Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Oscar Pistorius Trial 3: Gerrie Nel and Prosecutorial Hubris

This is the third article, also published on News24, on the Pistorius trial:

In an article, “Oscar Pistorius's Cross-Examination” written by Jeralyn  and reported on  www.talkleft.com, written at the time when Gerrie Nel was cross examining OP during the trial shows that, far from judicial error, this case was lost by a prosecutor who thought he was bigger than the law. It was this prosecutorial failure that led to the judge acquitting OP of murder. 
I often wondered why Barry Roux didn't object to Gerrie Nel's cross of OP. Now I realize that Barry Roux just gave Gerrie Nel rope to hang himself. And the gullible press and public who were effusive in their praise of the prosecution now are left to consider the outcome of a prosecutor who believed in his own hype. In the end he failed Reeva and her family.
The mainstream press was effusive in its praise of Gerrie Nel at the time and in awe of his “bulldog” approach to in his cross-examination of Oscar Pistorius. Remember Judge Masipa warned Nel, “You possibly think this is entertainment. It is not. Please restrain yourself.”
As the article points out, “It's not the prosecutor's job to tell a defendant to accept responsibility for the crime for which he's on trial and denies committing. It's his job to ask questions and test his version of the facts. Unless a defendant's story is so rehearsed it never changes, there are obviously going to be minor discrepancies. It's not surprising that Oscar's memory is better on what led up to the shooting than during the moments of trauma afterwards when he realized Reeva was dead … Mis-remembering some details does not make one a liar. It makes one human."
And then, written in April 2014, the writer of the article makes a prediction: “I don't see a premeditated murder case here. As to the lesser offense of [common law] murder, that's a tougher call. But it seems to me the prosecutor overcharged the case and the testimony of most of his witnesses (particularly the neighbors) were inconsistent with each other. The media's praise of him and his bombastic style is misplaced. He's just substituting theatrics for his lack of proof, and throwing everything he can think of against the wall, hoping something sticks.
The judge has not hesitated to rein in the prosecutor. His approach may sell with the public, but it remains to be seen whether it helps or hurts his case with the judge -- the only person whose opinion matters in the end.”
In the end the judge was not impressed, the state failed to prove its case and accused acquitted of murder. Directing anger at the judge and calling her names is misplaced. The failure here was on the prosecution's side: prosecutorial hubris: a prosecutor who came to the table with nothing in his hand, went all in and lost. 


Oscar Pistorius Trial 2: Did Judge Masipa Really Err?

This is the second article, which was posted on News24 and questions whether Masipa J, in her judgment finding Pistorius guilty of culpable homicide but not of murder, did make an error:

The Sunday Time proclaims, “Oscar Judge Under Fire “ (Sunday 14thSeptember 2014). It is so interesting that so much of the mainstream media who backed the wrong horse right the way through the trial now have to grasp at straws to cover up their bias. The focus of attack in the media now shifts to a judge who, just last week, was being hailed as a competent jurist, a champion for justice and women’s rights. Now she is criticized by every armchair expert as well as in certain legal circles. Yet, we are justified in asking whether the judge did err in any way in her application of the law of intent.
 In an article written by HJ Van Der Merwe in “Law, Democracy and Development” (Vol 17 2013 at p 64ff) the author makes it clear that the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) clarified the application of dolus eventualis in criminal matters in the Humphreys’ case on appeal. Dolus is a mental element of the crime of murder that is comprised of two parts: (1) that the accused foresaw as a real and substantial possibility that death would occur and (2) that the accused reconciled himself / was reckless or indifferent to that outcome. First, the accused must have foreseen the real and substantial possibility of death occurring and in the Humphreys’ case, the accused foresaw that outcome, but did not reconcile himself to that outcome and, therefore, was not guilty of murder. In Humphreys, the Appellate Division clarified this second aspect of dolus and I suspect that it was this second element that Judge Masipa found lacking - the accused in the Pistorius case was not indifferent / had not reconciled himself / was not reckless as to that outcome. Therefore, far from making a mistake of law, it shows that the judge has read and applied the Humphreys’ test for dolus correctly and that this is a clearer understanding and application of the law relating to this second aspect of dolus eventualis than the "experts" who have been so critical of the judge.
The verdict also points to the prosecutorial failure in the Pistorius case where the prosecution tried to establish "pre-meditated" murder despite the challenges of proving this where there were no reliable witnesses – an enterprise that was doomed before it began. Strangely enough, it was probably Gerrie Nel's bullying tactics that convinced the court that the accused did not reconcile himself / was not reckless or indifferent to the outcome that he had foreseen - he was clearly devastated by the outcome and showed remorse when attacked by the prosecution in the witness box. The prosecution also made a meal of the accused’s proficiency with firearms and, interestingly, in terms of the Humphreys’ judgment, it could well have been the accused’s proficiency with firearms that also convinced the judge that he had not fulfilled the recklessness aspect of dolus – it was because of the accused’s knowledge of firearms that he thought that he could shoot into that enclosed space without causing death.
 Clearly the judge has understood the law and applied it correctly and I suspect that there will not be an appeal by the prosecution. If there is one, it is doomed.  


Osar Pistorius Trial 1: A Toxic Relationship?

For those of you who have followed the trial I thought I would post a series of issues that I addressed during the course of the trial. This was a letter to the Sunday Times that was published in their letters page on the 13th April 2014:
Oscar and Reeva: A Toxic and Abusive Relationship?


I refer to Redi Tlhabi's piece "When pain and cruelty wear loves's sweet smile" (6 April). In Redi's article, echoing similar sentiments expressed on the letters page of various newspapers as well as social media platforms, the conclusion is reached that Oscar and Reeva were in a toxic and abusive relationship. Redi, drawing lines from the conviction of Thato Kutumela for the horrific and brutal murder and rape of Zanele Khumalo, to the relationship between Oscar and Reeva, concludes that "... this was not love." This is a staggering and bold conclusion given that it is reached on the basis of only 4 out of almost 1800 messages between Oscar and Reeva over the span of their three month relationship.

The real problem with this conclusion is that it is based on messages in which there is neither tone nor context. As in any indirect form of communication (letter, journal entry, email, SMS, WhatsApp and so on), unless we have other information, we must imagine context and insert tone into the messages, but who is to say that our imagined context (which we must determine from our own context) and our inserted tone (which we must colour in our own voices) are correct? The attendant danger is that, listening to these messages, we assume that we have access to every communication that passed between these two people. Of course, we do not. We do not know what transpired between these two when they were not communicating indirectly, but directly: when they spoke to one another face-to-face to address the issues she raised in her messages. Perhaps these WhatsApp messages functioned as conversation starters that led to a frank and open conversation about their respective expectations from their relationship and from one another. This is how healthy relationships function: each party feeling able to express his / her own expectations from the other and assessing whether the other is able to meet those expectations.

In addition, It would be very unusual if Reeva truly felt in danger that she would not have confided in someone: her mother or a friend perhaps, but not one of these people were called to testify that she said something of this sort to them. Why? Because she never did. In contrast, the relationship between Thato and Zanele was characterized by violence and abuse that was apparent to her parents and friends, so much so that her father forbade him access to the house. When this father read from his daughter's journal we do not have to imagine context or insert tone. The toxic and abusive nature of this relationship that went before this journal entry is clearly obvious. In the case of Oscar and Reeva, this is not so.

We must be very cautious about reading our own preconceptions (inserting our own contexts and colouring the discourse in our own tone) into the lives of others. What relationship is completely devoid of any trace of anger, frustration, irritation or misunderstanding? No relationship that I know.

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

This Sunday we will look at the church – what are some of the Biblical pictures of the church? 

In Matthew 16:13-18 we read, “13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.”

The New Testament gives us a number of pictures of the church and each one tells us something different about the church, the values we should maintain, the things we should do and what we should expect of leaders.

Think of the church as a …
FELLOWSHIP
 
FAMILY


BODY
 CITY

 FLOCK

BUILDING


FIELD


.
 

What do these images, these metaphors say to us about the church?

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

John 3:1-18 - Are there limits to the love of God?

This Sunday as we consider what is perhaps one of the best known - and most quoted - Scriptural passages of all time, give some thought to this written by David Lose:

Hell seems to be all the rage these days. The renewed interest results, in part, because of Rob Bell's new book Love Wins. But even more, the furor stems from the reaction of many Evangelical Christians to a promotional video that Bell prepared in advance of the book in which he seems to advocate a position many call "universalism," the belief that God will ultimately redeem all people, leaving none to suffer the fires of hell.
Ironically, this same week preachers from all around the world who follow the Common Lectionary (including Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, UCC and others) will be preparing sermons on the world's most famous Bible verse, John 3:16. In case you don't have it memorized, this verse -- which might be summarized "Love wins!" -- reads, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."
Interestingly, the word for "world" (kosmos in Greek) everywhere else in the Gospel of John describes that entity that is at complete enmity with God. Typical is this prayer by Jesus just before his crucifixion: "I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but I ask you to protect them from the evil one. They do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world" (John 17:14-16).
This gives John 3:16 a bit more punch: "For God so loved the God-hating world that he sent his only Son ... ," we might accurately translate. Apparently, at least according to Jesus, God really, really, really loves the world.
This doesn't, of course, by itself address the question of universalism, as the verse continues, "all who believe will not perish but have eternal life." But the force of God's love as articulated by Jesus does raise the question of why hell is so incredibly important to so many Christians? As a theological concept, "hell" is almost entirely missing from the Old Testament and surfaces as a minor concern in the New, showing up most frequently in Jesus' parables (which, let's not forget, regularly defy a literal reading). In contrast, topics like proper treatment of the poor, good use of money, and the imperative to care for neighbor and creation all capture a strikingly disproportionate amount of the attention of the biblical authors.
So why can't a prominent Christian author even question how to reconcile Jesus' description of God's incredible, even incomprehensible love with the notion of condemning souls to eternal torment without being condemned as a heretic? I suspect there are several reasons. Certainly the threat of hell provides a motivational system par excellence. During the Middle Ages, for instance -- when doctrines of hell were most fully developed -- the desire to avoid eternal punishment motivated Christians to all kinds of supposedly pious acts, everything from donating money to build the Sistine Chapel to enlisting in countless Crusades.
But I think the importance we attach to hell today has more to do with the allure of certainty than fear of punishment. A clear sense of the rewards and punishments for having or lacking faith in Christ offers a compelling logic regarding our eternal destiny that reduces ambiguity from the life of faith. After all, and as many Evangelical Christians have argued, if you can go to heaven without believing in Christ, what's the point of faith in the first place? This certainty, in turn, lends believers a sense of authority, even power, as they have a clear standard by which to judge "who's in" and "who's out." Talk about seductive!
But as Bell notes in his video, our notions of hell don't only witness to our beliefs about the afterlife, they also speak volumes about how we imagine God. Is God primarily loving or angry, forgiving or vengeful?
Conservative Evangelicals like John Piper (one of Bell's critics) seem to want it both ways: God is loving, but also just. Therefore, while God desires that all people be saved through faith in Christ out of love, God nevertheless must punish sinners by condemning them to hell or God's justice would be moot. The trouble is, when that's spelled out in plain English -- "God loves you very much, but if you don't believe the right way you're going to suffer eternal torment" -- there's an inescapable contradiction. Karl Barth, arguably the greatest theologian of the twentieth-century, after listening to just such a message by a noted American evangelist, is said to have commented that such logic sounded like the gospel, all right, but at gunpoint.
To be fair, I can understand why classic universalism leaves many Christians -- including myself -- underwhelmed. The idea that whatever religious path you choose is as good as any other seems detached, generic, and rather anemic, hardly representative of the passionate faith of those who follow Jesus. But to assume that God cannot in God's infinite power, love, and wisdom save all persons if God desires? ... Or to assert that there must be a hell if heaven is to be meaningful? ... Such sentiments seem at the very least to underestimate the God of biblical faith.
If Rob Bell advocates that the God revealed in Jesus will not stop until all God's creation is redeemed and recreated -- and I suppose we'll know soon! -- he will not stand alone. Theologians as diverse as Clement and Origin in the third century, Barth, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Paul Tillich in the twentieth, and countless in between also chose not to limit just how far Christ's redemptive love can reach. So doesn't the possibility that God's love will eventually win at least deserve a hearing and civil discussion in our own day? This is, after all, the God who loves the God-hating world so very much we're talking about.

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Jeremiah 29 (NIV)

A Letter to the Exiles
29 This is the text of the letter that the prophet Jeremiah sent from Jerusalem to the surviving elders among the exiles and to the priests, the prophets and all the other people Nebuchadnezzar had carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon. 2 (This was after King Jehoiachin and the queen mother, the court officials and the leaders of Judah and Jerusalem, the skilled workers and the artisans had gone into exile from Jerusalem.) 3 He entrusted the letter to Elasah son of Shaphan and to Gemariah son of Hilkiah, whom Zedekiah king of Judah sent to King Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon. It said:
4 This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says to all those I carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: 5 “Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. 6 Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease. 7 Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.” 8 Yes, this is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: “Do not let the prophets and diviners among you deceive you. Do not listen to the dreams you encourage them to have. 9 They are prophesying lies to you in my name. I have not sent them,” declares the Lord.
10 This is what the Lord says: “When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my good promise to bring you back to this place. 11 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. 12 Then you will call on me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. 13 You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart. 14 I will be found by you,” declares the Lord, “and will bring you back from captivity. I will gather you from all the nations and places where I have banished you,” declares the Lord, “and will bring you back to the place from which I carried you into exile.”

As we celebrate the 40th anniversary of the building of our sanctuary, I have been thinking about how the world has changed in 40 years. We live in a very different world to the world that existed in 1973.




Fashions have changed, cars have changed, money has devalued and the Christian faith is not the dominant force that it used to be. Tolerance has become the god of this age. As the late Chuck Colson put it in his book, The Faith:
Tolerance once meant listening respectfully to all points of view, freely discussed in our common search for the truth.  But the creed for the new god of tolerance is that knowing truth is impossible.  So everyone is free to think and act as he likes, with one exception: those who have the audacity to believe that they know the truth, particularly if they think God has revealed it to them, are not tolerated.  The result is that those who crowned the new god of tolerance have become the absolute arbiters of culture.  The new god of tolerance becomes, in the guise of tolerance, an absolute tyrant.  (p.  68).
Many are suggesting that the church in the West is a church in exile. As we read Jeremiah's advice to the Jews in exile in Babylon, what lessons can we learn as we come to terms with living as Christians in a new and different world?

Do you agree that the church in the West is a church in exile?  Why or why not?  If you agree, what does it mean for us at DPC and each one of us as we minister as a member of it?

Monday, September 16, 2013

The Parable of the Crafty Trade Union Leader

Luke 16:1-13 (NIV)

The Parable of the Shrewd Manager

16 Jesus told his disciples: “There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions. So he called him in and asked him, ‘What is this I hear about you? Give an account of your management, because you cannot be manager any longer.’
“The manager said to himself, ‘What shall I do now? My master is taking away my job. I’m not strong enough to dig, and I’m ashamed to beg— I know what I’ll do so that, when I lose my job here, people will welcome me into their houses.’
“So he called in each one of his master’s debtors. He asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’
“‘Nine hundred gallons of olive oil,’ he replied.
“The manager told him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it four hundred and fifty.’
“Then he asked the second, ‘And how much do you owe?’
“‘A thousand bushels of wheat,’ he replied.
“He told him, ‘Take your bill and make it eight hundred.’
“The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.
10 “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much. 11 So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches?12 And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else’s property, who will give you property of your own?

13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”

This parable must have sounded impossible to the first hearers of it. I am sure they were not sure what Jesus was telling them. I remember telling my mother this story once and she did not believe that it was actually in the Bible. If we were to update the parable, perhaps it might sound a little like this:

Jesus said to the disciples, ‘There was an extremely powerful trade union official who held the highest office in a major trade union federation. He was well known and widely respected of in the world of politics and and exercised influence in the whole country.  But charges were brought against him that he had appointed a junior staff member in an manner that was contrary to the rules of his organization and that he had engaged in an inappropriate sexual encounter with this person outside his marriage.  So he said to himself, “What will I do, now that they may take my position away from me?  I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg.  I have decided what to do so that they won’t be able to take my position away from me, I will call together the best of my friends and all those who owe their own high office to my power, and I will say to them, “With great care and subtlety of language I intend to refute this accusations whether what I say is true or not, and you will stick by me, no matter what is said, for I know everything about everyone one of you, and all that I know will go into the public domain if you don’t give me your undivided support.  If I fall you will fall too, so you’d better stand by me.’  And all the office bearers and friends did exactly that.

And Jesus said, ‘So I tell you, take full advantage of the power given into your hands so that you may be able to stand against the accusations of your enemies.  For it is better that you wield power, even with dishonesty, than others take that power from you.’

What do you think?


Monday, September 9, 2013

A Lost Son, a loving Father and a Bitter Brother

The Parable of the Lost Son

11 Jesus continued: “There was a man who had two sons.12 The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them.
13 “Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had, set off for a distant country and there squandered his wealth in wild living. 14 After he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to a citizen of that country, who sent him to his fields to feed pigs.16 He longed to fill his stomach with the pods that the pigs were eating, but no one gave him anything.

17 “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’ 20 So he got up and went to his father.
“But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

21 “The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’

22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23 Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. 24 For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.

25 “Meanwhile, the older son was in the field. When he came near the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 So he called one of the servants and asked him what was going on. 27 ‘Your brother has come,’ he replied, ‘and your father has killed the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’
28 “The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. 29 But he answered his father, ‘Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!’


31 “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’”

We return this Sunday to the story in Luke 15:11-32, traditionally called the story of the Prodigal Son, but which should, perhaps, be called the story of the lost son, the forgiving father and the bitter brother. This story has been the source of much art, particularly in the Renaissance, where both Protestant and Roman Catholic artists presenting artistic interpretations of the story. 

 “The return of the Prodigal Son to his father was a popular subject in seventeenth-century Christian art,” Hornik and Parsons write. “The [Roman Catholic] Counter Reformation embraced it as an example of forgiveness and healing between family members; Protestants viewed it as a return to God the Father despite their break from the Roman Catholic Church.” 

The first image below is Guercino’s painting; the second, is Rembrandt’s painting which illustrates a Protestant interpretation.


In Rembrandt’s painting, the light falls on the father’s hands, which “are disproportionately larger than the other parts of the father’s body,” Shiell notes. The father offers welcoming, noncontrolling love. In contrast, “the older brother stands to the far right, dressed like a Pharisee (ironically) with his hands and arms folded. Another man sits with his arms pridefully folded. They are afraid to love as the father does.”

Guercino emphasizes the father’s and son’s hands in a different way. They “are entwined in a classic gesture of reconciliation and…positioned at the centre of the composition.” Hornik and Parsons say, “The classicizing elements of the composition create a painting less of emotion and passion than of recognized rhetorical gesture of reconciliation.”

In his very famous book on the Rembrandt painting, Henri Nouwen writes,  

“Often I have asked friends to give me their first impression of Rembrandt’s Prodigal Son. Inevitably, they point to the wise old man who forgives his son: the benevolent patriarch.

“The longer I look at ‘the patriarch’, the clearer it becomes to me that Rembrandt has done something quite different from letting God pose as the wise old head of a family. It all began with the hands. The two are quite different. The father’s left hand touching the son’s shoulder is strong and muscular. The fingers are spread out and cover a large part of the prodigal son’s shoulder and back. I can see a certain pressure, especially in the thumb. That hand seems not only to touch, but, with its strength, also to hold. Even though there is a gentleness in the way the father’s left hand touches his son, it is not without a firm grip.

“How different is the father’s right hand! This hand does not hold or grasp. It is refined, soft, and very tender. The fingers are close to each other and they have an elegant quality. It lies gently upon the son’s shoulder. It wants to caress, to stroke, and to offer consolation and comfort. It is a mother’s hand....

“As soon as I recognized the difference between the two hands of the father, a new world of meaning opened up for me. The Father is not simply a great patriarch. He is mother as well as father. He touches the son with a masculine hand and a feminine hand. He holds, and she caresses. He confirms and she consoles. He is, indeed, God, in whom both manhood and womanhood, fatherhood and motherhood, are fully present. That gentle and caressing right hand echoes for me the words of the prophet Isaiah: “Can a woman forget her baby at the breast, feel no pity for the child she has borne? Even if these were to forget, I shall not forget you. Look, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands.”


Tuesday, September 3, 2013

The Cost of Non Discipleship

Luke 14:25-33 (NIV)
The Cost of Being a Disciple
25 Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26 “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. 27 And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
28 “Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won’t you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it? 29 For if you lay the foundation and are not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule you, 30 saying, ‘This person began to build and wasn’t able to finish.’
31 “Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32 If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. 33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.

Following Jesus is not easy – and anybody who thinks it is has, clearly, not tried it. Dallas Willard, in his book The Spirit of the Disciplines, wisely notes, “It was right to point out that one cannot be a disciple of Christ without forfeiting things normally sought in human life, and that one who pays little in the world’s coinage to bear his name has reason to wonder where he or she stands with God.” Willard adds, “The cost of non-discipleship is far greater – even when this life alone is considered – than the price paid to walk with Jesus.” Jesus himself tells us that “his yoke is easy and his burden is light,” and the apostle John tells us that “God’s commands are not burdensome to us.” Seldom do we consider what we would lose if we abandoned the life that Jesus offers. Willard again: “Non-discipleship costs abiding peace, a life penetrated throughout by love, faith that sees everything in light of God’s overriding governance for good, hopefulness that stands firm in the most discouraging of circumstances, power to do what is right and withstand the forces of evil. It short, it costs exactly that abundance of life Jesus said he came to bring.”

The language of salvation “by grace through faith”, for so long the hallmark of the churches that come from the Protestant Reformation, can be misinterpreted to mean that because grace is free, it is also cheap. In 1937, Dietrich Bonhoeffer published The Cost of Discipleship to remind us that while God's grace is a free gift, it is not cheap since God paid the ultimate price - the life of Christ - to demonstrate his unparalelled love for the world and to allow us to have access into a relationship with him. 

As people who follow in Christ’s footsteps, as those who pick up our cross daily, we are called to chose to give up the comfort of living for ourselves and chose to give ourselves for others.

v  What does it mean for you, today, to pick up your cross and follow Christ?



Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Courageous Christians

At our recent Weekend Away, we introduced a new program, Courageous Christians. Over the last number of weeks, we have been unpacking this and it has been moving through our Small Groups. Over the next couple of posts I am going to put some of the thoughts out there from the Courageous Christians booklet for information and comment. You can also get information about this from our website, www.dpc.org.za and via the Facebook page. 


What is the vision of Courageous Christians? Courageous Christians is a challenge through our congregation,  to help people to live their Christian lives more intentionally where they are.

There are issues that affect our fruit – the products that flow from us as Christians and as a congregation. But if we are going to bear fruit for the kingdom, then there are some specific root issues that we need to address.This is what Courageous Christians is all about. Courageous Christians are called to be both salt and light.

Light and Salt
Matthew 5
Salt and Light
13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot. 14 “You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven



As a congregation of Courageous Christians, we are called to be a light on the hill called by God to shine the gospel in a dark world (Matt. 5:14). Thus, our community life, our ministries and outreach programs are a communal witness of the coming of the Kingdom of God in our community. The congregation is also a means by which the love of God is communicated to a hurt and broken world. The congregation must be a community where God’s grace is shown through our communal lifestyle.


As Courageous Christians in the world, individuals are called by God to be the salt of the earth (Matt. 5:13) wherever we live and work and socialise. We have to be transformed so that we can live out our faith in our daily lives. Courageous Christians are those who have made a commitment to practicing their Christian faith both inside the walls of the church (and so to be the light of the world), and outside (as the salt of the earth).

The Scriptural paradigm is found in Luke 10:25-28 (NIV) The Parable of the Good Samaritan
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

Courageous Christians are Christians who strive to live their faith to the full in all areas of life. Where most of the courses we offered in the past in the church were intended help in specific learning areas, the Courageous Christians program focuses on who we should be as Christians where we live and work and play. 

A simple illustration to describe what Courageous Christians is all about comes from the IT world: the difference between a piece of software and an operating system. A specific piece of software (e.g. a word processing or graphic design program) enables a computer to perform specific tasks while the operating system of the computer itself (e.g. Windows 8 or Vista) creates a platform from which the software programs can operate. The purpose of the Courageous Christians program is to help people find a different spiritual operating system, to create a platform from which all the other aspects of the Christian life can operate. Where the specific ministries of the church are anchored in the different gifts of the Spirit, which all believers of the Spirit share (1 Cor. 12:7-11), Courageous Christians is an expression of the fruit of the Spirit made fully visible in the lives of all believers (Galatians 5:22-23).





Monday, October 29, 2012

All Saints: Resurrection, Heaven, Eternal Life

This Sunday we consider the exciting topic of eternal life: resurrection, heaven, that which lies ahead for those who have faith in Christ. One of the people to have given considerable attention to this topic recently is Tom Wright. Scott McKnight, in is blog, wrote a review of Tom's book and I thought I would post Scott's review here.

    N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. (Review written by Scott McKnight)

For more than a decade or so Bishop Tom Wright has been making comments, dropping suggestions, and prompting the curiosity of his many readers about what he thinks about “heaven.” Now he comes forth with a book that I think may well be one of Tom’s most significant books ever.  (read more…)
Tom, as many of you know, has written the best book we now have on the resurrection (Resurrection of the Son of God ) and one its highlights is its exploration of a theology of resurrection instead of just focusing on proving the resurrection.  Now, out of that spade work of history and exegesis Tom turns toward the Church’s theology of resurrection and its significance for life and mission.  This is the proper order, and it gives the book in this series an integrity not all books have.

The overemphasis of evangelical Christians and both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox on “heaven” as well as the evangelical obsession with things like the rapture have led now to a vacuum of solid thinking on what the Bible says about the future, about life after death, about resurrection and about how a biblical hopes shapes how we live now.  How often are you hearing a biblical message of hope, a biblical study of resurrection, etc, in your community of faith? How often is it nearly always tied to “going to heaven”? Is a hope for our immediate future wishful thinking or is it profoundly biblical?

The book has three parts: setting the scene, God’s future plans, and Hope in practice.  The first part sketches what folks think today and three chapters on what resurrection and the afterlife is all about in the Christian tradition.  Part two deals with the cosmic scope of biblical hope before it turns to personal hope.  Part three deals with how hope shapes Christian mission. 

Two questions shape this book: First, what is the ultimate Christian hope? And, second, what hope is there for change, rescue, transformation, new possibilities within the world in the present? Wright knows that many think it is all about going to heaven that, therefore, the second question doesn’t really matter.  This is profoundly unbiblical and this book is dedicated to exposing why.  “But if the Christian hope is for God’s new creation, for ‘new heavens and new earth,’ and if that hope has already come to life in Jesus of Nazareth, then there is every reason to join the two questions together” (5).

There is confusion everywhere.  To begin with, the world’s religions aren’t remotely similar when it comes to future hope.  Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Buddhists and Christians.  Three views shape much of what goes in the world today:

1.  Annihilation. 
2.  Reincarnation in all kinds of forms and shapes.
3.  Spiritual

A key word for Tom Wright in his book Surprised by Hope: is “muddle.” That word best describes how so many Christians think about life after death and resurrection and the like.  Wright aims to end the muddle.

Somehow Christians have oscillated between death as a vile enemy and a welcome friend.  He knows “heaven” is not understood properly by most Christians and then he enters into more of the muddle. 

lHymns - he picks on John Keble’s “Till in the ocean of love we lose ourselves in heaven above.” And John Henry Newman’s reference to a previous life with angels and the blatant Platonism of “Abide with Me” in “Heaven’s morning breaks, and earth’s vain shadows flee.”

lThe Christian Year - he picks on some Christmas hymns (”It Came Upon a Midnight Clear” and “Away in a Manger”) and then suggests Christmas has become too central with no energy left for the most important event of Easter.

lFunerals- he enters here into issues with cremation and how many conceive it.  I like this:“if someone came to these funeral services with no idea of the classic Jewish and Christian teaching on the subject, the funeral services would do little to enlighten them and plenty to mislead them or confirm them in their existing muddle” (25).  “Frankly, what we have at the moment isn’t, as the old liturgies used to say, ‘the sure and certain hope of the resurrection of the dead’ but the vague and fuzzy optimism that somehow things may work out in the end” (25).

The robust Christian doctrine ties together work in this world with the Life to Come.Now this teaser to what is to come: “Scripture, in fact, teaches things about the future life that most Christians, and almost all non-Christians, have never heard of” (27).



Wright The book begins with a wonderful tale about Wittgenstein, Popper, and all those in the room that night when the poker was pulled out and everything fell apart.  This is, Tom says, an analogy to the resurrection accounts.  We might not know all that happened, but by golly something happened.What was it? "Resurrection" is what Christians called it.  And it is precisely here that Wright brings his whole book into a clean and crisp summary.

lFor the pagan world, there was no such thing as resurrection.  There were those who wanted a body but couldn’t get it and those who didn’t want a body after death (Homer and Plato).  Resurrection meant, not life after death, but a bodily life after a life after death.  Resurrection meant bodies.  So, when Christians said Jesus was raised “they were not talking about Jesus’ soul going into heavenly bliss” (37).

lIn the Jewish world, there was some variety.  Sadducees — no resurrection; Pharisees — yes.  But, what united those who believed in it was that it would all happen at once, to everyone, and it was bodily.

When Jesus began talking about his own resurrection his disciples were muddled — they didn’t know what he meant by just his rising.  Resurrection was general, for all, not just for one.  So, when Jesus was crucified it all fell apart: “they had backed the wrong horse” (40).
Now one of Tom’s innovations: heaven refers not to eternal life but to the place of postmortem existence — Paradise is the same.  Heaven is the temporary stage after death before resurrection.  There is a two-step process: death and heaven, and then second a new bodily existence in a remade world.
Into this world Christians make seven innovations:

1.  There is no spectrum of belief among Christians; they believed the same. 
2.  Resurrection moves from the circumference of Jewish belief to the center.
3.  The body will be a transformed body.
4.  Resurrection has split into two: first Jesus and then the saints.
5.  Collaboration: God has called us into working with him to implement the achievement of Jesus.
6.  Metaphorically, resurrection got connected to baptism (death, burial, resurrection) and ethics (raised to new ethical life).
7.  Connected to Messiahship, to which it had not previously been connected.


Chapter 4 - “the strange story of Easter.”

The lack of consensus in the Gospel accounts … what do these differences indicate? “Indeed, they are a reasonable indication that something remarkable happened, so remarkable that the first witnesses were bewildered into telling different stories about it” (53).In other words, the confusion indicates a lack of collusion.How do you deal with the variations in the Gospel accounts: one young man, two young men, one angel or two angels?


Four strange elements:

1.  The strange silence of the Bible in the resurrection accounts.  No reflection like this: “See here, this fulfills Isaiah; and see there, that’s Hosea.” None of this.

2.  The strange presence of women as the principal witnesses.

3.  The strange portrait of Jesus himself.  Thus, “… the one thing you would expect to find is the risen Jesus shining like a star” (55).

4.  The strange absence of the future Christian hope.  Nothing about “So, then, we too will be raised” or “See now, you needn’t fear.”

Here is where Tom’s prose got me: “But this is like what you get when different artists paint portraits of the same person.  This painting is certainly a Rembrandt; that is indubitably a Holbein.  The touch of the individual artist is unmistakable.  And the yet the sitter is fully recognizable” (57).



Before Tom Wright discusses the future for the individual he goes where the Bible goes: first the corporate and then the individual.  In chapter 5 of Surprised by Hope he examines two ideas that shape how even many Christians think of the future.  He’s not afraid to say that these are not in fact Christian hopes; they are myths.

Too many Christians have packaged Enlightenment individualism and theories of progress with Platonic dualism and soulishness to form a theory of heaven that is far from what the NT teaches.

lThe first myth is “evolutionary optimism.” The myth of progress.  He digresses into political rhetoric and affirms me in my crankiness about the eschatology of politics: “… the politicians are still trying to whip up enthusiasm for their versions of this myth — it’s the only discourse they know, poor things — while the rest of us have moved on” (81).  This utopian dream is parody of the Christian hope.  This myth of progress is instead a “goal that will emerge from within rather than being a new gift from elsewhere” (82).

What’s the problem: Wright says “The real problem with the myth of progress is … that it cannot deal with evil” (85).  “The world is in fact still a sad and wicked place, not a happy upward progress toward the light” (86).  This myth doesn’t work; it can’t solve evil’s problems retrospectively; it underestimates the nature and power of evil and thus “fails to see the vital importance of the cross” (87).  Let the reader hear me out: without an atonement there is no Jesus kingdom and no Christian hope.

The solution to evil in this world — and here I’m summarizing Wright — is not to try harder or to work at education more; the solution is otherwise.  (Only then does education make sense.)

lThe second myth is “souls in transit”.  Here Wright connects the spiritual soulishness with Hinduism, Platonism, Gnostics, etc.  The goal is to get rid of this body.For these “creation itself is the fall” (89).  “Basically, if you move away from materialistic optimism but without embracing Judaism or Christianity, you are quite likely to end up with some kind of Gnosticism” (89).Complete nonmateriality is not a Christian hope.



In chapter 6 Wright sketches a view of the future that avoids the disastrous inability of evolution to deal with sin and the mistaken notion that we need to get out of this world to be what we were designed to be.  What then does that future look like?“The early Christians did not believe in progress.” “But neither did they believe that the world was getting worse and worse” (93).  So, these two options, one found in the optimists among liberals and the other among the pessimists among evangelicals (and firing so much of how many understand eschatology).


Three themes converge in Christian hope:

1.  The goodness of creation (dualist mistake).
2.  The nature of evil (evolution’s mistake).
3.  The plan of redemption - the Christian alternative to the above.

These three stories converge in the Story of Jesus Christ who is Incarnate (theme 1), goes down into death all the way down (theme 2) and is raised from the dead (theme 1-3!).


Six themes in the NT are neither evolutionary/myth of progress nor dualist:

1.  Seedtime and harvest
2.  Victorious battle
3.  Citizens of heaven
4.  God will be all in all
5.  New birth
6.  Marriage of heaven and earth



The ascension.  So what? That’s really behind chp 6 of Tom Wright’s Surprised by Hope

Some see the ascension in flat-footed literalness while others see the ascension as little more than a clever metaphor for the ongoing presence of Jesus.  Wright sees it as entrance into heaven, and place and state more real than our reality.

Wright here says what he thinks heaven is and this will be the most talked about feature of this book: heaven is, he says, not a different location than earth in the same space-time continuum, but instead a different dimension (right now) of God’s good creation.  The One in Heaven is simultaneously present everywhere and elsewhere.  Heaven is, he suggests, the “CEO’s office” or the “control room for earth” (111).  It is not so much a place to which we go but a place from which Jesus will return for the New Heavens and New Earth.

Ascension theology affirms embodied existence, a new existence, and that Jesus is Lord over All.The quote of the book: “At no point in the Gospels or Acts does anyone say anything remotely like, ‘Jesus has gone into heaven, so let’s be sure we can follow him.’ They say, rather, ‘Jesus is in heaven, ruling the whole world, and he will one day return to make that rule complete’” (117).

Then he discusses the Second Coming.  Two problems: American evangelicals are obsessed by the doctrine, and have gotten it muddled, and mainliners have done their dead-level best to avoid the doctrine, and are likewise muddled.



Does Tom Wright believe in the Second Coming? That question has been asked since Tom wrote his exceptional book on Jesus called Jesus and the Victory of God .  Here’s what Tom says.  “Let me say it emphatically … the second coming has not yet occurred.” Tom denies he is a preterist.  “Jesus,” he says about our future, “will be personally present, the dead will be raised, and the living Christians will be transformed” (133). 

So, Tom does believe in the Second Coming, but it doesn’t mean what many think it means:

1.  The Son of Man “coming” refers to Jesus’ vindication before the Ancient of Days along with the saints.
2.  The King returning refers, not to Jesus’ return, but to God returning to Zion.
These two views created confusion about Tom’s views.  He is speaking here of what Jesus taught.

3.  The rest of the NT teaches the presence and appearing of Jesus, but this does not mean he will descend on clouds from the heavens and light atop the Temple in Jerusalem.
4.  Parousia means not “coming” but “presence,” in both a divine, saving presence and a royal presence.
5.  The “rapture” text in 1 Thess 4 is a metaphor for the Presence/Appearing of Christ and the greeting of Christ by his followers — the Church — who, as a colony’s citizens did, will leave the city to greet the Emperor.  They are the same as 1 Cor 15:23-27, 51-54 and Phil 3:20-21.

Here’s a conclusion: “The promise is not that Jesus will simply reappear within the present world order, but that when heaven and earth are joined together in the new way God has promised, then he will appear to us — and we will appear to him, and to one another, in our own true identity” (135).

Thus, “in the great renewal of the world that Easter itself foreshadowed, Jesus himself will be personally present and will be the agent and model of the transformation that will happen both to the whole world and also to believers” (136).



What does Tom Wright, in Surprised by Hope , think the NT teaches about Jesus as the Coming Judge?
How central — and this is my question — is the final judgment to the gospel itself?

1.  To begin with, the coming Judge “is the central feature of another … belief: that there will indeed be a judgment in which the creator God will set the world right once and for all” (137).  In a world of systemic injustice … this is the “best news there can be.”
2.  Wright thinks — something he doesn’t develop — Jesus’ messiahship preceded belief in Jesus’ being the coming judge.  Why? Judging is inherent to Messiah in Judaism.
3.  Here Wright delves into judgment by works and justification by faith — and the former is at the end while the latter in the now as a preemptory act on God to bring forward the final judgment into the now.  There is, then, no clash between judgment by works and justification by faith — and I think Wright could have explained himself more in this section.

The final judgment is brought into the present by Christians in justification by faith, in the Eucharist, in the gift of the Holy Spirit.

4.  A subtle theme here is that the final judgment is good news — it is the act of God to put the wicked in place and the oppressed in a better place and, overall, to put the world to rights.
5.  What are the practical benefits of the coming judge?
a.  The world will be transformed, proving both the literal fundamentalist and cosmic Christ inadequate.
b.  A proper shape and balance is brought into the Christian worldview.
c.  Releases us from the idea of building the kingdom and from despair that nothing can be done.
Big question: “What would happen if we were to take seriously our stated belief that Jesus Christ is already the Lord of the world and that at his name, one day, every knee would bow?” (144)



What is the future hope for the individual? What does Tom Wright, in Surprised by Hope , mean by the “redemption of our bodies”? and “a new type of bodily existence” (147).  This is the burden of this book.

In essence, he believes in a two-stage postmortem journey- into heaven (presence of God) and then resurrection for the new heavens and new earth.  Resurrection, in one of Tom’s most innovative expressions, is “life after life after death.” He could add “embodied life after life after death.” Here it is, from Phil 3:20-21: “he Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.” That’s the hope many are surprised by.

The “many mansions” of John 14 refer to Paradise, the intermediate state.  “A temporary halt on the journey” (150).

Heaven is where “God’s purposes for the future are stored up” (151).  So, in commenting on 1 Peter 1 about things being stored in heaven for us, Wright says they are not stored so we can go there and get them, but they are being kept there and God will bring them to reality on earth: If, he says to a friend, “I’ve kept some beer in the fridge for you,” he does not mean that the friend has to climb into the fridge to get the beer … he’ll fetch them and give them to the friend. 

1 Cor 15 is about a present kind of body vs.  a future kind of body, a corruptible physicality vs.  an incorruptible physicality. 

Who? All people.
Where? On the new earth.
What? A more solid, more real body.
Why? To reign.
When? After the intermediate state, when Christ “appears.”
How? A new creation, by the Spirit.



Traditionally, the Church has believed in the church triumphant (saints in glory), church militant (present, on earth), and the church expectant (purgatory).  This leads Wright to a study of purgatory.  Dante, Aquinas, and Newman represent tradition; Rahner and Pope Benedict XVI have each modified that view, with the Pope virtually severing purgatory from the intermediate state; and the liberal views waver between worrying about arrogance and universalism. 

Wright doesn’t believe in purgatory:
1.  Resurrection is still future.
2.  No category difference in NT between saints.
3.  Bodily death is the punishment for sin; once one dies, all punishment is over.  The present life is purgatory. 

Leads to Paradise: communion of saints etc..  We can pray for them, but no evidence we should pray to them, that they pray for us, and this:“Explicit invocation of saints may be, in fact — I do not say it always is, but it may be — a step toward that semipaganism of which the Reformers were rightly afraid” (173).So, he believes in the Church triumphant and militant.

What about hell? Gehenna is the image of the burning pit and then the threat of what Rome would do to those who resisted his message.  That event, of course, anticipates some final judgment.

And here Wright squares up with an orthodox view with his own slight twist:
1.  Judgment is necessary.
2.  Some choose dehumanization.
3.  For those who do, the dehumanization will lead to loss of the image of God.

The major framing issues for all of this teaching is God’s new creation of the cosmos.



Chp 12 in Tom Wright’s Surprised by Hope is a major change: we move from “what it said” to “what it says,” from text to mission.  Is this only about tidying up our understanding of what happens after we die? Or does it matter? Wright says it matters.  Deeply. 
Easter focuses on the resurrection of Jesus being hope for us after death; Easter should, Wright is saying, transform mission in the present world (without denying a proper perception of life after death).  A better perception of our hope transforms how we live in this world. 

1 Cor 15:58, Paul’s statement of the consequences of resurrection, says this: “Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm.  Let nothing move you.  Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.” The consequence of resurrection is the realization that our labor lasts.

What we do now, Wright argues, lasts into the future — from embodiment now to embodiment then.

Salvation is discussed at length: again, he makes his points with language that evokes: “We are not saved as souls but as wholes” (199).  Salvation is whole salvation, bodies included.  Why? Because God’s ultimate design is new earthly.  Life before death is threatened if we don’t have a better view of life after death.  We are charged to participate with God in this salvation work on earth.

Kingdom of God is understood along similar lines — earthly and bodily.
I’ve got some questions beginning to percolate as I get into the end of this book:
1.  What is the difference between Wright’s new heaven and new earth and a millennial hope?
2.  What are the differences between life now on earth and life then on the new earth? Is that difference just about the same as the old distinction between life now on earth and life then in heaven?
3.  Has Wright overdrawn the Platonic view of salvation? As salvation so we can go to heaven?
4.  Do those who believe in that older view really discount earthly existence now that much? Sure, some of the stereotyped Dispensationalists do, but how many theologians think like this? Isn’t the real pocket of this older view the uninformed lay person?
5.  How does Tom understand 2 Peter 3:7? “By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.”



Chp 13 in Tom Wright’s Surprised by Hope explores building the kingdom and does so by showing that his view of resurrection reshapes justice, beauty, and evangelism.Overall, a vigorous embodied resurrection leads to a life now dedicated to building the kingdom since it is in continuity with the final state.

1.  Justice: his target here, consistent with a decade long set of talks, is economic disparity that must be put to rights.  He explores how his views give new shape to this with four points:
a.  The debates about global economic injustice echo the debates about slavery.
b.  Liberals marginalize the Bible and therefore the only source they have for the fight.
c.  Conservatives have reinforced dominance by capitalism.
d.  Resurrection is not simply God’s supernatural otherworldliness but thisworldliness.

2.  Beauty: this draws on parts of his book Simply Christian .

3.  Evangelism.  Here he brings out issues that many have asked about:
a.  The gospel is that God is God, Jesus is lord, and the powers have been defeated.
b.  If a church … a tell expression … lives up to the gospel the message is demonstrated as true.
c.  Individuals respond through conversion, regeneration, “entering into Christ” … and such a person is a “living, breathing little bit of ‘new creation’” (228).
d.  This means a Christian does not say no to the world, cannot be isolated from the church, and behavior is integral to being a Christian.



The last chapter addresses Easter and creation redeemed and mission and spirituality.  There are many interesting and suggestive thoughts here, including thoughts about time and space.  There are also thoughts about new birth and baptism, eucharist, prayer, Scripture, holiness, and love.