Thursday, March 22, 2007

Chris Wright on Noah & Mission

Although we live on a cursed earth, we also live on a covenanted earth.


This is God's earth, and God is covenantally committed to its survival, just as later revelation will show us that God is also covenantally committed to its ultimate redemption.


Our mission takes place within the framework of God's universal promise to the created order.


The rainbow promise spans whatever horizon we can ever see.


Christopher J H Wright, The Mission of God, IVP 2006, pp.326,7

Monday, February 26, 2007

Blessing, not cursing

In commenting on Genesis 3, John Goldingay (Old Testament Theology p.139) notices that "God actively blesses; God does not actively curse, but declares that the snake and ground are cursed." While acknowledging that "at one level the distinction is purely syntactical" he goes on to (fairly, imo) comment that "To describe God as blessing but not directly cursing suggests that blessing is Yhwh's natural activity, while cursing is less so...In Yhwh's nature blessing has priority over cursing, love over anger, mercy over retribution."

An interesting example that seems to confirm Goldingay's observation is found in Exodus 20:5 where the Lord delcares that he will punish the children for the sin of their parents to the fourth generation but will show love to a thousand generations of those who love him. Because his priority is blessing, not cursing.

The Best Paragraph Ever Written

I believe this to be one of the finest paragraphs ever written. It makes you want to continue reading, its use of english is faultless and its pace and tone are exemplary (I'm sure the venerable Mr Zinsser would agree). The author is Eugene Peterson and he is writing about the pastoral ministry.

Here it is:

The adjective apocalyptic is not commonly found in company with the noun pastor. I can't remember ever hearing them in the same sentence. They grew up on different sides of the tracks. I'd like to play Cupid between the two words and see if I can instigate a courtship.


(from a piece entitled The Apocalyptic Pastor, found in various places including here)

I read the paragraph to my wife (whose name is a palindrome) and told her that I would give my life-savings to be able to write like that. She half-laughed, safe in the knowledge that were my intent true it wouldn't change our lives much. When I told her that I would sell this house to be able to write like that, she stood aghast and said "Surely you wouldn't!" I don't recall my response but it probably masked, for her sake, how real that desire was. Because it's the finest paragraph I have ever read.

Monday, February 12, 2007

sermons on john 13-17

for what it's worth, my sermon notes on john 13-17, preached in swinton a couple of years ago, are available here (and also via the sermons link in the sidebar).

Thursday, February 08, 2007

those who sleep in boats

Jonah is commissioned by God but flees.
Jesus is commissioned by God and follows.

Jonah is caught in a storm sent by God.
Jesus is caught in a storm of satanic fury.

Jonah sleeps through the storm while the others on the boat are full of terror.
Jesus sleeps through the storm while the others on the boat are full of terror.

Jonah sleeps callously and carelessly.
Jesus sleeps content in his Father's care.

Jonah is woken and his voice (indirectly) is the means for the storm to be stilled ("throw me into the sea").
Jesus is woken and his voice is the means for the storm to be stilled ("Peace; be still.").

Two ways to sleep in a boat; one way to do so well.

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Leah: pain and praise

Genesis 29:31-35 records the birth and naming of Jacob's first four sons by Leah. Interestingly, it is she who names the children, not Jacob (is he really that disinterested?) and the names, along with the reasoning behind them, seem to give some insight into Leah's handling of the pain of her situation.

When the first son is born, she names him Reuben because she believes YHWH has seen her misery, being relatively unloved by her husband. Her hope is that Jacob will love her now.

But that seems not to be the case. When her second son is born, she names him Simeon because YHWH has heard she is (still) not loved. The fond hopes that surrounded the birth of Reuben were clearly not fulfilled.

Leah's pain evidently continues; when her third son is born she names him Levi, ardently hoping that now at last his birth will cause her husband to be attached to her. It seems a forlorn hope. She has been placed in an intolerable situation and not by her own choice. She is deeply pained at Jacob's rejection of her and longs for him to have a change of heart in order to heal the pain in hers. But it seems Jacob is unmoved by the kindness of YHWH in giving sons to he and Leah and blind to the favour of YHWH towards Leah.

Yet when her fourth son is born, she names him Judah saying, "This time I will praise YHWH". No mention this time of her husband, nor of her desperate desire to be loved and accepted by him (an entirely understandable and legitimate desire).

But Leah, so slighted and demeaned, is not abandoned in her misery and with the birth of Judah she recognises this. No doubt the pain remains but she is able now to praise YHWH out of her pain. Reconciled to her situation, she is able to rejoice in the God who is ever-loving and ever-loyal to his people. "This time" her focus is higher than her husband and her joy greater than he could arouse or sustain. To be loved and accepted by YHWH and to know his favour means more than anything else could.

Maybe it's no coincidence that at this point "she stopped having children".

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

stirring the pot

In many books, a new chapter begins with a quote from some notable or other, or some not-notable-but-still-quotable or other; in his book, The Forgotten Ways: Reactivating the Missional Church, Alan Hirsch does just that. Here are a couple of such quotes that are worth pondering:

A church which pitches its tents without constantly looking out for new horizons, which does not continually strike camp, is being untrue to its calling.. . . [We must] play down our longing for certainty, accept what is risky, and live by improvisation and experiment. (Hans Küng, The Church as the People of God)

If you want to build a ship, don’t summon people to buy wood, prepare tools, distribute jobs, and organize the work, rather teach people the yearning for the wide, boundless ocean. (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry)


Leithart Links

Peter Leithart's writing is always stimulating - here are some recent posts that seemed especially so to me.

Unbearable Burden of Evangelicalism

You Shall Know Them By Their Fear

Fear and Fear

Saturday, January 20, 2007

Christian Idolatry

A huge religious marketplace has been set up in North America to meet the needs and fantasies of people just like us. There are conferences and gatherings custom-designed to give us the lift we need. There are books, videos, and seminars that promise to let us in on the Christian "secret" of whatever it is we feel is lacking in our life-financial security, well-behaved children, weight loss, sex, travel to holy sites, exciting worship, celebrity teachers. The people who promote these goods and services all smile a lot and are good-looking. They are obviously not bored.

It isn't long before we're standing in line to buy whatever is being offered. And because none of the purchases does what we had hoped for, or at least not for long, we're soon back to buy another, and then another. The process is addicting. We become consumers of packaged spiritualities.

This also is idolatry. We never think of using this term because everything we're buying or paying for is defined by the adjective Christian. But idolatry it is, nevertheless. It's God packaged as a product-God depersonalized and made available as a technique or a program. The Christian market in idols has never been more brisk or lucrative. The late medieval indulgences that provoked Luther's righteous wrath are small potatoes compared to what's going on in our evangelical backyard.

Eugene H. Peterson, Living the Resurrection, NavPress 2006, pp.35,36

How to Encourage the Church

The incident of Peter and Cornelius is a major one within the book of Acts. Cornelius is presented as a prime example of the gospel being received by Gentiles. But, in terms of reaching out to Gentiles, Acts 11:19ff could be at least as significant as the Cornelius incident. It may well have begun before Peter’s encounter with Cornelius (see v.19) and, in terms of numbers and the future significance of the church at Antioch, it is extremely important.

All of which makes it very interesting that this expansion to the Gentiles is not an organised mission but takes place naturally as the church scatters following the death of Stephen. In Acts, missionaries are sent out by churches and usually work to a clear plan but that needs to be set alongside what we see here of these early believers sharing the gospel as they went.

The calling and responsibility to reach out to others is not the preserve of pastors, evangelists and missionaries; it is a whole church calling and we each have a responsibility to take it to heart. These early believers shared the gospel naturally, as they travelled, as they set up home, as they worked. And this was the norm, not the exception.

It is, of course, right and good that churches and mission agencies plan and partner in the sending-out of gospel workers. It would be a betrayal of the Lord not to do so. But the responsibility of churches and mission agencies is not simply to initiate ministries; it is also about being sensitive to and catching-up with what the Lord is already doing in spontaneous and (humanly-speaking) unplanned ways. That was the reality faced here by the church in Jerusalem.

As the gospel spreads among the Gentiles, one of the big questions to be faced is, How will the church in Jerusalem react? When Philip preached in Samaria, they sent Peter and John to authenticate the work, to give it the apostolic imprimatur. Given that these are Gentiles, will they react with suspicion and try to suppress what is going on?

What they do is send Barnabas to them. This time they send one man, not two. He isn’t an apostle. He’s a native of Cyprus, as were many of these believers. And he was a man of exceptional spirit, warm and encouraging. This doesn’t smack of control and suspicion but of contribution and support for this young church. The church at Jerusalem was the original one; the apostles were the authentic witnesses to the Lord Jesus and his gospel. But that doesn’t mean they must hereafter control everything that happens in terms of the spread of the gospel. It is the Lord Jesus who directs the mission; they are his co-workers. So instead of sending people to check out this new development, they choose instead to send a man who will cheer on those involved in it.

Sending Barnabas to Antioch was perhaps the greatest thing the church at Jerusalem ever did for their brothers and sisters there. He is an outstanding example of a Christian and of what a church-worker should be. He isn’t jealous of their work, nor does he want to take it over; he rejoices in the work and encourages them to keep going and remain true to the Lord. His concern was not sectarian (to make them Jews) but to strengthen their Christian life and witness.

But this humble man is ready to acknowledge that he doesn’t have all the gifts necessary to help this church and so he goes on a long 200-mile round trip to bring Saul to join him in the work. He recognised the Lord’s calling of Saul and the gifts he’d been given – what a great encouragement to Saul that must have been! And, in God’s providence, this almost incidental action has immense strategic significance for the whole progress of the gospel; it is from Antioch that Barnabas and Saul will be sent out by the church into further mission.

The rest, as they say and as we know, is history.


(this piece first appeared in the UFM Worldwide magazine, 4 Corners, Jan-April 2007)

Monday, January 01, 2007

A Hermeneutic Of Trust

In Shakespeare's Measure for Measure the self-righteous villain Angelo pronounces a death sentence on Claudio, who is guilty of committing fornication. Claudio's sister Isabella comes to Angelo to plead for the life of her brother, but Angelo, who is trying to manipulate Isabella into bed with him, spurns her suit, saying,

Your brother is a forfeit of the law,
And you but waste your words.


Isabella's reply alludes to the great theme of Romans and calls upon the hypocritical judge Angelo to see his life anew in light of God's judgment and grace:

Why, all the souls that were were forfeit once;
And He that might the vantage best have took
Found out the remedy. How would you be
If He, which is the top of judgment, should
But judge you as you are? 0, think on that;
And mercy then will breathe within your lips,
Like man new made.


Isabella resists the oppressor by applying a hermeneutic of suspicion to his pose of righteousness and by appealing to a hermeneutic of trust in the biblical story of God's mercy. Isabella is a profound interpreter of Scripture. We should follow her example.

Richard B. Hays - The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel's Scriptures; Eerdmans 2005; p.200f

Loving and Hearing the Text

When I was an undergraduate at Yale University, students flocked to Professor Alvin Kernan's lecture courses on Shakespeare. Kernan's work predated the academy's current infatuation with ideological criticism. Even though it was the late 1960s and we were all living in an atmosphere charged with political suspicion and protest, none of this overtly impinged on Kernan's lectures. Kernan was not a flashy lecturer. What, then, was the draw?

He loved the texts. His teaching method - as I remember it - was simply to engage in reflective close readings of the Shakespeare tragedies and comedies, delineating their rich texture of image and metaphor and opening up their complex central themes - moral, philosophical, and religious. Often, Kernan would devote a significant part of his lecture time to reading the text aloud, not in any highly dramatic manner, but with sensitivity to the text's rhythms and semantic nuances. I would often sit in class thinking, "Oh! ... I hadn't heard that in the text before." And I would leave the class pondering the problems Shakespeare addressed: love, betrayal, fidelity, sacrifice, death, and hope.

Richard B. Hays - The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter of Israel's Scriptures; Eerdmans 2005; p.200

Loving the text so that others truly hear the text. That's a good aim for 2007.

Monday, December 18, 2006

Two thoughts

from John 19:

i) The correlation in v.7 & v.12 of the terms 'Son of God' and 'King' suggests that the Jewish leaders were not accusing Jesus of claiming divinity but of claiming to be the Messiah;

ii) The irony of the Jewish leaders' assertion, "We have no king but Caesar" being followed in the text by Pilate finally handing Jesus over to be crucified: the irony lies in the fact that to say they have no king but Caesar is the final capitulation.

Sunday, December 10, 2006

voluntary gifts (Volf)

Since God gives freely, we should too. That's how the apostle Paul thought of gift giving; it should be voluntary. He praised believers from Macedonia for giving "voluntarily" to the poor of Jerusalem (2 Corinthians 8:3). Similarly, he urged that the Corinthians' gift be ready when he came to collect it "as a voluntary gift and not as an extortion" (2 Corinthians 9:5).

Why is freedom in giving so important? Because the gift consists more in the freely undertaken choice to give than in the things given. In this regard, the Apostle might well have agreed with Seneca, the great stoic writer on gift giving, who said: "For, since in the case of a benefit the chief pleasure of it comes from the intention of the bestower, he who by his very hesitation has shown that he made his bestowal unwillingly has not `given', but has failed to withstand the effort to extract it."' As for Seneca, for the Apostle the "eagerness" of the giver matters more than the magnitude of the gift. God loves "a cheerful giver" (2 Corinthians 8:12 and 9:7).

And yet we noted earlier that we are obliged to give. God's gifts themselves oblige us, and God's commands reinforce that obligation. Now we see that we are obliged to give freely - and there's the rub. How can we give freely if we are obliged to give? Inversely, how can we be obliged to give if we give freely? Is it possible to be obliged to give freely?

The apostle Paul thought so. True, he never commanded the Corinthians to give, and he underscored this for them (2 Corinthians 8:8). But he exerted enormous pressure on them using some potent rhetorical weapons. He played with their sense of shame: they would humiliate themselves if they didn't give (2 Corinthians 9:4). He had them compete with other donors: the Macedonians gave, so the Corinthians should stick to their promise and give (which is also what he said to the Macedonians in 2 Corinthians 9:2). He appealed to their debt to him: he would be humiliated if they didn't give (2 Corinthians 9:4). And he did all this in order to nudge them to give, as he put it, "not reluctantly or under compulsion", but voluntarily (2 Corinthians 9:7)!

Was the Apostle twisting their arm to be free? Some strange freedom this must be! But maybe our sense that to be free is to act under no constraint whatsoever is mistaken. We tend to think that we must be autonomous and spontaneous to act freely. Behind this identification of freedom with autonomous spontaneity lies the notion of a self-defined and free-floating person. Strip down all the influences of time and place, abstract from culture and nurture, and then you'll come to your authentic core. This core is who you truly are, the thinking goes - unique, unshaped, unconstrained.

But that's more like a caricature of a divine self than an accurate description of a human self. Using the image of the beast, Luther argued that human beings are always ridden by someone, either by God or by the Devil. That's a crude way of putting it, but it's basically right. The point is not that either God or the Devil compels us. In that case, our will would turn into, as Luther put it, "unwill". It's rather that, unlike God, we always exercise our will as beings constantly shaped by many factors - by language, parental rearing, culture, media, advertising, and peer pressure, and through all these, we are shaped either by God or by God's adversary. Often we don't perceive ourselves as shaped at all. If we are not visibly and palpably coerced, we think that we act autonomously, spontaneously, and authentically. Yet we are wrong.

Take our preferences for one soft drink over another. I am thirsty, walk into a store, reach for a Pepsi, and walk away, never doubting that I acted autonomously and spontaneously. But why did I choose Pepsi over Coke or just plain water? I may like its taste better. But most likely it's because Pepsi's ads got to me the way Coke's didn't. I don't autonomously and spontaneously choose to be a Pepsi drinker; I'm made into a Pepsi drinker. Yet I freely chose that Pepsi can that is in my hand.

Recall what I said about the old and the new selves. Our old self died, and our new self was raised. It's a self in whom Christ dwells and through whom Christ acts, a self that has put on Christ and "learned" Christ. We are these new selves, and that's why we give (though non-Christians can give for many other reasons). We don't give mainly because God or God's messengers command us to. If we did, we would be giving under compulsion, and therefore, reluctantly. Instead, we give because we are givers, because Christ living in us is a giver. Informing every seemingly small act of Christian giving is a change in our very being, a transformation of a person from being one who either illicitly takes or merely legitimately acquires, into being one who beneficently gives. As I will explain in chapter 3, even as such transformed people, we still need to grow into the joy of giving. But the command to give is not compelling us to act against ourselves, even if it often feels like this.

That feeling that the command is against us, a sense of reluctance in giving, is not unfounded. When we have failed to put away our "former way of life", the new self becomes an obligation that butts against the ingrained habits of the old self. Yet as uncomfortable as it may feel, the pressure is not to our detriment, but in our favor. It pushes us to act true to who we most properly are. That's why we can be obliged to give freely: the obligation nudges us to do what the new self would do if the old one didn't stand in the way.

Imagine your life as a piece of music, a Bach cello suite. You've heard it played by a virtuoso. You love it and would like to play it well. But try as you might, you fail - not so much because you've had a bad teacher or haven't practiced enough, but because your left hand has a defect. You make music, but it's nothing like it's supposed to sound. Then you have surgery performed by a magician with a scalpel. Your hand heals. You return to your lessons with new vigor. And then one day, you play the piece nearly perfectly. Full of joy, you exclaim, "Yes! I love it! This is the way the music of my life should sound!" Constrained by the score because you have to follow its notation? Well, yes. But loving every moment of that constraint - and not feeling it as constraint at all - because the very constraint is what makes for the beauty and delight.

Something like this is what it means to be a free giver. God obliges us to give. But it is precisely when we act in accordance with the obligation that we have a sense of unspoiled authenticity and freedom. So in our best moments, we forget the command and just give the way we are supposed to give. We are like a motor-powered sailboat when it's "running", as sailors say: With the wind at the back of a powered boat, all resistance is gone; the boat is always where the wind would push it to be. The same is true of us when we give freely. Living out of our new selves, we are always already where the command would want us to be.

(Miroslav Volf, Free Of Charge, pp.64-67)

Thursday, December 07, 2006

Monday, December 04, 2006

the psalms & us

The attempt to recover and renew psalmody in our time must not be undertaken merely as an embellishment of liturgical practice. Crucial possibilities for the theological, liturgical, and pastoral life of the church are involved. The liveliness and actuality of the language of the reign of God supply an organizing milieu for all the principal topics of the Christian faith. It constitutes the basis and medium of the three primary functions of our religion - praise, prayer, and the practice of piety. It provides a way of thinking and understanding that holds the individual and corporate relation to God together. Said and sung as Christian liturgy, the language of the psalms discloses the unity of the canon of scripture. It articulates a polemic against the polytheism and paganism that go unnoticed in our culture. It establishes a critical resistance to the domination of any human politics and the apotheosizing of any ideology, including democracy. The language of the psalms puts all who use them in the role of servants to the LORD God, and so lays a basis for an ethic of trust and obedience. It opens up a realm for existence in which the dying may take hope, the afflicted find strength, and the faithful encouragement.

Mere recitation of the psalms will lay hold on none of these possibilities. If, however, in the use of psalms as our praise and prayer and scripture we are led to feel and think and decide as those who live in the kingdom of God in hope of the kingdom of God, then we might begin to grasp some of them. We might be better able to trust ourselves to the One who comes saying, "The kingdom of God is at hand." That would be the right reason for the renewal of psalmody today.
James L. Mays, The LORD Reigns - A Theological Handbook to the Psalms, p.11

augustine & the psalms

In his Confessions, Augustine tells how he used the psalms in a period of retreat between his conversion and baptism. "What utterances sent I unto Thee, my God, when I read the Psalms of David, those faithful songs and sounds of devotion.... What utterances I used to send up unto Thee in those Psalms, and how was I inflamed toward Thee by them" (IX, 4).

For Augustine it was a time of preparation for a different life, of initiation into a new existence, a period in which habits of thought, customs of practice, and feelings about self and others and the world had to be reconstituted. As part of the transformation, he was learning a new language.

He spoke the psalms to and before the Christian God, who was now source and subject of his faith and life. He took their vocabulary and sentences as his own. He identified himself with the speaker of the psalms. He said the psalms as his words, let his feelings be evoked and led by their language, spoke the words that resonated in his own consciousness in concord with those of the psalms. He was acquiring a language world that went with his new identity as a Christian. It was the vocabulary of prayer and praise, the "first order" language that expressed the sense of self and world that comes with faith in the God to whom, of whom, and for whom the psalms speak.

James L. Mays, The LORD Reigns - A Theological Handbook to the Psalms, p.3

Friday, December 01, 2006

In a different light

It has always struck me as a great (and regrettable irony): Festus and Agrippa agree that Paul could have been set free (Acts 26:32) but because Paul has appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:11 ), to Caesar he must go. If only he'd held on a little while longer before making that last-ditch appeal, it could all have been so much simpler; still, I'm sure the Lord is able to use it for Paul's and the gospel's good. He is sovereign, after all.

But no; it's much more definite than that, in every sense. Paul has already been told that the Lord is taking him to Rome (Acts 23:11) - the only thing not specified was the how and why of the way in which that journey would come about. The purpose for going was as clear as day:

As you have testified about me in Jerusalem, so you must also testify in Rome (Acts 23:11)

So Paul's appeal to Caesar is neither impetuous nor desperate; it arises in the context of the Lord's clear direction and decision to send his apostle to the heart of the empire. And the forcing of Festus' hand is not a matter for regret; it is simply the Lord's time and place for enacting his plan to send Paul to Rome.

I'd never seen it that way before. I do now.

Thursday, November 30, 2006

doctrine & competence

Doctrines, then, are profitable for celebrating, communicating, criticizing - and coping - provided they are used competently. The present work sets forth an account of theological competence, which involves more than academic expertise. Theological competence is ultimately a matter of being able to make judgements that display the mind of Christ. Individual Christians, and the church as a whole, have no more crucial task than achieving such theological competence. One of the chief means of doing so is by attending to doctrine - to its derivation from Scripture and its development in the believing community."

Kevin J. Vanhoozer, in the introduction to The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical-Liguistic Approach to Christian Theology, p. 2

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

final blessing

God bless you, Dad;
God bless you, Dad.

You've been
a wonderful father,
a good husband
and
a lovely grandad.

You've loved us all so much;
we all love you so much.

God bless you, Dad;
God bless you, Dad.

(the final words spoken to George Myerscough, early morning 30/11/05)

Closure

A year ago
I closed your eyes
after that last, long
gasp of life.
It was the hardest thing I've ever done.

You were there
when my eyes opened in life
and I was there to close yours in death;
your eyes brimmed with joy at the sight,
mine with savage pain.
The colour remained
but not the life.

A year ago
I closed your eyes;
the bruise remains.

resemblance

Some people say
I have my father's
eyes

but I've always known
I had his
heart.

Friday, November 24, 2006

the longest time

For the longest time
your voice has been
silent;
that voice which could boom
out, calling for tea,
while preserving
from sight
a thousand realities.

I've waited to see you
and to hear you
once more
but even the fullest dreams
are empty;

void.

I saw you last
in that morning light;

still and gone.

Thursday, November 23, 2006

How John Mark Became Helpful

He was a deserter; a failure. And the cause of a sharp disagreement between two Christian ministers, one of them his uncle. So sharp in fact that they no longer worked together.

Later on, the one who had objected to John Mark's continued presence on the team speaks of him in very warm terms; he has proved himself to be a valuable colleague in gospel work.

So how did the change come about? How was this fallible young man recovered? Who mentored him into being a faithful gospel servant?

Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus. (Acts 15:39)

The one who didn't give up on him, presumably.


Strengthen your brothers

Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers. (Luke 22:31,32 TNIV)

Satan wants to sift the disciples like wheat - he wants to put them to the test, chew them up and spit them out. Jesus tells Simon about this. They are all in Satan's sights. But Jesus has prayed for...Peter, that his faith would not fail him. And those prayers are answered: in the event of Peter's testing, his faith doesn't fail him; in faith, he repents of his sin when Jesus looks at him.

But what about the others? Did they not need Jesus' prayers too? Why tell Simon that they were all vulnerable but that he had prayed only for Simon? The pronouns are deliberate and deliberately disclose that distinction.

The answer is in the commission Jesus gives the soon-to-fall and soon-to-be-restored Peter: when he has turned, he is to strengthen his brothers. Jesus will help them in their vulnerability through Peter, their fallen and restored brother.

We need the community of such brothers and sisters. They are part of the Lord's means of strengthening us in the face of our vulnerability.

Friday, October 20, 2006

Yahweh's mercy

let me fall into the hands of Yahweh,
for his mercy is very great;
and let me not fall into the hands of men
(1 Chron. 21:13)


David was offered 3 choices as punishment for numbering Israel: three years of famine; three months of war or three days of the Angel of Yahweh bringing death on the people. Three years seems a long time but they might just be able to eke things out; three months against military enemies for a seasoned warrior might not seem too long; but who knows how much damage the omnipotent God could do in just three days?

David opts for the three days, yet only on this basis: Yahweh's mercy is very great. Unlike fallen humanity, in wrath he remembers mercy. And his mercy is very great. It is indeed a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God but faced with the choice between Yahweh's merciful judgement and human cruelty, David chose the former.

Because Yahweh's mercy is very great.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

The Holy Scriptures

1.
Oh Book! infinite sweetnesse! let my heart
Suck ev’ry letter, and a hony gain,
Precious for any grief in any part ;
To cleare the breast, to mollifie all pain.

Thou art all health, health thriving, till it make
A full eternitie: thou art a masse
Of strange delights, where we may wish and take.
Ladies, look here; this is the thankfull glasse,

That mends the lookers eyes: this is the well
That washes what it shows. Who can indeare
Thy praise too much? thou art heav’ns Lidger here,
Working against the states of death and hell.

Thou art joyes handsell: heav’n lies flat in thee,
Subject to ev’ry mounters bended knee.


2.
Oh that I knew how all thy lights combine,
And the configurations of their glorie!
Seeing not only how each verse doth shine,
But all the constellations of the storie.

This verse marks that, and both do make a motion
Unto a third, that ten leaves off doth lie:
Then as dispersed herbs do watch a potion,
These three make up some Christians destinie.

Such are thy secrets, which my life makes good,
And comments on thee: for in ev’ry thing
Thy words do finde me out, and parallels bring,
And in another make me understood.

Starres are poore books, and oftentimes do misse
This book of starres lights to eternall blisse.


(George Herbert)

Professional Daydreamer (Over The Rhine)

Part of me
You are a part of me
I never want to lose
Hard for me
This is too hard
Maybe I can't get through
What will I miss the most
Pray that I'm haunted by your ghost

Listening
You're always listening
I don't know what to say
Why don't you turn and run at break-neck speed
Just to get away
And when you catch your breath
Pray I said every word I meant

Alright it's alright now
Alright it's alright

Broken down
We're all so broken down
Bandages on our wings
I know I don't have to tell you
Only broken hearts can sing
I'm hoping for a sign
Pray that I'm anything but fine

Some things are never gonna change
You ought to know by now

*******

words: Bergquist/Detweiler
music: Bergquist

Monday, August 21, 2006

Election and Covenant

"The Sinai event is a kind of axle for holding together two basic realities: one, everything God does involves me (election); and two, everything I do is therefore significant (covenant). Because I am chosen, I have consequence. Election creates a unique identity; covenant describes a responsible relationship. Election is the declaration that God has designs upon me; covenant is the description of how the things I do fit into those designs."

Eugene H. Peterson
Five Smooth Stones for Pastoral Work

Ruth

"is the inconsequential outsider whose life is essential for telling the complete story of salvation."

"is the instance of a person uprooted, obscure, alienated who learned to understand her story as a modest but nevertheless essential part of the vast epic whose plot is designed by God's salvation."

Eugene H. Peterson
Five Smooth Stones for Pastoral Work