Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Could you imagine if Prince tried to sell you the Watchtower?

Recently, Clewless, Jonny and myself have found ourselves in a module in college on Christology - quite simply it has flipped my lid. Last Wednesday afternoon’s lecture was particularly enjoyable - partly because it was amusing to see Jonny resist the temptation to take sly looks at my open ESV when his greek version was becoming a little tricky (that is easily the saddest thing I’ve ever written…); and partly because it really helped me understand how to deal with that nasty ‘In the beginning was the/a Word’ when Jehovah’s Witnesses turn up on my door.

I’m sure we all been in that situation: Sunday afternoon - Ding Dong - “Hi, do you like to read? Can I offer you a copy of this magazine?”…

An hour and a half later you’re still stood on your doorstep, having only briefly left to scream into a pillow. Once they’re gone the pride of having ridiculed their lack of greek doesn’t last long before you wonder exactly how much good you’ve just done ‘in the name of Jesus’.

If this is at all familiar to you, let me share with you the story that Jen’s dad told me about an older guy in their church, and the way that he deals with Jehovah’s Witnesses. It may seem obvious, but I really hope that the next time Bre’r Rabbit and Elder Flower come a’knockin’ I care less about pronouns and more about their souls.

After opening the door, he’ll invite them in, offer them a cup of tea, take their magazine and promise to read it prayerfully. When he tells them that he’s a Christian, Jen’s dad said that he often finds that they instinctively reach for their Bibles, as if preparing for a fight, but he’ll interupt.

“Please don’t, I’m sure you can confuse me with verses all day. I’m certain that you know your Bibles a lot better than I do mine…”

and here it comes;

“…I simply want to ask you; what assurance do you have that God loves you?”  

Once again, I’m floored by the simplicity of the gospel. We don’t have a thing to boast in if it’s not Jesus. I’m humbled by the old guys grace - more love in one sentence than I’ve ever shown with my lexicon. Guys, if you think I’m impressed with another cool way of flooring a J-Dub, I’m not. I want to realise, that our battle is not with them, it’s with an enemy that Christ has destroyed in our place.

I’m told that Prince is a Jehovah’s Witness. He wouldn’t be a bad role model really would he? a lover, not a fighter…

Posted by Lewis Roderick at 22:56:36 | Permalink | Comments (13)

Thursday, September 20, 2007

There’s something about Mary

A little while ago, when we were all going on a bit of Steve Chalke bender, I suggested that his primary issue in the way he understands penal substitution was to do with his understanding of who Jesus is. Today I thought about that again, as I was reading a proper tidy book called ‘The Work of Christ’ by Bob Letham.

The opening chapter of the book is taken up with the necessity of Christ’s being both God and man; “A less than human Christ could no more be the saviour of human beings than a less than divine Christ could no more be the true revelation of God” (pg. 25). Letham makes his point historically by whizzing (do I need a ‘h’ there?) us through 2000 years of how Christ’s nature was understood, from the the early days of people thinking he was a little bit less man, right through to the post Enlightenment’s thinking that he was a lot less God.

It was toward the end of this section that he writes something that’s been a real help to me understanding the whole Catholic/Mary thing. I’ve never really gotten it see… Where exactly does the Bible even give a hint that Mary is the mediator we need to get to God?

It doesn’t - but here’s Letham’s take on how it came about. And once again, it’s a Christological issue;

“…where the incarnation, although held to be true, is nonetheless not given adequate theological weight, the link between Christ and humanity is eroded… Christ was viewed in his supreme deity and comman nature was neglected. Consequently, the need arose for some additional form of human mediation between us and the exalted Christ…”

Enter, stage right, Mary.

Posted by Lewis Roderick at 18:21:40 | Permalink | Comments (2)

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

How about this for a cat among pigeons… ‘Does Steve Chalke know who Jesus really is?’

Thought I might wade in with a quick blog about the penal substitution thingy. Here’s mine…

As I was preparing a sermon this afternoon in John 5, it struck me how obvious Jesus is when dealing with the religious reformed right of his day about being God. Allow me to explain -

John 5: 19 - 30 - in summary? ‘Jesus is equal, though subserviant, to the Father’. He has authority to give life (both spiritually and physically) and to judge the living and the dead.

‘Nothing new there!’ I hear you cry. And you’d be right, it’s hardly stealth exegesis so far, is it? But what I hadn’t thought about before was how Jesus being all this affected my understanding of the atonement; and how ‘our favourite’ Chalkey cannot in a million years, be at all right.

Firstly, this is his take on the traditional, historical understanding. To him, the idea of penal substitution is “…a form of cosmic child abuse - a vengeful father, punishing his son for an offence he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith. Deeper than that, however is that such a construct stands in total contradiction to the statement ‘God is love’. If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by his son, then it makes a mockery of Jesus’ own teaching to love your enemies and refuse to repay evil with evil. The truth is the cross is a symbol of love. It is a demonstration of just how far God as Father and Jesus as his son are prepared to go to prove that love. The cross is a vivid statement of the powerlessness of love…”

Can you see that he assumes that the traditional reformed view is that Jesus is some sort of bystander in the whole thing? As if in the traditional understanding is that the Father is somehow abusing Jesus by punishing him unfairly for the sins of others.

But according to John 5, Jesus is God. And if Jesus is God, and ‘whatever the Father does the Son does also. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does’ (Vv19,20) then any plan of the Father’s, is a plan of the Son’s too. They delight in each others minds and hearts - and it was both their mutual delight, and importantly, mutual agony for Jesus to go to the cross.

We’ve said on these pages that where SC falls down is his belief in the authority of Scripture; and this might be true. But might the issue also be a Christalogical one?

Posted by Lewis Roderick at 22:13:39 | Permalink | Comments (7)