solapanel.org

I've just finished reading C.S. Lewis' classic The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe to my daughter. It's a book full of wonderful parables and analogies to the gospel. At one point, when the children in the story are discussing Aslan (the lion character who represents Jesus Christ), the youngest child Lucy asks,

“Then isn't he safe?”

“Safe?” said Mr Beaver; “... Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you.”

My good friend and colleague Ben Pakula has just released a new Christian children's music album called A Very Special Tent. And my whole family agrees: this album is totally awesome. The lyrics seem simple on the surface, but they're a work of art: Ben is able to pack a huge array of fundamental gospel truths into a few catchy and fun verses. Here's the lyrics to the title track:

There once was a tent, a very special tent,
a tent God came to live in.
His people would have died if they went too far inside
because a holy God can't stand sinning! (uh oh!)
But God made a way that he could stay with them.
An animal died to pay for sin,
so once a year God would let a high priest in
to show his people he loved them.

Chorus:

Oh the love of the mighty mighty God,
the mighty mighty God who deals with sin
Oh the love of the mighty mighty God,
let's turn and follow him!

There once was a man, a very special man,
the fullness of God lived in him.
He gave his perfect life as a perfect sacrifice
like the animal that died for sinning!
You see, Jesus died to pay for all our sin,
and God's holy anger went down on him.
He paid the price by death and suffering
but he did it because he loves us!

There once was a tomb, a dark and gloomy tomb
the body of Jesus lay in.
But he gave his friends a scare when they came to find him there
And they discovered something so amazing?
You see Jesus rose! He conquered death and sin!
He's the true high priest that God let in
to the tent in heaven where God has always been
and that's how we know God loves him!

Now we are a tent, a very special tent,
the Spirit of God lives with us
Because the Lord has died, we've all been justified
and given new life in Christ Jesus!
So let's all live with Jesus as the king,
'Cos he's the mighty, mighty God who deals with sin
and when we die we'll be in the tent with him
'Cos we know that he loves us!

Other songs on the album proclaim justification by faith alone, salvation, the return of Jesus, mortification of sin, thanksgiving, assurance, and more.

But it's not just the lyrics that are awesome. Ben has a background in heavy metal music, and his musical style pulls no punches. It's very, very professionally produced. It's driving, heavy and loud. I'm sure my Year 5-6 public school Scripture class will love it. But even my one-and-a-half year old squeals with delight when she hears the double-kick bass drum and distorted guitar in the song ‘Powerful Love’!

Like Jesus Christ whom the album honours and proclaims, this album is definitely not safe. But it's good—very, very good.

Ben's album can be ordered from Emu Music at http://www.emumusic.com/albums/averyspecialtent.

4 Comments »

Why do we work? What value do we attach to our work? Does our choice of jobs matter?

There's a lot of talk in Christian circles these days about work. Much of that talk seems to put a value on work that I simply don't find in the Bible.

What does the Bible actually teach about work?

• God works ... and then rests. (Gen 1).
• As God's creatures and agents in the world, we work (Gen 1:28-30). That means that work is a core part of what it is to be human. Work is not something that gets in the way of leisure; work is good.
• However, work in a fallen world will be frustrating and difficult (Gen 3).
• Work in a fallen world can also express our desire to find identity and meaning apart from God. (Gen 11).
• God cares that we work honestly, being fully conscious that he can see us working (e.g. Col 3:22ff).
• The general expectation is that we all should work. However, those whose task is the preaching of the gospel aren't required to work in the conventional sense; instead, they are to be supported by God's people (1 Tim 5:17-18).

I can really only find two reasons in the Scriptures as to why we work:

• We work in order to provide for our own basic needs and those for whom we are responsible. In so doing, we are not being lazy or a burden to others. We work to survive (2 Thess 3:6-14).
• We work so that we might be generous (Eph 4:28).

I often hear people adding a third reason based on the mandate in Genesis 1:28. However, I believe that Genesis 1 is teaching nothing more than that God gives human beings the right to use the resources of this world in order to enable them to thrive. It is really just an aspect of the first reason above: we work to survive in God's world.

If all of this is true, then it means that we don't work to find fulfilment, meaning and satisfaction. We don't work to find status and significance. We don't work to exercise power. And we don't work in order to advance the kingdom of God or advance the gospel.

To be honest, I hear people saying the last of those things all the time. It represents a confusion about how God is at work in the world. God is working in the world through the proclamation of Christ crucified. Work itself doesn't proclaim Jesus—our lives in themselves don't proclaim Jesus; the only thing that advances the kingdom of God in this world is the verbal proclamation of the message about Jesus Christ and him crucified. We may do some of that gospel proclamation during our work life, but our work itself is not the work of the kingdom.

The implications of this are massive. It means that our paid work is less significant than the gospel proclamation and ministry that we do. Sharing the gospel and teaching a Bible study group, a Sunday school class or our own children about Jesus is far more important than the work we do in order to survive and to enable us to be generous.

Now, if that is the case, then we will make decisions in life based on that priority. We will choose to turn down the promotion or the transfer if it will get in the way of the gospel proclamation ministry we are doing. Conversely, we will stay in an otherwise unsatisfying job if it is providing us with excellent gospel opportunities.

Of course, if someone was to offer you the chance to no longer have to work in order to live, but rather to spend more of your time in your real priority (gospel ministry), then wouldn't you want to say ‘yes’ straight away? Perhaps you have excellent reasons for saying ‘no’ that are ground in the priority of gospel proclamation, but this probably applies to less of us than we think. If you decline that opportunity without good reason, doesn't that expose the reality that your work is a greater priority to you than the proclamation of the gospel?

22 Comments »

Discussions about the Apocalyptic Discourse have to involve timing. Obviously I have a problem with this, given how slow I am to emerge from my underworld to respond to Sandy Grant's invitation to discuss Matthew 24. Sorry about that! Even with Sandy's pre-warning, I have been found sleeping like a disciple in Gethsemane.

I'm glad to see the good old Apocalyptic Discourse (Matthew's version) on the agenda. Such a tangled web of interpretive traditions so nicely summarized by Sandy's first article. Perhaps I can follow his lead and have two bites at the cherry. Let this be my preliminary foot on the playing field, toe in the water, finger in the pie ...

It is worse with me than Sandy so politely suggested. The way he set up the discussion is that there are three plates to choose from the menu, each with advantages and disadvantages. However, the strong reason I have for reading this last discourse from the mouth of Jesus as an apocalyptic preparation for his forthcoming death and resurrection is that I believe that that is how the Gospels want us to read it! That is, for me, it is not just another interpretative option, it is a matter of exegesis or ‘good reading’. The second coming and fall of Jerusalem views are not ‘options’, but bad readings! (He says, to raise temperatures immediately!)

The trouble is, when bad readings have been around for a long time, they re-set the framework in which everyone reads so that it is no longer a level playing field, no longer smooth water and no longer cherry pie. For example, people have read ‘the coming of the Son of Man’ as if Jesus is coming from heaven to earth (i.e. in the second coming) for so long, it seems impossible for them to grasp that this entails a complete misreading of Daniel 7:13-14. In fact, this requires that the misreading was done by Jesus himself! According to Daniel, the Son of Man comes to the Ancient of Days to receive the kingdom. Simplistically put, the direction of travel is all wrong. Daniel speaks of the coming of the Son of Man from earth to heaven, and yet this bad reading in our interpretive tradition reverses it to him coming from heaven to earth, and then blames the bad reading on Jesus (who, quite frankly, should have known better!). Put with a little more nuance, it is a vindication and reception scene (as in Jesus' exaltation).

Then there is the misreading of the genre, or the type of speech that it is. For a very long time, Christians have been rightly interested in prophecy and fulfilment. But how does this work, and, more importantly, how does ‘apocalyptic’ work? So many bad readings assume a strict ‘paint-by-numbers’ approach in which every single detail of a supposed ‘prediction’ must come true in a ‘strictly literal’ (whatever that might mean) kind of way. This kind of thinking is hinted at in Sandy's comment (surely drawing on other people's views, not his own!?!)—that the reading of the discourse as being about Jesus' death and resurrection ‘struggles to account for the command to flee’. But this supposed ‘struggle’ is only there if you are after ‘one for one’ correspondences—such as an ancient allegoriser might demand from a parable. On this view, you have to find some pregnant women, some nursing mums, and some people on roofs without cloaks, etc. etc. But if consistency is a virtue, it might be worth saying that this is not usually found in the other ‘options’. Tell me, if the ‘many’ of verse 5 arise and don't speak the actual words “I am he̵, is anyone on any view really going to get that upset? Surely they can come and lead astray by saying some other words, or doing some other magic tricks, or by any number of ways. The point is not the strict literal detail, but the warning is against people who lead astray—just as Deuteronomy 13:1-5 spoke about. It also seems strange to press the detail when the discourse itself generalizes by saying the prayer option might actually enable the things to come during your summer holidays if you prefer it (v. 20). Apocalyptic is not in the detail, but in the grand sweep. The commands to flee portray dramatically the seriousness of the moment being spoken of and the urgency of responding when that moment arises. When you see ... get out of there!

Perhaps I have already gone on too long for a blog entry. But one final preliminary: several in the discussion so far have conceded that ‘my’ reading suits Mark better than Matthew. I thank them for this concession, and therefore take it as read. But this raises the question: so what does Matthew do? Does he (assuming he knew Mark) correct Mark in his reading of the discourse, or does he adopt it? Again, the answer is one not of opinion, but of exegesis. It is therefore interesting to notice that after Jesus has risen from the dead, Matthew picks up Son of Man language when Jesus declares that he has been given all authority on heaven and earth (i.e. the Son of Man has already ‘come’, received the kingdom, and entered into his rule). The only thing left is to send out his messengers to gather the elect from the four corners of the earth, which he then does. Oh, and if we wanted to go to Luke, isn't it interesting that Luke, the only Gospel with a sequel, speaks in Son of Man terms before the resurrection-exaltation, and, in Acts 7, it is clear that the Son of Man has already come to the right hand of God, and when the rest of Acts speaks of the ‘second coming’, it never uses the language of Daniel 7:13? No opinion, just a question of reading what is there.

But I guess my ‘devil’ is probably in the details, so I will leave the discussion to my own ‘part 2’, and crawl back to my underworld for a while.

2 Comments »

Peter, how did you come to Christ?

In my final year of high school, I came across some Christians who told me the gospel. I thought, “If that is true, that is the best news I have ever heard”. It took me about 12 months to work out that it was true.

How do you occupy your time?

I have the privilege of working at Moore College, teaching students eager to learn about the Lord Jesus Christ.

Tell us a bit about your background or other interests.

I'm Tasmanian by birth, then from country NSW. I was converted at 17. I studied medicine and left it to go into ministry. I love music of all kinds, I love swimming, I like humour and good conversation. I have four daughters who are my life.

What are some books that really helped you grow as a Christian?

• L Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination: this helped me to work out who is in charge.
• J Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: this helped me to understand the Christain faith in which I stand.
• K Barth, Church Dogmatics: this helped me to understand the world christocentrically, and in the light of the freedom of God and the freedom of his creatures. (SG: I just linked to Vol I.1!)

What are you reading now?

K Barth, The Christian Life. It was not published by him in his lifetime, but it was published later, and comes from his notes as the final bit of the Church Dogmatics.

And what books would you recommend as must-reads right now?

• K Barth, Evangelical Theology: here is our faith and piety.
• M Wilcock, I saw heaven opened: here is our future! (SG: Peter has used the original title; Wilcock's book was a commentary on Revelation, now issued in the Bible Speaks Today series.)

What would you say are Barth's strengths and weaknesses, speaking to someone like me who has not read very much of him at all?

Barth was self-consciously standing in the Reformed Tradition, and he sought to write theology that was God-honouring, Christ-centred and true to the word of God. Weaknesses? He wrote too much; will I ever get to the end of it all?

What would your friends say are your hobby horses?

Christ-centred understanding of Scriptures. Anti-moralism.

What's something that makes you angry?

The bullying of people that is done in the name of Christianity, but is really the false religion of moralism.

Who is someone who inspires you?

My daughters. They show me what grace is really all about.

Describe your ideal day off.

Eating bacon and eggs with one of my girls (or more); doing washing for the week; cleaning the house; reading the paper; doing the crossword; walking the dogs and/or swimming with them across Botany Bay; having lamb chops for dinner; and enjoying an evening of reading or listening to music, or good conversation with friends or family.

Give us your top five consummate musicians.

1. Led Zeppelin
2. Rolling Stones
3. Mozart
4. Nickelback
5. The Divinyls

Thank you, Peter!

UPDATE FROM EDITOR: If you are in Sydney on September 4 at 7.30, you can hear Peter speak at Moore Theological College, 1 King St Newtown on Thomas Moore, one of the founders of Moore Theological College. His topics are Thomas Moore: and the Rum Rebellion AND Thomas Moore: the Man who Gave away 1.67 Billion Dollars

5 Comments »