pursuing faithfulness to the Word of God and fullness of the Spirit of God
Archive for November, 2008
Book Review – Vintage Jesus (Mark Driscoll & Gerry Breshears)
Nov 22nd
I didn’t originally intend to read this book as I had listened to a number of the sermons in Mark Driscoll’s Vintage Jesus series, but a friend lent it to me and I’ve been working my way through over the last month. Driscoll co-authored it with Gerry Breshears, but it would appear that Breshears is more of an editor as Driscoll speaks regularly in the first person.
In terms of style, it’s typical Driscoll. Easy to read, funny, contemporary, direct, shocking and borderline offensive in places. I had supposed at first that the book would be presented as an "introduction to Jesus" for non-Christians, and while it may be appropriate for that, it is more of a book form of the sermon series, and so will often rely on proof-texting from the Bible to make various theological points. It is full of fascinating anecdotes and quotes and could be a good source of material for preachers to borrow from, although it is quite America-centric.
The first chapter sets out to prove that Jesus is "God". I would have thought it might be good to discuss what this means in terms of the Trinity, but the focus is solely on proving Jesus’ divinity. This is then complemented by a chapter on Jesus’ humanity (in Dricoll-speak "Jesus was a dude"). The third chapter, "How did people know Jesus was coming?" deals with all the prophecies and promises concerning Jesus’ coming in the Old Testament. This raised some hermeneutical issues for me, as many of the Scriptures he cites clearly are not straightforward "promises" as he puts it. Rather, I see them as fore-shadowings, things that could be understood after the Messiah coming, rather than being some kind of cryptic crossword clues to be solved in advance. However, I do commend his Christo-centric approach to Scripture:
no matter how many verses are used, the Bible has not been rightly understood or proclaimed unless Jesus is the central focus and hero.
One of the strengths of the book is that each chapter is followed by a set of common questions and objections, and Driscoll don’t duck any hard questions.
His chapter on Jesus as Prophet, Priest and King had some interesting insights into the tendency of Fundamentalism, Evangelicalism and Liberalism to emphasise only two of those roles at the expense of the third.
Then follow some chapters dealing with the subjects of the virgin birth and the atonement, and he takes the opportunity to distance himself from various emerging church leaders who doubt or deny a literal virgin birth and oppose the concept of penal substitutionary atonement. He argues for a multi-faceted understanding of the meaning of Jesus’ death and resurrection, which has at its core the penal substitionary model but also includes concepts such as Christus Victor. He lost me a little on his fine distinction between paradise and heaven before and after the cross though.
The chapter on the resurrection presents a variety of evidence for believing its historicity as well as the theological importance and implications. He then turns to consider the importance of worshipping Jesus, and here is some of the strongest material in the book as he explores the various forms of idolatry in Western culture, the chief of which is self-idolatry.
serving people in the name of Jesus and in the character of Jesus is the most satisfying form of worship ever
There is a chapter on the difference Jesus has made in history. This includes a variety of answers to those who suggest that Christianity has made the world worse, not better. He also takes on some of the theologically liberal ideas of the Jesus seminar. The final chapter is on the return of Jesus. Refreshingly he doesn’t set out a timetable of when it will happen (choosing to mock those who do), but rather talks about what Jesus will do when he returns, which includes a frank discussion of judgement and hell, as well as his bringing of recreation and shalom.
Can I recommend this book? Certainly, I think it is a great book for Christians who perhaps are not used to reading more solemn theological tomes, but want to understand more of the Biblical teaching about Jesus. It could also be good read for a non-Christian who has had some exposure to Christianity. Driscoll is to be commended for his willingness to tackle the tough questions, and to challenge and call us to look to Christ and worship him. It’s not a perfect book, and not everyone will appreciate his style, but there could be no more edifying subject matter than the person and work of Christ.
Faith and Truth
Nov 8th
Earlier this year I read a book on epistemology. Not being much of a philosopher myself, some of it undoubtedly went over my head, but it did get me thinking about how I would define my own theory of epistemology. In other words, how do I know what is true? I have no doubt that my thoughts on this matter aren’t original (there is probably even a fancy name for my views). And I am sure that some of my more philosophically savvy readers can blow plenty of holes in this, but I present it here anyway.
My basic idea is that all knowledge is faith based. Everything I believe is based on some kind of trust relationship. The stronger my faith or trust is in something, the more firmly I believe what it tells me.
So for example. I believe I ate cornflakes for breakfast this morning. It is a strongly held belief because I trust my short-term memory. However, if you ask me what my phone number was while I was at university, I think I can remember it, but my certainty is not so high. The strength of my belief is based on the strength of my faith in something (my memory in this case).
Another example. I believe that Arsenal drew 0-0 with Panathinaikos on Wednesday in the Champions League. This belief is solely based on the BBC’s report of the match. I have no other evidence whatsoever for this belief. It is a strongly held belief because I trust the BBC to be truthful reporters (on matters of football results at least).
All of my scientific beliefs are also trust-based. If I believe that the speed of light is a constant, it is not because I have in any way "proved" it, but simply because I trust the superior intellects of the scientific community. If I say that the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s, it is because I trust Wikipedia. If I perform an experiment to measure it, I must trust the accuracy of the measuring equipment, as well as my own competence to perform the experiment correctly.
So I do not consider my religious beliefs to be any special category of "faith-based" beliefs. They are again the result of a trust relationship. As a Christian, I trust Jesus – meaning that I believe him to be a speaker of truth. This necessitates that I have at least some level of trust in the Bible, first because it is the source of what Jesus said, and second because Jesus himself placed great trust in the Scriptures.
Which brings me onto my second observation, which is about how we acquire, maintain and change our beliefs. As small children we are inherently trusting of what our parents tell us. Later we go to school and believe our teachers. But sooner or later we learn that there are such things as lies, and such things as contradictory viewpoints. When we hear a competing truth claim, or see something that conflicts with our understanding of the truth, then we are forced to re-evaluate our trust relationships.
As an example, let’s return to the BBC. I consider the BBC to be a trustworthy news agency. I am strongly inclined to believe their reports are truthful and impartial. But suppose I am reading a news article about evangelicalism which I judge to be factually incorrect and strongly biased. Now my trust relationship needs to be re-evaluated. I become more cynical and wary concerning what they report.
And the same follows with my religious beliefs. Undoubtedly my early belief in God was based on the faith of my parents, and those at the church I attended. I trusted the Bible simply because I was told it was true. But as I grew older, I came across those who didn’t believe the Bible, and their arguments against it. Each time it caused a re-evaluation of my trust relationships.
Whenever there is a re-evaluation of a trust relationship because it has been challenged by a competing claim, three outcomes can occur. First of all, we might consider our original belief to have survived the challenge. In this case, our trust is likely to become even stronger. Second, we might consider the challenge to have some merit, but not enough to cause us to reject our original belief. We then enter a period of doubt or agnosticism, awaiting more evidence that will sway us one way or the other. The third outcome is that we consider the challenge to be successful. Our original trust-relationship is broken (often causing a cascading effect of tearing down other related beliefs) and a new one is formed.
So in conclusion, I cannot accept the idea often heard from people like Richard Dawkins that true beliefs are those based solely on "evidence" and "rationality". Evidence must be trusted before we base a belief on it, and my ability to reason flawlessly from premise to conclusion cannot be taken for granted.
So the things I believe are all based on faith. I might trust a scientific theory because I trust the textbook it is written in, but when I perform my own experiments and see with my own eyes that the predictions it makes are valid, then my level of trust in that theory grows. It is exactly the same with faith in Jesus. My level of faith and trust can only grow if I take him at his word and do the things he says. Only then will I see if he is telling me the truth or not, and only then will my faith grow as he proves himself faithful to me.
Politics and Hatred
Nov 3rd
Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarrelling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another.
(Titus 3:1-3 ESV)
I haven’t been actively trying to follow the American election but it has been hard to ignore. Perhaps one of the things that has stood out for me has been the level of hostility in much of the comment I have read. It is not an exaggeration to say that George Bush is "hated" by many, and many of the computer programming blogs I read have expressed their utter contempt for Sarah Palin. On the other side, there are undoubtedly those whose attitude to Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton could also be described as "hatred".
And it’s not just the arena of politics. Any celebrity, or indeed anyone who is in the public eye is apparently fair game these days. They can be freely insulted ("stupid" and "scary" are the favourites at the moment) without fear of comeback.
In short, Paul’s description of a society who are "slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another" seems remarkably up to date.
The challenge for Christians in these days is to refuse to join in with the culture of hatred, and instead "to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarrelling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people". It is good to see people like John Piper setting an example in this way, speaking out clearly his beliefs (which are not going to be popular with everyone) yet without resorting to inflammatory or insulting language.
Maybe as Christians we are going to be called "stupid" and "scary" a whole lot more in the coming years. But let us make it virtually impossible for us to be accused of hatred because of the gentleness and courtesy that consistently characterise us.
“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.
(Luke 6:27-28 ESV)
