Heidelberg Catechism.
How are you right with God?

Only by true faith in Jesus Christ (1).
Even though my conscience accuses me
of having grieviously sinned against all God's commandments
and of never having kept any of them (2),
and even though I am still inclined toward all evil (3),
nevertheless - without my deserving it at all (4),
out of sheer grace (5),
God grants and credits to me
the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ (6),
as if I had never sinned or been a sinner,
as if I had been as perfectly obedient
as Christ was obedient for me (7).

All I need to do is to accept this gift of God with a believing heart (8).

1. Romans 3 v21-28; Ephesians 2 v8-9.
2. Romans 3 v9-10.
3. Romans 7 v23.
4. Titus 3 v4-5.
5. Romans 3 v24; Ephesians 2 v8.
6. Romans 4 v3-5; 2 Corinthians 5 v17-19; 1 John 2 v1-2.
7. Romans 4 v24-25; 2 Corinthians 5 v21.
8. John 3 v18; Acts 16 v30-31.

Thought for the Day.

Giles Fraser, the vicar of Putney in London, was giving this morning's "Thought for the Day" on BBC radio 4's "Today" programme. He took issue with those Christians who emphasise the significance of the Cross. He said that such an emphasis "left the resurrection 'with nothing to do'!" It seems rather self evident to me that you cannot have the resurrection without first having the cross and actually, when you think about it, the cross gives profound meaning and significance to the resurrection.

But Giles clearly has an issue with the Cross as "all about violence and retribution". In a way, that is not unusual, many people (such as Steve Chalke etc) find the atonement concept outrageous. They will say that it is fundamentally unjust but I think what they actually baulk at is the neccesity of the Cross. Human nature is not so bad that any atonement is neccesary; which is a Humanist worldview rather a Christian one.

For Giles the Cross is an example of Christ sharing in humanity's suffering... please do not misuderstand me, that is perfectly true and I am not denying it, but while it is the truth and nothing but the truth it is not the whole truth. Jesus himself said that his death would have a much richer, far deeper meaning than that, the Cross is not a later theological construct as some allege.

The thing is what really struck me was that Giles sounded so angry about it all - there was some venom in his delivery that astonished me. But perhaps I shouldn't be surprised because he was in the unfortunate position of proposing a poorer and shallower theology than the one he was attacking. Or maybe he was deliberately trying to be provocative.

No doubt some of my fellow Evangelicals might be considering penning a robust counter-attack. I hope that they will do so graciously in a way that will speak to him rather than merely confirm his preconceived ideas. We need to respond with grace if we are to defend the Gospel of Grace.

I notice that Giles Fraser also had a column in the Guardian newspaper on Saturday attacking the Cross in pretty much the same terms as Steve Chalke did a few years back when he described it as "cosmic child abuse". (Incidentally the media seems to have given a fair wind to this particular theological stance hasn't it?) Obviously it is difficult to gauge the tone of a written piece but, again, Giles does seem to be a very angry man.


The fact that an innocent party is punished in my place IS unfair and unjust. But this is an act done in the context of Trinitarian Christianity (it will make no sense outside such a worldview!) God willingly takes on HIMSELF the punishment rightly due to me. That is indeed unjust, but God is a God of Grace.... and grace is not about getting what I deserve - quite the contrary! Not only do I not receive what I do deserve, but I also receive what I do not deserve in exchange (the righteousness of Jesus himself!) and I have all the privileges that come with it. [God's Riches At Christ's Expense!]

One day we will all face God; are you going to front up to him and demand justice? Or like me you may not have such confidence in your own righteousness in which case you, like me, will not be asking for justice but asking for mercy and grace!

Good Friday is the Best of Days!

I went to the Good Friday service at St Helen's this morning. There was a short talk by Mark O'Donaghue who described Good Friday as the best of days. Of all the days marked in the Christian calendar today's is not one the world has sought to commercialise like Christmas or even Easter and yet for the Christian it is a day commemorating something amazing.... the day Jesus made 'the Great Exchange'. Jesus willingly took on himself the punishment due to me and in exchange I was given his sinless standing before God!

During the service we had a series of readings and hymns and a solo all of which were very moving.

In the eyes of the world the Cross represented the most ignominious of deaths and yet, as is always the case with the Gospel, appearances can be deceptive. As Jesus dies the curtain in the temple is torn in two - the barrier that ceremonially separated a holy God from a less than holy people is split apart. The centurion, a representative of all of us who are foreigners to the things of God, perceives something astonishing in this death "Surely this man was the Son of God!"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ps

12th April 2009. Easter Sunday, the very best of days!

Check out the St Helen's Easter Films at www.st-helens.org.uk/easter/

I'm Baffled by Brian D McLaren
& Steve Chalke.

I've recently finished reading a couple of books by putative leaders of the "emerging (or emergent) church" movement. Brian D McLaren's "The Secret Message of Jesus" and Steve Chalke's "The Lost Message of Jesus". I wanted to know more about this movement and rather than rely on secondhand accounts I thought I'd better go to the source and see what they had to say for themselves.

I have to say that I am not a little baffled by their books. I don't understand why anyone thinks they are breaking new ground because there is nothing original in either book.

I found very little to disagree with for the first hundred pages or so with these books. There are some ungainly phrases which are open to misinterpretation but I appreciate that these books are 'pop theology' and are not meant for serious analysis; even so it would be better to get the basics right. Also, we all have anecdotal horror stories about churches we've encountered - the real issue is how far can one generalise from them without perpetrating an injustice oneself?!

All the criticisms they make of contemporary Evangelicalism are ones I would echo - not least because I've been guilty of them myself! There is indeed a tendency toward pharasaism in Evangelicalism, no-one is denying that. "Works" based 'religion' is the natural default setting of all human beings after all. Consequently it should come as no surprise to find a 'formal evangelicalism' which is actually no better than any other of the world's religions! Only an understanding of 'Grace' will cure this - and that is a unique feature of the Gospel.... and it is something so wonderful it is difficult for us to grasp, even when one has been in the faith for over thirty years like me. However the danger inherent within a movement which seeks to create a 'new' church by its own lights is that it merely creates a new pharisaism with all the elitist presumptions of 'superiority'. That is the lesson of history with all supposedly radical church movements.... they're never as radical as they suppose themselves to be! I know because I've been there before!

I suppose the major point of departure comes when Steve Chalke starts to discuss the Cross of Christ. First of all let me say that I do not recognise his caricature of this doctrine so I won't take offence at it.... he is attacking someone but it can't be me! The fact that he talks about it being "morally dubious" and is antithetical to the notion of a God of Love is one attack too far and is worthy of a response, I cannot let that go unanswered

I believe that if God takes on himself a penalty rightly due to me - there is no inconsistency with his nature as a God of love. I am speaking as a Trinitarian Christian you understand.... Christ is not something outside of God... it is God himself who takes on himself the penalty rightly due to me - isn't that an act of love?!

Also - it is very important to realise - that love is not only about mercy. Isn't love about justice too. Is it loving to let all the world's injustices go with a 'it doesn't matter' shrug of the shoulders? (Auschwitz, Cambodia, Bosnia, Darfur etc or the social ills closer to home. In the course of time these examples will appear dated and quaint - the future reader will (I am sure) be able to substitute your own contemporary examples!) Doesn't love ever get passionate about wrongdoing - and if so how do you think that that is expressed? And if I count myself amongst the evil (rather than the self righteous) what is my escape - assuming I need to escape? How do I pay for the things I've done wrong? If I conclude that I cannot do this can I trust someone else to do it for me?

You might ask 'How can one person pay a penalty for someone else?' I was with my brother-in-law when we drove into a 'pay & display' car park. (I don't mean to be trivial when I use this as an example - I am merely demonstrating that these concepts are not 'rocket science'). He queued to get the ticket while I stood nearby. He realised that he had no coins for the machine and called to me. Yes, I had the right change and paid what he could not. No-one, but no-one, in that queue that day said "Hey! You can't do that!" Incidentally no-one, but no-one said "If you pay for him you have to pay for us all!"

Too often we draw in our own culture into our interpretation of the Bible and I believe Chalke is thinking in terms of modern criminal law when the better model is civil law... CS lewis made this very point over fifty years ago. The "dubious morality" charge is actually bound up in an unstated modernistic presumption of "equity" - the dubious notion that no distinction can ever be made about anybody for any reason. There is no issue here which demands the redrafting of classical protestant doctrine which seems to be the end point Chalke is driving toward. The real issue is this - how far do we go along the road of accepting the world's theology in order to curry favour? And what do we acheive thereby?

At one point Chalke relates how a friend had asked a group of scholars and ministers for a simple one sentence definition of the Jesus' message - nothing satisfactory emerged from the discussion. This is a rather revealing tale.... but not for the reason he thinks. The phrasing of the question imposed a false presupposition that the message of Jesus is somehow different to what Jesus came to do. No wonder people were confused.... and that should tell you something. The message of Jesus is 'the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep'. Jesus did not come to deliver a word from God but to be The Word! Surely someone would think to say something like "for Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring [us] to God" 1 Peter 3 v18? I thought about what Steve Chalke wrote and it occurs to me that maybe the people his friend had asked don't believe in penal substitution either (or weren't prepared to own up to it in his prescence) and when you think about Chalke's challenge from that perspective how DO you define the Gospel sans 'penal substitution'? I'd be stumped too!


As for Brian D McLaren I had no real issue with his book (outside the general comments above) until the appendices! Entitled "Why didn't we get it sooner?" I was baffled and scribbled in the margin -"but you haven't said anything original!" (Even the stuff that was wrong wasn't new!) It is not a little arrogant to presume that you are the first person to point out the inconsistencies of the evangelical church with the Gospel we proclaim. Carl Henry did this over sixty years ago - and I bet he wasn't the first. If you review my blog you will find much the same stuff here. In fact, quite coincidentally, my home church is currently running a series of lunch time talks on the subject "RSVP - Jesus unveils Heaven's surprising guest list" - with individual talks on 'Jesus is anti-pride', 'Jesus is anti-religion' and 'Jesus is pro-outcast'.* I haven't heard the earlier talks or even know who the speaker is; but I'm prepared to bet everyone out there in blogworld 100 to 1 that all the issues dear to McLaren & Chalke will be addressed there.... as they always have been from faithful Bible teaching churches the world over. It makes you wonder what circles McLaren & Chalke move in.

It maybe the case that McLaren & Chalke have led relatively sheltered Christian lives and ministries within triumphalist and separationist churches for whom this sort of cultural engagement was alien and whose corporate lives were marked by unreality; it is only now that they are reacting against these attitudes. They have some, perhaps many, cogent criticisms to make of evangelical practice - but it will not be the first time that well-meaning men have allowed their enthusiasm for their particular hobby horse to get the better of their judgement.








Recommended further reading: "Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church" by Don Carson.

Recommended audio: Tim Keller who spoke at the Evangelical Ministers Assembly 2007 on the theme "Defining Times: What is an Evangelical?" Available from Proclamation Trust at http://www.proctrust.org.uk/

* No doubt these talks will be available from St Helen's Media in due course.

The rise of the
"UBER-CONSUMER"
and the decline of
PROPOSITIONAL TRUTH!

In our post-evangelical, post-modernist, post-consumerist age there is some talk about how propostional truth is passe. This is the kind of drawing room talk which only cuts much ice among the chattering classes at their dinner parties as they crack open another bottle of Chablis. "Mere words cannot convey meaning still less 'truth' - whatever that is. All truth claims are culturally bound. Yes, they say, the important thing is the debate - the dialogue is all - conclusions are so declasse!" The reality is this is a "debate" which can only truly exist (not in a post consumer age meaning they have 'moved on' from consumerism) but in an uber-consumer age when we arrogantly assume we can smorgasbord the philosophy table and select the "reality" which suits our taste. It is even possible to snack at the "Jesus" table and select the Jesus which suits us - the "another Jesus" of 2 Corinthians 11 v4! ("Uber" is a German prefix meaning "super" or "ultra", when this prefix is adopted in English it indicates quizzical disbelief. Please feel free to substitute the word Ultra if you prefer - ultra-consumer fits my meaning just as well). Reality is a human construct in this propositionless, ultra-consumer world; why not select one that is congenial? For them the "dialogue" is all and any attempt to draw universal conclusions is arrogant and mere "power politics"; any 'truth' claim is an exercise in oppression and control. Truth cannot be contained within a proposition they insist!

Of course I firmly believe this is all utter nonsense and fantasy-land thinking. If you want to dispute the point with me come and join me on the ward round on the children's intensive care unit here in London on Planet Earth. When we stand at the foot of the bed of a critically ill patient and their course of treatment is being debated why don't you chime in with your wisdom about the "meaninglessness of words" and how the "discussion is all", that conclusions are "oppressive" and how we represent an outmoded modernistic paradigm. (Don't misunderstand me; I do not believe that a reductionist scientific model describes the whole of reality - I wouldn't be a Christian if I did! - but as far as it goes it represents a model of physical reality. It is the truth and nothing but the truth, even if it is not the whole truth, because it completely misses out the spiritual dimension to reality).

Back on the ward round as we sift the results of investigations undertaken and discuss options and courses of treatment we may well not have a complete picture of the patient's condition (we rarely deal in "certainty") but we must draw some conclusions from what evidence we do have and work out an action plan - indeed it would be outrageous and morally indefensible to pass by without formulating some treatment plan even if it is only a provisional one. It may well be that over the following hours and days we will revise and refine our plans as we get a clearer picture of the disease process. Isn't this the "hermeneutical spiral" principle, constantly homing in on the truth? So do not confuse the cowardice of indecision with the virtue of humility. Do not confuse humility with merely having ceased to care! What the uber-consumer calls toleration is more likely to be indifference..... or, just possibly, despair.

But as that ward round unfolds why not discuss your insights into oppressive 'truth claims' with the parents of one of our patients? I'm sure that they would be only too interested to hear from you.... but I won't answer for how they might respond! You see we live in an uber consumer society cut off from reality but once in a while reality impinges on our illusory world that once seemed so secure; when nasty things happen then we don't want a "dialogue" with the chattering classes. When push comes to shove we recognise our need for conclusions and a course of action by experts in their field not a philosophical debate about the meaninglessness of propositions or how 'truth' is culturally determined and a
function of oppression! (Disease and misfortune are not culture bound and in fact they are a compelling international language). This whole outlook is one which can only ever arise in a complacent consumer mindset which has never had to deal with difficulty or danger as previous generations have; the uber-consumer merely wants to be left to luxuriate in a world where there are no difficult choices to make and no challenges to unsettle us. We tolerate everything not because we are caring people, we tolerate everything precisely because we have ceased to care!

Do you ever wonder why people get angry and even violent with health care workers? I've seen it happen within my own intensive care unit. It's because the health care worker tells them the truth about reality when they've always thought that they could choose their own... they are uber-consumers who bought into the post modern lie. Someone given the task of breaking bad news becomes the official representative of the society who has denied them their right to the reality of their choice! Afterall the uber-consumer's catch phrase is "I know my rights!"

It would be a shame if evangelicals buy into this sort of mentality too. The danger, as I see it, is that in an attempt to be culturally 'relevant' to the uber-consumer we tailor the Gospel message to flatter our target group - but when we do that we also cease to have anything meaningful to say, we can only reflect back the conceits of the uber-consumer and we can never challenge them. The uber-consumer does not want to be unsettled in fact they will demand (with menaces) the craven approval of the church..... for all their talk about "toleration" they will never tolerate any group not geared to flatter them.

We Evangelicals only have something distinctive to say when we are authentically counter-cultural, and we have not always been faithful in this regard, but that is something the Lord Jesus requires us to be if we are to be worthy of the name Evangelical, that is "Evangel people", literally Gospel people!

"CONDEMNED TO HELL
FOR NOT BELIEVING AN
IMPOSSIBILITY!"

I recently finished reading Robert Graves'
"Goodbye to All That" which is a biographical
account of his early life and his experiences as
an officer in the trenches of The First World
War. It is a great read. I am always intrigued
as a Christian when any writer alludes to their
own beliefs and, usually, why they come to
reject Jesus Christ.... literature invariably
values 'faith' as something to be lost as an
individual progresses towards maturity.

Robert Graves relates how his own religious
convictions wavered when Raymond, a school
friend, made the point that whoever asserted
that a belief in The Trinity was a prerequisite
to salvation "was asserting that a man must go
to Hell if he does not believe something that is,
by definition, impossible to understand."

Of course most such objections to the Gospel
are founded upon one conceit or another, and
this is no exception.

The assumption is this; "God has nothing on
me except that I don't believe in this theology!"
And the implication follows that God is an
unjust ogre who is in no position to judge me!
(It is no coincidence that this is exactly the
issue at the heart of Genesis 3. Plus ca change!)

If that is your position I have some good news
for you.... first up; no-one is going to be
condemned on a technicality. The bad news is
you are condemned already! That is what Jesus
said in John 3 v18; "...whoever does not believe
is condemned already..." (i.e. we do not start
this discussion as if we are innocents) which
can be paraphrased 'God didn't go to all the
trouble of sending his Son merely to point an
accusing finger...he came to help, to put the
world right again. Anyone who trusts in him
is acquitted; anyone who refuses to trust him
has long since been under the death sentence'.

It is a conceit to believe that we are innocents
in the hands of an unjust God - that is the
theology of Graves' friend isn't it? To claim that
we are faultless is to be mired in illusion and
self deceit; it is also to impute evil to God and
to condemn Him! That's Raymond's theology
isn't it? And we all have a theology.

Real maturity comes when we realise how
imperfect we are. In Psalm 32 David says
"Blessed is the man against whom the Lord
counts no iniquity, and in whose spirit is no
deceit". This does NOT mean that the believer
reaches some state of sinless perfection (as
some of my evangelical brethren think);
it means I have decided to cut out all the
fudging and to be totally honest with myself
- the reason I know that this is the correct
interpretation is because of verse five,
'Then I let it all out; I said "I'll make a clean
breast of my failures to God." I'm going to stop
kidding myself!'

I am a Christian because I am not the man I
pretend to be, or the man I should be nor am
I the man I fool myself that I am.

It is self evident that I need God himself
to help rescue me and that is exactly what He
did. God did not delegate the task to another
but He Himself came to do what no other
could. Jesus is God expressed in human form.
He would only do this out of love to rescue us
from ourselves.

I may not understand the Trinity either -
understanding the Godhead is not necessary;
but what is critical is to see our need for God's
rescue plan and to understand that this is
far from an impossibility... it is a downright
necessity. Jesus is the logic of history.

ARGY-BARGY ABOUT
PENAL SUBSTITUTION!

In so far as the watching world takes any
interest in Christian doctrine it should
come as no surprise that the subject of
"penal substitution" is the one to come
under the fiercest attack.

"Penal substitution" is the belief that
on the cross Jesus bore the punishment
rightly due to sinful humanity in their
place. From first to last the sacrifice of
Jesus is about God's love and mercy
towards an undeserving mankind. As
such it is hardly surprising that it should
be so vehemently attacked for it
presupposes that we need rescuing...
principally from God Himself.

In recent days there has been a furore in
the media surrounding comments made by
the Dean of St Albans attacking this belief.
His supporters have also waded in. And,
unsurprisingly my fellow Evangelicals have
risen to the bait. The media love this sort
of argy-bargy; it makes for great theatre
and perhaps that's why the Dean was
invited to speak on BBC radio... it would
entertain the listeners and give the Dean
a 'puff'. (Pun intended!)

While it is tempting to want equal air time
to rebut the Dean's opinions I personally
have the gravest doubts about the wisdom
of joining in a public fracas - TV & Radio
are not conducive to thoughtful exposition
of Christian doctrine. These are media
suited to the instant 'sound bite', not to
considered reflection. Beyond showing
that evangelicals are correct, we will only
win such arguments by demonstrating
that our theology is much deeper and far
richer and ultimately more life changing
than the Dean's views. You can't do that in
a sound bite! Our opponents can achieve
their aims: we cannot.

By participating in media argy bargy we
may score points within our own
constituency but we often fail to connect
with the wider audience; we concede a
propaganda coup to our opponents and we
confer the benediction of 'impartiality' to
a media that is anything but. The best
response is to faithfully teach the Bible, as
we always have, from the public pulpit and
graciously refuse to be so easily baited.

I believe that we should respond with the
care and the grace our doctrine of "penal
substitution" demands of us - and so shame
those who claim the mantle of Christ and yet
misrepresent this most wonderful of all
Christian doctrines.

ps 15-April-07.
There is a new book out which comes with a
great recommendation (I've ordered it!)
"PIERCED FOR OUR TRANSGRESSIONS:
rediscovering the glory of penal substitution",
by Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey & Andrew Sach.
Published by IVP.