Tim Chester's Blog, page 44

For more details go to 20schemes.com.

SPONSORS

Support this site by using these links:



includes Tim Chester’s books

20% of every thinkivp purchase goes

to train Christian leaders in poorer countries

Here’s another interesting survey on the affects of using Facebook reported on the BBC New website. In summary:

“Results showed that the more people used Facebook, the worse they felt afterwards … The team also found that the more the participants used the site, the more their life satisfaction levels declined. The pattern appeared to contrast with interacting “directly” with people, which seemed to have no effect on well-being. But researchers did find people spent more time on Facebook when they were feeling lonely – and not simply because they were alone at that precise moment … “A number of recent studies indicate that people’s perceptions of social isolation (i.e. how lonely they feel) are a more powerful determinant of well-being than objective social isolation.” Colloquially, this theory is known as FOMO – Fear Of Missing Out – a side effect of seeing friends and family sitting on beaches or having fun at parties while you are on a computer.

My book on social media, Will You Be My Facebook Friend?, is available here from thinkivp.com and amazon.com.

SPONSORS

Support this site by using these links:



includes Tim Chester’s books

20% of every thinkivp purchase goes

to train Christian leaders in poorer countries

A review of D. A. Carson, Jesus the Son of God: A Christological Title Often Overlooked, Sometimes Misunderstood, and Currently Disputed (Wheaton, Il./Nottingham, Crossway/IVP), 2012.

Available here from amazon.com and thinkivp.

Don Carson shows that the term ‘son of God’ has a range of meanings in the Bible. The phrase ‘son of’ can mean biological offspring, but it can be used metaphorically to mean non-biological relationships or similarities. ‘Son of Belial’ (translated in a variety of ways such as ‘worthless men’) describes people who share the nature of wickedness. So when Paul says Christians are ‘sons of Abraham’ he is not saying we are his biological offspring, but that we share a characteristic of Abraham (in this case, his faith). With this in mind we can see how angels can be called ‘sons of God’ (since they share God’s holiness) or how Adam could be called a ‘son of God’ (since he is made in God’s likeness) or how peacemakers can be called ‘sons of God’ (since they share God’s peaceable character).

When Jesus is described as ‘the son of God’ it can mean that:

he is the true messianic King (via 1 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2)
he is the true Israel (the son of God as Israel was called to be the son of God)
he is the true humanity (the son of God as Adam was to be the son of God)
he is the pre-existent Son of God

(It might have been helpful to have more on how these co-ordinate expanding on how the Messiah is the representative of Israel which in tern is the representative of humanity.)

Carson’s distinctive contribution is to show how these senses all feed into one another. So in some key texts (chapter two focuses on Hebrews 1 and John 5) they mutually interpret one another or resonate with one another so that these different senses cohere and combine. Carson says: ‘Judging by the evidence of Hebrews 1 … Christians commonly plugged away at integrating confessional christologies. Just as we discovered … that Matthew can leap from an Israel-as-Son-of-God christology to a Davidic-king-as-Son-of-God christology, showing no embarrassment at affirming that Jesus is the Son of God in both senses, so Hebrews 1 leaps from preexistent-Godhead-as-Son-of-God christology to Davidic-king-Messiah-as-Son-of-God christology. (61-62) ‘The richest theological loading of the expression “Son of God” as applied to Jesus springs from passages that deploy the expression to cross-pollinate distinctive uses.’ (107)

In chapter 3 Carson draws conclusions from this foundational material. After drawing some general conclusions, he considers the recent argument that alternative terms to ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ should be used to translate the Bible in Muslim contexts where such language may be misunderstood as biological, creating an unnecessary barrier to the gospel. Carson rejects this argument for a variety of reason, one of which is his earlier conclusion that the different senses of ‘Son of God’ come together in the trajectories of Scripture. Carson relates the challenge of translating ‘lamb of God’ in a culture that sacrifices pigs. Should it be translated ‘swine of God’? Taken on its own there would be a good case of this. But readers would soon encounter other biblical texts that talk of flocks of sheep or texts that designate pork as unclean. The initial easy fix generates bigger problems elsewhere. So it is better to translate it as ‘lamb of God’ and provide explanations. In the same way, it might be acceptable to translate isolated references to a phrase like ‘sons of a quiver’ as ‘arrows’, but ‘son(s) of God’ is a very different issue. ‘On almost any reading of the evidence, the associations of the expression are complicated, theological laden, and inescapable. Why should it not be better, then, to render the original more directly, perhaps with explanatory notes?’ (93)

Moreover the Muslim world is not unique in having no ready referent for eternal sonship. ‘No language, no culture means by “Son” what Jesus means in John 5 – yet “Son” is the category Jesus uses, even though nothing in English, or Urdu, or Arabic, prepares us for a Son of God whose relationship with the Father is anything like what the text describes.’ (103) John 5:26, for example, says: ‘For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself.’ What does Jesus mean when he asserts that the Father has ‘granted’ him life and that he has ‘life in himself’? Carson concludes: ‘The best explanation is the old one: this is an eternal grant. It is not a grant given to Jesus at some point in time, as if before that point he did not have life-in-himself. After all, John has already insisted that the pre-incarnate Word had life in himself (1:4), Thus John 5:26 helps to establish the peculiar relationships between the Father and the Son, in eternity and form eternity. It is an eternal grant.’ (69)

This book is a response to this debate, but it is more than this: it is an attempt to delineate and co-ordinate the different uses of the term ‘son of man’.

Available here from amazon.com and thinkivp.

SPONSORS

Support this site by using these links:



includes Tim Chester’s books

20% of every thinkivp purchase goes

to train Christian leaders in poorer countries

My book Good News the Poor: Social Involvement and the Gospel has now out in the United States from Crossway. This is my contribution to the debate on the relationship between evangelism and social action, the latest manifestation of which has been Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert’s book, What Is the Mission of the Church? It makes the case of social involvement, but it also shows how the gospel should shape that involvement and how proclamation needs to be at the centre of our mission. Good News to the Poor has been out in the in the UK for a while where it has been well-received. This is the first time it has been available in the US.

Endorsements

“Good News to the Poor is good news for readers thinking through the relationship of evangelism to social action. Tim Chester rightly emphasizes the centrality of the gospel as he compares dependency-creating welfare with dignity-embracing development.”

—Marvin Olasky, Editor-in-chief, World News Group

“The Christian church has at its best been known for its exemplary love and sacrificial service to ‘the least of these’: the poor, the oppressed, and the marginalized. Tim Chester shows that gospel proclamation and tangible acts of love, service, and mercy toward our neighbors should not be pitted against each other—God’s grace motivates action, and words and deeds go together.”

—Justin S. Holcomb, Executive Director, Resurgence; Adjunct Professor of Theology and Philosophy, Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando

“Tim Chester provides a timely reminder that Christianity at its best is actually a well-balanced combination of social action and gospel proclamation. This book does an excellent job removing the perceived wall between these two camps. Chester challenges the Christian church to work for justice and peace in the process of calling individuals to conversion and the new birth. This book is a much-needed call for a renewed understanding of the Christian calling.”

—Ben Peays, Executive Director, The Gospel Coalition

“What’s the relationship between the gospel and social action for the believer? I’ve been asked that question many times over the years, and it is one we must answer well. If we do not get the relationship between the gospel and social action right, we will likely end up undermining both of them. This is why Tim Chester’s Good News to the Poor is an essential book for Christians. He argues persuasively and winsomely that gospel proclamation and social action are inseparable.”

—Dan Cruver, Director, Together for Adoption; author, Reclaiming Adoption: Missional Living Through the Rediscovery of Abba Father

“A vital challenge to gospel people to follow in the footsteps of William Carey. Consistent, mission-minded evangelicals have always refused to choose between a commitment to gospel proclamation and an active concern for the poor. Tim Chester digs deep into the Bible to show us why both are vital and what it means to be Christ’s people in a world of need.”

—Keith Walker, Director, SIM-UK/N. Europe

“This important, well-written book is a must-read for those looking for a way to integrate word and deed to advance God’s purposes in our needy world.”

—Tom Sine, author, Living on Purpose: Finding God’s Best For Your Life

Contents

1.  The Case for Social Involvement

2.  More Than a Private Faith

3.  The Case for Evangelizing the Poor

4.  Social Involvement and Proclamation

5.  Social Involvement and the Kingdom of God

6.  Good News to the Poor

7.  Good News to the Rich

8.  Welcoming the Excluded

9.  Strengthening the Weak

10. Following the Crucified Lord

11. Can We Make a Difference?



SPONSORS

Support this site by using these links:



includes Tim Chester’s books

20% of every thinkivp purchase goes

to train Christian leaders in poorer countries

Here are a number of news items …

Together for Adoption

The 2013 Together for Adoption National Conference is taking place on October 4-5 in Louisville, KY. I commend it to you! Here’s a video to encourage to attend …

You Can Change at Open the Word

I’m speaking at the Open the Word day conference in York on 12 October 2013. The theme is ‘You Can Change’. You can book and get more information here.

Cristianos Superocupados

Publicaciones Andamio, part of the IFES movement in Spain, have published by book The Busy Christian’s Guide to Busyness in Spanish as Cristianos Superocupados. They are also translating You Can Change, Total Church and The Ordinary Hero. Cristianos Superocupados is available in Europe here. They should also be available in due course in the United States through Libros Desafío.

Coming Clean

Luke Gilkerson of Covenant Eyes has written a free e-book entitled Coming Clean: Overcoming Lust Through Biblical Accountability which is available here. He says: “I wrote this e-book to help Christian accountability relationships to thrive, helping accountability partners to know how to keep the gospel at the centre of their relationship while they ask each other the hard questions. It’s basically a handbook for accountability partners, especially those who already use Accountability Software and are looking to take their accountability up a notch.”

SPONSORS

Support this site by using these links:



includes Tim Chester’s books

20% of every thinkivp purchase goes

to train Christian leaders in poorer countries

The cultural mandate is the term used to describe the call in Genesis 1 to take the ‘stuff’ of creation and create culture: agriculture, science, art, technology, architecture and so on. It is a call to create as those made in the image of the Creator.

Yet when Christians speak of engaging with culture we typically mean consuming culture with discernment. We teach one another how to analyse and evaluate culture in its myriad forms. This is right and important. We are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds so we are not confirmed to the pattern of this world (Romans 12:2). (‘The world’ is the New Testament’s terms of what we call ‘culture’.)

Culture consumption versus culture creation

But cultural analysis is not a fulfilment of the cultural mandate. We are not called to be consumers of culture. We are called to be creators of culture.

Now clearly these are not in opposition. Nor can we only create culture. A performance requires an audience. We are all going to be consumers of culture. Creating only for ourselves merely as a means of self-expression is self-indulgence.

But my challenge to myself (and to you, dear reader) is to consider whether I have the balance right.

This imbalance may be in some ways a peculiarly modern phenomenon. For modern technology enables cultural artefacts to be widely dispersed. As little as a hundred years ago music could only be consumed live. Every musical experience required a fresh act of cultural creation. Now a performance can be recorded so that this one performance is repeated a thousand times. As a result the ratio of cultural creation to cultural consumption has shifted radically. We gain quality. We might well agree that we would rather listen to a recording of the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra than listen to a live performance by the local school orchestra. But what about listening to a professional choir on the radio compared to participating in an amateur choir? I think it is harder to make the call on which offers the greater quality of experience. And quality is not the only criteria. Community, creativity and obedience also matter. Again modern technology does not help us. We can readily compare our culture creation with that of the ‘professionals’. But quality is not the only criteria. It is about being human as we were intended to be. Your painting might not be a Turner or a Hockney, but the act of painting will enrich your life and your paintings might well enrich the lives of your friends.

Passive consumption versus active consumption

Another distinction is help. We can think of passive consumption and active consumption. Compare the act of reading a novel and seeing an adaptation of that novel in a movie. When you watch a movie you are a passive consumer. All the work has been done for you. The story, character and imagery are all there for you to behold. But in a book some of the work is left to you. It is the reader who creates the visual world, albeit at the prompting of the writer. There is a kind of co-creation involving both the writer and the reader.

Clearly these are not hard and fast distinctions. A movie might well stimulate our imaginations. My favourite movies are often those that create a world I want to inhabit and so prompt me to consider how I might reshape my world in the image of the movie. They draw me into the activity of culture creation. My point is not to place general cultural activities in the passive and active camp, but merely to show that the distinction (or the spectrum) exists. Nor is this a foray into the debate between whether high culture to be preferred over low culture or indeed whether such distinctions have any validity. My point is not to favour high culture over low culture. People passively consume high culture just as much as people consume low culture.

Because active consumption involves a level of creation it sits somewhere between consumption and creation. So we need to bear this mind as we weight our personal balance between culture creation and culture consumption. We cannot simply create a two lists – consumption and creation – and then try to adjust their length. It is not something we can quantify. But it is, I suggest, worth reflecting on whether we have space in our lives for culture creation (and a bit of listing might aid that process of reflection).

Rebalancing our cultural engagement

I cannot tell you what is the right balance. It will be personal to everyone. But I invite you to consider whether the balance is right. It might mean less culture consumption and more culture creation.

Less consumption might involve less watching television, going to the movies, visiting galleries, reading books, playing computer games, participating in social media.

More culture creation could involve one of a hundred different things. It might mean what we traditionally think of as culture creation – things like writing, performing, singing, composing, painting, filming, photographing. But it might also mean creating or shaping your environment: gardening, cooking, decorating, arranging, restoring, mending. It might mean creating your own cultural events: a party, a meal, a picnic, a reading, a jam, an adventure. It might mean play: making a kite, building a den, throwing a ball around. It might mean participating in a local group: a model railway club, a choir or orchestra, a restoration project, an amateur dramatics society.

SPONSORS

Support this site by using these links:



includes Tim Chester’s books

20% of every thinkivp purchase goes

to train Christian leaders in poorer countries

The cultural mandate is the term used to describe the call in Genesis 1 to take the ‘stuff’ of creation and create culture: agriculture, science, art, technology, architecture and so on. It is a call to create as those made in the image of the Creator.

Yet when Christians speak of engaging with culture we typically mean consuming culture with discernment. We teach one another how to analyse and evaluate culture in its myriad forms. This is right and important. We are to be transformed by the renewing of our minds so we are not confirmed to the pattern of this world (Romans 12:2). (‘The world’ is the New Testament’s terms of what we call ‘culture’.)

Culture consumption verses culture creation

But cultural analysis is not a fulfilment of the cultural mandate. We are not called to be consumers of culture. We are called to be creators of culture.

Now clearly these are not in opposition. Nor can we only create culture. A performance requires an audience. We are all going to be consumers of culture. Creating only for ourselves merely as a means of self-expression is self-indulgence.

But my challenge to myself (and to you, dear reader) is to consider whether I have the balance right.

This imbalance may be in some ways a peculiarly modern phenomenon. For modern technology enables cultural artefacts to be widely dispersed. As little as a hundred years ago music could only be consumed live. Every musical experience required a fresh act of cultural creation. Now a performance can be recorded so that this one performance is repeated a thousand times. As a result the ratio of cultural creation to cultural consumption has shifted radically. We gain quality. We might well agree that we would rather listen to a recording of the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra than listen to a live performance by the local school orchestra. But what about listening to a professional choir on the radio compared to participating in an amateur choir? I think it is harder to make the call on which offers the greater quality of experience. And quality is not the only criteria. Community, creativity and obedience also matter. Again modern technology does not help us. We can readily compare our culture creation with that of the ‘professionals’. But quality is not the only criteria. It is about being human as we were intended to be. Your painting might not be a Turner or a Hockney, but the act of painting will enrich your life and your paintings might well enrich the lives of your friends.

Passive consumption verses active consumption

Another distinction is help. We can think of passive consumption and active consumption. Compare the act of reading a novel and seeing an adaptation of that novel in a movie. When you watch a movie you are a passive consumer. All the work has been done for you. The story, character and imagery are all there for you to behold. But in a book some of the work is left to you. It is the reader who creates the visual world, albeit at the prompting of the writer. There is a kind of co-creation involving both the writer and the reader.

Clearly these are not hard and fast distinctions. A movie might well stimulate our imaginations. My favourite movies are often those that create a world I want to inhabit and so prompt me to consider how I might reshape my world in the image of the movie. They draw me into the activity of culture creation. My point is not to place general cultural activities in the passive and active camp, but merely to show that the distinction (or the spectrum) exists. Nor is this a foray into the debate between whether high culture to be preferred over low culture or indeed whether such distinctions have any validity. My point is not to favour high culture over low culture. People passively consume high culture just as much as people consume low culture.

Because active consumption involves a level of creation it sits somewhere between consumption and creation. So we need to bear this mind as we weight our personal balance between culture creation and culture consumption. We cannot simply create a two lists – consumption and creation – and then try to adjust their length. It is not something we can quantify. But it is, I suggest, worth reflecting on whether we have space in our lives for culture creation (and a bit of listing might aid that process of reflection).

Rebalancing our cultural engagement

I cannot tell you what is the right balance. It will be personal to everyone. But I invite you to consider whether the balance is right. It might mean less culture consumption and more culture creation.

Less consumption might involve less watching television, going to the movies, visiting galleries, reading books, playing computer games, participating in social media.

More culture creation could involve one of a hundred different things. It might mean what we traditionally think of as culture creation – things like writing, performing, singing, composing, painting, filming, photographing. But it might also mean creating or shaping your environment: gardening, cooking, decorating, arranging, restoring, mending. It might mean creating your own cultural events: a party, a meal, a picnic, a reading, a jam, an adventure. It might mean play: making a kite, building a den, throwing a ball around. It might mean participating in a local group: a model railway club, a choir or orchestra, a restoration project, an amateur dramatics society.

SPONSORS

Support this site by using these links:



includes Tim Chester’s books

20% of every thinkivp purchase goes

to train Christian leaders in poorer countries

On 21-28 July The Crowded House are holding a week of training and mission in which we want to bless our city, celebrate its culture and introduce people to Christ …

SITCsheffield.com :: #SITCsheffield :: facebook.com/SITCsheffield

Here’s a video introducing The Trinitarian Life day conference with Mike Reeves and myself  on Saturday 14 September in Leicester …

Click here for more details and online booking.

Here’s more on the Transitioning To Both And conference which The Crowded House is hosting …