διαθήκη

There is an old tradition called the risus paschalis - the Easter laughter - dating back to at least the fifteenth century. After the sombre Lenten period the preacher was to begin his Easter Sunday sermon with a joke. The jokes often weren’t that funny and the tradition seems to  have been abused. It was banned by Pope Clement X (1670-76) and in the 18th century by Emporer Maximilian III. It doesn’t appear to have caught on with the Reformers at all. The laughter was perhaps a superficial thing, but it’s an interesting idea - a reminder of the joy that Christians should have as they remember Christ’s resurrection and the new life they have in union with their risen saviour. Death does not get the last laugh! Happy Easter.

February 29th. I wonder if leap years are chosen for the U.S. presidential contest (can’t say ‘race’, right) in all its Byzantine complexity because it really needs that extra day to get the business done. As the primary season heads towards a close, I still find myself laughing about something that happened last time round, the onstage implosion of the leading Democrat.

Byah!

That’s the fun over with. Back to Christ and the Decree and an enormous pot of coffee.

Some advice from Archbishop James Ussher, as he reflects on Proverbs 5:18-20:

…thou must nourish a kinde Affection to thy wife: for tis not The Hauinge, but The Louinge thy wife, will keep thee from the strange woman. 

So, go on, get her some flowers.

I have long been aware that the word ‘Puritan’ can be used equivocally, but the following usage was a new one for me. It comes from the sermon preached by Joseph Hall, Dean of Worcester and later Bishop of Exeter, at the Synod of Dort, November, 1618:

Fit companions for such a one [the Pharisee] are (if they choose) those Popish Thrasos, most sanctified men, who boast that they keep the law to the greatest exactness, and can afterwards bestow something upon God beyond what is required of them. Truly these are the real Puritans of these days; a term which they use as a reproach to others.

Thrasos being the Greek spirit of rashness and insolence. This is obviously directed at the doctrine of works of supererogation. I don’t know if there was a particular target for this remark. The context suggests not. So, popish puritans. There you are!

I have no idea what it is either. I’ll be ordering Carl Trueman’s new book to find out. This new collection of essays apparently covers ‘Chick Lit, Adolf Eichman, the i-pod, Roger Beckwith, the Blues, Watership Down, American Idol, Nietzsche, zen-calvinism, Augustine and ferrets(!)’

Details here.

I could barely believe what I was hearing today. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, believes that there should be a place for sharia law in the British legal system. I suspect that even the term ‘British legal system’ would become anachronistic in Williams’ utopian vision. The story is here, and comment and legal opinion at Anglican Mainstream. This will be in the news for a while.

 I suspect that it’s a rather bad reflection on me that I occasionally get a laugh from reading this type of thing. Polemic. Sixteenth and seventeeth-century theologians were good at it. It’s something of a lost art, and some might say perhaps that’s just as well. It could all get a bit too personal. It’s not just that they attacked their opponent, but that they used some of their best metaphorical writing to do so. A recent favourite line comes from Hugh Broughton as he lays into Thomas Bilson on the descensus ad inferos.  

It is great pitie that D. Bilson consulted not with others before such wordes fled through the hedge of his teeth. Higher blasphemies never were uttered.

Hugh Broughton, Declaration of generall corruption of religion, Scripture and all learning; wrought by D. Bilson While he breedeth a new opinion, that our Lord went from Paradiseto [sic] Gehenna, to triumph over the devills. To the most reverend Father in God Iohn Wm. Doct. in Divinitie, and Metropolitan of England (1603). 

Anyone care to post lines that have tickled them?

I have just finished reading The Rise of Puritanism by William Haller. The book shows its age (publ. 193 and the weaknesses of Haller’s method and controlling paradigm have been exposed by more recent studies. Despite these weaknesses I did find some interesting titbits and found my thinking stimulated.

One thing that didn’t ring true is an idea which is found in a few passages. Haller writes:

The spiritual attitude which the preachers endeavored to inculcate was one of active struggle on the part of the individual against his own weakness. The supreme image which, for that purpose, they sought to impress upon the minds of the people was that of the soldier enlisted under the banners of Christ. They could not and did not seek to eliminate all vestige of the doctrine of the atonement, but they made the atonement signify the appointment of the elect soul to join with Christ in the war against the eternal enemy…The Puritan saga did not cherish the memory of Christ in the manger or on the cross, that is, of the lamb of God sacrificed in vicarious atonement for the sins of man. The mystic birth was the birth of the new man in men. The mystic passion was the crucifixion of the new man by the old, and the true propitiation was the sacrifice of the old to the new.

Strong words. Surely he can’t be justifying this from the Puritan rejection of the liturgical calendar in their focus on the Lord’s Day. There is certainly a move towards interiorising biblical narrative in later Puritanism, especially as cognitive dissonance kicked in when hopes were dashed (see, for example, Crawford Gribben’s The Puritan Millenium) but at this point Haller is speaking of the pre-revolutionary spiritual brotherhood. I think he rightly notices a tendency in Puritan preaching to major on the ordo salutis rather than the historia salutis (though I suspect that would be true of most evangelical preaching), but the ordo relies on the historia. From reading Ussher, I can sense his wonder as he lingers and rhapsodises on the mysteries of the incarnation and the atonement. And yet Haller describes these as ‘those episodes of the Biblical story which the Puritans found least congenial and expressive’. 

Bonkers? Let’s open this one up for discussion. Did the Puritans dis the cross?

On Saturday, I drove down to London with two friends from church, Tim and Daniel, to visit Bunhill Fields. The police had chained the gates at one end of the park the night before and not turned up to unlock them. The attendant was rather confused and reluctant to open the other gate. He seemed to think that the police might want to investigate a crime scene. I was tempted to joke that they might find a dead body, but decided that that might be less than helpful. We eventually persuaded him to let us in and we had the place to ourselves. The City of London is quieter on a Saturday morning and the place was peaceful. For a long time I had intended to visit this place and see the graves of Owen (pictured), Bunyan, Goodwin, Defoe and others. Definitely worth the trip. As I wrote in an earlier post, I appreciate the sense of connectedness with the past that visiting such places can make quite tangible. It wasn’t a pilgrimage, we didn’t light a candle or anything weird like that, but Tim said a prayer thanking God for the ministry of these men and the legacy of their writings that we enjoy today. Admission is free (which makes up for the horrendous parking meter charges).

After an excellent lunch we visited Geneva Books where I added to my collection of Parker Society volumes. There was much rejoicing in the car on the way home.

Last post of the year before I head out to parteee!

‘Book of the Year’ for this blogger has to be Pierced for Our Transgressions. It is a timely defence of penal substitution and its elenctic method makes it very useful for reference as well as for reading through. The exegetical and systematic sections and well handled. The latter half of the book deals with a host of obejctions and will help the reader think these through. It is well organised and well written. Stott’s Cross of Christ might be more edifying on some levels but for those who want to get tooled up to deal with the most recent arguments against penal substitution, this has to be first choice.

The book arrived on the UK scene in the wake of Steve Chalke’s controversial remarks, and the debate continues to run. N.T. Wright has described PFOT as ‘deeply, profoundly, and disturbingly unbiblical’. Jeffery, Ovey and Sach reply here.

Buy the book. Cherish the doctrine.

Happy ‘08.