One of the advantages of my theological study has it has opened my eyes a bit more to the depth of study possible in working with scripture. However the tool I have needed have not always been at my fingertips. I have considered investing in something like Logos or Accordance but so far haven’t quite been convinced of the value for money. In the meantime I have got by with what is free (or cheap) and here is what I found:
Bibles and the Original Text
Here I will focus on actual text study I may do another post on commentaries etc. although they a rarely free, if you want the most up to date scholarship you normally have to pay!
Although this will be very familiar it has the most comprehensive collection of English (and other language) translations and can be helpful in comparing them, however unfortunately no original languages and the formatting of the site makes it difficult to copy and paste into a word processor without some reformatting.
This is very similar to Bible gateway but with slightly more options and a little easier to copy and paste from. There are also some original language options which Bible Gateway doesn’t have.
This is a simple and extremely useful site. You can have two columns with the original language in one column and the English (NASB) in the other. You can get definitions of the word by hovering over either the English or the original language and as you to the corresponding word is highlighted in the other column. You can also search by a word. Although the tools are basic and really just restricted to language work, the ease of use of this site makes it one of my go too sites.
I haven’t found the mobile site has worked as I might have expected it is best used on the desktop.
This site does much the same as Bible Web App but offers a little more functionality. You pay for that in ease of use but for word studies and comparing translation this is a great resource.
Not a website but software is a great resources. The basic translations come free (KJV, ESV, TR Greek…) but you have to pay the price of a bible for the likes of NIV, NASB… The advantage is the ability to use it offline and it is by far the easiest to copy and paste from. The parallel option is nice although it is not great for language work.
I only discovered the recently and it works similar to e-sword but has more language tools, similar to bible web app. However is less intuitive and easy to use as e-Sword.
For a while now I have been trying to see if there is any alternative to the TR greek text online. The pedantic in me always checks the TR against my bound copy of the UBS 4th Edition. Finally I have discovered there is, the German Bible Society have put the full texts of the UBS 4th Edition and online in an easy copy and paste format.
Here are lot of useful resources including commentaries and the BDB lexicon of Hebrew which is useful to know.
I had to use this Lexicon for my studies and it was quite useful, unfortunately the full version is not available online but I got by with this reverse look up.
If like me sometime you want to print things out to write all over them this has pdf pages of interlinear for the whole bible, there is also a free download version.
None of these are the complete package and I find myself switching between them all but they may remain a viable alternative to paying large amounts for a complete package. Is this enough to get by for free or should I bite the bullet? If you know of others pleas comment below.
(Sorry if you onnly get this because of my post on singleness and this is boring, I am attempting to write a book on that issue so maybe there will be something for you some time in the future!)
I have a strange relationship with sadness. Sometimes I just feel sad and I don’t really know why. A number of years ago I suffered from depression and getting better, it seems, is not a case of not feeling sad for no particular reason but simply learning manage those emotions. For me at least, sadness is sometimes normal, and living with such an understanding of my emotions helps me to continue.
In my previous post, which got an extraordinary number of hits, I reflected on hope, such an experience of sadness also leads me to contemplate hope. That is to contemplate a day when sadness is not only not normal but not there. Reflecting on Romans 8, again for a sermon recently, it seems that suffering is not simply something we endure awaiting a time when it will be no more but suffering is the very things which causes us to hope in the future.
Romans 8 begins by showing that suffering is a result of living in a broken world:
 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope  that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
Where we read of “Creation waiting…” and “Creation subjected to frustration…” these are connected with “our present sufferings…” in verse 18.
The groaning’s are of creation, the subhuman world. But the groanings that Paul speaks of are the marks of broken world waiting to be fixed. And that broken world is the thing which brings about suffering. The world is broken because of sin, because Adam and Eve rebelled against God the whole of creation is broken.
Think of creation like a play, where the lead, the main actor, is drunk. So as everyone looks to the lead, to well lead, he doesn’t because he is drunk, he’s all over the place. (Illustration thank to Christopher Ash)
Creation is similar. The lead part is man whom God placed over all to rule and lead. And yet since the fall, since Adam and Eve’s rebellion they have not led properly so the whole of creation is put out of shape. Now what happens in a broken world, is that people suffer. It is easy to see how sin causes some suffering such as crime, war, abuse that sort of thing. But the Bible’s picture is bigger than that because of man’s position in creation. Man’s sin doesn’t just cause suffering in those direct ways but, now the whole world is broken so suffering comes in many other ways. Even sickness, natural disaster are marks of broken world where the lead actor has rebelled in sin.
That is not to say that things like illness are a direct consequence of an individual’s sin. That can be the case, but I think more often it is not, it is the case that that kind of suffering is a mark living in a broken world. Because I live in a broken world generally, there is general suffer, of which I experience some of.
The Christian however experiences this general suffering in unique way.
 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
That is Christians are experiencing the fixing work of the Spirit in us but we still inhabit bodies and the world of the broken creation. So even while we by God’s Spirit experience a partial restoring we still wait for when our bodies and creation to be restored. So do you see the conflict which comes through in the suffering of the Christian? Christians like creation groans for the time when the physical creation will catch up with the work that the Spirit is doing in us so and everything is perfected. God is working that we will be more and more conformed to the new creation but the more we are conformed to the new creation the more we feel the brokenness of the old creation.
But this very tension is what brings the benefit now. In this tension God is working good, even in our sufferings:
 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?  But if we hope for what we do not yet have,we wait for it patiently.
The experience of suffering now produces hope in us for a time when there will be no suffering. So God works through suffering now to bring us to hope for glory then. In suffering God is producing hope now for glory then. See as we increasingly feel the pain we increasingly long for the day when the world and everything in it will be put right. The theme of this whole section is not so much suffering but glory.
Paul’s point is suffering directs us to glory. Suffering opens our eyes to the world being a broken place, but also directs our eyes in hope to the world then being a completely restored place. As Christians we experience God’s restoring work now and we long for the world to catch up as we do, we feel the pain. The more we feel the pain the more we hope for the end of that pain.
So when we read in verse 28:
 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. It’s not a blind, oh well God is working for our good.
In the suffering we experience now God is working to produce hope in us so that He might bring about our standing in glory which is not worth comparing to what we experience now.
I have funny response to sadness and anxiety now, almost instinctively when I get sad, I worry that I am going down again. I haven’t really experienced symptoms of depression for a long time now. But there are times when I think will it all come back and I long for a time when I know for sure that it won’t return. God uses suffering so that we long for no suffering. Suffering produces hope for a better day.
There is not a nice neat answer to why Christians suffer, but there is an unshakable hope that one day they will not. And if we view suffering rightly today as a mark broken world perhaps we will be directed to a restored world. A world where every pain is healed. A world where there is no more death, no more crying. A world where God wipes away every tear away.
As we feel the pain now we should work hard, not to deny the pain but also to turn that pain into hope then.
Let me end with an example. I am not sure when my depression started it certainly became much worse after I left university. But I can remember in my forth year at university living for weeks with a sense of despair and sadness. At that time something happened every day I started to read Revelation 21. Almost because of what I was experiencing I hoped for that day all the more.
 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.  I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.  And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.  He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
On that day there will be no more suffering. But that day will not be without the knowledge of suffering. Because on that day not only will we not suffer but we will look on the lamb, Jesus, who did suffer. We will look on the lamb whose suffering has brought an end to our suffering.
And suffering now produces hope for that day then.
So although for me sadness is sometimes normal, one day, thanks to Christ’s suffering, it will never be again.
When you think about it singlenesss is a funny thing. We are all born single and at least half of us will die single but often those who are single wonder how they got there. Some who are single feel they’re too young to settle down while others may feel they are too old to be alone. When people get older they start to ask questions like “what is wrong with me? Why does no one want me…?”
As a 32 year old single man, who had to do some thinking about it recently I thought I would share some thought that others found helpful and hopefully it will help me clarify some of my thinking.
A number of years ago I stopped reading singleness book (ok it’s not like I read loads) but it would seem to me they fall into two broad categories which we often do when we think of this issue.
1. Singleness is a burden that we need to rid ourselves off.
These are basically dating manuals or ways to encourage single people not to be too disheartened, I’ve been told although I am yet to read books for women, that here is where you find “Jesus is my husband” kind of thinking. We’ll come back to that, but the basic theology seems to be it is not good to be alone so if you are single, that is not good…get married. In the case of women they begin to think they are just not godly enough to warrant someone wanting to marry them and in the case of men, they are told that they just don’t take the initiative where they should. There may of course be truth in that but it can’t always be the case because nowhere in the Bible do we get that singleness is a sin or even the result of sin. In fact the big problem of this view is it’s hard to fit Paul’s positive view of singleness (1 Corinthians 7) with the burden mentality.
2. Singleness is the best thing.
Now the idea that singleness is the best thing seems to fit much better with Paul’s thinking but again there are problems. Although as we will see singleness is indeed a good thing and in some sense better than marriage, “the singleness is the best thing” often presents it as if we should all be going round thinking “thank goodness I am single who would want to get married”. Now this is problematic because most singles want to get married. So if singleness is the best thing why do I want something else? Enter the guilt problem again. Now as we will see we should indeed value singleness and disparage God’s good gift is indeed serious but this is not the same thing as saying the desire for marriage is bad. As we will see it is one thing to say that singleness is a good thing it is quite another to say it is the best things.
The Gift of Singleness
I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. (1 Cor 7:7)
What does Paul mean by each has his own gift? What is the gift of singleness? It is very common for people to say that the gift of singleness is an ability to remain single, which most people do not have. There are significant problems with this as Christopher Ash points out:
It is a common misunderstanding to think that I know whether I have the gift of singleness by whether or not I feel happy to be single. It is often said that only if I am quite content to be unmarried and really experience no strong sexual urges or other desires for marriage, only then can I say I have this gift. And if I don’t feel content like this, then I should get married if I can.
This idea that the gift equates to the desire is wrong, for two reasons. First, if we apply the same reasoning the other way around, it makes a nonsense of marriage. With this approach, someone discerns whether he has the gift of marriedness by whether or not he is happy and content to be married. So let us suppose someone is married, but is struggling in a difficult marriage and is, frankly, not at all content in his marriedness. Does he conclude that he does not have the gift of marriedness, and go ahead and get a divorce? That would be absurd, quite apart from being forbidden in verses 10 and 11.
The second reason we know this is wrong is this: what happens if someone feels he has the gift of marriage but no suitable opportunity comes along? Is he to conclude that a good and gracious God has given him the ‘gift’ of marriage but then carelessly forgotten to make marriage possible for him? This again would be absurd.
No, I know which ‘gift’ I have by a very simple test: if I am married, I have the gift of marriage; if I am not married, I have the gift of being unmarried. My circumstances are God’s gracious gift to me, and I am to learn to accept them from his hand as such. (Christopher Ash, Married for God)
I think Ash is right. But if it is the state which is the gift from God them this will immediately change our perspective in the situation. If I am single I have a good gift from God which I should be thankful for and not resent.
Why is singleness good?
Good gifts from God are good. Perhaps that may not be a surprise but the point is not only are we to see the gift because God says it is good, although that is reason enough, but God is right so we can see the goodness.
Paul unpacks two ways in which we can see the good of singleness:
1. Singleness is good because it makes life less complicated
…But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.(1 Corinthian 7:28b)
Trouble in the verse is not bad, or sinful, but it may be hard. Marriage is good and the troubles which come with it do not make it bad. But Paul is being realistic about marriage, that marriage brings trouble. I was listening to a pastor friend of mine who was actually discussing a group at his church which they have started to help people with same-sex attraction. It is not an issue for him, he’s married but represents the staff team there. Most the group were single, and he said he found that people in the group often idolize marriage and it is good for him to be there to say that actually the marriage, like singleness, is hard.
Now you don’t need to be in the situation of experiencing same-sex attraction to recognize the same point. Marriage is complicated it brings “trouble”. I work with Edwin who’s married with two children. And Edwin often has to go off to look after his family, whether it is driving them to school and work or looking after them when they are ill. I have never had the hassle of having to take children to the doctor. Edwin has, in that sense his life is more complicated. Of course children and family bring great joy but they also bring great complications. And they don’t always bring great joy.
This is not say that there aren’t particular struggles that singles have, there are (and they mustn’t be diminished), but it is to say that they do not have the particular struggles which come along being married and having a family which brings trouble, that is makes life complicated.
This is not rivalry as if Paul is setting marriage (bad) against singleness (good). No they are both good. But it is realism. Generally speaking a married person has a more complicated life than a single person.
It’s not that I have all my problems and I get married and they are all gone. No it is that I have particular problems being single that when I marry I then essentially swap them for a different set of problems, which is some way are be harder, so according to Paul may be best avoided.
It’s a bit like living in South Africa for me as a subject of her Majesty the Queen, that is being British. There are certain things which are more complicated here than if I were to live in the UK. For example I have to apply for a visa every three years, and panic that they don’t give it to me. Now I do that because I gain benefits, I get to live and work in South Africa, but that’s the reality. These things don’t mean it is bad to live here just that it is more complicated.
Now don’t misunderstand me, I am not saying that single lives can’t be complicated, they can be. But they would be more so if they were to marry.
I think it is best to view comparing like for like. It can be quite unhelpful when we start saying that someone has a more complicated life just because they are married compared to a particular single individual. It’s comparing like for like. So think of me, Ben, I am single. Now if Ben got married, in many ways I would be in the same situation but I would have a wife so it would be more complicated. I would have most if not all the constraints on my time I now have and I would have a wife. Which would make life more complicated.
It can be deeply unhelpful when married Christian take advantage of single people, “since they are unmarried they will be able to do this” type thinking. This must not happen, but single people should take advantage of the position that God has given them.
One of these advantages Paul particularly picks up on:
2. Singleness is good because it brings freedom
 I would like you to be free from concern.An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs –how he can please the Lord.  But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world— how he can please his wife—  and his interests are divided.
Paul follows the verse by repeating the same principle about an unmarried woman. Again this division, comparison between “the Lord’s affairs” and the “affairs of this world”, is not a division of good and bad interests. Remember both marriage and singleness are good gifts from God. The key is the division of interests not that one type of interest is better than the other. The concern of the husband is quite rightly for his wife and family, and that is his service the Lord. But the point Paul is making is that for the single person there is only one sphere in which they must offer service that is the church. But the married the person has the church and the family. Again that is not bad but that is the reality.
Again think of me and Edwin. We both work at Christ Church Hillbrow. For both of us that is our areas of ministry. However Edwin also has his family to minister to while I do not. So Edwin must be concerned about his church and his family while I can just concentrate on the church. Again that doesn’t mean that single people have no concerns outside a particular ministry or they should be exploited. As in “you must be free because you don’t have a family”, no that would be wrong.
But it is a reality that single people can be more focused on things as they do not have a family to worry about. Neither is better, Paul is just being realistic. This focus brings freedom; a single person has freedom which someone who is married does not necessarily have. This is the goodness in singleness. Single people are able to do things which married people would find very hard to do. Whether that is particular service at church or in certain places in ministry.
If I were married three years ago then I may not have come to Johannesburg. As it were it was quite easy for me to fly off for two months, which has now turned into three years, to see what it was like to serve the Lord in South Africa.
The freedom of singleness allows me to do many things which otherwise I would not be able to do. The greater simplicity of the single life leads to increased opportunities.
Many great missionaries of the past were single and they could only do what they did as they did not have a family. Both the church I grew up in and the Church I went to as a student were led by single men and as such they had a great deal of time and energy they could focus solely on the church family. The minsters of the church I was student at (Vaughan Roberts) commented:
I know that I myself would not have had nearly as much time for writing and speaking at missions or conferences if I had been married. I’ve also had more time for friendships, which have been a huge blessing to me and, I trust, to others as well.
The freedom singleness grants can bring great blessings. A single life in a sense is less complicated and this brings the freedom to be of service in areas which you otherwise would not be able to be. Too often we focus on trying to change our single status, but actually Paul says we should focus on the opportunities and the freedom which our singleness brings.
Can you serve in a particular area? In the future if you remain single you may have more disposable income which you can give to gospel work. We are not to bemoan the gift that we have been given but we are to see it as a good gift that we can make the most of while it was there.
Singleness and the real prize
Sometimes is can seem that these two benefits of being single are a bit like a consolation prize. That is you don’t get the girl/the boy but at least life is a bit more simple and you are free to serve. It’s not great but it is something. You don’t have a wife but at least you are useful. Now I hope you have seen that Paul views it much more positively than that.
But the real surprise is that Paul is not so much denying the hardship but viewing that very hardship as good. In fact the two goods I have already mentioned I think flow from one fundamental good, which not only do we often miss, but incorporate rather than denies the hardship of singleness.
Singleness is good because it is constant reminder of the real prize. Here the work of Barry Danylak is superbly helpful.
This teaching on singleness comes in the context of the broader chapter. And although Paul is focusing on marriage and singleness the heart of his message comes in his statement of a broader principle.
 Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.
He gives various examples of how that might work out from circumcision to slavery. These are two key distinctions in the ancient world, one defining you as part of God’s people and one not, while the other defines you as slave or free.
His application to the issue of slavery explain why changing our circumstances should not be our focus.
 Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.  For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord’s freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ’s slave.  You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.
In verse 22 he is making it clear that our relationship to God is not defined by our employment. While one might be a slave to a human master in reality they are a free man to God. Similarly if one is free man they are actually a slave to God. We are God’s, brought at a price and that matters much more than our external circumstances.
In verses 25 onward Paul applies this in a unique way:
But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.  What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they had none;  those who mourn,as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep;  those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.
See that last phrase:
For this world in its present form is passing away.
The reason our present circumstances don’t matter is because this world is passing away. That is this life is not all there is we live for the new creation. This life is not the real prize. The reason Paul particularly says that singleness is good then, is in this sense that singleness points more clearly to this real prize than marriage. Again this is not a good bad thing, marriage equally points to greater truths, the union of Christ and his church. But singleness better allows you to live in this world as if you don’t belong, which as Christians we do not. Or to put it the other way round if you marry it will be harder not to hold onto this world.
Again let me explain by using myself an example, If you come to my house it doesn’t feel like a home. (Curiously when I preached this at this point every single person over a certain age, who had left university, nodded) It does to some extent but whenever I go to a family home it immediately feels a lot more homely. Families put down roots, kids in school, involved in the neighbourhood things like that.
Singles do that as well but in generally the single life feels more transient. As I get older that is what I find one of the most difficult things about being single an increasing feel that I don’t quite belong anywhere. That gives me great freedom and opportunity but it can also be painful. Paul doesn’t want to diminish that pain or hardship but he wants us to realize that even that pain is good thing, as single people this helps us to see that we are not yet home. That real prize is not a home in the suburbs with 2.4 children but something far beyond that. And as we live that life out we can help married people see the same truth. It’s not that we don’t yearn to build a family or home here, we may do and there is nothing wrong with that, but as we yearn we realize a deeper truth than that, the truth that our home is not here. That this world is temporary and that actually we are hoping a permanent home and for the new creation.
I hate the Jesus is my husband kind of approach to singleness, because it is first quite awkward for men. Secondly Jesus doesn’t marry me or you individually he marries us, the church, corporately. But the real problem is it gives the impression that marriage and family life now is the aim and where I don’t have that then Jesus fills in the gap.
But Paul is saying something bigger. The absence of family now does more than remind me of what I miss out on and others have but it helps me to see more clearly that now is not what I am aiming for, it’s not the real prize.
The trouble of marriage that Paul speaks of is that the complexities of marriage makes it too easy to be caught up with the now rather than the future. The transitory nature of singleness reminds us of something bigger the transitory nature of this whole life. That the real prize is yet to come. The single hope is not marriage but the new creation.
To simply long for a spouse or a family is to long for too little! The pain of singleness points to the pain of this broken world and makes us long for a new one.
This re-articulation should draw people to the positive vision the Christian Scriptures provide for both marriage and singleness …: Christian marriage is a testimony of the utterly faithful and unchanging love of God for his people in a permanent covenant relationship with him; Christian singleness is a testimony to the complete sufficiency of Christ for the present age and gives visible witness to the hope of our eternal inheritance yet to come; …
Danylak, Barry (2010-09-13). Redeeming Singleness: How the Storyline of Scripture Affirms the Single Life (p. 214). Good News Publishers.
While married people might get tied down the very looseness which the single experiences should point us all to the looseness with which we should all hold this world.
This is important to singles finding a valid and important place in the church. Much could be said about the church being the family that the single person does not have, but as for single people their lives should direct married people to the real prize. Just as a godly marriage should teach all of us what the relationship between Christ and the church is like so a godly single life should teach all of us to look to the real prize, the renewed world to come. As singles live lose to this world they are able to testify to that world. Ultimately the freedom and opportunity which singleness bring is the one the freedom to live a life testifying to a world to come. Of course married people can and should do this but it is easier and unique privileged of the single person to be able to do this.
Fish Cakes for Dinner
I finally finished this post as today I felt, I don’t why, the acute pain of being alone. However as I stopped for dinner I had fish and I reflected on (the now confirmed) story of Jonathan Fletcher (the retired single minister of Emmanuel Wimbledon) who used to have fish cakes for Christmas lunch alone. And I reflected while families feasted perhaps Jonathan’s meal helped him better remember the feast is yet to come.
Well as I am on Holiday here is something to amose us all:
Cameron Mackintosh on his new musical “The Coalition”
Radio 4 Today
They’re the best so far!
Over the last number of month I have been reading. People think I read alot I am not sure I do but I am careful what II read, often they are related to particular subjects which for various reason I have been interested in so I though I would share a few. They are not full review just some thoughts.
I have been preaching on Romans for the last few weeks and the following have been invaluable.
Christopher Ash: Teaching Romans
You can’t go wrong with Christopher Ash. I remeber his lectures at Cornhill on which these books were based and I am grateful since their publication I don’t need to search out my notes. Ash deals with all the difficult bit but best of all gives you helpful hints and structures on how you might teach them.
You can also find some of Christophers sermons on Roman’s onlilne which help you see how he goes from the working in the book to the final product.
Douglas Moo: The Epistle to the Romans, John Murray: The Epistle to the Romans
Beyond Christopher’s book I have found two commentaries very helpful. Although one replaced the other in the NICNT series they come from quite different perspectives with the reformed tradition. It is very though provoking reading them both.
Steve Chalke’s recent announcement that he has ‘changed’ his mind on gay relationships (he fairly points out he has said nothing regarding Gay marriage although his timing is curious) is more than sad news but ultimately bad news. There are many good Reponses including Greg Downes in the same magazine. There is a helpful discussion between Chalke and Peter Ould here. There is little more to say except that as Carl Trueman points out this is a symptom and not a disease:
Chalke is a good example: in the past, he was revolted by the idea that God could be angry with sin; that requires a redefinition not only of salvation but also of sin itself. Those who reject God as angry with sin tend, historically, to reduce sin to disrupted relationships between human beings. Sin is thus not what drives people away from God, as it is in the Bible, but that which drives them away from each other. On such an account, it is not homosexuality which is sin but the repression or coercive prevention of the same. Chalke is being very consistent with the deepest implicit structures of his theology.
It is this denial of an angry God which marks the real problem with Chalke’s thinking. Chalke says in a discussion with Peter Ould:
I happen to be the founder of the Oasis Trust we have about 20,000 young people in our schools and every one of them needs to be protected and not one of them needs to feel they are God forsaken and there is something wrong at their core.
Surely this gets to the heart of the difference between what I would say (I can’t speak for anyone else) and Chalke would say. Chalke’s real error is not so much to do with his sexual ethics but his view that ‘at the core’ human beings are essentially good, that they do not have something deeply wrong at their core.
The 20,000 young people in Chalke’s schools in reality do they not all need to know exactly that “there is something wrong with their core”. Chalke’s reference is to homosexuality, seeing this as the core of someone’s being is problematic, but the truth is gay or straight we all rotten at the core. Is that not Paul’s point in Romans 3:10-12?
As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”
Perhaps these verses are particularly helpful given the debate. Anyone familiar with Romans will know the condemnation of homosexuality earlier in the book:
For this reason God gave them up to dishonourable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:26-27)
There is much that could be said about this reference but the important one given Chalke’s point is made my Christopher Ash in his excellent book:
“The…reason Paul begin with this is that homosexuality was supremely the Gentile sin. When the Jew looked at the Gentile world one of the things which most horrified him and most made him happy to be a Jew was the appalling practice of homosexuality.” (Christopher Ash, Teaching Romans, pg. 81)
The point Paul goes on to make in the next chapter is that in fact the Jews are no better. The problem of all of us is a corrupt and broken core, which manifests itself in many and varied ways. In some ways, ironically, Chalke is making the same mistake as the Jews. Although he is not condemning homosexuality, he is suggesting that is the problem, which he deals with by excusing, and that the problem is not the radically broken core that we all share. Homosexuality, for some, is the outworking of the corrupt core but for others (most) that outworking is different. Even those who may choose to accept Chalke’s view on homosexuality will still face the problem of the corruption at the core. They may not see homosexuality as an outworking of that but it will not be long before they recognize other ‘symptoms’ of a broken core.
This is where Chalke’s approach then becomes horrific for all of us, gay or straight. Because the very thing that Chalke wishes to deny, corruption at the core, is the very thing that the Bible and often our experience affirms in countless ways. If we have a God, as Chalke presents him, who does not acknowledge or deal with that broken core what hope do we have? Are we really prepared to try and convince ourselves that there is nothing wrong? We are then left with two alternatives, either God just accepts everyone and cares nothing about sin or if there is not “something deeply wrong at our core” we are basically good people who go wrong somewhere along the line. But then what of those who have hurt us is there not justice? And yes we have a God who accepts homosexuals without making any moral demands on them but then he must do the same paedophile, murders and rapists. (Please note I am not for a moment equating these with homosexuality I am simply saying if God doesn’t care about a corrupt moral core then he cannot care about anything which might be product of that core).
The other alternative is a slightly naive who despite what we can see is true of ourselves, refuses to believe it nonetheless. Who despite all the evidence to the contrary still believes in the basic goodness of humanity? Again this kind of God will not respond to evil, because man is good underneath.
Humanities rotten core and God’s anger at such may not be palatable but are we really prepared to accept the alternatives? Even if we exclude homosexual sin (which I don’t think we have any biblical justification to do so) will people not still find the reality of Romans 3:10-12 in their lives? In a desperate attempt to refashion God who “loves us no matter what” do we not then loose the very heart of the gospel? God becomes loving at the expense of his justice and that in reality is not love at all. For how does God love me if when I am hurt by others but he does nothings about it?
In God’s providence the previous Sunday I was preaching on Romans 3:27-4:12 (you can find Christopher Ash’s far superior expositions here, thankfully they do not inflict mine on the online community). The truth Paul expounds there is far better news for anyone who acknowledges that they are indeed rotten to the core because we have a God who does not ignore that or refuse to believe it but who in his love deals with His own wrath against our sin. His love for his people is far greater than Chalke imagine, he deals with it by sending his Son in our place to be propitiation for our sins. Our broken core is dealt with not ignored, as Jesus the punishment that we deserve on himself so that on the basis of Christ’s righteousness we may be acceptable to God. However your broken core manifests itself surely that is a better expression of love than a God who doesn’t care or pretends not to notice.