Taking a break

After much thought and prayer, I've decided to take a break from blogging. I'll keep up with your blogs and I'll post again in about 8 weeks or so. Au revoir and God bless, Rachel. :)


Monday afternoon:

Yeah - right Rach - like YOU can shut up for five minutes!!

Here in the love of Christ I stand - this solid ground in all the ups and downs

That was the week that was

This week has been a strange mixture of different things, nearly all of them good, some of them causing some reflection, some a little concern.

At the beginning of half term week, after a very lazy start, we decided to give our two girls a room to share, which means we have gained an office, which is great. However, it took three days, not just the afternoon we expected.

They now have the company of one another which I so loved growing up, sharing with my sister, with whom I'm still very close.

This morning, which was beautifully sunny, was spent delivering holiday club minis (for the under 5s) on Joseph. It was my last holiday club at St Nick's, which feels strange. I have really enjoyed this work but it is time to pass this responsibility on for fresh ideas and energy and I so hope it brings the next leader as close to God as it brought me. Of course, God reaches us all in different ways but there was something very special about the timing of my picking up of this responsibility a few years ago because it was simultaneous with my spiritual reawakening and being involved in this ministry was really nourishing.

This afternoon, we found out my husband has a hole in his heart so he will see a cardiologist. It is probably nothing to worry about but feels a bit daunting, nevertheless.

So life is something of a roller-coaster and we are not really in control, God is. This is what we shared this morning as we looked at Joseph's life. We had a lot of fun, pretending we were on a rollercoaster, using this excellent animation, projected onto a screen.

God is in control. Sometimes it all seems to move very slowly, frustratingly so, sometimes it's all too quick and can, quite frankly, leave you a bit dizzy, as I have felt of late with the journey to the selection conference, which seems to be coming up very quickly, but it's all about trusting that he will bring you safely home to rest in the end.

I hope and trust that this family will be okay. There are a lot of things we have no control over. My husband is between contracts, in effect, he is out of work. I am not in paid employment either because of college. We can not control our health and we are not quite sure what the future holds, only that our eternal future is secure in Jesus and that we all love each other very much.

Ups and downs!

But we make His love too narrow By false limits of our own; And we magnify His strictness With a zeal He will not own.

I love modern worship music: Spring Harvest, Hillsong etc, Graham Kendrick too. It probably isn't really modern now.

I've had some interesting reactions over the years to the music that I like. Sometimes, you wonder if the other person considers you quite lost, judging from their reactions to what you like. I've come to realise from the blogosphere, that as with much over which Christians squabble, hymnody can be the cause of some significant debate.

So I challenge you - what do you consider the most supreme hymn? Of course, it all very subjective but perhaps you could also suggest how you rate a hymn.
For example
Does it have to be doctrinally sound?
Does it need to communicate as best as words can our amazing God's nature?
Does it have to bring you to a place of contemplation of the relationship you have with the triune God?
Does it need to be about the cross?
Etc

A hymn I found interesting the other day is written up below. We sang it last Sunday. It could be because I've been a bit obsessed with PSA of late, having to write a defence of it for college. I was struck by the picture it gives of God's generosity. I was particularly captured by the stanza:

11. But we make His love too narrow
By false limits of our own;
And we magnify His strictness
With a zeal He will not own.

This really made me wonder if that is not the case, exactly. I'm still in a flurry about PSA, although I concluded that it is part of what I understand the cross to be about. I'll post up some paragraphs, once I get my mark back next week.

Is our modern music shallow and unbiblical compared with what came before or do Christians romanticise a certain period of history, particularly the hymn writers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and are their reputations deserved? Faber's work below, although I liked it last Sunday, contains some very unfortunate rhymes because they are overly-sentimental.

My favourite hymn, by the way, is 'Be Thou My Vision'. So I don't know what this reveals about me. Anyway, I would be interested to know what you think about the words we sing in worship.

I know that Chris Tomlin's 'Jesus, I am so in love with you', caused quite a lot of debate, which you can listen to below, if you've not heard it yet.

There's a Wideness in God's Mercy by W F Faber

1. There's a wideness in God's mercy,
Like the wideness of the sea;
There's a kindness in His justice,
Which is more than liberty.

2. There is no place where earth's sorrows
Are more felt than up in Heaven;
There is no place where earth's failings
Have such kindly judgment given.

3. There is welcome for the sinner,
And more graces for the good;
There is mercy with the Savior;
There is healing in His blood.

4. There is grace enough for thousands
Of new worlds as great as this;
There is room for fresh creations
In that upper home of bliss.

5. For the love of God is broader
Than the measure of our mind;
And the heart of the Eternal
Is most wonderfully kind.

6. There is plentiful redemption
In the blood that has been shed;
There is joy for all the members
In the sorrows of the Head.

7. 'Tis not all we owe to Jesus;
It is something more than all;
Greater good because of evil,
Larger mercy through the fall.

8. If our love were but more simple,
We should take Him at His word;
And our lives would be all sunshine
In the sweetness of our Lord.

9. Souls of men! why will ye scatter
Like a crowd of frightened sheep?
Foolish hearts! why will ye wander
From a love so true and deep?

10. It is God: His love looks mighty,
But is mightier than it seems;
'Tis our Father: and His fondness
Goes far out beyond our dreams.

11. But we make His love too narrow
By false limits of our own;
And we magnify His strictness
With a zeal He will not own.

12. Was there ever kinder shepherd
Half so gentle, half so sweet,
As the Savior who would have us
Come and gather at His feet?

Good way to start the day

Wow - so many styles!

No 3 does it for me. How about you?

Looking forward to this!

A day of diverse dynamics

Today we went to a family re-union/wedding celebration and it was interesting to have so many ideologies, paradigms and world-views all under one roof. My family is very egalitarian, in that there isn't really a hierarchy to do with age or experience, as there is in my husband's family where Mama, wonderful as she is, calls the shots. In my family, conversation is a real turn-taking event and after gaps of many months, we all passionately update each other on the latest.

We represent such diversity. Amongst my family there are agnostics, Christians, heterosexuals, homosexuals, university educated, entrepreneurial but not university educated, cultured and traveled, untraveled, upper middle class and upper working class (I use these labels loosely), evangelical 'ish', post-evangelical, Anglican, Quaker, seeking, pluralistic, scientists, artists, linguists, psychotherapists, English, Italian, Canadian, Polish...4 to 94...

Conversation is interesting and at times risky. Decisions have to be made about how much you allow your own paradigm to expose itself in your language choices. Decisions have to be made about how generous you are to yourself, by staying true to your beliefs and open about your motivations or about how generous you are to the person with whom you converse, by not causing your paradigm to jar too obviously with theirs. Is it possible to achieve both? Yes but with serious care.

And so we travel home a little buffeted but enriched, glad of the opportunity to breathe the air outside the Church, when so much of the air we breathe is inside it.

We travel home realising that we are deciding to live a different sort of life, a little frightened by the obviousness of the choice because we realise that it is not other people's, but very glad to be doing so, nevertheless. Was it ever really our choice, anyway?

****

A very interesting thing happened out of which any psycho-analyst would have got lots of mileage. My sister brought face paints for the children of the family to enjoy but being the rather eccentric creatures that we are, we all ended up sporting certain designs on our faces and I wonder how much we were communicating our identity through the symbols we chose to adorn ourselves with. As we looked at each other's faces, and laughed at our silliness, we soon forgot to see the designs and looked past them and saw the reality of the other person, so that no matter how much we think we represent a fixed point of view, the reality is, we are all just rather bruised and frail human-beings, navigating our way through this world, some of us living in the 'inbetween times', others very much in the present, some with their eyes on the future and some with their eyes on the past, some confidently, some nervously but all of us hopefully.

What is evangelical Anglicanism?

What is evangelical Anglicanism? Is it, in actual fact, a contradiction in terms? If evangelical is all about 'sola scriptura' etc but the Church of England is about scripture, tradition and reason, then how do the two sit together? How far is the Bible divinely inspired or inerrant? What about when one church's inerrancy is not the same as another church's or in other words their interpretations differ, yet both think that they have it right? If the Bible is authoritive but I use my reason to interpret it and look at the way it has been interpreted over time and I come to an opinion, then that opinion is going to differ to someone else's. All things need testing, I suppose. How?

Whose hermenuetics are hot and whose are not, or am I just losing the plot?

(Thinking provoked by the coverage of the potential split in the Kirk and from reading Molly Aley's latest blogpost.)

Looking back part 4

Since I last looked back, my life has taken some interesting twists and turns. I have had some struggles and I have continued to be very blessed.

A couple of years ago, my husband and I began to pray for some particular things. I prayed that I would be given more experiences within my local church, to get involved or start up initiatives. Together we prayed that we would be blessed with some friendships that would help us to feel more rooted, having had friends all over for the most part whom we didn't see very often. We had also shut ourselves off a little in the care of our two children, with no family around for babysitting.

I have been very encouraged by my local church since explaining my calling and I have joined the All Ages planning team. I have continued to lead Nick's Chicks, very supported by our children's worker. I have taken on the role of secretary of the PCC and read the Bible and led intercessions. I have taken part in dramas and talked to puppets (!) and designed the church posters and most challenging of all, started up a Youth Group called CRE8.

We have now worshipped with the church, in the next village, for 8 years and within the last two years some friendships have really blossomed. We are in real fellowship with our house group and our girls love their Sunday School, which has released us into fuller service in worship times. We have led holiday clubs for the under 5s, which have been exhausting but great fun. God has really blessed us with opportunities to serve and develop deeper friendships.

I was very resistant to leading the Youth at first. When our Youth worker left, I knew somehow that it was a hole I would be called to fill and didn't like the idea. I felt it so strongly one day as I made lots of journeys in my car, I was pretty much arguing with God. I asked for a sign that he really meant it, and lo and behold, the next minute my old secondary school minibus was passing me on the other side of the road, in a really deserted open stretch of country-side and it was as if God was saying 'you can do this', 'you've worked with teenagers before, as a teacher'. I informed my vicar. Unbeknown to me, at the same time, someone else in the congregation was spending a few sleepless nights wrestling with similar convictions. We were encouraged to chat together about our visions, which were surprisingly similar and the Youth group was launched in September 08.

In September 08, I also started theological college. I anticpated doing so for a year and it took me that long to negotiate a course and think through the funding. A year before starting, I had begun a particular Bible study programme locally, which had thrown up lots of questions for me, which I needed answering. I had really wrestled with what I believed were some of the theological strands of the teaching, which in my interpretation, seemed dominated by the idea of Male Headship and reactions against post-modernism. I felt rather protective of my culture; that it was not to be decried but rather wrestled with so that the Bible might speak into it rather than constantly against it. I also found the teachings' emphasis on what should be the woman's role, very challenging. There were also some wonderful aspects to the teaching: it was stimulating, intellectually satisfying and very thorough, but really, some of my explanations of the Holy Spirit's power were serious 'I'll get my coat!' moments and I felt that the Spirit's role was very much restricted to edification - opening up scripture and little else. I didn't quite fit. I polarised my teachers though and probably exaggerated the flavour because I began to investigate the theology of Wayne Grudem and John Piper and Packer etc, Matthias press and Sydney, Cornhill, Keswick and Latimer Trust, which is incredibly sound and edifying for the most part, but definitely of the conservative kind when it comes to women. I started to become conscious of the labels we Christians give ourselves and that I must be more of the 'open' variety and less of the 'conservative' variety. Most glaringly, I began to understand the fragility of the worshipping community, our sinfulness in our divisiveness and that we are all so hugely in need of God's grace and Christ's compassion.

I think I grew up a lot, growing up is life-long isn't it? I had thought for a while that the Church was this little perfect community, where everything was rosy. I came to realise just how much we all need to renew our relationship with God minute by minute and not stray too far from his side but dialogue with him and humanity constantly and prayerfully if we are really to see glimpses of his Kingdom amongst us.

My first module at college involved me studying the theological positions for and against women in ministry and I gained much more perspective. All in all, my experiences of the last two and a half years have enabled me to understand that the Church of England is a broad church, containing people of various theological persuasions. I have been able to reflect on my own feelings about ministry and faith and when I launched this blog in 2008 for the purpose of reflecting on this diversity within the Anglican communion, I was able to start testing out some of my thoughts and feelings on a wider body of people. Engaging with the thoughts of Christians all over the world has been very transformative. Thank you.

I now have one module to go before I complete my first year of independent theology study and in a few weeks I will discover whether the Church will accept me for ordained ministry. At the heart of the good news that I want to share with other people is God's inexhaustible grace, Christ's generosity and that the Holy Spirit accompanies us in every aspect of our lives. I want to communicate that a kingdom life is the very best type of life to live.

It could be that I don't make it and if not, I will wait with anticipation to see what God might be asking of my life next but I ask you to accompany me over the next few weeks as I prepare to go to the selection conference. I am quite vulnerable in your hands but also quite unafraid in some ways. For what I have certainly learned over the last decade or so is that I did not receive a spirit that makes me a slave again to fear, but I received the Spirit of sonship. And by him I cry, "Abba, Father" (Rom 8:15).

Oakhill inspectation

I thought that this was interesting and that it doesn't really require any comment:


The inspectors also noted that in terms of recruitment the College still
falls far short of the House of Bishops Guidelines that a minimum of
15% of places for ordinands should be taken by women. In the current
academic year, 2008/9, there is at Oak Hill only one woman ordinand
amongst the 57 ordinands there in training, although it is important to
acknowledge that she herself spoke warmly and positively to us about
her experience as a woman student at the College. We recognise that
the recruitment of women ordinands to a college with a conservative
evangelical tradition poses a considerable challenge, as too does the
fact that many of the so-called ‘sending churches’ are not supportive of
women’s ordained ministry. Nevertheless, we are firmly of the view that
a more equal gender balance amongst the College’s ordinands would
benefit the ordinands themselves as well as Oak Hill as a whole. For
that reason, we believe that the College should step up its drive to
recruit women ordinands. To assist it to do so, we believe that, as
vacancies occur, it should endeavour to achieve a better gender
balance across the teaching staff which is at present predominantly
male, especially in the teaching posts for traditional theological
subjects. It should also ensure that ordained women from a range of
traditions are regularly invited to the College to preach and/or to
engage wherever possible with the College’s life and work.
Recommendation 2
We recommend that the College:
a) redouble its present efforts to recruit an increased number
of women ordinands;
b) seek, as opportunity arises, to achieve a more equable
gender balance in its academic staff;
c) avail itself of the widest possible range of opportunities for
involving ordained women in the life and work of the
College.

She must be a brave lady!

Is there a penal in penal substitutionary atonement? Lecture with Stephen Travis

Penal Substitutionary Atonement

Stephen Travis

I think it is important to say I only came to this writing about the atonement quite a long time after I came to write about divine judgement which runs through Paul and other NT writings. My book looks at divine judgement in the OT. And while retribution is a significant element it is not the only one. Retributive punishment is a punishment inflicted for an offense which is equivalent to the offense ie an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, enshrined in the law codes. One can also think about judgement in terms of (although judgement isn't how its referred to ) , if we say that the the penalty you pay for driving on the right hand side of the road is chaos and injury and death – an action has built in consequences. Penalty for taking hard drugs is the way that it messes up your life. We are familiar with inherent judgement; the inevitable consequences of what you do and in the OT you find both of these ideas as described as divine judgement. God imposes plague and war on Israel – this comes from outside – this divine judgement – retributive judgement is from outside. But also in the OT the other judgement is expressed particularly in the psalms and proverbs – the man who digs a pit will fall into it.

The argument in the book as a whole is that there are both these kinds of judgement but in the NT, the retributive view of judgement is not there so much. There is intrinsic rather than retributive judgement in Paul. Does Paul's understanding of judgement think in terms of intrinsic or retributive judgement? The Evangelical and Reformed position is based on retributive judgement. Christ bears that punishment on our behalf in order to set us free. But I want to argue, in line with Paul, that we are to look at the inevitable consequences of sin. Christ is not so much bearing the punishment but absorbing the consequences by his involvement with humanity which is focussed on the cross.

There are two things which concern me about the traditional view – one is that the classic evangelical says that the heart of the atonement is this idea that Christ bore the penalty for our sin – I do not deny that there is a retributive element but this is not the only way that Paul talks about the atonement. There are several views – it is multi-faceted. I am not decrying it in itself. But it's dangerous if we only hold one view – it impoverishes our understanding of the NT and then, frankly, it is so often misunderstood. I have heard people say to me 'Jesus came to save us from God'. God punished Jesus rather than us seems to be the potential distortion. What we say is not necessarily what people hear. In contemporary society, where we are sensitive to child abuse, people are repelled by it rather than attracted to it. Often these dilemmas arise not because of what the biblical text says but because of the illustrations used by preachers. It can be misunderstood by the people. What they don't do is safeguard the unity between the Father and the Son – it is so easy to split the Father and the Son apart so that it is not God dealing with the problem but Jesus over and against the Father. We need to find a whole new set of illustrations which are not open to these kinds of misunderstandings. I go through the key texts in Paul in my article and look at the retributive idea, which may not be as claer as you thought it was. I've learnt to try and write footnotes because I might meet my opponenant tomorrow.

I asked why certain branches of the church are so protective about Penal Substitutionary atonement. What else might really be going on? Are they reacting very much against the specifics of the times that they find themselves in and seeking to reach Christians who, somewhat like Marcion, fail to be entrenched in the teachings and culture of the Old Testament?

Stephen explained that there might be an overcompensaton to protect us from a lack of doctrine. The evangelical movement has become more diverse. There is more to defend. In The 1920's with the rise of fundamentalism with the work done in America with the resultant pamphlet about the fundamentals – this influenecd what was happening in this country. The SCM advocated world mission in the first decade of the last century and the more conservative people, they thought those with them were going off in another direction. The IVP became the UCCF – this movement was formed in the 1920s out of a desire to stand for classic reformed evangelical Christianity. The SCM gradually became more liberal and the Christian unions grew in strength. Certain branches of the Church are concerned that they do not want what happened in the 20s to happen again.

Back to the topic of the lecture.

The images used in the NT are used because there is no neat sentence. They are coming at it in ways which illuminate the truth. This is true of any of the images of the atonement. Whether it's the victory image or the ransom image.

I asked how Stephen translates Romans 3:25 and what does he make of the debate over the word Hilasterion .

Stephen replied, it is translated propitiation – to turn away the wrath of God or expiation to clean out the consequences of sin. Traditionally there has been a big debate between Morris and C H Dodd. The language points to both and we can not divide them. You only deal with the wrath against sin by dealing with it. Both ideas are there. Leviticus gives you lots of information for a sacrifice and without a real explanatoin – some have argued that when the priest lays his hands on the lamb – the lamb is bearing the punishment. The Bible is not explicit about the punishment – it is about dealing with the sin. Where the Greek word might be translated as propitiation, it is hard to see this as uppermost.

A book is recommended at this point: 'Aspacts of the Atonement' by Howard Marshall.

Someone in the group speaks about how he is mainly persuaded by the Christus Victor model.

Stephen responds with how important it is to hold many models together. We need to see Christ as Christus Victor. In the language at the Last Supper – my blood poured out for the forgiveness of sins – he is offering himself on the behalf of the people – the suffering servant language. Moses offers his life for the people – one person expending themseves for the many.

Stephen is asked how Jesus saw his own death.

He speaks briefly before the next lecture interrupts us, we are running out of time about the language of the suffering servant from Isaiah 53.

I ask whethet we are to give credence to the view that because we have the sense of chastisement in the language used there, penal substitutionary atonement is what is going on but Stephen responds with the view that the original Hebrew word translated chastised is much broader and has nothing to do with guilt and punishment. We end the lecture deciding that translations are in themselves inserting meaning and we need to be aware of this.

Thank you Stephen. Round of applause.

This is a good read from the dean of my college

Ian Paul

Your cheesiest craft

It's ascension day, of course: Holy Thursday. I produced the craft for the kids' club at college and I think it might have been my cheesiest one yet. It was a cloud shape, cut from half a paper plate, upon which the children were required to stick cotton wool. A paper Jesus had to then be coloured in and suspended beneath on a piece of string and the string could be pulled so that Jesus might ascend into heaven. Some of my fellow students were threatening to hang it from the rear-view mirrors in their cars! Interesting! I have noticed people have a range of interesting objects hanging there.

So I have two questions for you:
1. What is the cutest, cheesiest, naffest craft you have ever had the joy of producing?
2. Do you hang anything from your rear-view or decorate your car in any evangelistic paraphernalia? I sport a gold fish on the back of my car. That's not a goldfish but a gold fish!

I have an eclectic kind of day tomorrow involving a lecture by Stephen Travis, put on for all students interested in his ideas on Penal Substitutionary atonement, followed by lunch at Chiquitos, which I think is Mexican. I'm not sure either will be too easy to digest!

I signed those papers today, which was exciting and have felt very supported in prayer.

Thank you Sally

So do not fear, for I am with you;
do not be dismayed, for I am your God.
I will strengthen you and help you;
I will uphold you with my righteous right hand.

Isaiah 41:10

Holy Thursday

Ascension day

10 days to go until the best of presents

Then the Master Jesus, after briefing them, was taken up to heaven, and he sat down beside God in the place of honor. And the disciples went everywhere preaching, the Master working right with them, validating the Message with indisputable evidence. (The Message)

Last minute wobbles

Tarshish - is it warm there?

I sign on the bottom line tomorrow - it's just my papers. It all gets sent off to the advisors and I am having some wobbles, I think, well, not quite. The passion has not died but there are just some things I am over-analysing.

Last night I was phoned up by a friend after I'd come pelting down the stairs from having put the children to bed, hoping to catch the last ten minutes of Eastenders (I know...habit I can't give up). My friend from house group asked me to send prayer information out about a friend who needs protection from infection after undergoing an op on Monday.

I started to scribble details on the nearest piece of paper to hand, realising mid-scrib it was my daughter's masterpiece (tinfoil, sellotape, paper creation which she had completed in after-school club). I then did a dishonest thing. I cut off the bit I'd scribbled on and tried to make good by adding extra sellotape. But I left the evidence in the middle of the kitchen table by accident, not throwing the scribbled-on bit away.

My daughter is four but incredibly sharp and observant, unlike her big sis who lives in a dream world. She saw the remnant of her picture this morning and lost it! I am at this point trying to leave the house for college as close to 7 am as I can to get there for 8am prayers.

I leave, she screams, daddy comes to investigate why there is so much commotion and I drive to college gutted.

My prayers were scribbled all over her work. I wrecked her work.

Is this symbolic of the conflict that I am going to feel about the church and my children?
Are they going to resent me for being at Church when I could be with them?
Is the Church going to welcome my children if I work for the Church?
Can I juggle it all?
What if I can't do it?
Is it really a tough place for women and especially mothers?
Why did David Runcorn say it makes him weep to think of what his wife has gone through as a priest and a mother?

Christina Baxter prayed for me on Monday that as my family have perhaps less of me, they come to have more of God's blessing and that his generosity will make up for any sense of initial lack. I think I might need to keep praying this one through.

Can your theology accord with these lyrics?

What do you think?

How far does our presentation of God as male, shape our theology and the ways in which we relate to each other as human beings?

What about Calvinistic election?

Is God's love as cosmic in your theology?

Prodigal?

The Prodigal Comes Home

Testimonies

Share your faith journey

The Gender Reformation

I think that this sounds like an interesting book and might be required reading for the times when I nervously engage in debate over Gen 3:16 with John Richardson and David Ould. I think that there is a lot of important work to be done in challenging the gender roles that the Church has been seen to promote for the last couple of thousand years. If men and women are made in the image of God, then we have to work together in reflection of the equality within the trinity in which we confess belief.

ExcerptOne of the first articles I read when I experienced revival in my own relationship with Jesus and the Church was by Tom Wright who says:
'I do wonder, sometimes, if those who present radical challenges to Christianity have been all the more eager to make out that the Bible says certain things about women, as an excuse for claiming that Christianity in general is a wicked thing and we ought to abandon it.'

Tom Wright on Women's Service in the Church:the Biblical Basis

How to be missional without mentioning JC

...so I'm struggling a little... I want to get involved in internet evangelism but the problem is I talk about God too much! Really, my blog is to the already converted and in many ways it is more akin to a diary than being a vehicle for outreach.

However, my husband is a computer programmer and we are both Christians and I think God might be calling us to communicate his message via the web. However, all the advice is that sites need to be about something else first, to attract people, something worldly, the faith thing has to be subtle and gentle. I think therefore that this might be a development for another time. It would involve me taking up a serious hobby and to be honest, I do not know where I would find the time.

In some ways then, I understand the advantages to NSM ministry. You hold down a regular job and you minister. Perhaps then you could reach out by creating a site which is rooted in the secular world you inhabit, in which God is very much at work. The trouble with people already in ministry is that all they often go on about is Church!

Jody Radical Evangelical and Dave Warnock have both blogged of late about their biking exploits and even Bishop Alan, busy as he is, recounts family events and includes photos of his loved one and friends, so perhaps it's time I let you all in on a little more of my life.

It's a strange one - you want it to be all about Jesus but then again, it's good to share your life with other people too. Perhaps I'll ask you lot what you think.

So do I need to give up blogging about PSA (Psub At) for more Personal, Social, Animated stuff instead?

The future's bright, the future's orange

Bought my blog a new outfit - a wee orange and grey number. Not too sure about it really but felt like a change.

Doing a lot of reading about internet evangelism and realise that to non-believers, my site must be very annoying.

I came across this from the site I'm promoting in the top left hand corner:

Survey contents

Respondents were asked to rate annoyance levels:

Total respondents: 28

Breakdown of responses:

	Not at all	Slightly	Moderately	Greatly
Christian backgrounds	6	5	2	14
Commercialism	4	5	10	9
Voting buttons	9	8	4	5
Use of "webservant"	8	7	1	11
Infighting	7	3	5	13
Bible verses	7	4	7	10
Written prayer	4	6	4	14

Great is thy faithfulness Lam 3:23

Dear Lord
Great is your faithfulness
Just when I doubt myself your message comes clearly
Just when I wonder, you do not
I see my weaknesses and you make it strength
I see my ineptitude but you give me hope
I seek to find you and you are there
Speaking through the world and its people
Speaking through your Word.

When I am fickle and inconstant, you are unchanging
When I fail to see the bigger picture,
You are carrying it safe in your hands
I only need to look and listen
Thank you for that new perspective
Thank you for changing the lens
For bringing everything into focus
So that it might be captured as a vision and shared.

Thank you Lord
Great is your faithfulness.

(A particularly challenging evening at Youth group but all will be well!)

(Thank you Helen. Thank you Jo)

Life's for sharing

Really like this.

Have had a good few days with friends - sharing life.

I went away with my book group, some really special people. We all have children at the same school. There was lots of laughter and a few tears - all girls together stuff: good fun. They're very supportive of my journey with the C of E which is lovely, although they have some mixed feelings about the potential sacrifice of the kids' school and our lovely house, necessary for curacy.

Just before I left to go away for the weekend, I was contacted by a pupil I used to teach who had put an old class photo up on the web, so I have been invited to renew contact with some of the kids I used to teach at secondary school about 10 years ago. It was good of them to notify me that it was going up on the web.

My first class of year seven students are now grown up and doing the typical 21 year old thing on the whole: uni and studies and partying. Things haven't changed much in a generation. We must have all stuck up those photos on our study-bedroom walls of our inebriated and strangely clad hall mates. The difference is that they are all 'socially networking', whereas when I was at uni there was no internet and we all had to queue up to speak to our boyfriends and parents on the hall pay-phone.

Because I am now following the lives of a bunch of 21 year olds, I'm realising that my face-book page will start to look a little wild and I feel a little nervous about this but I'm not responsible for the content and really, to be honest, the Shakespeare plays I taught them were just as racy. So, called to be in the world as we are, I confirmed several friendship requests and do not think I'll be too shocked, after-all I was 21 once too!

(In fact, about 23 in this photo, and attending some of the clubs on the weekend, which they are attending now.)

Internet Evangelism Resources

Internet Evangelism Resources

I'm thinking about presenting on Internet evangelism for my 5 minute presentation at selection conference in a few weeks so I will keep you up-to-date. There are plenty of great things about internet evangelism, but I think it has its deficiencies too. Perhaps, what we are not to do is compare it too much with face-to-face evangelism. The two things are very different. I certainly think God is at work on the web, so too are darker forces, but there are many very encouraging stories of people coming to faith through the web. The internet has certainly been a place where my own faith journey has been catalogued, inspired and refined and continues to be refined. It opened a new world to me where I could share my joys and my struggles.

Can you share your testimony of how the web has impacted your faith? I would like to share some cases of people that I know at my BAP.

Thank you

The Prodigal Son by Timothy Keller

I've read Keller's account of The Prodigal Son today :it's an easy-read and very interesting. The elder Son is the focus of the book and he is the insufficient Son in comparison to our elder brother Christ. The elder son in the story is as morally culpable as the younger son in that he had tried to earn his father's grace and favour through his obedience and is therefore to be compared to the Pharisees of Jesus' day and our own - those who seek to control God by vehemently adhering to God's laws and doing good works whilst condemning those who are not deemed to be as morally scrupulous.

I am aware that as I research this parable I will come across other interpretations but Keller's interpretation has much to teach when we set this parable in the context of the original listening audience and look to the parables which surround it - the lost coin and the lost sheep. In these two other parables about the lost, it is the owner who goes out desperately in search of the lost and rejoices to bring it home. In the tale of the lost son (or rather The Two Lost Sons as many scholars suggest would be a more appropriate title for the book), no one goes out to search for the younger son to bring him home.

Keller suggests that in part, Jesus tells this tale so that we might contrast one dysfunctional son with one perfect and self-sacrificing Son. The elder son should have been the one who went out and searched for his brother and brought him home, for we are 'our brother's keeper'. He didn't. He resented how costly it was to him - this recovery of the younger. It depleted his inheritance and he couldn't understand why his father lavished on him the cloak, the ring and the sandals.

Jesus in contrast, rescues us and reconciles us with the Father by great cost and self-sacrifice, indeed taking upon himself all our sin so that we might be restored. He searches us out and brings us home even to the point of 'death on a cross' (Philippians 2:5-11).

As Christians we are called to live as neither the younger wayward brother nor the elder 'religious' brother. Religion in its 'I obey and so surely God accepts me' should be instead the gospel - 'I am accepted by God because of what Jesus has done for me and as a consequence, I obey.'

Martin Luther says: (just so you do not misinterpret me)
"We are saved by faith alone [not our works], but not by faith that remains alone."

Moving on to other interpretations of 'The Prodigal Son'- I expect to be taught that the younger brother is the Gentile and the older brother the Jew and much more besides.

My essay title is 'Why did Jesus teach in parables? Discuss this question with close reference to one parable in the Synoptic gospels.'

Thank you God

Thank you God for
Your Son, your Spirit
Your breath
My life, my girls
All the people who have helped me to know you who are spread between these Derbyshire villages - you know who you are...
Lee Abbey
My grandparents
My parents
My fab God mum
My friends
Thank you Abba-Father
That I have a heart to love you
A brain to process your Word
Eyes to witness your deeds
Ears to hear your song
And energy to go out and play my part
Thank you Jesus for saving me
THANK YOU THANK YOU

Hear the sound of hearts returning to you

Our God is the hugest and most magnificent God, completely beyond our comprehension and yet we can 'know' him, isn't that amazing? Tonight at MUG (midweek us and God) we contemplated this from Ephesians and were all quite blown away:

I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.




At college with Stephen Travis this afternoon we were discussing whether there is controversy today over baptism in the Holy Spirit. We decided instead that it is better to communicate a being filled with the Spirit because it doesn't happen just once. It is ongoing. The Spirit empowers us for the bringing in of God's Kingdom. It was interesting to listen to a range of responses from students. We shared our experiences of cessationists, deciding it is definitely not Biblical to think that manifestations of the Holy Spirit are not for today.

We reflected on the fruits of the Spirit and how claims of experiential outpourings should also effect a transformed life and if they don't then perhaps they were not genuine.

Some shared the sadness they had experienced watching people disappointed on Alpha Holy Spirit weekends, that no matter how much they had been prayed over, they had felt nothing happen. It then became the job of the leader to pastor these people in their disappointment. We shared how the church has to very careful not to inadvertantly pressure people. I remember when I was 14 being pushed over by a worship leader who was so intent that I should be slain in the Spirit - it left me feeling very confused.

We also shared some of our experiences too of the Holy Spirit's manifestations and how God gives us these foretastes of Heaven through his Spirit when he wants to and usually for a specific purpose.

The hymn writer Isaac Watts speaks of it in this way:
"The hill of Zion yields a thousand sacred sweets before we reach he heavenly fields or walk the golden streets."

We decided it would be wrong to package these experiences, for God communicates with each of us differently but then again, the experiences should be checked against the Bible and Acts perhaps in particularly, for there at least, we can gain an idea of what might happen.

I must admit I do read of some accounts and wonder - roaring like a lion for instance, someone shared how they had been under pressure once to do this!

Someone shared the feeling of an overwhelming joy and the laughter that followed and infected an entire congregation. There are tears and heat and falling down and praying in tongues and all these things are very special to the person experiencing them, however we must not lose sight of the fact that these communications are about empowering us to take up our part in the missio dei - our God is a very corporate God - his message is to go out to the ends of the earth and whilst we are greatly encouraged by these experiences for how much the Spirit testifies to our spirit that we really our dear children of our abba Father, we are to take up our cross and speak boldly of his love for the whole world too in whatever form that might be.

Thank you Oh my father
For sending us your Son
And leaving your Spirit 'til the work on earth be done

I like this from Mark Allen Powell

'Jesus' conflict with Judaism can be understood as a clash of symbols. Jesus replaced key symbols appropriate to preserving Israel's distinctiveness during exile with symbols appropriate for the new reign of God. Feasting replaced fasting; since the exile was ending, life could now be viewed as a celebration (Mark 2:18-19). Open table fellowship replaced segregating purity codes as a more appropriate symbol of life in the post-exile reign of God. Likewise, healing the sick (as oppposed to quarantining them) symbolised the restoration of creation that was taking place. But, above all, forgiveness replaced retribution, blessing replaced cursing, love replaced hatred. '

The Jesus Debate, p.167

A call to be as radical as Jesus!

Image Competition

Been reading a lot about ACC in Jamaica, not enough to understand all the ramifications though. Anyway, this image came to mind. But let it speak to you in whatever way it might and make a suggestion so that it might focus prayer at a creative prayer station.

It's the weekly competition for Christian reflection on an image.

Entries need to be written up in less than three sentences and they need to be about the Christian life in some way.

Winners can display this badge on their site.

It is hoped that the ideas will be used to develop part of a scheme of creative prayer station ministry resources.

Our last winner was Tim Goodbody

My essay - I'm not sure whether I have succeeded in writing a defence of 'penal' substitutionary atonement - I have defended substitutionary atonement

I have found David Short's sermon helpful on Exodus 24. I am waiting to hear Stephen Travis speak at college on PSA. Although I must hand in my essay before then.

I feel as though I am not always intellectually grasping the finer points of the argument. (How to defend PSA in light of criticisms). I am wondering, is it right that PSA requires an articulation of God's wrath being propitiated. Substitutionary atonement is presented happily with the expiation, the covering of sin. I argue that the blood sprinkled in the sacrifices of the Old Testament expiate sin, cover the sins of the people - Moses sprinkles the blood on the people. He also sprinkles the blood on the tabernacle to propitiate God's wrath. Jesus' blood both expiates and propitiates.

I am having a bit of trouble with one element of reformed teaching. Christ's "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?": does God really punish his Son in this moment. John Piper et al in their description of 'the scream of the damned' portray God's momentary neglect of the Son here but can a triune God separate at this point - it does something strange to my Nicene Creed foundation. I think if I could be better persuaded on this point, I would be able to understand that this is the moment of punishment, this is the 'penal' moment of the substitution.

I have no problem with a wrathful God - wrath is not to be compared to human anger. Just like we can not compare human love to God's which is agape (steadfast), God's holiness to human morality (always corrupted by sin), human justice (to God's justice - perfect), we need to understand wrath as part of the Holy God's inability to come near to us in our sin. It is in his mercy that he provides a means by which we can enter into his presence - Jesus.

I have learnt a lot but still have such a lot of learning to do. David Short talks about that 'other gospel' which is being preached in our churches. This worries me. I do not want to preach that 'other gospel' and yet at the same time I heed the warnings of those critical of PSA, because if a caricature is being presented, we had better look long and hard at our teaching.

Yes, we have a God who hates our sin, but we have a God, who desires mercy and not sacrifice, who has provided Jesus as a perfect and sufficient sacrifice so that the sacrifices of the Old Testament beome redundant. We live under a New Covenant, purchased for us with Jesus' blood and make now a living sacrifice of praise. We need to make sure that we preach life from death and do not leave people staring up at the cross for too long, meditate on it's glory, yes, but then walk through the sandy soil to the tomb, look inside and see it empty and rejoice!

PSA and PFOT and ST

Penal Substitutionary Atonement and Pierced or Our Transgressions and Stephen Travis

I am being lectured to by Stephen Travis at the moment at college. I am learning a lot about Redaction Criticism and hope to write my next essay on what Jesus has to say about The Kingdom of God, which I think will be interesting.

I am also still working on my defence of PSA in the light of contemporary criticism and noticed that on page 215 of PFOT by Ovey, Jeffery and Sach that they accuse Stephen of a faulty theology of the atonement. It is implied that Travis favours expiation over propitiation because he uses the idea of absorbtion. The authors of PFOT say that this 'is not even biblical!' I disagree, the translation of Hilasterion in Romans 3:25 should neither negate propitiation or expiation. The two terms should co-exist and not be made to war against each other. As I have argued in my essay, is it not more the case that the Bible in its presentation of Christ as the mercy-seat, portrays God in Christ offering himself as a means of expiation for sins justly incurring his wrath which is then propitiated.

Anyway, I asked Stephen in the coffee break how he feels about being thus portrayed. I asked him what does a theologian and writer do in these situations, if he googled himself, he would discover his critics, does one simply ignore the charges or what?

Stephen said he had written a number of books and understands that not everything he writes is going to induce universal agreement.

I wished I had had more time to pursue the topic with Stephen. It would have been very edifying, so it is with interest that I received an email today to say that he has agreed to give a lecture on his view of Penal Substitution at the end of the month. I will keep you updated.

Are you a Calvinist?

Click on above - it's a link

Gracious Rev Sally Theakston and the BNP Mystery Worshipper

Over at 'Ship of Fools' they have a mystery worshipper who attends services and then reports back on the welcome and atmosphere and the sermon and the theology. I guess it's kind of like an ofsted of sorts, but for churches. However, it would seem that Rev Sally Theakston was visited by a BNP vicar who clearly had an agenda from the outset. It is not surprising that he failed to find anything good to say about the service he attended. I applaud Rev Sally Theakston for her gracious response.

It must be a strange thing to hold allegiance to Jesus and the BNP. How can the two manifestos be reconciled with each other? Jesus was welcoming and inclusive. That England should be for the English is as narrow an approach as Jesus being for Israel alone when it was the missio dei from the outset that he should be a blessing for all the nations of the earth.

10 000 doors

Neatly put

CBE expresses something I've often thought and have raised with other Christians. They put it so crisply and clearly:

In Genesis we read the description of how things would be between Eve & Adam after they had both disobeyed God’s direct command. No matter what translation we read, the end result is the same - the woman’s desire would be toward her husband and he would rule over her. The woman would have increased pain in childbirth and the man would have to work hard to make a living from the ground which now had thorns and weeds.

The reality is now that many women do not have to experience pain in childbirth and many men do not have to work the land to make a living. Only a small percentage of believers teach that women should refuse pain relief in childbirth and likewise, only a small percentage of believers teach that men should all work as farmers without any form of weed control.

But….many believers teach that wives should show desire toward their husbands and that husbands should rule their wives (albeit lovingly) Why the strict adherance to one part of God’s judgment on the sin of Eve & Adam and the ignoring of the other statements ?

Redemption through Christ’s reconciling work on the cross brings release from the judgment and consequences of the first sin which includes the pronouncements made by God to Adam & Eve after they had disobeyed. So, if there is a continuing to live under the judgment of their sin and our own subsequent sin, surely we are following after our sin nature and not the new life we have been given through Jesus.

Maybe there is something inherent in the sin nature that tends toward hierarchy and gender roles and that is why so many respond to this teaching which strikes a chord deep within the human heart. Praise God our hearts and minds can be transformed to see a new way of living in relationship with each other……..but it can take some time.

Lucky me

I am being taught by Stephen Travis on Redaction Criticism - he's great. I understand him! He is taking us through Wenham's and Walton's 'Exploring the new testament'. I'm a happy theological student.

Thank you Janice

Who wrote
24The LORD bless you, and keep you;
25The LORD make His face shine on you,
And be gracious to you;

This is beautiful.

The disciples simply were not clever enough to steal Jesus' body

It seems strange to think like that. We revere the disciples, the apostles to our Lord Jesus Christ. They have become godly and intelligent men in the consciousness at large but their biblical portrayal could not be more different. They were lowly men, fishermen and tax collectors, perhaps not very well educated and certainly Jesus despaired that they did not know the scriptures better. He had to explain the Christology of the scriptures to them on the road to Emmaus, they just failed to 'get it'. It is doubtful therefore that they would have plotted to bribe guards and steal Jesus' body to fulfill a truth that they had not at that point grasped. The disciples didn’t expect that Jesus would be resurrected. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone’s rising from the dead to glory and immortality before the general resurrection of the dead at the end of the world. and so they would have no reason to rob the body from the tomb in order to fake his resurrection. That the last thing they anticipated was a bodily resurrection is anticipated by their reaction to the risen Lord Jesus "...They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost" (Luke 24:37). John also hints that this was not something that they were expecting.“..Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed. They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead…" (John 20:8-9).

I also refute the idea that the disciples stole the body, to fake the resurrection for the following other reasons:

The difficulty of the task: the disciples would have had to devise an ingenious plot: snatching the body from a sealed tomb by outwitting numerous Roman guards who would have been executed for falling asleep on duty or allowing a grave to be robbed. Matthew describes how "And they went and made the grave secure, and along with the guard they set a seal on the stone" (Matthew 27:66).

The threat of death: the Roman and Jewish authorities sought to put to death anyone who claimed that Jesus had indeed been resurrected. Saul, in Acts, was guilty of doing just this before his conversion. If the disciples had faked the resurrection, it is unlikely they would die for something they knew to be false.

It is unconvincing that the disciples would act so out of character: if the disciples had lied and robbed, this would run totally contrary to their ethical teaching and the quality of their lives, indeed it would not demonstrate that they were Christ's followers at all.

How do we account for the change in them if the resurrection didn't happen: If there had been a plot to deceive then how do we account for their transformation from sorry and disappointed mourners to rejoicing witnesses, determined to spread the good news.

Matthew's gospel proves its awareness of the stolen body theory: In Matthew it clearly states that the chief priests, upon hearing the testimony of the soldiers guarding the tomb, stated "...You are to say, His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep..." and "this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day." (Mt. 28) It's doubtful Matthew would include this if this was what actually happened.

Can you add any other points to these?

Objections to the resurrection

Ha - thought that might get your attention. Nope, not liberal on that one - totally orthodox.

This is what I have to do for college. "How might you respond? Come to the seminar ready to make a brief but forceful statement of your response:The disciples stole Jesus' body from the tomb so that they were able to create the resurrection story."

What would your response be?

I'll post up mine tomorrow - it's a good exercise in apologetics.

A deconstruction of The Danvers Statement

I have recently been on a return journey to CBMW. CBMW, for people in the UK, who are not familiar with it, stands for Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. It is complementarian and anti-egalitarian. In other words, they promote Male Headship and Female submission. They suspect indeed that 'feminism' is destroying society and their Danvers Statement addresses these 'problems' and calls again for the 'willing and intelligent submission' of women to their husbands.

I have returned to CBMW because I was asked to look at an article by Wallace Benn who has written at CBMW's website in response to General Synod's decision to ordain women in the early nineties. Wallace Benn is a member of Reform (UK) and Reform organised themselves in response to the ordination of women in the early nineties and continue to oppose female incumbencies and certainly women in the episcopate. Hence, rightly or wrongly, I consider Reform to be the UK version of CBMW. It is no wonder I consider them thus when on their site they declare:

'The Council and Trustees each year sign the Reform Covenant, the Danvers Statement on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

Paula Fether at Fether.net has done an interesting deconstruction of The Danvers Statement. I'm not sure how familiar Christians are over here with this statement and I am interested to know whether anyone, particularly women, in UK churches has had this teaching promoted or indeed has been advised to familiarise themselves with the work and teachings of The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.

We should be interested in this when we have the leaders of some of our Church of England churches signing this Statement. (Reform and The Danvers Statement)

Now, I'm sure there are souls being won for Christ in the churches where these people work and Melvin Tinker has made some very helpful contributions to this blog in the past, but I can't help but wonder about the women in these churches, just like I wonder about the women at Oakhill and Wycliffe.

Read this deconstruction of the Statement and then ask yourself what the culture must be like in the churches whose leaders sign up to it and then offer up a prayer or two on the behalf of those women please.

O'Donovan on Scriptural interpretation

This is great stuff and beautifully written. O'Donovan makes some interesting points for how we are to read scripture:

The writer wraps his truth in bulrushes and pitch and sets it afloat on the river of history; the reader, like Pharaoh’s daughter, picks it from the reeds and hears its cry. If we will not read seriously, we shall miss the instruction of former times, prisoned in the villagy parochialism of our little moment in civilisation. The text has its purpose beyond its own age and circumstance, and no text can be interpreted merely by careful evocation of the moment in which it arose. Interpreters who reduce the meaning of written words to a note about their provenance, merely misunderstand them. But neither is the text interpreted by what our age makes of it. The fact that the reader stands alone before the text and its claim does not make the reader sovereign, licensing any imposition on the text that fancy or the need of the moment may dictate...We cannot think of colonising the text, like an under-populated continent, of occupying it so thoroughly with the culture of our own civilisation that it becomes precisely what we want it to be. It must always be possible to challenge, out of the text itself, even the most historic and consensual readings if they are downright wrong...it is because God freely summons us to obedient freedom, that “there will always be more questions put to us by what we encounter.” How could there not be questions put to us if authority is genuinely a practical, not merely a speculative category, and if obedience is the final term of revelation, not merely assent? Obedience is never predetermined, it has always be thought through and sought after. If, then, we are to take seriously the Jerusalem Declaration’s call for obedience to Scripture, we shall need to take seriously the Archbishop’s call to engage with the “further questions” that arise as we seek to obey the norms the text communicates. There is no way of doing the one without doing the other...What we are called to in the difficult discernments of our age, many of them without precedent, is an act of two-way interpretation, reading the text for our time, but also reading our time from the text.

Sometimes, Evangelicals talk past each other and engage in conversation with presuppositions blazing about each other's way of reading. I have felt at times that because I support women in ministry, other evangelicals are assuming that I am a product of my culture, a feminist; someone responding to social mores. It is very difficult sometimes to persuade others that you have come to your decision from scripture alone. I continue also to find it very frustrating that in some conversations I have had, it is assumed that the consecration of women will lead in turn to the consecration of Gay Bishops or the church marriage of a man to a man or a woman to a woman. I really do not understand how the one is thought to lead to the other.

I must admit I struggled for a while to understand how a case can be made for prohibiting women in ministry to mixed congregations from scripture alone, I had suspected at first that this reading was bound up with tradition and perhaps even the product of patriarchal thinking but I understand it differently now - I recognise both integrities. Perhaps it is only fair, therefore that I have been on the receiving end of presumptuous thinking, for I have been guilty of it myself.

I still hold to the idea that where there is ambiguity, we have to allow for it.

There are, of course, certain fundamentals which are set down in our creeds and the 39 articles and I do understand the Bible as quite prescriptive about our sexual expression, for example.

There are many curtailments of our behaviour which are proscribed for our own protection because we have a loving God who wants to protect us from the harmful consequences of our own sinful actions. We are miserable wretches because of the struggle within us (Romans 7:15-20). However, I do not consider my support of women in ministry (ordained and consecrated) to be the product of this sort of struggle. I have other behaviours caught up in this battle, as we all do. I might not always express myself as I should, I am conscious of my sinfulness here, but holding to the idea as a position is not tantamount to going my own way and being disobedient to God and I think it is this which I am hoping will be recognised. On a practical level, I still struggle completely to understand how it might be sinful for a woman to explore God's word with both men and women. I am trying really hard to understand. it's just that I am always left asking myself questions like 'What will happen? What are the consequences? If a woman is the vehicle that the Spirit uses to bring a man into a living relationship with Christ through her preaching and teaching of the scriptures, how can this not only be a cause for celebration, just as much as it would be if it all happened the other way around?