Seven Deadly Sins (3) Avarice

Avarice is the inordinate desire for earthly things- especially wealth and money. 1 Tim 3:3 says that an elder must be free from the love of money. 1 Timothy 6 is an extended treatment of the dangers of wanting to be wealthy, and so forsaking the riches of contentment and good deeds. 2 Tim 3 reminds us that in the last days many who have an appearance of godliness will in reality be lovers of money. Avaricious in other words.

Augustine made clear in his sermon on Lazarus and the rich man that the reason the rich man went to hell was not that he was rich - 'After all was not Lazarus greeted in heaven by a rich man - Abraham?!' Against the Pelagian work Tractatus de Divitiis, which failed to distinguish between the rich and avaricious. Augustine responded by saying that even the poor could be filled with avarice, the danger of being rich lay more in the ability to feed the desire ostentatiously. On the other hand, as Clement had argued, Augustine realised that the rich also were the ones in a position to give alms to help the poor. The deadly sin was not riches themselves, but avarice.

Augustine held up Job as an example of a man able to deal with adversity and riches:

"He who said 'The Lord gave and the Lord took away - blessed be the name of the Lord' was rich indeed. He is empty of gold, but filled with God; empty of all transitory riches, filled with the will of God."

The desire for money is insidious because money is an infinitely fluid idol. It changes form to fit whatever our desires are - pleasure, technology, sex, security, power, prestige - no idol has the chameleon like powers that money has. As such money has incredible abilities to become whatever our heart wishes to love. Money both promises to be our god and to make us god - for it not only promises to become whatever we desire, it also gives us the power to do whatever we want.

The difference between money and the true God is not that God has less ability to satisfy desires- rather it is that God both fulfils and transforms our desires. The God who promises true riches renovates our sense of pleasure, and enables us to forsake avarice by doing the words of Jesus recorded in Acts 20 - 'Remember that it is more blessed to give than to receive.'

Seven Deadly Sins (2) Anger

Ira, translated as Wrath or Anger is an unusual sin, as in some manner it is experienced by God. God's anger is different to sinful human anger - Isaiah tells us that wrath is the 'strange work of God.' (Isa.28:21)

In Luke 12:49 Jesus enthuses about the future day of his wrath. In Mark 3:5 Jesus was angry at the Scribes, and every gospel records the anger Jesus brought to the Temple money changers. Christians are often accused of defending an Old Testament God of Wrath - all the wars and bloodshed he commanded in anger.

All of this puts Christians in a tricky position - we appear to have our work cut out for us if we want to affirm the sinfulness of anger. One way this has been demonstrated is that when Oxford University Press published a recent series of books on the seven deadly sins, they asked a Buddhist to contribute the volume on anger. The reason was explicitly given that Christians were too compromised on the issue and unable to speak out on it. Sadly, when you read the book by Austin Cline you discover that his Buddhist philosophy has no moral resources to deal with anger. All he can encourage is a redirection of angry feelings to more positive ends:

“Our goal surely is to conquer anger, but not destroy the fire it has misappropriated. We will wield that fire with wisdom and turn it to creative end”

Despite appearances to the contrary, only the Christian scriptures offer substantive resources for dealing with anger. Simply telling people to will to change and redirect energies, is woefully insufficient. Anger by its nature is the experience of overwhelming passion, it cannot simply be redirected by effort. The heart that is easily set alight by irritation or crossing, needs to be calmed and melted by God's Spirit. There is need for more than mere environmental control; interior renovation is required.

The reason mere willpower is not enough to overcome anger, is of course that we enjoy being angry! (I speak from experience!) Despite the damage it does us and others, it is an enjoyable liberating experience of freedom and righteousness. Righteousness because, in exaggerating the appropriate feelings of injustice to anger, a wrathful person is sensitive of nothing other than the pleasure of being in the right. Our human experience of anger is sinful to the extent that it is a putting of ourselves in the centre of our experiential universe. It is a self-justification and as such an extraordinary powerful form of works religion.

The simple difference between human sinful anger, and God's holy anger, is that he is truly and rightly at the centre of the universe. When we give into anger, we are worshipping ourselves and taking his place. We are failing to 'leave room' (Rom. 12:19) for God, who in time will exercise wrath in the right and good way only the true God can do. This was, of course, the original sin -Eve set herself in the centre of the universe adjudicating right and wrong. She took the place of God and ushered in a fallen world. It is deeply ironic, that today we can repeat the same error - and do so in response to things that are in themselves wrong and offensive to God. The tragedy of the Fall is that good and evil are both used to bad ends.

The ultimate resource for dealing with anger is to invite God to displace me from the central position in my desires and life. I am no longer to expect others to keep in step with me - rather I am to keep in step with the Spirit.

And finally... Here is a postscript CS Lewis added to a personal letter on the topic of anger, in 1960:

PS - It's also useful to think, 'Either x is (or is not) so bad as, in my present anger, I think. If not, how unjust I must be. If so, how terribly x needs my prayers.'

Seven Deadly Sins (1) Envy

Last night I felt like reflecting a bit on sin - so I thought I would look up the seven deadly sins. After a few minutes flicking through Proverbs my wife asked me what I was doing. She informed me that the seven deadly sins are not in the Bible.... After checking on Wikipedia (!) I was forced to admit that she was correct. So much for my Bible knowledge.

Still, I thought it may be instructive to spend some time reflecting on the seven deadly sins. The list originated with Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604). He described them in his Moralia in Job.

The sins he listed were:

1. Invidia Envy
2. Ira Anger
3. Avaritia Avarice
4. Tristia Sadness
5. Gula Gluttony
6. Luxuria Lust
7. Superbia Pride

Tristia eventually came to be replaced by 'sloth'. However it is interesting to note that each of the original sins (no pun intended) was an excessive desire. Thought to be deadly by Aquinas because they damage the spirit, each of these sins are given a lot of coverage in the Bible. Notwithstanding the lack of any list!

Since the original list was written in Latin, I have taken the time to do some wordsearches of the Latin Vulgate Bible. When I search for all word forms of 'invidia' I discover that envy is mentioned 35 times if you include the Apocrypha.

In Genesis we read of envy in several situations - The Philistines envied Isaac's flocks (Gen.26:14), Rachel envied her sister (30:1) and Joseph's brothers envied him (37:5). The last reference is in the ESV translated 'hated' rather than 'envied.' The Latin root word shades towards ideas of hatred, enmity and enemy, but even when it is used so should preserve something of the flavour of personal envy.

Prov. 14:30, 23:6, 28:22 and Job 5:2 all warn against envy, in the Vulgate. In modern English translations it is rare for all to opt for that explanation of the Hebrew poetry. The ESV does so in only the first of the three proverbs verses, using footnotes to highlight the ambiguity in the second two.

Eccl.4:4 tells us that envy motivates all the work of men, while Eccl. 9:6 states that death will bring an end to envy. While the English translations of Psalm 73 speak of envy, the Vulgate does not use the word, preferring the imagery of growing hot.

Mt 27:18 and Mk. 15:10 tell us that Pilate knew it was envy which motivated the scribes' betrayal of Jesus. Rom 1 and Gal 5 include envy in their lists of sins.

Ironically, orthodox preaching can be motivated by envy (Phil. 1:15) while false teaching can produce envy (1 Tim.6:4). Envy is the natural state all Christians once lived in (Titus 3:3). James 4:5 says, in the Vulgate, that the Spirit envies us, in the sense that he is rightly jealous of our devotion. 1 Peter 2:1 urges Christians to set aside all envy.

Reflecting on all that - Envy is a dangerous sin because it can and does motivate so much in life. It is a sin which inserts itself into our hearts via that which we see, hear and aspire to. As it grows in strength, it can be harnessed to motivate work and achievement. It is the backbone of the capitalist free market, and can just as much inspire Gospel preachers to proclaim Christ. Envy is part of the air breathed on this fallen planet - we all once lived in it. That being the case, I suspect that unless we as Christians have spent some time seriously submitting our hearts to the searching light of the Spirit and Scripture, we may well still be fueling up on some envy to get us through the day.

Augustine suggests that envy is 'sorrow at another person's happiness.' As such it is a negative motivation that can lead only to an inner pathology. The envious person energises themselves, by eating themselves up. On the other hand, being motivated by grace is a refreshingly expansive and wholesome experience. One becomes free to rejoice in others' successes and content to serve in the place God has put you. Cultivating contentedness and thankfulness comes from times of exposure to the riches of Christ, who spent himself on behalf of those who had nothing worth envying.

Science and Proof

It is possible to spend time reflecting on theological issues which are of little use to ministry - as Thielicke said in vol.1 of systematic theology, endless focus on methodology can be a form of passive resistance to the Holy Spirit!

One of the issues which I have worked on over the past few years, which has had huge payoffs for ministry, has been the issue of proof.

We can suffer a strange schizophrenia - one moment we think that the 'proof' of the Gospel is irrefutable and clear - the next the proof is so difficult to accept that one needs endless conversations, courses, books and explanations to convince. The proof appears to be both compelling and weak, and it alters depending on whether the speaker is at the point where they are saying the Bible is reliable, or trying to get you to sign up for a follow on course.

On the whole, the effect of this is to generally lower the conviction of proof. We shy away from saying that we can prove Christianity, because then we cannot explain failure to accept it. From what I can see this has led to fewer and fewer evangelistic speakers expecting conversions at their talks, and therefore not inviting people to commit their lives to God in prayer at the end.

I think that we can assert a higher level of proof in our evangelistic preaching. With this we can explicitly highlight the noetic effects of sin - making clear to people that the Gospel is demonastrably provable, but that due to the impact of sin they will not like or want to believe the evidence.

My encouragement to people giving evangelistic talks is fourfold:

1. Take time to explore the nature of proof, that there are differences between historical, scientific, philosophical and mathematical proof. Historical is very important for all of the Bible, it is very different from mathematical. Scientific is not as overwhelming as the media suggests.

2. Increase your claims about the provability of Christianity. It is true, it is demonstrably so.

3. Explicitly state that unless the Spirit works in listeners they will find themselves irrationally running away from that which has been proven to them.

4. Before you give your talk, and while you give it - pray that the Spirit would work through the Word to to enable listeners to act rationally and believe the proof.

Next week I am speaking to a secular Cambridge University group, the title being 'How God proves himself to scientists.' I hope to be able to take my own advice...

Restless after election?

Augustine said that 'our hearts are restless till they take their rest in Thee'. Even a new president is not enough to satisfy:


Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

The full thing?

I have always liked this hymn by the Scottish preacher, Robert Murray McCheyne. The second verse was usually omitted by Victorian hymn collections due to its focus on hell. I was excited to discover about three extra verses though in addition to that one! Here is, perhaps, the full thing - nine verses! Give it a sing at your church.

When this passing world is done,
When has sunk yon glaring sun,
When we stand with Christ in glory,
Looking o'er life's finished story,
Then, Lord, shall I fully know -
Not till then - how much I owe.

When I hear the wicked call
On the rocks and hills to fall,
When I see them start and shrink
On the fiery deluge brink, -
Then, Lord, shall I fully know -
Not till then - how much I owe.

When I stand before the throne,
Dressed in beauty not my own,
When I see thee as thou art,
Love thee with unsinning heart,
Then, Lord, shall I fully know -
Not till then - how much I owe.

When the praise of heav'n I hear,
Loud as thunder to the ear,
Loud as many water's noise,
Sweet as harp's melodious voice,
Then, Lord, shall I fully know -
Not till then - how much I owe.

Even on earth, as through a glass
Darkly, let Thy glory pass,
Make forgiveness feel so sweet,
Make Thy Spirit's help so meet,
Even on earth, Lord, make me know
Something of how much I owe.

Chosen not for good in me,
Wakened up from wrath to flee,
Hidden in the Saviour's side,
By the Spirit sanctified,
Teach me, Lord, on earth to show,
By my love, how much I owe.

Oft I walk beneath the cloud,
Dark, as midnight's gloomy shroud;
But, when fear is at the height,
Jesus comes, and all is light;
Blessed Jesus! bid me show
Doubting saints how much I owe.

When in flowery paths I tread,
Oft by sin I'm captive led;
Oft I fall - but still arise -
The Spirit comes - the tempter flies;
Blessed Spirit! bid me show
Weary sinners all I owe.

Oft the nights of sorrow reign -
Weeping, sickness, sighing, pain;
But a night Thine anger burns -
Morning comes and joy returns;
God of comforts! bid me show
To Thy poor, how much I owe.

Forceful Preaching

I am at a point in my thesis where I am exploring the sorts of pagan ideas Augustine held pre-conversion, about the power and nature of public speaking.

One of the several important influences is Plato. Reading his writing is immensely stimulating. As Plato portrays Socrates, he wanders through Athens seeking to persuade people to examine their underlying beliefs. He challenges them to explain how and why they live as they do, valuing what they care about. One of the striking things is that Socrates often fails to persuade listeners to change.

Most scholars explain this by saying that failure to persuade lies within the listeners. They are intellectually and emotionally unwilling to enter into the dialogue with Socrates, which would be necessary to help them examine their lives and be changed. This would seem to be true for a good number of dialogues, such as, Gorgias.

The problem is captured well in the opening section of The Republic, where Socrates is forcefully waylaid and told to wait for somebody who wants to talk to him. Socrates asks if he would be able to persuade his captor to let him go. The reply is:

'Could you persuade us, if we won't listen?' 327c.

Socrates makes clear that he realises in such a situation, force will win out over philosophical persuasion. You cannot persuade a person to change who does not want to listen. The desire to grow, listen and enter into dialogue must be present within. In Plato, this problem is never really resolved.

In our preaching, we face people who will not listen. The temptation is to try and make people change using forms of force - the only other resource in Plato's worldview. We can pressurise people, embaress them, ignore them, pay them, flatter them, cajole them - all are forms of force which try and persuade the person who does not want to listen.

Thankfully Augustine realised there is a God who persuades those who do not want to listen. He does it by his Spirit- seductively, scripturally and often slowly. When we forget the power of God we may seek to persuade in our own power - but truly forceful preaching does not depend on human power for its forcefulness.

Forgetful Theology

I have been enjoying reading Thielicke's three volumes of systematic theology, 'The Evangelical Faith.' His use of Luther's key theological insights, engagement with Cartesian models of theology and appreciation of the Spirit's place in epistemology, are all refreshing.

This morning I came across a good quote for the inside of a doctoral thesis:

'We must guard against the error that the history of theology is one of continuous growth in truth. In almost equal measure it is a history of forgetting the truth. Theology is undertaken by sinners and thus needs forgiveness as sinners themselves do. Even at best our work is in vain. Thought, including theological thought, is part of this work. Like all our work, it can go forward only as a justified work.' Vol 1. p.124

Schaeffer Review

You may enjoy this review of a new biography of Schaeffer, which I contributed to a fun American website.

You can also download a chapter of the book:

http://www.theosource.com/2008/11/book-review-francis-schaeffer-by-colin.html

Black votes and race

The BBC says in the same news article that 'race was for the majority of Americans not an issue in voting' yet also that 'voting into the White House a black man is a historic occasion.'

Watching the postmodern pluralist media grapple to simultaneously affirm a man due to his skin colour, while denying the existence of colour - one wonders if it is a bit early to declare the journey towards racial equality complete.

I would suggest that Obama's election is simply an indicator of attempting to make the journey by setting off in the wrong direction. For it is clear that masses of black voters turned out to elect Obama, specifically because he is coloured. This is not at all a sign that race has been overcome. That will happen when the black voters feel free enough from race to elect a non-black president!

Sadly, such a situation is not possible within the hermeneutical framework which presently governs secular postmodern politics. Such a triumph would require a change in the heart by God's Spirit, which brings those who experience it into Trinitarian acceptance of both unity and diversity. A person who knows the Trinitarian God can accept the other without having to facilely pretend that they are not different in significant ways. Real acceptance, real diversity, real change. There is a God who offers it - and he is not in the White House.

Feeling heroic?

I am reading Charles Taylor's 'Sources of the Self' - a history of the development of the idea of the self. He makes use of Augustine in his work, and I am taking some time to interact with his understanding of Augustine.

There is much of value in 'Sources of the Self'. In light of a new James Bond movie, here is a comment from Taylor on the way our concepts of heroism set the stage for secular confusion and disenchantment:

“We struggle to hold on to a vision of the incomparably higher, while being true to the demands of ordinary life. We sympathize with both the hero and anti-hero; we dream of a world in which one could be in the same act both. This is the confusion in which naturalism takes root.” p.24

Road to Hell

Last week I gave a lunch talk to the Cambridge Christian Union - as part of their witness to students. The title I was asked to speak to was 'How can a loving God send people to Hell?'

I tried to formulate an answer that completely sidesteps the usual debates about the duration and nature and justice of hell. What I came up with may be a helpful approach, since the more unfair or horrible a person views hell to be - the more they find their objection answered.

Talk is 20min long, followed by ten min of questions. I found that giving this talk and engaging with the people made me feel ill till late that night, hopefully it won't have the same effect on you...

http://www.srcf.ucam.org/ciccutapes/mp3/M08EA4.mp3

Right click to download, or left click to play.