'Nain' (pronounced 'Nine')is the Welsh (or, more precisely, north Welsh) word for grandma. My mother, in this context. Nain is what my two boys, aged 9 and 7, call her.
Nain has not been at all well in recent months and in May moved into a nursing home in mid Wales. She wanted to go there, realising that she needed full time nursing care. It is a lovely home, and as a family we are very happy that she is getting the best care she could have, and we are content that she is safe.
This week the four of us went up to see her. We spent four nights in her bungalow, sorting things out a bit, as she will not be going back to live there. A difficult task, and many families know exactly what it is about. We made four visits during the week to see Nain. She is in bed now, rarely able to get up, and spending much of her time asleep as she has no energy to do much else. We have little spurts of conversation, and then she drops off again. But she is not in pain.
The boys spontaneously went up to her and gave her a kiss. Her eyes lit up. She murmured 'darling' to them. They were quite matter of fact about it. The older boy had come alone with me to see her a few weeks ago. When we were all going up this time, he said to our younger, in a rather grown up sort of voice, 'Thomas, you must realise that Nain is very thin now...'. Preparing his little brother. But little brother did not seem too fazed.
What interested Hilary and me was the reaction of a friend when we said last week what we were going to do. She really did not think it was right to let a child see Nain in that state. I am not sure exactly why. It was as if the children should be allowed to remember her at her best, but that a veil should be drawn over the weakness of old age and approaching death.
Did it make a difference that this lady was not a Christian? As a Christian you have a framework in which to understand pain, weakness and death. It is an enemy, but it is a part of life in a fallen world. A generation that runs away from it has not grown up. As a Christian too one has hope for life after death - that is, if the dying one is a believer. Whether the person is a believer or not, you know that this life is not the end; it is not all there is; mere continuation of this existence is not a value in itself. This life is a preparation for the next.
One should not force such experiences on children; the boys were happy to come. Nor was there anything morbid or gruesome about visiting Nain. Children are exposed to all manner of things that are morally corrupting; they should not be shielded from reality that is not sinful. Would the lady who thinks otherwise want her grandchildren kept from her in her old and perhaps unsightly age? If so - that is sad.
Give children the opportunity to come to terms with reality. And the warmth of spontaneous affection with which the boys gave her a 'sws' on her pursed and lined cheeks and the brightness in her eyes and weak smile on her lips as they did so, was a precious testimony to God-given human affection.
Saturday, 27 July 2013
Friday, 19 July 2013
Reformed - more or less
Words change their meaning. This is inevitable and in itself not a bad thing. 'Peculiar' people in 2013 are not what they may been in some churches in East Anglia in the nineteenth century. 'Painful' preaching today is not the desirable thing a Puritan might have thought it to be in 1650. 'Gay' will never again be the expression of light-heartedness that it was until even fairly recently.
'Evangelical' is a word that we realised many years ago was changing its meaning. It was broadening out and thinning down. It was no longer as useful for carrying the freight of doctrinal reliability and faithfulness to Scripture as it once was.
Is 'Reformed' going the same way? This has been asked here and there for some time now. Do we really know what 'Reformed' means? No label of this sort is going to have an impermeable ring of meaning around it; there will always be grey areas. At some point however, it seems that the defined area has suffered encroachment by so many qualifications that one wonders what is left.
For example (an old chestnut)both paedobaptists and Baptists claim to be Reformed.
Charismatics and cessationists claim to be Reformed.
Anglicans and non-conformists claim to be Reformed.
Those who hold to the regulative principle of worship, and increasingly many who do not, claim to be Reformed.
Five point Calvinists, and many who are four or three point (and the optional points vary) claim to be Reformed.
A variant of the above, those who hold to limited atonement and Amyraldians, both claim to be Reformed.
Those who hold to the abiding validity of the moral law as set out in the Ten Commandments, and increasingly, those who do not, claim to be Reformed.
Those who believe in the Lord's Day as a continuation of the creation ordinance and the fourth commandment, claim to be Reformed, as do increasingly many who do not.
Those who hold the doctrine of the church to require the marks of preaching, the sacraments and discipline claim to be Reformed, but increasingly many whose view of the church seems to be somewhat looser, claim to be Reformed.
Those who are strictly covenantal and believe in the covenant of works claim to be Reformed, but many also claim to be Reformed who do not hold to such a covenant, and are only loosely covenantal at all in theology.
It seems to me therefore that if I want to use the word Reformed to define myself, and to enter fellowship with others with whom I know I will agree on major issues, or establish a church and invite people to join it knowing what it believes, the word Reformed is a lot less useful than it used to be. This may of course in itself not be a bad thing. Words change. Maybe we need to think of something else. But it is not a matter of unconcern if the slippage of the meaning is indicative of an indifference to sound biblical theology, clearly thought through and sacrificially maintained.
What is the irreducible minimum of the word 'Reformed'? Or is that the right question? Is that too centre-bounded?Should we be going all out and setting out our stall? Boundary bounding? Maybe the word is worth recovering.
'Evangelical' is a word that we realised many years ago was changing its meaning. It was broadening out and thinning down. It was no longer as useful for carrying the freight of doctrinal reliability and faithfulness to Scripture as it once was.
Is 'Reformed' going the same way? This has been asked here and there for some time now. Do we really know what 'Reformed' means? No label of this sort is going to have an impermeable ring of meaning around it; there will always be grey areas. At some point however, it seems that the defined area has suffered encroachment by so many qualifications that one wonders what is left.
For example (an old chestnut)both paedobaptists and Baptists claim to be Reformed.
Charismatics and cessationists claim to be Reformed.
Anglicans and non-conformists claim to be Reformed.
Those who hold to the regulative principle of worship, and increasingly many who do not, claim to be Reformed.
Five point Calvinists, and many who are four or three point (and the optional points vary) claim to be Reformed.
A variant of the above, those who hold to limited atonement and Amyraldians, both claim to be Reformed.
Those who hold to the abiding validity of the moral law as set out in the Ten Commandments, and increasingly, those who do not, claim to be Reformed.
Those who believe in the Lord's Day as a continuation of the creation ordinance and the fourth commandment, claim to be Reformed, as do increasingly many who do not.
Those who hold the doctrine of the church to require the marks of preaching, the sacraments and discipline claim to be Reformed, but increasingly many whose view of the church seems to be somewhat looser, claim to be Reformed.
Those who are strictly covenantal and believe in the covenant of works claim to be Reformed, but many also claim to be Reformed who do not hold to such a covenant, and are only loosely covenantal at all in theology.
It seems to me therefore that if I want to use the word Reformed to define myself, and to enter fellowship with others with whom I know I will agree on major issues, or establish a church and invite people to join it knowing what it believes, the word Reformed is a lot less useful than it used to be. This may of course in itself not be a bad thing. Words change. Maybe we need to think of something else. But it is not a matter of unconcern if the slippage of the meaning is indicative of an indifference to sound biblical theology, clearly thought through and sacrificially maintained.
What is the irreducible minimum of the word 'Reformed'? Or is that the right question? Is that too centre-bounded?Should we be going all out and setting out our stall? Boundary bounding? Maybe the word is worth recovering.
Monday, 15 July 2013
The Day of Rest
I was preaching last night on the Fourth Commandment from Deuteronomy 5. I pointed out the different but complementary bases for obeying the commandment in Exodus and Deuteronomy - the former pointing us to creation, the latter to redemption. I pointed out the significance of the words in Genesis 2:2,3 - rest, sanctify, holy, blessed. It is so clear that this was a day for man, not just for God. After all, what else are holy days for? And what other blessing does not bless man? And what other blessing (as on the living creatures and man, in 1:20 and 28) might be postponed so as not to take effect immediately ? So there is no case for saying that it was at Sinai that man first came under an obligation to rest on the Sabbath. Look too at Exodus 16 and the pre-Sinai provision of manna - not to be collected on the Sabbath. I also spent a little time on the change from the seventh to the first day -a new creation, and a richer redemption - we look forward now, not backwards. A new era calls for a new day.
I then dealt with the three passages that seem to suggest to some that the Sabbath is one of those days which are not to be regarded as sacred and are not to be followed any more - Rom 14:5-6; Gal 4:9-11, and Col 2:16,17. Many commentators take the view that these passages do not undermine the weekly Sabbath and Greg Beale is helpful in his New Testament Biblical Theology (his whole section on the Sabbath is excellent) but Geerhardus Vos is most succinct - the argument being that there are two aspects to the Sabbath. It is at once a creation ordinance and a moral law; and on the other hand a ceremonial rule and part of a cycle of feasts, new moons and festivals, including Sabbath days, months, and years. We are still to keep the Sabbath as a creation ordinance, whilst remembering that we are delivered from the ceremonial observance which seemed to be troubling the congregations in Rome, Galatia and Colosse.
Those passages do not bear the weight put on them by some when one considers the biblical and theological depth of the Sabbath principle.
And if there was a day of rest at creation, and a day of rest in Canaan, should we not need a day of rest today, in the age of grace, even though Jesus has fulfilled the commandment in its ceremonial aspect? Are we in heaven yet? Do we not still have a way to go? Are those who say we can do without the Lord 's Day as a Sabbath not guilty of what Greg Beale calls 'over-realised eschatology' - thinking we have arrived when we are still not yet there? And would God take such a good thing under the old covenant(see Isaiah 58:13,14; Psalm 92) away from us in the new covenant?
And what a mewling, emaciated thing the non-Sabbatarian's Lord's Day is, when one examines it. For it has says nothing about Creation, nothing about our relation to the moral law which is God's permanent provision for us as human beings in relation to him; and perhaps saddest of all, nothing in expectation of the future consummation. It is just a weak pragmatic thing, a day in a week, perhaps, yes, maybe the day on which the Lord rose, but with nothing to connect us to its past or its future. So it exists by living on the remains of the Sabbath principle, and those who hold to it do much the same things, but of course they feel under no obligation to observe it - and that must give some pleasure, I suppose. It is spawned in the name of liberty but has nothing of delight in the law of the Lord in it.
Give me any day the Puritan Sabbath, the 'market day of the soul'. Not only my body needs the rest (that is probably the least of it from a minister's point of view) but I need the spiritual rest. In an age when the government and society are taking so much from us that is Christian, and trespassing on what is the Lord's, why are so many Christians giving away such a precious gift as the Christian Sabbath day? Is it a misguided antinomian theology? Or ignorance? Or simply careless self-pleasing? Whatever, here is a chance for Christians to be truly counter-cultural, and stake a claim for God over time - and in large measure we are passing it up.
I then dealt with the three passages that seem to suggest to some that the Sabbath is one of those days which are not to be regarded as sacred and are not to be followed any more - Rom 14:5-6; Gal 4:9-11, and Col 2:16,17. Many commentators take the view that these passages do not undermine the weekly Sabbath and Greg Beale is helpful in his New Testament Biblical Theology (his whole section on the Sabbath is excellent) but Geerhardus Vos is most succinct - the argument being that there are two aspects to the Sabbath. It is at once a creation ordinance and a moral law; and on the other hand a ceremonial rule and part of a cycle of feasts, new moons and festivals, including Sabbath days, months, and years. We are still to keep the Sabbath as a creation ordinance, whilst remembering that we are delivered from the ceremonial observance which seemed to be troubling the congregations in Rome, Galatia and Colosse.
Those passages do not bear the weight put on them by some when one considers the biblical and theological depth of the Sabbath principle.
And if there was a day of rest at creation, and a day of rest in Canaan, should we not need a day of rest today, in the age of grace, even though Jesus has fulfilled the commandment in its ceremonial aspect? Are we in heaven yet? Do we not still have a way to go? Are those who say we can do without the Lord 's Day as a Sabbath not guilty of what Greg Beale calls 'over-realised eschatology' - thinking we have arrived when we are still not yet there? And would God take such a good thing under the old covenant(see Isaiah 58:13,14; Psalm 92) away from us in the new covenant?
And what a mewling, emaciated thing the non-Sabbatarian's Lord's Day is, when one examines it. For it has says nothing about Creation, nothing about our relation to the moral law which is God's permanent provision for us as human beings in relation to him; and perhaps saddest of all, nothing in expectation of the future consummation. It is just a weak pragmatic thing, a day in a week, perhaps, yes, maybe the day on which the Lord rose, but with nothing to connect us to its past or its future. So it exists by living on the remains of the Sabbath principle, and those who hold to it do much the same things, but of course they feel under no obligation to observe it - and that must give some pleasure, I suppose. It is spawned in the name of liberty but has nothing of delight in the law of the Lord in it.
Give me any day the Puritan Sabbath, the 'market day of the soul'. Not only my body needs the rest (that is probably the least of it from a minister's point of view) but I need the spiritual rest. In an age when the government and society are taking so much from us that is Christian, and trespassing on what is the Lord's, why are so many Christians giving away such a precious gift as the Christian Sabbath day? Is it a misguided antinomian theology? Or ignorance? Or simply careless self-pleasing? Whatever, here is a chance for Christians to be truly counter-cultural, and stake a claim for God over time - and in large measure we are passing it up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)