Category Archives: Theology

What writers think of the King James Bible’s language

Posted on by

In this year of celebrating 400 years of the King James Bible, here is an interesting article in today’s Guardian. A number of writers (including Alexander McCall Smith and linguist David Crystal) talk about their experience of the KJV’s language in 6 short pieces. Below are a couple of extracts from novelist Janine Winterson’s article:

“My mother taught me to read from the Book of Deuteronomy because it is full of animals – mostly unclean. So while other children had horses, bunnies, kittens and ducks, I had hoopoes, sloths, snakes, rock badgers, rams, swine and shellfish.”

“My dad left school at 12, and never learned to read properly. He had no trouble with his Bible, and when he didn’t understand a word or a construction, he asked Mrs Winterson or the minister. He was a man of few words himself, but he had dignity of speech, learned directly from the King James.”

There are easier ways to learn to read than from the Bible, but if you grew up reading the KJV from an early age, it’s language would certainly be etched on the memory.

Some Random Good Stuff

Posted on by

I have come across a few fascinating theology pieces this week, which I want to draw your attention to. I can’t actually remember who pointed me to some of them, so apologies for the lack of referrals.

The Jubilee Centre have published an excellent piece on eschatology and politics. The summary of the article reads:

Christians fail to do justice to ‘politics’ when they seek to withdraw from the political arena or to use political power to dominate society. Similarly, Christians misunderstand ‘eschatology’ when they obsessively focus on debates about end-times chronology and when they effectively ignore it altogether. In each case, the purpose of biblical eschatology – critique, hope and a re-ordering of everyday priorities and relationships – and hence the political implications of God’s coming and present kingdom, are neglected. A broader understanding of politics and eschatology contends that everything we do is significant in the sight of God and in the light of the future.

Excellent stuff. You can read the full article here.

I also came across a fascinating piece on partnerships in mission from a Pauline perspective. This kicks off with a very provocative (though, I have to say, accurate) statement:

To borrow a storyline from Andrew Walls, if scholarly space travellers visited this planet in 1910 and witnessed how the Western church was subsidizing indigenous Christian movements around the world, and then returned again in 2010 only to observe the same, they would rightly conclude that those dedicated to discipling the nations continue to place unnecessary obstacles in the path of the missio Dei. One is
therefore left wondering whether the academic discipline of missiology has made any substantial difference in this area over the course of a century.

You can find the article in this pdf magazine. It starts on page 6.

Ben Byerly pointed me to a fascinating article on why New Testament scholars don’t care about the dispute between John Piper and NT Wright regarding justification. For those of us who don’t live in the scholarly world, it is a good reminder that the likes of Piper and even Wright are not always at the forefront of ideas. Some of the issues they are talking about publicly today, were debated in the academic world 10-15 years ago. It is hard to pull a quote from this one, but you can read it here.

The Trinity and Systematic Theology

Posted on by

A couple of weeks ago, I posted a short review of The God Who Is Triune: Revisioning the Christian Doctrine of God by Alan Coppedge, you can read it here. In that review, I suggested that systematic theology tends not to do full justice to the Trinity. Onesimus has taken up the same theme with a good deal of his customary vim and vigour in an extremely enlightening post.

But there is a problem even in the way recent Western Protestant/evangelical/Pentecostal theology is constructed. The doctrine of the Trinity is dealt with essentially as an attribute of God—God is Triune just has he is omniscient or loving, etc. This means that the starting point in many systematic theologies, for example, as well as in many Christians’ minds, is with God as God. In this construction, it is the one God who is all of these attributes. But then somehow, we add to these attributes that idea that the one God is also Trinity. This serves to make the Trinity functionally peripheral to the theology and therefore the soteriology of most Christians—it is something that we affirm, but because it is difficult and because we can’t very well explain it, it is left to the side while we focus on things that seem more central to what we are about as Christians…

… The Trinity has for too long seemed an optional add-on to much Western preaching, teaching and discipleship. It’s past time we became authentically Christian in what we believe, teach and preach.

Read the whole post “Are you Trinitarian?“

The God Who Is Triune

Posted on by

This is the last of my holiday reading ‘reviews’ for this break. I don’t know if you are the sort of person who reads Systematic theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine either for work, devotions or amusement. If not, then you can safely skip the rest of this post. However, if you are a reader of Systematic Theologies, I’d like to draw your attention to some of the chapter headings in Grudem’s tome.

Amongst the chapters in Part 2: The Doctrine of God, Wayne Grudem has: three chapters on the character of God, on chapter on the Trinity and others on creation, providence, prayer etc.

The problem with this is the place of the Trinity. If God is triune, three in one, then this is absolutely central to his being and cannot be treated as just divine feature among others. A triune view of God means that we need to look at the character of God, creation, providence etc. from the perspective of the Trinity. We can’t simply shunt the Trinity off into one chapter among others. And this is where The God Who Is Triune: Revisioning the Christian Doctrine of God by Allan Coppedge comes in. This is essentially a systematic theology of the doctrine of God (like Grudem’s part two) but written from a purely trinitarian perspective.

The book is 330 pages long and includes Scripture, name and general indexes. There is also a wealth of diagrams and illustrations. But be warned, this is not a book to sit down and read from start to finish. It is hard going. If you are the sort of person who does read systematic theologies (Grudem or others) then you should almost certainly get hold of The God Who Is Triune, but, to be honest, if you don’t regularly read theology, then you needn’t bother with this one either (I said you could skip the rest of this post).

Perhaps the most helpful sections of the book are the parts where he compares a trinitarian view of God with what he calls classic theism: the habitual Christian way of viewing God.

God, who shares life within the Trinity in self-giving love, created the heavens and earth to express this self-giving love to others. He has chosen to create human persons with whom to share life and love as an outward expression of what happens with his own being. So, contrary to some approaches to creation, the making of the universe by the triune God was not fist of all about his power and omniscience, but about his self-giving expression of life and love. This foundation sets the parameters for describing God’s creative work.  (p. 250)

In writing this, I’m not seeking to knock Grudem’s (or anyone else’s) Systematic Theology. It is a very helpful book. However, it has to be said that the resurgence in interest in trinitarian thought and theology in the evangelical world over the last twenty or so years has brought new insights to our understanding. Or, perhaps, I should say has brought some old insights back into focus.

If you have an interest in systematics then you have to get hold of Coppedge’s book. Though if you have such an interest, you have probably already bought it!

The Trinity in the West and the East

Posted on by

Discussion about the Trinity amongst Western Christians of all stripes tends to focus on the metaphysical issues raised by the oneness and threeness of God. Such speculation is of interest mainly to systematic theologians, with most other Christians content to accept the idea because that’s what Christians are supposed to believe (however irrational it may seem). The Trinity is therefore a matter for affirmation, but most leave it at that and focus on what seem to be more relevant matters, namely those that have to do with salvation. There are, of course, exceptions to this perspective, but I would contend that such exceptions prove the general rule among Protestants (and Catholics) in general and among Evangelicals in particular.

Read the rest of Onesimus’ excellent post here.

Darkness and Light

Posted on by

The British press have, rightly, been full of reports about the death of 10 Aid workers, including one British doctor, in Afghanistan over the weekend. The ten who died worked for a Christian Charity, the International Assistance Mission. IAM is a humanitarian organisation which has worked inside Afghanistan for forty years providing healthcare to people in the rural areas. They are not an evangelistic mission; in fact the British doctor who died was a humanist with no religious agenda (Daily Telegraph).

In all probability, the group were the victims of a violent robbery, but this hasn’t stopped the Taliban claiming responsibility for the deed.  Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, said bibles translated into Dari had been found.

“Yesterday at around 0800 (0330 GMT), one of our patrols confronted a group of foreigners. They were Christian missionaries and we killed them all,” he told the AFP news agency.

He later told the Associated Press they were “spying for the Americans”. (BBC)

Leaving aside the fact that the group were not all Christians, and certainly were not missionaries and the fact that the Taliban may not have been the murderers; it is clear that this spokesman believes that killing Christian missionaries is legitimate.

What the poor fool from the Taliban does not realise is that Christians have always been a target. From Nero, to Pol Pot and Stalin, people have tried to stamp out the Christian faith with violence and all of them have failed. Indeed, the more the forces of darkness seek to extinguish the light of Christ, the brighter the light shines. Tertullian had it right: “the blood of the martyrs, is the seed of the church”.  Indeed, how could it be otherwise? At the heart of the Christian faith is the cross of Jesus. The forces of darkness seemed to triumph, only for Jesus to burst out of the tomb and usher in a new dawn. Darkness can’t understand light and it can’t extinguish it.

But there is a message here for Christians, too. We are called to witness to Christ into the dark and uncomfortable parts of the world. It is all too easy to present Christian discipleship and mission as a pleasant, easy ride and to forget that we are to lay down our lives, take up the cross and follow the Crucified One. Light will triumph over darkness, but only at the cost of the lives and comfort of many of the light bearers. Western Christian missionaries do get killed or attacked from time to time and these cases tend to hit the headlines. However, persecution and martyrdom are still common experiences for our fellow believers in many parts of the world as this example shows. If you want to know more about the situations of Christians in the world today, I can’t recommend Kingdom Without Borders: The Untold Story of Global Christianity highly enough. As for Western Christians; I have argued elsewhere (in a different context) that we desperately need to regain a theology of suffering.

There is a political point here too. We cannot expect to end the violence in Afghanistan by the use of violence. We may restrain it, but we won’t end it. It is the example of people who put others before themselves; Christians and others, which will eventually help to change Afghan society. But this will be a costly exercise. It is also extremely sad that (as the Taliban statement shows) Christians have become associated with the military efforts of the NATO governments in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Though, all too often, Christians only have themselves to blame for this.

Meanwhile, my heart goes out to the family and friends of Dr. Susan Woo and her nine colleagues: may God comfort them in their distress.

The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. (John 1:5)

Social Media and the Trinity

Posted on by

I always find Gary’s Rather Sad Blog to be thoughtful, and not at all sad. His latest post is a fascinating reflection on the Trinity and Social Media. I thoroughly recommend that you give it a read, but here is a short sample to give you an idea of what he is saying.

We are empty without human contact. Even with a wonderful relationship with God we cry out for a companion, a help-meet, an ally, an associate, a loved one, a child. Because we’re made in the Image of God. The God who doesn’t come in a self-contained, perfectly packaged, hermetically sealed One. Who isn’t self-sufficient as One on His Own. Who in his own nature comes as an open, loving, relational Three. Where Father loves Son and Son loves Father, and the love of Father and Son is Godself as Spirit – a love that’s not even locked between Two, but shared out to Three and then out to the many beyond the Godhead.

Participating in God

Posted on by

I’ve been ploughing through Participating in God: A Pastoral Doctrine of the Trinity by Paul Fiddes for some time now. In common with many books on Trinitarian theology (even those which call themselves pastoral) it is pretty hard going. It does, however, make very rewarding reading.

There is much about this book that I thoroughly enjoyed. The chapter on the Triune God and Questions of Power and Authority was absolutely excellent. International mission agencies would do well to muse on some of the issues that Fiddes raises here. I found the section on intercessory prayer fascinating; it gave the most convincing explanation of why prayer is important and what it acheives that I have ever read and was worth the price of the book alone.

However, I did also find myself a little troubled at times. Fiddes  pushes the notion of the Trinity as relationships further than I am comfortable with. He makes an extremely convincing case for his position, but I was still left feeling slightly uneasy. In a sense, I’d like to follow up reading Participating in God: A Pastoral Doctrine of the Trinity with an equally heavyweight book which takes an opposite tack on the nature of the Trinity. Unfortunately, I’m not sure which one I should read – and there are books in other fields calling out for my attention.

All in all, this is a book which has given me a great deal to reflect on. If you are interested in Trinitarian Theology, then you really must read it; it’s as simple as that. I suspect that most readers of this blog will be as uncomfortable reading this book as I was at times: but the good stuff is well worth reading and it is always good to be challenged!

A Wright Good Conference

Posted on by

Normally when I go running, I listen to seventies rock music. It takes something with a good driving beat to keep my feet moving. However, over the last week or so my exertions have been accompanied by a series of lectures from a conference at Wheaton College called: Jesus, Paul and the People of God: A Theological Dialogue with N.T. Wright.

The lectures are essentially reflections (some positive, some less so) on various aspects of Wright’s work as well as a couple of responses by the good Bishop himself. I can’t write notes while I’m running, so I can’t actually quote from the lectures directly. However, anything that engages my mind so much that I don’t hurt while gasping my way up some Chiltern hill has to be worth listening to.

I’d especially recommend  Kevin Vanhoozer’s paper. It is simply hilarious, which is not something that you often hear said about a theology lecture.

Well done to Wheaton for arranging this conference and for putting the papers online!

African Theology

Posted on by

Onesimus has transcribed an amazing conversation between a group of (mainly African) post-grad students discussing the issue of African theology. It is rather long, but it is well worth a read and there are lots of great insights:

When the gospel came to Africa, it was foreign to the way of life of the people. It provided answers to questions nobody was asking. When crisis came, they had a fallback plan, which was to go back to the traditional answers to the pressing questions of the culture. Especially in the issue of marriage, naming of children, initiation, there was nothing in the imported Christianity that dealt with the felt needs of the people. What is the implication of the gospel for me who is an African and a Christian?

Read his introduction, then the transcript.

Please Read This: Salvation is Societal

Posted on by

Please, do me (and yourself) a favour and read this piece by Onesimus Online. It is a superb article which eloquently expresses many things that I have as half-formed thoughts in my mind. It’s a longish article and it isn’t particularly easy, but it really is fantastic.

Archimandrite Innocentios Byatunga began his homily last Sunday at Nairobi’s Cathedral of Sts Cosmas and Damian, following the gospel reading from Matthew 25 of the parable of the sheep and the goats, with this three-word sentence: ‘Salvation is societal.’ This was unexpected. As was his next sentence, which tied our salvation directly to the very essence of God as Trinity. Just as God himself is a society of love, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, just as humanity reflects God’s society and capacity for love in that the created image of God in humanity is both male and female together, just as sin is ultimately the rejection of the choice to love, and ultimately the rejection of the Trinitarian society of love, so salvation is humanity’s reintroduction into the life of the Trinitarian society of love, humanity recreated in the resurrected Christ with the capacity and vocation to love restored. (Read the whole article)

Why Didn’t Jesus Write a Gospel?

Posted on by

One evening last week I was chatting with some friends at a conference centre where we were meeting. During the conversation, one fellow blogger raised the question of why Jesus didn’t write a Gospel. At the time, none of us came up with an answer that really satisfied. I’ve thought about it over the past few days and have now come to the firm conclusion that we don’t have an answer to this question! However, I do have a few thoughts…

My first thought is that one writer, even if that writer was Jesus himself, could never catch all of the nuances and depth of a three year ministry. Any book which caught everything that Jesus said would have to be inordinately long. However, by comparing the four Gospels we can get insights into Jesus ministry that simply wouldn’t be there if all we had was one writer.

I also believe that it was intentional that we do not have access to the exact words of Jesus. We have the disciples writing from memory about things that they had heard years previously. Not only that, but the disciples wrote in Greek, when Jesus taught in Aramaic. So while the Gospels are an accurate account of Jesus actions and sayings, they are not a word-for-word record.

So why didn’t God want the Bible to include a verbatim account of Jesus’ teaching?

I think the answer lies in the fact that God does not want us to give the Bible too much prominence. The role of Scripture is to point us to Christ and to bring us into relationship with him. There are many ways in which Christ is revealed to us; through the life of the Christian community, through the example of faithful Christians (what Frost and Hirsch call Little Jesuses) and through our own prayer and devotional life. However, Scripture is the clearest and most reliable revelation of the character and words of Jesus. Because of this, we are constantly faced with the temptation of reverencing the Bible, over and above the God it reveals. Evangelicals are sometimes accused of worshipping Father, Son and Holy Scripture. As with most caricatures, there is a degree of truth in this. I think that if Jesus had actually sat down and written a record of his own teaching and actions, then the temptation to elevate the Bible to a higher place would be almost impossible to avoid. The way in which some Bibles put the words of Jesus in red, giving them a higher prominence than the rest of the revealed text is an illustration of how easy it is to fall into this trap (see discussion here).

A third reason is that writing books (even with MS Word) takes an awful long time. Jesus came to do his Father’s bidding, to act and to teach, not to sit and write an autobiography. Quite simply, he had more important things to do than write a story – his disciples could do that when the time came.

No doubt, some scholar has given a far better answer to this question than me.