Two gems from the ever quotable PT Forsyth:
"Prayer is often represented as the great means of the Christian life. But it is no mere means, it is the great end of that life."
"A chief object of all prayer is to bring us to God. But we may attain His presence and come closer to Him by the way we ask Him for other things, concrete things or things of the Kingdom, than by direct prayer for union with Him."
(p. 16, The Soul of Prayer)
Given the church should be involved in serving its neighbours in practical ways, how should they primarily seek to do that:
This question came to mind recently because as part of the Passion for Life initiative the Christian law students where I study are going to run a drop-in advice centre for a day. This is modelled on activities done as part of the college's own pro bono scheme, and is going to be backed up by the college. Some Christian law students do volunteer as part of this scheme (including me, although I've given limited time to it), but justifiably the manager of the college's scheme questioned why it was that many Christian students would be willing to do this but weren't signed on to the college's own scheme.
From another point of view, most local churches have very few resources to devote to any sustained social action program, and even when they don't always do it well.
But at the same time, I think I remember Tim Chester commenting that social action done without the Gospel being preached alongside it is understood by non-Christians as either Christian's trying to earn points, or as Christian's agreeing that felt-needs are the most important needs. However, would that criticism apply if you were working as part of a secular organisation (e.g. the NHS)?
Anyway, I have lots of thoughts but no conclusion. What do you think?
PS. Of course I know not all social action needs an organised program, but some does, and it is that type of social action that I'm thinking about here.
Tim Chester, in his excellent BST volume on Prayer, comments on 1 Timothy 2:1-8:
In the UK the traditional midweek church meeting often provided a focus for missionary prayer. But the house groups that have in many cases replaced it can all too easily become insular and self-regarding. Paul's call is for our churches and small groups to become hotbeds of missionary activity - outward-looking and inclusive with a vision for the nations.
(p. 219, The Message of Prayer)
It strikes me that it is one thing to move a house group, which because of our distorted human hearts, is self-serving to serving others by praying for the salvation of friends and family. It is another thing to get a house group praying for the world!
Tim Chester's fellow traveller, Steve Timmis, challenged me several months ago with his pointed comments on the Resurgence blog:
Is your church doing mission for its own glory or God's? Want a cunning test to help you answer? Check out how much energy and passion (evidenced by money, prayer, interest) is invested in situations in other parts of the world for which you will get no credit.
There have been some ugly responses from Christian's to the disaster in Haiti. There have also been some pretty weak ones. Neither are likely to be much comfort to the sufferers, or convincing to those observers hearing them on the news. Gerhard O. Forde characterises the weak responses we hear most in the UK:
God is supposed to be more attractive to us because he identifies with us in our pain and suffering. "Misery loves company" becomes the unspoken motif of such theology. (p. viii, On Being a Theologian of the Cross)
As Forde points out, the reason this is so unhelpful is that Jesus is seen to be utterly passive in this theology. We follow our leader, and those who see Jesus in this way are similarly passive in their response to suffering. They have nothing to say; although they may offer to pray, they don't seem to expect God to actually do anything as a result.
The story of the Bible, from Creation to New Creation, has something much more powerful to say. It warns us that suffering is God's judgment on humanity's sin - although that does not mean that particular events are caused by particular sins of particular people. But joyfully it also tells us that God hates suffering and, because he is not passive in his hating, has gone to war against it to destroy it completely for all who share in the New Creation life of Jesus Christ.
The classic question "if God is both able and willing to prevent evil, why is there evil?" may be unanswerable from our perspective; or at least answerable only partially. But that doesn't mean the church has nothing to say. It can say that is that God is not passively waiting to be examined but has acted, is acting and will act to save his people.
Quite a short bible study. 4 verses, 20 minutes and enough follow-up questions in reserve to keep us there all day.
Since, then, you have been raised with Christ,
set your hearts on things above,
where Christ is seated at the right hand of God.
Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things.
For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.
1. What is Paul's command to the Colossians, and to us, in these verses?
2. Paul doesn't give commands without reasons. Here he gives reasons based on the past, present and future realities of our lives.
Looking at the different tenses that Paul uses, what are these realities?
Past: "You have been raised", "you died"
Present: "Christ is seated at the right hand of God", "your life is now hidden with Christ in God"
Future: "When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory"
3. Will thinking about our past, present and future, and "setting our minds on things above", make any difference to our external lives? ... answer now, or wait for next week's exciting instalment to find out.
Just Love: Why God must punish sin (currently half-price at the Good Book Co) is a good little book by Ben Cooper, formally an economics tutor at Oxford and curate of St Helen's Bishopgate, now researching a PhD on the Gospel of Matthew in Sydney.
It's written for the Christian/seeker who is seriously concerned why God must punish evil. Unfortunately I can't think of another book setting out to do the same thing, and yet it is surely one of the most important objections people have to Christianity. Does anyone know of any other books on this? Seriously, I would like suggestions.
The book is pure St Helen's Bishopgate in style and content, so your feelings about the book would probably be easily predicted by your thoughts on that particular flavour of teaching. I quite liked it. It is neither over-emotional, nor unfeeling. It is very clear, although maybe a little demanding for its intended audience. Very faithful to the Bible it was more expository than I expected, and he was always concerned to keep the cross at the centre throughout.
As criticism, I found the overall structure was a little confusing despite regular signposting, and the explanatory diagrams could do with revising as I found them quite hard to grasp. I also thought a bit more discussion on hell, particularly in a way that empathetically addressed the struggles of those who are worried about friends and relatives, would have been helpful.
The GBC should be congratulated on publishing such a helpful resource for the church. I really liked the cover too. Although if they ever reprint they should proof-read it for typos and correct the mis-numbering of the chapters which was particularly embarrassing (I'm sorry, I know that I, of all people, have no right to criticise typos).
After the introductory chapters, the argument of the book could be summarised as:
In the previous post I noted what Tim Saleska thought he saw "God doing to people in the bible". The reason he spent most of his lecture on this was because he thought that the preacher should find in God's actions the model for what he does when talking to people about God.
Tim Saleska wants us to read the bible asking: "what is God actually doing here to his people?" "What does he do to you as a reader?" And once we have answered that question, he wants us to seek to achieve the same in the people we speak to about God. So having set out what he sees God doing in the Bible he concludes that the preacher's task is:
to make people Israel. It is your job to kill the old and resurrect them to the new. We bring people into the kingdom and make the story of Israel their story; the experience of Israel their experience. So rather than thinking about the sermon in terms of Law and Gospel as content - in other words it is my responsibility to give a bunch of cognitive propositions that I can label 'law' and then move from that to a bunch of cognitive propositions and label those 'Gospel' - think of the sermon in more functional terms. What you want to actually accomplish, what you want to do, in your speaking.
... you actually want to bring them through this death and life experience. Remember as Lutherans we think of the whole Christian life as a continual death and resurrection. ... we mean that baptism was this once-for-all death and resurrection that actually plays itself out day-in-day-out in the life of a Christian. Repentance is nothing but death to the old and ... faith is the resurrection to the new. In the Christian life, one of repentance and faith, that's the experience that comes to us which is a foretaste of what is going to happen at the end of time when God comes and raises us from the death for all to see.
I made some notes on a MP3 lecture by OT lecturer Tim Saleska entitled "Interpreting Scripture in a Systematics Context". He describes the lecture as a few thoughts on what he sees God doing in the Bible. It is always interesting what people choose to highlight and what to miss out in introductory summaries, and I really liked Tim Saleska's selection.
Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 9:1 that it is "superfluous" for him to write to the Corinthian church "about the ministry for the saints", despite spending a whole 2 chapters of his letter doing just that!
But despite him using a lot of words I have often found 2 Corinthians 8-9 a little confusing because I have never quite understand how he was seeking to get the Corinthians to give to the Jerusalem church. He doesn't directly command them to give (8:8) and doesn't want to compel them (9:7) but instead he wants them to give willingly and cheerfully (9:5,7). But the route he takes to produce their cheerful giving seems strange to me.
He seems to employ a number indirect encouragements to them be generous. Firstly, he inspires/shames them by the example of the poorer Macedonian churches (the 'Northerner's' as my pastor helpfully described them). He draws a parallel between their giving and Jesus' giving of himself for them (8:9). He also explains that their giving will be an outward proof their love (8:24); stating that he confidently believes that they do already have that love (not far off the charity collectors in the city centre whose opening gambit is often "you look like you care about animals"). He then warns them that they'll be humiliated along with him if they haven't come through with the goods by the time the Macedonians arrive (9:4). But then he seems suspiciously un-trusting when he says he is sending Titus and others to check they get started immediately (9:5). Finally, he seems anticipate the American televangelists and appeals to greed when he says that if they give generously they'll "reap bountifully" as a result (9:6).
Feeling confused about this mixture of encouragements, I've been wondering if there is any underlying structure to Paul's thought on why Christians should give generously? Also, given he seems unlikely to be a believer in the prosperity gospel, I've wondered how Paul understands the harvest that Christian givers will receive? What does it consist of? Is it received now, or in the life to come?
1. The gift of giving
The first and last verses of the section give some indication of the answer to these questions. Paul explains that "the grace of God" has been "given among the churches of Macedonia" (8:1). The first act of giving that Paul mentions in this chapter is a gift given by God. If you trace the word "grace" and what God is described as giving through the two chapters you find that what has been given by God is all the elements of generosity: the caring desire (8:16), the ability to give (9:8) and the act itself (8:4-5). God is able and willing to give Christians "all things" so that they "abound in every good work" (9:8). We are "enriched in every way to be generous in every way" (9:11). God "supplies seed to the sower" so that it can be thrown away.
Paul is not just saying that God has given us money, time etc so we should be free in giving what we have been given. He is saying that these things have been given as part of the larger gift which is that of giving. Giving is not just a response to receiving good (although it is that), or a means of obtaining good (although it is that as well), it is itself a benefit to the giver (8:10). That is why the Macedonians begged "earnestly for the favour [or 'grace'] of taking part in the relief of the saints" (8:4). So while it is easy to think of giving as a either a work we do in gratitude, or as a necessary burden to bring about something good, we shouldn't view as such a poor thing.
I remember being struck when reading Martin Luther's Treatise on Good Works because of his frequent expressions of joy at just how many good works there are for us to do. I would like as few demands on me as possible, but Luther seems to find it wonderful that I will never reach the end of my to-do list:
How splendidly God shows us all good works so near at hand, in such a variety and so continuously that we need not ask for good works to do and could well forget all those works devised by men the showy, far-flung works, such as making pilgrimages. (p.180, Treatise on Good Works, in Selected Writings of Martin Luther ed. T.G. Tappert)
Luther comments that we are blind to the opportunities to do good that surround us everywhere. But if we opened our eyes we would see we could be "rich...in good works in a short time" and that opportunities to do good works "are abundantly present in all places, in all walks of life, and at all times" (p.181, ibid). If only we saw the opportunities to serve as a privilege and a treasure we had been given!
If God is so generous in his giving that means we don't stress that we can't do any good until we are in 'the place God wants me', 'a church which uses my gifts' or 'a job that fits the skills I've been given'. Neither do we need to worry that we don't have any talents that would be useful, the money to make a difference, or the words to say in that situation. We need to hear that "God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work" (8:9)! ...although, of course, if our 'concerns' were only excuses then we may be disappointed to learn they not obstacles to us giving.
In conclusion, Paul is saying firstly that we should recognise giving as a wonderful gift, and secondly, we should not worry that we will exhaust our opportunities to give by running out of money, energy or time because God will keep providing all you need to be continually giving.
2. Thanksgiving to God because of the giver
Once we sift out the references to receiving the gift of giving (and all the subsidiary gifts that entails), I found it clearer what the result of our giving is.
In the first place Paul says it is "of your righteousness" (9:10) and a "righteousness [that] endures forever" (9:9). Considering the context of the quote from Psalm 112, Paul's repeated references to the Corinthians externally proving their love, and how he and others will evaluate them by their giving, it seems Paul is talking about how the knowledge of their righteous giving will last. It is a harvest of other people's thoughts and praise - something Paul is often quite unashamed about saying we should care about. He himself is concerned that he appears "honourable [...] in the sight of man" (8:21).
But, that honour in the sight of others is only good if it is in the right context. As the Corinthians' giving is itself a gift, the right context is of thanks to God who gave the Corinthians the heart and ability to give. "Thanksgiving to God" who is the the ultimate giver, is the ultimate purpose behind giving (9:11-14). The needs of people are being met by giving, but that is not the end of the story if they then thank God for the giving they have received.
However, this God-centred desire to seeing God praised may seem to be in conflict with Paul's other concern that the Corinthians' have a good reputation. We may think of the line in the hymn which prays that "As I seek the lost to win / [...] they forget the channel / Seeing only Him", and think the Corinthians should want to be forgotten. But in Psalm 112 and 2 Corinthians seeing God as the ultimate giver is actually the only way that the channel will ever be remembered. Like all our salvation, it is united to Christ as the head that we do not become nothing but endure. Paul displays this in his relationship with Titus. You cannot come away from 2 Corinthians unaware of Paul's affection and respect for Titus. But this only serves to honour God more as Paul thanks God for him (8:16; cf. 7:6).
But it must be remembered that it is God's glory is what Paul longs for more than anything, and it is a challenge to share that passion. There are lots of good reasons to give, but like the Macedonian churches we should give ourselves "first to the Lord" and his glory, "and then by the will of God" to others (8:5).
So at the end of this rambling post I hope you can see with me that, as is so often the case, Paul's exclamation at the end of his section of thought sums up his central concerns throughout. At the end of chapters 8-9 Paul shouts with a passion I pray I can share:
"Thanks be to God for his inexpressible gift!"
[NB. My Pastor preached on 2 Corinthians 8-9 last Sunday and you can listen to his sermon. I am gladly leaning on him, as well as some conversations with friends since; but as you may be able to tell I've also been wrestling with this passage a bit myself this week so any shortcomings are probably mine. If you can see that I've got the wrong end of the stick or missed something important then please let me know.]
At Sunday School we would probably be taught to see Gideon as good guy to be imitated. You can see why, but there is also much to question about how he lived his life.
Gideon is both hero and antihero, both a man of faith and a man of fear [...]
The photograph of Gideon's soul reveals serious blemishes. At the time of his call he is dull to the spiritual condition of his people (i.e., he makes no attempt on his own to remove his family's altar to Baal), to salvation history (i.e., though a "mighty warrior" [6:12] he takes no initiative to save his people), and cynically expresses his disappointment with God (i.e., instead of viewing God's mighty acts in the past as an encouragement to faith, he interprets them as a discouragement to faith: 6:13). He evades God's call (6:15) and lacks faith in God's promises through one who who proves himself without reasonable doubt to be the angel of I AM (6:16-21, 36-40). I AM's sixfold promise to give Midian into the hand of Israel (6:36-38; 7:2, 7, 9, 14-15) contrasts with Israel's "fear" (7:3, 10). Gideon tears down his altar at night out of fear of his family (6:27). His request for a wet fleece in a dry field and then for a dry fleece in a wet field reveals his lack of faith in God's word from none other than the awesome angel of I AM (6:36-40). Ironically, he has more faith in the dream of an enemy soldier than in I AM's promise. The Midianite interpreter of the soldier's dream only repeats what God has been saying all along (7:14).
[...] he provokes the battle with the Midianites only because the spirit of I AM gripped him to do so (6:34). When Gideon crosses the Jordan, he takes extreme vengeance against fellow Israelites (8:16-17). Gideon is the first judge to turn the sword against his compatriots. In the Transjordan campaign instead of mentioning God, he is bent on revenge, torturing the elders at Succoth and pulling down the tower at Peniel, killing the men (8:16-17). He kills the Midianite kings as revenge for his brothers, not for any other reason (8:19). When he is contended against, he handles it with diplomacy (8:1-3; cf. 6:30-32), but when he is the contender, he tears down and kills (8:17).
[...]Gideon's refusal to be Israel's ruler is ambiguous (8:22). In chapter 24 I argue that his statement is so much poppycock and does not express the author's evaluative point of view. In any case, he leads the nation back into idolatry by using the plunder of gold to make an ephod, a divining instrument, instead of keeping covenant with I AM out of faith in God (8:22-32).
Through this antiheroic-heroic warlord, I AM brings both grace (deliverance from Midian( and judgment (death to the Transjordan cities for their neutrality in the war and to the Ephraimites for their pride). Remarkably, the New Testament remembers only Gideon's faith - meager as it is - and holds him up as an example of faith to the church (Heb. 11:32).
(pp. 602-603, Bruce K Waltke, An Old Testament Theology)
In my daily Bible reading the plan is taking me through Judges. This morning, immediately after reading about Gideon's torture of the elders of Succoth and then his killing of the men of Penuel, my plan took me to Luke 23:13-43. The brutal ripping me out of one context and plonking me in another sometimes frustrates me about Bible reading plans, but today the juxtaposition was wonderful. The passage in Luke begins:
Pilate then called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people, and said to them, "You brought me this man as one who was misleading the people. And after examining him before you, behold, I did not find this man guilty of any of your charges against him. Neither did Herod, for he sent him back to us. Look, nothing deserving death has been done by him [...] what evil has he done? I have found in him no guilt deserving death.
The comparison is stark. It may be clichéd, but its also wonderfully true, the human leaders God rose up in the OT were deeply flawed. As well as good, they often did great evil. Even when much of what they did could be justified to some degree, their enemies would always have found something to say against them. However, the Gospels make clear that not one charge could be brought against Jesus!
He is a good king to have.
Listening to: Blue Roses on Myspace
Dave Bish and Tom Price have both posted brief thoughts on reason/logic. The reasonable and logical thing for me to be doing right now is to be studying law, so I'll have to be brief myself, but while agreeing that there is an important place for reason and logic I think there are two reasons (flowing from my faith which has priority) we should be a little suspicious of them:
1. Our old heart (the source of our reason) invents, borrows and distorts logic and concepts to make reality seem to fit our desires. You cannot reshape that distorted reason with more reason. It requires a changing of the heart from which our reason flows. We need to put to death our old hearts and at the same time break with our reason which grew from it. All of Christian life is killing the independent self-serving person and making alive the dependant and self-giving person. That includes reason.
2. Our old world (the data of our reason) is what we know by our senses. But we are caught between the times. Things are not what they appear. What we think is alive is dead, what looks weak is strong and what we reason to be bad is good. If reason is working with the wrong data, it can be the enemy of truth. If I am using 1997 polling results to predict the upcoming general election, thinking they are up-to-date, then I will hinder rather than help understanding of the true situation. Most people when they think of reason are thinking of reasoning-from-the-old-world. If that is what they think reason is then we have to talk about the limits of reason, or even of going against reason. But if we are able to redefine reason to take into account how we are caught between two worlds then we would not have to talk that way - but that requires a paradigm shift.
Following from those two thoughts, it is clear that 'reason' can be positive or negative; it depends on the source shaping it, and the data it is working with. But we should be suspicious and let it be judged by the written, spoken and sacramental word (i.e. the Bible, our church, and the sacraments). We are in no place to evaluate our reason, because we'll be using our reason to do so. It would be letting the accused bank robber be prosecutor, witness, and judge in his own case.
Sorry, those are not very coherent thoughts, but I must get back to the cold hard reality of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. I think its a particularly difficult topic because everyone means something different by 'faith' and 'reason'. Perhaps every bit of writing on the subject should start by defining terms.
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures
But which Scriptures? Initially I could only think of Jonah, but Craig Blomberg (p. 296, 1 Corinthians (NIVAC)) is helpful:
It is less clear which Scriptures point to the resurrection on the third day. Perhaps [although CK Barrett says the Greek does not suggest this] Paul meant only that the Scriptures testified to Christ's resurrection, with passages like Psalms 16:8-11 and 110:1-4 in view (cf. Acts 2:24-36). In that case, "according to the Scriptures" would modify only the verb "raised" and not the phrase "on the third day." But he may also have found some typological significance in the third-day references to God's vindication of his people in such texts as Genesis 42:18. Exodus 19:16, Joshua 2:22, Ezra 8:32, Esther 5:1, Jonah 1:17 (cf. Matt. 12:40), and especially Hosea 6:2.
In a footnote he says that B. de Margerie "demonstrates how the ancient rabbis linked such texts together in an early midrash on Genesis 22:4", which itself may also be a text that Paul had in mind.
I have also heard Mike Reeves mention Genesis 1:11-13 where on the third day the earth brings forth vegetation (life). That seems a plausible text given Jesus' own prediction of his death and resurrection in John 12:24 ("unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit").
UPDATE: As Dave Bish pointed out, Mike Reeves (and others, e.g. Barnabas Lindars), also see a convincing connection between 1 Corinthians 15 and Leviticus 23. In Leviticus 23:9-14 the Israelites are instructed to bring the firstfruits of the harvest to the priest to be waved "the day after the Sabbath", the same day as Jesus rose from the dead as the "firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep" (1 Corinthians 15:20-23).
Listening to: Martha Wainwright: Sans Fusils, Ni Souliers, A Paris. Martha Wainwright's Piaf Record
Looking back on 2009 and my reading, I have three convictions. Firstly, I have not read enough of the Bible itself despite making time to read lots of Christian books. Secondly, I have not read many Biblical Studies. Thirdly, I have not read many books that are not Christian.
I feel the third one pretty keenly because I've now been living for over a year with Christians and without a TV and I'm feeling increasingly cut off from our culture. That may just be because I'm getting old, but I'm sure reading only theology/law books and living with Christians doesn't help.
Anyway, just over a year ago I asked for some recommendations of books to read. I read one and a bit books that Steve recommended. I read one that Glen recommended, and two from other authors he mentioned (but not the specific books he suggested). Belatedly I'm currently reading a book by David Wells I bought months ago because he was recommended by Peter (although I'm reading The Courage to be Protestant which apparently covers the same stuff as the book Peter actually recommended but in a briefer way). Somehow I thought I'd read a recommendation of Chris, but looking back now I actually didn't - I just bought one of the books and didn't read it! Anyway, if people want to recommend any non-Christian books (fiction or non-fiction) I should read, then I'm listening. Just don't suggest anything too long. I have a short attention span, and don't like to have forgotten the beginning by the time I get to the end. I'm currently thinking of reading The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That Have Shaped Our World View by Richard Tarnas, Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, and Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman. But please feel free to suggest something more fun!
So... any thoughts?
Listening to: Andrew Bird: Noble Beasts
We're starting a New Year and so for many people its time to restart that Bible reading plan, or at least resolve to try and read the Bible more regularly. But more important than just reading the Bible is how we do it, or what use we make of it. I often come to reading the Bible with no aim whatsoever - more fool me. We should ask "what is the Bible for?" Here are three possible answers:
1. To bring Christ to us - the Christological use of Scripture
Jesus Christ, crucified and risen, is the content and theme of the Scriptures. It is all about him. So when we read the Bible we should be expecting to meet him in its pages. Of course it tells us how to live our life, it tells us about the religious customs of the Ancient Near East, it gives us words to express some of our deepest emotions, and all-sorts. But that is all with one aim - to drive us to Jesus Christ, his death and resurrection for us.
When I read my daily Bible reading I want to look to Christ. I don't want to look at the knowledge that I gain in by studying it. I also don't want to look at myself piously using my time to read it.
I love Dave Bish's little video of Mike Reeves on this.
I want to to be transfixed by Jesus this year through reading my Bible. To know Christ, and his work, better.
2. To be proclaimed - the Centrifugal use of Scripture
Luther apparently said that "The church is not a pen-house but a mouth-house". By which he meant that the church is not meant to be studying Scripture but proclaiming it. So we are not Gnostics, reading the Bible to gain secret knowledge for ourselves. We are to declare its content (Christ) to our brothers and sisters in the church, and to those we know who are not yet Christians. When we read Scripture we should be thinking: "What does this have to say to Jack struggling with motivation in his job?" "What relevance does Christ declared here have to Jill who finds a God who sends people to hell intolerable?" "What does the passage I have read have to say to the culture I live in?" We should then take what we have heard in the Scripture and share it with people. Like the Jews, we have been "entrusted with the oracles of God" (Rom 3:2), but entrusted with them in order to declare them to the world. We receive Christ through the Scriptures, but that is a gift for us to pass on.
I want to see my friends and family change by my reading of the Bible this year. To see some turn to Jesus, and others be built up by the truth of the Gospel.
3. To be applied - the Centripetal use of Scripture
Last year I often thought about Bonhoeffer's observation that American Christianity was "Protestantism without Reformation". In context he meant that American Christians hadn't understood that "God's 'criticism' touches even religion". So it is not "us and them" (i.e. the Church and the World) because we too are still sinners. The Church is still sinful, and we need the Gospel as much as the world. As Solzhenitsyn famously said "the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart". The condemnation of the "law" and the encouragement of the Gospel is for us.
The "them" who we imagine "need to hear this" is not just our contemporaries either. Practically, I often sense that we are particularly poor at applying the Scripture to ourselves when reading the OT. We often read the OT condemnations against the faithlessness of Israel, as against either non-Christians, or worse as merely historical fact. Instead we should read the OT like the Apostles who saw Israel as the Church - which means both the condemnations and the promises that they heard belong to us too.
So we should always be asking questions like: "what does this say to our church?" "where am I in this parable?" "what is the appropriate response for me to make to this passage?"
I want to be changed by my reading of the Bible this year. To put to death sin, and rejoice in what I have been given.
The first use is the primary one, and in a way contains the other two. But if we don't use the Bible Centrifugally we become hermits and if we don't use it Centripetally we become self-righteous. I fear I often don't use it in any of the three ways, but I pray 2010 will be different.
[Inspired/plagiarised from Leo Sanchez's lecture 'Uses of Scripture' in the Lutheranmind series]
