianity is terribly confused by the dozens of different groups who all use loaded terms differently. Many Christians think Christianity obviously doesn’t need to be clearly understood because Christians obviously don’t clearly understand it.

I think Christianity can be understood and explained in clear and non-jargon language. And I think it should be. We can apply clear language in the sciences, mathematics, law, and countless other professions – why not speak clearly about our Christianity?

Yes, why not? Here’s why - because I’ve found that sometimes Christians don’t actually like the clearly stated versions of their beliefs. They find it necessary to be deliberately vague and endlessly caveat their beliefs, lest they actually say something definite. So, for example, when talking about “grace” they may say things like “We are so sinful and yet God graciously overlooks what we do”, but then need to caveat that with “but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to imitate Jesus”. Then they need to caveat that with “but we shouldn’t strive, we should let God work in us to change us into his likeness”. Then caveat that with, “but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.” Then, noting that “trying” is a lot like “striving”, they might add, “but it should be because we love God for saving us, and not to try to please him so he gives us eternal life” and “plus, all our good works count for nothing anyway.” Then, noting that that makes imitating Jesus seem useless, they might say, “It’s lucky God is the one working in us then, isn’t it? We just have to be open to him.” Then, noticing their lack of Christ-like-ness, they cheerfully respond “Isn’t it so good that God is in control, so it’s all working together for good anyway!” and perhaps link back to their first idea about “grace”.

I’ve seen conversations like this many times. I think Christians aren’t clear about their beliefs for two reasons: 1) they don’t understand them clearly 2) if they did they wouldn’t actually agree with half of the ideas they believe. It is this second one that I’ve found by simply trying to restate what other Christians say clearly back to them, to clarify what their saying. They say something, I clarify it, and then they disagree with it. It’s fascinating and sad all at the same time.

I’ve learned that many Christians don’t like my scientific, engineering approach to Christianity. I like to pin ideas down, lay them out clearly, and see and understand how they work. The Christian faith to me is a bit like learning to play the piano, a skill that you learn through practice that ultimately changes how you do things. I like to figure it out. Many Christians don’t share my view, though. Many Christians seem to approach Christianity like a piece of modern art. They look at it and think, “wow”, and that is enough for them. They don’t feel the need to clarify and explain the mechanics of Christianity because they don’t think Christianity works that way – they don’t see it as being a way of life. Instead, they see it as something added to their lives that benefits them. They think that by trying to figure it out and learn the “skill” of Christianity, I’ve missed the point because Christianity isn’t supposed to be “figured out” but simply “accepted” (this is modern “faith”, of course).

So, is Christianity more like a piece of art or something that you don’t need to understand, or more like a skill that is learned and understood and developed? If people view it as the former, there is no problem with vague descriptions of it that are open to interpretation. But if it is like the latter, then unless we are clear about it then people won’t be very skilful at living as followers of Jesus. Is Christianity something you need to understand to live by, or something you can accept “by faith” without understanding? Should Christianity be clear? Should it make sense?

If Jesus went to church today...

2006-10-29T18:10:00.000+13:00

Today I wondered what Jesus might think if he visited a typical church these days. He might go to a typical evangelical church like I did today and see people passionately singing "You alone are worthy of praise". The next song might be one called "Father, Spirit, Son", and be all about how wonderful Jesus is. The next song might be about giving glory and praise to God, and how wonderful God is. They might sing a song asking God to bless them with his care or provision, or to help them out with their problems.

I'm sure he'd be impressed with the lights, the awesome sound and the skillful musicianship. I'm sure he'd be flattered that they praise him so very much in their songs. And no doubt he would lift his hands, close his eyes, and feel very spiritual while people around him whisper "Jesussss"...

But he would feel like a stranger.

I think Jesus would probably feel more comfortable visiting people in hospitals or city missions. Maybe he'd go and talk with the prostitutes and the drug addicts late at night. Perhaps he'd even set up an Alcoholic's Anonymous group or a safe house for victims of abuse. Or go and look after people who aren't able to look after themselves. Or perhaps he'd find a disadvantaged few school kids who are really struggling to help out. He'd hang out with the people who wouldn't like church, wouldn't feel welcome there, and probably wouldn't BE very welcomed there.

And you know what, I think he'd find that doing those sort of things was far closer to what he had in mind for preaching the Kingdom of God than sitting in a pew listening to religious singing about how wonderful he is and being told about the three keys to experiencing more of God. If he went to church, he'd see the wonderful lights, see the raised hands, and hear the singing and the whisperings of "Jesusssss..." - and perhaps at the same time he'd think of the guy sitting in the back corner that looks like he hasn't had much of a family or friendship. Maybe he'd think of the woman he saw in the supermarket who looked utterly downcast. He might think of the guy who sleeps under the tree in Hagley park most nights...

Maybe he'd even get a chance to preach. What, I wonder, would he say?

Here world, have confusion...

2006-06-11T22:12:00.000+12:00

I felt I should break the silence of my blog with something. Sadly I cannot be bothered writing much, but I just wrote an interesting poem to distill my thoughts at the moment...

___

Stupidly I think,
Giving further food to silly thoughts that plague me
And drain me,
To become like a cake that forgets to rise.
I’ve made them a few times.

Every day these thoughts return,
Accost my mind and turn my eyes
To see things that aren’t there.
Disappointed when I compare
All this with wishful thinking.

Yet in these dreams
My heart sets sail
To catch the wind of what could be,
Pulling me to places
I wouldn’t dare normally.

Enjoy the ride.
Enjoy the scenes.
Enjoy the sound of
My heart beat
On the verge of something different.
Why can’t I stop and listen?

But if I can’t still
These currents beneath
I need not fight their tow,
For if I float on stormy dreams
That take me past new futures seen
Then maybe I will find some peace
Despite not knowing where they lead
And despite stupidity.

Same-ness

2006-01-26T19:46:00.000+13:00

Let me break the silence of my blog with something different - sameness...

Today, I hit snooze. Same as usual.

I got up and biked to work the same way I always do. My front gear changer was the same – broken. I parked in the same inadequate bike rack. Wore the same shoes. Sat at the same desk doing the same tedious work. And talked to the same people about the same things. The problem with the photocopier was fixed, but won’t be long before the same thing happens again. At least I didn’t need to worry about all my work, it was the same. Looked outside to see the same view through the same little windows while uncomfortably hot because the same feeble air conditioner was running just the same – pathetically. So pathetically that it would make you angry, if you were in the same position.

My work mate speaks Russian on the telephone, but to me it all sounds the same. So, I biked home through the park, noticed the same ducks. My insurance bill had arrived, but I didn’t need to worry about it either – it was the same as last year’s.

So now I sit here at the same computer wearing the same glasses with the same hair-style as usual, looking at my cactus plant that looks just the same even though I’m told it’s growing. My table is the same. My CDs are the same. My room, my car, my interests, what I do with my time, my friends… I – am the same.

In fact, there’s really only one thing that is out of the ordinary – I’ve realised how much things are the same! Of course, that got me thinking how much things are different… like the fact that today I cleaned a BBQ that wasn’t even mine. And today there were an unusually large number of ducks swimming in Hagley Park pond.

So how much of life is the same, and how much is different? Is there a certain ratio that’s good?

I think it’s easy to notice the different things that happen to us, and imagine that they make life varied and interesting. But they don’t. We expect new and different situations to arise – the unexpected is the same. I don’t often think of my reactions and the things I choose to do, and how much they are the same. Yet, I think they are far more important.

Getting into a mental rut is boring, because it fills my life with sameness… day after day. It’s not that the world not exciting and dynamic and full of exciting adventures just waiting to be enjoyed, it’s that I’m the same. I choose to be the same, act the same, think the same.

Why don’t I do something different? Why not add a deliberate non-sameness to my life, and choose to do something unusual each day? I suppose sameness is comforting. It doesn’t require us to learn anything new, or experience anything different… sameness affords us certainty of the future. It’s like animals that are raised in captivity when they are released into the wild and are too afraid of new things to be free. That is what sameness does to people.

After all, we are free. So why imprison myself in the chains of sameness, all the time wishing that my life could be different. Not much different, I think – but just not the same. Cause that’s the other thing about sameness, it doesn’t give us a chance to grow. Living the same is like a great deciduous oak tree that has dried up and died – it just sits there, the same. But if the same oak is alive, it goes through the splendid changes of the seasons. In spring the leaves burst out and change its colour, which turns brilliant orange in autumn and makes fun piles of leaves to play in.

If a tree can know how to escape sameness, maybe I can too.

Who I used to be

2005-08-27T09:53:00.000+12:00

I like who I used to be. As a child, I had so much fun and was a lovely kid. In my teenage years I had my troubles, but it was a great learning time. When I was 20, though, I had it all together.

My world was full of ideals. Everything could be solved easily so long as I thought about it hard enough and applied logical ideas. Nothing was a problem, only a challenge to be conquered victoriously. The few problems in my life seemed quite small compared to the general feeling of “life is good” that I had.

I was the ruler of my world at 20. I had grown up and conquered the world. Academically, I had won. Friends, I had been lucky enough to get. Free time was easy to come by easy to enjoy. I could be who I wanted to be, and nothing was standing in the way. Little was I troubled by the world outside the one I wanted to see.

In the last three years, almost all of that has changed. I have grown up a great deal, and realised I wish I could be 20 again. It was easier then. It was fun then.

What happened? I suppose I learned my ideals just didn’t line up with the real world. Problems came that I realised I couldn’t solve, and I didn’t even know where to begin. My free time, my hobbies, many of my friends, my technical competence, my care-free and untroubled thoughts – all seemed lost.

It was like I had been travelling across some great land on a great adventure, and I had learned all about how to travel well. I knew what I needed to. I had the right gear. I was fit and experienced at crossing the plains, mountains, valleys, wilderness, and highways. Then suddenly the land ended, like cartoon Coyote chasing after Roadrunner and suddenly running off a cliff. There’s that moment when he’s hovering in the air and looks down to the chasm beneath him with a comical look of horror. Then, he falls down the absurdly deep canyon while accompanied by an equally comical whistling sound and lands unharmed in a puff of dust.

But when I fell, I didn’t hit land. I found myself suddenly learning to swim in a raging ocean. None of my previous experience had prepared me for it or helped me deal with it. I was a complete novice. In many ways I still feel that way.

I wish I could recapture some of the things I loved about being 20. Perhaps my happiness then stemmed from my naivety, so maybe I can never get that sort of happiness back. There must be a kind of happiness living in the real world, though, when we learn to somehow ride the churning chaos and tide of life beneath us.

But where is that happiness? Where do you look for happiness when you realise the happiness you were chasing was just a mirage?

Oh, I know all the “right” answers… the ones that come from idealised views of life and people. But the real world isn’t like that. The real world isn’t “right”. And somehow I think finding happiness is like a skill that you cannot simply “know” because it must be learned. There are no answers, only problems. It’s like learning to ride a bike.

I need to learn. I need to learn to find happiness amidst the trouble, and peace among the turmoil. Find love through pain. Find contentment that does not come from competence or tranquillity, but the contentment that comes from simply surviving through life’s thunderstorms and hurricanes. I must find enjoyment despite my cynicism. Hope despite my broken dreams. I must no longer compare my life with an unrealistic ideal, and instead look at how far I have come.

When I was young, I thought flying to the moon would be nice. Now, just seeing the moon is nice.

I would go outside at midnight and wonder the mysteries of the stars. Now, I go to bed and sleep.

I had visions of being the leader of great world-changing company. Now, it’s hard enough just having a job.

I dreamt of a life without problems, but now I realise it’s those problems that really make life what it is. So, now I wish I could better deal with the problems I have.

It all seems to be far more glum than when I was younger. But, I don’t think I’ve changed – I think I’ve just tasted the real world for the first time. What’s worse is I’m not sure it gets better – because from what I can tell it only gets harder. The waves are larger and the winds stronger. I’ll look back on this time and think it was easy, but I wish I could think that now.

Have I lost my passion for life? Have I lost some precious essense of youth, like forgetting where I put my car keys? And if I have, how can find it again? Is it possible? Do I even want it back? At what cost have I lost it, or have I found something else? And if something else, what?...

Do you see how many unanswered questions I have now? =)

Psychology of Christianity

2005-08-10T21:00:00.000+12:00

How much does our psychology affect our understanding of Christianity? After some thought, I decided it must have a very significant affect. Our psychology affects how we percieve and relate with the world, and spiritual matters are inherently connected with the physical world, so why would spiritual matters be unnaffected?

People's mindsets strongly control over their perception of Christianity - so much so I think we all underestimate the extent of this influence. In my own case, I think the factors of my upbringing and past have made me place great importance on building loving relationships by being a Godly person. Obviously, this isn't a bad thing, and it certainly makes me aware of this theme in the Bible.

However, I wonder how much it also blinds me to how others view Christianity, and perhaps other aspects of the faith. It seems our subconcious can block things from our awareness or attention without our even realising it, and I believe our Christianity is no exception. There are, it seems, two ways of dealing with the challenge of maturing as a person... The first is to accept the challenge and courageously grow stronger to meet it - the second is to ignore it and remain the same. The first is often painful, the second seems less so.

When I find something that challenges my faith, my way of living, my security, or even my very identity - I generally try to have enough courage to accept it and seek to grow from it. I accept I do not know it all, and need to grow. I do not base my identity in being sure of what I know, or in knowing everything, or in being right, or in being "good". Far from it, I identify myself far more with learning, growth, and development that with being all knowing, all wise, or all good. I am secure in how I deal with problems, not because I don't have anything to worry about.

Persons who lack such courage, however, do not seem to have such a will to learn and grow and develop. They seek to protect their sense of identity from the challenge that - if they were to accept it - would mean they weren't quite as knowledgeable, wise, or good as they thought they were. They train their mind not to adapt and grow in strength by dealing with new challenges, but to protect itself from challenges dealing with them brings pain. Indeed, it seems their minds fortify their own stability at the cost of decreasing their ability to deal with new challenge.

The result is that their subconcious blinds them to the things that they don't want to see. They can't even contemplate what they are not seeing, because their minds block even thinking about it. In Christianity, this often takes the form of suppressing doubts and anything that would bring their beliefs into question. In other words, they become bound by their own fear to grow and mature as Christians and suffer the emotional pain that comes from maturing.

I struggle to think of examples of this subtle trickery our the subconcious as it is more about the way we think, rather than what we think. Perhaps, it is why when some people read the Bible, some teachings just don't seem to register. And, if an undesirable challenge is raised with them, they simply reject it - finding "reasons" or by "forgetting" that it was raised at all. The result is their Christianity becomes one based on a Bible full of holes, and they do not accept any notions that perhaps there is more to it than they believe.

The most common things left out are, of course, the challenging teachings. Parts of the Bible that clearly state the necessity to forsake sinful things and to live a disciplined and truly devoted life are somehow glossed over and never mentioned. The mind protects what it holds dear, and if someone holds onto sinful things or an undisciplined lifestyle, their mind will do whatever it can to ignore challenges to what it wants to keep. And they justify their ignorance. "We don't need to be disciplined, for we're under grace." "God always forgives us, and loves us just the same no matter what we do." "Oh, God doesn't expect us to be perfect..." "It's so hard to not be influenced by the sinful things of the world, God will understand."

People don't even realise they're justifying themselves so that they don't have to face the challenge of reality. Yet, what's worse - far worse I think - is creating a faith that justifies what they want... What becomes of Christianity when it is used as a phychological drug to cover over the real issues? What happens when you stop wanting to learn more and more of God's true character and how He wants us to be, and instead believe God to be how you want Him to be?

"Each of us has a hole in our hearts that only God can fill... Just accept Him, and He will fill it." No, just invent Him and He will fill it - your very own custom-designed God... He'll be everything you want. He'll "love" you no matter what, and because of this "love" He won't care if you stay as a spiritual infant and won't challenge you at all to become more like Christ. He'll forgive you always, so you know everything you do is "alright". He'll always "be with you", to comfort you and give you warm fuzzy emotions when life actually challenges you.

In fact, this "God" is everything that "solves" all the emotional problems you have. If you feel alone, "He's there". Tired, "He gives strength." In financial trouble, "He provides." In danger, "He's in control." In sickness, "He'll heal you," but if He doesn't, "It was His will." When things go well, "God is blessing you." When things don't go well, "It's all for the best." When you find something or someone you want, "I feel God's telling me..." The list is endless.

The sad thing is that many times nothing really changes. The God who created them would probably love to help them, but they don't really know Him - they only know the God they created. In other words, by decieving themselves with a false god who makes them feel better, they block the way for a true relationship with God to really help them mature to truly overcome the problems of this world.

I believe God does not want to remove our problems or remove us from them - He wants them to be His tools to fashion us into maturity, and the likeness of His own character. So, naturally, by not dealing with problems we fail to use them to mature. Instead, failure to mature through problem-solving is characterised by immature faith - one based on a God we want and reality we invent to suit us. No one can persuade such a person that reality differs from their imaginations, for their own minds will prevent them understanding it. There is only one way such people can change their immature faith, and it is by being committed to maturity and the reality it is founded on. This is my committment. So, while I know I still have plenty of psychological barriers to having truly Godly character, I know I am heading in the right direction.

The 'Big Picture' Series - 8: Followers of Christ

2005-08-03T22:53:00.000+12:00

As I review this series, it strikes me how inadequate it has been. I had hoped to make my ideas clearer than I have, and cover much more ground than I have, perhaps to shed more enlightenment than I have. Throughout this whole series, the content of this post has been my goal. The question, “What is it to follow Christ?”, has always been floating in my mind, and I give some thoughts in response here. I hope that throughout this series I have painted in (very) broad strokes how we, God, and others fit into the big picture of the universe. In response to all of this, I hope the obvious answer to the question “So what do we do about it?” is to follow Christ. Here, I attempt to give a general idea of what following Christ really means. This will be the last post in this series, so I hope you have enjoyed it.

Followers of Christ

Heart – like Christ’s

Christ’s heart was centered on God and others, and not selfish or material things. Love God, and love others – these were the two things He rightly distilled God’s commandments down to. For this loving cause, He lived to help others have more Godly fellowship with each other and God by becoming more Godly. Christ had Godly ambition, rather than selfish motivations, and so should we. Following Jesus has everything to do with our heart, because everything we do is directed by it.

Our heart is like the needle of a compass that tells us which way to go. If the needle has correct magnetization (Godly ambition/desire), it will lead us to the right destination, but if it has the ‘reverse magnetization’ (selfish ambition), it will lead us in the opposite direction. If the needle looses magnetization completely (apathy), it will leave us wandering. In this way, the needle must have the right properties to be faithful to the earth’s magnetic field if it is to lead us in the right direction. Likewise, our heart’s ambition needs to be in the right direction in order to be faithful to God’s guidance and instruction.

Following Jesus is being devoted to the same things He was. In this way, we are also being devoted to God, for Jesus was devoted to God. This devotion is a decision, an allegiance, a commitment, loyalty and dedication to God and what He wants – and far more than a ‘belief’. This devotion is what I talked about in the “faith” section of this series. What we are devoted to is the like the magnetization of the compass needle – we are guided towards whatever our hearts are set on. If our hearts are devoted to the same things Jesus was, we will follow His path and reach the same destination.

Character – like Christ’s

Character is something developed over time by the choices we make. It is like the position we are on a long journey, in that it usually takes a long to time change – and you have to keep going in the same direction for quite some time to notice it changing. If the devotion to God we have in our hearts is like the compass that points towards our destination, then perhaps Christ-like character is our destination. The further we head towards this destination, the more like Christ our character will become. But, Christ-like character itself is not the objective of our faith – it is the state in which we can best enjoy our life’s purpose to have the best possible friendships with God and others. God made us for perfect friendship with himself and others, and this is the real objective.

That said, this should be noted: even if our destination to be like Christ is correct, if the compass of hearts are not devoted to the same things as He was, we will be lost. There have been many times I have realized with dismay why my character is not getting more like Christ’s – because I don’t want to. It’s no good to just want to “be like Christ” if I’m not devoted to thinking and living in a Christ-like way. To have Christ-like character we cannot be devoted to things that are not Christ-like.

Once our hearts are right, and then our character will change accordingly. This change is because our character is molded by the choices we make, and the choices we make are born from the ambitions of our heart. Sometimes it’s a tough road, as the road is not well-trodden and there aren’t many other people walking it. But, there is something to be said for walking on the direction you know is right even when you don’t feel like it. After all, true devotion is not about “feeling” devoted but it’s about being devoted.

So clearly, if we are following Christ, then Christ-like character should increasingly show itself in how we live. The longer we have been following Christ, the more like His our character should be. We should grow to be people of integrity, kindness, compassion, honour, joy, peace, patience, discipline, and above all – love.

Lastly, relationships require two people. So, part of building Godly relationships with others is becoming people with whom Godly relationships will flourish. In other words, we must care for ourselves as much as we care for others – but the focus should lie on building the great friendships God intended with Himself and others, and not greedy and selfish in motivation. So, being self-less is not ignoring ourselves and focusing on others, but it is focusing on our relationships with God and others and doing all that we can to make those relationships good. Godly character is what makes those relationships the best they can be.

Deeds – like Christ’s.

If our hearts point to our destination of Christ-like character so that we live in Godly friendships, then our actions are certainly the steps along the way. Godly deeds are the things we must do to become Godly people. Think of how you imagine saints behaving, and think of their character. If you want to be a saint like them, how else can you do it except by behaving like they do? To follow Christ, our steps must be along the same direction and path that He took, or we will find we are not following Him at all.

The joys and difficulties of life are like the ground we travel – they are part of “life in its fullest”. Our deeds are like the path we take over that ground. Some paths are better than others, some are much the same. Some lead to disaster, and some to blessing. The really important actions are the ones that affect others our relationship with God and the people around us. Actions that don’t involve others aren’t as important as ones that do.

There are many instructions about what we should not do as followers of Christ. But equally important are the instructions about what we should do. If you do not steal then you may not be a criminal, but it doesn’t make you a saint. So, we need to be watchful about both what we do and what we do not. I haven’t the space here, so read a Bible for pointers... but note the importance of making our love measurable by the things we do.

Position - like Christ’s

If we will imitate Christ in the above areas – then it is clear from the bible that we become “brothers and sisters of Christ”, and “co-heirs” with Him. And if we are co-heirs with Him, we will inherit the same eternal life as He did in the resurrection. Surely, this is wonderful news! What could be better than to be the person that God intended us to be, and to be with other similar people having the amazing friendships God intended for humankind? And if we are such a person imagine how pleased God is, and imagine how pleased we will be. But what if we are not Godly?

Jesus was perfect in ways we have already failed to be, but nevertheless, we are called to be on the same overall level as He was – as followers like Him. Though we should aim to be, we do not have to be exactly like Him for God is merciful and forgiving. While we may have displeased Him in the past, God does not hold our bad actions against us after we turn away from them. But note that He is not pleased with our flaws of heart and character of the present, and it would be uncaring of Him to overlook these.

It is possible to have a heart like Christ’s – here and now, otherwise why would Jesus have made it clear to do so? It is this Christ-like condition of our hearts that makes us brothers and sisters of Christ, to be Sons and Daughters of God just like Christ was! This revelation still amazes me, and it is indeed one that is incredibly wonderful. It is possible to be like Christ in our hearts (albeit with some minor flaws), and if we’re like Christ we will have a similar relationship with God. Paul writes in Col 1:19 and Col 2:9 that the fullness of God dwelt in Christ, and then prays in Eph 3:20 that we also would be “filled with all the fullness of God”. It is those who are like Christ that Paul often describes as being “in Christ”. Jesus’ heart does not change to become like ours, rather it is ours that should change to be like His – this is the only way we can be unified with Christ.

Lastly, God is not a cosmic accountant, measuring his acceptance of us by the sum of our good deeds minus the sum of our evil ones – rather He calls all those who are devoted to Him His Children. But true Children of God act like Children of God. Godly actions may not “earn” a position of God’s favour any more than baby cannot do much to earn its parent’s love, but Godly actions are essential to having God’s favour if we are to grow from being spiritual babies.

Role – like Christ’s

Hand in hand with position is responsibility. If we are to have similar position as Christ, we also have a similar role in the world. As followers of Christ, we are to be devoted to the same things He was, and this devotion should be evidenced by doing similar deeds. Jesus said in John 14:12 that people who are devoted to Him will do the things Christ did, and “they will do even greater things because I am going to the Father.” Greater things! How can this be?

Imagine Jesus being a swordsman going into battle. Many Christians seem to view things like this: we are the poor and defenseless and He is the big strong defender who goes and fights off the evil that threatens us, we just have to “stay close to Jesus” and everything will be great for us. Yet, it seems quite clear to me that this lazy and pathetic view is not one Jesus would have wanted. Instead, imagine us (people devoted to Him) giving Him our allegiance, and taking up our swords with Him. Rather than one soldier, there is an army, and an army can surely be of more effect than a single soldier. In this way we can do greater things, when we devote ourselves to the same cause that He was devoted to (God and Godliness).

To follow Jesus is to be devoted to not just His person, but to His cause. Certainly, like in the previous analogy, we need training before we can start be effective. But, nevertheless, we must mature towards and grow into the responsibilities of being devoted to God and therefore Christ – knowing it is part of the road that takes us to being mature Sons and Daughters of God.

So, the followers of Jesus have similar responsibilities as Jesus. Having Godly ambitions and character is essential to fulfill our role to lead, nurture, care for, help, love, and fulfill loving friendships with God and others. Following Jesus is not about getting God’s favour and a free ticket to heaven, but far more about cultivating the Godly relationships with God and others that I believe are the central meaning of our existence.

Jesus did this, and so should we. If we say we follow Him, let us be like Him. And if our actions evidence that we do not follow Him, let us not bring His name into disrepute by saying that we do.

The 'Big Picture' series - 7: Christ

2005-07-09T19:02:00.000+12:00

It is with great trepidation that I dare try to summarise the relevance of Christ to our faith. Christ is, of course, the central figure around which “Christianity” finds ground, so please view these thoughts only as food for thought and discussion, not as definitive truth. In saying that, what I write here are the conclusions I currently have based on my incomplete knowledge, and I will present them as such. As always, my rule is this: I only accept ideas that help me to love God and love others more, and thus become more like Christ. I encourage others to adopt the same policy when it comes to what I write here. Take the good, leave what is unhelpful.

Who He was

As many will quickly say, Christ was both “fully God” and “fully human” - but how? Well, firstly, there is the virgin birth. One might say that this made Christ’s very DNA somehow far better than our own – perfect, even. Yet, I doubt Christ was different in any biological way to “normal” people, I think He was quite biologically normal. Christ was a person just as we are people. He saw through human eyes, felt through human skin, and heard through human ears. I am not sure He experienced the world or even spiritual things any differently to the way in which you and I are capable of, for I believe part of being human is how our humanity limits us. I think the virgin birth accomplished something different – in that it showed from the outset that Jesus was the Messiah – the Son of God.

So then we are faced with a dilemma; how can a “normal” human be “fully God”? I believe we as humans are created like God, with a mind. We think, and in this we become more than mere anatomy. I will call this part of us that is beyond our physical bodies our spirit, but do not think of ghosts and apparitions – think of your self – who you are besides your flesh and bones. Just as our physical bodies grow and have different appearances, our spirits also grow and differ in character. “God is spirit”, wrote the apostle John. So, I suggest that biologically, Christ was exactly like a normal human, but spiritually, He was exactly like God.

The word “like” I have used is very important. I do not think God Himself meta-physically come down from Heaven to reside in Christ. It seems absurd that Christ would pray to God if He was God in the most literal sense possible. Instead, I think Christ had the complete and perfect Spirit of God. The very thing that makes God the being that He is – His character, nature, or spirit – is the very thing that Christ also had. It is in this sense that Christ was God, in that He embodied the fullness of the Father’s spirit because Christ had a spirit exactly like God’s.

Christ and the Father are still ‘separate beings’, and their ‘spirits’ are still very separate and distinct entities – but because their spirits are exactly like each other they have the same spirit. In this sense they are “one”, and I believe it is in this sense that Christ says that “whoever has seen me has seen the Father”. It is like pouring water from a jug into both a mug and a champagne glass – the two vessels are very separate, as is the water they contain, but both contain the same water. “Same” means identical in every way.

Mountains of literature have been written on the subject of who Jesus was, but for me it is as simple as I have outlined above. One could spend a lifetime getting to know what the spirit of God is like, but that is a different and entirely more challenging matter.

What He achieved

I know I will fail to write here the full scope of what Christ did, or even how He achieved it. Nevertheless, I will try to describe some of what Christ achieved in the “big picture” I have tried to describe so far. There are three typical categories that this topic is often broken into, His life, death and resurrection. It helps me organise my thoughts again to follow these categories, although I believe such a distinction exists only for this purpose.

Life

Most of the time of Jesus’ ministry was before His crucifixion and resurrection, so I dare say His life is very important. The purpose of Christ’s coming was to free the unrighteous from their destructive ways, and save the poor and the oppressed from the unfairness inflicted on them by the unrighteous. He advocated not a new set of rules, but a condition of heart.

I think there were three main emphases that Jesus had,

1) Our motivation – that should be Godly ambition (forsaking selfishness, the desires for wealth, power, and glory, and instead living for God.)

2) The character such motivation brings – that should be personal righteousness (having Godly character of being morally virtuous)

3) The result of these two – that should be social fairness (caring and loving others as God would wish)

He revealed our motivations in life should not be selfish, but rather to please God. Christ demonstrated, described, taught, and led people in Godly ambition. Ultimately, living selflessly is far more rewarding, fulfilling and pleasing than living selfishly and desiring wealth, power and glory. Jesus taught people so that they would not only see His Godly actions, but they would understand the reasons for the actions – the heart behind the acts. Without this understanding, the Christian way of life becomes nothing more that a façade, a legalistic act played by hypocrites. If Christ’s person was like our light, His teachings are like a map of path He travelled and destination He headed for. Indeed, His teachings are often held in higher regard than his life – but we must remember the teachings were so that we can follow in His footsteps in the way we live.

Clearly, Jesus was an example for people, and He clearly showed the Godly character that comes from Godly motivation. Into a world lost in moral darkness, which had forgotten much of true virtue, Jesus was the light that demonstrated how to live. Not merely the light, but the first flame which lit the hearts of those who followed Him to illuminate more people. Those who follow Jesus, I believe, discover its truth through more than mere teaching – they live it and experience it for themselves. If not for the life of Jesus, the world would have remained in moral darkness – blindly bringing its own destruction. Christ showed what being devoted to God looked like, to a generation that had largely forgotten. Furthermore, in Christ we see that it is entirely possible for a human to live a righteous life, for remember He was entirely human complete with our limitations. Christ suffered all the temptations we do because of his humanity, but He did not sin because He had only a Godly Spirit.

So, Christ freed people from their moral bankruptcy by these external exemplary and educational means, which that don’t directly affect people. Yet, He also freed people more directly by involving himself in their lives and them in his life, and coming inside their lives. Christ’s life was significant in His interpersonal relationships with others. Out of His motivation and Godly character, Jesus worked toward social fairness and healing the wounds of sin. Jesus loved others not simply to set an example, but because He actually cared for those people – if He didn’t, his actions would be hypocrisy. He loved the sick, the lowly, the broken, the oppressed, the hungry and the poor. Jesus stood up for those who didn’t have a voice, and demanded fairness instead of corruption. He went into the kingdom of darkness and walked people out of it.

Christ loved others even when He had nothing to gain by it; on the contrary, it brought him trouble. Not only His teachings but His actions prompted a considerable commotion throughout his life. If Christ had not lived in this way, what would have been so great about Jesus? He would have been just another philosopher, another man with his mind in the clouds of moral idealism but chained to selfish human vice. But this man loved others! And that loving heart was far weightier than His philosophy, wisdom, teaching, or example.

God is love, and Christ loved. In this way, Christ revealed God. In Christ, we see how God would be if He were one of us. This then is another aspect of Christ’s life, in that Christ was clear window into the heart of the Father. In Christ, we can see that the Father is a loving, kind, merciful and fair God – a God worthy of our devotion and love. But how can we be sure Christ did indeed reflect God’s heart, and that God wasn’t like something else entirely? The healings and miracles that accompanied Jesus’ life and work are clear signs that God and Christ were united in Spirit, and that the heart of Christ is the same as the heart of God.

During His life, Christ established the church. The organisation He demonstrated, one of discipleship of a few close people and teaching of many, has proven effective to this day.

Lastly, consider the state world would be in if Christ had not come and done all this, most of the foundational principles and values of our society and legal system would not exist. Modern society has been hugely influenced by Christianity, and I would hate to think what it would have been like without Christ’s life to remind the world of those values and principles of Godly living. In a very real sense, Christ has saved the modern world. As a follower of Christ, I would not know how to live in a Godly way if Christ had not lived 2000 years ago, and His legacy had not reached me. Because of His life, I have inherited His way of life.

Death

If Christ’s life showed His love, His death showed what that love cost Him.

Before I go further, let me state clearly that I do not believe in what is known as the “satisfactory” idea of atonement. In my opinion, no cosmic transaction occurred on the cross, and to suggest that the cross was the means by which God provided “salvation” and the “forgiveness of sins” is in my opinion to misunderstand the nature of both. For me, attaching some all-mystical atonement theology to His crucifixion detracts from the pure humanity of Jesus on the cross. It is His humanity that was exemplified on the cross, in stark definition with His divine character. I refer you to my post on the satisfactory atonement idea for more comprehensive discussion.

So if the cross did not achieve “satisfactory atonement for our sins”, what did it achieve?

The cross showed us the depth of Christ’s love, and therefore God’s love for us. He was deliberately put to death by sinful people of the day who didn’t like Him, and He willingly died. Jesus clearly knew his teaching and actions would lead them to kill him, but this did not stop him. He was a voice of the oppressed, knowing such voices are silenced. He spoke out against unfairness knowing that the corrupt people in power would eventually put an end to it. To avoid being executed, He would have had to stop loving people as He had. If He had stopped, his teaching would have been hollow and his life an act. Yet by dying, He proved his selfless love, that doing what is right was more important than His own life. The cross shows us the depth of Christ’s care for others by the price that He was willing to pay for it.

So, the Cross proved Jesus was not merely manipulating people for His own gain, but that He genuinely loved them. Christ truly gave his life for others to save them during his time on earth, at the cost of his own life. He showed the true value of living a righteous and holy life of love, kindness, and service knowing that it would cost Him His life, so that we might live. Christ gave his life for other people during his entire life, not just at the cross. Greater love has no one but to give one’s life for others – every day of it. Jesus didn’t merely die for us; He lived for us, and that cost Him his life. His death is therefore part of His life and not the all-important reason for His existence on earth, for His death would have meant nothing if it were not for his life.

I don’t think there is anything particularly special in the fact that Jesus died. If He was fully human, one would expect Him to die sometime. Indeed, His death proved His humanity. I also do not think the way in which He was executed was nearly as important as the fact that He was executed publicly. The publicity of the cross was to only add fuel to propel the Gospel far and wide. So Christ’s dead on the cross served to send message of love and hope to others for generations, and spread from Himself to others.

His death was very significant politically. Here was the Christ dying at the hands of the very empire the Jews thought He had come to conquer and set them free from. If there was any definitive answer regarding God’s views on political upheaval, this was it, and it was certainly not what the Jews were hoping for. Indeed, His death was his final strong statement against the political uprising that the Jews were hoping for. Instead of Jesus being victorious over the Roman Empire, the Empire was victorious in accomplishing the great injustice of killing an innocent man. His execution showed the wicked hearts of people for all to see. It says much about the wickedness of people that we would kill the very Spirit of the God who created us. His crucifixion made manifest the sinfulness of people.

There is something to be said for His death being analogous to the Hebrew sacrifices, though I am not sure what. The blood of sacrifices would be made to seal a covenant, or agreement, between parties. And this analogy seems to be used occasionally in the New Testament. It is into this covenant that we enter when we follow Christ and become like Him – also loving others at own cost. In those days, a king might go and give himself over to an attacking army to be killed so that the people of His kingdom would be spared their lives. Such a king would have been referred to in similar ways to how Jesus is referred to as “giving His life for us”, and being a “propriatory sacrifice”. So, if Christ had not died then we would die because of sin, thus He died for us. Indeed, if not for the events of the Cross, Christianity and its teachings may never have changed the lives of the disciples, let alone us in the 21^st century.

I must also mention His crucifixion fulfilled prophesies in the Old Testament, and confirmed that He was indeed the Messiah.

On the cross, evil won. It showed that being righteous comes at a high price in a fallen world. Jesus was, indeed, cursed on the cross – but cursed by the people who put Him to death, not by God. If God had intervened, He would have quite falsely portrayed that there is no price to pay for righteousness and people needn’t stand for it because God can fix things. By intervening, God would have destroyed the very reality He was trying to teach people about through Jesus. I believe God mourned for Jesus’ on the cross, but knew it would be better not to intervene. Jesus died, and not surprisingly the hope and faith of the disciples died with Him, but fortunately it is not the end of the story…

Resurrection – to impact the disciples, and give hope for our faith

If all that people got for living righteously and being devoted to God was death, then Christianity would be a farce. Why would anyone follow such teaching, if it only leads to death for all who followed it? The resurrection of Jesus proves that the life He lived was worth infinitely more than what it cost Him. Likewise, for us, if we imitate Christ in how we live we know we will have God’s favour and He will give us life after death. Thus, Jesus’ resurrection offers us the great hope of this wonderful reward for living a Godly life. Note, however, that this should not be our motivation for righteousness, for our motivation should be one of love for God and others, rather than selfishness.

In raising Christ from the dead, God demonstrated that evil does not prevail over God, but rather that God’s goodness triumphs over sin. The resurrection is the ultimately victory of God and Godliness. Death was the worst the sinful world could throw at Jesus, but it was nothing compared to God’s power to resurrect Him. Christ gained a reward far greater than death in return for how He lived.

Of course, the apostles would never have started the church if not for the resurrected. They had lost hope and devotion, but these were restored when Jesus re-appeared to them. So powerful was the resurrection to the apostles that they gave their lives for the message Jesus had taught and the way of life He led, and thus each did a similar thing to what Jesus himself did. The same is true of Christians throughout the ages, for it is His resurrection that proves those who follow Him will also be resurrected to eternal life.

His resurrection was also strong proof that what He said was true and Godly, and indeed further evidenced his Messianic position. Of course, for resurrection to occur, Christ had to die – so this provides another reason for his death. Furthermore, because of the public nature of His death, news of His resurrection was quickly spread. Most of 500 or more people He appeared to after He came back to life would have seen or heard of His death, and therefore these people would have likely formed the early church relatively quickly.

His teachings always had in mind the eternal Kingdom of Heaven, but none could really understand it until His resurrection tangibly demonstrated it to them. Rather than an earthy reward, the reward for the righteous is everlasting.

Summary

Christ is the founder of the church, and the leader of our faith. He is the perfect example of a person like us who has Godly ambitions, righteous character like God’s, and who seeks to put right the wrongs in the world. He has indeed saved us from an empty life of pursuing wealth, power, and fame – that ultimately do not bring fulfilment. By following Him, we become like Him, and by being like Him we too can eagerly hope for resurrection to eternal life.

Jesus was devoted to God, and loved Him and others. He loved others, despite the cost – to bring liberation, restoration, healing and help to those who needed it. He led others to do the same by being an example and giving them motivation, revolutionary moral teaching and the organisation to continue to grow the Church. Finally, He showed the reward of Godliness, eternal life.

The 'Big Picture' series - 6: Grace

2005-05-25T21:22:00.000+12:00

Practicality: “Grace” means favour, not forgiveness, and not kindness. We have God's favour when we are faithful to Him. “Grace” does not mean we can live wilfully sinful lives and expect God to be pleased with us, nor does it mean we can expect God to be pleased with us if we do not selflessly serve Him by loving others. Rather, God favours people whose quality of heart is like Christ’s – that of selfless service to God and love for others.

Grace is often said to be central to the Gospel. Many years of hearing Christians speak about grace has given me some insight into how most Christians think of it. Here, I will explain my understanding of the typical view, but I will try and peel back the layers of Christian jargon and catch-phrases to hopefully show the real nature and implications of “grace” as many Christians think of it.

If one thing is clear, it is that many people don’t have a clear idea of what Biblical “grace” actually is. Many see it as the forgiveness of sins that God ‘graciously’ gives us. Another idea is that it is God’s gracious bestowal of blessings on us, to make our lives more enjoyable. Still others would see God’s grace in the fact that He sent Jesus to “die for our sins”. Occasionally I hear that when we “open our hearts” to God He “works in us” to make us more like Christ “by His grace” – making “grace” a process or magical force synonymous with the idea that the Holy Spirit moulds and shapes those who accept Jesus into His likeness. Occasionally, we hear whispers that grace may be something we are to give others.

Common to all of these are a few interesting themes. Firstly, this “grace” is completely undeserved and unmerited, in that there is nothing we can do to earn it or deserve it. This idea is very close to suggesting it is also unconditional, like it is a ‘free gift’ that we simply have to ‘receive’. Second, this idea of “grace” is perhaps described quite accurately by words like “kindness” and “acceptance” (dare I say even, “tolerance”). Finally, it is portrayed as something bestowed the ‘receiver’ not because of anything the ‘receiver’ has done, but rather the emphasis is that it is what the ‘giver’ of the grace does. It is almost like this “grace” can be passed around like a shoebox full of money – all you have to do is take it.

Are these ideas of grace are what the New Testament writers had in mind? Such ideas don’t seem to line up with the conclusions of my own study into this word, and think these ideas about grace not only dull the true and quite powerful meaning of grace in the Bible, but can also lead to conclusions that are simply unbiblical.

After reading through hundreds of verses where “charis” occurs in the greek NT and LXX, I am convinced that it means ‘favour’, and there are very few verses where this idea does not make perfect sense. We need to slightly expand the idea of favour to capture “charis”, though, because it is also used in the sense of “thanks”. In the Greek, though, both “favour” and “thanks” were described by this Greek word, and we get our two words from slightly different applications of the same idea. Now, “charis” is used in quite a distinctly different way to “aleos”, which means mercy or kindness. “Aleos” has the meaning most people associate with “charis”, but they are used in very different contexts and I am convinced they have quite different meanings. I could not find a use of “aleos” in the LXX which did not refer to a kind action or merciful deed. In contrast, “charis” is generally used without reference to any action, which could be expected if it simply means ‘favour’.

So how does such an idea fit with the gospel? To me, it means the gospel is not one of ‘cheap grace’, but describes how to have God’s favour. This is the good news – that tells us how we can have God’s favour. Now let me make it clear that God is merciful and kind, and cares for those who do not have his favour, as numerous verses describe. Christ himself told us to ‘love our enemies’, and then points to God as an exemplar of this, by caring for even wicked and sinful people who are against Him. But this does not mean God is please with them or that they have His favour. So this is quite a scary thought, that God not only is displeased with people who act against Him and His ways, but that they have quite literally “fallen from grace”. The more this idea has been mulling in my head, the more I notice verses where God states quite clearly that the wicked do not have his favour. Such verses strike quite a discord with the catch-cry of modern evangelism to this largely wicked and selfish generation that “God loves you”.

How do we gain God’s favour then? I believe the Bible clearly states it is by being faithful to Him and His commands – the type of “faith” I talked about in the first post in this series. Being faithful requires not merely warm fuzzy thinking, but actions that reflect our devotion to Him. Let me take the parable of the three servants who were given 5, 2, and 1 talents to explain (see Mat 25:14-46). The master gave his servants 5, 2, and 1 ‘talents’ respectively, which apparently was some amount of money. The ones with 5 and 2 both used them to make more money, thus being faithful to their master. The one with only 1 talent hid it and did not even make interest in the bank on it, thus being unfaithful to his master. The master was equally pleased with both the first and the second servant, but rebuked the unfaithful servant. The point is that the master’s favour was given not on how much money they had made, but rather whether they were fully devoted to serving the master in what they were doing – with all that they have been given.

Likewise, God’s favour is not given to us because of how much good we do or how little we sin, but rather whether we are serving Him completely and selflessly – not giving him merely a fraction of our devotion. Indeed, we serve him by not sinning and instead doing good, but I think it is the quality of our hearts and not the quantity of our actions that God favours. Of course, though, quality service to God will result in some quantity of good action. But we must not merely look at someone who is doing “more good” than another and think they are “more favoured”, for what matters is that they are selfless and living their lives to love God and others. The amount of good that people do is dependent not only on their heart, but also their spiritual maturity. I think God looks at a child who loves selflessly but can do little for others with more favour than an adult who could do much but hardly raises a finger to care for others.

So perhaps the most unbiblical misunderstanding is that in His “grace”, God overlooks the quality of our hearts and gives favour to people who mostly serve themselves rather than Him. This “grace” is understood as God’s toleration of our willful sin. Such an idea mistakes “charis” for “aleos”, and leads to the unbiblical conclusion that God has “favour” on the wicked and sinful. God giving favour to those who have a sinful heart and serve themselves instead of Him is the reverse of what Jesus described in the above parable. But do not misunderstand me – God is merciful and forgiving, look at David for example. We do make mistakes. But these are all our sins should be – mistakes. We cannot willingly and continually do something we know God is against and call it a ‘mistake’ – such action is willful disobedience. God looks upon our mistakes with mercy and compassion if we are faithful to Him – for faithful people have his favour - but the idea of God giving favour to people who are unfaithful to Him seems to go against Biblical teaching.

Sadly, the result of decades of Christians believing a doctrine of “cheap grace”, instead of a pure, righteous, Holy, faithful and Christ-like church it has become one full of tolerance and compromise. Gone are the days of discipline, now we are in “grace”. Even though the Bible clearly states Christians should have nothing to do with sin, we water these commands down with “grace”. The emphasis is no longer on the quality of our hearts, but on the quantity of people in our churches.

Not only does cheap grace sweep under the carpet God’s commands to not sin, but people also use it to hide His commands about what we should be doing. This sort of “grace” is given to those who do nothing. “We needn’t worry if we aren’t caring for others,” people think, “because we’ve got God’s grace so He loves us anyway – isn’t that amazing?” It would amaze me, because that’s not the God I know! The God I know cares for people and tells us to do the same, and in the Bible when people are selfish and uncaring God certainly doesn’t like it. The servant who did nothing with the one talent given him was harshly rebuked in Jesus’ parable, not given “grace”. Later in the same chapter of Matthew, Jesus makes it clear that if we do not do the good God has commanded of us, we will be rebuked just like that servant. Not only has “cheap grace” made a church of compromise, but it has also made one full of apathy towards doing the good that God calls it to do.

Rather than quoting and explaining all the many verses I pondered over to reach my conclusions, I will end with just one short quote of Romans 5:1-2, which I have translated from the Greek into meaningful English as best I can. I will be happy to share my thoughts on other verses you may comment on.

“Therefore, we are righteous because of our faithfulness; and we have peace with God because of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because of Christ we also have had access by faithfulness into this favour in which we stand, and we rejoice because of the hope of being praised by God.”

The 'Big Picture' Series - 5: Salvation

2005-05-08T18:13:00.000+12:00

Practicality: Not only must we leave the kingdom of sin, but we must live as Christ – as citizens of God’s Kingdom. We cannot think it is enough to try to do only one of these, for salvation is the entire process of going from the kingdom of sin into the Kingdom of God. God gives “eternal life” to those in His Kingdom, but entering His Kingdom comes at a high price. It costs us everything – for must give up our selfish desires and instead love God and others.

The “free gift of salvation”

Is salvation a free gift? By “free gift”, I mean something that we ‘receive’ with virtually no requirements on our part – after all, that’s the nature of something that is freely given. This idea is arguably central to current popular Christianity, yet I am convinced that such ideas distort the Biblical teaching of salvation.

Before I define salvation more clearly, let me describe the current popular ideas. A brief keyword search on the internet for “salvation” and “free gift” gives hundreds of links to the “free gift of salvation”. I even found several sites that condemned the idea that we needed to actually repent and turn away from sin – for salvation is “freely given”, they say. Forgiveness of the guilt of sin by “accepting the gift of Christ”, and resultant eternal life – this is the message of the popular gospel. But it is not the gospel preached by Jesus, nor by the apostles, nor by the early church – it is a gospel of “cheap grace”. The heretical gospel of “cheap grace” comes from consumerism, a narrow focus on only a few verses, and a reinterpretation of the Bible according to a selfish, consumer mindset.

Let me give you an example I have copy-and-pasted from a website I found, I have not added any emphasis (but I have changed the font-size to normal):

quote:

The GOOD NEWS!!!

How hard is it to accept this FREE GIFT, Christ as your Savior?

You may think, as so many do, that you have to clean yourself up to present yourself to God but...YOU DON'T... Just look at this:

Eph 2:8-9

Nor do you have to understand it all!
God sent His son Jesus with a wonderful gift (gift means free) for you no matter who you are, what you have done or how bad you have been. We are all sinners but He can offer you the gift of salvation paid in full for you by His death and resurrection. He will give you His perfect pardon, Eternal Life accompanied by the Comforter to stay with you, lead you, and gently encourage you forever. And it's ALL
FREE!! with no strings!
Now Isn't That GOOD NEWS?

I listened to a Jewish Christian gentleman make the most profound analogy of the offer of Salvation I have ever heard. He compared Christ to a door-to-door salesman, of all things, saying that He knocks at the door of our hearts and asks permission to come in and show His awesome product, Salvation= Eternal Life, because, He can not show the product unless you invite Him in. You see, neither Jesus Christ or the door-to-door salesman can let you see how their product works if you don't allow them to demonstrate it to you. Now the salesman may be pushy but Christ is NOT!

To accept this free gift, all you have to do is ask Jesus into your life. Just pray something like this: Lord God I realize that I am a sinner. And though I may not understand it all, just the best that I know how, I trust that your son Jesus Christ paid for my sins at the cross, overcame death by rising again and is alive with you. I accept your free gift of Salvation. I invite You to come into my life and show me the way to go from here. In Jesus name I pray. Amen

Simple!...Now watch Him give your life a whole new meaning.

My heart both weeps and flares with anger that such heresy is so rampant, and it is heresy, just cleverly disguised in Biblical language. Its heresy should be clear by comparison with Scripture, as I will endeavor to show. What is the above message really saying? Jesus “does it all”, and we do nothing. It suggests salvation is nothing more than taking a free ticket to eternal life. Salvation is seen as a product that we can get. Salvation is done for us, we simply grab a piece of the cake. What is the focus of this sort of gospel? The individual – this gospel is all about “me” and getting what I want. Is it hard? No. What does it cost us? Nothing.

A comparison with Scripture

What did Jesus say about being a Christian?

Mat 16:24,25

Then Jesus said to His disciples, If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life shall lose it, and whoever desires to lose his life for My sake shall find it.

Mat 7:13, 14

Go in through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many there are who go in through it. Because narrow is the gate and constricted is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

Luk 14:26-35

If anyone comes to Me and does not [comparatively] hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me, he cannot be My disciple. For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not sit down first and count the cost, whether he may have enough to finish it; lest perhaps, after he has laid the foundation and is not able to finish, all those seeing begin to mock him, saying, This man began to build and was not able to finish. Or what king, going to make war against another king, does not first sit down and consult whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace. So then, everyone of you who does not forsake all his possessions, he cannot be My disciple.

Salt is good, but if the salt has become tasteless, with what shall it be seasoned? It is not fit for the land, nor for manure, but people throw it out. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

What is portrayed by popular salvation messages? “It’s easy - just choose the broad way.” “Salvation costs you nothing - you don’t have to deny your selfish desires, repent and forsake sin – you just accept it as another product into your life by saying this simple prayer…” So many Christians are like the incomplete towers of Luke 14 because they are unwilling to pay the full cost of the gospel – but what good is an unfinished tower when it is hardly off the ground? Like kings unwilling to yield the kingdom of their hearts and lives to the true and far greater king, God, we are unwilling to let go of what we have and what we want and serve and obey only God. In this way, far too much of the modern Christianity has indeed lost is saltiness, for it is no longer pure and righteous but contaminated with selfishness and lack of selfless love for God and others. So what good is Christianity like this? “It is not fit for the land, nor for manure, but people throw it out.” How heavily those words should hit popular Christianity today! Such heretical ideas of a selfish Christianity are just the same as the ideas advocated by the world, and instead of being a guiding light to the world Christianity becomes an empty tomb. Is it any wonder that so many people do, indeed, “throw it out”?

My understanding of Salvation – the process of going from the kingdom of sin to the Kingdom of God

So what is a biblical understanding of salvation? I described the two kingdoms, of sin and of God, previously in this post series. I also described how repentance was leaving the kingdom of sin. But it is not merely enough to not sin! So many people today view Christianity as about notnothing! doing this or that, so instead of going the good things God instructs, they do Certainly, they may no longer be committed to sin, but they are not committed to God either – they’re committed to nothing. A healthy Christian mindset is not to make sure you don’t cross lines into ‘sinfulness’, but to make sure you do break the boundaries of selfishness to reach out and care for people. When we are being selfless, our own sin will not be an issue.

Clearly, then, to be part of the kingdom of God, we must be faithful to obey Him and actually live as his people. It is when a person becomes faithful to God, in heart and lived in deed, that we can say they are part of the Kingdom of God. They are free from sin. They are “saved”, and the whole process of going from the kingdom of sin to the kingdom of God can be called salvation – literally, “the process of being saved”.

Let me give some examples from the Bible. Think of the prodigal son. He was living a horrible life of sin in a far away land, but he “came to himself” and returned to his father’s house to live with him and according to his will. What a shallow view of ‘salvation’ to restrict it to merely the father’s forgiveness of his son’s sin, for salvation is so much more! The son no longer was in a life of sin in the far away land, but blessed to again be with his father and in a house where he was loved and cared for!

This is the crucial point about his salvation: the son had to leave the far away land, and travel a long distance to again be in his father’s land. It wasn’t about forgiveness of his guilt, it wasn’t about a sacrifice, it wasn’t about declaring his son to be something or somewhere he wasn’t, it was about where his son was. His father couldn’t make him to be somewhere he wasn’t. Again using my analogy of the two kingdoms, the son had to leave the country of sin, and travel to the country of God. The son could not be given “being in God’s country” when he simply wasn’t there! It’s not something that can be given like that. God cannot somehow pick up his country – land, trees, hills, rivers and all - and move it to where people are in the kingdom of sin; they just have to “accept it”, as if it’s some courier package requiring their signature for delivery. That would be like saying that I can go to England if someone picks up the whole mass of land and brings England to me. No – of course I’d have to actually be in England – just as we have to actually be in the Kingdom of God, and the perfect example of a person in the Kingdom is Christ.

Secondly, consider Zaccheus the tax collector (Luke 19:2-10). Jesus said that salvation had come to his house not because Zaccheus felt sorry for his wrongs, not because Jesus simply ‘forgave’ him his sins – but because Zaccheus stopped his sinful actions and instead chose to live righteously. Zaccheus changed from being selfish to self-less, and repaid those he had cheated and indeed his whole live appeared transformed from one of sin to one of goodness.

So how was Jesus the ‘saviour’ of Zaccheus? In the Old Testament, there are many instances of people being saved, usually from death and destruction. The ‘saviour’ in these cases is the person who causes them to be saved – it is also called a ‘deliverer’ in the OT, but it is the same word. It is precisely the same sense in the New Testament. Jesus saved Zaccheus by leading him away from sinful living and into righteous living – hence he was the “saviour” of Zaccheus.

Let me say now that this ‘salvation’ requires no cosmic transaction on the cross; it simply requires people to follow Jesus as he leads them away from sinful ways and into Godly ones. Jesus pointed to Himself as this leader and example, saying “I am the Way.” Jesus never saved people by leading them through the “3 simple steps to salvation”, praying a prayer with them, and sending them on their way – and He certainly never told us to do that.

Costly salvation

The heart of the Bible resonates with the desire for God’s people to be holy and pure, living righteous lives that are pleasing to God by selflessly loving Him and selflessly loving others. He desires more than for us to wander in the vast expanse between the kingdom of sin and the kingdom of God, like the lukewarm Laodiceans who He wished “were either hot or cold”. He wants us to live as He has told us to, and thus be part of His Kingdom. He wants our full salvation, not to give us cheap grace. Full salvation requires us to “die with Christ, so that we may live with Him” – which means to forsake our selfishness and live like He did – for only then do we become “in Christ”.

But sadly this whole idea of salvation has become confused with the idea of “eternal life”. Yes, eternal life is a “gift” (Rom 6:23) – but it is given to the people who are in the Kingdom of God. Read the verse before Rom 6:23 where Paul writes about being “slaves to God”. Joining the Kingdom of God requires us to repent – to forsake – from sin and instead be faithful to God. That process is salvation, and is not without great reward, but it also comes at a great cost.

Personal and Social Salvation

Note also the very important aspect of salvation that is often neglected. It is summed up in Isaiah 61:1-3, which Jesus quotes from, saying:

The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is on Me; because Jehovah has anointed Me to preach the Gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; to preach the acceptable year of Jehovah and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn; to appoint to those who mourn in Zion, to give to them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the mantle of praise for the spirit of heaviness; so that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of Jehovah, that He might be glorified.

Salvation is for the poor, the broken-hearted, the captives, the oppressed and the bound. What does salvation mean for them? Freedom. Deliverance. Salvation is not simply a personal change in commitment to Godliness, but it involves social liberation from the powers that enslave people. Poor, broken, and oppressed people understand the wonder of being saved from such conditions, and understand what it is to give their whole life in return for it. So, in the story of Zaccheus, not only Zaccheus was saved, but also those who he had been cheating were saved from his selfish oppression.

But I wonder; what do the wealthy, proud, selfish, well-off people of this world really know of salvation? As long as we wealthy Westerners have a selfish mindset and reinterpret Scripture to fit with it, I fear we may never see the real meaning of Salvation on both personal and social levels.

Conclusion

To conclude; we are saved by faithfulness to God – to love Him and to love others, which is in obedience to His commands. A saviour is thus someone who leads people out of sin, and into righteousness – such as Jesus. If we follow Him by imitating Him in His love for God and others, we will be lead into the Kingdom of God, and saved from the kingdom of sin. Salvation is the process of someone being liberated from sin and its effects and instead becoming devoted to Godly living and being blessed by the effects of living in Godly community, and gaining the hope of “eternal life”. Salvation is not cheap grace, but comes at the high cost of following Christ – for His example is the only right way. It costs our selfish desires, our devotion, and even our lives. This cost is not simply for our own sake, but for those who need our selfless love and care to free them from sin and the sin of others, as we ourselves have been freed.

And what about grace? That, I think, I will have to leave for a future post, for not doubt you are wondering why I have not discussed it here. However, I am quite excited because I think all this will take us to quite an exciting conclusion…

The 'Big Picture' series - 4: Repentance

2005-04-30T09:55:00.000+12:00

Practicality: In order to be a part of Kingdom of God and be part of God’s family, we must leave sinful ways. We must faithfully choose against sin and instead be committed to do what is right, and not think that choosing to sin is acceptable behaviour for Christians.

In light of my previous posts, it should be a relatively straightforward step to discuss repentance and salvation. There is no doubt that salvation is a major theme of Scripture, but we should not forget that repentance is also a major theme. So, let us firstly look at repentance.

Simply put, repentance could be described as leaving the kingdom of sin. As I discussed in my previous post, this entails a choice cease being selfish and leave sinful ways. Repentance is the opposite of choosing to be faithful to something, and in the Bible is means to no longer be faithful to sin.

But sadly, repentance has been dulled down, and is now widely thought to involve feelings of guilt, regret, remorse, and wretchedness. “Repent”, people say, and suggest that this requires them to feel bad about the wrongs they’ve done. Certainly, repentance will often be coupled with feeling bad about previous sin, but it is not always. Indeed, the point of repentance is not to feel bad about sin, but to leave it – even if it still appeals to you. After all, we sin because we want to, and that is exactly what we have to leave – our selfish desires.

What is worse about popular ideas of repentance is that the notion of actually leaving sin and denying self is largely ignored. It is replaced by the idea that everyone will never be perfect here on earth. Eventually, such reasoning leads to the current popular idea that when you choose to become a Christian, it is the start of a journey away from sin and toward the likeness of Christ. There is no suggestion that repentance from sin will cause a marked change in behaviour – to stop sinning. The idea of ‘put to death your selfishness’ that is referred to in the Bible as ‘dying to self’ has been replaced with something like ‘start disliking your selfishness – but it’s normal for it to remain as it was before’. Yes, we should ‘dislike our selfishness’, but repentance involves not just dislike of it, but the choice to wholly revoke it. So, repentance should be evident in our actions, a repentant person chooses to leave sinful ways.

Let me address here an important objection. We are not perfect, and yes, a true Christian may not be as perfect as Christ. For instance, we may not notice that someone needs help in a situation, and therefore not do the good that we could have done. This situation is like a child who does not yet know the ways of being an adult. But it is another matter entirely for a Christian to realise someone needs help in a situation and selfishly choose not to help them. It is worse still for a Christian to know what not to do, but when faced with the choice, to do it anyway. For instance, as a Christian I should not steal, but if I knowingly steal I have willingly chosen to obey sin instead of God.

The issue is one of choice. How can we say we will leave sin and put to death our selfish desires, and then choose sin and obey our selfishness? Or worse, how can we say we have left our sinful ways and go on choosing to sin? You say “no one is perfect, and so we will all still sin” as an excuse to choose to sin. If you have the choice, it is exactly that – a choice! A repentant heart will habitually choose not to sin.

I believe most Christians do still find some choices difficult to make, and occasionally will choose to follow their selfish desires instead of what they know is right. Yet, just because most people sometime do this, it does not make it any better. Repentance is ongoing. Remember I said it was the opposite of faithful commitment to something – it is the faithful commitment against something. It is not a tick by your name that says you have ‘repented’, a mere one-time act, but someone who has repented must be faithful to keep that commitment to leave sin and forsake selfish desire – every day.

In the story of the prodigal son, the son repented by returning to his father. But what good would it have done if the son had still continued to live a life of sinfulness? But the son went to a “distant country” – which implies when he returned he was far from the sinful lifestyle he had lived. His repentance was to leave the distant country, which of course signifies a life of selfish sin. He could not bring the distant country back to the house of his father, such a thought is ridiculous – to pick up rocks and earth and trees and carry them back to his father’s house so that he may enjoy them there. Likewise, we cannot seek to bring with us sinful ways if we come into God’s family, for it defeats the purpose of coming into his family and pollutes the Church. If we are still living in sin, we are still in the far away land. A relationship with God from such a place would feel distant, perhaps with very limited communication. It strikes me how many Christians describe their relationship with God as feeling ‘distant’ from Him.

Further, to use the analogy in my previous post of the soldier doing battle, repentance is like defecting from a bad side to ally with the good one. It is nothing but words unless one actually no longer fights for the bad side but instead for the good. Again, it is a poor soldier who switches allegiances back and forth during the battle, one moment choosing to fight for good and the next begin bad.

The Bible is practically bursting with instruction to repent and leave sinful ways. God tells us to hunger and thirst after righteousness, holiness, and to be “perfect as He is perfect”. The mere fact that God keeps telling us to choose righteousness and forsake sin strongly suggests that He knows we have a choice.

So why should we repent? Repentance is required for salvation, the topic of my next post. As I hope we will see, salvation is worth repenting for.

Some verses to ponder (from the LITV). Note that these are just ones that have the actual word “repent” in them, but the idea of repentance is prolific throughout Scripture in instructions to cease wicked, disobedient, selfish and idolatrous ways.

From Lexicons: Hebrew: “repent” = to turn back, Greek: repent” = think differently

Job 42:6, Jer 18:8, Jer 18:9-10, Mat 4:17, Mat 9:13, Mat 11:20, Mat 12:41, Mar 1:15, Mar 6:12, Luk 3:3, Luk 15:7, Luk 24:47, Act 2:38, Act 3:19, Act 5:31, Act 8:22, Act 17:30, Act 19:4, Act 20:21, Act 26:20, 2Co 12:21, Heb 6:1, 2Pe 3:9, Rev 2:5, Rev 2:16, Rev 3:19

The 'Big Picture' series - 3: The Two Kingdoms

2005-04-27T22:33:00.000+12:00

Practicality: People are always having to choose between loving and serving themselves (or idols) or God (and hence others), which are fundamentally opposed and mutually exclusive. Whether people belong to the Kingdom of God or the kingdom of sin is dependent which King they give their allegiance to – themselves or God - and whomever they are devoted to they serve with their actions. Thus, we need to be completely selfless and instead be whole-heartedly committed to loving God and loving others in everything we do.

There is a powerful figurative thing that is often referred to, but little understood. Christ often spoke of it when He taught, as did the apostles. In fact, it encompasses so much of what it means to be a Christians that perhaps we, too, should spend as much time thinking about it as Jesus and the apostles did. I speak of the Kingdom of God.

What is it, and how does it relate to us? Before I give answer to that, I must describe a different kingdom, the one that is not of God. I will call this kingdom the kingdom of sin, and seek to describe it.

The nature of a kingdom is that it has a king, and kingdom is defined by the people who give allegiance to that king. Thus, people in the kingdom of sin are allied to sin – they serve it, they obey it, they live for it. In what way can someone be so allied to sin? Well, in my previous post on sin I described it as being a failure to love God and love others. Thus, anyone who is not devoted to doing this is therefore devoted to something else, and as I mentioned in my previous post, such devotion is typically to either themselves, or things that distract people from loving God and others (idols).

So, the citizens of the kingdom of sin are determined by their devotion to things that are unloving of God and others. At the extreme, this involves intentional harm to others – but nevertheless, such intentions are generally grounded in either selfishness or idolatry. Citizens of this kingdom therefore make as their king their own desires – and they are ruled by them. They are ruled by things like greed, lust, materialism, ego, unfairness, competition and appearance. These are the type of powers that Paul writes Christians battle against. The eyes of people living in the kingdom of sin are turned not to God and others, but to themselves and to things.

It is not good to live in the kingdom of sin. The ultimate futility of life in this kingdom can be easily seen, for we enter this earth with nothing and with nothing we will return. The prestige, wealth, and size of ego we gain is ultimately of no value, for it is only what we give that remains. What is worse, however, is that the selfishness and idolatry of the kingdom of sin lead to pain, dissatisfaction, lack of fulfillment, and relationships that are only a shadow of what they could be. Indeed, it is only in relationships that meaning for our existence is found, and so by loving on others but ourselves and meaningless things – we naturally destroy our relationships, for true relationship is inherently about loving someone else. People in the kingdom of sin ultimately find little but loneliness and the yearning for a deeper life.

Because the citizens of the kingdom of sin do not serve God or others, these two become things to serve what they are devoted to. They view God as something that will benefit themselves, or as a way to serve their idols. Naturally, God does not indulge them, for to do so would merely feed the selfishness and idolatry that keep them enslaved. What is worse, is that they also use others to benefit themselves or serve their idols. Such selfishness tends to hurt others, because instead of creating love and care among people it steals it away, and people are abused, wronged, cheated, lied to, enslaved, and even killed. Such a description is fitting of our current society, where we are so familiar and disturbingly comfortable with it that we do not imagine a different way of life, and that is exactly why Christ described the Kingdom of God…

The Kingdom of God embodies a way of life that is completely different from the kingdom of sin. Indeed, they are totally opposed, as light is the opposite to darkness. Those in the Kingdom of God do not love themselves nor idols, but God. I use the word ‘love’ not only in an emotional one, but also in the practical sense that it is the purpose of our actions. Relationship with God becomes paramount – it is literally what those in the Kingdom live for. Because people of the Kingdom do not serve their selfishness, they no longer value selfish gain, but in giving love to others. Members of the Kingdom are not selfish, and it is for this reason that citizens of the Kingdom of God are described as ‘dead to themselves’ but living for God. The selflessness of the Kingdom of God is illustrated by Jesus many times. He tells parables of a people giving up all they value for it, and it is precisely because they give up what they want that they can join God’s Kingdom. This is the ‘cost’ of following Jesus in His loving relationships with the Father and with others. Selflessness is the cross that Christ tells us to carry – for on it we put to death our selfishness – the word is rich with the idea of self denial, for Romans forced people to carry the very cross they would die upon.

So, in the Kingdom of God, it is true that those who find their life, ultimately lose it; but those who loose their life, and instead live for God and others, gain true life. By denying our selfishness, we can love others and form true loving relationships with God and others – which is where we find we truly find life. In loving God and loving other people, we are obeying God’s instruction – which teaches what loving Him and others involves in practice.

It is an appropriate analogy to describe the two kingdoms as two lands separated by a large distance. People in the kingdom of sin cannot be in the Kingdom of God while remaining in the kingdom of sin, because the Kingdom of God is far from it. Is it not sensible then for Jesus and the apostles to urge us to leave sin? Unless we leave sin, we cannot enter the Kingdom of God. Nor can selfish citizens of the kingdom of sin expect the kingdom of God to come to them, for the Kingdom of God has nothing to do with the kingdom of sin – but rather people choose what kingdom to be allied to in their hearts, for “the Kingdom of God is within you”.

The two kings therefore do battle for our hearts, and we choose who wins by who we serve. If we are selfish, we serve sin, but if we love God and others instead, we serve God. The two kingdoms are totally opposed and mutually exclusive. It is no surprise, then, that Jesus said that no one can serve these two masters. We serve one of these kings, whether we like to admit it or not.

But when do we serve God and when are we serving sin? The essence of faith is committed devotion, and so needless to say we should be always serving God. Indeed, if our selfish desires ‘die’, then analogy suggests that Christ-like character should come to life in us to replace it, and so selfishness should not come back to life.

Yet, we think we can be committed to serving both ourselves and God, so in fact we are committed to neither. We are like solders doing battle who repeatedly change allegiances during battle. Surely, the commander of such people would rather they do not fight at all! Such double-mindedness is condemned in the Bible. This lack of allegiance to either seems to be why the Laodiceans were described as “lukewarm” in Revelation, and it is surely why God disliked their behaviour.

So, we need to be committed to God’s kingdom, and to do that we must leave our selfishness that causes sinful action. These thoughts will lead us to the next topics I intend to discuss, repentance and salvation.

The 'Big Picture' series - 2: Sin

2005-04-23T12:00:00.000+12:00

Practicality: Sin is rooted in selfishness or idolatry, and is ultimately harmful for us and others because it is opposed to loving God and loving others. For this reason, God wants to free us from sin to restore these relationships, for these healthy relationships cannot occur where there is selfishness or idolatry.

If all God’s commands can be distilled into two; to love God, and to love others, then sin is surely a failure to do this. This is not love in the romantic or emotional sense, but in a practical sense. As Jesus taught, a person always loves something or someone at the sacrifice of love for other things or people (Mat 6:24). So, I suggest that sin ultimately due to loving things other than God or people. The Bible lists many of the ways in which people do this, such as disobedience, greed, coveting, and failure to help or be fair, and the list goes on. However, it seems failure to love God and people is due to two main causes – loving things (idolatry), and loving one’s self rather than God or others (selfishness).

Oddly, many seem to treat sin as something God has a real problem with – in and of itself. “God is Holy,” they say, “and so cannot tolerating being in the presence of sin.” Yet, Jesus spent much of his time with sinners. Indeed, the ideas of God not wanting to be around sin is almost the opposite of what we see in Jesus, and far more reflected in the current attitudes of so-called Christians. These ideas stem from a false conception of the nature of sin, for sin is not something God has a problem with – but something we have a problem with. Sin is harmful to us and others, and it is because of this that God hates it. He does not hate it simply because He is some spotlessly pure being who cannot tolerate the thought that sinners may dirty His clothes, He hates it because it hurts the people He loves. The hurt of sin is not only physical pain, but damage to relationships, and relationships are arguably the most important things in life. Relationships are the framework in which Jesus summed up God’s instructions – love God, and love others – love is essential to good relationships.

Some current ideas suggest that somehow, through some action of Jesus, God can now accept us AND our sin – as if sin is some kind of baggage that we carry in large suitcases. I think such ideas miss the point, because we are still hurt by the sin we do, and God wants us to be free of the sin. The importance of our sin is not the guilt, it is the consequence. We must realise that God wants us to be free from sin, not merely to leave us being hurt by it.

The damage of sin is subtle, but dramatic. Perhaps the reason we no longer understand God’s perspective on sin well is because we try to interpret in from an individualistic mindset, rather than a relational one. When life is about me, my sin hardly matters for I can do what I want – my life is all about me; but when life is about others, my sin matters a great deal. Too often, we view sin as the objectionable baggage that God must graciously overlook because we are thinking of ourselves. “Sin is something that stops God from liking ME.” “God please forgive my sin,” (so that I don’t have to renounce it). No, we should not be viewing sin as something that is stopping God from loving us – it is because of His love for us that He wants us to stop sinning! God has a relational mindset, where sin is something that damages relationships – the most priceless things God has blessed us with. Sin damages our relationship with God not because God cannot love us as much, but because selfishness causes us to not love God as much. Likewise, idolatry causes us to love Him less. Sin is not loving others as we should – and therefore it is bad for our relationships with others.

At its core, sin is about putting us first – about caring more about ourselves at the sacrifice of our love for God and others. So, how can we view sin as something that we need to be pardoned so that we can be loved and accepted more? Such a view is childish, for it is still focussed on self-interest! Rather, sin is something that we need to forsake so that we can love and accept others more – because sin comes from selfishness and righteousness from selflessness. The focus should be on giving love, and not on merely getting what we want. God has already given us an amazing example in Christ of sin-less, self-less character, for He loved people not for His benefit, but for theirs.

Idolatry is similar in effect to selfishness, in that it hinders our love for God and others. Instead of loving who we should be, we love things. God never told us to love things, He told us to love relational beings – Himself and people. Thus, idolatry is similarly in contrast to the righteous love that God commands. One may think, “Idolatry is hardly common in the Western culture, but it is surely more in the East where they have small statues that they pray to.” What a narrow view of idolatry! A thing does not need to be carved in wood or stone to be an idol. In Western culture, we love all manner of things, like fashion, looks, money, fame, power or business. These things are not bad in themselves – some can even be good – but they become sin when they detract from our love for God and others. Certainly, we are an idolatrous society because we too often focus far more on things than we do on God and other people. Such things are not sinful, it is our neglect of what is important and what is right that is sinful. For we only have a certain number of hours in the day, and a certain amount of resources and if we commit them to things we forfeit giving them for God and others.

I believe that the ideas about sin I have tried to present here have helped me understand the Scriptures and God’s heart more, and I hope they do the same for you. More posts related to this topic will follow.