BBC finally experiments with in-text ‘links’

Bemusing stuff from the Beeb:

BBC finally experiments with in-text ‘links’ | Internet Marketing News and Blog | E-consultancy.com

 

 

Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of Creation

Probably my favourite hymn that I’ve been introduced to at St. Helen’s is Praise to the Lord:

Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of creation!
O my soul, praise him, for he is your health and salvation!
Come all who hear:
brothers and sisters draw near,
praise him in glad adoration!

Praise to the Lord, above all things so mightily reigning
keeping us safe at his side, and so gently sustaining.
Have you not seen:
All you have needed has been
met by his gracious ordaining?

Praise to the Lord, who shall prosper our work and defend us;
surely his goodness and mercy shall daily attend us.
Ponder anew
what the Almighty can do,
who with his love will befriend us.

Praise to the Lord - O let all that is in me adore him!
All that has life and breath, come now with praises before him!
Let the ‘Amen’
sound from his people again,
gladly with praise we adore him!

I love the way this song links the power of the Creator with his care for his children, enjoining us to ‘Ponder anew / what the Almighty can do / if with his love he befriend thee’.

There have been several weekends where it has been real joy to spend time enjoying God’s creation and to return to church on a Sunday evening to praise with my brothers and sisters the living God, the King of Creation.

And as I look back over a year living in London, I am amazed and thankful for God for the way he has amply met all my needs by his ‘gracious ordaining’.

We sing it with a slight lilt, like this recording of the hymn from a Mars Hill band, but more upbeat.

My prayer for this week is that my worship would be acceptable to him:

Praise to the Lord, O let all that is in me adore him!
All that has life and breath, come now with praises before him!
Let the ‘Amen’
sound from his people again,
gladly with praise we adore him!

Prayer on the internet

I’ve been following the prayer requests made at WeTheChurch.org on Twitter over the past few months. People go to the WeTheChurch website and anonymously submit either requests for prayer or praise which are then published on the site, and to their Twitter account.

I was skeptical about the quality of prayer this would produce, and only signed up out of curiosity, but I’ve been fairly impressed. There certainly are plenty of selfish prayers, but the majority of the prayers I have seen have been people thanking God or expressing deep desires for others’ spiritual, physical and mental health.

Most of the praise points concern various physical and relational blessings where God’s provision is felt, but there also lots of prayers that praise God’s character:

All glory be to you Lord, for you are the head over all! Thank you for loving us, and walking with us every moment of our lives!

As I’ve read through the prayer requests, I’ve been struck by how many of the more selfish prayers (I use the term selfish loosely) are about work. 13 of the 100 prayers on the front page mention ‘job’ or ‘work’. Here’s a sampling:

NEED a full-time job. Please pray for God’s blessing. Thank you.

On Monday I have THE most important job interview of my life! Please pray for me.

I made the cut for the final 3 for a new job. Thank you, God! Please let me be the final 1 now!

Thank you, God, for a possible job for July.

From what I’ve seen work-related requests comfortably outnumber any other category of personal petitions, including relationship with God, relationships with people and health.

Made me wonder whether in my life and in my advice to others I am giving work the respect it deserves. I know from a short time being unemployed how difficult and depressing it can be to be out of work. However, I think I probably focus too much on the Genesis curse side of work than the pre-Fall created-to-work idea.

When we are talking about wise places to work, or wise careers to follow, do we need to take care that we are not making the options too black and white?

Thoughts on ‘a gospel for the uncircumcised’

Last week I summarised elements of Tim Keller’s helpful article on ‘The Gospel in All its Forms‘, finishing with some questions about what Keller calls his ‘gospel for the uncircumcised’ (aka ‘postmoderns’):

I take a page from Kierkegaard’s The Sickness Unto Death and define sin as building your identity—your self-worth and happiness—on anything other than God. That is, I use the biblical definition of sin as idolatry. That puts the emphasis not as much on “doing bad things” but on “making good things into ultimate things.

Instead of telling them they are sinning because they are sleeping with their girlfriends or boyfriends, I tell them that they are sinning because they are looking to their romances to give their lives meaning, to justify and save them, to give them what they should be looking for from God. This idolatry leads to anxiety, obsessiveness, envy, and resentment. I have found that when you describe their lives in terms of idolatry, postmodern people do not give much resistance. Then Christ and his salvation can be presented not (at this point) so much as their only hope for forgiveness, but as their only hope for freedom. This is my “gospel for the uncircumcised.”

My questions were:

  • What does Scripture say about different presentations of the gospel for the circumcised and uncircumcised?
  • Does Keller’s ‘gospel for the uncircumcised’ tally with a Biblical gospel presentation? Specifically,
  • 1) is the Biblical definition of idolatory really ‘building your identity on anything other than God’?
  • 2) is Christ and his salvation ever presented as freedom from idols?

This week I thought I’d try to answer some of those. I hope these questions don’t seem like nitpicking. Firstly, I think it’s great practice whenever you hear something to think ‘well great, but is it Biblical?’

Secondly in this case, Keller is specifically alluding to something Biblical with his ‘gospel for the uncircumcised’. I think it’s important to ask whether that actually exists in the Bible, and if so whether it’s the same gospel as Tim Keller outlined.

I hope in this post to imitate the behaviour of the Christians in Berea in Acts 17, who examined the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul told them was true.

First, let’s take a look at the passage Tim Keller alluded to when he mentioned his ‘gospel for the uncircumcised’.

Sometimes Tim Keller makes me feel like this

Galatians: unity in the gospel, division in labour

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. [...] And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.

On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

I know we have some Galatians experts in the readership so I’ll keep this short. My summary of the passage would be that Paul and Peter (=Cephas) agree that they are teaching the same gospel, but that they are called it to different groups of people - Peter to the Jews (circumcised) and Paul to the Gentiles (uncircumcised). Now it’s possible that teaching the gospel to these two groups requires different presentations of it, but that doesn’t seem to be the point of this passage, which emphasises unity in the gospel among the apostles, even as they preach to different groups.

To establish whether the gospel is presented differently to the Gentiles in the Bible, and if so how, it seems we need to go elsewhere.

To answer that question I’ve gone through the book of the Acts of the Apostles and looked at all the places where the gospel is presented to an unbelieving, predominantly Gentile audience to see what themes were emphasised.

I’m assuming that when the apostles spoke to Jewish hearers they emphasised the law and prophetic fulfilment.

Acts: turn from death to the God who judges and forgives
Firstly Peter in Acts 10 after he realises that the Gentiles are also to be evangelised:

Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him. [..] And he commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead. To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.

So here we see judgement and sin mentioned (though there is also something about freedom that I’ve cut out).

The next episode that I think is relevant is in Acts 14. Paul and Barnabas get taken for gods when they heal someone:

“Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. In past generations he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness.”

This is the best passage for a ‘freedom from idols’ gospel presentation that I’ve found. It’s a short section, and arguably the context makes the use of the ‘turn from idols’ theme essential! There is only a hint of a law/judgement theme here; if God has born witness to himself through nature in past generations, then he might fairly judge them.

Next we come to Paul’s Areopagus address in Acts 17. I think the key section is:

Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”

In the longest recordered and most famous address by Paul to the Gentiles, judgement is more of a theme than freedom.

Finally, in Acts 26, we find Paul before King Aggripa, who appears to not be Jewish, though Paul says he is familar with the ‘customs of the Jews’. Paul doesn’t directly make a gospel presentation, but he does recount his own conversion, and includes within it this quote from Jesus on the Damascus Road:

Rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles—to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’

Arguably this could be said to be presenting a liberation theme obliquely to Aggripa.

In summary, I think this set of passages shows that the apostles did include liberation from futile idolatory in their gospel presentations to Gentiles, but even here it seems that this is not the main theme.

Is that a fair conclusion?

I now want to see look at what the Bible says about turning from idols more broadly, not just whether the theme is used evangelistically.

The Bible: Yahweh hates idols, we should hate idols
Is ‘freedom from idols’ as ‘freedom from futiltity’ a Biblical way to describe the gospel? I think we’ve seen some hints from the passages in Acts that it might be.

Tom U in the comments for the last post pointed out two relevant passages:

For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God (1 Thessalonians 1:9)

Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. (Galatians 4:8)

My reading would be that these certainly show that something that happens when God saves us is that we cease to be enslaved to idols, but whether that idolatory is presented biblicallly as futility is not clear here.

It is clear that idols are described as futile and worthless in the Old Testament. Particularly helpful is Isaiah 44:

All who fashion idols are nothing, and the things they delight in do not profit. Their witnesses neither see nor know, that they may be put to shame. Who fashions a god or casts an idol that is profitable for nothing? Behold, all his companions shall be put to shame, and the craftsmen are only human. Let them all assemble, let them stand forth. They shall be terrified; they shall be put to shame together.

Also, hear Isaiah 57:

When you cry out, let your collection of idols deliver you!
The wind will carry them off,
a breath will take them away.
But he who takes refuge in me shall possess the land
and shall inherit my holy mountain.

This is perhaps quite a thin line, but from a skim through all the references to idols in the ESV, I would say that the Biblical emphasis is not ‘oh you poor things stop following silly idols, they won’t help, come and follow the sovereign Yahweh’, but more ‘you foolish people who follow worthless idols deserve judgement, fear Yahweh!’

I guess my questions are:

1) Is redemption as freedom from futile idol-worship a big biblical theme? If not, should we use it often evangelistically?

2) Is presenting the gospel to non-believer simply or mainly in terms of freedom from futility done in the Bible? If not, should we do it?

3) If you’re a non-Christian and you’re reading this, you’re probably the sort of person to whom Tim Keller would like to appeal. Read his quote again; is that a message that resonates with you?

And let’s listen to Isaiah, and be shocked at how we can worship such vain things, and resolve to take refuge only in Yahweh.

Yahweh says:

“What profit is an idol
when its maker has shaped it,
a metal image, a teacher of lies?
For its maker trusts in his own creation
when he makes speechless idols!
Woe to him who says to a wooden thing, Awake;
to a silent stone, Arise!
Can this teach?
Behold, it is overlaid with gold and silver,
and there is no breath at all in it.
But the Lord is in his holy temple;
let all the earth keep silence before him.” Habbakkuk 2

Idol worship. Looks like fun, but you'll feel bad in the morning.

Talking about Church 2.0

This week I’m meeting up with a group of friends to begin an informal discussion on how we at St. Helen’s can use web technologies better as a church.

I decided to write up my current ideas on this and see what you thought.

If we define church as something like ‘a community of people being shaped by God through his word’ (that includes a missional element there), then it seems to me that the best way of using web 2.0 type things to help achieve that aim would be to build a community around a set of church blogs. I think this would be better than going for a purer community like Facebook or Ning or messing around with lifestreaming/sharing.

I see blogging as advantageous because:

  • There is a platform for the Word to be taught. As opposed to Facebook profiles etc where we might often be speaking the truth in love, in a blogging network we can do that as well as have a community that is built on the Word.
  • Authority is more present. There is a clear line between the author and the commentator, a line that I think is very biblical (though I am clearly in favour of the lay-person blogging!)
  • They are better for engaging people from outside the community as all the content is open and obvious and more interesting to read than the Rector’s profile would be.
  • Participating in the blog community is has a lower barrier to entry than joining a social network.
  • Blogs are an established part of the internet, whereas Twitter and social bookmarking and to a lesser extent Facebook are not.
  • Setting up a few blogs is an easy first step, technically and socially. Community type features to allow people to network could then be added on top when there is demand (e.g. using Disqus).

I should stress that the discussion we’re having is very early stage and informal, nothing official yet. But if you’d like to be involved, drop me a line in the comments.

What do you think? Are blogs the best building block?

A tree - ‘I am the true vine’

Tim Keller at Google

More from Tim Keller today - here’s a talk he gave at Google on the subject of his recent book: The Reason For God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism

I watched this through with a non-Christian friend last night, which took a while as we kept pausing it for discussion (my friend didn’t agree with a lot of it). I recommend that non-Christians and Christians watch it, for the reasons Keller explains at the start of his talk.

The actual talk is about 40 min, then there’s Q&A. Comment below!

A gospel for the ‘uncircumcised’

Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York recently wrote an article for Christianity Today’s Leadership Journal that has been getting a fair amount of attention.

Titled ‘The Gospel in All Its Forms’, it contains a lot of helpful material, based around Keller’s main point: although there is one gospel preached by all the NT authors, it has various forms.

Tim Keller

He says that authors of Scripture only rarely try to include all the different aspects of the gospel in one presentation, and that we should imitate this, chosing the most relevant aspect of the gospel for our hearers.

I think this is an excellent point, and agree that there are many Biblical ways of explaining what we were, what we are now and what we will become by God’s grace and in his power.

For example, for people from a Jewish, Muslim or other conservative religious background, an explanation of how we have all transgressed God’s law and how through Christ’s sacrifice we can escape the just punishment we deserve may be the most helpful way to introduce the gospel. Keller calls this a ‘gospel for the circumsised’, refering to Galatians 2:7.

He then outlines the way he might present the gospel to the ‘uncircumcised’ - i.e. people with a postmodern worldview:

I take a page from Kierkegaard’s The Sickness Unto Death and define sin as building your identity—your self-worth and happiness—on anything other than God. That is, I use the biblical definition of sin as idolatry. That puts the emphasis not as much on “doing bad things” but on “making good things into ultimate things.

Instead of telling them they are sinning because they are sleeping with their girlfriends or boyfriends, I tell them that they are sinning because they are looking to their romances to give their lives meaning, to justify and save them, to give them what they should be looking for from God. This idolatry leads to anxiety, obsessiveness, envy, and resentment. I have found that when you describe their lives in terms of idolatry, postmodern people do not give much resistance. Then Christ and his salvation can be presented not (at this point) so much as their only hope for forgiveness, but as their only hope for freedom. This is my “gospel for the uncircumcised.”

These paragraphs gave me pause as I read through the article. It seems like a clear and appealing way to introduce the gospel. But I have several questions:

  • What does Scripture say about different presentations of the gospel for the circumcised and uncircumcised?
  • Does Keller’s ‘gospel for the uncircumcised’ tally with a Biblical gospel presentation? Specifically,
  • 1) is the Biblical definition of idolatory really ‘building your identity on anything other than God’?
  • 2) is Christ and his salvation ever presented as freedom from idols?

I have some thoughts on the answers to these, but it’s a meaty set of topics, and it’s the end of my lunch hour, so I’m going to post this now and try to follow up on these questions later.

In the meantime, please share your thoughts in the comments.

I’ll just tee things up a little by giving the ESV translation of what I think is the relevant section of Galatians 2:

Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.

On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. (Galatians 2:1-10)

What does it mean to ‘not taste death until they see the kingdom of God’?

Over the last couple of days a chap called Matty B has been wondering what Jesus meant when he said:

And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.” (Mark 9:1)

At first glance this might raise difficulties if we assume that ’seeing the kingdom of God’ means simply means Jesus’s second coming, clearly the topic of the preceeding verse (8:38), since his audience (the disciples) are all dead, and Christ has not yet come ‘in the glory of his Father and with the holy angels’.

My interpretation of this statement is that Jesus was primarily referring to his transfiguration, which follows immediately in Mark, Matthew and Luke (John does not mention the transfiguration).

In this post I want to briefly explain why I think this, and in a follow-up post I will attempt to defend this position against various criticisms.

I’ll focus on Mark’s account of this episode, since it’s the gospel I am most familar with, but we’ll take a look at what the other snyoptic authors, Matthew and Luke, say too.

Reason 1: The context
The broader context for the saying above in all the synoptics is the Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ in Mark 8:29, which leads on to Jesus’s first prediction of his death at the hands of the religious leaders. Jesus seems to be teaching the disciples what being the Christ, or God’s Anointed, means - suffering now, glory later.

Jesus then applies this to his followers:

“If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? For what can a man give in return for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” (Mark 8:34-38)

As followers of Jesus, we must follow the same path Jesus trod: we must lose our lives now to save it later. This is pretty similar in Matthew and Luke. I’ll be giving a talk on Matthew’s version of this passage to some children in a few weeks :)

cross.jpg

What does this have to do with the transfiguration? Well, it makes very little sense for Christians to lose our lives now unless Jesus will be raised, will come in the glory of his Father and ‘repay each person according to what he has done’ (Matt. 16). Only a fool would lose their lives now for a Jesus who was only a person who died in 33 AD.

To help the disciples understand that the suffering now, glory later equation does make sense, Jesus then shows them a glimpse of his glorified self in the transfiguration:

And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, and his clothes became radiant, intensely white, as no one on earth could bleach them. And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, and they were talking with Jesus. And Peter said to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good that we are here. Let us make three tents, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.” For he did not know what to say, for they were terrified. And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him.”(Mark 9:2-7)

So the logic of the three evangelists is this: Peter gets that Jesus is the Christ -> Jesus explains being the Christ means to die now, live later -> Following Christ means to die now, live later -> Disciples can confidently do that because of the glimpse of Christ’s glory in the transfiguration.

So I would argue that the logic of the placement of the passages in the three synoptic gospels makes most sense when the transfiguration is tied to the preceding material on Jesus’ followers dying now in order to live later.

Reason 2: The specifics of the verse
With the idea that the transfiguration is important as a sign that followers of Jesus can confidently lay down their lives as he did in mind, we can now see that the focal verse makes sense as a bridge between die now, live later stuff and the transfiguration:

“For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels [OK, great but that sounds like a long way off]. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here [Peter, James and John] who will not taste death [all the other disciples will die before they see the kingdom of God] until they see the kingdom of God [the kingdom is defined by being ruled by God's king - see the whole of Mark 1] after it has come with power [the transfiguration was pretty powerful I'd say!]”

So in this verse Jesus is telling his disciples how they can rely on the Son of Man’s return - just wait, Jesus says, in a few days I will be transfigured, and the Father will powerfully show you that I am his Son.

As followers of Jesus then, the transfiguration helps us to have the confidence we need to take up our crosses and follow Jesus on the path of denial and death now to gain life and glory when he returns. That Jesus knew this event was approaching and used it in advance to teach the disciples is even more amazing.

That’s my outline of why I think the transfiguration is the best explanation of what Jesus means in this verse, though I wouldn’t rule out several other explanations, and multiple fulfilments of this verse might be possible.

In a follow-up post I will attempt to defend this interpretation against any criticisms, so post your thoughts or objections below.

Calling all RSS subscribers

If there’s anyone out there who subscribed to the Stay Awake RSS feed before this post, could I encourage you to come and resubscribe to the new feed, now provided by Feedburner.

It promises a better looking feed, and will enable me to track how many people are reading, which will help me to decide how much time to spend writing blog posts!

Thanks very much.

Rejoice - the Lord is King!

These words have encouraged me this morning during a somewhat downbeat day:

Rejoice, the Lord is King: your Lord and King adore!
Rejoice, give thanks and sing, and triumph evermore.
Lift up your heart, lift up your voice! Rejoice, again I say, rejoice!

Jesus the Saviour reigns, the God of truth and love;
when he had purged our stains, he took his seat above.
Lift up your heart, lift up your voice! Rejoice, again I say, rejoice!

His kingdom cannot fail, he rules o’er earth and heav’n;
the keys of death and hell are to our Jesus giv’n.
Lift up your heart, lift up your voice! Rejoice, again I say, rejoice!

He sits at God’s right hand till all his foes submit,
and bow to his command, and fall beneath his feet.
Lift up your heart, lift up your voice! Rejoice, again I say, rejoice!

Rejoice in glorious hope! Our Lord, the Judge, shall come,
and take his servants up to their eternal home.
Lift up your heart, lift up your voice! Rejoice, again I say, rejoice!

Some very sad things do happen, and it’s right to mourn, but 90% of the time we get upset about things that matter so little. I love the way this song corrects this attitude Biblically:

  • How can we not rejoice, when our Saviour has purged our stains?
  • How can we worry, when our Saviour’s kingdom cannot fail and all foes will submit to him?
  • How can we be sad, when we have a glorious hope?

Then I heard what seemed to be the voice of a great multitude, like the roar of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, crying out,

“Hallelujah!
For the Lord our God
the Almighty reigns.
Let us rejoice and exult
and give him the glory,
for the marriage of the Lamb has come,
and his Bride has made herself ready;
it was granted her to clothe herself
with fine linen, bright and pure”—

for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints.

Revelation 19 (ESV)

Lift up your heart, lift up your voice: rejoice, again I say: rejoice!