Last Friday and Saturday I attended an interesting conference of the above name organised by the Centre for Intelligent Design (ID). The venue was the very comfortable and attractive Elim Pentecostal Conference Centre in the beautifully situated village of West Malvern.
The speakers were firstly Professor John Lennox , professor of mathematics at Oxford, well known for his books ('God's Undertaker - Has Science buried God?'; 'God and Stephen Hawking'; and more recently 'Seven Days that Divide the World' and 'Gunning for God'); and also for being one of the few men that Richard Dawkins is willing to debate in public; and secondly Doug Axe of the Biologic Institute in California, an ID organisation. Axe gave us two clear and careful papers on how areas of biology are undermining the theory of evolution, but it was John Lennox's two more general papers that were the main attraction for me at least - along with two very stimulating Q&A sessions.
Prof Lennox began by saying that every scientist is confronted with evidence of a designed universe and that most will admit this even if they reject a designer. The reason why the idea of design is controversial is that religion and science are deemed to be inimical and intelligent agency is usually identified with God. What we have is a world-view conflict. He helpfully discussed the case of Galileo who was not challenging 'the church' initially, so much as an Aristotelian world-view held by the scientific establishment as well as by the church of his time. The irony is, said Prof Lennox, that (following Whitehead etc) modern science would not have been possible without confidence in a lawgiver.
There are two mutually opposed world-views - materialism, and that which allows for transcendence. The result of materialism is that one ends up with a 'very tiny' human being - the'self-contempt of man' as Nietzsche said. 'Scientism' (Peter Atkins, Dawkins, Sam Harris et al) says 'What science cannot tell us man cannot know'. But where, for example, do ethical convictions come from? 'Bottom up or top down'? 'The sense of the world must lie outside the world' (Wittgenstein).
There are two questions in ID which should be kept separate: 1. Is there evidence of design? and 2. Who is the designer? The first question is scientific; the second is religious.
In his second paper Prof Lennox addressed the wide ranging question: why does it matter? He embraced a number of questions that had been asked during the conference. He touched on issues he had raised earlier, discussed world-views a little (materialism, pantheism, theism) and dealt with two matters which he believes are crucial in dealing with atheism: the first is that it undermines rationality - how can an atheist/evolutionist trust his own brain? How can an evolved brain be interested in truth? Why is it not simply interested in successful reproduction? Secondly, theists must insist that the existence of a law (eg gravity) does not do away with a designer. A law in itself is not an explanation for anything. It simply describes how something works. Yet even top scientists keep saying that because we have a law, we can dispense with the lawgiver.
Other important arguments are: from cosmology which provides evidence for design and is quite independent of evolution; and the highly current issue of information (DNA, the human genome etc) which is supremely important and with which evolutionist struggle at present.
All design, he insisted more than once, begins with a complete idea - it does not begin with one bit and then add another bit and grow piecemeal, which is what evolutionists expect us to believe.
So it was very stimulating. But what of the ID movement itself? Why, some people there were asking, are scientists so sceptical of it (well they knew that really) but more, why are some Christians sceptical of it?
Let me suggest briefly two reasons - both limitations which I believe ID should acknowledge and work with - I am not suggesting they are fatal flaws with ID but simply issues which cause reserve in some quarters.
The first is to do with the limits of science. Intelligent design is really a scientific theory. It is a theory of great explanatory power, but from the scientific point of view it should be based on evidence (no problem there ) but also be willing to yield to any contrary evidence and better theories. An 'ID movement' gives the impression that people are committed to a theory and want to promote that rather than be 'scientific' and be willing to follow the evidence wherever it takes them. ID as a 'movement' gives the impression that it is science with an agenda and that inevitably that agenda may just interfere with the objectivity to be rightly expected of scientists. It is in danger, if that were the case, of being little better than what we accuse the evolutionists of being.
One may say that a Christian of course will inevitably believe in a designer. Correct, in that he believes in God, but in his science he should be prepared to cope with any evidence he might find that, say, contradicted the theory of design. That is not impossible; there are plenty of things that challenge our faith in a good God and a purposeful God - evolutionists are throwing them up all the time, even though we know in the big picture God will always be vindicated. But science is not about God's ultimate vindication; it is about what can be discovered and analysed here and now. And ID may be suspected, as some at the conference said, of being a cover for crypto- creationists unless they can show they really do science wherever the evidence leads, and for the sake of Truth, not just supporting their theory of design.
I am not suggesting ID scientists are anything other than scientists of complete integrity ; I am saying that they perhaps need to do more to make sure this comes across.
The second reason for reserve is theological. There is firstly the issue as to where belief in a designer gets you - Muslims can give you a good argument for design or from design which in many ways differs little from a Christian's account. I know unbelievers who will often say they are convinced of God's existence because of the wonderful world we live in. But there is another argument along these lines. In Romans 1:19,20 Paul says 'For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and invisible nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.'
Now where is there mention of a designer there? We tend to assume Paul is speaking of people knowing that God is the designer in these verses. But is he? 'Eternal power' and 'divine nature' may include the fact that God is designer, but then again it may not, and may include things that are deeper than and perhaps different from 'design'.
So perhaps design, and the fact that God is designer, are not the most important things that can be said about God. It certainly is not the thing Paul seems to major on here. So when we are evangelising, we know we have a good friend in the mind of the believer - a witness to God's existence, eternal power and divine nature (and knowledge of judgement - Rom 1:32), but it seems that Paul is saying that this is something more powerful than the inference from nature that he is a designer. And is not perception (Rom 1:20) a different and deeper thing than inference or induction?
This is not to say that the argument from design has no uses, and with some people and in some contexts it may be very helpful, but it is not perhaps the hugely important thing that some people think - and they think so largely, one suspects, because it is the most obvious response to evolutionism and it is also the thing to which scientific evidence can point most easily. But that is to limit theology by the limits of science where we should be guided by the Word of God.
Wednesday, 3 October 2012
Saturday, 22 September 2012
Why Easter means I'm a Sabbatarian
I was referred last week to a blog by John Stevens the National Director of FIEC on his excellent blog 'Dissenting Opinion' on 14th April. It was entitled 'Why Easter means I'm not a Sabbatarian'. It seems late to respond to a blog but as it is a very important subject and I only read it last week I can be excused. I would have liked to comment on his blog direct but cannot find a way to do so, so I am putting it on this blog instead. You will find that you are reading one side of a conversation but I hope it makes enough sense as it stands; you can always read John's blog if you wish.
Reply to John Stevens’ blog: Theology: Why Easter means I’m not a Sabbatarian.
Dissenting Opinion - 14th April 2012.
I am only going to give a brief response to this blog as the literature is immense and most arguments have been rehearsed several times!
Taking the arguments in order:
1. The evidence of the New Testament teachings:
a) There is substantial teaching on the Sabbath in the gospels as you say eg ‘The Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath’ (Mk 3:27). This suggests something for all mankind not just for the Jews, and neither was it just a ceremonial law. Also the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath (Mk. 3:27). This is in the context of the Sabbath being a good thing for man. It is strange to think of the Lord’s lordship being limited to the period of his earthly existence; and also for something that is such a blessing for man under the old covenant, being taken away from the new covenant believer. It will not do to say that we have something better in Christ, because it was the Sabbath as a day of rest that was good, not just as a type of Christ’s salvation; and surely we still need rest and surely we still have something in terms of spiritual rest too to look forward to?
b) Acts 15: If the Jerusalem letter was supposed to give believers an exhaustive set of rules for Christian living, this point would have some weight; but it wasn’t. The precise purpose of the letter’s provisions is debated, but it is likely to be either to keep new Christians away from practices that had particularly pagan connotations; or simply to make relations with Jewish believers harmonious. The mere fact that the Sabbath is not mentioned is of no more consequence than that the fifth, sixth or eighth commandments are not mentioned.
c) Romans 14:5 and Colossians 2:16: these are not easy texts and probably give anti-Sabbatarianism its strongest arguments, though much depends on the biblical framework within which one approaches them. Let me just quote Greg Beale’s handling of these texts in his helpful discussion of the Sabbath in 'A New Testament Biblical Theology' p 792: ‘Each of these texts is best understood through viewing the “sabbath day” to be the Sabbath as it was particularly observed in Israel, since most commentators agree that all these texts [he deals with Gal 4:9-10 as well] involve false teachings that entailed a return to Israel’s old laws in disregard of how Christ’s coming has changed those laws.’ What is being annulled is both the Sabbath day as Israel was to observe it and also the whole system of Sabbaths- months and seasons and years and festivals and new moons (Gal 4:9,10; Col 2:16-17). It is not inconsistent to say that Christians should still observe the Sabbath /Lord’s Day on non-ceremonial grounds, what one may call creational or eschatological grounds. Beale is convinced of the Creation mandate, as I am, and shall come to it later. But these arguments do not seem to me to be ‘extreme’ or ‘unconvincing’ ‘exegetical gymnastics’. People who have observed the Lord’s day for centuries have been quite aware of these New Testaments texts and have not regarded them as glaringly inconsistent with their practice.
2. New Testament practice: the Lord appeared to the disciples on the day of his resurrection. He appeared to them one week later. Is that not already saying something special about the ‘Lord’s Day’? He poured out his Spirit on them on the first day of the week – Pentecost, fifty days after Easter. The church was clearly used to meeting on the first day of the week as you say - Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:2 – and I am not sure it can be limited to ‘the Lord’s Supper’ - 1 Cor16 makes no reference to that meal. 1 Cor 16:2 is explicit however that the early Christians were expected to meet on the first day of every week and put aside some money on that day. Clearly a pattern was established. The use of the word kuriake in Rev 1:10 (‘Lord’s Day’), suggests at least that the day was of known significance to the early Christians, rather like the ‘Lord’s Supper’.
3. The evidence of the Old Testament purpose of the Sabbath.
a) Was Genesis 2:2,3 meant for man? God rested; man is made in his image. Part of that must be to imitate him so far as a finite creature can imitate an infinite Creator. For example, in exercising dominion over the earth, Adam and Eve are reflecting the kingship of God. In their holiness they are reflecting God. In creativity and thought and speech they are reflecting God. Are we to suppose that they would not reflect God in following his pattern of a day of rest? The Sabbath as our Lord said, was made for man, not just to be utilised as a sign for the Israelites.
If that is not sufficient, then Hebrews 4 should help. The argument of Hebrews 4 depends on their being an expectation that man is to rest after the pattern the Lord laid down. God entered his rest on the seventh day and provided a rest that his people could enter on entering the Promised Land. God showed man what the goal of created life was to be – rest. Canaan would not satisfy that principle. Ultimately our rest is in heaven though inaugurated though faith in Christ here. It makes little sense to think that this goal of creation was not known to Adam and Eve in the Garden and the seventh day enjoyed as a foretaste of it.
Further, in v 9 the use of the word sabbatismos instead of katapausis (the normal word for rest) suggests strongly that the writer has something other than eschatological rest in mind at this point. There is a Sabbath-keeping for the people of God – a probable link with the Sabbath of Exod 20:11 and 31:17.
b) No mention is made in your paper of Exodus 16:22-26 where the Sabbath principle is clearly known before Sinai – the manna is only to be collected on six days.
c) Exod 31:12-18 - yes the Sabbath is a sign but that is far from saying that that is all it is. It would only cease on the ending of the old covenant if it was only a sign. But it was far more than that. It was rooted, as Exod 31:12f makes clear, in creation, a sign not only that God sanctifies his people (v 13) but that he made the heaven and earth in six days and on the seventh day he rested (v 17). The two tablets with the fourth commandment on them as permanent as any of the other nine, was given to Moses, written with the finger of God, directly after the Lord said that. The Ten Commandments were certainly not a set of laws given just as part of an entire covenant framework. It is important to distinguish between covenant and law; the old covenant could become obsolete; that does not mean the Ten Commandments have.
d) Christians do experience true spiritual redemption in Christ but it is over-realised eschatology to say that because of that there is no place for a Sabbath day. We are not there yet!
e) I am not sure that Jesus’ teaching was about what the Sabbath commanded under the old covenant but ‘not what it means for Christians’. It seems he is making clearly general statements about the purpose of the Sabbath and his authority over it ( eg Mk 3:27) , which did not come to an end once he was risen.
4. The fact that the resurrection took place on the first day of the week. I really do not follow why the great event that inaugurated the true rest for God’s people should be seen as a picture of its opposite! We work on six days, sure, but we begin the week now with a reminder of the fact that Christ is risen, that our salvation is already accomplished and precedes our work, rather than follows it, and that the new creation has been inaugurated. An epoch change has been introduced which makes it entirely appropriate to see the Lord’s Day as the replacement of the seventh day Jewish Sabbath, to remember the resurrection and look forward to the consummation as well as rest physically so far as possible. We are still human creatures as well as redeemed people.
As Greg Beale concludes, ‘Accordingly, the weekly sign of rest still continues for believers living on earth until all that it points to is completely fulfilled at the very end of the age in the bodily resurrection…those who contend that a weekly Sabbath is annulled because believers have begun to experience salvific rest in Christ appear not to be consistent in their already-not yet eschatology’ ( p 791).
If I may make one general point: I find it odd that the adjective ‘Sabbatarian’ is becoming popular in circles that wish to deny the abiding validity of the fourth commandment, as if those of us who hold to it were a rather small and sectarian minority! It is rather as if we were called life-ists because we believe in the sixth commandment or purists because we believe in the seventh, or honourarians because we uphold the fifth. This is the belief of the great majority of Christians throughout the world! It has been the belief of Reformed Baptists. Puritans and Non-conformists have been particularly devoted to the Lord’s Day and cannot be dismissed as legalists. There is a great onus of proof on those who seek to take one of the Ten Commandments and say it is no longer valid.
Reply to John Stevens’ blog: Theology: Why Easter means I’m not a Sabbatarian.
Dissenting Opinion - 14th April 2012.
I am only going to give a brief response to this blog as the literature is immense and most arguments have been rehearsed several times!
Taking the arguments in order:
1. The evidence of the New Testament teachings:
a) There is substantial teaching on the Sabbath in the gospels as you say eg ‘The Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath’ (Mk 3:27). This suggests something for all mankind not just for the Jews, and neither was it just a ceremonial law. Also the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath (Mk. 3:27). This is in the context of the Sabbath being a good thing for man. It is strange to think of the Lord’s lordship being limited to the period of his earthly existence; and also for something that is such a blessing for man under the old covenant, being taken away from the new covenant believer. It will not do to say that we have something better in Christ, because it was the Sabbath as a day of rest that was good, not just as a type of Christ’s salvation; and surely we still need rest and surely we still have something in terms of spiritual rest too to look forward to?
b) Acts 15: If the Jerusalem letter was supposed to give believers an exhaustive set of rules for Christian living, this point would have some weight; but it wasn’t. The precise purpose of the letter’s provisions is debated, but it is likely to be either to keep new Christians away from practices that had particularly pagan connotations; or simply to make relations with Jewish believers harmonious. The mere fact that the Sabbath is not mentioned is of no more consequence than that the fifth, sixth or eighth commandments are not mentioned.
c) Romans 14:5 and Colossians 2:16: these are not easy texts and probably give anti-Sabbatarianism its strongest arguments, though much depends on the biblical framework within which one approaches them. Let me just quote Greg Beale’s handling of these texts in his helpful discussion of the Sabbath in 'A New Testament Biblical Theology' p 792: ‘Each of these texts is best understood through viewing the “sabbath day” to be the Sabbath as it was particularly observed in Israel, since most commentators agree that all these texts [he deals with Gal 4:9-10 as well] involve false teachings that entailed a return to Israel’s old laws in disregard of how Christ’s coming has changed those laws.’ What is being annulled is both the Sabbath day as Israel was to observe it and also the whole system of Sabbaths- months and seasons and years and festivals and new moons (Gal 4:9,10; Col 2:16-17). It is not inconsistent to say that Christians should still observe the Sabbath /Lord’s Day on non-ceremonial grounds, what one may call creational or eschatological grounds. Beale is convinced of the Creation mandate, as I am, and shall come to it later. But these arguments do not seem to me to be ‘extreme’ or ‘unconvincing’ ‘exegetical gymnastics’. People who have observed the Lord’s day for centuries have been quite aware of these New Testaments texts and have not regarded them as glaringly inconsistent with their practice.
2. New Testament practice: the Lord appeared to the disciples on the day of his resurrection. He appeared to them one week later. Is that not already saying something special about the ‘Lord’s Day’? He poured out his Spirit on them on the first day of the week – Pentecost, fifty days after Easter. The church was clearly used to meeting on the first day of the week as you say - Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:2 – and I am not sure it can be limited to ‘the Lord’s Supper’ - 1 Cor16 makes no reference to that meal. 1 Cor 16:2 is explicit however that the early Christians were expected to meet on the first day of every week and put aside some money on that day. Clearly a pattern was established. The use of the word kuriake in Rev 1:10 (‘Lord’s Day’), suggests at least that the day was of known significance to the early Christians, rather like the ‘Lord’s Supper’.
3. The evidence of the Old Testament purpose of the Sabbath.
a) Was Genesis 2:2,3 meant for man? God rested; man is made in his image. Part of that must be to imitate him so far as a finite creature can imitate an infinite Creator. For example, in exercising dominion over the earth, Adam and Eve are reflecting the kingship of God. In their holiness they are reflecting God. In creativity and thought and speech they are reflecting God. Are we to suppose that they would not reflect God in following his pattern of a day of rest? The Sabbath as our Lord said, was made for man, not just to be utilised as a sign for the Israelites.
If that is not sufficient, then Hebrews 4 should help. The argument of Hebrews 4 depends on their being an expectation that man is to rest after the pattern the Lord laid down. God entered his rest on the seventh day and provided a rest that his people could enter on entering the Promised Land. God showed man what the goal of created life was to be – rest. Canaan would not satisfy that principle. Ultimately our rest is in heaven though inaugurated though faith in Christ here. It makes little sense to think that this goal of creation was not known to Adam and Eve in the Garden and the seventh day enjoyed as a foretaste of it.
Further, in v 9 the use of the word sabbatismos instead of katapausis (the normal word for rest) suggests strongly that the writer has something other than eschatological rest in mind at this point. There is a Sabbath-keeping for the people of God – a probable link with the Sabbath of Exod 20:11 and 31:17.
b) No mention is made in your paper of Exodus 16:22-26 where the Sabbath principle is clearly known before Sinai – the manna is only to be collected on six days.
c) Exod 31:12-18 - yes the Sabbath is a sign but that is far from saying that that is all it is. It would only cease on the ending of the old covenant if it was only a sign. But it was far more than that. It was rooted, as Exod 31:12f makes clear, in creation, a sign not only that God sanctifies his people (v 13) but that he made the heaven and earth in six days and on the seventh day he rested (v 17). The two tablets with the fourth commandment on them as permanent as any of the other nine, was given to Moses, written with the finger of God, directly after the Lord said that. The Ten Commandments were certainly not a set of laws given just as part of an entire covenant framework. It is important to distinguish between covenant and law; the old covenant could become obsolete; that does not mean the Ten Commandments have.
d) Christians do experience true spiritual redemption in Christ but it is over-realised eschatology to say that because of that there is no place for a Sabbath day. We are not there yet!
e) I am not sure that Jesus’ teaching was about what the Sabbath commanded under the old covenant but ‘not what it means for Christians’. It seems he is making clearly general statements about the purpose of the Sabbath and his authority over it ( eg Mk 3:27) , which did not come to an end once he was risen.
4. The fact that the resurrection took place on the first day of the week. I really do not follow why the great event that inaugurated the true rest for God’s people should be seen as a picture of its opposite! We work on six days, sure, but we begin the week now with a reminder of the fact that Christ is risen, that our salvation is already accomplished and precedes our work, rather than follows it, and that the new creation has been inaugurated. An epoch change has been introduced which makes it entirely appropriate to see the Lord’s Day as the replacement of the seventh day Jewish Sabbath, to remember the resurrection and look forward to the consummation as well as rest physically so far as possible. We are still human creatures as well as redeemed people.
As Greg Beale concludes, ‘Accordingly, the weekly sign of rest still continues for believers living on earth until all that it points to is completely fulfilled at the very end of the age in the bodily resurrection…those who contend that a weekly Sabbath is annulled because believers have begun to experience salvific rest in Christ appear not to be consistent in their already-not yet eschatology’ ( p 791).
If I may make one general point: I find it odd that the adjective ‘Sabbatarian’ is becoming popular in circles that wish to deny the abiding validity of the fourth commandment, as if those of us who hold to it were a rather small and sectarian minority! It is rather as if we were called life-ists because we believe in the sixth commandment or purists because we believe in the seventh, or honourarians because we uphold the fifth. This is the belief of the great majority of Christians throughout the world! It has been the belief of Reformed Baptists. Puritans and Non-conformists have been particularly devoted to the Lord’s Day and cannot be dismissed as legalists. There is a great onus of proof on those who seek to take one of the Ten Commandments and say it is no longer valid.
Friday, 31 August 2012
Democracy in America
Alexis de Tocqueville's 'Democracy in America' is full of nuggets of interest and value. For instance...
On Equality
Men's taste for freedom and equality are two different things but their passion for equality is greater. 'Democratic nations are at all times fond of equality but during certain ages their passion for it verges on excess...The passion for equality sinks deeply into every corner of the human heart, expands and fills it entirely...Do not bother to show men that their freedom is slipping from their fingers as their gaze is elsewhere; they are blind, or rather they can see only one advantage worth pursuing in the whole world.
'I think that democratic nations have a natural taste for freedom; left to themselves, they seek it out, become attached to it, and view any departure from it with distress. But they have a burning, insatiable, constant, and invincible passion for equality; they want equality in freedom and, if they cannot have it, they want it in slavery. They will endure poverty, subjection, barbarism but they will not endure aristocracy.'
On Individualism
'Individualism is a recently coined expression prompted by a new idea, for our forefathers knew only of egoism. Egoism is an ardent and excessive love of oneself... Individualism is a calm and considered feeling which persuades each citizen to cut himself off from his fellows and to withdraw into the circle of his family and friends in such a way that he creates a small group of his own and willingly abandons society at large to its own devices. Egoism springs from a blind instinct; individualism from wrong-headed thinking rather than from depraved feelings...Egoism is a perversity as old as the world...; Individualism is democratic in origin and threatens to grow as conditions become equal.'
On American love of associating
'Americans of all ages, conditions and all dispositions constantly unite together. Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations to which all belong but also a thousand other kinds, religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very specialized, large and small. Americans group together to hold fetes, found seminaries, build inns, construct churches, distribute books, dispatch missionaries to the antipodes. They establish hospitals, prisons, schools by the same method...The English often perform great things as single individuals, whereas scarcely any minor initiative exists where Americans do not form associations... A government could take the place of some of the largest American associations and several individual states have already tried to do so. But what political power could ever substitute for the countless small enterprises which American citizens carry out daily with the help of associations?'
And thus - my 100th blog-post since beginning this digital pin-board in December 2009!
On Equality
Men's taste for freedom and equality are two different things but their passion for equality is greater. 'Democratic nations are at all times fond of equality but during certain ages their passion for it verges on excess...The passion for equality sinks deeply into every corner of the human heart, expands and fills it entirely...Do not bother to show men that their freedom is slipping from their fingers as their gaze is elsewhere; they are blind, or rather they can see only one advantage worth pursuing in the whole world.
'I think that democratic nations have a natural taste for freedom; left to themselves, they seek it out, become attached to it, and view any departure from it with distress. But they have a burning, insatiable, constant, and invincible passion for equality; they want equality in freedom and, if they cannot have it, they want it in slavery. They will endure poverty, subjection, barbarism but they will not endure aristocracy.'
On Individualism
'Individualism is a recently coined expression prompted by a new idea, for our forefathers knew only of egoism. Egoism is an ardent and excessive love of oneself... Individualism is a calm and considered feeling which persuades each citizen to cut himself off from his fellows and to withdraw into the circle of his family and friends in such a way that he creates a small group of his own and willingly abandons society at large to its own devices. Egoism springs from a blind instinct; individualism from wrong-headed thinking rather than from depraved feelings...Egoism is a perversity as old as the world...; Individualism is democratic in origin and threatens to grow as conditions become equal.'
On American love of associating
'Americans of all ages, conditions and all dispositions constantly unite together. Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations to which all belong but also a thousand other kinds, religious, moral, serious, futile, very general and very specialized, large and small. Americans group together to hold fetes, found seminaries, build inns, construct churches, distribute books, dispatch missionaries to the antipodes. They establish hospitals, prisons, schools by the same method...The English often perform great things as single individuals, whereas scarcely any minor initiative exists where Americans do not form associations... A government could take the place of some of the largest American associations and several individual states have already tried to do so. But what political power could ever substitute for the countless small enterprises which American citizens carry out daily with the help of associations?'
And thus - my 100th blog-post since beginning this digital pin-board in December 2009!
Wednesday, 29 August 2012
Zeal for Godliness
My attachment to devotional books is not as great as it used to be and that may say something about me, but occasionally I find a good one and 'Zeal for Godliness' is one.
It is subtitled 'Devotional Meditations on Calvin's Institutes'. Would it make any difference, I think to myself, if 'Devotional' had been left out of that title?
However...
It consists of about 240 meditations of three or four paragraphs, each one covering a few chapters of the Institutes. The contributors comprise some of the great and the good of Reformed theology: Sinclair Ferguson, Paul Helm, Philip Ryken,Iain D. Campbell, Ligon Duncan, Justin Taylor, Derek Thomas, Carl Trueman and others. Inevitably the content is theological but with a challenge to the heart. Sometimes one feels the need to refer to Calvin himself - which is I suppose no bad thing but could be time-consuming if it happens too often.
There is a certain danger in doing one's devotions not only at one remove (comments on the Bible) but at two removes (comments on a book based on the Bible) so it is no substitute for biblical meditation. But it is fresh and stimulating.
If you want something a little different to refresh your spiritual exercises, then this could be the book for you.
(Published by EP, 2011).
It is subtitled 'Devotional Meditations on Calvin's Institutes'. Would it make any difference, I think to myself, if 'Devotional' had been left out of that title?
However...
It consists of about 240 meditations of three or four paragraphs, each one covering a few chapters of the Institutes. The contributors comprise some of the great and the good of Reformed theology: Sinclair Ferguson, Paul Helm, Philip Ryken,Iain D. Campbell, Ligon Duncan, Justin Taylor, Derek Thomas, Carl Trueman and others. Inevitably the content is theological but with a challenge to the heart. Sometimes one feels the need to refer to Calvin himself - which is I suppose no bad thing but could be time-consuming if it happens too often.
There is a certain danger in doing one's devotions not only at one remove (comments on the Bible) but at two removes (comments on a book based on the Bible) so it is no substitute for biblical meditation. But it is fresh and stimulating.
If you want something a little different to refresh your spiritual exercises, then this could be the book for you.
(Published by EP, 2011).
Monday, 20 August 2012
Green pastures in Brittany
The time has gone incredibly quickly but a week last Saturday we returned home from a wonderful family holiday in Brittany.
Our home for two weeks was a cottage on 'Le Venec', a farm near the village of Loperec in central Finistere, about 8 miles inland and slightly north from Chateaulin. John and Jo Bryant who own the farm (which has two other attached cottages on it) live next door and their generosity and warmth made the holiday special. John would pop in each day with something - courgettes the size of marrows, eggs, beans or an invitation for the boys to go to walk the dogs or paint the hen house with him. They did not really need much more to make their holiday. They could go out early in the morning; we could relax. Vacances completes.
But of course we did do a lot of other things. The beach - Pentrez Plage was the best with acres of clean sand and free parking on the edge of the beach so no miles to walk over pebbles carrying chairs, tent, spades and bags. A little beach near Douarnenez was good too but a bit hot and very busy the afternoon we visited. A swimming pool with water chute and wave machine was a good alternative one day when we visited Quimper.
Pont l'Abbe was the little town where I lived for 6 months in 1975 working as an assistant in the Lycee Laennec. It has not changed much. I could see the room in which I had lived and the classrooms in which I had conversed in English with groups of French teenagers.
We walked along the riverside path in Huelgoat, strewn with massive boulders, and revisited a week later for the boating lake - Thomas and Hilary in the 'police' boat, Nathaniel and I in the 007 boat. Then a family pedallo round the lake.
We visited Locronan, a highly commercialised but very picturesque medieval town, and the abbey at Landevennec, founded, like a lot of religious establishments in Brittany by a Welsh monk (this one by St Guenole, a big noise in early Breton Christianity). I had once stayed a night in a guest room there on a hitch-hiking trip, in the absence of a local youth hostel.
We twice visited the nearby village of Pleyben, with an immense junk-shop about two kilometres away, to which we walked, and poked around at loads of interesting and not so interesting stuff sourced from house and shop clearances. Pleyben also has a chocolaterie!
We could not stay in Brittany without eating crepes which we did in style twice, once in Le Faou and once in a delightful creperie on the edge of a lake a few miles north of Le Venec - a lake which has its own beach, so no problem in entertaining the boys afterwards.
Our one visit to church (the first Sunday we listened to a sermon in the house and sang some hymns with the help of a CD) was to an evangelical church in Brest where we were given a warm welcome and heard a good message on Jeremiah 1, translated for us by Jo Bryant. In the afternoon we took a picnic into a local botanical garden where it rained heavily for a while but we had a lovely walk down to the beach and back.
Meanwhile back at the ranch - we read, played Scrabble (Hilary usually wins), watched the Olympics and the boys enjoyed playing around on the farm, 'helping' John or scooting in the yard.
A great holiday; it went too quickly. Even the 11 hour drive back to Dunkerque did not erase the relaxation or the memories!
Our home for two weeks was a cottage on 'Le Venec', a farm near the village of Loperec in central Finistere, about 8 miles inland and slightly north from Chateaulin. John and Jo Bryant who own the farm (which has two other attached cottages on it) live next door and their generosity and warmth made the holiday special. John would pop in each day with something - courgettes the size of marrows, eggs, beans or an invitation for the boys to go to walk the dogs or paint the hen house with him. They did not really need much more to make their holiday. They could go out early in the morning; we could relax. Vacances completes.
But of course we did do a lot of other things. The beach - Pentrez Plage was the best with acres of clean sand and free parking on the edge of the beach so no miles to walk over pebbles carrying chairs, tent, spades and bags. A little beach near Douarnenez was good too but a bit hot and very busy the afternoon we visited. A swimming pool with water chute and wave machine was a good alternative one day when we visited Quimper.
Pont l'Abbe was the little town where I lived for 6 months in 1975 working as an assistant in the Lycee Laennec. It has not changed much. I could see the room in which I had lived and the classrooms in which I had conversed in English with groups of French teenagers.
We walked along the riverside path in Huelgoat, strewn with massive boulders, and revisited a week later for the boating lake - Thomas and Hilary in the 'police' boat, Nathaniel and I in the 007 boat. Then a family pedallo round the lake.
We visited Locronan, a highly commercialised but very picturesque medieval town, and the abbey at Landevennec, founded, like a lot of religious establishments in Brittany by a Welsh monk (this one by St Guenole, a big noise in early Breton Christianity). I had once stayed a night in a guest room there on a hitch-hiking trip, in the absence of a local youth hostel.
We twice visited the nearby village of Pleyben, with an immense junk-shop about two kilometres away, to which we walked, and poked around at loads of interesting and not so interesting stuff sourced from house and shop clearances. Pleyben also has a chocolaterie!
We could not stay in Brittany without eating crepes which we did in style twice, once in Le Faou and once in a delightful creperie on the edge of a lake a few miles north of Le Venec - a lake which has its own beach, so no problem in entertaining the boys afterwards.
Our one visit to church (the first Sunday we listened to a sermon in the house and sang some hymns with the help of a CD) was to an evangelical church in Brest where we were given a warm welcome and heard a good message on Jeremiah 1, translated for us by Jo Bryant. In the afternoon we took a picnic into a local botanical garden where it rained heavily for a while but we had a lovely walk down to the beach and back.
Meanwhile back at the ranch - we read, played Scrabble (Hilary usually wins), watched the Olympics and the boys enjoyed playing around on the farm, 'helping' John or scooting in the yard.
A great holiday; it went too quickly. Even the 11 hour drive back to Dunkerque did not erase the relaxation or the memories!
The Power of Parliament
In 1796 in 'The Constitution of England, or An Account of the English Government' J.L. De Lolme wrote: 'It is a fundamental principle with English lawyers, that Parliament can do everything but make a woman a man, and a man a woman'.
Perhaps the expected proposals to legislate for same sex marriage will be the next best thing, and the most self-exalting ambition yet for the sovereignty of Parliament.
Perhaps the expected proposals to legislate for same sex marriage will be the next best thing, and the most self-exalting ambition yet for the sovereignty of Parliament.
Tuesday, 14 August 2012
Casualness
You can of course lead a service of worship perfectly well wearing a tee-shirt and jeans. You can lead it very badly with a suit and tie and snow white shirt. Spirituality and ability are not affected by what we wear. Casualness is not just about our appearance.
In recent months I have for various reasons had occasion to worship in other churches in this country and abroad. 'Casualness' is the abiding impression left with me - due mainly to the person or persons leading the service, but also to some extent to the congregation. On one occasion (abroad) I did come away feeling I had worshipped God. The way things were led was conducive to worship and I felt edified. In other cases sadly I came away feeling as if I had not worshipped.
Casualness. What is it? Not just what we wear, though that may be an expression in some cases of a desire to be casual. Sometimes it is seen in the use of jargon. In two services recently in quite different places the preacher described the teaching of his text as 'heavy stuff'. Is that language coming back from the sixties?
Casualness is really more an attitude of mind.
I hope it isn't (though sometimes I fear it is) an attitude that says: Sunday is no different from any other day.
I hope it isn't (though sometimes I fear it is) an attitude that says: church is no different from any other place, and what we do there is no different from any other activity.
Above all it comes across as a refusal to show that we are making any effort. It is not 'cool' (there you are, jargon) to put effort into anything. We can dawdle into church (can we say 'God's presence' today - do people believe church gatherings are any more in God's presence than watching the Olympics or relaxing on the beach?) and be casual about how we dress, how we behave and how - we worship. We sing casually, read Scripture casually, pray (if we do at all - one service was horribly lacking in anything approaching serious prayer, certainly of intercession), and preach casually. And - yes, listen casually, of course.
Then, perhaps we live casually.
We are bound to absorb something of our culture. No generation of Christians can avoid that. What we can and must do is be sure that we are not absorbing worldliness. Is casualness sometimes at least a form of worldliness?
Does not God deserve, indeed demand, effort? One of the earliest books I read as a young Christian was entitled 'The Best that I can Be'. That doesn't sit easily with casualness. As Christians our worship and all else we do should be the best that we can do. God is worth no less.
Perhaps it is a sense of God that was most lacking in those services where worship did not seem to happen. God is not a casual God. Spiritual worship is the most difficult thing we can attempt. Striving, not casualness, should be the keynote of our lives and of our meetings.
Especially in those charged with leading the worship of the people of God.
In recent months I have for various reasons had occasion to worship in other churches in this country and abroad. 'Casualness' is the abiding impression left with me - due mainly to the person or persons leading the service, but also to some extent to the congregation. On one occasion (abroad) I did come away feeling I had worshipped God. The way things were led was conducive to worship and I felt edified. In other cases sadly I came away feeling as if I had not worshipped.
Casualness. What is it? Not just what we wear, though that may be an expression in some cases of a desire to be casual. Sometimes it is seen in the use of jargon. In two services recently in quite different places the preacher described the teaching of his text as 'heavy stuff'. Is that language coming back from the sixties?
Casualness is really more an attitude of mind.
I hope it isn't (though sometimes I fear it is) an attitude that says: Sunday is no different from any other day.
I hope it isn't (though sometimes I fear it is) an attitude that says: church is no different from any other place, and what we do there is no different from any other activity.
Above all it comes across as a refusal to show that we are making any effort. It is not 'cool' (there you are, jargon) to put effort into anything. We can dawdle into church (can we say 'God's presence' today - do people believe church gatherings are any more in God's presence than watching the Olympics or relaxing on the beach?) and be casual about how we dress, how we behave and how - we worship. We sing casually, read Scripture casually, pray (if we do at all - one service was horribly lacking in anything approaching serious prayer, certainly of intercession), and preach casually. And - yes, listen casually, of course.
Then, perhaps we live casually.
We are bound to absorb something of our culture. No generation of Christians can avoid that. What we can and must do is be sure that we are not absorbing worldliness. Is casualness sometimes at least a form of worldliness?
Does not God deserve, indeed demand, effort? One of the earliest books I read as a young Christian was entitled 'The Best that I can Be'. That doesn't sit easily with casualness. As Christians our worship and all else we do should be the best that we can do. God is worth no less.
Perhaps it is a sense of God that was most lacking in those services where worship did not seem to happen. God is not a casual God. Spiritual worship is the most difficult thing we can attempt. Striving, not casualness, should be the keynote of our lives and of our meetings.
Especially in those charged with leading the worship of the people of God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)