Tolkien's Talking: Theology of Glory vs Theology of the Cross

A short post - but not a 'filler'. [EDIT: It was short at some point!] I haven't blogged for a while, mostly because I've been busy turning my life upside down. This post is in some degree inevitably introspective, but I hope it is not indulgent. 

I read rather a lot of theology (to the point of indulgence) - but every now and again some of it breaks through and actually serves to change how I live: Martin Luther dichotomised two theologies - the theology of glory and the theology of the cross. 

Theology of Glory

Forde explains that a theology of  glory assumes "that what we need is optimistic encouragement, some flattery, some positive thinking, [and] some support to build our self-esteem."

A theology of glory, when looking at going into ministry, will look at gifting and appearance - will affirm, as it were, the incidentals of who we are. A theology of glory will allow a 'calling' or 'gifting' (not to equate the two!) to supercede any defects in character or lack of maturity - to go forward immediately, armed with gifts, and try to achieve for the kingdom.

This theology believes that God's workers must be strong and self-confident. That we should show God's power through our own.

Luther says that the theologian of glory "does not know God hidden in suffering. Therefore he prefers works to suffering, glory to the cross, strength to weakness, [and] wisdom to folly"

If you allow this not to be trite, it won't be: Gandalf explains these theologies:

Theology of the Cross

This is how Luther describes 'Cross theology': "Through the cross, works are dethroned and the 'old Adam', who is especially edified by works, is crucified. It is impossible for a person not to be puffed up by his 'good works' unless he has first been deflated and destroyed by suffering and evil until he knows that he is worthless and that his works are not his but God's."

The theology of the cross is foolishness to the world. It says that humility and humiliation come before glory.

The theology of the cross remembers two things plainly - one: that we bring nothing. We are sinful and simple folk.

Secondly, it remembers that Jesus, because he was in his very nature God, did not cling to his equality with God, but instead went in all obedience and humility to death - even the most humiliating of deaths. And thus he was glorified (Philippians 2:6-11). 

I wonder if this will ever fully seep in for me; though I sincerely pray that it will. 

The bit where I talk about me

A couple of years ago, I had to leave university for a while because I was ill (I later packed it in altogether). My friends had all given me a lovely send-off, but one, instead, wrote a letter and sent it first class to my home so that the next day, when I woke up, literally hundreds of miles from where I wanted to be, and was feeling thoroughly sorry for myself,  then the post would arrive.

The letter told the story of Isaac Watts - who had to give up his ministry because of ill-health. But his writings and hymns in that time were the lasting parts of his ministry - affecting Dodderidge and thus William Wilberforce. That was what I chose to listen to, walked straight to my desk and got reading and writing (I haven't really stopped since).

But I found the letter again, buried in my bureau, about six months ago and read two sentences that I'd chosen to forget. "I'm not saying that the reason for your illness is that God is going to use you in the same way. Be open to what the Lord may have to teach you and how He may want to prepare you and refine you."

I was not. What I could have learned in that time was lost in a desire to prove myself.

I'm partly writing this because of a chance reading this morning of this in a letter written by John Keats: "Do you not see how necessary a world of pains and troubles is to school an intelligence and make it a soul"

You can walk into a room and put on a sticker that says 'Chief of Theologians' or claim in your private thoughts to be 'Chief of Preachers' - however deluded these things may or may not be, the substantive point is that they are irrelevant. 

The minister's job is for the 'Chief of Sinners'. 

A Halfling's Call

I can flit between the Boromirs and Faramirs - between self-confidence (achieving) and self-doubt (proving); and I do. It is men, you'll remember, who are most easily seduced by the power of the ring.

But some way down the road, the theology of glory will lead to a sudden, crippling realisation that we 'can't do it'. If you can abide with a second Tolkien video - this will give you shivers - Frodo says he 'can't do this' - Sam says 'I know'... 

We do this because it's good and right; not because we are strong and good. Because we cling to goodness. 

I read a book recently that another friend had sent me (- I think with the sole purpose of kicking my backside). It mentioned a man whom I've looked up to for many years:

"In his living room with tea, I once asked Jerram why he hadn't written more books over the years... I told him how so many of us longed to hear more from him and want to learn more. Pausing and shrugging his shoulders, he smiled broadly... What he said put ministry ambition and the doctrine of creation into perspective. "I'd like to write more," he said, "but I really enjoy my garden.""

(Buy the book)

Whether to be Samwise the gardener, a bloke on the rigs, a barista or barrister, or, for some, to become ministers straight away in life,  we will none of us be in a position for ministry while we are men. It's a Halfling's call. 

Slavery, Poverty, and the Bible's hidden code to get rich.

This is a broad-sweeping post. I will write more in the future on all of these things. I just want to create a platform first: looking at the voices of those who cry against their pain and shame, the voices of those who say it doesn't matter, and the voice of Jesus, who identifies with one of these to the extent that he says he is them.

There is a joy that our generation experiences that our parents and grandparents never knew. A flutter of the heart, an affirmation of identity:

Taking the buzzfeed quiz... and being told your personality is the same as that most admirable of fictional characters.

I have amassed a collective heroic identity of Gandalf, Sherlock, Chandler, Ned Stark and many others. 

I know what you're thinking - how could such a wise, smart, witty and downright good man even exist? What can I say? (I missed out that I've also been ascribed the race of orc and been sorted into Hufflepuff)

Slavery

Anyway, welcome to my '12 years a slave' quiz:

Congratulations. You are Benedict Cumberbatch.

(So was I. Yay!)

If you haven't seen it (do!) then let me explain. Cumberbatch is a pretty good chap. He buys a violin for his slave, treats him with some dignity, clearly hates a lot of aspects of slavery (except the product of his industry), and tries to protect his slave from violence...

...At least, he tries to protect him from violence on his own land. I'm trying to use as few spoilers as possible. Benedict's character is faced with a situation where his hired hand wants to kill a slave. He 'protects' the slave - not by giving him freedom - but by selling him to someone who he admits he knows is a hard and wicked master.

But the suffering will be out of sight. Benedict's conscience is suitably protected.

Perhaps you know now where I'm going. I'm sorry I tricked you - I lured you in with the promise that you're like the most devilishly handsome, deep-voiced, dreamy Englishman ever to walk the earth. 

What I'm suggesting is that we've come a long way since we thought slaves working the land was a fine sight. In fact, we hate the sight of it. Eugh! No, no. We've moved our slavery far away from us. To other countries, where we don't feel the jabs of conscience, only the comfy tread of slave-made trainers, the creamy taste of poverty-picked coffee. I am not judging you. We are all trapped in this - we don't know which companies use slave/crimilly low-waged labour - because it's not their priority to reveal these things - it's up to us consumers to create a situation where they can't afford not to let us know that they pay their workers. 

Just like we've created a market where companies will proudly declare their food 'organic' and know that we'll pay more and buy more of it. Eggs are 'free-range' and jumpers are '100% cashmere'. 

Maybe we could create a market where they'll sell more if they 'didn't abuse humans and increase the suffering of the desperate'. Not a catchy label, but you'd almost hope it goes without saying - I mean, we were indignant when we found out we'd been eating horse! Surely knowing that people aren't abused in the process of getting our stuff, is more important even than knowing if our food says 'moo' or 'neigh'?

I could finish off the post and drum it in. But I don't think it necessary and I can't tell you anything else. I can tell you that at the end of this slavery survey,  you will be hyperbolically told how many slaves personally work for you (which they demonstrably don't), but you will also see just how pervasive the problem is. And it will show you which companies to petition. That's the stage we're at - we can't just end it - we need to transform this entire, hellish market.

Poverty

That seems heavy enough, but I want to talk more broadly about poverty.

It has become fashionable for the ostensibly conservative Christians to pretend that we are not called to care about such things. There is no mandate for social justice, we are told. The world will one day burn, and all that will be left is the saved - those who know Christ. Therefore all that matters is evangelism? We care not for the temporary suffering of those destined for eternal suffering. Is that not simply white-washing a tomb - putting a sticky plaster on an open wound? The thing we need to do is make sure we 'get heaven'. 

There are many, many problems with that. I shall write more on it in the future.

For now, we shall say simply that it is surely the devil's jackpot if we both ignore suffering and decide that what we want is heaven, not Jesus. We become the Pelagians, but without the good deeds.

Because if we love Jesus (as opposed to 'paradise'), then we shall clothe and feed the naked and hungry. It's really entirely that simple. We long for Christ, not 'heaven'. This is the gospel - that we are no longer slaves, but sons of God. Not slaves to sin, but children who copy their father.

It's Islam that promises heaven: 72 virgins (or white raisins, depending on your translation), but Allah is nowhere to be seen. The glory of eternity is the presence of the Christ that we love. And the Christ that we love says that to ignore the poor is to ignore him (Matthew 25).

The 'code'

You will notice that I'm zooming out: slavery, to poverty, to the general call to compassion and holiness. 

The problem is that poverty is now invisible. Even 'visible' poverty (I live in Edinburgh - there is a LOT of it) is invisible to us, because we are inoculated against it: The other day I was walking back from work, at 10pm on a Friday. It was freezing. There was a group of girls ready to go out, queuing to get into a club. One of them had such cold hands that she put one on the back of another's neck and she squealed and giggled at the shock. Directly beneath them - there was perhaps a foot of distance between them - sat a beggar, huddled against the same biting frost.

The cold was but a gimmick. Poverty was a gimmick. There was an invisible man next to them. 

More on all of that at a later date. For now, I must make clear that this is not a judgemental post - I have walked past coatless, gloveless and hungry people enough times as to utterly shame me. But I also don't want to forget to give you the Biblical code for riches before I finish!!

"Give all you have. Your reward is in heaven."

Suffering - I don't believe you

In the CU world, 'Mission's weeks' are kicking off all over the country.

Thousands of students will be hearing about Jesus Christ - particularly in lunchbars - What he has to offer, why he's the only way, whether he takes away freedom... and does he have a satisfactory response to suffering?

The latter is what I want to think about today.
Forgive me for it being rather a lazy post: there's a lot of quotation.

Don't book Johnny Cash for a lunchbar

In one of my favourite films, Walk the Line, Johnny Cash finds himself face to face with Sam Phillips, the rock 'n' roll producer, to audition for a label.

It is utterly cringeworthy to hear which song he goes for: He refers to it as gospel - it's trite, tacky, and (to its credit) true ("Yes I know that Jesus saved me" (mumbled echo: "saved mah soul") The very moment he forgave me ("gave me hope")). If you really want to hear what it sounds like, here's the link - feel free to listen as you read, but I beg of you not to put yourself through the whole thing.

Don't worry - Sam Phillips couldn't listen to it all either and stops him.

Cash is not pleased:

"Well, what's wrong with the way I sing it?"

"I don't believe you."

"You saying I don't believe in God!?"

"You know exactly what I'm telling you. We've already heard that song a hundred times...just like that, just like how you sang that...If you was hit by a truck and you were lying out in that gutter dying...and you had time to sing one song, one song people would remember before you're dirt... one song that would let God know what you felt about your time here on earth... one song that would sum you up... you telling me that's the song you'd sing? About your peace within and how it's real and how you're gonna shout it? 
Or would you sing something different? Something real, something you felt? Because I'm telling you right now... that's the kind of song people want to hear. That's the kind of song that truly saves people"

Tell the Truth

This is how I've felt so often while listening to talks on suffering - I think "I don't believe you."
It's not that I don't believe that the speaker believes in God. Nor even that I don't believe there's genuine philosophical and theological merit to his points.

But I don't believe that when his parents die, he'll comfort his sister with the words "Adam brought God's wrath onto himself and all his descendants" (true though it may be).

I don't believe that when his wife dies he will tearlessly commit her into God's hands - he knows she's saved - why on earth be sad?

Please do not misunderstand me - there is truth in these...and a place for them in evangelism. But in this form they do not speak truly into the situation. They do not replace the lies of a despairing heart with the joys that come from Truth.

We have allowed the world's philosophy to take the lead on this. Christians now reflect the stoicism that is the last port of pseudo-comfort for the humanist. We say that death does not matter. It's part of life. It's the natural cycle and the good news for the Christian is that we get more life afterwards - Life-death-eternal life.

But there's an imposter, right in the middle. Death does not belong in this world. And we give it such a kingly status - did ever a pretender last so long when all who encountered him wept at his existence? When everyone knew instinctively that he did not belong?
Yet still we bow the knee and admire the emperor's lovely new clothes:

A while back, I was speaking to a Christian friend who'd just lost a family member. After a long, tearful conversation, he got up and I will never forget what he said next. 

He shrugged and forced a smile. "Still, ashes to ashes, dust to dust and all that, eh?"

It was downright bizarre - he was cheering himself up with the curse that God had put upon humanity! Is that the voice of comfort!?: "Don't worry, God's cursed us"?

Circle of Life

This is as bizarre as the joy the impala seem to have while singing 'Circle of Life' in The Lion King - Dudes! You get EATEN!!

Because we, as a culture, having no other apparent way to deal with death, have developed an entirely pagan Stockholm syndrome toward death. We celebrate it - 'Look! look, how beautiful: life gives way to life!'
Aside from the somewhat unlikely scenario of a gazelle taking joy in the fact that, even if she does get mauled today, at least the grass she ate yesterday possibly took nutrients from a lion that died of old age; it is perverse to think there is aught but tragedy in a mother dying in childbirth (which is surely the ultimate image for this philosophy) or to expect to see the war widows dancing among the poppies in those fertilised fields?

Death is a wickedness, even in light of the resurrection. The resurrection sheds light on just how evil death really is.

Let us, just to finish, look at two occasions where Jesus came across death. The first is surely a joyful one - Jesus' friend has just died...but Jesus has the power to raise him, and is going to. So, in the full knowledge of the resuscitation of his beloved friend, and full confidence in the ultimate sting-lessness of death, how does he react? 

An angry cry:

"Jesus wept."

The good news

This second occasion will hopefully caveat some of the things you were slightly afraid that I might be saying.

I'm not saying that the gospel isn't quite as good news as we thought. Quite the contrary. I'm saying that life, death and everything in between serve as a constant reminder of the need for our awaited joy - the return of the King. 

That the gospel deals with the problem, it doesn't just say there isn't one.

Here it is, - the Cross - John Stott will take it from here:

“In the real world of pain, how could one worship a God who was immune to it? I have entered many Buddhist temples in different Asian countries and stood respectfully before the statue of the Buddha, his legs crossed, arms folded, eyes closed, the ghost of a smile playing round his mouth, a remote look on his face, detached from the agonies of the world.

But each time, after a while I have had to look away. And in imagination I have turned instead to the lonely, twisted, tortured figure on the cross, nails through hands and feet, back lacerated, limbs wrenched, brow bleeding from thorn pricks, mouth dry and intolerably thirsty, plunged in God-forsaken darkness.

That is the God for me! He laid aside His immunity to pain. He entered our world of flesh and blood, tears and death. He suffered for us. Our sufferings become more manageable in the light of His. There is still a question mark against human suffering, but over it we stamp another mark, the cross which symbolizes divine suffering: The Cross of Christ..."

I suppose all I'm saying is, remember, when you preach the gospel to hurting hearts, when you talk to your friends after a lunchbar - If you're answering the question of suffering with dry eyes... then you haven't answered the question.

Wisdom and Folly – The Christian Worldview

Every time we have a conversation, whenever we read a book, watch a film, or even an advert - our worldview is affected - either by direction or confirmation.

Allow me a sentence of dullness while I define - Jim Sire describes a person's worldview as:
"A set of presuppositions (which may be true, partially true, or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or unconsciously; consistently or inconsistently) about the basic make-up of this world."

It is our worldview that dictates the 'assumed truths' we hold - the instinctive, and rarely thought through, socio-philosophical positions ("Sexuality definitely is/isn't genetically decided") bizarre platitudes ("I think you should be true to yourself") or simply snap judgements (TV personality arrested...).

The idea behind this blog is to engage with the assumed ‘truths’ that lie within our worldview – those that lurk unchallenged in our minds because they are so deeply set. First, though, this post is about how to do that, and why it's important.

Listening to the voices

The place I want to start is at perhaps one of the most ill/mis-used verses in the Bible:

“Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?”

egularlysm fiction

ion - Who'worth thus: od e and adopt and hold them  oceans of the revealed Word of God.

ty with 'Does this simply mean that we’re playing topsy-turvy? That if the world says something is wise, then it’s foolish; if it says something’s beautiful, it’s ugly and so forth?

Certainly not! What it means is that God has actually spoken – and that the Creator’s folly is surely wiser than the created’s wisdom (1Cor 1:25).

What I’m saying is that it matters hugely who it is who's speaking - who issues  the ‘wisdom’. That we may have a more fruitful discernment if we judge the safety of the water by the source, rather than the sweetness.

Two examples

A few years ago, I decided to start reading Seneca’s letters. I had kept coming across him in my reading: the old Christian theologians seemed to love him, despite the fact that he was a pagan philosopher: Saints Augustine and Jerome quoted him regularly, and Tertullian referred to him as ‘saepe noster’ (‘often one of us’).

I read. I loved it. There is ink all over my copy. He had so much wisdom. He reflected the Bible’s call to be wary of vice when defences were low, he echoed St. Paul’s warning not to be blown around by the winds of doctrine, He talked of the importance of friendship and unity with ‘moral men’. It seemed that there was so much we could learn from him. I felt myself becoming wiser and more learned as I read.

But, here again, I should have remembered that if a well has two sources, the purity of one stream does not guarantee the purity of the other. The shared destination of Seneca’s and Paul’s writings did not indicate the same holy source.

It was not until I had waded through to his 48^th letter that I reached the poison in the stream.

He wrote:

“For that is what Philosophy has promised me – that she will make me God’s equal. That’s the invitation and that’s what I’ve come for; be as good as your word.”

I’m sure many of you are ahead of me by now. The promise to become God’s equal? The wisdom-quest that I had joined Seneca on was one to be like God and know good from evil. There was no trueness of purpose in this oldest of sins.

We are all too easily duped in this way - The serpent in the garden said ‘Take and eat’. He promises you will be like God.

Jesus says at supper ‘Take and eat’. He promises you will be with God. That you will be made righteous.

Look who’s talking

Look beyond the words to the speaker. Any man, good or wicked can drip honey from his lips, (Prov. 5:3; Ps. 119:103) but there is but one source that gives only Grace and Truth.

This blog will explore ideas and assumptions that we see and adopt, coming from both the press and the pulpit. It will hold them against the sharp blade of Scripture and assess their worth by asking the question – ‘Who’s talking – Christ, or the Serpent?’

I am absolutely not going against ‘common grace’ – there are no doubts in my mind that the world can produce truth and beauty – but I am saying that if you are fishing for Truth – cast your net into the calm oceans of the revealed Word of God, rather than the stormy ponds of the fallible human mind - the catch will be far greater.

“For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”