I like Ruth Gledhill's style. She writes it as she sees it. When commenters blow a gasket (examples at end of post noted below) Ruth responds civilly and with reasoned arguments justifying her approach to an issue.
Like a number of journalists she is on the case of "Bishop" Richard Williamson, unrecognised as a bishop by the Vatican but recently recommunicated by them to a chorus of condemnation by the world and its dog since just about any Catholic who matters seems to have known he was a Holocaust denier, except for Benedict XVI himself.
In this post Ruth lines up like ducks at a fair other follies of the Catholic hierarchy.
Her point, in my view, is not so much that the Roman Catholic church is fallible as that all churches are fallible, including those that often carry off the impression that they are not! I would like to think that the Anglican Communion takes some heart - not from the troubles of others but that it is not alone in having troubles!
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
OK. So Rowan's a bit of a hero figure on this blog
"In Rowan’s Rule, Shortt sets out to provide Rowan’s critics with a true measure of the man, attempting to relate both the substance of his thought and the story of his life. Shortt is that rarest of breeds—a religion journalist who knows what he is talking about—and he succeeds brilliantly in his project, showing both that Williams is well worth listening to and that many of his critics may not have listened to him closely enough.
From the right, Williams has come under heavy fire for his supposed theological liberalism and typically Anglican wishy-washiness. To a certain extent, such criticisms are unavoidable. Williams is in fact in favor of women’s ordination, his revisionist position on same-sex relations is on record, and his understanding of Scripture has drawn objections from many, not only evangelicals. If that were the end of the story, Williams would seem to be no more than a conventional liberal, along the lines of the average Episcopal bishop. But as Shortt shows, nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, Williams is best viewed as part of the rebellion against the rebellion of the 1970s, working alongside his colleagues Oliver O’Donovan and N.T. Wright to bring the Church of England away from the arid liberalism of Honest to God and Don Cupitt and back to its roots in Word and sacrament, prayer and worship, tradition and Nicene-Chalcedonian orthodoxy. While many of his professors busied themselves with demythologizing the gospels and re-presenting Christian doctrine as anthropology, Williams insisted that Christianity at its core is answerable to God’s initiative, and most particularly so in the unique revelation of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.
Very much against the grain of British academic theology of the day, Williams’ first book, The Wound of Knowledge, showed through relating the history of Christian spirituality that “the theologian,” as the fourth-century monk Evagrius said, “is the one who prays”—which is to say that theology must always grow out of the encounter in worship and prayer with the surprising and extra nos Word of Christ, rather than taking its agenda from modernity. And in his second book, Resurrection, Williams showed that the church’s message of forgiveness and new life rests entirely on its real encounter with the risen Christ, who unexpectedly returned to his disciples from beyond the grave."
An excerpt from a lovely, honest, careful review by Jordan Hylden of Shortt's recently published biography of Rowan Williams, Rowan's Rule.
From the right, Williams has come under heavy fire for his supposed theological liberalism and typically Anglican wishy-washiness. To a certain extent, such criticisms are unavoidable. Williams is in fact in favor of women’s ordination, his revisionist position on same-sex relations is on record, and his understanding of Scripture has drawn objections from many, not only evangelicals. If that were the end of the story, Williams would seem to be no more than a conventional liberal, along the lines of the average Episcopal bishop. But as Shortt shows, nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, Williams is best viewed as part of the rebellion against the rebellion of the 1970s, working alongside his colleagues Oliver O’Donovan and N.T. Wright to bring the Church of England away from the arid liberalism of Honest to God and Don Cupitt and back to its roots in Word and sacrament, prayer and worship, tradition and Nicene-Chalcedonian orthodoxy. While many of his professors busied themselves with demythologizing the gospels and re-presenting Christian doctrine as anthropology, Williams insisted that Christianity at its core is answerable to God’s initiative, and most particularly so in the unique revelation of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.
Very much against the grain of British academic theology of the day, Williams’ first book, The Wound of Knowledge, showed through relating the history of Christian spirituality that “the theologian,” as the fourth-century monk Evagrius said, “is the one who prays”—which is to say that theology must always grow out of the encounter in worship and prayer with the surprising and extra nos Word of Christ, rather than taking its agenda from modernity. And in his second book, Resurrection, Williams showed that the church’s message of forgiveness and new life rests entirely on its real encounter with the risen Christ, who unexpectedly returned to his disciples from beyond the grave."
An excerpt from a lovely, honest, careful review by Jordan Hylden of Shortt's recently published biography of Rowan Williams, Rowan's Rule.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Approaching Ash Wednesday
Jesus calls us to follow him. It’s one of his few commands repeated in all four gospels (Matthew 4:19; Mark 1:17; Luke 5:27; John 1:43). Christians are followers, that is disciples of Jesus. Being a disciple is a demanding calling as Jesus also commanded that his followers mimic him by taking up their own crosses (Mark 8:34). The details of what the way of the cross will be for one disciple will differ from another (this is a lesson from John 21), but for all disciples the way of the cross is costly. In order to face up to that cost we are invited to keep attentive to the example of Jesus. So that we might be strengthened in our determination to be faithful we are instructed to consider Jesus and his cross (Hebrews 12:1-3). The seasons of the church’s year assist us in being attentive to Jesus. Christmas, for example, draws our eyes to the wonder of the baby Jesus - God becoming human flesh in the humble vulnerability of a tiny child.
Looming fast on the calendar as you receive this Witness are the seasons of Lent, Holy Week and Easter, each drawing our gaze to Jesus and deepening our devotion and love for him. These seasons are particularly intensive in directing us to Jesus and the cross. The forty days of Lent, beginning with Ash Wednesday and ending with Palm Sunday, are our opportunity to imaginatively walk with Jesus on his journey from Galilee to Jerusalem – a journey which he knew would end in death, yet which he deliberately chose to begin and to complete. In real time this journey of Jesus took longer than 40 days, but 40 Lenten days for us resonates with biblical times of testing through journeys: Noah and the Ark, Israel in the Wilderness, and Jesus in the Desert.
When we engage with the season of Lent we signal to ourselves and to God that we are seeking to better understand the sacrifice Jesus made through his death on the cross. This sacrifice was not being the unfortunate and accidental victim of a violent regime, but the sacrifice of submitting his own will to that of the Father, knowing that this would mean denial of self to the point of suffering violent death. Giving up chocolates or alcohol for Lent is a good thing, symbolising our resolve to deny self for the sake of Christ. But the point of Lent is embracing discipleship which goes beyond denial to death. Only through death to self can the life of Christ fill us completely (Ephesians 3:19).
The life of Christ is able to fill us because his sacrificial death on the cross achieved something for us which no amount of sacrifice through denial and death can achieve. In the simplest terms, ‘Christ died for our sins’ (1 Corinthians 15:3). From the first human beings through to each reader of the Witness, our wrong-doing has broken communion between God and humanity. On the cross Jesus Christ took our culpability for that wrong-doing, made it his own, and repaired the broken communion. ‘Christ was innocent of sin, and yet for our sake God made him one with human sinfulness, so that in him we might be made one with the righteousness of God’ (2 Corinthians 5:21).
Thus the journey through Lent with Jesus is more than a poignant engagement with his resolve to suffer for our sakes. It is a journey to the cross where the single most transformative event in human history takes place. We deepen our attention and commitment to this Jesus – the unique Saviour of the World – as we enter imaginatively into the final week of Jesus’ life, the week we know as Holy Week. Palm Sunday is the turning point between Lent and Holy Week. Geographically Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem ends with his entry on a donkey into the Holy City, but emotionally and physically Jesus’ journey to the cross takes on new intensity. On Maundy Thursday we relive Jesus ‘Longest Night’, beginning with re-enactment of his Last Supper. On Good Friday we watch again from the foot of the cross as Jesus dies for us. Since each gospel provides detailed accounts of the last twenty-four hours of Jesus’ life there is plenty of material to give content to our services of reflection and prayer on Good Friday.
By 3 pm on the day of Jesus’ crucifixion he was dead. A great pause then enters the reflective journey with Jesus which has begun at Ash Wednesday. Jesus is taken down from the cross and buried in a tomb. The next day in our calendar is known as Holy Saturday. There are no stories told in any of the gospels about the events of this day though there are hints that the disciples kept themselves well out of sight of the authorities in Jerusalem. The body of Jesus lay alone in the tomb. All was quiet with the world.
By contrast the Day of Resurrection, Easter Sunday, bursts with energy: a moving tombstone, angels, and people approaching and leaving the tomb signal a great commotion! It is right to make a joyful noise to the Lord in our celebrations on Easter Day, for the tomb is empty. The Lord is risen – He is risen indeed!! In the season of Easter which follows we celebrate the many facets of the resurrection of Jesus: victory over sin and the devil, vindication of Jesus as the Son of Man, exaltation to the right hand of God in power, vanquishing of the power of death over humanity, but mostly we celebrate the fact that Jesus is alive.
To follow Jesus is not to follow a sad, long dead man. It is to walk with the One who draws alongside us, opens God’s Word to us and is known to us in the Breaking of the Bread (see Luke 24:13-35). Our journey through Ash Wednesday, Lent and Holy Week reminds us of the cost of discipleship. Through Easter we are reminded of the joy of following Jesus. Our attention to Jesus through these seasons of the church’s year is underlined in these words: “looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross” (Hebrews 12:2).
(Also appearing in this month's Witness - the bi-monthly magazine of the Diocese of Nelson).
Looming fast on the calendar as you receive this Witness are the seasons of Lent, Holy Week and Easter, each drawing our gaze to Jesus and deepening our devotion and love for him. These seasons are particularly intensive in directing us to Jesus and the cross. The forty days of Lent, beginning with Ash Wednesday and ending with Palm Sunday, are our opportunity to imaginatively walk with Jesus on his journey from Galilee to Jerusalem – a journey which he knew would end in death, yet which he deliberately chose to begin and to complete. In real time this journey of Jesus took longer than 40 days, but 40 Lenten days for us resonates with biblical times of testing through journeys: Noah and the Ark, Israel in the Wilderness, and Jesus in the Desert.
When we engage with the season of Lent we signal to ourselves and to God that we are seeking to better understand the sacrifice Jesus made through his death on the cross. This sacrifice was not being the unfortunate and accidental victim of a violent regime, but the sacrifice of submitting his own will to that of the Father, knowing that this would mean denial of self to the point of suffering violent death. Giving up chocolates or alcohol for Lent is a good thing, symbolising our resolve to deny self for the sake of Christ. But the point of Lent is embracing discipleship which goes beyond denial to death. Only through death to self can the life of Christ fill us completely (Ephesians 3:19).
The life of Christ is able to fill us because his sacrificial death on the cross achieved something for us which no amount of sacrifice through denial and death can achieve. In the simplest terms, ‘Christ died for our sins’ (1 Corinthians 15:3). From the first human beings through to each reader of the Witness, our wrong-doing has broken communion between God and humanity. On the cross Jesus Christ took our culpability for that wrong-doing, made it his own, and repaired the broken communion. ‘Christ was innocent of sin, and yet for our sake God made him one with human sinfulness, so that in him we might be made one with the righteousness of God’ (2 Corinthians 5:21).
Thus the journey through Lent with Jesus is more than a poignant engagement with his resolve to suffer for our sakes. It is a journey to the cross where the single most transformative event in human history takes place. We deepen our attention and commitment to this Jesus – the unique Saviour of the World – as we enter imaginatively into the final week of Jesus’ life, the week we know as Holy Week. Palm Sunday is the turning point between Lent and Holy Week. Geographically Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem ends with his entry on a donkey into the Holy City, but emotionally and physically Jesus’ journey to the cross takes on new intensity. On Maundy Thursday we relive Jesus ‘Longest Night’, beginning with re-enactment of his Last Supper. On Good Friday we watch again from the foot of the cross as Jesus dies for us. Since each gospel provides detailed accounts of the last twenty-four hours of Jesus’ life there is plenty of material to give content to our services of reflection and prayer on Good Friday.
By 3 pm on the day of Jesus’ crucifixion he was dead. A great pause then enters the reflective journey with Jesus which has begun at Ash Wednesday. Jesus is taken down from the cross and buried in a tomb. The next day in our calendar is known as Holy Saturday. There are no stories told in any of the gospels about the events of this day though there are hints that the disciples kept themselves well out of sight of the authorities in Jerusalem. The body of Jesus lay alone in the tomb. All was quiet with the world.
By contrast the Day of Resurrection, Easter Sunday, bursts with energy: a moving tombstone, angels, and people approaching and leaving the tomb signal a great commotion! It is right to make a joyful noise to the Lord in our celebrations on Easter Day, for the tomb is empty. The Lord is risen – He is risen indeed!! In the season of Easter which follows we celebrate the many facets of the resurrection of Jesus: victory over sin and the devil, vindication of Jesus as the Son of Man, exaltation to the right hand of God in power, vanquishing of the power of death over humanity, but mostly we celebrate the fact that Jesus is alive.
To follow Jesus is not to follow a sad, long dead man. It is to walk with the One who draws alongside us, opens God’s Word to us and is known to us in the Breaking of the Bread (see Luke 24:13-35). Our journey through Ash Wednesday, Lent and Holy Week reminds us of the cost of discipleship. Through Easter we are reminded of the joy of following Jesus. Our attention to Jesus through these seasons of the church’s year is underlined in these words: “looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross” (Hebrews 12:2).
(Also appearing in this month's Witness - the bi-monthly magazine of the Diocese of Nelson).
Monday, February 23, 2009
If the church is to grow, it must teach the whole counsel of God
I have a theory about church growth. According to this theory, the breadth of the content of the preaching will be a significant factor in the height to which growth will attain. Have only one sermon, preach it winsomely, but preach it every week, your church will grow. A little bit, and then it will stop growing. It won’t matter if the sermon is an evangelistic message, a social justice manifesto, a paean of praise to the Virgin Mary, the outcome will be the same. A few fall into this trap of, no matter the lectionary passage, the festival, or the hour of the day, preaching the same sermon week in week out. Some ministers offer more variety. But on closer examination, each sermon espouses some aspect of a narrowly conceived “-ism” which falls short of the whole counsel of God. It might be Pentecostalism or socialism; evangelism or creationism (see post below): it does not matter what the “-ism”, there will be a brake on growth (according to my theory).
I have some evidence for the truth of my theory. Do you have some to share?
Recently I heard a sermon which nicely illustrated the difficulty of a narrow theological scheme for preaching. It failed to offer the whole counsel of God on the matter it sought to address. It generated considerable opposition (from fair minded, Bible minded mature Christians). By failing to offer the whole counsel of God on the matter the sermon’s logic became, ‘Shape up or ship out’ rather than ‘Shape up, or, if not prepared to do so, work together within the church’s system to find an alternative solution’. Hopefully hearers will not ship out because of this particular occasion. But such sermons can have their consequences, especially when they constitute the whole diet of preaching in a church. Shipping out is a growth limiting constraint!!
Positively, as I think about some growing churches I know a few things about, the preaching has been varied, ranging across the whole counsel of God, and not limited to one recurring theme or confined within an “-ism”.
These are difficult days, the days of post-modern life, for the church of God. We are beset and besought on all sides by the challenges of secularism, atheism, Islamism, consumerism, and general religious torpor. Why add to our difficulties by generating them from within our ranks through a narrow conception of the truth of God?
I have some evidence for the truth of my theory. Do you have some to share?
Recently I heard a sermon which nicely illustrated the difficulty of a narrow theological scheme for preaching. It failed to offer the whole counsel of God on the matter it sought to address. It generated considerable opposition (from fair minded, Bible minded mature Christians). By failing to offer the whole counsel of God on the matter the sermon’s logic became, ‘Shape up or ship out’ rather than ‘Shape up, or, if not prepared to do so, work together within the church’s system to find an alternative solution’. Hopefully hearers will not ship out because of this particular occasion. But such sermons can have their consequences, especially when they constitute the whole diet of preaching in a church. Shipping out is a growth limiting constraint!!
Positively, as I think about some growing churches I know a few things about, the preaching has been varied, ranging across the whole counsel of God, and not limited to one recurring theme or confined within an “-ism”.
These are difficult days, the days of post-modern life, for the church of God. We are beset and besought on all sides by the challenges of secularism, atheism, Islamism, consumerism, and general religious torpor. Why add to our difficulties by generating them from within our ranks through a narrow conception of the truth of God?
Thursday, February 19, 2009
If evangelism is to succeed, creationism must die
The proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ is the proclamation of public truth claims about the nature and purpose of the work and person of Jesus Christ. These claims are neither magic nor hocus-pocus nor mystical mush. They are open to rational enquiry, historical and scientific investigation. They may be discussed by philosophers and made subjects worthy of university research.
But some Christians - quite a considerable number in places such as the United States of America - also believe in 'creationism' or 'creation science'. Creationism involves claims that the reality of the beginning of life is closer to a literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2, framed against the chronology of Genesis 4 onwards, than to the scientific discoveries of biology, geology, and cosmology. Thus creationism proposes that the earth (and universe) is young (around 6000 to 10000 years old), and that the first human beings had no biological ancestors. In support of these claims some scientific evidence is advanced. But this evidence is generally not accepted in the broader world of science. Nor are proponents of creationism generally accepting of the evidentially-based conclusions of the broader world of science. Thus creationism involves closure to the normal processes of rational enquiry, and historical and scientific investigation. The potential for creationist Christianity to lead Christianity into a religious cul-de-sac where all sects and cults reside is considerable. In that cul-de-sac there is no evangelism as understood in the New Testament ('Go into all the world'), there is only a furtive gathering up of fugitives from the real world. If evangelism is to succeed, creationism must die.
The case for the fact of evolution is excellently put by Richard Dawkins in an article lauding the publication of a book on evolution by a fellow scientist. Here's an excerpt:
"How can you say that evolution is “true”? Isn’t that just your opinion, of no more value than anybody else’s? Isn’t every view entitled to equal “respect”? Maybe so where the issue is one of, say, musical taste or political judgement. But when it is a matter of scientific fact? Unfortunately, scientists do receive such relativistic protests when they dare to claim that something is factually true in the real world. Given the title of Jerry Coyne’s book, this is a distraction that I must deal with.
A scientist arrogantly asserts that thunder is not the triumphal sound of God’s balls banging together, nor is it Thor’s hammer. It is, instead, the reverberating echoes from the electrical discharges that we see as lightning. Poetic (or at least stirring) as those tribal myths may be, they are not actually true.
But now a certain kind of anthropologist can be relied on to jump up and say something like the following: Who are you to elevate scientific “truth” so? The tribal beliefs are true in the sense that they hang together in a meshwork of consistency with the rest of the tribe’s world view. Scientific “truth” is only one kind (“Western” truth, the anthropologist may call it, or even “patriarchal”). Like tribal truths, yours merely hang together with the world view that you happen to hold, which you call scientific. An extreme version of this viewpoint (I have actually encountered this) goes so far as to say that logic and evidence themselves are nothing more than instruments of masculine oppression over the “intuitive mind”.
Listen, anthropologist. Just as you entrust your travel to a Boeing 747 rather than a magic carpet or a broomstick; just as you take your tumour to the best surgeon available, rather than a shaman or a mundu mugu, so you will find that the scientific version of truth works. You can use it to navigate through the real world. Science predicts, with complete certainty unless the end of the world intervenes, that the city of Shanghai will experience a total eclipse of the sun on July 22, 2009. Theories about the moon god devouring the sun god may be poetic, and they may cohere with other aspects of a tribe’s world view, but they won’t predict the date, time and place of an eclipse. Science will, and with an accuracy you could set your watch by. Science gets you to the moon and back. Even if we bend over backwards to concede that scientific truth is no more than that which enables you to pilot your way reliably, safely and predictably around the real universe, it is in exactly this sense that – at the very least – evolution is true. Evolutionary theory pilots us around biology reliably and predictively, with a detailed and unblemished success that rivals anything in science. The least you can say about evolutionary theory is that it works. All but pedants would go further and assert that it is true."
Read it all here. New Zealand even gets a mention twice (once explicitly, once by implication).
But some Christians - quite a considerable number in places such as the United States of America - also believe in 'creationism' or 'creation science'. Creationism involves claims that the reality of the beginning of life is closer to a literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2, framed against the chronology of Genesis 4 onwards, than to the scientific discoveries of biology, geology, and cosmology. Thus creationism proposes that the earth (and universe) is young (around 6000 to 10000 years old), and that the first human beings had no biological ancestors. In support of these claims some scientific evidence is advanced. But this evidence is generally not accepted in the broader world of science. Nor are proponents of creationism generally accepting of the evidentially-based conclusions of the broader world of science. Thus creationism involves closure to the normal processes of rational enquiry, and historical and scientific investigation. The potential for creationist Christianity to lead Christianity into a religious cul-de-sac where all sects and cults reside is considerable. In that cul-de-sac there is no evangelism as understood in the New Testament ('Go into all the world'), there is only a furtive gathering up of fugitives from the real world. If evangelism is to succeed, creationism must die.
The case for the fact of evolution is excellently put by Richard Dawkins in an article lauding the publication of a book on evolution by a fellow scientist. Here's an excerpt:
"How can you say that evolution is “true”? Isn’t that just your opinion, of no more value than anybody else’s? Isn’t every view entitled to equal “respect”? Maybe so where the issue is one of, say, musical taste or political judgement. But when it is a matter of scientific fact? Unfortunately, scientists do receive such relativistic protests when they dare to claim that something is factually true in the real world. Given the title of Jerry Coyne’s book, this is a distraction that I must deal with.
A scientist arrogantly asserts that thunder is not the triumphal sound of God’s balls banging together, nor is it Thor’s hammer. It is, instead, the reverberating echoes from the electrical discharges that we see as lightning. Poetic (or at least stirring) as those tribal myths may be, they are not actually true.
But now a certain kind of anthropologist can be relied on to jump up and say something like the following: Who are you to elevate scientific “truth” so? The tribal beliefs are true in the sense that they hang together in a meshwork of consistency with the rest of the tribe’s world view. Scientific “truth” is only one kind (“Western” truth, the anthropologist may call it, or even “patriarchal”). Like tribal truths, yours merely hang together with the world view that you happen to hold, which you call scientific. An extreme version of this viewpoint (I have actually encountered this) goes so far as to say that logic and evidence themselves are nothing more than instruments of masculine oppression over the “intuitive mind”.
Listen, anthropologist. Just as you entrust your travel to a Boeing 747 rather than a magic carpet or a broomstick; just as you take your tumour to the best surgeon available, rather than a shaman or a mundu mugu, so you will find that the scientific version of truth works. You can use it to navigate through the real world. Science predicts, with complete certainty unless the end of the world intervenes, that the city of Shanghai will experience a total eclipse of the sun on July 22, 2009. Theories about the moon god devouring the sun god may be poetic, and they may cohere with other aspects of a tribe’s world view, but they won’t predict the date, time and place of an eclipse. Science will, and with an accuracy you could set your watch by. Science gets you to the moon and back. Even if we bend over backwards to concede that scientific truth is no more than that which enables you to pilot your way reliably, safely and predictably around the real universe, it is in exactly this sense that – at the very least – evolution is true. Evolutionary theory pilots us around biology reliably and predictively, with a detailed and unblemished success that rivals anything in science. The least you can say about evolutionary theory is that it works. All but pedants would go further and assert that it is true."
Read it all here. New Zealand even gets a mention twice (once explicitly, once by implication).
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Scripture is the book of truth authorised by Jesus Christ (?)
A commenter (Rhys) on an earlier post about Jesus and Scripture asks, “does ‘the book of truth authorized by Jesus Christ’ hint sufficiently at the dynamic quality you want?”
Perhaps not. A book, for example, is not as dynamic as, say, a ‘vision’ or ‘manifesto’. Yet Scripture is a book, and I am loathe to give away the concept of truth, static though it may seem in post-modernist shaped contexts. Grace and truth come from Jesus Christ, as John the Evangelist tells us (John 1:17). Of course for the Evangelist ‘truth’ is dynamic in the sense that it has power to lead to belief which leads to eternal life, even when written down (20:31). And, maybe ‘authorised’ sounds a bit heavy.
Perhaps then I could say, ‘Scripture is life-giving truth, communicated through Jesus Christ’.
What do you think?
Perhaps not. A book, for example, is not as dynamic as, say, a ‘vision’ or ‘manifesto’. Yet Scripture is a book, and I am loathe to give away the concept of truth, static though it may seem in post-modernist shaped contexts. Grace and truth come from Jesus Christ, as John the Evangelist tells us (John 1:17). Of course for the Evangelist ‘truth’ is dynamic in the sense that it has power to lead to belief which leads to eternal life, even when written down (20:31). And, maybe ‘authorised’ sounds a bit heavy.
Perhaps then I could say, ‘Scripture is life-giving truth, communicated through Jesus Christ’.
What do you think?
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Good to go
He's off. Bishop Richard is on his/our 40 Day Walk around the Diocese of Nelson. Walking is good for the body and thus good for the soul. (That's my profound conclusion after walking for about 45 minutes this morning with His Nibs).
Importantly, I think this walk is going to be good for the Diocese. Intimate conversations spring up on walks, and the Bishop will be a captive audience for those who make the effort to walk alongside him. Relationships will deepen with people in the diocese.
A walk like this is also a reminder that the gospel is the gospel of the kingdom (the world everywhere under God's rule) and not the gospel of the church. Bishop Richard is the church walking in the world and not the church expecting the world to walk in the door.
Read a Nelson Mail news story here - keep up with Bishop Richard's blog (link on RHS of this page).
Importantly, I think this walk is going to be good for the Diocese. Intimate conversations spring up on walks, and the Bishop will be a captive audience for those who make the effort to walk alongside him. Relationships will deepen with people in the diocese.
A walk like this is also a reminder that the gospel is the gospel of the kingdom (the world everywhere under God's rule) and not the gospel of the church. Bishop Richard is the church walking in the world and not the church expecting the world to walk in the door.
Read a Nelson Mail news story here - keep up with Bishop Richard's blog (link on RHS of this page).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)