REVELATION: a Beast of a Book!
This Saturday at my church [St Helen's Bishopsgate in
London] we had a day long introduction to the book of
'Revelation' for the the Bible Study leaders [aka "SLOBS"!].
I am one of the small-group leaders and this was our
opportunity to collect our thoughts before launching
into this series of studies. Personally I have some misgivings
about using this book for a participatory Bible study but
that is the challenge I guess.
Revelation is a 'happy hunting ground' for all sorts of strange
teachings and cults.....and some despair of ever truly under-
standing it. The best advice I can give is, get the 'big picture'
before being drawn into discussions about particularities.
The key to any Bible book is often found in its broadest
perspective. The book of Revelation suffers from folk
rushing in to interpretation and application without first
getting a grasp of the broad structure of the book.....which
reduces it to a Christian version of 'Nostradamus'. Revelation
has a repeating cycle of sevens using symbolisms which
would make perfect sense to the first century readers.....
why else would John have written it? The themes the book
explores are relevant throughout history......why else did God
include it in the canon of scripture? The only substantial future
event yet to unfold is Christ's Return. We must guard against
the temptation to believe that our generation and our
nation has a exceptional role to play in this drama.
Can I recommend a couple of books? "Revelation Unwrapped"
by John Richardson: ISBN 0 9524894 2 2 (UK) or ISBN
0 646 28287 5 (AUS). This is only 74 pages long but it provides
a good handle on 'the big picture' and critiques less helpful
interpretations by well-meaning but off key Bible teachers
who are often certain and seldom right! Bible believing
Christians affirm "primary literal inspiration of scripture" but
some good hearted people assume that this must also require
literal interpretation of the text. This invariably causes
problems when we need to understand symbolic or figurative
language - of which 'apocalyptic' literature is full - and leads
to a wooden literalism which often misses the point the Bible
is teaching.
My personal view [which should not be thought of as having
any official status with my church] is that it is unfortunate that
some Christians are content to take their theology from pulp
paperback prophecy rather than draw it from the source of
God's Word.......this results in a 'group think' which is hard to
justify when put to the test. I do appreciate that there will be
people out there whose trust in the Bible is founded upon a
supposed correlation between the Bible's apocalyptic books
and specific contemporary world events; however I am compelled
to say that such naivety will not pass the test of time. Can I urge
you to look deeper within the Bible text for its real meaning?
If not, you risk founding your faith upon shifting interpretive
sand and not on the bed rock of God's Word. Be wary of
teachers who effectively take the Bible away from you and
render you dependant on their insights rather than help you see
God's Word for yourself.
Another book I would recommend is Graeme Goldworthy's
"The Gospel in Revelation". Again another surprisingly short
book [not to be confused with his similarly titled tome] which
is pure gold! ISBN 0 85364630 9. As a rule of thumb the very
best Bible commentaries are not written by academics for
academics, but by those with a pastoral background for pastors;
the Bible is pastoral theology when all is said and done!
Anyway if you fancy following along our studies in Revelation
these coming months you can access the material at
www.centralfocus.org.uk Better still if you are around London
why not sign up with one of our groups? Details can be found at
www.st-helens.org.uk Studies start 4th October with an
introductory talk by John Richardson - author of "Revelation
Unwrapped"!
tagline: The Beast, the Whore, the Lamb, the Mark, the Bible,
Revelation, revelation.
postscript: 6 Nov 06. I should have also recommended the
excellent BST commentary by Michael Wilcock "The Message of
Revelation" published by IVP. ISBN 0-85110-964-0.
Some people find Paul Barnett's "Apocalypse Now and Then"
helpful; published by Aquila Press ISBN 1 875861 41 6.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Thursday, September 07, 2006
49er
Last week I had my 49th Birthday. To mark the occasion I thought
I would quote something which (I think) Bob Hope once said;
"When you are 20 you care desperately what other people think of
you. When you are 40 you are past caring what other people think
of you. When you are 60 you realise that other people were never
thinking about you in the first place".
I wish I'd thought of saying that!
In 1985 I spent a few months with "Youth with a Mission" at Holmsted
Manor in England doing a "Discipleship Training Course" (a mini pre-
Toronto Toronto if you get my drift). 1987-88 I went on to do a year
at The King's Lodge at the "School of Biblical Studies" under Charlie
Bassett which provided a much needed counter balance to the
previous charismania and helped give me a superb overview of the
Bible.
Have you noticed how a lot of parachurch organisations emphasise the
"youff" element? YWAM [pronounced why-wham incidentally], Youth
for Christ, Teen Challenge, Campus Crusade, Young Life etc to name
but a few. Now that I've hit middle age, what groups are aimed at the
likes of us?
I want to flag up the possibility of launching a new organisation called
OGWAM....Old Geezers with a Mission. If you think that this is a good
idea please send fabulous amounts of money to my off-shore bank
account!
Last week I had my 49th Birthday. To mark the occasion I thought
I would quote something which (I think) Bob Hope once said;
"When you are 20 you care desperately what other people think of
you. When you are 40 you are past caring what other people think
of you. When you are 60 you realise that other people were never
thinking about you in the first place".
I wish I'd thought of saying that!
In 1985 I spent a few months with "Youth with a Mission" at Holmsted
Manor in England doing a "Discipleship Training Course" (a mini pre-
Toronto Toronto if you get my drift). 1987-88 I went on to do a year
at The King's Lodge at the "School of Biblical Studies" under Charlie
Bassett which provided a much needed counter balance to the
previous charismania and helped give me a superb overview of the
Bible.
Have you noticed how a lot of parachurch organisations emphasise the
"youff" element? YWAM [pronounced why-wham incidentally], Youth
for Christ, Teen Challenge, Campus Crusade, Young Life etc to name
but a few. Now that I've hit middle age, what groups are aimed at the
likes of us?
I want to flag up the possibility of launching a new organisation called
OGWAM....Old Geezers with a Mission. If you think that this is a good
idea please send fabulous amounts of money to my off-shore bank
account!
Friday, September 01, 2006
RICHARD DAWKINS: but is it
"life as we know it"?
September 2006's thought from my agnostic calendar is;
"If we want to postulate a deity capable of engineering
all the organized complexity in the world, either instant-
aneously or by guiding evolution, that deity must already
have been vastly complex in the first place. The creationist,
whether a naive Bible-thumper or an educated bishop,
simply postulates an already existing being of prodigious
intelligence and complexity. If we are going to allow
ourselves the luxury of postulating organized complexity
without offering an explanation, we might as well make a
job of it and simply postulate the existence of life as we
know it!" Richard Dawkins.
Ah, but that is the question isn't it? Is it really an explanation for
"life as we know it"? Dawkins view of "life" is that 'fish are machines
for replicating DNA in the sea, birds are machines for replicating
DNA in the air and people are machines for replicating DNA on land'.
The question that is crying out to be answered is; is this an adequate
description for "life as we know it"? It is akin to someone saying
that they have a blueprint of an aircraft and assure you that this
tells them everything there is to know about flying! It has all the
lucid simplicity of the madman - I doubt that you would have faith
in such a person to fly an aircraft you were aboard that's for sure!
[And we all put our trust in other people at some time or other].
What am I driving at? Sure DNA helps replicate creatures, I don't
deny that. What I do deny is that this explains everything about
"life as we know it". Dawkins uses the word "life" to mean 'bio-mass'
and nothing else because a materialist is blind to the non material
dimensions of "LIFE" in all its fullness. "LIFE as we know it" is
much more richly textured and the non-material things we
experience are just as real; imagination, creativity, justice, love
(and hate), good (and evil), joy (and sadness) all make up a fuller
picture of "life as it exists".
Dawkins once wrote "in a universe of blind physical forces and genetic
replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going
to get lucky, and we won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any
justice. The universe [has] no design, no purpose, no evil, no good;
nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows, nor cares.
DNA just is, and we dance to its music." As an explanation for LIFE
is this adequate? To a materialist with a minimalist abstract notion
of life; yes.
But it seems to me that there are universal principles of justice as if
there is a natural law written into the fabric of the Cosmos - and
such law makes little sense without a law-giver. We care about the
suffering of those involved in natural or manmade disasters when
Dawkins' abstractions logically require indifference. DNA doesn't
care but personal beings do. Bafflingly even Dawkins uses words like
"evil" and "wicked" to describe those people [like me] he does not
approve of, as if even he is compelled at a subconscious level to
acknowledge that such categories exist [as with all such barrackroom
moralists his anger is peppered indiscriminately about - nonetheless
even he is a grudging witness to the reality of non-material values].
Why should I think that Dawkins is any more perceptive about LIFE?
All moralists [whether they realise it or not] have a simple formula
in their heads and it goes like this "the world would be a far
better place without.................people in it
(fill in the blank space)"."Evil" is always a
description of someone other than ourselves; it is
only the Christian who recognises that it is their name that should
be there! This is what Christians call "repentance" - the
acknowledgement of ones own evil, indeed it is this which makes a
Christian Christian (and is not to be confused with those who are only
notionally "christian").
Dawkins postulates life as an abstraction but LIFE as it is actually
lived [beyond the lucidity of the madman] is not an abstraction
LIFE is personal. From these thoughts I would argue that there is
adequate evidence of a cosmic creative lawgiver; one who is
personal; one who has nothing to learn from us about love and justice
- and thus is someone to whom I am accountable for the evil [aka
abscence of love & justice] which infests my heart and in whom I,
as a Christian, trust to pilot me home safely because I know that
I cannot do it.
I don't postulate I observe.
tagline: Calendar of Doom. swiftypete. swiftypete. the swiftypete. the
swiftypete blog. Peter Swift is swiftypete. life. existence. meaning.
reductionism. versus. christianity. richard dawkins. Peter Swift
is the swiftypete. The God Delusion.
post-script: I had intended to talk about "Cosmic Fine Tuning" as material
evidence of a creator but I've written enough already and it will have to wait
for another day.
post-post-script: There are some good articles on Genesis and Science in the
October 06 edition of "The Briefing" [issue 337]. Back issues can be obtained
from http://www.thegoodbook.co.uk/ or http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/
"life as we know it"?
September 2006's thought from my agnostic calendar is;
"If we want to postulate a deity capable of engineering
all the organized complexity in the world, either instant-
aneously or by guiding evolution, that deity must already
have been vastly complex in the first place. The creationist,
whether a naive Bible-thumper or an educated bishop,
simply postulates an already existing being of prodigious
intelligence and complexity. If we are going to allow
ourselves the luxury of postulating organized complexity
without offering an explanation, we might as well make a
job of it and simply postulate the existence of life as we
know it!" Richard Dawkins.
Ah, but that is the question isn't it? Is it really an explanation for
"life as we know it"? Dawkins view of "life" is that 'fish are machines
for replicating DNA in the sea, birds are machines for replicating
DNA in the air and people are machines for replicating DNA on land'.
The question that is crying out to be answered is; is this an adequate
description for "life as we know it"? It is akin to someone saying
that they have a blueprint of an aircraft and assure you that this
tells them everything there is to know about flying! It has all the
lucid simplicity of the madman - I doubt that you would have faith
in such a person to fly an aircraft you were aboard that's for sure!
[And we all put our trust in other people at some time or other].
What am I driving at? Sure DNA helps replicate creatures, I don't
deny that. What I do deny is that this explains everything about
"life as we know it". Dawkins uses the word "life" to mean 'bio-mass'
and nothing else because a materialist is blind to the non material
dimensions of "LIFE" in all its fullness. "LIFE as we know it" is
much more richly textured and the non-material things we
experience are just as real; imagination, creativity, justice, love
(and hate), good (and evil), joy (and sadness) all make up a fuller
picture of "life as it exists".
Dawkins once wrote "in a universe of blind physical forces and genetic
replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going
to get lucky, and we won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any
justice. The universe [has] no design, no purpose, no evil, no good;
nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows, nor cares.
DNA just is, and we dance to its music." As an explanation for LIFE
is this adequate? To a materialist with a minimalist abstract notion
of life; yes.
But it seems to me that there are universal principles of justice as if
there is a natural law written into the fabric of the Cosmos - and
such law makes little sense without a law-giver. We care about the
suffering of those involved in natural or manmade disasters when
Dawkins' abstractions logically require indifference. DNA doesn't
care but personal beings do. Bafflingly even Dawkins uses words like
"evil" and "wicked" to describe those people [like me] he does not
approve of, as if even he is compelled at a subconscious level to
acknowledge that such categories exist [as with all such barrackroom
moralists his anger is peppered indiscriminately about - nonetheless
even he is a grudging witness to the reality of non-material values].
Why should I think that Dawkins is any more perceptive about LIFE?
All moralists [whether they realise it or not] have a simple formula
in their heads and it goes like this "the world would be a far
better place without.................people in it
(fill in the blank space)"."Evil" is always a
description of someone other than ourselves; it is
only the Christian who recognises that it is their name that should
be there! This is what Christians call "repentance" - the
acknowledgement of ones own evil, indeed it is this which makes a
Christian Christian (and is not to be confused with those who are only
notionally "christian").
Dawkins postulates life as an abstraction but LIFE as it is actually
lived [beyond the lucidity of the madman] is not an abstraction
LIFE is personal. From these thoughts I would argue that there is
adequate evidence of a cosmic creative lawgiver; one who is
personal; one who has nothing to learn from us about love and justice
- and thus is someone to whom I am accountable for the evil [aka
abscence of love & justice] which infests my heart and in whom I,
as a Christian, trust to pilot me home safely because I know that
I cannot do it.
I don't postulate I observe.
tagline: Calendar of Doom. swiftypete. swiftypete. the swiftypete. the
swiftypete blog. Peter Swift is swiftypete. life. existence. meaning.
reductionism. versus. christianity. richard dawkins. Peter Swift
is the swiftypete. The God Delusion.
post-script: I had intended to talk about "Cosmic Fine Tuning" as material
evidence of a creator but I've written enough already and it will have to wait
for another day.
post-post-script: There are some good articles on Genesis and Science in the
October 06 edition of "The Briefing" [issue 337]. Back issues can be obtained
from http://www.thegoodbook.co.uk/ or http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)