D. A. Carson
ISBN 0801024994
This is a fascinating little book. It has been on my 'list' for some time so I was glad to get the time to read it. As the title indicates the book’s primary concern is to identify the fallacies that may arise when seeking to understand the meaning of the biblical text. It doesn’t cover areas of application to the modern situation of the reader, though reference is made to this other large field of potential pitfalls.
More than half of the book is given over to word-study errors and grammatical errors in Greek. This assumes some knowledge of the Greek language and therefore it will be bewildering to one who does not have this background. The message of this section is a simple one: the way to avoid many of these errors is simply to get to know the language better as a language, rather than simply a set of alternative words. The old adage 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' is amply shown to be true. There are great dangers for those who want to preach and yet make do with a little knowledge. For example, how many times have you read of heard of the gospel described as the 'dynamite' of God? 'Dynamite' is derived from dunamis, the Greek word for 'power'. But this is a modern meaning read back into the ancient text. Paul did not mean to convey the idea of explosive, destructive force in the gospel. It is an example of what Carson calls semantic anachronism.
The remainder of the book deals with logical, historical and presuppositional fallacies. These are extremely helpful. Many examples from published works serve as illustrations. What I found striking was the challenge to my tendency to read commentaries with the assumption that the writers' understanding of Greek is good or that his reasoning is sound. Carson’s observations remind me to be careful and approach commentaries critically. They may be wrong!
Overall the book is an excellent addition to the library of a preacher. My only criticism is that it is a little too short. Some of the explanations of, for example, the grammatical fallacies needed to be expanded for the sake of clarity. Nevertheless, it is worth studying well.
Saturday, February 28, 2004
Friday, February 27, 2004
The Power of Scripture
Calvin's Institutes I.VIII.1-4
Calvin continues to assert the primacy of Scripture over human reason. Some rational considerations are offered to bolster the divine origin of Scripture: the antiquity of the writings; how Moses does not write in a positive way about his family, but instead negatively. Yet Calvin does not go deeply into this.
Instead he makes much of Scripture’s self-authentication by its effect on the reader. He admits that other great writings may move us. But
At issue is the degree of the effect it has on the reader. This is a challenge to my naturally rationalistic way of thinking. I, like many others I suppose, would like some kind of external authentication – a kind of divine certificate of approval – to go with Scripture. But Calvin’s argument is that Scripture with the internal witness of the Spirit is the required certificate. This makes sense on further thought. Any other certificate would only be subjected to the same inquiry as Scripture by the human mind.
I liked this statement: speaking of the tasty variety of style used to convey divine thought, he says
Scripture should never be cabbage soup day by day!
Calvin continues to assert the primacy of Scripture over human reason. Some rational considerations are offered to bolster the divine origin of Scripture: the antiquity of the writings; how Moses does not write in a positive way about his family, but instead negatively. Yet Calvin does not go deeply into this.
Instead he makes much of Scripture’s self-authentication by its effect on the reader. He admits that other great writings may move us. But
…so deeply will [Scripture] affect you, so penetrate your heart, so fix itself in your very marrow, that, compared with its deep impression, such vigor as the orators and philosophers have will nearly vanish. (I.VIII.1)
At issue is the degree of the effect it has on the reader. This is a challenge to my naturally rationalistic way of thinking. I, like many others I suppose, would like some kind of external authentication – a kind of divine certificate of approval – to go with Scripture. But Calvin’s argument is that Scripture with the internal witness of the Spirit is the required certificate. This makes sense on further thought. Any other certificate would only be subjected to the same inquiry as Scripture by the human mind.
I liked this statement: speaking of the tasty variety of style used to convey divine thought, he says
…those for whom prophetic doctrine is tasteless ought to be thought of as lacking taste buds. (I.VIII.2)
Scripture should never be cabbage soup day by day!
Thursday, February 26, 2004
The Value of Language Study
Since I started studying Greek and Hebrew at ETCW I have been wondering when the "pay off" for all this hard work is going to come. Various people have said to me that as long as they can consult a lexicon or two then they are satisfied. These comments have made me wonder whether it is worth pursuing it any further than basic Greek/Hebrew grammar.
I have been reading Don Carson's Exegetical Fallacies over the last couple of days. At the end of Chapter 1, 'Word-Study Fallacies', he says this:
I knew there was a reason for persisting and I just could not find it. Now I know. It's not just a case of knowing the words in order to literally 'translate' and sound clever. It's a case of knowing how the language works and getting inside the minds of the writers. Ultimately, it's about knowing God's mind better.
I have been reading Don Carson's Exegetical Fallacies over the last couple of days. At the end of Chapter 1, 'Word-Study Fallacies', he says this:
Perhaps the principal reason why word studies constitute a particularly rich source for exegetical fallacies is that many preachers and Bible teachers know Greek only well enough to use concordances, or perhaps a little more. There is little feel for Greek as a language; and so there is the temptation to display what has been learned in study, which as often as not is a great deal of lexical information without the restraining influence of context. The solution, of course, is to learn more Greek, not less, and to gain at least a rudimentary knowledge of linguistics. (p. 66, emphasis mine)
I knew there was a reason for persisting and I just could not find it. Now I know. It's not just a case of knowing the words in order to literally 'translate' and sound clever. It's a case of knowing how the language works and getting inside the minds of the writers. Ultimately, it's about knowing God's mind better.
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Authority
Calvin's Institutes I.VII.1-5
Calvin places Scripture and the Church in the right relationship. He challenges the view that the Church bestows authority on Scripture. The Church receives and gives a seal of approval to the Scriptures. But it does not confer authenticity upon them. Rather Scripture is self-authenticating under the witness of the Spirit.
Calvin tackles a then common misquotation of Augustine. Augustine appears to base his belief on the authority of the Church. However, Calvin is at pains to show that were the church divided on the content of the gospel then as an unbeliever he would not have come to faith. The settled position of the Church thus enables the new believer to learn the faith that he has obtained. Interesting that for Calvin faith comes before comprehension.
I think it is for this reason that Calvin says
It seems then that a body of believers, the Church, settled on the matter of the gospel provides the right environment for a new believer to be nurtured and taught.
He also challenges those who require rational proof for every step. Ultimately, rational proof will not lead one to faith. There will always be doubts. Only the inner testimony of the Spirit can give faith. Thus rational proof is of limited value.
Finally, a quote from Calvin that is quite pertinent for today:
If true, and I think the argument is compelling, where does this leave those who want the mystical leading of the Spirit, but at the same time treat Scripture as secondary, dispensable, only for certain Christians?
Calvin places Scripture and the Church in the right relationship. He challenges the view that the Church bestows authority on Scripture. The Church receives and gives a seal of approval to the Scriptures. But it does not confer authenticity upon them. Rather Scripture is self-authenticating under the witness of the Spirit.
Calvin tackles a then common misquotation of Augustine. Augustine appears to base his belief on the authority of the Church. However, Calvin is at pains to show that were the church divided on the content of the gospel then as an unbeliever he would not have come to faith. The settled position of the Church thus enables the new believer to learn the faith that he has obtained. Interesting that for Calvin faith comes before comprehension.
I think it is for this reason that Calvin says
… the scriptures obtain full authority among believers only when men regard them as having sprung from heaven. (I.VII.1)
It seems then that a body of believers, the Church, settled on the matter of the gospel provides the right environment for a new believer to be nurtured and taught.
He also challenges those who require rational proof for every step. Ultimately, rational proof will not lead one to faith. There will always be doubts. Only the inner testimony of the Spirit can give faith. Thus rational proof is of limited value.
Finally, a quote from Calvin that is quite pertinent for today:
Those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture (I.VII.5)
If true, and I think the argument is compelling, where does this leave those who want the mystical leading of the Spirit, but at the same time treat Scripture as secondary, dispensable, only for certain Christians?
Monday, February 23, 2004
Passionate Debate
I have been keeping an eye on attitudes to Mel Gibson’s film The Passion amongst Evangelical Christians. The film is due to be released in the US on 25th February, followed by a release in the UK on 26th March. It has become clear to me that a three-cornered debate has developed.
Mel Gibson is a Roman Catholic and his interest in making the film was sparked over a decade ago by the discovery of a book amongst a library he had purchased cheaply. The book, entitled The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ by Anne Catherine Emmerich. The author was a nun, a mystic and a stigmatist. The book is an account of the conversations she had with Christ during her mystical experiences.
This book stimulated Gibson to look more closely at the Passion story and in doing so read the Old and New Testaments. Thus Gibson claims that the film is faithful to the Gospel accounts.
The making of the film, particularly the editing of the film, has not been without controversy. The Anti-Defamation league , which plays a leading role in the fight against anti-semitism in the US, is concerned that the film will unleash a wave of anti-semitic sentiment amongst cultural Christians as a result of some of the biblically-based script. Thus there have been moves to delete certain scenes from the script and various other suggestions to head off any anti-semitic feeling that may arise.
What have Christians made of this film? A large proportion of Evangelicals are fully supporting it. This is perhaps understandable. The much older film Jesus has been seen as a useful tool in evangelism in many nations. The Passion therefore follows in that vein. It perhaps represents an improvement on Jesus bringing with it a high budget, a quality cast and Hollywood production values. It has been reported that churches all over the US are booking tickets and planning to give them away to non-believers. Saddleback Church in California has reportedly block booked 18000 tickets. The drive here is to take full advantage of this evangelistic tool in order to see as many as possible come to faith in Christ and enter the Kingdom of God.
A second group takes issue with the more broadly evangelical group. With a tradition much more firmly rooted in the history of the Reformation, it sees in the use of this film a rehearsal of an old argument with the Roman Catholic Church over the use of images in worship. Such struggles influenced the content of the great 17th century confessional standards. The second commandment says,
To this group, this command excludes the representation of Christ through any work of art, whether sculpture or painting. The modern argument extends to film. Modern theologians such as John Murray are appealed to in support. Murray, in his 1961 article Pictures of Christ has concluded that
Thus even though the use of a film like The Passion may ‘work’ in that many may come to faith, the fact that a commandment is deliberately broken is sufficient to halt its use. The fact that there are conversions is put down to the fact that God is gracious in spite of our sin, but that ‘success’ in evangelism must not be seen as divine approval. God’s work must be done with God’s means.
A third group is found at the more ‘high church’ end of the evangelical spectrum. However, this group sees the film not as an evangelistic tool, nor as blatant idolatry, but as art. It is a valid human method of telling a story which all can enjoy and learn from. But it should not be used as a means of evangelism or worship. This group is the least excited by the film’s release but simply looks forward to a good experience at the flicks.
So what do I make of this film? I confess to some unsettledness in this area. I am a member of a church that fits in group 1, my early Christian years were spent in a church that is in group 2, and I think there may be some 'wriggle room' in the views of group 3!
Let me say straight away that my default position on this is that of group 2. I do believe that the second commandment is difficult to avoid unless, possibly, one takes a dispensational view of Scripture. In other words the NT trumps the OT and since, in such a person’s opinion, the Decalogue is not clearly republished, the command has no continuing relevance to the modern day. Needless to say, that is not my view. The Decalogue continues as a ‘rule of life’ for the disciple of Christ. The 2nd commandment remains relevant to the modern situation.
How does it apply? Well, in two ways. Firstly, as an evangelistic tool we are using it in order that people will come to faith in Christ. In other words, so that new people will begin to worship God as redeemed and restored creatures. This seems to be an idolatrous, use the film as an idol to stimulate worship? Secondly, some Christians might be tempted to watch the film in order to better understand what Christ went through on the cross. It is seen as an aid to faith so that they can better love Christ. But this, it seems to me, is an idolatrous use of the film. It is precisely the issue that evoked God’s jealous anger in Exodus 32. God has not changed.
Thus, in spite of the potential numerical gains, evangelistic or devotional use of the film is excluded. Group 1 must err significantly in its support of this film. It must learn that the necessary and vital pursuit of Jesus’ Great Commission must also be controlled by the means given elsewhere in Scripture.
What of Group 3? I have to confess to being on less sure ground here. But here are some thoughts anyway. To treat the film simply as art, though it can be done, will be virtually impossible for the Christian. As one who, by definition, has following Christ as the goal of life, and for whom Christ forms a substantial proportion of conscious thought, the Christian will not be able to exclude the limited representations presented to him or her in the film. For example, in corporate worship, who would be able to exclude those visual images of Christ from thought while singing about the cross? The temptation to use the images in worship for many will simply be too great. Thus the Christian is led into sin.
On one discussion list I read, a contributor presented a very good argument against his own ‘Group 2’ position: Surely Moses did not sin when, coming down the mountain, he saw the Golden Calf? Was the seeing of the image idolatry? Clearly it was not. In the same way then, is the seeing of an image of Christ in a film idolatry? Clearly not in itself. But I would suggest that Moses could easily dismiss a Golden Calf, used to represent the infinite and eternal God, as so much nonsense. He could never be tempted to use the mental image in worship. This could not so easily be said of the moving, gritty, emotion-laden images of Christ in a movie. They would simply be too tempting for many. I realise that my argument admits a degree of judgment in assessing the appropriateness of seeing the film. A ‘strong’ Christian might survive the temptation, whereas a ‘weak’ Christian would not. But I would suggest that the number of the ‘strong’ is very small, and therefore I believe that seeing the film in the interests of ‘art’ would be damaging.
So where does that leave us? Reasons of evangelism, devotion, and art are all excluded. The film must therefore, in my view, be avoided.
Mel Gibson is a Roman Catholic and his interest in making the film was sparked over a decade ago by the discovery of a book amongst a library he had purchased cheaply. The book, entitled The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ by Anne Catherine Emmerich. The author was a nun, a mystic and a stigmatist. The book is an account of the conversations she had with Christ during her mystical experiences.
This book stimulated Gibson to look more closely at the Passion story and in doing so read the Old and New Testaments. Thus Gibson claims that the film is faithful to the Gospel accounts.
The making of the film, particularly the editing of the film, has not been without controversy. The Anti-Defamation league , which plays a leading role in the fight against anti-semitism in the US, is concerned that the film will unleash a wave of anti-semitic sentiment amongst cultural Christians as a result of some of the biblically-based script. Thus there have been moves to delete certain scenes from the script and various other suggestions to head off any anti-semitic feeling that may arise.
What have Christians made of this film? A large proportion of Evangelicals are fully supporting it. This is perhaps understandable. The much older film Jesus has been seen as a useful tool in evangelism in many nations. The Passion therefore follows in that vein. It perhaps represents an improvement on Jesus bringing with it a high budget, a quality cast and Hollywood production values. It has been reported that churches all over the US are booking tickets and planning to give them away to non-believers. Saddleback Church in California has reportedly block booked 18000 tickets. The drive here is to take full advantage of this evangelistic tool in order to see as many as possible come to faith in Christ and enter the Kingdom of God.
A second group takes issue with the more broadly evangelical group. With a tradition much more firmly rooted in the history of the Reformation, it sees in the use of this film a rehearsal of an old argument with the Roman Catholic Church over the use of images in worship. Such struggles influenced the content of the great 17th century confessional standards. The second commandment says,
You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, …
To this group, this command excludes the representation of Christ through any work of art, whether sculpture or painting. The modern argument extends to film. Modern theologians such as John Murray are appealed to in support. Murray, in his 1961 article Pictures of Christ has concluded that
… what is at stake in this question is the unique place which Jesus Christ as the God-man occupies in our faith and worship and the unique place which the Scripture occupies as the only revelation, the only medium of communication, respecting him whom we worship as Lord and Saviour. The incarnate Word and the written Word are correlative. We dare not use other media of impression or of sentiment but those of his institution and prescription. Every thought and impression of him should evoke worship. We worship him with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one God. To use a likeness of Christ as an aid to worship is forbidden by the second commandment as much in his case as in that of the Father and Spirit.
Thus even though the use of a film like The Passion may ‘work’ in that many may come to faith, the fact that a commandment is deliberately broken is sufficient to halt its use. The fact that there are conversions is put down to the fact that God is gracious in spite of our sin, but that ‘success’ in evangelism must not be seen as divine approval. God’s work must be done with God’s means.
A third group is found at the more ‘high church’ end of the evangelical spectrum. However, this group sees the film not as an evangelistic tool, nor as blatant idolatry, but as art. It is a valid human method of telling a story which all can enjoy and learn from. But it should not be used as a means of evangelism or worship. This group is the least excited by the film’s release but simply looks forward to a good experience at the flicks.
So what do I make of this film? I confess to some unsettledness in this area. I am a member of a church that fits in group 1, my early Christian years were spent in a church that is in group 2, and I think there may be some 'wriggle room' in the views of group 3!
Let me say straight away that my default position on this is that of group 2. I do believe that the second commandment is difficult to avoid unless, possibly, one takes a dispensational view of Scripture. In other words the NT trumps the OT and since, in such a person’s opinion, the Decalogue is not clearly republished, the command has no continuing relevance to the modern day. Needless to say, that is not my view. The Decalogue continues as a ‘rule of life’ for the disciple of Christ. The 2nd commandment remains relevant to the modern situation.
How does it apply? Well, in two ways. Firstly, as an evangelistic tool we are using it in order that people will come to faith in Christ. In other words, so that new people will begin to worship God as redeemed and restored creatures. This seems to be an idolatrous, use the film as an idol to stimulate worship? Secondly, some Christians might be tempted to watch the film in order to better understand what Christ went through on the cross. It is seen as an aid to faith so that they can better love Christ. But this, it seems to me, is an idolatrous use of the film. It is precisely the issue that evoked God’s jealous anger in Exodus 32. God has not changed.
Thus, in spite of the potential numerical gains, evangelistic or devotional use of the film is excluded. Group 1 must err significantly in its support of this film. It must learn that the necessary and vital pursuit of Jesus’ Great Commission must also be controlled by the means given elsewhere in Scripture.
What of Group 3? I have to confess to being on less sure ground here. But here are some thoughts anyway. To treat the film simply as art, though it can be done, will be virtually impossible for the Christian. As one who, by definition, has following Christ as the goal of life, and for whom Christ forms a substantial proportion of conscious thought, the Christian will not be able to exclude the limited representations presented to him or her in the film. For example, in corporate worship, who would be able to exclude those visual images of Christ from thought while singing about the cross? The temptation to use the images in worship for many will simply be too great. Thus the Christian is led into sin.
On one discussion list I read, a contributor presented a very good argument against his own ‘Group 2’ position: Surely Moses did not sin when, coming down the mountain, he saw the Golden Calf? Was the seeing of the image idolatry? Clearly it was not. In the same way then, is the seeing of an image of Christ in a film idolatry? Clearly not in itself. But I would suggest that Moses could easily dismiss a Golden Calf, used to represent the infinite and eternal God, as so much nonsense. He could never be tempted to use the mental image in worship. This could not so easily be said of the moving, gritty, emotion-laden images of Christ in a movie. They would simply be too tempting for many. I realise that my argument admits a degree of judgment in assessing the appropriateness of seeing the film. A ‘strong’ Christian might survive the temptation, whereas a ‘weak’ Christian would not. But I would suggest that the number of the ‘strong’ is very small, and therefore I believe that seeing the film in the interests of ‘art’ would be damaging.
So where does that leave us? Reasons of evangelism, devotion, and art are all excluded. The film must therefore, in my view, be avoided.
Follow the Thread
Calvin's Institutes I.VI.1-4
Calvin now shows the place of Scripture given that man is utterly corrupted. Creation cannot be seen clearly and therefore God cannot be known. It is as though man is almost blind so that though all truth is before him he cannot see it. He needs spectacles. Scripture functions in this role. It is therefore appropriate that Scripture plays a central role in overcoming inner corruption. So Calvin says,
Many people seek various pathways to the presence of God, often very confusing and labyrinthine, but accompanied with great sound, fury and excitement. Again, Calvin says the approach to God,
Thus Calvin affirms the central place Scripture must hold in the life of a believer. To be ambivalent towards it, to consider the possibility of other ways towards the face of God, or even to attempt what appear to be parallel paths, is simply to descend into the labyrinth without a guiding thread. It is a great challenge these days to take care personally, and to encourage others to keep hold of the “thread” as we seek God.
Calvin now shows the place of Scripture given that man is utterly corrupted. Creation cannot be seen clearly and therefore God cannot be known. It is as though man is almost blind so that though all truth is before him he cannot see it. He needs spectacles. Scripture functions in this role. It is therefore appropriate that Scripture plays a central role in overcoming inner corruption. So Calvin says,
Now in order that true religion may shine upon us, we ought to hold that it must take its beginning from heavenly doctrine and that no one can get even the slightest taste of right and sound doctrine unless he be a pupil of Scripture. (p.72)
Many people seek various pathways to the presence of God, often very confusing and labyrinthine, but accompanied with great sound, fury and excitement. Again, Calvin says the approach to God,
is for us like an inexplicable labyrinth unless we are conducted to it by the thread of the Word; so that it is better to limp along this path than to dash with all speed outside it. (p. 73)
Thus Calvin affirms the central place Scripture must hold in the life of a believer. To be ambivalent towards it, to consider the possibility of other ways towards the face of God, or even to attempt what appear to be parallel paths, is simply to descend into the labyrinth without a guiding thread. It is a great challenge these days to take care personally, and to encourage others to keep hold of the “thread” as we seek God.
Saturday, February 21, 2004
For a Purpose
Calvin's Institutes I.V.13-15
Calvin continues in the same vein:
• In spite of man’s intentions, the Holy Spirit rejects all man made attempts at religion
• Human opinion is the mother of error. Therefore God must bear witness to himself from heaven.
• The witness from creation fails because of man’s corruption.
• But men are without excuse since the fault is in them.
What is clear so far is that Calvin’s thought is based on this premise: That man is made for worship of the one true God. Man is given ample help in seeing and understanding who God is. The tragedy of the human condition is that his corruption interferes with his knowledge of God and thereby man makes up alternative modes of worship. This idolatry is what offends God.
Calvin continues in the same vein:
• In spite of man’s intentions, the Holy Spirit rejects all man made attempts at religion
• Human opinion is the mother of error. Therefore God must bear witness to himself from heaven.
• The witness from creation fails because of man’s corruption.
• But men are without excuse since the fault is in them.
What is clear so far is that Calvin’s thought is based on this premise: That man is made for worship of the one true God. Man is given ample help in seeing and understanding who God is. The tragedy of the human condition is that his corruption interferes with his knowledge of God and thereby man makes up alternative modes of worship. This idolatry is what offends God.
Monday, February 16, 2004
Is God Fair?
Calvin's Institutes I.V.11-12
Calvin lays into the foolishness of man. In his corruption he cannot look at creation and see the Creator. Rather, the human mind, being a labyrinth of confusion and frustration, makes up its own philosophies on life. There is a multitude of such philosophies too many to list, so Calvin limits his attacks to well known philosophers such as Plato. He sees such men as having no excuse before God.
This line of thinking reminds me of the often-heard complaint amongst some evangelicals and others that it is not fair that God should condemn those who have not heard the gospel. For example, isn’t some tribe in some remote part of the world that has not had a missionary sent to it less culpable than those of us who have received the gospel. Indeed, will God not save them because in their best efforts they are sincere?
Such an argument does not recognise the fundamental problem of the corruption of the human heart. As we have seen creation does attest to a God of wisdom, might and power. God’s works attest to his providential care, which reveal a future hope for the righteous. Yet all of this is denied by the human mind. It is that denial that is the undoing of all men and women before God, not the lack of hearing the gospel.
Calvin lays into the foolishness of man. In his corruption he cannot look at creation and see the Creator. Rather, the human mind, being a labyrinth of confusion and frustration, makes up its own philosophies on life. There is a multitude of such philosophies too many to list, so Calvin limits his attacks to well known philosophers such as Plato. He sees such men as having no excuse before God.
This line of thinking reminds me of the often-heard complaint amongst some evangelicals and others that it is not fair that God should condemn those who have not heard the gospel. For example, isn’t some tribe in some remote part of the world that has not had a missionary sent to it less culpable than those of us who have received the gospel. Indeed, will God not save them because in their best efforts they are sincere?
Such an argument does not recognise the fundamental problem of the corruption of the human heart. As we have seen creation does attest to a God of wisdom, might and power. God’s works attest to his providential care, which reveal a future hope for the righteous. Yet all of this is denied by the human mind. It is that denial that is the undoing of all men and women before God, not the lack of hearing the gospel.
Saturday, February 14, 2004
The Voice of Nature
Calvin's Institutes I.V.1-10
Having declared that man has an internal sense of God which is part of our own nature, this section deals with how God shows himself in creation. Nature bears ample testimony to his wisdom and power and there is no one to whom these are not shown. However, man in his rebellion pushes out God from his thinking (i.e. represses the seed of religion) while continuing to contemplate creation. Sometimes, though repressing this true God, Nature itself is substituted for God and it is worshipped and revered instead. This approach, Calvin seems to be saying, retains the signs while rejecting the thing signified. The desire to worship remains, though in a distorted form.
I find it striking that Calvin draws heavily on the Psalms to illustrate the correct approach to nature. It is observed that wickedness does go unpunished in many cases, but not all. In fact there is sufficient evidence to show that the righteous are generally protected, while the wicked are punished. Yet God in his patience does not punish all wickedness as it deserves. This in turn acts as a sign to us that there is a future expectation of vindication of the righteous and punishment of the wicked. Thus there is eschatology to be found in the humble appreciation of nature when seen as a theatre for God’s works.
Like Calvin, we would do well to spend time considering how the Psalms teach us about himself as Creator, Provider and Vindicator!
Having declared that man has an internal sense of God which is part of our own nature, this section deals with how God shows himself in creation. Nature bears ample testimony to his wisdom and power and there is no one to whom these are not shown. However, man in his rebellion pushes out God from his thinking (i.e. represses the seed of religion) while continuing to contemplate creation. Sometimes, though repressing this true God, Nature itself is substituted for God and it is worshipped and revered instead. This approach, Calvin seems to be saying, retains the signs while rejecting the thing signified. The desire to worship remains, though in a distorted form.
I find it striking that Calvin draws heavily on the Psalms to illustrate the correct approach to nature. It is observed that wickedness does go unpunished in many cases, but not all. In fact there is sufficient evidence to show that the righteous are generally protected, while the wicked are punished. Yet God in his patience does not punish all wickedness as it deserves. This in turn acts as a sign to us that there is a future expectation of vindication of the righteous and punishment of the wicked. Thus there is eschatology to be found in the humble appreciation of nature when seen as a theatre for God’s works.
Like Calvin, we would do well to spend time considering how the Psalms teach us about himself as Creator, Provider and Vindicator!
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
The Seed of Religion
More searching words from Calvin:
This at the conclusion of a chapter on the seed of religion planted within men – true of all, but the attendant knowledge is corrupted. That combined with 'pride and vanity' leads to false worship. Such worship may even look like the real thing but it lacks the truth about what really pleases God.
"In tranquil times they wittily joke about God, indeed are facetious and garrulous in belittling his power. If any occasion for despair presses upon them, it goads them to seek him and impels their perfunctory prayers. From this it is clear that they have not been utterly ignorant of God, but that what should have come forth sooner was held back by stubbornness." I.IV.4
This at the conclusion of a chapter on the seed of religion planted within men – true of all, but the attendant knowledge is corrupted. That combined with 'pride and vanity' leads to false worship. Such worship may even look like the real thing but it lacks the truth about what really pleases God.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
The Business of Church
Almost halfway through The Prevailing Church. So what has happened so far? I have to say I am a little disappointed with this book. In Chapter 2 Pope has made further reference to Matt 16, drawing out four marks of a prevailing church. This is about as far as biblical study goes. There does not seem to be any more!
The following chapter rehearses the six marks of a growing church. (Thankfully, one of those is not a vibrant youth work!) These are described as ‘widely recognised’. I think this reveals his controlling paradigm for church planting. This is to look at the features that seem to be evident in growing churches. The reader infers that they need to be evident in any church he in turn seeks to plant. Perhaps this explains his lack of biblical consideration in the book.
The first mark is for the church to possess a biblical theology (that is, a biblically based theology, not the academic discipline of ‘biblical theology’) and polity. This seems good, so far. The next three deal with the spiritual life of the church (including ‘Spiritual Renewal Dynamics’. Is there a verse for that?!) The last two concern the availability of the necessary resources. There is no biblical analysis in any of this – just bold assertion.
The one missing element, in Pope’s view, is the need for an ‘Effective Ministry Plan’. This is Pope’s contribution to this discussion. This idea has grown out of his own experience in church-planting. There are 10 elements, each of which are considered in the next 10 chapters. I have completed the first three.
The sequence begins well. One must have a ‘God-honouring purpose’. He draws on the first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism for guidance: What is the man’s primary purpose? …to glorify God and enjoy him forever. Sounds good again. However the remainder begins to read like of a business management textbook strangely peppered with spiritual language. The business of church is a very modern enterprise.
So. On to the second half…
The following chapter rehearses the six marks of a growing church. (Thankfully, one of those is not a vibrant youth work!) These are described as ‘widely recognised’. I think this reveals his controlling paradigm for church planting. This is to look at the features that seem to be evident in growing churches. The reader infers that they need to be evident in any church he in turn seeks to plant. Perhaps this explains his lack of biblical consideration in the book.
The first mark is for the church to possess a biblical theology (that is, a biblically based theology, not the academic discipline of ‘biblical theology’) and polity. This seems good, so far. The next three deal with the spiritual life of the church (including ‘Spiritual Renewal Dynamics’. Is there a verse for that?!) The last two concern the availability of the necessary resources. There is no biblical analysis in any of this – just bold assertion.
The one missing element, in Pope’s view, is the need for an ‘Effective Ministry Plan’. This is Pope’s contribution to this discussion. This idea has grown out of his own experience in church-planting. There are 10 elements, each of which are considered in the next 10 chapters. I have completed the first three.
The sequence begins well. One must have a ‘God-honouring purpose’. He draws on the first question of the Westminster Shorter Catechism for guidance: What is the man’s primary purpose? …to glorify God and enjoy him forever. Sounds good again. However the remainder begins to read like of a business management textbook strangely peppered with spiritual language. The business of church is a very modern enterprise.
So. On to the second half…
Tumult and Disquiet
Man possesses a Divinitatis sensum: an awareness of divinity. This is the seed of all religion. Despite protestations against religion, men will worship something, even though they may strongly deny it. Some use this as a means of control (a swipe at Western Catholicism?) But in the end they cannot avoid a holy God from whom, deep down, they wish to escape.
For an ‘old dead guy’ this is pretty good! It has an amazingly contemporary feel to it. Calvin says of men in whose lives true religion is absent:
If man is made to know God then it is of no surprise that when God is ignored then there is an unsettledness of spirit. Sounds like modern life. The constant grasping for more, the dissatisfaction in relationships, the ‘lets party’ attitude to life, the quest for ‘spiridualidy’. All ‘tumult and disquiet’.
Christians are not immune to this phenomenon. We are affected from within (our sinful nature) and without (we live in this unsettled world). Our end is to know God, but we too forget.
For an ‘old dead guy’ this is pretty good! It has an amazingly contemporary feel to it. Calvin says of men in whose lives true religion is absent:
Subject, then, to many forms of wickedness they drag out their lives in ceaseless tumult and disquiet. (I.III.3)
If man is made to know God then it is of no surprise that when God is ignored then there is an unsettledness of spirit. Sounds like modern life. The constant grasping for more, the dissatisfaction in relationships, the ‘lets party’ attitude to life, the quest for ‘spiridualidy’. All ‘tumult and disquiet’.
Christians are not immune to this phenomenon. We are affected from within (our sinful nature) and without (we live in this unsettled world). Our end is to know God, but we too forget.
Monday, February 09, 2004
The Source of True Knowledge
More reflections on Calvin (Institutes I.II.1-2):
Calvin goes on to discuss what is the nature of this knowledge. This knowledge is attended by true piety. ‘Piety’, interestingly, is described as reverence and love, not just being in possession of some facts. Nor is activity mentioned explicitly though it may be implicit in ‘love’. God must be known as he has revealed himself without addition. Therefore he is known as Creator through creation, and Redeemer through Christ.
It is striking for me, a scientist, that Calvin sees that there is no true knowledge except as it is seen to flow from God. Occam’s razor applies as a fundamental principle in all scientific endeavour i.e. if an assumption is not necessary, don’t make it. This has been used to remove the notion of a Creator from all scientific endeavour. Now, this approach seems to ‘work’ from a scientific point of view. Modern scientific progress demonstrates this. Yet it is unsettling. Why should so much of what is done in the name of science make no requirement for a Creator? Perhaps the answer lies in the kind of questions that scientists ask, which necessarily limit the scope of enquiry. Thomas S. Kuhn, the philosopher, has noted (in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) that scientists tend to limit themselves to fixed paradigms of thought until the weight of ill-fitting data forces a change in the fundamental assumptions of the paradigm. The data forces the scientist to ask questions which the paradigm cannot answer. This may be a valid scientific approach.
The apostle Paul, however, sees something much more sinister at work, not just in scientists, but in all people: mankind in his sinful nature seeks to repress the knowledge of God (Rom. 1:18-20). Calvin seems to suggest that, because of this, any knowledge obtained from creation must necessarily be limited by a failure to recognise its true source.
Calvin goes on to discuss what is the nature of this knowledge. This knowledge is attended by true piety. ‘Piety’, interestingly, is described as reverence and love, not just being in possession of some facts. Nor is activity mentioned explicitly though it may be implicit in ‘love’. God must be known as he has revealed himself without addition. Therefore he is known as Creator through creation, and Redeemer through Christ.
It is striking for me, a scientist, that Calvin sees that there is no true knowledge except as it is seen to flow from God. Occam’s razor applies as a fundamental principle in all scientific endeavour i.e. if an assumption is not necessary, don’t make it. This has been used to remove the notion of a Creator from all scientific endeavour. Now, this approach seems to ‘work’ from a scientific point of view. Modern scientific progress demonstrates this. Yet it is unsettling. Why should so much of what is done in the name of science make no requirement for a Creator? Perhaps the answer lies in the kind of questions that scientists ask, which necessarily limit the scope of enquiry. Thomas S. Kuhn, the philosopher, has noted (in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) that scientists tend to limit themselves to fixed paradigms of thought until the weight of ill-fitting data forces a change in the fundamental assumptions of the paradigm. The data forces the scientist to ask questions which the paradigm cannot answer. This may be a valid scientific approach.
The apostle Paul, however, sees something much more sinister at work, not just in scientists, but in all people: mankind in his sinful nature seeks to repress the knowledge of God (Rom. 1:18-20). Calvin seems to suggest that, because of this, any knowledge obtained from creation must necessarily be limited by a failure to recognise its true source.
Sunday, February 08, 2004
True Knowledge
I have begun reading Calvin's Institutes in small chunks in the morning. I decided that, due to coursework and other constraints, in the next year and a half or so I will not get the chance to get a clear run at it.
I.I.1-3
Calvin begins with the notion of true knowledge. There are only two kinds: that of self and that of God. Each is intimately related to the other. A seeking of self necessarily leads to thoughts of God, unless consciously repressed. An understanding of God brings clarity to the true nature of self.
Drawing on the Prophets, the striking observation Calvin makes is that to see God more clearly results in fear of one’s life. Why? Because one becomes starkly aware of one’s residual corruption. These were not people who were outsiders to God’s covenant. Yet they were in fear. What of today, of those under the New Covenant administration?
I.I.1-3
Calvin begins with the notion of true knowledge. There are only two kinds: that of self and that of God. Each is intimately related to the other. A seeking of self necessarily leads to thoughts of God, unless consciously repressed. An understanding of God brings clarity to the true nature of self.
Drawing on the Prophets, the striking observation Calvin makes is that to see God more clearly results in fear of one’s life. Why? Because one becomes starkly aware of one’s residual corruption. These were not people who were outsiders to God’s covenant. Yet they were in fear. What of today, of those under the New Covenant administration?
Saturday, February 07, 2004
The Prevailing Church by Randy Pope
This book was recommended to me by an experienced church planter so I bought it. It seems it might be useful since I will be working on a church planting project next semester as part of my college placement.
The author is the pastor of the Perimeter Church in Duluth, Georgia and has a successful track record of planting churches.
I have to confess to some skepticism regarding books like this. Such books seem to adopt a pragmatic approach to ministry rather than a theologically grounded one. I have been assured that this is different. I hope in the next few days to comment on the contents as I read more, and perhaps raising questions or alternative views. We’ll see how it goes. At the end I hope to publish an overview.
The basis of the book title is Matthew 16:18 which says,
“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome [or prevail against] it.” (NIV)
This verse serves as a basis to contrast the “prevailing” church and the “precautious” church. The latter has a maintenance mindset, the former a growing one. Pope’s fundamental question is “Is our church consciously seeking to be prevailing?” (p.26)
This is an attractive start. But I have to restrain myself a little. It strikes me that we would be better to understand what the church is before launching off into examining what we are doing. More time spent interpreting the intention of Jesus in its context would be useful. Perhaps this will become clearer as time goes on.
The author is the pastor of the Perimeter Church in Duluth, Georgia and has a successful track record of planting churches.
I have to confess to some skepticism regarding books like this. Such books seem to adopt a pragmatic approach to ministry rather than a theologically grounded one. I have been assured that this is different. I hope in the next few days to comment on the contents as I read more, and perhaps raising questions or alternative views. We’ll see how it goes. At the end I hope to publish an overview.
Chapter 1
The basis of the book title is Matthew 16:18 which says,
“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome [or prevail against] it.” (NIV)
This verse serves as a basis to contrast the “prevailing” church and the “precautious” church. The latter has a maintenance mindset, the former a growing one. Pope’s fundamental question is “Is our church consciously seeking to be prevailing?” (p.26)
This is an attractive start. But I have to restrain myself a little. It strikes me that we would be better to understand what the church is before launching off into examining what we are doing. More time spent interpreting the intention of Jesus in its context would be useful. Perhaps this will become clearer as time goes on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
