Handling Gaps in the Creeds

Professor N. T. Wright spoke at our Cathedral a couple of weeks back. He was very good and along the way he made a generally valid observation about the creeds (by which I mean the ecumenical Creed — i.e., Nicene—and the two other major Western creeds — Apostles and Athanasian): they contain big gaps. NTW had no objections to what they contained but was worried about the holes in them. If all we teach is the content of the creeds we'll have a misshapen faith.

To illustrate what he means, observe that the creeds all skip from creation to Jesus (missing out the story of Israel, i.e., most of the Bible); they jump from Jesus' birth to his death (missing out his teaching and ministry, i.e., most of the Gospels); they leap from creation to redemption with no account of sin.

I have a few reflections on this gap-problem.

First, of course the creeds could say more. They are not seeking to say everything that Christians have to say; they are, rather, laying out the fundamental contours of the Christian belief in the triune God revealed in Jesus. They are not the final word about Christian beliefs and practices but they are an essential dogmatic statement about the divinity of the Spirit and the Son with the Father and of the humanity of Jesus.

Second, what the creeds do say is intended to provide the normative theological framework within which everything else should be understood. As such they provide us with the context within which we understand the story of Israel or the ministry of Jesus or the doctrine of sin or the theology of humanity or whatever else we care to consider.

Finally, and importantly, the creeds are the tip of a theological iceberg with implicit links to all sorts of theological themes not overtly discussed. Take as an example the missing story of Israel and the Nicene Creed. The Creed does not tell the story but it does allude to it.

Consider first an indirect reference to the central prayer of Israel, the shema, in the following words: “We believe in one God . . . maker of heaven and earth. . . . We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things were made.” Behind this part of the Creed lie Paul’s words in 1 Cor 8:6, “for us there is one God . . . from whom all things come . . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ through whom all things exist.” And 1 Cor 8:6, as numerous NT scholars have pointed out (N. T. Wright among them), is an interpretation of the shema: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, YHWH is one” (Deut 6:4). For Paul, Jesus is included within the identity of the one God of Israel, hence his radical take on the shema. The Creed preserves this Pauline interpretation of Israel’s prayer thereby implying the bigger story of Israel.

That bigger story can also be seen in the words “Lord Jesus Christ,” for the title Christos (Heb. Messiah) refers to the promised ruler of Israel and the world spoken of by Israel’s prophets. To unpack this title requires that bigger story. (Arguably, the title “Lord” also alludes to the name of the God of Israel, YHWH. Jews in this period—including Jesus and the authors of the NT—would never speak the name YHWH but would substitute the word kyrios, Lord. The use of the title “Lord” for Jesus in the early church did draw on this connection with the divine name.)

Again, little phrases such as “he rose again, according to the Scriptures” refer to the holy texts of ancient Israel (what Christians call the Old Testament) and thereby gesture at the story of Israel contained in those texts and also at the christological interpretation of them taught to the church by Jesus (Luke 24:25–27).

My point is that the Creed does not explicitly tell the story of Israel but it does gesture to it and require its telling. Thus the church does indeed need to give a good account of God’s way with Israel (as Tom Wright correctly notes) but we should not mistake the lack of that account in the Creed as indicating otherwise.

Christian eschatology and Merleau-Ponty

I read an interesting passage in Maurice Merleau-Ponty, twentieth-century French phenomenologist, the other day. He is exploring the notion of time in the light of music.

Just as the painter is struck by a painting that is not there, the body is suspended in what it sings: the melody is incarnated and finds in the body a type of servant. The melody gives us a particular consciousness of time. We think naturally that the past secretes the future ahead of it. But this notion of time is refuted by the melody. At the moment when the melody begins, the last note is there, in its own manner. In a melody, a reciprocal influence between the first and last note takes place, and we have to say that the first note is possible only because of the last, and vice versa. It is in this way that things happen in the construction of living being.
— Merleau-Ponty, Nature: Course Notes From the Collège de France. Compiled with notes by Dominique Séglard. Translated by Robert Vallier. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2003, 174.

It struck me that this resonates very deeply with Christian thinking about eschatology. The end is in the beginning; the beginning is in the end. The beginning is possible because of the end; the end because of the beginning. We often think of creation reaching its intended goal in the eschaton (the beginning in the end) but it is worth exploring the ways in which the telos of creation is there, in its own manner, in the beginning.

Thoughts on a postcard to Robin Parry, Theological Scribbles, cyberville

Christopher Hitchens on violent religion

I have just read an excellent critique of Christopher Hitchens' book God is Not Great (by Andrew Shepherd, a free-lance researcher and teacher in New Zealand).

The essays was called "Face to Face with Violence: Hitchens and Religion, Hospitality, and Peace-Building" and is found in a forthcoming collection of essays called Taking Rational Trouble over the Mysteries (Pickwick, 2013).

I confess that I have not read Hitchens' book but if the argument contained in it is anything like that set forth and critiqued by Shepherd I am shocked and staggered!

To caricature the summary, it appears that the argument is predicated on a simplistic association of violence and religion that is myopic in its understanding of both violence (many kinds of violence are simply passed-by; perhaps because they implicate secular societies too much) and religion (which is understood in purely functional terms). Religion is more or less defined as violent and violent behaviour is more or less defined as religious. So Hitchens can, of course, list of many instances of religious violence. But when he considers counter-examples things start to get silly:

* atheistic violence (which the twentieth century saw many shocking examples of) Hitchens redefines as "religious."

* instances of religious non-violence (e.g., Martin Luther King Jr) are redefined as secular-inspired rather than Christianity-inspired. Why? Because Christianity is violent so King's peaceful work cannot have been inspired by Christianity. (A claim that anyone even remotely familiar with King will know is simply false.)

I am almost lost for words. That an intelligent person could try to argue in such a fashion seems almost beyond belief. A stunning ability to decide on a theory in advance and then not to allow any evidence to get in the way of it.

Even more worrying was what appeared to be Hitchens' positive, unapologetic, and indeed even gleeful affirmation of the use of lethal violence against certain religious groups. Apparently violence is bad ... unless it is used by secular humanist governments to enforce and defend secularism. Then it is good. (Although, as it is violent would it not be ... religious?)

(OK, I have simplified things above, but ...)

Shepherd then offers a much more helpful and hopeful analysis of religion and violence, drawing on the philosophers Derrida and Levinas.

There are very serious issues to do with religion and violence that need addressing — everyone knows that religion can most certainly be linked to violence. However, if we want constructive solutions to religious violence then the resources for them will need to come from within religious traditions themselves.

Bonhoeffer on Imprecatory Psalms

Can we, then, pray the imprecatory psalms? In so far as we are sinners and express evil thoughts in a prayer of vengeance, we dare not do so. But in so far as Christ is in us, the Christ who took all the vengeance of God upon himself, who met God’s vengeance in our stead, who thus — stricken by the wrath of God — and in no other way could forgive his enemies, who himself suffered the wrath that his enemies might go free — we, too, as member of this Jesus Christ, can pray these psalms, through Jesus Christ, from the heart of Jesus Christ.
Bonhoeffer, Life Together, 47.

Daniel Nehrbass, in his new book, Praying Curses (Pickwick, forthcoming), comments:

This Christocentric reading has several unique features. One must not equate the eschatological or prophetic readings with the Christocentric interpretation. Bonhoeffer, for instance, is not saying that in the psalter Christ was praying for a future vengeance upon his enemies. Instead, Christ becomes the object of this vengeance. He becomes the enemy and incurs the wrath of God. He writes, “I pray the imprecatory psalms in the certainty of their marvelous fulfillment. I leave the vengeance to God and ask him to execute his righteousness to all his enemies, knowing that God has remained true to himself and has himself secured justice in his wrathful judgment on the cross, and that this wrath as become grace and joy for us.”

Interesting. Not 100% sure that I "get" it but it opens up new ways of staring to think about imprecatory prayers in the Bible (and both the OT and NT contain rather a lot).

Justin Martyr on Sunday, creation, and new creation

And we assemble together on Sunday, because it is the first day, on which God transformed darkness and matter, and made the world; and Jesus Christ our Savior rose from the dead on that day; for they crucified him the day before Saturday; and the day after Saturday, which is Sunday, he appeared to his apostles and disciples, and taught them these things which we have presented to you also for your consideration.
Justin Martyr

Exactly! There are some Christians who would like to move Christian worship away from Sundays in order to make the point that all days are alike. But something is lost in such a move. Sunday was "the Lord's Day" not for some random reason. It was "the first day" of creation in Genesis 1, the day on which God said, "Let there be light!" And it was the first day of the new creation—the day that Jesus was raised from the dead. Sunday holds together creation and new creation and Sunday worship is a fitting way of sanctifying time.

A sad word association: "Reformed" = angry men

What has happened to me? I have always had a great respect for the Reformed tradition (and, when I am thinking clearly, I still do). But one's feel for a word can be affected by the associations one makes with it.

I was just reading a assertive theological spiel that, while polite, expressed a suppressed anger, which made me immediately think, "I bet he's Reformed."

And when I reversed the idea in my head and just said the word "Reformed pastor" I immediately pictured an angry man launching theological rockets at his enemies both within and without the faith.

Now I am very well aware that most Reformed pastors, theologians, and ordinary folk are not like this. (Some of my best friends are Reformed, as they say.) I also know that the tradition has many riches to offer the church — I myself have often drawn from it. So how have I got to the point that when I hear the words, "he's Reformed" I groan and brace myself for a "manly" biblical bombardment all in the name of defending God's honour against Christians who wander from the narrow line of doctrinal purity?

So thank God for all those good Reformed folk who give the lie to the caricature. May their tribe grow and may the ranks of the angry men diminish.

Banksy's attack on advertising — GO for it Mate!

Warning: contains a swear or two.

"Hell and Beyond" by Michael Phillips

Hell and Beyond is a new fantasy e-novel about the afterlife (you can buy it here). There is a noble tradition in the West of voyages into the realm of death and the beyond — from Homer's Odyssey through Virgil's Aeneids and later Dante's Divine Comedy on to more recent works, most notably C. S. Lewis's The Great Divorce. It is in this tradition that Michael Phillips seeks to locate his fantasy. What makes it different is that it is funded by a more universalist vision than any previous explorations in the genre. I suppose you could say that it is for some forms of Christian universalism what Dante was for late medieval Catholicism. The spirit of George MacDonald and C. S. Lewis loom large over the novel (indeed the Professor and "the Scotsman" are both guides through parts of the afterlife in the book).



It is important to flag up Phillips' own disclaimer in the afterword: This work is a fantasy and NOT a speculation about what will actually happen after we die. "With Lewis, I would not hazard 'even a guess or a speculation at what may actually await us.' But one thing I am certain — God's love and eternal plans are much deeper and more wonderful than we can hope or imagine." What he aims to do is to "set forth possibilities about what may be in God's heart to accomplish in eternity, but not in any way to predict how he might work towards such ends." We are urged not to read the book as a doctrinal tract but rather as an imagination-expanding work of fiction. This is a helpful warning, although the book is inevitably theological and as such is open to theological evaluation, even if not at the level of details.

The story told is of an internationally celebrated atheistic apologist who unexpectedly dies and finds himself "on the other side" to discover that he was seriously mistaken. The tale is the difficult afterlife voyage he must undertake towards transformation. He must traverse all sorts of imaginative environments (the town of isolation, the desert of introspection, the hill of betrayal, the sea of burnished souls, the city of debt, the lake of fire) before finding wholeness in communion with the triune God.

On the whole I thought that Phillips executed his task well. It is a difficult genre to work with in the contemporary West; people find it hard to take seriously in ways previous generations would not have. But as with all works in this tradition it is as much about how we live with other people, ourselves, and God right here, right now as it is about life after death. And as a means of exploring the significance our everyday lives and everyday choices from the perspective of eternity it works rather well.

There were times when it felt a bit twee or simplistic and verged on preachy. For instance, the first companion the atheist meets on reaching the afterlife is Charles Darwin. (Darwin, along with the other guides, is not named but his identity is clear.) Darwin has renounced his godless theories and is appalled at the way they have misled millions. I must confess that this made me groan and want to give up reading (Christian anti-evolutionism is a lifelong frustration to me). But it is worth pressing on. Darwin was a blip and things pick up after that.

What I found most helpful — indeed THE great strength of the book — was that it shows in a very imaginative way how a universalist vision does take the dreadfulness of sin with full seriousness. The gospel is not about simply being forgiven — it is about being transformed and the voyage of transformation is painful. It requires acknowledging and owning what we have done and making restitution. Phillips, in the tradition of MacDonald and Lewis, is really at his best here.

For a penetrating interview with the author about the work see here.

I do not have time for that level of engagement but I do have one theological question: The book does at various points make reference to the cross but it is never explains how the cross is related to the transformation and salvation of this ex-atheist. Now I do appreciate that this is not a theology book so I appreciate that we cannot press things too far. Yet it is a book that has a lot of implicit theology and I would be interested to know what role Christ's atonement plays in the salvation envisaged here.

James Brownson's new book on same-sex relationships *****

So I have just finished reading James Brownson's new book on same-sex relationships and Scripture. I have no intention of offering a detailed analysis. I simply wish to offer the back cover blurb and then to make a few comments.

Here's the blurb:

In Bible, Gender, Sexuality James Brownson argues that Christians should reconsider whether or not the biblical strictures against same-sex relations as defined in the ancient world should apply to contemporary, committed same-sex relationships. Presenting two sides in the debate - "traditionalist" and "revisionist" - Brownson carefully analyses each of the seven main texts that appear to address intimate same-sex relations. In the process, he explores key concepts that inform our understanding of the biblical texts, including patriarchy, complementarity, purity and impurity, honour and shame. Central to his argument is the need to uncover the moral logic behind the biblical text. Written in order to serve and inform the ongoing debate in many denominations over the questions of homosexuality, Brownson's in-depth study will prove a useful resource for Christians who want to form a considered opinion on this important issue.

James V. Brownson is James I and Jean Cook Professor of New Testament at Western Theological Seminary, Holland, Michigan.

OK. Some comments. There is an AWFUL LOT that one could say about this issue and about this book. I will not.

But I will say this. The burden of proof for a change in the church's traditional attitude on this issue lies firmly with those who wish to revise it. The default stance is, as with any issue, the traditional one. And any attempt to change this position will have to do some serious biblical and theological work, taking what Scripture says very seriously but also reflecting on Christian theological loci such as creation, sin, incarnation, atonement, etc. It is not enough to complain that traditional Christians are out of touch or are unloving or
intolerant, as if that should settle the case. The traditional position is integrated into a certain way of construing Christian theology and biblical texts and unless that is taken seriously there will be no progress. And one cannot simply dismiss traditional biblical and theological teaching, because that approach is not going to help the vast majority of Christians (straight and gay) for whom this text is Holy Scripture.

So if revisionists wish to persuade the church then they need to take both Scripture and theology very seriously and make the case that certain kinds of same-sex partnerships are actually consistent with a high view of Scripture and orthodox Christian theology. That is the task.

James Brownson seeks to undertake one critical part of this task — arguing that Scripture's teaching and Christian holiness are compatible with committed, marriage-like same-sex relationships. He also engages the theological questions insofar as they relate to the biblical texts he deals with (and often they do). He is a wise theological interpreter of Scripture with an eye for biblical-theological currents. (For a short but intelligent attempt at making a more systematic theological case see C. Norman Kraus, On Being Human: Sexual Orientation and the Image of God)

What marks this book out from many others on both sides is that

(a) unlike some revisionists his exegesis is not strained but very plausible. Really — I actually learned a fair few new things (and I thought I'd read around this issue rather a lot).

(b) unlike some traditionalists he takes the hermeneutical question (in terms of theological and cultural hermeneutics) seriously. Determining what the author of Genesis or what Paul had in mind is only the first step, not the last.

So this is a very sophisticated and, thankfully, a very irenic book. Indeed, it is the best book I have read on this topic from a revisionist perspective (quite possibly from any perspective).

In summary: a very thought provoking and constructive contribution to the debate, one that those on both sides will need to seriously engage with. Highly recommended.

Hugh Laurie on the Blues

Love Laurie
Love Blues
Love this documentary

A few books wot I read recently that I fort were good

I read lots and lots of books but some stand out as especially interesting. Here are a few that struck me recently:

E. Janet Warren, Cleansing the Cosmos: A Biblical Model for Counteracting Evil (Pickwick, 2012).

This one is a fascinating attempt to build a very different biblical model for understanding and resisting evil than the standard "spiritual warfare" metaphor. Warren argues that this battle metaphor is actually a lot less prevalent in the Bible than its dominance would lead one to believe (and not always pastorally helpful). Her alternative is to develop a very interesting spatial model for engaging evil in which evil exists at the liminal boundaries of the reality of divine presence. She traces the model through biblical teachings on Creation, Cult, Christ, and Church. Thought-provoking stuff.

Jamie Howison, God's Mind in That Music: Theological Explorations through the Music of John Coltrane (Cascade, 2012)

This book is an unexpected gem. It is so well written and so very helpful as a guide to the general issue of theology and music and also as a way in to the music of John Coltrane. I had not bothered to listen to too much Coltrane before I read this but now I have got myself several albums. It is the theology and music equivalent of a well-run wine-tasting course.

Oliver Davies, Meister Eckhart: Mystical Theologian (Reprint. SPCK, 2011)

This one was an impulse buy. I had no special interest in Eckhart (fourteenth-century Dominican and mystical theologian). But Oliver Davies knows his mystical onions and offers here a very helpful guide to this oft-perplexing theological mind. The first section introduces Eckhart in his social and historical context, the second part focuses on his theology, especially his theology of mystical union with God, and the third section offers reflections on Eckhart's use of language, his Christian orthodoxy, and his influence. Good stuff.

Kyle Roberts, Emerging Prophet: Kierkegaard and the Postmodern People of God (Cascade, 2013)

Here Roberts, a Kierkegaard scholar and emerging church missional theologian, gives us a solid and stimulating set of reflections on the prophetic contemporary relevance of the nineteenth-century Danish writer Søren Kierkegaard. I thought that this would be good but it is not—it is great. (And the cover alone is enough to make one weep with joy.)

Dru Johnson, Biblical Knowing: A Scriptural Epistemology of Error (Cascade, 2013)

There has been a lot of work by Christian scholars in recent years on philosophical and theological epistemology but precious little on the implications of biblical teaching on "knowing" for philosophical and theological reflections. This book fills that gap ... with a vengeance! The author is one of that most rare breed—someone trained in both philosophy and biblical studies. I have done quite a lot of thinking on the Bible and epistemology over the years (I even co-edited a very good volume on the subject) and I can say without hesitation that this is by far the best book I have read on the issue—it really made me start thinking about things in different ways. Highly recommended. If this does not generate some discussions I will eat my hat.

Hellbound the Movie on DVD and Blueray

The long-awaited DVD and Blueray release of Hellbound the Movie is here.

For those of you who do not know, it is Kevin Miller's excellent documentary on Hell that did the round of cinemas in the US and Canada last year and this. What I am particularly looking forward to are the interview outtakes. There will be people, such as Thomas Talbott, that were interviewed but never made it into the actual movie. So I'm keen to see some of those interviews.

| Running time: 85 minutes
| 16x9 Widescreen
| 5.1 Surround Sound

| English, French and Spanish sub-titles
| Region-free

SPECIAL FEATURES
| Interview outtakes
| "The Hell and Back" Featurette
| Director's commentary

In Canadian money it is $20 for the DVD or $25 for the blueray

You can but it here:
It will ship out on 14 May.

Top Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Church Leaders

Just got this off facebook. Brilliant!

Top Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained

10. A man’s place is in the army.
9. For men who have children, their duties might distract them from the responsibilities of being a parent.
8. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be “unnatural” for them to do other forms of work.
7. Man was created before woman. It is therefore obvious that man was a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment, rather than the crowning achievement of creation.
6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. This is easily demonstrated by their conduct at football games and watching basketball tournaments.
5. Some men are handsome; they will distract women worshipers.
4. To be ordained pastor is to nurture the congregation. But this is not a traditional male role. Rather, throughout history, women have been considered to be not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more frequently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination.
3. Men are overly prone to violence. No really manly man wants to settle disputes by any means other than by fighting about it. Thus, they would be poor role models, as well as being dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.
2. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep paths, repair the church roof, and maybe even lead the singing on Father’s Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the Church.
1. In the New Testament account, the person who betrayed Jesus was a man. Thus, his lack of faith and ensuing punishment stands as a symbol of the subordinated position that all men should take.

Unbelievable? The Conference 2013 - Jesus: liar, lunatic, legend... or Lord?

Sat 25 May, 9.30am - 5.30pm, The Brewery, Chiswell Street, London, EC1Y 4SD
Now in its third year, Unbelievable? The Conference is the leading UK event for apologetics and evangelism. Ordinary Chistians (yes you!) will learn how to share their faith effectively. We'll also be marking 50 years of CS Lewis' remarkable legacy as well as how to engage with today's ethical and scientific issues in a variety of seminars featuring expert speakers.

Speakers: Alister McGrath, Amy Orr Ewing, Peter S Williams, Fuz Rana, Dr Trevor Stammers, Kurt Jaros
Every booking of 2 or more tickets will receive a free copy of Unbelievable? The Conference 2012 triple DVD worth £20.
Book in at http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable2013

Flames of Love

I have just finished reading Flames of Love: Hell and Universal Salvation (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2012) by Heath Bradley, a United Methodist elder in Arkansas.

It is a very well-written defence of Christian universalism with the middle-level reader in mind. Bradley engages a set of common objections to universalism and uses them as a means of exploring what universalism does (and does not) entail, of showing why it does not fall foul of the objections, and of arguing that it actually has the advantage over the more mainstream views of hell.

After a helpful introduction in which Bradley sets out the reasons why we need to revisit the question of hell (namely, that the mainstream ideas in the tradition are deeply problematic for a whole host of reasons) he considers are the following objections to universalism:

1. Universalists don't believe in hell
2. Universalists don't believe the Bible
3. Universalists deny human freedom
4. Universalists think all religions are equally true
5. Universalism undermines evangelism
6. Universalism undermines holy living

With a gracious manner, an engaging writing style, and clear thinking he makes a good case for his conclusions.

I especially appreciated his generous and sympathetic treatment of religious pluralism (a view that he argues is deeply mistaken). I would have been more inclined to blast it but I felt corrected by Bradley's gentler, though uncompromising, engagement with it.

I also really breathed a sigh of relief at his recognition of just how limited and hemmed in our freedom really is. It seems to me that theologians often seem to work with some idealized notion of human freedom that does not take seriously enough the experienced reality of our freedom and its limits. (Echoes of Marilyn Adams on this same issue.)

I did not agree with everything in the book. For instance, I do not think that Bradley is correct to claim that universalism must be inclusivist rather than exclusivist. In part his conclusion on this matter is based on too narrow an understanding of what exclusivism is. To my mind exclusivism is simply the view that one must explicitly place one's faith in Christ to be saved. That view is compatible with universalism. But Bradley understands exclusivism to also include the claim that one must place one's faith in Christ before death in order to be saved. Obviously that view does exclude universalism. But I see no reason why an exclusivist HAS to add the "before death" qualification (even if, in practice, most do).

This is not to say that I am an exclusivist — in fact, I am very sympathetic to inclusivism (though open to the possibility of exclsivism) — merely that I think one could be an exclusivist and a universalist.

But that was a minor issue.

In conclusion: a clear, engagingly written, well argued, heart warming, and pretty convincing defence of Christian universalism. Recommended.

The Poetry of Pain: A Study Day in Lamentations (in London with Robin Parry)

So I will be doing a day of seminars on the book of Lamentations on May 13 at the London Institute for Contemporary Christianity. If that is of interest to you please come along. You can book here.

The day is entitled "The Poetry of Pain: A Study Day in Lamentations."

Here is their website blurb for it:

Western cultures are notoriously averse to pain and tragedy. We're no longer shy in talking about sex, but seem lost for words when it comes to grief and death. In churches too, Christians are more comfortable singing in a major key of joyful praise, but less familiar with the minor keys of mournful despair.

The biblical book of Lamentations is thus a gift to us - providing a voice for expressing our own pain and grief, and allowing us to connect with the sufferings of others in the world. But how does a collection of poems written in the aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem in the sixth century BC function as Scripture today? How does God continue to address his people, Jew and Gentile alike, through this part of his word? How should we understand the poems on their own terms, and what difference, if any, does the coming of Christ make in how we appropriate them for today?

Combining teaching sessions with opportunities for discussion, this day workshop will be suitable for all those who would value an opportunity to dig deeper into Lamentations, exploring how Scripture nurtures and sustains Christian identity and discipleship in today's world.


The day will be led by Robin Parry. Formerly a Sixth Form College teacher for eleven years, Robin has worked in publishing since 2001 (for Paternoster and, since 2010, for Wipf & Stock, a US-based theological publisher). He has written and edited several books, including a commentary on Lamentations in the 'Two Horizons' series, published by Eerdmans. He is married to Carol, is the father of two daughters, and the owner of a three-legged cat called Monty. In some of his spare time, Robin blogs at 'Theological Scribbles'.

Think I might go along to that.

McEucharist: I blame Zwingli

I have been hanging around evangelical free churches since 1984 and it seems to me that there is something of a problem with the way in which Holy Communion is practiced.

Problem 1: Who-carist?
The first problem is that the Eucharist can be an infrequent visitor to free church gatherings — more who-carist? than Eucharist. The weeks and months (and sometimes the years!) roll by and not a scrap of bread or a drop of wine is seen.

Problem 2: McEucharist
The second problem is that when the Eucharist is celebrated it is often shoe-horned into the little space between the "worship" (i.e., the singing) and the sermon in the spiritual equivalent of fast food for Christians on the go.

How is it that the meal that was given by Jesus to the church and which has been at the centre of Christian worship down the centuries has been relegated to a sideshow by so many contemporary evangelical churches?

A simplistic answer with more than a grain of truth:
I blame Zwingli. The Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli, in his zeal to reject anything that looked like transubstantiation and that smacked of medieval hocus pocus (from hoc est corpus, latin for "this is my body"), reduced Communion to a mere symbol. For Zwingli Holy Communion is a memorial meal to celebrate Christ's once-for-all victory at Calvary. But Christ is NOT present in the Eucharist — Christ is in heaven.

Zwingli was right about some things and wrong about others.

He was right that Christ's death was once for all and that communion celebrates it. He was right that Christ is in heaven. He was right that transubstantiation (as a metaphysical account of real presence) has its problems.

BUT he was wrong to think that transubstantiation is incompatible with the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ (as were all the Reformers) and he was wrong to reject the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. You can have real presence without transubstantiation (as is clear from looking at Orthodoxy, at Luther, and at Calvin).

The reason why it matters is that Zwingli's theology unintentionally undermines the significance of the Eucharist. If the physical elements do not mediate Christ's presence (by the Spirit) — and Zwingli did not think that they could — but merely help us to think about Jesus then Eucharist ceases to be essential. There are plenty of ways that we can be reminded to think about Jesus' once-for-all death. We can, for instance, sing songs about it.

For many evangelicals Bread and wine are simply a slightly odd prompt for reflection. And they break the flow of "the worship" (i.e., the flow from one song to another song, like Tarzan swinging from vine to vine). And so it is that we take communion less and less often and when we do it we do it quickly so we can move on to more important things. (Of course, we don't say that but if we really valued the Lord's Supper would we celebrate it the way that we do?)

Learning to eat well:
But Zwingli was wrong.

Holy Communion is a sacrament: it mediates grace; it mediates the presence and life of Jesus. If we are to recover the significance of communion as evangelicals we need to rethink out theology.

I recommend Calvin as a great place to start.

The gift of heresy

"Really, Watson, you excel yourself," said Holmes, pushing back his chair and lighting a cigarette. "I am bound to say that in all the accounts which you have been so good as to give of my own small achievements you have habitually underrated your own abilities. It may be that you are not yourself luminous, but you are a conductor of light. Some people without possessing genius have a remarkable power of stimulating it. I confess, my dear fellow, that I am very much in your debt."
Sherlock Holmes to Watson in The Hound of the Baskervilles

Christian theology is not a completed project but an ongoing journey. Along that journey many of us take wrong turns and head up blind alleys. Sometimes those alleys are a harmless waste of time, other times they are more serious, leading to what the church comes to consider heresy.

But we need to be clear of a few things about heresy:

1. Those who embrace what come to be seen as heretical opinions are usually sincere people in pursuit of the truth of God in Christ. That are not trying to "distort the truth" or deceive people. The church may come to discern serious problems in the positions espoused but that should not be taken to mean that those who embrace heretical positions do so as a result of a desire to lead people astray. Even a smidgen of knowledge about Apollinarius, for instance, would reveal that he went astray in his very attempt to defend Nicene orthodoxy and oppose Arius.

2. The pursuit of truth will often lead to dead ends and sometimes those ends are judged heretical but that does not mean that the routes were not worth exploring nor that they are obviously "dumb." Heretical views always spring from some genuine insights into God and usually have some sensible logic underpinning them.

3. Even in matters heretical some heresy is worse than other heresy. For instance, Docetism (which denies the humanity of Jesus) and Arianism (which denies the divinity of Jesus) are worse than Nestorianism (which affirms both but, in spite of Nestorius' best intentions, failed to do justice to the unity of Christ).

4. Indeed, the heretics offer a gift to the church for it is the very exploration of certain theological dead-end routes that enables the church to clarify its own thinking on the matters concerned. To corrupt Holmes, heresy may not possess "genius" but it can stimulate "genius" in others. Without various Christological heresies the church would not have clarified some central matters about the person of Christ and of the Trinity, for instance.

5. Holding heretical opinions does not make one a heretic. If that were the case LOADS of Christians would be heretics. I know plenty of Christians (including Christian leaders) who are holding heretical views without realizing it. To be a heretic one must know that the opinion runs counter to the mind of the church and still hold on to it in spite of that.

So I am glad for the presence of those who come to be designated heretics in so far as their provocations help the church to clarify its own mind. They were, for the most part, sincere people with some sensible ideas that deserved exploring.

I am less pleased when some Christians return to heretical opinions after their problems have been exposed and the church has rejected them. That, to quote Proverbs, is like a dog returning to its vomit.

Resurrection

So good I'll post it again:

Songs about ...

[WARNING: the following observations concern contemporary evangelical songwriting. I cannot speak to the situation outside that context.]

There are lots of people writing songs for Christian worship, although most of the ones that are widely disseminated come from one of a small group of songwriting stables.

There are a lot of good songs being written.

But what strikes me is how generic they often seem. They are mostly songs that could be dropped into any meeting on any theme in any season of the year.

How many songs are there that focus on baptism? (I cannot think of one and yet getting baptized is something all Christians do!)

How many songs concern the bread and the wine of the Eucharist? (The Eucharist songs that I do know are mostly songs about Jesus' death, only alluding obliquely to the Eucharist.)

How many songs of lament or of repentance? (Those that there are never seem to get used.)

How many songs about mission? (There are a few more of these but still not enough.)

Why is this?

I am wondering whether it is because most songwriters want their songs to be sung and the way to maximize the chances of that is not to make them too event-specific (i.e., tied to special meetings or special themes). So the songs are written for what has become the paradigm evangelical worship gathering — a large convention at which there are no baptisms, no Eucharist, no repentance, no sorrow; just lots of happy songs. Only generic songs will work in that context and so that is what gets written.

I have nothing against the kinds of happy songs I am writing about — we need them.

However, my challenge is simply this: if contemporary Christian worship songwriters want to write songs for the church they need to have something of a mindset shift. They need to write songs for churches in local contexts living as church. They need to write songs for baptism and Eucharist and mission and Lent and lament and preaching and funerals and ... you get the picture. We need to change our mental image of the paradigm context in which songs are needed. Forget the X-Factor, Your Church Needs You!