Showing posts with label New Creation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New Creation. Show all posts
16 January 2011
23 October 2009
Evangelical Universalist?
My friend Will Grady writes a really thoughtful post on the subject of The Evangelical Universalist.
The bit of the post I found most helpful was Will's pointing out that the final hope of the Christian is not that we "go to heaven" as disembodied individual spirits but rather that God has promised that he will bring about a New Creation into which all people will be resurrected.
From this, Will concludes:
The bit of the post I found most helpful was Will's pointing out that the final hope of the Christian is not that we "go to heaven" as disembodied individual spirits but rather that God has promised that he will bring about a New Creation into which all people will be resurrected.
From this, Will concludes:
It is to this new creation that Christians point, and in doing so we, by the Holy Spirit, bring God’s new creation in spots around the world. Mission, then, is the work of the Holy Spirit bringing in bits of what God will do definitely when Jesus returns at the final resurrection. Mission is spreading the gospel (good news) that Jesus is the world’s true king, and that announcement does in some since divide the world into those who would accept it and those who won’t.A really good post and well worth a read.
03 June 2008
Surprised by Hope
I've been travelling on a short break over the last few days and I finally had a chance to finish Tom Wright's latest book Surprised by Hope
I'm not even going to attempt to give a 'book review' as I'm still processing the experience of having read it which feels like one of those instances when a whole range of thoughts and experiences have converged. Ever since I had what I've called my 'Aldersgate Experience' I've been on a journey where I have been seeing 'the Good News of Jesus Christ' as being more and more of an event. No less a 'personal experience of salvation' but much more of a cosmic event: Jesus as someone who not only died to save me but whose life, death, resurrection and ascension are somehow events that really truly ('ontologically'[1]) changed the fabric of creation.
For me, Wright's book conveyed 'ontological salvation' in a way that I can get my brain and my heart around much easier than I could before. Hugely simplistically, I read the book as saying that scripture paints a picture of a Creator God whose purpose is to bring all of history to the point of New Creation (this is a very Wesleyan theology, by the way).
Jesus' own resurrection is the first of a general resurrection and is the sign that The New Creation has been inaugurated. The eschatological conclusion of history will not be some sort of calling of believers to a spiritual heaven, but it will be a 'heaven coming down to earth'. The reality in which we are living now is but an incomplete shadow of the reality of The New Creation, where heaven and earth will meet.
The Good News of the early Church was not only that the New Creation had been inaugurated, but that we can be part of it in the here and now as well as in eternity. In baptism, we die to the 'old Creation' and are raised with Christ into the New Creation. As his followers and disciples, we will not be held responsible for building the New Creation, only God can do that. But every good work that we do out of love and self-giving will be used by God in the building of the New Creation. Even actions that we might think have been futile.
Try reading the bible with this overlay: God's Kingdom - his New Creation - has begun, heaven and earth will unite in a new, more real reality and all believers will be raised to share in this Kingdom forever. This overlay makes much of the bible make a lot more sense.
===
[1] 'Ontology' / 'Ontological'
I try to write simply most of the time, but sometimes I feel that I have to use 'jargon'. 'Ontology' is one of those jargon-words that is hard to replace with one simple word. It means something like 'the core of one's being', 'what is really real'. To change something 'ontologically' is to change the very core of it's being and meaning; it's not just a cosmetic, temporary change, but a real, permanent change.
I'm not even going to attempt to give a 'book review' as I'm still processing the experience of having read it which feels like one of those instances when a whole range of thoughts and experiences have converged. Ever since I had what I've called my 'Aldersgate Experience' I've been on a journey where I have been seeing 'the Good News of Jesus Christ' as being more and more of an event. No less a 'personal experience of salvation' but much more of a cosmic event: Jesus as someone who not only died to save me but whose life, death, resurrection and ascension are somehow events that really truly ('ontologically'[1]) changed the fabric of creation.
For me, Wright's book conveyed 'ontological salvation' in a way that I can get my brain and my heart around much easier than I could before. Hugely simplistically, I read the book as saying that scripture paints a picture of a Creator God whose purpose is to bring all of history to the point of New Creation (this is a very Wesleyan theology, by the way).
Jesus' own resurrection is the first of a general resurrection and is the sign that The New Creation has been inaugurated. The eschatological conclusion of history will not be some sort of calling of believers to a spiritual heaven, but it will be a 'heaven coming down to earth'. The reality in which we are living now is but an incomplete shadow of the reality of The New Creation, where heaven and earth will meet.
The Good News of the early Church was not only that the New Creation had been inaugurated, but that we can be part of it in the here and now as well as in eternity. In baptism, we die to the 'old Creation' and are raised with Christ into the New Creation. As his followers and disciples, we will not be held responsible for building the New Creation, only God can do that. But every good work that we do out of love and self-giving will be used by God in the building of the New Creation. Even actions that we might think have been futile.
Try reading the bible with this overlay: God's Kingdom - his New Creation - has begun, heaven and earth will unite in a new, more real reality and all believers will be raised to share in this Kingdom forever. This overlay makes much of the bible make a lot more sense.
===
[1] 'Ontology' / 'Ontological'
I try to write simply most of the time, but sometimes I feel that I have to use 'jargon'. 'Ontology' is one of those jargon-words that is hard to replace with one simple word. It means something like 'the core of one's being', 'what is really real'. To change something 'ontologically' is to change the very core of it's being and meaning; it's not just a cosmetic, temporary change, but a real, permanent change.
12 August 2007
Sermon - The Authority of Jesus
Today's sermon is entitled The Authority of Jesus.
(For lectionary aficionados, the sermon is not based on this Sunday's lectionary reading as I need a spare semon up my sleeve at the moment.)
(For lectionary aficionados, the sermon is not based on this Sunday's lectionary reading as I need a spare semon up my sleeve at the moment.)
25 July 2007
The Religious Right
Caveat: This is meant to be an expression of personal opinion. I hope I reason fairly well. I do not, however, make any representation that my opinion has any sort of 'academic' or 'objective' basis. It is merely opinion from observation.
What is the 'Religious Right' and does it have anything to do with being a 'born again' Christian? Indeed does the American 'Religious Right' have anything to do with British Christianity? I think not for a number of reasons.
First of all, I don't think that the 'theology wars' as they are raging in US and UK Christianity are perfectly contiguous. There does seem to be one central issue (homosexuality), and there are intersections between the two battles but I don't think that there is perfect symmetry. That is, I don't think that 'conservatives' or 'liberals' on both sides of the Pond are necessarily battling for all the same things. Show me a conservative Christian in the UK, for example, who is in favour of the death-penalty. There might be an individual or two out there (there always is) but this is hardly a loud voice in conservative British Christianity.
But what is the 'Religious Right'? Let me quote one blogger who identifies as 'Religious Right' rather than quoting the myrid pejorative definitions of 'Religious Right' in cyberspace. This particular blogger thinks that the 'Religious Right' hold as core to their belief system that human beings have a God-given right to life, liberty and private property.
My whole objection to this approach is that it's not even Christian, let alone 'born-again Christian'.
First of all 'rights language' is hugely problematic in the context of orthodox Christianity. I believe (and someone more informed than I can correct me if I'm wrong) that rights language is based in Enlightenment humanism and not Christianity. It might be a reasonable secular translation of the Christian concept of prevenient grace; a secular humanist can hardly quote Psalm 139 or say that God loves everyone equally. But 'I have rights' is an ontological concept - about my very being - that belies what the bible tells us about our original sinful nature. In Christian terms, none of us has rights, but God does offer his love, forgiveness and salvation (grace) to everyone.
The other issue that have a huge problem with as a Christian is the idea that every human being has a right to individual property and individual wealth. This philosophy is the antithesis of the great commandment to love God and love one's neighbour and to be our neighbour's keeper. The love of individual property and the belief in an individual's 'right' (sic) to amass as much wealth as he or she likes is at the heart of the idolatry of American culture.
Note that I'm not talking about 'what economic system works best in a secular context'; that may very well be the political right to individual ownership. But I hope that this is the kind of pragmatism that I believe will be eliminated in The Kingdom when we are all able to follow God's commandments in perfect obedience.[1] My objection is that, in my experience, 'the right to invididual ownership' is truly viewed as a core spiritual value by both the Religious Right and much of American culture. I think it's genuine idolatry.
You'll hardly be surprised that I agree that 'The Religious Right is neither'. As someone who considers myself 'born again' and as someone who believes that the concepts of 'New Birth' and 'The New Creation' are absolutely central to Methodist spirituality and tradtion, I honestly believe that 'The Religious Right' is sub-Christian. Dare I invoke the famous statement: 'There I stand. I can do no other.'
[1] For the avoidance of doubt, I do not believe in 'works-based salvation'. I believe that The New Creation is eschatological and founded on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. The Kingdom is 'not yet' but it is also 'here and now'. The 'Religious Right' also disagrees with the 'the here and now' bit.
What is the 'Religious Right' and does it have anything to do with being a 'born again' Christian? Indeed does the American 'Religious Right' have anything to do with British Christianity? I think not for a number of reasons.
First of all, I don't think that the 'theology wars' as they are raging in US and UK Christianity are perfectly contiguous. There does seem to be one central issue (homosexuality), and there are intersections between the two battles but I don't think that there is perfect symmetry. That is, I don't think that 'conservatives' or 'liberals' on both sides of the Pond are necessarily battling for all the same things. Show me a conservative Christian in the UK, for example, who is in favour of the death-penalty. There might be an individual or two out there (there always is) but this is hardly a loud voice in conservative British Christianity.
But what is the 'Religious Right'? Let me quote one blogger who identifies as 'Religious Right' rather than quoting the myrid pejorative definitions of 'Religious Right' in cyberspace. This particular blogger thinks that the 'Religious Right' hold as core to their belief system that human beings have a God-given right to life, liberty and private property.
My whole objection to this approach is that it's not even Christian, let alone 'born-again Christian'.
First of all 'rights language' is hugely problematic in the context of orthodox Christianity. I believe (and someone more informed than I can correct me if I'm wrong) that rights language is based in Enlightenment humanism and not Christianity. It might be a reasonable secular translation of the Christian concept of prevenient grace; a secular humanist can hardly quote Psalm 139 or say that God loves everyone equally. But 'I have rights' is an ontological concept - about my very being - that belies what the bible tells us about our original sinful nature. In Christian terms, none of us has rights, but God does offer his love, forgiveness and salvation (grace) to everyone.
The other issue that have a huge problem with as a Christian is the idea that every human being has a right to individual property and individual wealth. This philosophy is the antithesis of the great commandment to love God and love one's neighbour and to be our neighbour's keeper. The love of individual property and the belief in an individual's 'right' (sic) to amass as much wealth as he or she likes is at the heart of the idolatry of American culture.
Note that I'm not talking about 'what economic system works best in a secular context'; that may very well be the political right to individual ownership. But I hope that this is the kind of pragmatism that I believe will be eliminated in The Kingdom when we are all able to follow God's commandments in perfect obedience.[1] My objection is that, in my experience, 'the right to invididual ownership' is truly viewed as a core spiritual value by both the Religious Right and much of American culture. I think it's genuine idolatry.
You'll hardly be surprised that I agree that 'The Religious Right is neither'. As someone who considers myself 'born again' and as someone who believes that the concepts of 'New Birth' and 'The New Creation' are absolutely central to Methodist spirituality and tradtion, I honestly believe that 'The Religious Right' is sub-Christian. Dare I invoke the famous statement: 'There I stand. I can do no other.'
[1] For the avoidance of doubt, I do not believe in 'works-based salvation'. I believe that The New Creation is eschatological and founded on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. The Kingdom is 'not yet' but it is also 'here and now'. The 'Religious Right' also disagrees with the 'the here and now' bit.
21 April 2007
Sermon - Called by God
I have posted the sermon for the Third Sunday in Easter on my sermon blog site: Called by God.
09 April 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
