Forgiving ourselves

In Christianity, there are actual right and wrongs - there are things that God detests and things in which he delights. When we do wrong, it's personal. As well as wronging another person, we wrong our Creator God. He nevers overlooks evil, but he provides a way by which we can be forgiven.

So where does 'forgiving ourselves' fit in? What does this even mean? I think it's something about no longer beating yourself up about what you did. I think the idea has merit, but the wording's unhelpful. It's God we've wronged, and it's his forgiveness we need, not our own . . . But we do need to trust that we have actually been forgiven. Jesus took our beating - we don't need to add to it.

Spreading the love?

It's standard practice for a single church to support a number of missionaries - and for a single missionary to be supported by a number of churches. My guess is it started off this way because missionaries failed to raise enough funds from the one church - and, later on, once the church was in a position to contribute more, that person had already received all the money they needed from elsewhere, so the church had to find other people to support - and on it went.

I find the situation a bit odd - I think this is because I like the idea of a missionary being regarded as a regular member of staff - and if your church's pastor or youth worker gets all their support from that church alone, then why shouldn't the missionary? One argument I've heard in favour of spreading your support around is that if the church leadership changes, you're not left in the lurch. There's clearly some good, practical wisdom in this, but it seems a little jaded to me to base the way you do support on the expectation that a future pastor won't want to support you.

Of course most churches already have a number of missionaries, and I'm hardly advocating a cull. I'm more thinking about this because I'm in the unusual position of (hopefully) being the first missionary my church sends out.

Waiting

Swinton thinks that asking "Why does a God of love and power allow suffering?" is to ask the wrong question. The right question is:

How can we be enabled to love God and to hold on to the reality that God is love, that God is faithful and that God loves us even in the midst of our sufferings?1

He thinks this question is good because: life isn't about the absence of pain, but about the presence of God and of relationship with him; the question begins from a position of faith; and it stops us from slipping into the idolatory of putting an object - or here a standard - over God.

Swinton then says that the lament(ing) Psalms can teach us how to suffer well. The speaking of these Psalms and their concluding in praise show the faith of their writers. And their honest appraisal of the situation shows . . . their honesty. It's an honesty that hates the pain and sorrow of now, hates the delay - but it's an honesty shot through with sure, bright hope for the future. This trust in a faithful, loving God and hope for the future gives birth to patience. For to suffer well is to be patient.


H/T Sharon


1 J Swinton, "Patience and Lament: Living Faithfully in the Presence of Suffering" in FA Murphy & PG Ziegler (eds), The Providence of God (London: T&T Clark, 2009), 275-87.

Telling ripping yarns in glory

So here and now in this fallen earthly place narrative looks a little something like this:

Intro > Problem > Climax > Resolution > Conclusion

So what are stories going to be like in heaven? They won't be boring, I'm sure of that, but what of the tension and intrigue?


PS I think I've posted on this before. Sorry if I bore you.

Mixing it up

Thinking theologically should never be treated as a stimulating exercise only, but should be approached with due reverence and fear. Cole observes that the writers of the Psalms and the apostle Paul give us good examples of how to marry thought and worship. In the Psalms, we see knowledge of God turned into prayer, and in his letters, Paul is forever interrupting his teachings with a "burst of praise".1


1 GA Cole, "Thinking Theologically," 60.

Specialisation in a complex world

Simplistic assessments irk me. Macquarrie tells me why and what to do about it:

There are after all, two kinds of knowledge required for responsible moral decision - knowledge of moral principles and knowledge of the factual circumstances of the situation. In an increasingly specialized world, only experts in the various fields have the second kind of knowledge. This implies that Christian morality will become increasingly lay morality.1

Cole adds: "The I.V.F. issue provides a case in point. How can the pastor alone be expected to have the factual knowledge required for wise judgement?"


1 J Macquarrie, Three Issues in Ethics (London: SCM, 1970), 74-75. cited in GA Cole, "Thinking Theologically" in RTR 48 (1989), 60.

A question //2

So here's the topic:

The nature and significance of eschatological feasting.

It definitely needs sexing-up and narrowing-down.