Apologies to all. I’ve recently got very tired and drunk too much coffee and my real self has begun to show! You can see it in my recent posts - they are mainly pointing out inconsistencies or things that I don’t agree with. I even submitted my last moaning post on the term “Father” to the Christian Carnival!

Sorry all. I’ll see what sleep and decafe will do to change that.

In some circles it seems in vogue when talking to someone else to refer to God as “Father” - not “the Father”, “my Father”, “your Father” or anything else: just “Father”.

“Father has been so good to me.”

“Then I prayed to Father and he answered me.”

“I have been thinking about Father a lot recently.”

“I’m going to ask Father what to do.”

I’m not going to guess at the motives for using “Father” this way, but I have to say it makes me a little uncomfortable.  Why?  Because it just sounds weird.  No one else talks about God like that, and the very structure of the English language as it’s spoken today makes it very rare when referring to any father.

But even more, Jesus never referred to God in that way.  Click on the link and run down all the verses there (most of the instances where “Father” has a capital ‘F’ are about God), and this is what you’ll find:

1. Jesus used “Father” when directly addressing God, with the one exception of “Our Father” when teaching his disciples a communal prayer (Matthew 6:9).

2. Jesus used “my Father”, “your Father”, “our Father”, “their Father” and “the Father” when talking about God to other people. 

This is consistent with how the English language (and I would suggest most other language) -speaking church has referred to God down the centuries. 

So, what’s with the change?  Why do people feel the need to suddenly make a jump to the left and adopt a totally out-of-sync way of referring to God?

1 Corinthians 14:20-25

20 Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature. 21 In the Law it is written, “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” 22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers, while prophecy is a sign* not for unbelievers but for believers. 23 If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.

*Note:14:22 The Greek lacks the words “a sign“ here.

I am not a biblical scholar or the son of a biblical scholar, but in the last week or two I have sent some emails to a biblical scholar about Sign Language in the Assembly: How Are Tongues a Sign to the Unbeliever in 1 Cor 14:20-25?, an article in the Asian Journal of Pentecostal Studies, written by Robert J. Gladstone. 

The article attempts to unravel the difficult passage above by retranslating 1 Cor 14:22 as “Thus tongues are a sign not resulting in believers but resulting in unbelievers while prophecy is a sign not resulting in unbelievers but resulting in believers.”  This alternative translation allows for the passage to flow without contradiction and clears up the confusion over how each verse follows on from the other.

However, there is a problem.  Evidence that the phrase can actually be translated in that way is not easy to find, and may not exist at all.  But even if you can’t translate verse 22 using the phrase resulting in, I think Gladstone may be on to something.

In the quote from Isaiah (v21) God intended unintelligible tongues to function as a “sign for unbelievers” because they did not believe when God previously spoke to them in their own language (note the words, “even then”).  In other words, unintelligible tongues were given as a result of unbelief.  It was a sign that obscured God’s words, perhaps as a warning that their time to believe was short, or perhaps as a sign of judgement that their time to believe had run out.

Prophecy, on the other hand, was an unobscure message for believers - those who would hear and believe.  But by inference, prophecy was also given to unbelievers before they chose not to believe (again, note the words “even then”).  In other words, prophecy was given to both believers and unbelievers for a time for the benefit of those who would believe.  Unintelligible tongues was then given as a sign to those who chose not to believe.

This is consistent with how God works throughout history: he gives a period of grace, a time when he warns and invites people to repent for the sake of those who will believe.  Then, when that period is up, judgement falls.

Paul is taking this verse from Isaiah that illustrates this truth.  In Isaiah’s time, God had given an intelligible message through prophecy to all for the benefit of those who would believe.  After prophecy had been given and those who would believe listened, the message was spoken in unintelligible tongues as a sign to those who refused to believe.  

Paul then takes that principle and specific illustration and applies it to our time.  Now is a period of grace when God is inviting all to believe for the sake of those who will believe.  To speak in untranslated and therefore unintelligible tongues in the hearing of present day unbelievers or outsiders  prevents God’s word from being understood, offends them and defeats the purpose of this time of grace - to bring those who don’t believe to believe.  Therefore, it is better to prophesy so that God’s word is intelligible and those who will believe are brought to faith.

This, then, is how I would read the passage:

20 Brothers, do not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature. 21 In the Law it is written, “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.” 22 Thus tongues are a sign not for believers but for those who have heard and remain unbelievers, while prophecy is not for unbelievers but for both present and future believers.  23 If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will you not be giving them the sign of an obscure message from God reserved for those who have chosen not to believe and will they not say that you are out of your minds and not be converted? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is given a clear message from God, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed, and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you.

This is the third time I’ve written a post about something David Powlison has written, and the issue is pretty much the same each time.

Justin Taylor over at Between Two Worlds was given permission to reproduce material about lusts of the flesh from David Powlison’s book, Seeing With New Eyes: Counseling and the Human Condition Through the Lens of Scripture.  I liked and agreed with what was written, until I got to the part where he again criticised approaching sin using “systems” that incorporate “felt needs”, “empty love tanks” etc.  That is not the biblical approach to take, he says.  Rather, we are to change what we want by redirecting our desires through the gospel.

Now, if Powlison is talking about systems that address only surface “felt needs” or filling “empty love tanks” through human relationships, I agree.  It is not enough.  But if he includes in that criticism the idea of the human needs being satisfied in God, then do not John Piper’s Christian Hedonism and Tim Keller’s good news of gracious acceptance fall under the same criticism?  And yet I see no hint of this being recognised anywhere.  Those who accept Powlison’s thesis readily accept Piper’s and/or Keller’s theses at the same time!  Who is right?  Somebody tell me!!!

Aaron O’Kelley identifies the parting of the ways between conservative and liberal/post-conservative theology in a post called, A Fork in the Theological Road.  He states that the methodological difference which leads one way or the other consists of whether a person will bow to Scripture, or require Scripture to bow to them.

I agree.

Yes, Lylie Alicia is a wonderful addition to the Robertson household.  A total babe.

Of course, I lack any objectivity whatsoever - I realised that when we attended a antenatal reunion and had no ability to see any other baby as even coming close in the cuteness stakes.  It’s amazing what love does to your perception of beauty.

Now, there’s a philosophical area to explore - how love changes perception.

My friend, neighbour, webhost Glenn has a blog called, Glenn’s Journey.  With a title like that he’s got to be a post-modern!

Happy because of the result, not because of the process!

Every holiday season committed Christians are found questioning the origins of holidays and traditions they have, up until then, taken for granted.  The concern?  They want to please the Lord and avoid all kinds of idolatry.

Now that Easter is coming up, those questions are starting again.

So, how should we approach Easter?

Origins vs. Today.

A quick Google search shows that it is pretty well accepted that Easter originates from a pagan holiday celebrating a goddess.  As always, though, there is more to the story.  Confident assertions about history are not always as certain as many people make out.  For a more balanced look, check out the article on Easter at Wikipedia.

From my point of view, however, it doesn’t matter how much the English Easter celebration and tradition actually relies on a pagan festival because for 99.99999% of people who celebrate Easter in our society, the idea of worshipping a pagan goddess doesn’t even enter their minds!  Easter in the West - even for those who think it really did originate from a pagan festival - is saturated in Christian symbolism, and that is all the eggs, the bunnies and the celebrations represent to people - if they think it represents anything at all!

Days of the Week.

Consider the days of the week.  Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday all originate from the names of pagan gods, and it could be argued that we show those gods honour by invoking their names every time we use one of the seven words above.  But it does not occur to most Christians to question that practice, because the meaning of these terms in our minds and hearts are now completely unrelated to the pagan gods they originally came from.

Easter is just the same, except in our society if it’s not neutral, it’s Christian.  What I’d like to suggest is if Christians are concerned about Easter’s non-Christian religious elements, commercialism is a far more relevant form of religious devotion to expose and deal with than any possible pagan roots.

Maybe so, but I still feel stink!

For many people, the above information just won’t be enough to put their minds at ease.  If you are concerned about the pagan roots of Easter or some of it’s traditions and your conscience bothers you about taking part in any or all of the celebrations, by all means, leave well alone.  As it says in Romans 14:

5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.

And we can add: the one who celebrates Easter, celebrates in honour of the Lord, while the one who chooses not to, chooses in order to honour of the Lord.

And that’s how I approach Easter.