Category Archives: Theology

Words & things

2 Replies

It’s intriguing that (at least) three Bible words have dictionary definitions that include word and thing.

That is, when found in the native environment (in a sentence, not in a dictionary – the zoo for words), it’s possible that each of them could refer to speech, or to an object. For example, in Luke 2:15 the shepherd go to see ‘this thing’ (τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο) that has happened: the birth of Jesus. In Luke 2:19, seeing Jesus, the tell others about ‘the saying’ (τοῦ ῥήματος) that was spoken to them.

It’s odd to me, because I am used to dividing between words and things. My words are not reality, and things do not become so simply because I say so. A human promise is good, but not always trustworthy.

That’s where God is so different. When God speaks, it happens. He rules by his word. Likewise,  ‘the thing’ exists because God announced it. God’s words are reality.

So I tried to put together a visual to help me. Here it is.

You can see the three Bible words in the middle, one Hebrew and two Greek. Above and below are the two concepts that they link: word and thing. The arrows on the sides try to express how word and thing relate (theologically rather than linguistically).

On the right: the word spoken is fulfilled, and thus becomes a thing. God’s word become reality. Perhaps that thing is a physical object: Genesis 1’s ‘Let there be … and there was …’ Perhaps the thing is a state of affairs: ‘I have set my King on Zion’, or ‘You will be my people and I will be your God.’

On the left, the thing only exists because it was announced in God’s word. Creation is contingent, not self-existing. Creation depends entirely on God’s word. Christ upholds everything ‘by the word of his power’ (Hebrews 1:3).

This helps me to see the link. Even more, it helps me to give thanks to God – his word is true, trustworthy and real. What great confidence we can have in the words of our Father!

 

A testing question

Leave a Reply

Here’s a question that won’t wear out with repeated use. It will not grow weaker with age. It will not lose its depth after many visits. It will not be less beautiful after repeated viewing.

A Christian can ask this question to measure almost anything. It is:

What does it do to the cross of Christ?

“If I took that statement seriously, what does it do to the cross of Christ?” “If we believe the Christian life includes X, what does it do to the cross of Christ?” “If I view church/work/family from this perspective, what does it do to the cross of Christ?”

OK, so those are all quite general. Here’s some more meat onto this bare-bones idea.

A lady on a plane, who seemed to consider herself connected to Christianity, told me that she didn’t like the idea of God judging people. I should have asked – but didn’t – “What does that do to the cross of Christ?” Answer: It makes the cross incoherent. If Jesus was not taking God’s judgement, the cross achieved nothing. When the cross is reduced to mere example of love there’s no point in making it necessary (as the New Testament insists) because God shows his love in many other ways.

Someone else complains about raising an old wound and unreconciled relationships. It’s unChristian. What does that complaint do to the cross? Answer: It pushes aside the reconciliation that God so decisively won by Jesus’ blood, and chooses instead to promote the appearance of order over brotherly love.

We could apply this question all over life. Here are some of the many areas.

  • In questions of theology.
    (Wondering if is Jesus is the only way to God the Father. Considering the resurrection as physical or just symbolic. Describing the nature of saving faith.)
  • In matters of Christian living.
    (Can you be a solo Christian, and deliberately ignore church? Do I need to repent of and name every single sin? Can a believer be possessed by evil spirits? I think it’s OK to leave my wife and kids.)
  • In arranging life together.
    (Who can legitimately be part of church? Or who can help lead ministries? Are there areas in which we can co-operate with people of different beliefs?)

It’s useful, I believe, because it’s a weapon with live ammunition. People sometimes raise the question of ‘God at work’ – a good weapon, but not loaded. Unless God’s work is well-defined, perceiving God’s hand relies on vague feeling or unjustified guesses. When we turn to the heart of God’s work (à la 1 Corinthians 2:2), we have a sure way to seek that which is consistent with God’s self-revelation in the world. The cross is certainly a live truth!

Are there particular places you can see this question being useful? I’d love to know them! Please share with us in the comments section below.

 


 

Worship to the end

Leave a Reply

 

There’s plenty to say about worship. Like many others, I can’t stand the label worship leader applied to the person who leads singing. It’s as if ‘worship’ and ‘sing’ are identical in meaning, with no remainder. They’re not!

Consequently, I don’t bother reading the content of Worship Leader, Worship Leader Insights, or Worship the Rock. They start in the wrong direction, so what’s the point?

Among those who avoid the obvious mistake, there is much still not settled. Can we call church, or other Christian gathering, ‘worship’? What is worship? And while we’re here, what should we do in church anyway?

There’s one facet I have seen too little of in worship discussion. (That could be because I’ve looked in the wrong place, of course!) The missing factor: the difference between now and the end.

There is a very important similarity between what we experience now before Christ’s return, and what worshippers will experience forever after. Right now, Christians have come to the heavenly assembly (Hebrews 12:22-23). Most significant! Yet there is also difference, and this difference has practical implication.

Here’s an attempt to note some of the differences between now (before Jesus’ return) and then (after).

Now Then
edify be like Christ
worship is solo or gathered worship is gathered
gathering is partial and inconsistent gathering is permanent and perfect

Here are two ways this is important to us.

Some point out that ‘you don’t have to come to church for the purpose worship’ (for example, here). There’s a very important point in this: the reminder that every believer is always a worshipper. Yet I think it is unhelpful: it somewhat disconnects gathering from the purpose of honouring God.

After Jesus’ consummation of the kingdom, I’m convinced we will be gathered worshippers – and that the gathering is essential, not incidental. That is, integral to the eternal glory of God is the benefit of being brought together into his kingdom and family. In other words: eschatologically we are gathered for the purpose of worship. So, I believe, discussion of present-day church needs to make room for this truth.

A second area it’s important is deciding what we do when we gather now. To replace worship language, with all its abuses and confusion, I’ve seen ‘edification’ suggested as the right category. Note, this is not merely saying that we should edify one another – that’s given –  but that edification encompasses all that local church is about.

My fear is that edification places present-day church too strongly in the present day, and not strongly enough in the day to come. Christians speak of living in the ‘now and not-yet’, simultaneously. This world and the world to come. I see edification as a task for this world and not the world to come. Who needs to be built after God finished his reconstruction task on us? Therefore, ‘edification’, I believe can only be a partial expression of the purpose of local church.

Now, perhaps I’m off on an irrelevant tangent. Possibly distracted by the flowers as I wander through the field of theological discussion. If so, please be patient with me! In which case also I can tell you the main point I’d like to make in this blog post: that worship discussions have not made enough of the now v. not yet reality.

What do you think?

 


 

Exodus & thinking about God

Leave a Reply

The Bible’s second book, Exodus, seems to me to have three broad sections. Part 1: God prepares to redeem his people from slavery. Part 2: God redeems his people and brings them to himself. Part 3: God deals with his oh-so-fallible people.

The salvation won by the Passover is the big-deal, nation-forming event for Israel. That’s why Passover feast is still celebrated so many centuries later.

In each section, there’s some important development based on God’s name, the Lord. That is, Exodus is not only about the people. Without downplaying the people, the name and character of God are more important.

The name ...

In Part 1
Moses is not too willing, when first asked, to be God’s representative. He conjures an objector’s question, ‘When I tell them God sent me, they’ll ask “What’s his name?”‘ God’s answer (Exodus 3:14-15):

God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.'” God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations.

The great ‘I am’ is the Lord (in Bible editions, LORD shows the use of the personal name of God). God will be ‘named’ in what he does. To know his name and character, watch him act. My rough approximation of ‘I am who I am’ is ‘Watch this space.’ God is about to act – decisively and conclusively, and then the people will know.

In Part 2
There’s a confrontation between the Lord and Pharaoh. The Lord defeats the murderous and heard-hearted Pharaoh, as well as freeing the Hebrew people. This, too, is to reveal the name of God. God told Pharaoh this was the case (Exodus 9:16): For this purpose I have raised you up, to show you my power, so that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.

In Part 3
The new nation has a clear responsibility, to not take the name of the Lord in vain (Exodus 20:7). They fail, spectacularly. The worship of mere gold statues places doubt on the whole relationship between God and people.

After Moses’ mediation, God proves his determination to work even with such a people as this – he proves it by a renewed declaration of his name (Exodus 34:5-7):

The LORD descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD. The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

This name-saying is notably different from that of chapter 3. It’s not, now, ‘Watch this space.’ God has already saved a people, punished the enslaving nation, and confronted sin in his own people. God’s actions have revealed his name and character. So God chooses to specify aspects of that character: mercy, grace, forgiveness, just punishment, …

The whole shape of Exodus suggests that reflection on God’s character must always be tied to the works of God. Theology can never (truly) happen in a vacuum, or as a thought-exercise. There are deep thoughts! Thoughts, however, that follow close observation of God’s saving action.

There’s so much story in the Bible. It’s so we can get to know the Lord who speaks his name to us. To be ignorant of the biblical drama – especially its high points in the four-fold gospel account – is to be ignorant of God himself.

 


 

‘There is no god’: super-condensed

Leave a Reply

The point of this post is to try and distil one argument against the existence of God. (I’ll stick to the capital G God for now, since the argument is really about the God of the Bible.)

This is deliberately a short post – hence distil – but this is not to say the topic is simple. What I want is to express the heart of the argument. I want to do this accurately and without caricature. So I would love to have your comments about my success or failure.

After all, it’s easy to be long-winded and complex and explain things poorly.

So here’s one argument against God, in three lines.

    1. God claims: justice and love are victorious
    2. Experience says: justice and love are transient, at best. At worst, they are ridiculous dreams
    3. Therefore: this God is not real

How did I go? Fair? Accurate? Sharp and helpful or bland and yawn-inducing?

Here are two follow-up questions. I have them in mind as tools for allowing theists or atheists to further explain their position.

For the atheist: after this argument, what remains of justice and love, because they only appear to exist through the truth of the first axiom?

For the theist: why should your beliefs override the acknowledged experience of the world?