The bad news: www.themetrocalvinist.blogspot.com is soon to be no more. Well, the site will continue to exist for a while but I will no longer be posting on it. (Maybe that's actually good news...) However, fret not as the Metro Calvinist is not facing its demise.
The good news: it is being replaced by a better, newer, leaner blog. Go to www.themetrocalvinist.wordpress.com and see what I mean.
It seems that Wordpress is better than Blogger, so I have decided to jump ship. The process was actually incredibly easy as Wordpress imports everything from the old site to the new blog. Have a look at the new blog and let me know what you think of it.
The Metro Calvinist
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Thursday, May 31, 2007
The Dawkins Letters on youtube
Before you click play and realise Robbo is speaking about The Dawkins Letters, it looks like he's a contestant on Who Wants to be a Millionaire?
The Unstoppable Force vs. The Immovable Object
What happens when the Unstoppable Force takes on the Immovable Object? Read Dave Strain's blog to find out: my main man D-Rock is currently debating with Westminster guru Carl Trueman over the place of Psalmody in the Free Church.
It's good to see discussion between two visionaries who can openly disagree in a gracious manner. It's also fantastic to see John Ross' highly challenging Moderatorial Address actually causing people to think.
It's good to see discussion between two visionaries who can openly disagree in a gracious manner. It's also fantastic to see John Ross' highly challenging Moderatorial Address actually causing people to think.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
New Ageism, leave the Celts alone!
Today while waiting for a medical appointment, I picked up a copy of National Geographic and started reading. I should say that I am a fairly regular Geographic reader and have been since I was about twelve. I'm used to its sensationalist style of reporting (a couple of issues ago, the cover said something like "Missing Link Child Found" when in fact the story inside had a part of a bone fragment that, with a massive degree of speculation and imagination, could possibly fit into their post-Christian brand of anthropology). However, what I read today really annoyed me.
The issue is a fairly old one (March 2006), and the offending article is titled Celt Appeal: So what if the Celts disappeared as a civilisation long ago. Their languages, music, and defiant spirit still burn brightly along Europe's Atlantic shores. Its author is an American called Tom O'Neill.
The picture which accompanies this title is one of naked, flaming torch waving pagans celebrating Beltane in Edinburgh.
I should add at this point that I am a Celt (well, at least half-Celtic), and that in a fairly direct sense. I am a Highland Scot and a Gaelic speaker. My maternal heritage is as Celtic as can be. My people have lived on the Isle of Lewis (as Gaelic speaking Celts) for as long as we can trace. Although we live in the south of Scotland, my wife (who was fluent in Gaelic before she could speak English) and I have a very active connection with Gaelic, Celtic culture. We will raise our children as Gaelic speakers and as members of the historic Celtic culture that we cherish.
So, I read the National Geographic article with interest - it was an article telling the rest of the world what my people are like. I was thus somewhat astounded (and massively disappointed) at the article's content.
The article introduces Celtic culture with the "ancient Celtic festival" of Beltane, which is held up as the icon of what it means to be a Celt. I know some students (directly and indirectly) who participate in Beltane: they run around naked on Calton Hill, waving their fiery torches and branding each other with hot irons. However, not one of them is a Celt. Indeed, not one is even Scottish. They are all students from England who happen to be into paganism. They are not Celts.
True, Beltane does form a part of ancient pre-Christian Celtic religion, but it is something that thankfully disappeared from our culture when we were blessed with Christian evangelism. What you have with the Beltane festival is reconstructed neo-paganism created to make our middle class Anglo-Saxon neighbours feel they can be part of ancient, edgy, dangerous spiritism while on their weekend trip to dark and romantic Scotland. The Beltane Festival, as we have it, is in no way an expression of authentic Celtic piety or culture.
The Beltane issue is very similar to that of the so called "Celtic" Christianity. Domhnall Meek, Edinburgh University Celtic professor and world expert in all things Gaelic, has astutely noted that "Celtic" Christianity isn't Celtic at all. Rather, it has been invented by middle class English people who want a Christian alternative to New Ageism. There is nothing distinctly Celtic about Celtic Christianity. Celtic has been hijacked as a label which can be applied to make anything seem a bit more mystical and ancient.
The real Celtic Christianity isn't wearing a leather waistcoat whilst singing Be thou my vision to a cheesy bodhran player on an Anglo-Saxon retreat to Iona Abbey. Real Celtic Christianity is Christianity as lived out by actual Celts.
Tom O'Neil describes us Celts as one of Europe's new seductive-identities: free-spirited, rebellious, poetic, nature-worshipping, magical, self-sufficient. I think he conceptualises 'Celtic' in the same way that many other non-Celts do: by using a bunch of cliches and stereotypes to tell the Celts who and what they are.
Interestingly, in his interactions with actual Celtic piety (as opposed to the non-Celtic Beltane worshippers), he makes every effort to paint a negative picture of the real religion of Heridean Christians (Ferries don't run on Sundays, a stone-quiet day when an austere form of Presbyterianism keeps shops shuttered and people inside their homes... And in Barvas Free Church the voices didn't lift in ecstatic joy but keened and moaned).
I don't know O'Neil's own background or beliefs, but his approach to the Celt is not unique. I think it comes from one of the big flaws in New Age thinking. New Age spirituality influences people far more than you might first think. The average Westerner probably isn't overtly New Age (in a full-blown way), but is nonetheless affected by New Age thinking. Think of how often you hear people say things like, "I'm not religious but I am spiritual" or "I actually really like aspects of Buddhism, and Kaballah is good too". This kind of pick and mix, rootless, vague sense of believing-without-belonging is ultimately deeply dissatisfying. People need to believe and belong. It is disconcerting for us to have no roots in history, and that counts just as much for our spirituality as it does our ethnic background (the same issue of National Geographic has an article tracing genetic heritage back to the mitochondrial Adam and Eve, thus providing us with a sense of genetic heritage).
And because of that, Western culture has latched on to the idea that the Celts are magical nature worshippers - thus providing a convenient, ready made historical group who apparently embody everything that New Ageism would idealise.
However, I as a Celt, deeply resent this. I am not New Age and am thankful that Latha Buidhe Bealltain forms no part of the Celtic culture that I inhabit. I am not a magical nature worshipper, I am a Holy Spirit indwelt Christ worshipper. The New Age movement has no right to hijack my culture and the sooner people like Tom O'Neil realise this, the better. Let us Celts be Celts, and let us tell the world who we are and what we believe.
I grew up loving National Geographic, being fascinated by the anthropological side of things. I was always enthralled by its stories of African tribes and far off cultures. However, having seen its extremely poor article on my own culture, I find myself extremely disappointed. I now wonder if the articles I read on other people groups were similarly distant from reality.
The issue is a fairly old one (March 2006), and the offending article is titled Celt Appeal: So what if the Celts disappeared as a civilisation long ago. Their languages, music, and defiant spirit still burn brightly along Europe's Atlantic shores. Its author is an American called Tom O'Neill.
The picture which accompanies this title is one of naked, flaming torch waving pagans celebrating Beltane in Edinburgh.
I should add at this point that I am a Celt (well, at least half-Celtic), and that in a fairly direct sense. I am a Highland Scot and a Gaelic speaker. My maternal heritage is as Celtic as can be. My people have lived on the Isle of Lewis (as Gaelic speaking Celts) for as long as we can trace. Although we live in the south of Scotland, my wife (who was fluent in Gaelic before she could speak English) and I have a very active connection with Gaelic, Celtic culture. We will raise our children as Gaelic speakers and as members of the historic Celtic culture that we cherish.
So, I read the National Geographic article with interest - it was an article telling the rest of the world what my people are like. I was thus somewhat astounded (and massively disappointed) at the article's content.
The article introduces Celtic culture with the "ancient Celtic festival" of Beltane, which is held up as the icon of what it means to be a Celt. I know some students (directly and indirectly) who participate in Beltane: they run around naked on Calton Hill, waving their fiery torches and branding each other with hot irons. However, not one of them is a Celt. Indeed, not one is even Scottish. They are all students from England who happen to be into paganism. They are not Celts.
True, Beltane does form a part of ancient pre-Christian Celtic religion, but it is something that thankfully disappeared from our culture when we were blessed with Christian evangelism. What you have with the Beltane festival is reconstructed neo-paganism created to make our middle class Anglo-Saxon neighbours feel they can be part of ancient, edgy, dangerous spiritism while on their weekend trip to dark and romantic Scotland. The Beltane Festival, as we have it, is in no way an expression of authentic Celtic piety or culture.
The Beltane issue is very similar to that of the so called "Celtic" Christianity. Domhnall Meek, Edinburgh University Celtic professor and world expert in all things Gaelic, has astutely noted that "Celtic" Christianity isn't Celtic at all. Rather, it has been invented by middle class English people who want a Christian alternative to New Ageism. There is nothing distinctly Celtic about Celtic Christianity. Celtic has been hijacked as a label which can be applied to make anything seem a bit more mystical and ancient.
The real Celtic Christianity isn't wearing a leather waistcoat whilst singing Be thou my vision to a cheesy bodhran player on an Anglo-Saxon retreat to Iona Abbey. Real Celtic Christianity is Christianity as lived out by actual Celts.
Tom O'Neil describes us Celts as one of Europe's new seductive-identities: free-spirited, rebellious, poetic, nature-worshipping, magical, self-sufficient. I think he conceptualises 'Celtic' in the same way that many other non-Celts do: by using a bunch of cliches and stereotypes to tell the Celts who and what they are.
Interestingly, in his interactions with actual Celtic piety (as opposed to the non-Celtic Beltane worshippers), he makes every effort to paint a negative picture of the real religion of Heridean Christians (Ferries don't run on Sundays, a stone-quiet day when an austere form of Presbyterianism keeps shops shuttered and people inside their homes... And in Barvas Free Church the voices didn't lift in ecstatic joy but keened and moaned).
I don't know O'Neil's own background or beliefs, but his approach to the Celt is not unique. I think it comes from one of the big flaws in New Age thinking. New Age spirituality influences people far more than you might first think. The average Westerner probably isn't overtly New Age (in a full-blown way), but is nonetheless affected by New Age thinking. Think of how often you hear people say things like, "I'm not religious but I am spiritual" or "I actually really like aspects of Buddhism, and Kaballah is good too". This kind of pick and mix, rootless, vague sense of believing-without-belonging is ultimately deeply dissatisfying. People need to believe and belong. It is disconcerting for us to have no roots in history, and that counts just as much for our spirituality as it does our ethnic background (the same issue of National Geographic has an article tracing genetic heritage back to the mitochondrial Adam and Eve, thus providing us with a sense of genetic heritage).
And because of that, Western culture has latched on to the idea that the Celts are magical nature worshippers - thus providing a convenient, ready made historical group who apparently embody everything that New Ageism would idealise.
However, I as a Celt, deeply resent this. I am not New Age and am thankful that Latha Buidhe Bealltain forms no part of the Celtic culture that I inhabit. I am not a magical nature worshipper, I am a Holy Spirit indwelt Christ worshipper. The New Age movement has no right to hijack my culture and the sooner people like Tom O'Neil realise this, the better. Let us Celts be Celts, and let us tell the world who we are and what we believe.
I grew up loving National Geographic, being fascinated by the anthropological side of things. I was always enthralled by its stories of African tribes and far off cultures. However, having seen its extremely poor article on my own culture, I find myself extremely disappointed. I now wonder if the articles I read on other people groups were similarly distant from reality.
Why preach expository sermons?
I've been thinking over the last few days on the great need for expository Christian preaching.
What is expository preaching? I understand the term expository to mean preaching that is clearly based on a particular Biblical text, which approaches the Bible looking to expose whatever the text means and apply that to the hearer. I see this kind of preaching as very different from (a) having a completely thematic sermon which is made up entirely of the preacher's own thoughts, and (b) pretending to base a sermon on a 'text', when in reality the 'text' only functions as a brief introduction to a thematic sermon.
John Stott has expressed it well:
To expound Scripture is to bring out of the text what is there and expose it to view. The expositor pries open what appears to be closed, makes plain what is obscure, unravels what is knotted and unfolds what is tightly packed. The opposite of exposition is 'imposition', which is to impose on the text what is not there.
Why should we aim to preach specifically expository sermons?
Because the Bible is divinely inspired revelation
At the start is how we deal with epistemology - how can we know anything? How can you be sure anything you know is actually true?
Even if you've never heard the word epistemology before, your approach to epistemology has an enormous influence on your worldview and all the choices you make. To put it simply, if you believe the worldview of Christian theism, your epistemology must begin with the following presuppositions:
(1) God is the sovereign, all-knowing Creator who exists outwith both time and space,
(2) only God has original and complete knowledge of God,
(3) we can thus only know about God if God tells us about Himself,
(4) therefore, we are utterly dependent on God to reveal Himself to us,
(5) God has revealed Himself generally in nature and specially in Scripture.
The issue here is that unless God tells us what God is like and what God wants from us, we are confined to a cage of woeful ignorance. These are the central presuppositions presented by the Bible. If you are a preacher who believes these things, the most consistent way you can apply them is by preaching sermons that are expository. That is to say, if your confidence is in the Bible as the divinely inspired self-disclosure of God, it creates a conviction that you really ought to be expounding and exposing His word rather than (a) preaching your thoughts on issue x, or (b) paying lip service to God's self-revelation but actually practicing the imposition of your thoughts onto the text.
So, why do I believe in preaching expository sermons? Reason number one is because the Bible is the divinely inspired self-revelation of God. Without the Bible, I can know only the barest things about God. With the Bible, I know who God is, what He is like and what He requires from me. In the Bible, I've seen Christ, the image of the invisible God (Col. 1.15).
In contrast, I am a recovering sinner who is very fallible and whose mind and thought-patterns have been ruined by the fall. I know that I need Scripture to know God; I am no exception in this regard and due to this, I need to preach expository sermons.
God is most glorified by expository preaching
I believe God is glorified more by expository preaching than by any other kind of preaching. Why is this? First, expository preaching is undergirded by a clear sense of our dependence on God to reveal Himself. It is a kind of preaching that says, God, we take You at Your Word. You are who You say You are, and we need You to speak so that we can know You. Expository preaching overtly presupposes and declares that we need God, and it does so far more than topical or impositional preaching.
God is most glorified when His word is central, and His word is the overwhelming focus in expository preaching. As you expose the word of God, you necessarily expose the God of the word.
God has promised to bless His word
Scripture is clear; God has promised to bless His word, not our word.
As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
- Isaiah 55.10-11
I think this comes down to the following fact: God promises to bless His word because His word is His self-revelation. He has promised that when He unleashes His own glory (through the word revealed), it will be a blessing. He has never promised the same of our own word.
Expository preaching safeguards against single-issue preaching
One of the great dangers of both outright topical and impositional preaching is that whatever the text or topic, the preacher ends up preaching the same sermon.
I remember once hearing a preacher deliver four sermons over the course of a couple of weeks. He used four different texts but basically preached the same sermon four times. One issue was obviously very important in his own mind at the time and it filled the content of each sermon. However, the issue was only very tenuously linked to each of the texts he claimed to be preaching from. I only heard this preacher for two Sundays, but I can imagine that hearing such single-issue sermons every Sunday would be extremely tiresome and would not help me understand the Bible or know God better.
My point here is that if this preacher had actually preached from the text each time, he would've delivered four different, engaging, interesting sermons (and that with the authority of God's word, rather than his own limited authority).
When I think about preaching, I think as a 24 year old who (deo volente) has many years of preaching ahead. Embarking on a lifelong preaching ministry with nothing to preach on but my own thoughts is terrifying. It would be a disaster. I'd have a short and unsuccessful ministry: I would dry up (once my puny mind fully empties itself after a few months) and then freak out as I realise that I've preached myself fully and have nothing more to say on my own thoughts. Either that, or I'd end up preaching 'my big issues' for years on end, boring my congregation to death of Herman Bavinck, Mr T and all things French. Somehow all my sermons would prove that Bavinck wrote Hebrews, Mr T wrote Proverbs (it's full of stuff about fools!) and that the Bible was actually written in French.
This would be some way from preaching the whole counsel of God, and the point I'm trying to make is that it is incredibly hard to preach the whole counsel of God if the majority of your preaching is topical or impositional.
I do think there is a place for topical preaching. Sometimes it's the most effective way to handle a particular topic or to preach in a particular situation. However, I do not think it wise to found a ministry on it.
Good expository preaching is transcendent
I can pay no higher praise to expository preaching than to say that it has changed my life. Listening to preaching where the word of God is opened up, where God is exposed and His message is clearly explained, illustrated and applied is awesome (in the fullest sense of that word).
In a world of weak pseudo-intellectualism, shallow pick and mix spirituality where the truly divine is absent, the transcendent Yahweh can still be found in Scripture. The most transcendent, dare I say ecstatic, experiences I've ever had have been listening to outstanding expository sermons.
The rest of the world believes it is acceptable to form thoughts without any reference to God's revelation in Scripture. Many Christians have been strongly influenced by this philosophy and you can see it in our churches; I hate it when I start to preach and, at that point, I see people close their Bibles to listen to what I'm saying. This is a massive misunderstanding of what I'm trying to do in the pulpit. If I was just giving my own thoughts and preaching myself, that would be fine: you don't need to keep your Bible open as I'm not out to expound the Bible. However, I am preaching from Scripture and without an open Bible, you won't be edified by what I'm saying.
I've always been in the habit of starting my sermons by saying something like, "If you can keep your Bible open in the chapter we've read..." before going into my introduction. I think in the past it was just a habit that I hadn't really thought through. However, I now say it having realised why it must be said: because I'm not preaching myself, I'm preaching Scripture.
As expository preachers, our ultimate goal is not to communicate the value of our opinions, others' philosophies, or speculative meditations but rather to show how God's Word discloses his will for those united to him through his Son. Truths of God proclaimed in such a way that people can see that the concepts derive from Scripture and apply to their lives preoccupy the expository preacher's efforts. Such preaching puts people in immediate contact with the power of God.
- Bryan Chappell
What is expository preaching? I understand the term expository to mean preaching that is clearly based on a particular Biblical text, which approaches the Bible looking to expose whatever the text means and apply that to the hearer. I see this kind of preaching as very different from (a) having a completely thematic sermon which is made up entirely of the preacher's own thoughts, and (b) pretending to base a sermon on a 'text', when in reality the 'text' only functions as a brief introduction to a thematic sermon.
John Stott has expressed it well:
To expound Scripture is to bring out of the text what is there and expose it to view. The expositor pries open what appears to be closed, makes plain what is obscure, unravels what is knotted and unfolds what is tightly packed. The opposite of exposition is 'imposition', which is to impose on the text what is not there.
Why should we aim to preach specifically expository sermons?
Because the Bible is divinely inspired revelation
At the start is how we deal with epistemology - how can we know anything? How can you be sure anything you know is actually true?
Even if you've never heard the word epistemology before, your approach to epistemology has an enormous influence on your worldview and all the choices you make. To put it simply, if you believe the worldview of Christian theism, your epistemology must begin with the following presuppositions:
(1) God is the sovereign, all-knowing Creator who exists outwith both time and space,
(2) only God has original and complete knowledge of God,
(3) we can thus only know about God if God tells us about Himself,
(4) therefore, we are utterly dependent on God to reveal Himself to us,
(5) God has revealed Himself generally in nature and specially in Scripture.
The issue here is that unless God tells us what God is like and what God wants from us, we are confined to a cage of woeful ignorance. These are the central presuppositions presented by the Bible. If you are a preacher who believes these things, the most consistent way you can apply them is by preaching sermons that are expository. That is to say, if your confidence is in the Bible as the divinely inspired self-disclosure of God, it creates a conviction that you really ought to be expounding and exposing His word rather than (a) preaching your thoughts on issue x, or (b) paying lip service to God's self-revelation but actually practicing the imposition of your thoughts onto the text.
So, why do I believe in preaching expository sermons? Reason number one is because the Bible is the divinely inspired self-revelation of God. Without the Bible, I can know only the barest things about God. With the Bible, I know who God is, what He is like and what He requires from me. In the Bible, I've seen Christ, the image of the invisible God (Col. 1.15).
In contrast, I am a recovering sinner who is very fallible and whose mind and thought-patterns have been ruined by the fall. I know that I need Scripture to know God; I am no exception in this regard and due to this, I need to preach expository sermons.
God is most glorified by expository preaching
I believe God is glorified more by expository preaching than by any other kind of preaching. Why is this? First, expository preaching is undergirded by a clear sense of our dependence on God to reveal Himself. It is a kind of preaching that says, God, we take You at Your Word. You are who You say You are, and we need You to speak so that we can know You. Expository preaching overtly presupposes and declares that we need God, and it does so far more than topical or impositional preaching.
God is most glorified when His word is central, and His word is the overwhelming focus in expository preaching. As you expose the word of God, you necessarily expose the God of the word.
God has promised to bless His word
Scripture is clear; God has promised to bless His word, not our word.
As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
- Isaiah 55.10-11
I think this comes down to the following fact: God promises to bless His word because His word is His self-revelation. He has promised that when He unleashes His own glory (through the word revealed), it will be a blessing. He has never promised the same of our own word.
Expository preaching safeguards against single-issue preaching
One of the great dangers of both outright topical and impositional preaching is that whatever the text or topic, the preacher ends up preaching the same sermon.
I remember once hearing a preacher deliver four sermons over the course of a couple of weeks. He used four different texts but basically preached the same sermon four times. One issue was obviously very important in his own mind at the time and it filled the content of each sermon. However, the issue was only very tenuously linked to each of the texts he claimed to be preaching from. I only heard this preacher for two Sundays, but I can imagine that hearing such single-issue sermons every Sunday would be extremely tiresome and would not help me understand the Bible or know God better.
My point here is that if this preacher had actually preached from the text each time, he would've delivered four different, engaging, interesting sermons (and that with the authority of God's word, rather than his own limited authority).
When I think about preaching, I think as a 24 year old who (deo volente) has many years of preaching ahead. Embarking on a lifelong preaching ministry with nothing to preach on but my own thoughts is terrifying. It would be a disaster. I'd have a short and unsuccessful ministry: I would dry up (once my puny mind fully empties itself after a few months) and then freak out as I realise that I've preached myself fully and have nothing more to say on my own thoughts. Either that, or I'd end up preaching 'my big issues' for years on end, boring my congregation to death of Herman Bavinck, Mr T and all things French. Somehow all my sermons would prove that Bavinck wrote Hebrews, Mr T wrote Proverbs (it's full of stuff about fools!) and that the Bible was actually written in French.
This would be some way from preaching the whole counsel of God, and the point I'm trying to make is that it is incredibly hard to preach the whole counsel of God if the majority of your preaching is topical or impositional.
I do think there is a place for topical preaching. Sometimes it's the most effective way to handle a particular topic or to preach in a particular situation. However, I do not think it wise to found a ministry on it.
Good expository preaching is transcendent
I can pay no higher praise to expository preaching than to say that it has changed my life. Listening to preaching where the word of God is opened up, where God is exposed and His message is clearly explained, illustrated and applied is awesome (in the fullest sense of that word).
In a world of weak pseudo-intellectualism, shallow pick and mix spirituality where the truly divine is absent, the transcendent Yahweh can still be found in Scripture. The most transcendent, dare I say ecstatic, experiences I've ever had have been listening to outstanding expository sermons.
The rest of the world believes it is acceptable to form thoughts without any reference to God's revelation in Scripture. Many Christians have been strongly influenced by this philosophy and you can see it in our churches; I hate it when I start to preach and, at that point, I see people close their Bibles to listen to what I'm saying. This is a massive misunderstanding of what I'm trying to do in the pulpit. If I was just giving my own thoughts and preaching myself, that would be fine: you don't need to keep your Bible open as I'm not out to expound the Bible. However, I am preaching from Scripture and without an open Bible, you won't be edified by what I'm saying.
I've always been in the habit of starting my sermons by saying something like, "If you can keep your Bible open in the chapter we've read..." before going into my introduction. I think in the past it was just a habit that I hadn't really thought through. However, I now say it having realised why it must be said: because I'm not preaching myself, I'm preaching Scripture.
As expository preachers, our ultimate goal is not to communicate the value of our opinions, others' philosophies, or speculative meditations but rather to show how God's Word discloses his will for those united to him through his Son. Truths of God proclaimed in such a way that people can see that the concepts derive from Scripture and apply to their lives preoccupy the expository preacher's efforts. Such preaching puts people in immediate contact with the power of God.
- Bryan Chappell
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
A tribute to my class at the FC College
Posh Spice: Alex Brown
A-Rod is as posh as it gets. He votes Tory, has metal bits in his heels and refuses to talk to me as I am "somewhat common".
Hairy Spice: Ruairidh Maclean
Over the last three years, Ruairidh has had a variety of nicknames: Teenwolf and Rubakka are my favourites.
Ginger Spice: Jeremy Ross
With his fiery red hair and his committment to yoga, Jeremy is the Geri of our group.
Sporty Spice: Bill Schweitzer
The Schweitz is has the eyes of a hawk, ears of a wolf, strength of a bear and the speed of a puma.
Baby Spice: Shanana Beattie
Shanana is quite literally the Baby Spice of our group. She was only 9 years old when she came to the College. Despite her tender age, she is considerably more mature than Jeremy.
The New Perspective on Mr T
The New Perspective on Mr T is the name given to a significant shift in how some New Testament scholars interpret episodes of the A-Team, particularly in regard to gold chain wearing, and the common understanding of disrespecting yo' mama and being a crazy fool.
The New Perspective rose to prominence as a result of the work of BA (Bad Attitude) Baracas in his TV show The A-Team, in which he argued that the relationship between people not drinking milk and being crazy fools had been wrongly caricatured by the theologians of the past. Traditionally, it had been assumed that 1st-century Judaism said only Gentiles were fools, whereas Mr T believed all are crazy fools; and therefore when Paul spoke about pitying the fool, he was referring to all people everywhere who don't wear enough gold chains and who talk to invisible animals.
Sanders reframed the context to make big van driving, milk drinking and gold chain wearing as signs of being in the Covenant (marking one out as not being a crazy fool) rather than deeds performed in order to accomplish salvation, a pattern of religion he termed covenantal A-Teamism. If Sanders' perspective is regarded as valid, the traditional Protestant understanding of the doctrine of being a sucka may have needed rethinking; for the interpretive framework of Augustine of Hippo and Martin Luther, which had dominated Christian thinking for almost two millennia, was called into question. However, NT Wright, a foremost New Perspective proponent, has framed his understanding of being crazy against Jewish notions of salvation rather than Mr T's ideas; the Reformed tradition of Calvin was more faithful to the A-Team.
The New Perspective rose to prominence as a result of the work of BA (Bad Attitude) Baracas in his TV show The A-Team, in which he argued that the relationship between people not drinking milk and being crazy fools had been wrongly caricatured by the theologians of the past. Traditionally, it had been assumed that 1st-century Judaism said only Gentiles were fools, whereas Mr T believed all are crazy fools; and therefore when Paul spoke about pitying the fool, he was referring to all people everywhere who don't wear enough gold chains and who talk to invisible animals.
Sanders reframed the context to make big van driving, milk drinking and gold chain wearing as signs of being in the Covenant (marking one out as not being a crazy fool) rather than deeds performed in order to accomplish salvation, a pattern of religion he termed covenantal A-Teamism. If Sanders' perspective is regarded as valid, the traditional Protestant understanding of the doctrine of being a sucka may have needed rethinking; for the interpretive framework of Augustine of Hippo and Martin Luther, which had dominated Christian thinking for almost two millennia, was called into question. However, NT Wright, a foremost New Perspective proponent, has framed his understanding of being crazy against Jewish notions of salvation rather than Mr T's ideas; the Reformed tradition of Calvin was more faithful to the A-Team.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Our sad generation
Isn't the case of Madeleine McCann tragic? If she is still alive, may God shield and protect her. May He give her parents and siblings immense grace and strength to cope, and may He swiftly bring whoever is responsible to justice.
Aside from the obvious sadness of the McCann family's situation, the seeming increase in sexual crimes against children has prompted me to think a lot over the last few days. I have a couple of thoughts.
The first is that our current Western culture greatly encourages adults to view children as the objects of sexual desire:
What is the iconic pop video of the last decade? Probably Britney Spears' Hit me baby one more time. In this video, she (and her back up dancers) are portrayed as (a) sex symbols, and (b) schoolgirls. Videos like this have had a huge impact on Western culture. To encourage sexual desire towards someone you know is an adult but is pretending to be a child confuses any previously held boundaries in terms of sexual ethics. Obviously, not everyone who watched the Hit me baby video has descended into paedophilia. God's common grace is constantly at work to restrain the extent of human sinfulness. However, it is undeniable that pop culture has considerably blurred all the boundaries between how one relates sexual ethics and age.
Going hand in hand with this is the fact that children are no longer dressed as children, but as mini-adults. I see this especially in the case of very young girls. It's now commonplace to see pre-pubescent girls, let's say from 5-10 years old, wearing clothes with sexual slogans on them. The tragic thing is that their parents unwittingly buy the clothes that, little by little, erode the safety of their children. A generation of 6 year old girls wearing t-shirts with SEXY on them is a generation that, by no fault of its own, simultaneously encourages an increase in paedophilia and puts itself in an incredibly vulnerable position.
If we want to combat paedophilia and protect our children, I don't think having witch-hunts against convicted paedophiles is the best tactic. We should fight paedophilia by being clear on the fact that children are not to be the objects of sexual desire. Fight paedophilia by not dressing your children as miniature sex symbols. Fight paedophilia by letting children be children, with all the innocence and lack of self-consciousness that brings.
The second thing that I've been struck by is how our culture is shamefully money driven:
Today a businessman put up an offer of £1,000,000 for whoever can supply information that will lead to the arrest of Madeleine McCann's abductors. In a sense, it's very noble of the businessman to help out so generously when he has no previous connection to the McCann family. But isn't it sad that we live in a culture where someone who has information which could bring this poor little girl back (or leads to the arrest of her captors) needs a £1 million carrot to release this information? Shouldn't the awful injustice done against this girl and her family be all the reason for people in the know to supply the facts? Shame on whoever holds vital information in this case who has thus far failed to come forward, and does so now through a million pound motivation.
We are post-Christian, post-modern, post-justice, post-human, post-pastoral and post-caring. The only things we are chasing are the pound, the dollar and the gratification of sinful desires. May God have mercy on us and cause a massive change in our generation.
Aside from the obvious sadness of the McCann family's situation, the seeming increase in sexual crimes against children has prompted me to think a lot over the last few days. I have a couple of thoughts.
The first is that our current Western culture greatly encourages adults to view children as the objects of sexual desire:
What is the iconic pop video of the last decade? Probably Britney Spears' Hit me baby one more time. In this video, she (and her back up dancers) are portrayed as (a) sex symbols, and (b) schoolgirls. Videos like this have had a huge impact on Western culture. To encourage sexual desire towards someone you know is an adult but is pretending to be a child confuses any previously held boundaries in terms of sexual ethics. Obviously, not everyone who watched the Hit me baby video has descended into paedophilia. God's common grace is constantly at work to restrain the extent of human sinfulness. However, it is undeniable that pop culture has considerably blurred all the boundaries between how one relates sexual ethics and age.
Going hand in hand with this is the fact that children are no longer dressed as children, but as mini-adults. I see this especially in the case of very young girls. It's now commonplace to see pre-pubescent girls, let's say from 5-10 years old, wearing clothes with sexual slogans on them. The tragic thing is that their parents unwittingly buy the clothes that, little by little, erode the safety of their children. A generation of 6 year old girls wearing t-shirts with SEXY on them is a generation that, by no fault of its own, simultaneously encourages an increase in paedophilia and puts itself in an incredibly vulnerable position.
If we want to combat paedophilia and protect our children, I don't think having witch-hunts against convicted paedophiles is the best tactic. We should fight paedophilia by being clear on the fact that children are not to be the objects of sexual desire. Fight paedophilia by not dressing your children as miniature sex symbols. Fight paedophilia by letting children be children, with all the innocence and lack of self-consciousness that brings.
The second thing that I've been struck by is how our culture is shamefully money driven:
Today a businessman put up an offer of £1,000,000 for whoever can supply information that will lead to the arrest of Madeleine McCann's abductors. In a sense, it's very noble of the businessman to help out so generously when he has no previous connection to the McCann family. But isn't it sad that we live in a culture where someone who has information which could bring this poor little girl back (or leads to the arrest of her captors) needs a £1 million carrot to release this information? Shouldn't the awful injustice done against this girl and her family be all the reason for people in the know to supply the facts? Shame on whoever holds vital information in this case who has thus far failed to come forward, and does so now through a million pound motivation.
We are post-Christian, post-modern, post-justice, post-human, post-pastoral and post-caring. The only things we are chasing are the pound, the dollar and the gratification of sinful desires. May God have mercy on us and cause a massive change in our generation.
The Beast
It's hard to work out why Carlos Tevez's nickname is The Beast, isn'it it? I'm sure he's a great guy, but he looks like someone who bites people.Thursday, May 10, 2007
Pray against the Joffe Bill
This is a serious issue and an urgent prayer request.
On May 12th, the Joffe Bill will be presented to Parliament for the third time. If passed, it will legalise physician assisted suicide in the UK. Lord Joffe, who is putting this Bill forward, has said it only a 'first step' in a movement that he hopes will include the euthanising of children and young people.
This is already the legal situation in Holland where euthanasia (both voluntary and involuntary - the latter normally being the killing of newly born babies) is legal and occurs with horrific regularity. Thousands of elderly Dutch have been euthanised. The majority of these deaths have not been 'extreme cases'; they are largely carried out for financial reasons. It is cheaper to kill old people than keep them alive.
Recently, a newly born Dutch baby boy was killed by doctors as he had a minor genital defect. Technically, this is called involuntary euthanasia. In reality, it is called murder.
The Joffe Bill will inevitably lead to euthanasia on demand in the UK. Although in its early form it claims to restrict itself to extreme cases, it nonetheless presents euthanasia as a form of medical treatment, and if it is a kind of treatment, it must be made available to all.
If this Bill is passed, consistency will require that euthanasia on demand is available to people regardless of age. For example, a teenage girl currently has the right to an abortion regardless of the wishes of her parents. Euthanasia on demand would apply in the same way: a 15 year old with low self-esteem who can fulfil the completely subjective criteria that she is 'suffering unbearably' with her issues could demand to be euthanised and there would be nothing her parents could do to prevent it. It is, after all, a form of medical treatment.
Keeping a human alive is expensive. This is particularly true of the vulnerable (the elderly, infants, especially when they require medical attention). To kill someone costs a few pounds. That is the direction the Joffe Bill will take us in.
Christians, unite and pray against the Joffe Bill. If it is passed, huge numbers of vulnerable people will die. We are on the threshold of a fully formed culture of death.
Please look up the Care Not Killing website and watch their video. It is well worthwhile watching. And please pray relentlessly on this issue.
May God have mercy on our nation that such a Bill has got to this stage, and may God stop the Joffe Bill from being passed.
On May 12th, the Joffe Bill will be presented to Parliament for the third time. If passed, it will legalise physician assisted suicide in the UK. Lord Joffe, who is putting this Bill forward, has said it only a 'first step' in a movement that he hopes will include the euthanising of children and young people.
This is already the legal situation in Holland where euthanasia (both voluntary and involuntary - the latter normally being the killing of newly born babies) is legal and occurs with horrific regularity. Thousands of elderly Dutch have been euthanised. The majority of these deaths have not been 'extreme cases'; they are largely carried out for financial reasons. It is cheaper to kill old people than keep them alive.
Recently, a newly born Dutch baby boy was killed by doctors as he had a minor genital defect. Technically, this is called involuntary euthanasia. In reality, it is called murder.
The Joffe Bill will inevitably lead to euthanasia on demand in the UK. Although in its early form it claims to restrict itself to extreme cases, it nonetheless presents euthanasia as a form of medical treatment, and if it is a kind of treatment, it must be made available to all.
If this Bill is passed, consistency will require that euthanasia on demand is available to people regardless of age. For example, a teenage girl currently has the right to an abortion regardless of the wishes of her parents. Euthanasia on demand would apply in the same way: a 15 year old with low self-esteem who can fulfil the completely subjective criteria that she is 'suffering unbearably' with her issues could demand to be euthanised and there would be nothing her parents could do to prevent it. It is, after all, a form of medical treatment.
Keeping a human alive is expensive. This is particularly true of the vulnerable (the elderly, infants, especially when they require medical attention). To kill someone costs a few pounds. That is the direction the Joffe Bill will take us in.
Christians, unite and pray against the Joffe Bill. If it is passed, huge numbers of vulnerable people will die. We are on the threshold of a fully formed culture of death.
Please look up the Care Not Killing website and watch their video. It is well worthwhile watching. And please pray relentlessly on this issue.
May God have mercy on our nation that such a Bill has got to this stage, and may God stop the Joffe Bill from being passed.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
It's T time!
Last week, Mr T almost agreed with a point made in a Joel Osteen sermon. This caused the space-time continuum to momentarily collapse in on itself. However, Mr T realised what was happening: had he agreed with anything said by Osteen, he would be a fool and would have to pity himself, and this is a metaphysical impossibility. T quickly realised this, reversed time and changed his opinion. "Osteen's a sucka!" says T.
Joel Osteen is now known as Joel Oseen, as Mr T has denied him the right to have a T in his name.
When Mr T heard that televangelist charlatan Benny Hinn lives in an $8.5 million dollar mansion and only stays in hotel rooms that cost over $3,000 per night, T laughed and said, "I pity the fools who fund his lifestyle. He's a fake and a crackpot!"
Joel Osteen is now known as Joel Oseen, as Mr T has denied him the right to have a T in his name.
When Mr T heard that televangelist charlatan Benny Hinn lives in an $8.5 million dollar mansion and only stays in hotel rooms that cost over $3,000 per night, T laughed and said, "I pity the fools who fund his lifestyle. He's a fake and a crackpot!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
