Mea Culpa

Oh dear, it really is something when your own parents read your blog. It turns out I need to apologise to them for this quote:

"As far as my parents were concerned sexual ethics and abortion were the deciding issues - justice trumps mercy, as it were."

Turns out they don't quite remember it like that. Sorry Mum and Dad.

It also turns out that learning to repent is a life-long process. Who would've thought? Don't you just get it taped by your 20s?

Here's a great quote from Mark Twain... hopefully I won't have to apologise for this too!

“When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished by how much he'd learned in seven years.”

It's all my fault

It may surprise you but I am not alluding to a poll of the most unlikely things for politicans to say.

Instead it comes from my musings on atonement models - i.e. different pictures we use to explain what Jesus achieved on the cross.

Over the past few years, even among evangelicals, PSA (Penal Subsititionary Atonement) - the view that Jesus suffered God's righteous punishment in the place of sinners - has taken a bit of a beating. This debate was at its zenith in the UK about 3 years ago and centred around a book written by a Baptist called Steve Chalke.

Anyway, I have followed the arguments closely over the past few years and here are a couple of comments:

1. While it is crucial to demonstrate how faithful to scripture any model is, I'm not sure that proof-texting is very constructive in this particular discussion. By definition any model will involve reading back into the text an abstract system as much as reading it out from the text. Of course there must be a place for careful exegesis (which IMO demonstrates just how biblical PSA is) but trading verses doesn't gain much ground at the popular level.

2. One key issue is responsibility. PSA is the only atonement model that makes sinners completely culpable for their sin. The model gaining ground in popularity is known as Christus Victor and can be found in passages like Colossians 2: 15. Here Jesus is portrayed as a mighty warrior who defeats the enemy of the devil for us, who cures the disease of sin. Now all of this is biblical and quite appropriate as just one model among other biblical pictures.

However, what happens when we put CV front and centre? What happens to our accountability? Sin is the fault of the devil, it is the sad consequence of the sickness I have. But what about me? When it comes to sin the bible teaches us that it's all my fault. No one made me do it. Romans 6 and 7 do teach us that we are slaves to our sinful nature, but Paul still holds us fully responsible for our actions.

Any view of the atonement needs to put together all of scripture's teaching on the subject. And that is precisely why I think it is so important that we hold onto PSA, along with the other biblical metaphors. It is when we see that God holds us accountable in Christ on the cross, that sin and its power can really be dealt with. Sin is a disease, but I am responsible. Rather like anybody under the age of 40 who gets lung cancer from smoking. Ignorance cannot be claimed as an excuse. Sin. It's all my fault, I'm blaming no one else.

Dawkins vs. Lennox

No, it's not boxing.

After looking at the views of Richard Dawkins on Sunday I thought people would be interested in seeing him in live debate with John Lennox.

This is is not the recent debate in London in October. This happened last year. The format is rather disappointing because it is not really a debate (they are only allowed to give one response at a time). Therefore I think Dawkins is treated a little unfairly here - Lennox is always given the chance to 'attack' without Dawkins being allowed to respond properly. Nevertheless it is interesting. And you can watch it all for free via this site...

Debate between Dawkins and Lennox last year in Birmingham, USA

What's natural?

The question of what is natural to us has been rattling around my head since Trevor Cairney spoke last week on 'True Freedom'.

This comes to the fore in current debates over sexuality. For example, in the row over homosexuality both sides want to claim that their position is based on what is natural. Some say that homosexuality is 'unnatural'; others that same-sex attraction (for some people) is natural. (Usually the debate rages over what 'para phusin' means in the Greek of Romans 1.)

However, Paul's ethics cuts right through this debate - e.g. in Romans 6. According to the apostle there are only two default positions for all humanity: slaves to our sinful nature or slaves to God. Christ sets us free from what is natural to us, in order that we might live according to what is natural for our redeemed humanity. This is not re-packaged gnosticism. It is earthy and gritty humanity; but it is redeemed humanity instead of fallen humanity.

The Dream of Gerontius

Tonight we were treated to tickets to the Opera House - to enjoy Elgar's famous rendition of Cardinal Newman's poem The Dream of Gerontius.

Since Newman was a famous convert from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism it should be no surprise that the poem is about the prayer of a dying man as he faces his own mortality, God's judgment and (interestingly) purgatory.

Let me quote from what the Angel sings almost at the end:

Angels, to whom the willing task is given,
Shall tend, and nurse, and lull thee, as thou liest;
And Masses on the earth and prayers in heaven,
Shall aid thee at the Throne of the most Highest.

So, a few thoughts about this, and about purgatory...

1. It completely undermines the work of Christ as sufficient for salvation. The Book of Hebrews is clear - His sacrifice is enough; we don't need Masses on earth or prayers in heaven.

2. The Bible is not clear about what happens to those who die before Jesus returns and the Last Judgment - we are 'asleep', but what does that mean? As early as Tertullian most of the Church Fathers had some pretty funny ideas about what happened after death. (I don't think there is anything there to justify purgatory but there are common place references to some form of remembering the dead which I find disturbing and confusing.) Having just finished the book of Revelation I'd rather stick with the few things Scripture is clear about and leave the rest up to God.

3. Our society and culture doesn't like tackling the issue of death head on anymore. We'd rather not think about what happens when we die. We are all the poorer for that.

Moving to the left

Having had time to think about Obama's triumph, I've been chewing over Trevor's comment on my last post.

I've always used Micah 6: 8 as a good biblical foil in thinking through political issues:

He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

Being horribly reductionistic justice has been the war cry of the right where as mercy was the preserve of the left ... and humility has no place in politics!?

With this in mind I think Trevor is on to something. When I was first becoming aware of politics (in the UK in the early 80s) Christians voted Conservative. As far as my parents were concerned sexual ethics and abortion were the deciding issues - justice trumps mercy, as it were.

But the times they were achanging. As I became a teenager, church youth groups were increasingly concerned with compassion to the poor and loving the stranger - mercy came to the fore. The right of centre Conservative party was considered to be individualistic and selfish. This gained momentum until finally the Tory party imploded and Tony Blair swept NuLabour to power in 1997. I was at Theological college in 1997. By then most Christians at college seemed to support Labour. Mercy trumps justice.

Are we seeing that now happen in the US? (Or am I just enjoying saying that Britain leads America in something?)

The western world is fed up with the Republican party at prayer. They are seen as being anti-gay, anti-women's rights and extremely hypocritical. All justice, no mercy and definitely no humility.

The message is clear - the political climate is changing. As usual that is both a good and a bad thing. No longer can Christianity be used as a pragmatic way to win votes. We cannot, no must not, appeal to the instinctive right wing agenda of justice unless we visibly demonstrate mercy at the same time, and all of this with a humble attitude. People will not listen to our position on abortion without seeing our care for pregnant teenagers. Our stance on homosexuality is easily dismissed without visible compassion shown to the gay community.

The bottom line is that votes are not cheap - the only way people will listen to us again is if we live the gospel we preach.

Baracking Obama

There seems to be a trend in Western Politics. The politically conservative party gets in for a long time and gets so unpopular that any change is greeted with open arms.

NuLabour in the UK, Kev07, Barack Obama.

Questions, questions.

- Did Obama win the election or did McCain lose it?

- Does this also represent a backlash against the right-wing Christian moral majority?

- What impact does the answers to these previous two questions have on the world wide Christian church?

I'll do some thinking and post later.

But in the meantime, anybody got any thoughts?