The effects of sin touch all of creation; no created thing is in principle untouched by the corrosive effects of the fall. Whether we look at societal structures such as the state or family, or cultural pursuits such as art or technology, or bodily functions such as sexuality or eating, or anything at all within the wide scope of creation, we discover that the good handiwork of God has been drawn into the sphere of human mutiny against God (pp.54f).

That is not to say that God's good creation has somehow ceased to exist, and that everything is now totally evil. On the contrary, the good creation is still there in its entirety, but has been distorted and disfigured by sin. So we could distinguish between structure—the basic nature of things (the "order of creation" in Calvin's language, apparently)—and direction—whether those things are directed towards God or away from God (the "order of sin and redemption").

This double direction applies not only to individual human beings but also to such cultural phenomena as technology, art, and scholarship, to such societal institutions as labor unions, schools, and corporations, and to such human functions as emotionality, sexuality, and rationality. To the degree that these realities fail to live up to God's creational design for them, they are misdirected, abnormal, distorted. To the degree that they still conform to God's design, they are in the grip of a countervailing force that curbs or counteracts the distortion. Direction therefore always involves two tendencies moving either for or against God (p.59).

How else might we view the fall, or answer the question of what is wrong in the world?

The great danger is always to single out some aspect or phenomenon of God's good creation and identify it, rather than the alien intrusion of human apostasy, as the villain in the drama of human life. ... The result is that something in the good creation is declared evil. We might call this tendency "Gnosticism" ... (p.61).

This Gnostic tendency shows up in Christian thinking when we read verses against "the world" as speaking against some parts of creation (structure), rather than as speaking against the corruption that has infected the whole of creation (direction).

Christians of virtually every persuasion have tended to understand "world" to refer to a delimited area of the created order, an area that is usually called "worldly" or "secular" ... , which included such fields as art, politics, scholarship (excluding theology), journalism, sports, business, and so on (p.64).

But once we see that "worldly" refers to the orientation of the whole of creation, rather than to some "secular" realm of creation, that gives us hope for the whole of creation to be open to redemption, and not just some "sacred" realm of creation (human souls and their spiritual relationship with God, for example).

Evil is not inherent in the human condition: there once was a completely good creation and there will be again; hence, the restoration of creation is not impossible. Nothing in the world ought to be despaired of (p.62).

Consequently, every area of the created world cried out for redemption and the coming of the kingdom of God (p.68).

For God so hated the world, but he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish [along with the world] but have eternal life [in heaven]. For God did not send his Son into the world to save the world, but in order that the world might be condemned through him (John 3:16-17, ESV, altered).

Genesis 1 speaks of an unformed and unfilled earth being formed and filled by God's creative word. What next?

This is not the end of the development of creation, however. Although God has withdrawn from the work of creation, he has put an image of himself on the earth with a mandate to continue. The earth had been completely unformed and empty; in the six-day process of development God had formed it and filled it—but not completely. People must now carry on the work of development: by being fruitful they must fill it even more; by subduing it they must form it even more. Mankind, as God's representatives on the earth, carry on where God left off. But this is now to be a human development of the earth. The human race will fill the earth with its own kind, and it will form the earth for its own kind. From now on the development of the created earth will be societal and cultural in nature. In a single word, the task ahead is civilization (pp.41f).

But where do these cultural riches spring from? Ultimately from God, who created the world to be so rich with possibility, having so many ways in which it can be opened up and unfolded by human activity.

The given reality of the created order is such that it is possible to have schools and industry, printing and rocketry, needlepoint and chess. The creational law is crying out to be positivized in new and amazing ways. The whole vast range of human civilization is ... a display of the marvelous wisdom of God in creation and the profound meaningfulness of our task in the world (p.44).

This should have a deep impact on how Christians view all areas of culture and society: "they are not outside God's plans for the cosmos, despite the sinful aberrations, but rather were built in from the beginning" (p.45). This means there will be "positive possibilities for service to God in such areas as politics and the film arts, computer technology and business administration, developmental economics and skydiving" (p.45).

But what about the ultimate end of human civilisation? Will it all be thrown away when Christ returns?

Wolters uses the helpful image of a child who develops with a chronic disease. Two processes are continuing in parallel: the normal process of growth, and the distorting effects of the disease. If this person is healed of the disease in adulthood, that doesn't mean that the normal growth will be reversed and the adult will become a tiny infant again. Rather, the distorting effects are taken away, and the good growth is preserved.

So it will be with human civilisation:

Even the great crisis that will come on the world at Christ's return will not annihilate God's creation or our cultural development of it. ... There is no reason to believe that the cultural dimensions of earthly reality (except insofar as they are involved in sin) will be absent from the new, glorified earth that is promised. In fact, the biblical indications point in the opposite direction. Describing the new earth as the new Jerusalem, John writes that "the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. ... The glory and the honor of the nations will be brought into it" (Rev. 21:24, 26). This very likely refers to the cultural treasures of mankind which will be purified by passing through the fires of judgment, like gold in a crucible (p.47).

But doesn't the Bible say that "the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up" (2 Peter 3:10, RSV)?

[A]ll but one of the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts do not have the final words "will be burned up" but instead have "will be found," which makes quite a difference. (This is the Greek text accepted by the more recent translations, such as the NEB and NIV, which read, somewhat o[b]scurely, "will be laid bare.") The text therefore teaches that ... "the earth and the works that are upon it" will survive (p.47).

In other words, "God does not make junk, and he does not junk what he has made" (p.49).

The part about "burned up" vs. "found" is dealt with in more depth by Wolters in a talk from summer 2011 (MP3), and in an article from 1987.

Something has been bothering me about the evangelical church in the UK. It's certainly an issue elsewhere, and it's nothing new, but, as an evangelical Christian in the UK, I'm most aware of it in that context. It shows up to a greater or lesser extent in different parts of the evangelical church. I'm going to call it spiritual reductionism. It goes like this:

The only things that ultimately matter are God and human souls.

Reductionism is when you say X is really nothing but Y. In the evangelical church, it shows up in this kind of attitude:

• This world is nothing but a stage for the real spiritual action to take place.
• All the details of our lives are nothing but opportunities for us to grow in holiness and to share the love of Christ, so that people's souls can be saved for eternity.
• Nothing matters in life but our personal, spiritual relationship with God and his people.

Now, you might not hear that expressed in so many words, but what would the Christian life be like if someone believed those things?

• While the Bible speaks of the future in terms of God coming to set his creation free, to restore all things and to raise the dead to physical life, the spiritual reductionist would speak about the future simply in terms of believers spending eternity in the presence of God. The other details don't matter.
• While the Bible speaks of godliness in terms of both inner and outer transformation, the spiritual reductionist is really concerned only with inner transformation: how much you love God, how satisfied you are in him, and how pure your thoughts and attitudes are. Good works are of no value in themselves, and their real value is as a window into our inner, spiritual state. Hence the evangelical emphasis on those good works that show most clearly the state of our personal, inner, spiritual relationship with God: reading the Bible, prayer, going to church, talking to people about Jesus, and not having lustful thoughts.
• While the Bible gives plenty of examples of God's concern for people's material needs, for issues of social justice and the like, the spiritual reductionist would speak of people's needs almost exclusively in terms of their need for a personal spiritual relationship with God. Any other needs are barely even real in comparison.
• While the Bible gives plenty of accounts of God's dealings with his people in terms of their physical dwelling places, and in terms of their relationship to the land, the spiritual reductionist would receive those accounts as nothing but images for us of our spiritual relationship with God.
• While the Bible gives plenty of examples of God's concern for physical health, and even for a reversal of physical death, the spiritual reductionist would understand those primarily to be illustrations about our spiritual health and our spiritual life.
• While the Bible speaks as though all aspects of our lives really have significance, the spiritual reductionist will think that the only aspects of our lives that really have significance are those that contribute to the saving of souls and our spiritual relationship with God.

Does that sound familiar?

The problem is not that the spiritual reductionist emphasises the importance of having a right relationship to God. The problem is that this relationship is limited to some invisible "spiritual" dimension. But what the Bible teaches us, from Genesis to Revelation, from generation to regeneration, is that all dimensions of human life are important aspects of our relationship to God, because all dimensions of human life are part of how God made us to be, and all dimensions of human life will remain significant and important in the coming age, when the eternal reign of Christ has been established on the earth. Let's try to recover a sense of that in our churches today.

The Colossian Forum is some new thing trying to promote discussion on issues of science, culture and Christian faith. They invited young-age creationist Todd Wood to write an article for them on What I Would Like to Hear an Evolutionary Creationist Say. So what would Todd Wood like to hear an evolutionary creationist say?

"I don't know."

Perhaps when people ask if Christian theology is compatible with evolution, the first answer should be, “I don’t know.”

He continues,

As a young age creationist, let me take this opportunity to follow my own advice and publicly express my ignorance. If creationism is true, why can we see starlight from stars millions of light years away? I don’t know. If creationism is true, what does radiometric dating mean? I don’t know. If creationism is true, why do humans and chimpanzees have nearly identical genomes? I don’t know. Just like evolutionary creationists wrestling with theological issues, though, young-age creationists have proposed all sorts of answers to the above questions. Some weren’t very good ideas, but others are quite intriguing. And just like evolutionary approaches to theology, there is no single creationist scientific model that most creationists would accept.

And in conclusion,

When it comes to the origins fight, maybe the key is to follow Christ’s example. Maybe the only way we’ll ever resolve the war is through surrender. Maybe in surrender, we’ll find out what real victory is. Maybe we’ll find that confessing ignorance is the first step towards finding God’s truth. Maybe we’ll discover that asking for wisdom is just what God wanted us to do all along. Most important of all, maybe we’ll find that we can humbly ask for wisdom together, and in doing so, the world really will see something different about us.

Which might explain why theoretical physicist—and philosopher—David Albert felt the need to gently point out that no, in fact he hasn't answered that question.

But it seems that Krauss was claiming nothing of the sort. At least, that's what I glean from a recent interview. Here are some selected highlight (interviewer's words in bold):

On that note, you were recently quoted as saying that philosophy "hasn't progressed in two thousand years." ...

Well, yeah, I mean, look I was being provocative, as I tend to do every now and then in order to get people's attention. ...

I try to be intellectually honest in everything that I write, especially about what we know and what we don't know. If you're writing for the public, the one thing you can't do is overstate your claim, because people are going to believe you. ...

And so when I read the title of your book, I read it as "questions about origins are over." ...

Well, if that hook gets you into the book that's great. But in all seriousness, I never make that claim. In fact, in the preface I tried to be really clear that you can keep asking "Why?" forever. At some level there might be ultimate questions that we can't answer, but if we can answer the "How?" questions, we should, because those are the questions that matter. And it may just be an infinite set of questions, but what I point out at the end of the book is that the multiverse may resolve all of those questions. From Aristotle's prime mover to the Catholic Church's first cause, we're always driven to the idea of something eternal. ...

I don't ever claim to resolve that infinite regress of why-why-why-why-why; as far as I'm concerned it's turtles all the way down. The multiverse could explain it by being eternal, in the same way that God explains it by being eternal ...

What drove me to write this book was this discovery that the nature of "nothing" had changed, that we've discovered that "nothing" is almost everything and that it has properties. ...

If I'd just titled the book "A Marvelous Universe," not as many people would have been attracted to it.

Well, glad we've got that cleared up now. Why does the multiverse exist rather than n— ... erm ... nada, zilch, nuttin'? That's a question we can't answer. The multiverse just exists. It's eternal.

I'm glad that there is such a thing as a Christian response to climate change, but it needs to be much greater in order to help the huge number of people who are already suffering the consequences of our past and current actions.

The article includes a striking quote by 2nd-century Christian apologist Justin Martyr:

There are some who are called Christians, but are actually godless, impious heretics, and they teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish… These who are called Christians, who venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob say that there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven forever; do not imagine that they are Christians.

How things have changed! Many Christians today would speak of "going to heaven forever" as their hope for the future. But it seems that in Justin Martyr's day, this was so obviously wrong that he would have assumed that anyone who spoke in those terms must surely not be a Christian at all! But compared with this kind of disembodied existence, the reality of the hope of bodily resurrection, as the article explains, is so much more exciting and so much more appealing.

Is there a distinctively Christian view of astronomy? Or is astronomy "neutral", and untouched by Christian faith?

The Reformational stream of Christian thinking emphasises that all areas of life, reality and culture are created by God, affected by the Fall, and will ultimately be put right by Christ. This means that for any area, such as astronomy, Christian faith ought to make a radical difference.

The aim of this talk is to look at astronomy from a distinctively Christian perspective. How might Christians look differently at the universe? How might Christians look differently at the academic discipline of astronomy? And how might Christians look differently at the place of astronomy in society? The talk may or may not succeed in answering those questions, but a liberal sprinkling of pictures of stars and galaxies will ensure that it is an awe-inspiring evening!

No idea what I'm going to say yet. Suggestions welcome in the box below...

More details about the talk are on the WYSOCS events page. Maybe see you (both) there?

God and Government

There are eight chapters, framed by an introduction and conclusion by the editors (Nick Spencer and Jonathan Chaplin). The brief for each chapter was to respond to the same question: "what, according to Christian theology, is the proper function of government? What, in other words, should those Christians engaged with politics, in whatever capacity, be aiming to achieve through their engagement?" (p.3). The first four chapters focus more on principles, while the last four attempt to spell out the implications more concretely. Here's a summary of the chapters:

1. Nigel Wright, a baptist theologian, sets the ball rolling with his chapter on Government as an ambiguous power. Government is ambiguous: both good and bad, being simultaneously created, fallen, and open to redemption. It has important functions, "to maintain order and to punish wrongdoers" (p.27).

2. Julian Rivers, professor of law, then explores The nature and role of government in the Bible.  Government has legitimate authority from God, but it is limited, both "by the existence of other human authorities, in particular, church, family and individual" (p.47) and "by the means at its disposal" (p.48), its power to coerce. Government should itself be under law, diffuse and accountable.

3. The chapter by Tom Wright, former bishop of Durham, is entitled Neither anarchy nor tyranny: Government and the New Testament. It is a call for believers to embrace God's alternative empire, recognizing that the Christian confession that "Jesus is Lord" is in direct opposition to the Roman confession that "Caesar is Lord". Jesus' lordship is the proclamation not just of a new lord, but of a new kind of lordship, shaped by Jesus' crucifixion.

4. The role of government in classical Christian political thought is the subject of the chapter by David McIlroy, a practising barrister. Government, according to this rich tradition, should be accountable, and it should be limited, having the twin aims of promoting the common good and executing just judgment.

5. Nicholas Townsend, lecturer in Christian ethics, then begins to flesh out these principles, in a chapter on Government and social infrastructure. Government should not attempt to implement the common good in its entirety, but should limit itself to providing that social infrastructure which is a prerequisite for the common good. In pursuing this, the role of government is both corrective (remedial) and directive (coordinating).

6. Government, solidarity and subsidiarity is the next chapter, by economist Philip Booth. The principles of solidarity and subsidiarity (as well as the common good) feature prominently in Catholic Social Teaching. Solidarity should characterise our communities, but subsidiarity is taken to mean that government intervention should be a last resort in achieving this.

7. Social commentator Clifford Longley then looks at Government and the common good. The central principle underlying all policies should be a commitment to the common good, which is not the sum of each person's individual goods, but which is the good of society as a whole.

8. Government and equality is the theme for the final chapter by Andrew Bradstock, a professor in faith and politics. The Bible is committed to equality between all people, and this stands against the large and growing inequality in British society. Government has a role to play in narrowing the gap between rich and poor.

A few words from Jonathan Chaplin's conclusion will serve well as a summary:

[T]he book's … hope is that it will spur Christian [political] practitioners on as they seek to forge new, closer and more critical linkages between their theological convictions and their policy commitments—and so to manifest practical Christian political wisdom in ways that promote justice and the common good for a contemporary Britain crying out for much more of both (p.234).

I know many of you have been encouraging others to support the "Coalition For Marriage". And I fully respect you for that. However, I have not signed the petition, and do not intend to do so. I want to explain why.

Strictly speaking, I agree with the aims of the "Coalition". As an evangelical Christian, I believe that God really does join people together in a union called marriage. And if the state is to provide the best protection for the vulnerable, it first needs to identify those entities and institutions that exist in society. So I would ideally want the state to identify marriage correctly (as between one man and one woman), so that it can provide justice most effectively.

But I've been thinking about the following points too, in making my decision not to support the "Coalition":

(1) Marriage is something God does, not something the state does. So even if the state does adopt what I see as an incorrect definition of the word "marriage", that will do nothing to affect the actual institution of marriage. In contrast to the "Coalition", I see the legal definition of the word "marriage" as a relatively insignificant issue.

(2) We live in a deeply plural society, and (as a non-Anglican) I do not recognise the state as belonging to one group in society more than to another, nor do I recognise the state as having a role in adjudicating on matters of deep division, nor do I think Christians should seek to use the state to impose our view on others. The way forward is surely to seek consensus and compromise through reasoned and courteous discussions, and not through assertive displays of our power and influence.

(3) We follow a Lord who was mocked, marginalised and crucified, and who calls us to take up our "cross" and follow him. His priority in ministry was reaching the weak, vulnerable, marginalised and oppressed members of society, and never to seek the public honour of his name. Following him means our concern should not primarily be to stand up for our own rights, or for the public honour given to Christianity, but to serve and give ourselves for the weakest in society. I see absolutely no concern for the weak and vulnerable in the campaign of the "Coalition". No arguments are put forward that if the legal definition of "marriage" is changed, this would result in oppression for vulnerable people. Instead, the campaign appears to be solely an attempt to secure, at whatever cost, the public privilege given to the Christian understanding of marriage. This attitude strikes me as deeply un-Christian.

(4) The tone and scale of the campaign have, I think, done great harm to the public perception of Christianity. The impression among many that traditional Christians are homophobic bigots has been reinforced by this campaign. I want to distance myself from that.

(5) On the same-sex marriage issue, I do see a way forward that would satisfy the deepest concerns of all parties. If the state no longer defined the word "marriage", then there could be equal access to civil unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples, and no one would be pressurised to speak of "marriage" in ways that conflict with their sincere beliefs. I would urge all my brothers and sisters to seek solutions of this nature, so that we may follow what Paul said: "If possible, as far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all" (Romans 12:18, ESV).

Yours in Christ,

Anthony

Does God have body parts?

An idea... We could speak about different "domains" of reality. Some of these domains are readily accessible to our senses, and some are not. Let D be a domain of reality. Then in the world of the Hebrew Scriptures, we could have one of the following:

• D is readily accessible to our senses, so It is appropriate to speak about D in simple language to describe how it actually is.
• D is not readily accessible to our senses, so It is appropriate to speak about D only in terms of images and metaphors.

My suggestion is this. In two parts.

1. It is (or should be) obvious that when the Scriptures speak about God having body parts, it is using images and metaphors. And the reason it is (or should be) obvious is not because of the genre of the passage, but because the nature of God is a domain of reality about which it is appropriate to speak only in terms of images and metaphors.

2. What other domains of reality might fit into the same category? Could it be that the process of the creation of the cosmos fits into the same category? In other words, that whenever the Scriptures speak about the process by which God created everything, it is (or should be) obvious that it is speaking in images and metaphors, whatever the genre of the passage?

Taking the two categories above, my guess (and it's a complete guess, with no supporting evidence—yet!) is that we could have the following:

• Domains of reality that can be described in simple "this-is-how-it-really-is" language: historical events, ordinary things that can be seen.
• Domains of reality that can be described only in images and metaphors: the nature of God himself, the process of creation, the structure of those parts of the world and cosmos inaccessible to ordinary observation, the inner workings of a person (heart, soul, mind, "bowels", etc.).

It's just a guess. And it's a guess based on which bits of the Bible I want to take "literally" and which bits I don't. Some people might not like that approach! But the idea makes a bit of sense to me, and I think it's worth trying out...

Thoughts?

If you've signed the Coalition For Marriage (C4M) petition, or the Coalition For Equal Marriage (C4EM) petition, or indeed both or neither (and I think that includes at least one if not both of you), then you may well be interested in the Keep politics out of marriage page on Facebook. "Why?" you may be wondering. Here's the description:

Same-sex marriage: is there a way forward?

Two campaigns have recently been launched in the UK, the "Coalition For Marriage" (http://c4m.org.uk/) and the "Coalition For Equal Marriage" (http://c4em.org.uk/), both arguing that the legal definition of "marriage" should not conflict with their deeply held beliefs about marriage.

Is there a way forward, which would allow people to live out their sincere beliefs, and not find themselves at odds with the state or fighting with each other?

We think there is.

Simply this: remove the word "marriage" from UK law altogether.

Couples would be able to register a civil union, and it would be up to individuals whether or not they want to refer to that union as "marriage". Politicians and state officials would no longer have the power to override your convictions and tell you who is, or is not, married.

Keep politics out of marriage: get "marriage" out of the hands of politicians.

Bach's Magnificat, Easter Oratorio and Ascension Oratorio, with the Yorkshire Bach Choir and Yorkshire Baroque Soloists, at St Michael le Belfrey, York, 10 March 2012, 7.30pm (Facebook event page).

Here's a snippet of the Easter Oratorio:

But, Lord, ’tis for Thee, for Thy coming we wait,
The sky, not the grave, is our goal;
Oh, trump of the angel! Oh, voice of the Lord!
Blessed hope, blessed rest of my soul!

(I'd be interested to know where that verse came from: leave a comment below if you know.)

I've taken to singing "The earth, not the grave is our goal", because the Christian hope is ultimately not to stay in heaven (the sky?) for ever, but for the Lord to return, for the dead to be restored to bodily life, and for the meek to inherit... the sky?

But perhaps better would be to miss out that verse altogether, and to stick with Spafford's final verse, which is much richer:

And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight,
The clouds be rolled back as a scroll;
The trump shall resound, and the Lord shall descend,
Even so, it is well with my soul.

We might talk about "the story of creation" (in the beginning) and "the beauty of creation" (now), but in either case, Christians believe that God is intimately involved. Searching for a word to describe "the totality of God's ordaining acts toward the cosmos" (p.15), Wolters chooses to go with the word law. (I suppose we could also think of God's decrees.) God institutes laws of nature, but also gives laws for culture and society: norms.

Just as a human sovereign does certain things himself, but gives orders to his subordinates for other things, so with God himself. He put the planets in their orbits, makes the seasons come and go at the proper time, makes seeds grow and animals reproduce, but entrusts to mankind the tasks of making tools, doing justice, producing art, and pursuing scholarship. In other words, God's rule of law is immediate in the nonhuman realm but mediate in culture and society. In the human realm men and women become coworkers with God; as creatures made in God's image they too have a kind of lordship over the earth, are God's viceroys in creation (p.16).

In addition to that distinction between laws of nature and norms, we can distinguish between these general laws, and God's particular laws, for specific events to take place, or for specific people to do specific things.

In speaking of "creation" as "the correlation of the sovereign activity of the Creator and the created order" (p.14), the term becomes much broader in scope that what we usually take it to mean.

Usually when we speak of creation we have in mind the realities investigated by the natural sciences—the structure of the atom, the movements of the solar system, the life cycle of a plant, the building instinct of a beaver (p.24).

But, with the broader definition,

We will not make such a distinction if we understand creation in terms of a law-subject correlation. God's ordinances also extend to the structures of society, to the world of art, to business and commerce. Human civilization is normed throughout. Everywhere we discover limits and proprieties, standards and criteria: in every field of human affairs there are right and wrong ways of doing things. There is nothing in human life that does not belong to the created order (p.25).

So when (using God's general revelation and our wisdom) we figure out how best to run a business, we are uncovering something about God's creation, just as much as when we figure out how stars make their light.

There is a day that all creation's waiting for,
A day of freedom and liberation for the earth.

What follows is simply saturated with Scripture. Here's the chorus:

We will meet Him in the air,
And then we will be like Him,
For we will see Him as He is, oh yeah!
Then all hurt and pain will cease,
And we'll be with Him forever,
And in His glory we will live,
Oh yeah, oh yeah!

The idea of meeting the Lord in the air as he descends from heaven to earth at his parousia (royal visit) is helpfully explained by Tom Wright:

[T]heir 'meeting' with the Lord doesn't mean they will then be staying in mid-air with him. They are like Roman citizens in a colony, going out to meet the emperor when he pays them a state visit, and then accompanying him back to the city itself (Paul for Everyone: Galatians and Thessalonians, 125).

It gives a renewed perspective on all that I do on earth to think that Jesus will one day be paying a royal visit, not to take me away, but to put everything right, and to stay here for ever. "Oh yeah" indeed!

What do Christians hope (expect) to happen in the future?

For Christians whose view of the future is shaped by the Christian Scriptures, their ultimate hope is "the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the [age] to come" (Nicene Creed), or "the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting" (Apostles' Creed). The hope is that Jesus will come back to this earth, and that he will stay here and put everything right, in the "regeneration" (Mt 19:28), when all things will be restored (Acts 3:21) and made new (Rev 21:5), and when "the creation itself will be set free" (Rom 8:21, ESV).

But often in Christian hymns and songs we sing of our hope in totally un-Christian terms, singing about escaping this world and going to heaven for ever, or about Jesus coming back in order to take us away, as though God's plan for the future is that the creation itself will be thrown away, rather than set free. And this really matters. If we want to live worthwhile lives, we need to know what will happen to our works when Jesus returns. If the only thing that will survive the purifying fires of judgement is human souls, then everything is ultimately a pointless waste of time, except evangelism. But if when Jesus returns he will take everything—not only renewed human beings, but also societal structures, agriculture, business, scientific knowledge, technology, poetry, music, or whatever—and incorporate the good aspects of those cultural riches into the renewed creation, then in everything we do we can truly "abound[...] in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord [our] labour is not in vain" (1Cor 15:58, ESV).

Anyway, here's an example of a hymn that, I think, expresses the Christian hope well. It's King of the ages by Stuart Townend and Keith Getty (2002), the final verse in particular. It doesn't say everything, but it does at least focus our attention on the future coming of Christ, helping us to "set [our] hope fully on the grace that will be brought to [us] at the revelation of Jesus Christ" (1Pet 1:13, ESV):

The day will come when You appear,
And every eye shall see You.
Then we shall rise with hearts ablaze,
With a song we will sing forever.

It's got a good solid tune too.

But what about all the stuff Jesus did before he died, which the four gospels tell us about? Is that part of the gospel, or just the backdrop for the real gospel?

According to N.T. Wright, in his recent talk on How God Became King: Why We've All Misunderstood the Gospels, the gospels are entirely about the gospel. They present us with a unified story of Jesus' ministry, death and resurrection. It is the story of How God became King, a story with four strands...

1. The story of Jesus as the story of Israel. God called Israel to be his means of rescue, and the climax is reached as Israel's Messiah becomes the world's King [from 19:40].
2. The story of Jesus as the story of Israel's God, the self-giving, covenant-keeping Creator [from 26:40].
3. The story of Jesus as the story of how the church was founded, as part of God's plan, as King, to renew the world through his renewed, cross-bearing people [from 34:30].
4. The story of Jesus as the story of how Israel's God defeated the powers of the world, and the dark power that stands behind them all. Jesus is enthroned, and Caesar and all other powers (earthly and demonic) are dethroned [from 39:20].

N.T. Wright - January Series 2012 from Calvin College on Vimeo.

Hat tip: Steve Bishop.

We watched WALL-E (2008) last night.

It's a great story. It's about planet earth, a planet that was supposed to be beautiful—in its landscapes, in the plants and animals it supported, and in the human civilisation that developed on it. But this planet had been left desolate, reduced to a heap of trash by the greed, futility and disconnectedness of the people who inhabited it. But it's also a story of hope. A love story develops between the central character, WALL-E, and another robot. And so powerful is this love story that it brings in its wake not only the re-humanising of humanity, but ultimately the renewal of the whole planet.

And it's a whole lot of fun too.

But what I like most about this story, as about any story, is the resonances it has with a far greater story...