It's an old cliche that we're all theologians, and the only question is, what kind of theologian are we? Some of us are lazy, others are rebellious; some are dead & dry, others are fluffy and unclear, and so on.
But I was reading yesterday "Life in the Trinity" by Don Fairbairn, and he was suggesting that too often we read the Bible to find things to do or doctrines we must believe, and while each has its place, there is a more important search to be undertaking as we read.
If God is calling us to a relationship with Christ, surely we should be reading our Bibles to find out more about him - the one to whom we relate. Doing may be an important outworking of our sonship in Christ, but what we do flows from, and is motivated by, our knowledge of, and intimacy with, Christ. Sound doctrine is important, but only in that it describes how and why God has brought us into relationship with Christ. There are those who like to dot the 'i's and cross the 't's of their - or more often others' - doctrine, but one sometimes wonders if they've actually met the Trinity who is the author and subject of their sound doctrine.
As an historical theologian, Fairbairn has a high regard, and extensive knowledge of, the church fathers, and his emphasis on the importance of our relationship with Christ over-above doctrinal argumentation for its own sake seems to have come from Gregory of Nazianzus who begins his First Theological Oration with a long (and at times lol funny) polemic against those who spend their time asking theoretical questions out of idle curiosity rather than engaging with Christ himself. [The on-line version I've linked to here is not the easiest to read - Williams &Wickham's translation is a little easier, but you have to pay for it!].
Historical theology of this kind is not my usual reading matter, but I've been sent a long reading list in preparation for the Cambridge Summer School of Theology at which Fairbairn is speaking. It promises to be a stimulating week, but I've only got a couple of months now to read: Gregory of Nazianzus, Fairbairn himself, Grudem, McGrath, and various historic confessions. Hopefully they will provide further stimulating thoughts...
Saturday 30 April 2011
Thursday 21 April 2011
Extreme moral relativism
So Morrissey (singer - formerly of The Smiths) says that killing a stag is like killing a child.
Such extreme moral raltivism is very worrying. Morrissey is, of course, saying that to kill a stag is just as serious as killing a child.
But what if you're a huntin', shootin', fishin' kind of guy and you take it the other way round? To kill a child is only the same as killing a stag...
Such extreme moral raltivism is very worrying. Morrissey is, of course, saying that to kill a stag is just as serious as killing a child.
But what if you're a huntin', shootin', fishin' kind of guy and you take it the other way round? To kill a child is only the same as killing a stag...
Sunday 17 April 2011
Knowing God
What does it mean to truly know God? How can I truly know God?
I've just been re-reading the Old Testament book of Job, and it strikes me that one of the most important questions in the book is not so much that of suffering per se but of how we can know and understand God - in Job's case, in the midst of suffering, and in his friends' case, when observing the suffering of others; but also for anyone in any situation - how can I truly know God and his ways?
At the beginning we discover that there's something going on about which Job and his friends know nothing; there is a heavenly, spiritual dimension to the world in which The Accuser ('Satan') asks for, and is given, permission to test Job's faith and godliness.
Then, when Job's suffering begins, he himself and his friends begin to look for answers. But the problem is that they start from the point of view of human wisdom & understanding. This is what's made clear at the end of the book when God himself answers Job.
The friends are dismissed as not having spoken wisely - yes, they have said some true things about God, but they haven't understood the subtleties of what's going on in the interraction between God, The Accuser and Job. They are ignorant of what's really happening.
And even Job is accused by God of speaking with mere human insight. So God asks him repeatedly, 'Do you know...?' 'Is it by your understanding that...?' 'Have you seen...?' etc. And the answer, time and time again is, 'No, I haven't seen. No, I don't know. No, I don't understand.' And finally, in chapter 42, Job realises that some of what he's said has been arrogant and foolish because, 'I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.'
Job's fault was to try to answer his own questions rather than turning to God and accepting God's answers. No, the answers did not come quickly, and the waiting period was unimaginably hard for him. But in the end, Job had to admit that he himself could not answer ultimate questions about God and life and death, but that he had to allow God to speak for himself. And he hadn't done this because he was imprisoned by The Accuser who is the 'the king over all the sons of pride.' (41:34).
Now there's a lesson we must all learn. If we're to know God, we must be humble enought to realise that by and in our own mind we will never find God. Instead, because God has spoken by his word and especially in the Lord Jesus, we must humbly listen to what he says about himself. Too often we try to know God by our own thinking and supposition. When God seems far away, when life seems to complex and difficult, we need to learn to spend more time listening to God in his word, the Bible. Then we will know him better and understand his ways and his world.
I've just been re-reading the Old Testament book of Job, and it strikes me that one of the most important questions in the book is not so much that of suffering per se but of how we can know and understand God - in Job's case, in the midst of suffering, and in his friends' case, when observing the suffering of others; but also for anyone in any situation - how can I truly know God and his ways?
At the beginning we discover that there's something going on about which Job and his friends know nothing; there is a heavenly, spiritual dimension to the world in which The Accuser ('Satan') asks for, and is given, permission to test Job's faith and godliness.
Then, when Job's suffering begins, he himself and his friends begin to look for answers. But the problem is that they start from the point of view of human wisdom & understanding. This is what's made clear at the end of the book when God himself answers Job.
The friends are dismissed as not having spoken wisely - yes, they have said some true things about God, but they haven't understood the subtleties of what's going on in the interraction between God, The Accuser and Job. They are ignorant of what's really happening.
And even Job is accused by God of speaking with mere human insight. So God asks him repeatedly, 'Do you know...?' 'Is it by your understanding that...?' 'Have you seen...?' etc. And the answer, time and time again is, 'No, I haven't seen. No, I don't know. No, I don't understand.' And finally, in chapter 42, Job realises that some of what he's said has been arrogant and foolish because, 'I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.'
Job's fault was to try to answer his own questions rather than turning to God and accepting God's answers. No, the answers did not come quickly, and the waiting period was unimaginably hard for him. But in the end, Job had to admit that he himself could not answer ultimate questions about God and life and death, but that he had to allow God to speak for himself. And he hadn't done this because he was imprisoned by The Accuser who is the 'the king over all the sons of pride.' (41:34).
Now there's a lesson we must all learn. If we're to know God, we must be humble enought to realise that by and in our own mind we will never find God. Instead, because God has spoken by his word and especially in the Lord Jesus, we must humbly listen to what he says about himself. Too often we try to know God by our own thinking and supposition. When God seems far away, when life seems to complex and difficult, we need to learn to spend more time listening to God in his word, the Bible. Then we will know him better and understand his ways and his world.
Tuesday 12 April 2011
Jobs for the boys
This is getting very, very silly.
Only it's not silly. It's an dreadful commentary on these appalling times for the C of E.
The new Bishop of Salisbury has been announced: Nicholas Holtam. And yes, you guessed it, he trained with all his bishopy mates at Westcott House, Cambridge.
But there's real irony here. Holtam is a gay rights activist because he believes that no matter what anyone does in their sexual life, there should be equality. And yet he's just accepted an invitation to join probably the most exclusive club in the world - the house of bishops.
One assumes that he will be fighting hard to get some of those who have been deliberately excluded from that club appointed i.e. conservative evangelicals who didn't go to public school or Oxbridge... But don't hold your breath.
The last conservative evangelical to be appointed a Diocesan Bishop was probably Maurice Wood in 1971. But guess where even he was educated? Yup, private school, then Queen's College and Ridley Hall, Cambridge!
If you think all this is fantasy and conspiracy have a look at the list of current Diocesan Bishops in the Canterbury Province (below). (Since Ripon Cuddesdon is not a proper Oxford College, though it is linked to the Uni, we'll put the bishops who went there with the non-Oxbridge lot). Now add them up: there are 7 non-Oxbridge and 30 Oxbridge bishops. In the Province of York, there are 10 Oxbridge and 3 non.
What's even more astonishing is that the Archbishop of Canterbury told me personally, face-to-face, and without a hint of sarcasm that the process was, "democratic"!! While we have people like that in positions like that, this nepotism will continue.
Current Diocesan Bishops in the Province of Canterbury:
Rowan Williams: Oxford & Cambridge
Peter Price: Redland College & Oak Hill!!
David Urquhart: Rugby School & Oxford
Mike Hill: Cambridge (twice)
Stephen Cottrell: Oxford
John Hind: Ripon Cuddesdon (linked to Oxford)
Christopher Cocksworth: Manchester & Nottingham (but was Principal at Ridley, Cambridge & is the son-in-law of a bishop).
Alistair Redfern: Oxford
Stephen Conway: Oxford & Cambridge
Michael Langrish: Cambridge
Geoffrey Rowell: Cambridge (twice)
Michael Perham: Oxford
Christopher Hill: London
Anthony Priddis: Cambridge
Tim Stevens: Oxford & Cambridge
Jonathan Gledhill: Bristol
John Saxbee: Bristol & Durham
Richard Chartres: Cambridge
Graham James: Oxford
John Pritchard: Oxford & Cambridge
Donald Allister: Cambridge
Christopher Foster: Cambridge
James Langstaff: Oxford
Christoper Chessun: Oxford
Alan Smith: Oxford
Nigel Stock: Durham & Ripon Cuddesdon (linked to Oxford)
Tim Thornton: Oxford
Michael Scott-Joynt: Cambridge
John Inge: Oxford
Only it's not silly. It's an dreadful commentary on these appalling times for the C of E.
The new Bishop of Salisbury has been announced: Nicholas Holtam. And yes, you guessed it, he trained with all his bishopy mates at Westcott House, Cambridge.
But there's real irony here. Holtam is a gay rights activist because he believes that no matter what anyone does in their sexual life, there should be equality. And yet he's just accepted an invitation to join probably the most exclusive club in the world - the house of bishops.
One assumes that he will be fighting hard to get some of those who have been deliberately excluded from that club appointed i.e. conservative evangelicals who didn't go to public school or Oxbridge... But don't hold your breath.
The last conservative evangelical to be appointed a Diocesan Bishop was probably Maurice Wood in 1971. But guess where even he was educated? Yup, private school, then Queen's College and Ridley Hall, Cambridge!
If you think all this is fantasy and conspiracy have a look at the list of current Diocesan Bishops in the Canterbury Province (below). (Since Ripon Cuddesdon is not a proper Oxford College, though it is linked to the Uni, we'll put the bishops who went there with the non-Oxbridge lot). Now add them up: there are 7 non-Oxbridge and 30 Oxbridge bishops. In the Province of York, there are 10 Oxbridge and 3 non.
What's even more astonishing is that the Archbishop of Canterbury told me personally, face-to-face, and without a hint of sarcasm that the process was, "democratic"!! While we have people like that in positions like that, this nepotism will continue.
Current Diocesan Bishops in the Province of Canterbury:
Rowan Williams: Oxford & Cambridge
Peter Price: Redland College & Oak Hill!!
David Urquhart: Rugby School & Oxford
Mike Hill: Cambridge (twice)
Stephen Cottrell: Oxford
John Hind: Ripon Cuddesdon (linked to Oxford)
Christopher Cocksworth: Manchester & Nottingham (but was Principal at Ridley, Cambridge & is the son-in-law of a bishop).
Alistair Redfern: Oxford
Stephen Conway: Oxford & Cambridge
Michael Langrish: Cambridge
Geoffrey Rowell: Cambridge (twice)
Michael Perham: Oxford
Christopher Hill: London
Anthony Priddis: Cambridge
Tim Stevens: Oxford & Cambridge
Jonathan Gledhill: Bristol
John Saxbee: Bristol & Durham
Richard Chartres: Cambridge
Graham James: Oxford
John Pritchard: Oxford & Cambridge
Donald Allister: Cambridge
Christopher Foster: Cambridge
James Langstaff: Oxford
Christoper Chessun: Oxford
Alan Smith: Oxford
Nigel Stock: Durham & Ripon Cuddesdon (linked to Oxford)
Tim Thornton: Oxford
Michael Scott-Joynt: Cambridge
John Inge: Oxford
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)