davidould.net

One of the recent events we held at church is explained by our Senior Minister…

I’m sure there’s plenty of churches that could have a go at something like this.

Turns out that a Luther quote that I used recently is not from Luther at all.

CMI explain...

The following famous quote attributed to Dr Martin Luther, widely used by creationists, turns out not to be by him at all.

“If I profess, with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christianity. Where the battle rages the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle-field besides is mere flight and disgrace to him if he flinches at that one point.”

...
Most of the instances of the quote on the internet, where a source is given, state it as page 81ff of Briefwechsel 3 (i.e. in full: page 81 and following of the third volume of Briefwechsel (correspondence) from D. Martin Luthers Werke, the German (Weimar) edition of Luther’s Works.)

Even though Martin Luther said many similar things, these are not his words.

However, we were able to obtain a copy of the pages of Martin Luther’s writing in question (kindly supplied by a supporter, Dr Péter Szentpétery). When I read them in the original German (my mother tongue), it was clear, even allowing for the loosest of loose translations, that this could not be the source. There were some similar sentiments, but quite differently worded.
...
The research of a Pastor Mark Henderson indicates that it comes from a 19th Century novel by Elizabeth Rundle Charles,2 called The Chronicles of the Schoenberg Cotta Family (Thomas Nelson, 1864). Its author was a pious Anglican who was also the writer of a few hymns.

The same conclusion is reached in a recent (2009) article in a Lutheran journal by a Bob Caldwell, titled, “‘If I profess:’ A Spurious, if Consistent Luther Quote?”3

The novel is set in a real historical framework of actual persons and events, but the main characters and storyline are fictional. The words of the “battle quote” in the novel are attributed to a fictional character in the book called Fritz, in a long section detailing his relationship to Luther and the Reformation.

So there you go. Check out the whole article.

James Jones, Bishop of Liverpool, is the next in a long, long line of people who claim the “evangelical” badge while wholly abandoning any sense of what the term actually means.

In his already widely reported speech at diocesan synod, Jones argued for an acceptance in the Anglican Communion of the same-sex position, stating,

Just as the church over the last 2000 years has come to allow a variety of ethical conviction about the taking of life and the application of the sixth Commandment so I believe that in this period it is also moving towards allowing a variety of ethical conviction about people of the same gender loving each other fully. Just as Christian pacifists and Christian soldiers profoundly disagree with one another yet in their disagreement continue to drink from the same cup because they share in the one body so too I believe the day is coming when Christians who equally profoundly disagree about the consonancy of same gender love with the discipleship of Christ will in spite of their disagreement drink openly from the same cup of salvation.

And there you have it. As MCJ argues, this is simply a pre-emptive surrender, nothing more.

Others will want to fisk the speech at length, and indeed have already done so. For now let me make one observation.
Jones says,

However, for some in the church homosexuality has become the defining issue of orthodoxy; it has become the benchmark on how you interpret Scripture and apply it authoritatively to the modern world. For others in the church, especially but not exclusively for those who are gay, homosexuality and the church’s attitude have become the touchstone of the church’s seriousness in wanting to include in the Kingdom all God’s children.

Put like that this summary of the two positions sounds perfectly reasonable and irenic. But we all know that the division of opinion has caused much bitterness and enmity and continues to aggravate the worsening relations within the Anglican Communion. The question which exercises me and which I wish to address today is whether we in the church can have a division of opinion without bitterness and a diversity of conviction without enmity.

I see your “why can’t we all play along nicely” and raise you a Luther…

If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.

That big meanie, Phil Johnson, sets us straight…

Last week a bunch of guys from church went up to Katoomba in the Blue Mountains near Sydney for Men’s Convention.

We joined with almost 2,000 other men, and in spirit with 4,000 more who gathered on the previous and following weekend. What was it all about? We’ll, here’s the promo video..

Good stuff, eh? As well as great teaching (more of which in a later post) there was also great singing. 2,000 men in a big tin shed make a great noise (and the shiny head of one of our churchwardens)...

Yesterday we said goodbye to Glenn Whitehead.

Glenn was born on the 10th of August, 1953 and died almost a week ago at around 11:30pm on Saturday 27 February 2010. He drifted away gently and calmly, under sedation to relieve him of the discomfort his various bed sores were bringing him. Glenn had been hospitalised for the previous 4 weeks as he came to the end of a long fight with cancer.

But it wasn’t just the sedation that made Glenn’s passing calm. While he never really gained consciousness on that last day he had plenty of lucid moments even the 24 hours before. On Friday Glenn had been as calm facing death as he was when it finally took its hold on him as his wife, Sue, and I kept our vigil at his bedside.

Glenn had been calm in the face of death because of his unshakeable confidence in the risen Lord Jesus Christ.

It had not always been that way. As the new millenium opened 10 years ago Glenn was a very different man. By his own admission his life was “in the toilet”. A slave to the bottle, his marriage was in a mess and the tax office were also champing at the bit. One friend at the wake yesterday commented to me that Glenn might very well have drunk himself to death.

So what changed? What made that Glenn become what his son-in-law at his cremation call “21st Century Glenn”?

The answer is simple. Jesus. Glenn met Jesus.

Glenn had begun a journey of spiritual discovery investigating the truth-claims of so many ism’s; Buddhism, Suffism, Taoism, Hinduism, Islam and, finally Christianity. As part of that investigation he came to a talk given at St Augustine’s by Dr. John Dickson. There he heard that the statements that Christianity makes about Jesus weren’t simply wishful thinking but verifiable historical claims. And so Glenn, the barrister, set about verifying those claims.

Glenn was no fool. The more he investigated the more he realised that there was no other conclusion to come to than that the Bible’s claims about Jesus were true. Most of all he saw that Jesus really did rise from the dead. And that changed everything. Glenn became 21st Century Glenn - he entrusted his life to Jesus.

And he kept trusting Jesus, all the way to his death. He kept trusting Jesus because he saw clearly the difference that Jesus’ resurrection makes. Nothing spoke more clearly of this to Glenn than his very favourite chapter of the Bible, 1 Corinthians 15.

1 Corinthians 15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, ² and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. ³ For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, ⁴ that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, ⁵ and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. ⁶ Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. ⁷ Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. ⁸ Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. ⁹ For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. ¹⁰ But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. ¹¹ Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

And Glenn believed it. Not in some vague “I hope this is true” kind of way but as utterly convinced as a man could be. And as he read through 1 Corinthians 15 he saw how much promise the resurrection of Jesus has for the Christian.

The chapter finishes with these climatic words:

⁵¹ Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, ⁵² in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. ⁵³ For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. ⁵⁴ When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:

“Death is swallowed up in victory.” ⁵⁵ “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” ⁵⁶ The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

⁵⁷ But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. ⁵⁸ Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

So, as Glenn lay dying he was calm. 21st Century Glenn was a new man, trusting in the resurrected man Jesus and waiting patiently till he, himself, would become a new man.

And those of us who knew him in the 21st Century also testify to the fact that because of these truths he laboured for the Lord.

And because Jesus rose from the dead it was not in vain.

from here:

There is not a word in the Bible which is extra crucem, which can be understood without reference to the cross.

Anything that one imagines of God apart from Christ is only useless thinking and vain idolatry.

It is the most ungodly and dangerous business to abandon the certain and revealed will of God in order to search into the hidden mysteries of God.

If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.

A good preacher should have these qualities and virtues: first, to teach systematically; second, he should have a ready wit; third, he should be eloquent; fourth, he should have a good voice; fifth, a good memory; sixth, he should know when to make an end; seventh, he should be sure of his doctrine; eighth, he should venture and engage body and blood, wealth and honour, in the world; ninth, he should suffer himself to be mocked and jeered of everyone

and plenty more besides

h/t: Glen

And honestly looks like it really broke it

I’m off this weekend to speak at a house party for St. Matthias Evening Church. I’ve been asked to work through Luke’s gospel and bring out the themes of division and rejection that are clearly seen throughout.

Looking forward to it. Having reworked the material I am struck again by how divisive the gospel is, particularly as Luke presents it. Jesus comes and announces a gospel that tears families and a nation in half and demands absolute allegiance.

Luke 12:51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. ⁵² For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. ⁵³ They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

The creative guys at St. Matthias have come up with some awesome graphics too…

I think what disappoints me most in what passes for theological debate on teh intarweb and related media is the paucity of actual engagement with what the other side are arguing. A classic example can be seen in the recent Guardian: Comment is Free  piece by Christina Rees, chair of WATCH (Women and the Church) entitled, “Faith in the future”.

Just check out this sample of blatant misrepresentation:

It is a testament to the women who sit on the revision committee that they have listened with graciousness to some of their colleagues earnestly arguing for places of sanctuary where they could be protected from the ministry of women. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad.

The observation is made repeatedly that if one were to replace the word “women” in these discussions with “black” or even “French”, the breathtaking offence of these views would become obvious. This verbal offence indicates a much deeper issue: females are still considered by some to be unable to represent Christ at the altar and as not being made fully in the image of God.

Of course, this is denied by the men and women who oppose women’s ordination. They cite tradition, as if that has remained static over the past 2,000 years, and ecclesiology, as if the Church of England’s relationship with some other churches is more important than what it understands to be true.

Where does one start? I think at the end, since it demonstrates the real issue going on here. Rees argues that the conservative position is an appeal to tradition - but it’s not, is it? It’s fundamentally an appeal to Scripture - which is bolstered by the testimony of tradition.

But, I would suggest, if Rees actually fairly represents her opponents’ position then the rest of her strawmanning will collapse. For when one goes to the Scriptures, rather than the mean misogynists of her imagination, she will find that all the “reasons” she suggests people like me disagree with her will evaporate. In the Scriptures she will find that men and women are created together in God’s image (Gen. 1:27), something I have never heard a conservative deny - rather I hear plenty of talk all the time that women ought to be honoured and loved and served. She would also go on to see that the conservative argument is not one of the “unworthiness” or “uncleanness” of women but, rather, simply the fact that they are convinced that God has different roles in mind for his equally created men and women - just as in the Trinity itself there is a different subordinated role for the Son, distinct from the Father, despite the fact that He is fully God.

Of course, its not like Rees couldn’t know this stuff. For one, surely that’s a part of a good theological education, right? I was taught that unless you address your opponents’ real arguments, and their strongest ones at that, you’ve not really addressed them at all. And Rees doesn’t have to go far to learn those arguments. They’ve been floating around for many many years. As just one example she could turn to the Reform document “The role of women in the local church: Equal but different” [pdf], the subject of recent controversy. There she would find statements such as:

The Bible teaches that both men and women are made in the image of God and as a result are equal before Him in terms of their status, dignity and humanity (Gen 1:27).
...
Jesus’ attitude to women was revolutionary for His day and clearly upheld the equality of men and women.
...
But why, when so much of His treatment of women was revolutionary for His day, did Jesus not introduce identical roles for men and women in the local church? In our day and age it seems almost incredible that equality of status doesn’t also mean equality of function. The answer to this question lies at the very heart of the Godhead itself. In the Trinity we see a pattern of relationships that shows us how it’s possible for equality of being to co-exist with diversity of function.

Now, whether you agree with this or not, you can’t deny that the picture that Rees paints of her opponents, at least her evangelical ones, is simply inaccurate. Again, one has to assume that she is either grossly ignorant or simply can’t be bother to fight fair.

This failure to correctly represent and engage has been going on for a long time. Wallace Benn famously noted that in the original debate over the ordination of women as priests on the CofE back in 1992, there was a distinct absence of actual theological engagement and a willingness to abandon other long-held core doctrines…

I thought in my naivete that the Trinity was unassailable amongst evangelicals until that day. But I now see more clearly that when one part of what Scripture teaches is abandoned then it is not long before other doctrines start being revised or adjusted. This is incredibly serious, as the erosion of the Trinity will lead to there being no distinctive persons in the Trinity, and therefore no distinctively Trinitarian doctrine! I was more shaken by this aspect of the encounter than anything else, and deeply concerned at the erosion of fundamental doctrine amongst other respected evangelicals. Could they be so unaware of the seriousness of what was happening?

The reason for this? Well, as Benn puts it,

I was very surprised by the patently selective use of material, and what looked like the dredging up of anything that would support a predetermined case.
...
I am loathe to accuse and come to such conclusions, but I was deeply disturbed by what appeared to be on this occasion a lack of integrity in handling evidence.

One of the consequences of this lack of actual theological precision, let alone engagement, is that the Church of England is lurching towards a position where she will have taken a clear stand on a weighty theological issue

without actually engaging properly in the theology

. The absurd outcome of this is something that John Richardson has, on a number of occassions, pointed out (most recently yesterday):

Now of course the problem on women’s ordination is that there are, until now, loyal Anglicans who believe that Scripture stands in the way of consecrating women as bishops. Moreover, the Church of England has not, as far as I am aware, decided that the issue is settled against them. That is to say, it has not declared that their take on the Bible is a misunderstanding (remember that we are still, officially, in the ‘period of reception’ on this issue).
However, it does seem now prepared to say that, nevertheless, you can only be a full member of the Church of England, eligible for its ministry, if you take one view on this and not the other.
In other words, it is prepared to narrow its membership not at a point of settled biblical doctrine, but at a point of hitherto-disputed practice.

And so we arrive at the point that we are at today.

I am fairly certain that in the next few years the General Synod of the Church of England will approve the consecration of women as bishops and not put in place any proper statutory protection for dissenters - those who have committed no wrongdoing other than simply not having changed their minds on a matter which the Church has believed fairly consistently for 2,000 years.

And it is much in part the product of argumentation (or lack of it) modelled by the likes of Rees. This lack of proper engagement and even fair representation has led to a theologically illiterate church. But illiteracy is always the preferred option if you don’t like what you read - especially in the Scriptures.