White As Snow

An edited version of my Morning Thought, for BBC Radio Wiltshire

Maybe I shouldn’t be admitting this to you, but I’m a something of a fan of the Irish rock band U2. I’ve liked them for so long that I bought their early albums on cassette. Remember those plastic things with the little wheels and brown tape that would often come undone and you had to wind it back in with a pencil? Ah the good old days before CDs and downloads.

Anyway, I eagerly anticipated the release of their latest album, No Line on the Horizon. And on the whole I wasn’t disappointed. What attracts me to U2 is not only the music, but also their thought provoking lyrics. The band have tackled some pretty big ideas in their songs, and the latest offering is no exception. Faith, hope and love loom large in several of the tracks.

The Poet Laureate Andrew Motion recently said that in order to fully understand English literature, school children should be taught the Bible. Writers like Shakespeare and Milton drew heavily on biblical language and ideas. Something similar could be said for U2.

The song ‘White As Snow’ is sung from the perspective of a soldier in Afghanistan. It is full of biblical imagery, meditating on the themes of forgiveness and love in a war-torn world. The soldier once knew the love divine. But now he is not so sure. Faith and love have turned into suspicion and hostility. A wounded and broken man, the soldier asks "what can make the heart as white as snow?" The answer is we receive forgiveness “only through the lamb as white as snow”. But what’s all that about? I think two passages of Scripture are being referred to here,

“Come now, and let us reason together”,
Says the LORD,
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
They shall be as white as snow”
(Isaiah 1:18).

And it was said of Jesus, “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world”. (John 1:19).

This U2 song brings us close to the heart of the Christian message. It’s all about cleansing and forgiveness through Jesus Christ, the lamb as white as snow. What more in the name of love?

On BBC Radio Wiltshire around 6.25 each morning from Monday 30th March to Friday 3rd April. Frequency 103.6, 104.3 & 103.5 FM, or listen online.

Life in cyberspace

An edited version of my Morning Thought, for BBC Radio Wiltshire

There is no getting away from it. Life in the UK is being increasingly lived in cyberspace. Most homes now have internet access. You may even be listening online rather than on a trusty old wireless. Information Technology is one of the core subjects taught in school. In the old days you were happy if you left school with a good grasp of the “Three R’s”. Nowadays you are not properly educated unless you can send an e-mail and Google for information which you can copy for your homework. How would today’s young scholars manage without Wikipedia?

The internet has changed the way we relate to each other. 7 million people in the UK have signed up to Facebook, the social networking site, including me. I’m not sure why I did it. And to be honest I find it all a bit bewildering. It’s probably my age. I started getting friendship requests from people who I thought were already my mates. People whom I didn’t even know asked if they could be my friends. I suppose it’s nice to be popular. But there must be more to friendship than adding someone to a list on Facebook.

I’m not saying things like Facebook, Twitter and blogging are necessarily bad. They can help to keep people in touch, enable useful information to be made available and so on. But Cyberspace is virtual reality. There can be no substitute for relationships with flesh and blood people in the real world. Jesus is the Word made flesh. He did not simply send us information from heaven. He became one of us. Jesus befriended a wide range of people. He took and interest in their lives and shared with them the good news of God’s kingdom. Ultimately went to the cross for us, saying, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” As the old hymn says,

What a friend we have in Jesus,
all our sins and griefs to bear!

Now there’s a true friend for you.

On BBC Radio Wiltshire around 6.25 each morning from Monday 30th March to Friday 3rd April. Frequency 103.6, 104.3 & 103.5 FM, or listen online.

John Webster on Bible reading

"Faithful reading of Holy Scripture in the economy of grace is an episode in the history of sin and its overcoming." (Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 87).

BBC Radio Wiltshire 'Morning Thought'

Readers may be interested to know that I'm scheduled to give a 'Morning Thought' on BBC Radio Wiltshire just before 6.30 each morning from Monday 30th March to Friday 3rd April. Frequency 103.6, 104.3 & 103.5FM, or listen online. I'll posts the scripts on the blog day by day.

Independency and Congregationalism: what's the difference?

John Owen (1616-1683)

A friend asked me to define the difference between Independency and Congregationalism. I used to be a convinced Congregationalist, infant baptism and all. Even though I am now a Baptist, I still hold to Congregational/Independent principles of church government.

The terms are often used interchanchably. But there is a difference in meaning:

Independency defines the relationship between churches i.e. each local church is independent and self-governing under Christ. Local churches may and should work together and express the unity of the body of Christ, but no church is "over" another and no tier of inter-church government stands over the local church. Independents don't recognise the validity of Presbyterian connexions or the Roman Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican hierarchy.

Congregationalism defines the way in which the local church is governed - with the consent of the members, who are meant to be "visible saints". But in classic Congregationalist polity (see John Owen's The True Nature of a Gospel Church - Works vol. 16) this does not mean that the members rule the roost. The eldership has been appointed to rule and govern the church with the consent of the members ( 1 Tim 5:17 etc).

No Line On The Horizon - U2

I know U2's latest has been out for a few weeks now and this is a bit late in the day for me to share my thoughts, but there we are. I suppose the delay as I've made some jottings for this post and then put it on the back burner has given me time to give the album a proper listen. Of one thing I'm sure, making Get On Your Boots was the album's first single was a bit of a gaffe. The song has a good riff and unexpected twists and turns, but some of the words are a bit embarrassing for a "senior" band like U2. "Bossy boots" please. Thankfully the opening three tracks, are much better, No Line One The Horizon is a great start to the album. Magnificent is up there with Gloria as a spiritual anthem. Moment of Surrender is a thoughtful slow burner which climaxes in a molten Edge guitar solo.

Despite some nice sonic touches, Unknown Caller doesn't quite work. Rife with computer terminology, like, "reboot yourself" and "force quit and move to trash", the song would make good hold music on PC World's helpline. I suppose it's better than having to listen to Vivaldi's Four Seasons on an endless loop, but that's not saying much. On the plus side, what with all the technical support from Bono it would save callers having to hang on for three and a half hours before getting connected to an advisor. Even when they are not at their best U2 still have their uses.

As we've come to expect from U2, the album explores some big ideas. Faith, hope and love feature strongly, especially love. Magnificent proclaims, "Only love can leave such a mark, but only love can heal such a scar." Love marks and wounds us. Jacob was left limping after he wrestled with the Lord. But only love, the love of God can heal and restore broken human beings. I'll Go Crazy If I Don't Go Crazy Tonight asks, "Is it true that perfect love casts out fear?", reflecting on 1 John 4:18. In a nice twist on the familiar refrain, "Stand up for your rights", Stand Up Comedy urges listeners to "Stand up for your love." The same song, with its talk of "getting over certainty" also reveals why U2 are the band of choice for the postevangelical set. But there is also a plea to let God be God, which may give the trendy Open Theists pause for thought, "Stop helping God across the road like a little old lady". Quite.

White As Snow is sung from the perspective of a soldier in Afghanistan and is full of biblical imagery. It is a meditation on the theme of forgiveness and cleansing from the defilement of sin in a war-torn world. How is forgiveness possible? Only through the "lamb as white as snow" Isaiah 1:18, 1 Peter 1:18 & 19.

Fez-Being Born captures something of the Turkish location of the early recording sessions. It begins with a Arab-influenced ambiance, complete with Turkish sounding noises-off. The slightly disorientating intro is suggestive of Radiohead's subversive classic, Kid A. But before too long the Edge's signature guitar chimes kick in to remind the listener that this is a U2 song after all. With a little more adventure the experimental flavour of the opening bars this could sustained throughout the track. Or was it the case that an Eno-inspired intro was simply tacked onto the beginning of what turns out to be a rather standard U2 track?

One or two criticisms aside, I have to say that the album is steadily growing on me. It has all the marks of the group's mature sound. New directions are hinted at, while the band remain true to themselves. No Line On The Horizon is a more coherent collection of songs than their last offering, How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb, which has some great tunes like Vertigo, Miracle Drug and Sometimes You Can't Make It on Your Own, but didn't really exceed the sum of its parts.

U2 haven't lost their sense of irony and NLOTH doesn't take itself too seriously. In Stand Up Comedy, Bono knowingly warns his Josephine to beware of Napoleonic "small men with big ideas". A touch of autobiography in there somewhere perhaps? But it's U2's very determination to explore big ideas that sets the band apart from their peers and wannabe rivals. You don't have to go down the road of having so-called U2charists in church to see that the band's use of biblical allusions and scriptural imagery can offer us an opportunity to reflect further on the message of love and forgiveness through the lamb as white as snow.

Also, see Byron's thoughtful posts here and here and Michael's majestic rant here.

Biblicism: a definition

On Facebook Stephen Dancer of Doggie's Breakfast, asked for a definition of "biblicism", a much used but seldom defined word. Here's my stab at it:

An attitude to the Bible that downplays the witness of the Spirit, sidelines the theological inheritance of the church, denies that truth may be rightly deduced from Scripture, and tends to a wooden, literalistic interpretation of God's Word.

Fair enough, or what?

But for the Grace of God by Cornelis P. Venema

But for the Grace of God: An Exposition of the Canons of Dort
by Cornelis P. Venema, Reformed Fellowship Inc., 1994, 145pp

We've all heard of the so-called "Five Points of Calvinism", usually referred to under the acronym TULIP, meaning Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Final Perseverance. But how many of us have actually read, let alone studied the Canons of Dort that first gave expression to the "Five Points"? In this helpful little book, Cornelis Venema sets the Synod of Dort in its historical context and gives us an insightful exposition of the Canons. He works through each point of doctrine in turn, giving a clear statement of the teaching of the Calvinistic divines and then subjecting their theology to biblical scrutiny. His aim throughout is to consider whether the Canons of Dort reflect the teaching of Scripture. The book concludes with an Appendix where the Canons of Dort are reproduced in full.

Although I would claim to be a "Five Point Calvinist", I must admit that I hadn't done an awful lot of work on the Synod of Dort. What I found here was an unexpected joy and delight. Contrary to what some might suggest, the Canons are far from being a relic of Reformed scholasticism or simply a reaction to the Arminianism of the Remonstrants. While not being a comprehensive confession of faith, they set forth the biblical teaching on the areas covered with clarity, sensitivity and care. Misunderstandings are cleared up and objections to the Calvinistic doctrine are refuted graciously yet firmly.

The theology of the Canons of Dort is in no way a hindrance to evangelism. Quite the contrary. The sacrificial death of the Son is of "infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world". (Second main point, Article 3). His death effects the salvation of all those for whom he died. On that basis the promise of the gospel that all who repent and believe will not perish, but have eternal life, "ought to be announced and declared without differentiation or discrimination to all nations and people" (Second main point, Article 5).

The great concern of the Synod of Dort was to insist that salvation is by the grace of our Triune Redeemer alone. The one God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit planned, executed and will effectively apply the great work of salvation. To him belongs all the glory for saving lost sinners. TULIP may not ammount to the the gospel in its totality, but leave out any one point and the gospel is seriously diminished.

An evening with John Blanchard

On Saturday evening we had John Blanchard come to speak at West Lavington Village Hall on 'Has science got rid of God?' A pretty packed hall heard him address the question with his customary clarity and insight. Science has not got rid of God because science is the attempt to discover truth in nature. It is not suited to adjudicate on the existence of God because he is transcendent - outside and above nature. Science has its uses, but it cannot speak dogmatically on the God question. It has no explanation for why the universe exists. Science cannot tell us why the laws of nature work as they do, nor why the universe if finely tuned for intelligent life. Contrary to the claims of Richard Dawkins and his ilk, modern science has not got rid of God. If anything discoveries like the complexity of even the most simple life-forms and the anthropic principle make belief in God easier.

The veteran evangelist concluded his lively and interesting talk by setting Jesus Christ before us in all his divine grandeur. It is only in him that we can find salvation and the hope of everlasting life. If you want to know more, then 'Has science got rid of God?' is available from Evangelical Press as a book, CD, and DVD.

Day One Publications have just brought out Travel With John Blanchard, detailing the life of 'Guernsey's evangelist, author and Christian apologist'. Dr. Blanchard has the distinction of being the only living subject of the popular 'Travel With' series. He kindly gave me a free signed copy, which was nice. A couple of our members also bought me Blanchard's The Complete Gathered Gold, 'A treasury of quotations for Christians'. Considering I didn't intend to buy any books on the day, I still managed not to leave empty handed. The Lord is good!

Is the fine tuning of the universe an evidence for God?

I don't know if readers have come across Premier Christian Radio's Unbelievable, aired on Saturday afternoons. In each programme Justin Brierley hosts a discussion between a Christian and a non-believer. It is often a really thought provoking show. The latest one is on the subject, 'Fine Tuning of the Universe - is it evidence of God?' Nicholas Beale, co-author with Christian physicist John Polkinghorne of Questions of Truth (WJK), argues that fine tuning is an evidence for God. The atheist Julian Baggini disagrees. You can catch up with this week's programme and previous shows online. Here are some critical reflections on the discussion as it developed.

Nicholas Beale, a mathematician by trade makes a good case for God on the basis of fine tuning and the so-called "anthropic principle", which is concerned with the question, "Why is the universe just right for human life?" Beale avoids falling into a "God of the gaps" approach, insisting that we see God at work in the understandable "laws of nature" as well as in the mysterious aspects of science that we have yet to comprehend. But he comes a little unstuck because he accepts a Darwinian theory of origins. In his view, God made the world complete with suffering and death because that is what was necessary for evolution by natural selection to work. Beale tries to get round the problem that this means a good God created an imperfect world, "red in tooth and claw", by saying that God took the suffering of the world upon himself in Christ. However this makes redemption seem like another act of fine tuning, as God acted in Christ to remove the suffering and evil that were present in the world as originally created.

A more biblical approach to the problem of suffering will insist that God made the world "very good" as Genesis 1 declares. Suffering and death are consequent upon the fall of man into sin (Genesis 3). Redemption in that case is not the Creator correctively fine tuning his flawed-by-design creation. It is an act of free, undeserved and astonishing grace towards rebellious sinners, who have brought his just wrath upon themselves and his curse upon the creation. Neal's approach shows the accommodation that theistic evolution makes with Darwinism plays havoc with the Bible's essential plot line of Creation/Ruin/Redemption/Re-creation. Now, I'm not saying that natural selection has no explanatory power when it comes to describing how the "kinds" of creatures God originally made developed into the diverse and varied species that exist today. In creating life, it seems that God made living organisms flexible enough to adapt to differing environments and so on. But the wholesale acceptance of a Darwinian explanation of origins seriously skews the basic plot line of biblical revelation.

Another thing that struck me was the atheist Julian Baggini's point that believers only see the fine tuning of the universe as an evidence for God because they begin with the prior assumption that he exists. As the philosopher argued, the existence of a loving Creator cannot simply be "read off" the data of science. That is true enough. Baggini helpfully reminds us of the importance of presuppositions. Evidentialist apologetics assumes that the data of science is neutral ground that the believer and unbeliever can examine together without prejudice. But that is not the case. The believer starts with the basic presupposition that God exists. It is from that standpoint he views the phenomenon of the universe. The consistent Christian theist does not argue from design to a designer. He begins with the God who has revealed himself in creation, the human heart and Scripture and understands everything in that light. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom! The Christian therefore is able to make sense of this originally good, yet fallen world which God created, and that he has acted in Christ to redeem. The heavens declare his glory and the earth is full of his goodness, even while the whole creation groans with frustration, awaiting its liberation from disorder and entropy. The unbeliever however views exactly the same data from the presupposition that God does not exist. The truth concerning his existence is suppressed (Romans 1:18ff). Conclusions drawn from the data are therefore faulty. It's all in the presuppositions.

Baggini claims that the theistic approach to science takes the mystery out of it all because every time believers see something unexplainable, they invoke God. That is a slight oversimplification. Besides, God is the ultimate mystery. He is beyond even the mystery of a finely tuned universe that is fit for human life. He is the one God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He is sovereign, yet we are accountable to him for our actions. The triune God loves fallen human beings. In Christ, the infinite embraced the finite and became one of us to rescue us from our sin. There is no greater mystery than the mystery of God's love revealed at Calvary, and poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit. "Tis mystery all, the immortal dies/who can explore his strange design?" Throughout eternity we shall remain baffled, amazed and surprised by the mystery of the triune God who is love. The task of theology is not to explain the mystery of God, but to set out the limits of God's self-revelation in Scripture. In the words of Augustine, the purpose of doctrine is to "erect a fence around the mystery" that will keep the faithful from attempting to pry into the hidden depths of God's being.

To conclude, arguments concerning the fine tuning of the universe and the anthropic principle may be used by believers as they seek to witness to their non-Christian friends. But such arguments only make sense once we have made it clear that we are arguing from the presupposition that God exists to show that the world as it is is consistent with biblical revelation. The function of apologetics in this context is to demonstrate that reality is in keeping with the presuppositions of Christian theism - the universe looks just as we might expect given that is was designed and made by a loving Creator. But that is not all we have to say. The fall has to be factored in to explain the presence of evil and suffering, death and decay in God's world. And we gladly proclaim what could never be deduced from observing the natural world; the revelation of God in a mystery that is the gospel of salvation. The ultimate anthropic principle is that God became man in Christ to rescue human beings from sin and death. In Jesus' incarnation, atoning death and bodily resurrection, God has acted not only to save individual human beings, but to renew the whole cosmos, Romans 8:18-22. We can only see all this when we start with the presupposition that God is there, and he is not silent. We believe in order to understand. There is no other way, Hebrews 11:3, 1 John 5:20.

On the next edition of Unbelievable, David Robertson will be discussing his book The Dawkins Letters, with an atheist blogger.