A Clear and Present Word: The clarity of Scripture
New Studies in Biblical Theology 21, series editor: D.A.Carson.
Leicester: Apollos 2006
Mark Thompson has contributed the latest volume to this excellent series on the clarity (or ‘perspicuity’) of scripture, and he analyses the issue with thoughtfulness, clear headedness and insight.
Thompson’s thoughtfulness is shown in the historical perspective he gives, from the early church, mediaeval writers and the Reformation, as well as more recent times. He shows the contemporary relevance of the Reformers’ debates with the Catholic Church over whether tradition and reason are necessary guides to reading an unclear scripture, and how we to be captive neither to a fundamentalism which denies the need for scholarship, nor a scholasticism which denies the need for faith.
The clear headedness is shown in his handling of Scripture. He is concerned to show that although perspicuity has frequently been attacked as an unbiblical imposition on the Bible, that is a misreading of both the explicit claims of scripture, and the implicit assumptions built into the way that biblical authors handle other biblical texts. By far the most important, of course, are Jesus’ own assumptions, and that is summarised very helpfully.
The insightfulness is evident in the elegant way Thompson steers through contemporary thinking on hermeneutics, showing not just obvious perils, but more subtle and spiritual ones as well. Careful readers will be aware how much work has gone in so that we don't just avoid the massive and anti-Christian errors of Derrida or Ricœur, but are appreciatively nuanced with regard to Karl Barth, John Webster and Alister McGrath. This part of the book is a master-class in how to make the obscurities of contemporary linguistic philosophy both accessible and relevant.
This issue is of particularly pressing concern for us as Anglicans. The Primates meeting in Dar es Salaam, called for a “Hermeneutics Project”, which looks like a dangerously open-ended concept. It might just be a reminder that we need to revisit the Biblical material dealing with homosexuality and check our interpretation once again. That is a good and necessary task, and is the kind of self correction which evangelicals should continually engage in. However, I and I guess many others suspect that this project is actually an exercise in how to find a way of reinterpreting texts, such that the liberals can be seen to be engaging in a theological task, whilst rewriting scripture and tradition. Hermeneutics has then become a linguistic game, a typically ironic post-modern way of playing with words so that an alleged authoritative text is made to stand on its hind legs and dance to an alien tune. Mark Thompson's book will encourage us that we can engage in this kind of debate and win it, the Lord being our helper, because we are dealing with “the hermeneutic of a clear text in the hands of a good God” (p.140). But he would warn us as well that this is not a neutral matter of language and interpretation, but a spiritual battle with the one who is a liar and the father of lies.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Monday, August 14, 2006
The other Lord’s Prayer
Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, "The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few.[1]
A great time to be a worker
Jesus says our world is lost and leaderless. Echoing the criticisms of the prophets[2] he denounced the religious and political leadership of Israel for failing to care for their sheep. Those who should be overseen and protected were wandering. And this was no happy freedom; in his words the lost people were harassed and helpless.
But it’s a world whose great shepherd-king[3] has come. Jesus himself shouldered the duties of the missing shepherds, and initiated a time when salvation could be offered around the world. In the scene which follows this section, he installed the Twelve as the basis for a renewed people of God with renewed shepherds. But their foundational ministry would need to spread further than Israel for the whole world to come under his universal kingship, and so he tells them his second view of our world – it’s full of people ready for harvest.
That double view, a double agricultural image of people utterly lost like unpastored sheep, but ripe and ready for collection like heavy heads of corn, is one that has not changed. Today is a day of unparalleled need and unparalleled opportunity.
So the need Jesus identified runs on. He intends to replace those absent shepherds with new ones who will work with him. Even the Twelve will not be adequate for this task because the workers are few. Jesus has outlined the greatest need and greatest opportunity in world history, and he needs many more people to join the work of pastoring the sheep and gathering the harvest. It’s a great day to be a worker.
Are you praying for workers?
Since neither the need nor the mandate has changed, Jesus’ solution must still stand too: Ask the Lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into his harvest field.[4] We are to pray for the provision of pastors.
This is Jesus’ other Lord’s Prayer, and it’s one we hardly use in our churches. As Christians we often ask one another, “What should we pray for?”, and yet here is a direct command and framework from Jesus himself. Is this a day of lost people, false shepherds but still the day of the gospel? Then we should obediently start praying for workers.
As you pray for the congregation you are part of, is this one of your constant prayers? Do you see the world around you as lost and leaderless? Do you see their need for workers? Do you ask the Lord of the harvest to send out workers?
Are you training workers?
But you know that Timothy has proved himself, because as a son with his father he has served with me in the work of the gospel.[5]
The concept of the work and workers carried over from Jesus to the early church, and is a term found frequently in the letters. Paul’s strategy in recruiting, training and deploying church leaders can be clearly traced in Acts, most clearly in Timothy. Here was an enormously gifted young man whom Paul took under his wing at the recommendation of the church[6], and who learnt both theology and good pastoral practice[7] over a number of years. He learnt by being close to good teaching and by being sent out on his own, whether to friendly or hostile settings[8].
This was a pattern which Timothy was to put into practice[9], and which it is clear Paul expected Timothy to expect of others.[10] So here is a second set of challenges for us today. Are you, like the church at Lystra, actively nurturing and seeking out the next generation of workers from among your members? Are you spending time with them to make sure that they have a good theological grasp and a range of ministry experiences? Having prayed that God will raise up workers, are you expecting him to answer that prayer from among your membership, and are you ready to have an apprentice when he does?
Are you supporting future workers?
The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honour, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages."[11]
These workers will spend the majority of their time in preaching and teaching, and so it’s important they have the skills and reliability to do that properly.[12] Workers who have reliability without ability will bore people, but workers who have ability without reliability will become plausible false teachers. To ensure that the workers are able to do the job faithfully they need appropriate resources. In a word, cash.
Someone who cuts off a promising career to work with a church part-time and explore what full-time church work might mean needs a salary. Someone who decides to spend time at a theological college needs money, and a decision to stay more than the bare minimum may mean no grant from central Church of England funds. For instance, supporting a married student at Oak Hill for a third or fourth year will cost about £20,000. Being obedient to what the Bible says about producing workers will mean more than praying for and identifying workers; it will mean your church agreeing to fund them realistically. We have recently started “Friends of Oak Hill” to provide bursaries for students, and we are looking for individuals and congegations to give to that fund.
Are you clear on what workers need to know?
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.[13]
The workers we all need are to do one task above all: to teach the Bible well. That means having a cool look at the kind of training available and choosing the best on this criterion: is this a training which will equip someone for a life-long ministry of faithful Bible teaching? Quite clearly that was what Paul gave Timothy, and what he expected Timothy to live up to and to build into others. It is they key question to ask.
It is vital that potential workers learn early on that this will be their primary and life-long task, and to evaluate every aspect of their ministry training in the light of it. Such training will include how the Bible is communicated publicly and privately, to a large crowd or a grieving daughter, to a new Christian or on a denominational committee. But the heart of the training must be correct and deep understanding of the Bible.
Deep understanding of the Bible leads to better understanding of other subjects, and good workers need a wide grasp of theology too: Biblical theology will help them put the entire Bible together in a coherent pattern, Systematic theology helps them sort the Biblical material into relevant areas and themes, Historical theology helps them understand how previous generations of Christians tackled their own burning issues, just like ethics tackles our own. Good training needs to incorporate understanding how our world understands itself and how to communicate to it, and how to plant, lead and pastor churches that will make the next generation of disciples. The Bible stands at the centre of all these disciplines, controlling and informing them, but they each need studying in their own right, and that takes time. The Church of England requires a minimum of two years, and we at Oak Hill prefer to say a minimum of three. It really does take that long to gain the basic skills.
To fall short at this point is to invalidate all that has gone on before. Poor theological training produces a number of reactions, but perhaps two are the most common. One is to act like an ostrich, refuse to learn from the error and rely on external support to survive and be trained. That may be a necessary life-raft in extreme circumstances, but it hardly seems a wise and long-term training strategy. Paul did not send Titus to Crete to be taught by the false teachers[14], and it seems an odd way to train workers who should be stretched and challenged, but under God’s word.
The other common reaction to poor theological education is that the student starts to believe it, either at the time or down the track. Even the best taught people can start to believe lies, as Judas would bear witness, but it is much more likely that people will believe lies if they are taught lies. Hence the consistent New Testament emphasis on proclaiming truth and silencing error. We wouldn’t recommend that someone joins and supports a church that teaches error, because we can foresee the dangerous consequences for them. We ought to apply the same principle to training our workers.
A strategy for obedience
What, then, is your church going to do to produce the workers our churches need for the future? What we have seen suggests a five-fold plan, which every congregation should have as part of its obedient strategy for making disciples.
· Praying
Ask God regularly to raise up workers.
· Identifying
Expect him to answer your prayers from among your congregation.
· Recruiting
Take such people under your wing to give them theological and ministerial experience. If this is beyond your current ability, contact an organisation like the 9:38 Web[15]
· Resourcing
Provide the money for them to have the fully rounded training they need.
· Training
Ensure that the training they have will equip them to handle God’s word properly and in depth, otherwise you are wasting your prayers, their time, and your church’s money.
[1] Matthew 9:35-38
[2] Ezekiel 34, Zechariah 11
[3] Ezekiel 34:11Zechariah 11:16
[4] Matthew 9:38
[5] Philippians 2:22
[6] Acts 16:2-3
[7] 2 Tim 3:10-17
[8] Phil 2:19-23; 1 Cor 16:10-11.
[9] 2 Tim 1:13
[10] 2 Tim 2:2
[11] 1 Timothy 5:17-18
[12] 2 Tim 2:2
[13] 2 Timothy 2:15
[14] Titus 1:10
[15] 9:38, 7 Spring House, 205 Kingston Road, London SW19 3NJ. Phone 0208 542 7240.
http://ninethirtyeight.org/
Friday, August 11, 2006
Falling sick at communion
THis is just an idea, OK, but...
when did someone last fall sick and die during your church’s Lord’s Supper? 1 Cor 11:30 is one of those embarrassing verses which we really wish weren’t in our Bibles. In the ESV it reads, from v27:
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another - if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home - so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come.
What was happening in those meetings? Gordon Fee suggests that Paul’s explanation here is “an ad hoc reflection on their own situation. Most likely Paul is stepping into prophetic role; by the Spirit he has seen a divine cause and effect between two otherwise independent realities.”[1]. A large part of me would like to find that true, because I would like these verses to be true only of the Corinthians and their particular problems. But that view comes at the high price of the non-applicability of these verses to any other church, and that troubles me.
On the other hand, if I want to keep the verses as more generally applicable, I need to ask some hard questions about the plausibility of what Paul says in the light of what happens in churches I have been part of - and even more in the case of churches I have chosen not to be part of. If Paul is saying what he seems to say, then shouldn’t we see a much more obvious expression of God’s judgement in our congregational meetings? And isn’t the absence of it rather troubling?
Consequences and reasons
I think the answer lies in the little connective which the ESV, in line with most other translators and commentators, gives as “therefore”, or some equivalent. In other words, you’ve done X, therefore Y happens. Y follows X as a logical consequence. I trip over therefore I fall down; I judge you wrongly at the Lord’s Supper therefore I get sick.
But the connective doesn’t necessarily have to mean “therefore”, although it often does. It can equally well mean “because”, and only the context determines it. Technically, it is dia with the accusative, touto, and according to the mainstream lexicon BADG it can mean “the reason why someth(ing) happens, results, exists: because of, for the sake of “, as well as “for this reason” [2]
Traditionally “for this reason” has been the preferred translation, but it is not clear why that has been chosen. Fee seems to say that “for this reason” ought to be chosen because if the phrase clearly means “because” the Greek ought to include the word “that” (either hoti or hina)[3], but that’s not required by BADG. Context, rather than a strict grammatical rule, seems to be the deciding factor at work here.
Discerning the body
Let’s slow it down. I’m not going to argue the case for this part, but I reckon, along with most Protestant commentators, that “discerning the body” here is principally to do with the relationships between the Corinthian Christians, albeit at the Lord’s Supper. Some are ruling others out of fellowship. It’s been common currency since 1 Corinthians 1 that they are a divisive and divided fellowship, divided one from another, from the other churches, and also from Paul. He has already argued that the danger they run in that is to divide themselves off from the Lord Jesus.
What is it that the Corinthians do not like about Paul? That he came in “weakness” (2:3). Paul’s argument is that their dislike of him is grounded more deeply, in that they do not like the message of the cross, which is also “weakness” (1:25). This sets up a theological battle that runs right through to chapter 15, where the pre-resurrection body (which the Corinthians despise, but which is actually our right home at present) is sown in “weakness” but raised in power. The very things the Corinthians love: power, glory and spiritual life are features of the future resurrection body, and the very things they despise, like weakness, dishonour and perishability, are not only features of life here and now, but hallmarks of the authenticity of Paul’s ministry because they are hallmarks of the cross (1 Cor 15 passim.).
On what grounds, then, are the Corinthians dividing from Paul, and the authentic gospel of the cross? Among others, their dislike of weakness. On what grounds then, might they be refusing to discern the body, and divide from one another? Might it not also be those same issues of accepting or denying the reality and weakness of physical life and ministry before the resurrection? I think that’s plausible from the rest of I Corinthians.
Why does God judge?
At which point, the alternative translation of 1 Cor 11:30 becomes very plausible too. Just swapping the words is a bit clunky, but it shows the issue:
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself, because many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
or, more easily to our ears,
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, because many of you are weak and ill, and some have died, eats and drinks judgment on himself
In other words, the issue is now the basis on which the Corinthians are discerning the body. And what some of them are doing is saying that because others are falling sick, weak and dying, then they do not rightly belong to Christ because they do not exhibit the true resurrection life. If they did, we might guess they would say, there would be no such weakness. The very presence of sickness and weakness in you proves that you are not a true believer.
This doesn’t stop the verses being very troubling, because the reality is still that failing to discern the body rightly incurs God’s judgement. But it removes the need for an immediate judgement, which is what the traditional translation seems to imply but which our ears and eyes tell us doesn’t seem to happen, and it removes the need to require a greater self-examination by the sick, which is pastorally helpful. If I’m right, it’s the healthy, strong and powerful who need to take greater care, because they might be despising those who are actually closer to the reality of gospel ministry.
[1] Gordon Fee: The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) p.565.
[2] W. Bauer, W.F.Arndt, F.W Danker: A Greek-English Lexiconoif the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) p181, their italics.
[3] Fee p.518.
when did someone last fall sick and die during your church’s Lord’s Supper? 1 Cor 11:30 is one of those embarrassing verses which we really wish weren’t in our Bibles. In the ESV it reads, from v27:
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another - if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home - so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come.
What was happening in those meetings? Gordon Fee suggests that Paul’s explanation here is “an ad hoc reflection on their own situation. Most likely Paul is stepping into prophetic role; by the Spirit he has seen a divine cause and effect between two otherwise independent realities.”[1]. A large part of me would like to find that true, because I would like these verses to be true only of the Corinthians and their particular problems. But that view comes at the high price of the non-applicability of these verses to any other church, and that troubles me.
On the other hand, if I want to keep the verses as more generally applicable, I need to ask some hard questions about the plausibility of what Paul says in the light of what happens in churches I have been part of - and even more in the case of churches I have chosen not to be part of. If Paul is saying what he seems to say, then shouldn’t we see a much more obvious expression of God’s judgement in our congregational meetings? And isn’t the absence of it rather troubling?
Consequences and reasons
I think the answer lies in the little connective which the ESV, in line with most other translators and commentators, gives as “therefore”, or some equivalent. In other words, you’ve done X, therefore Y happens. Y follows X as a logical consequence. I trip over therefore I fall down; I judge you wrongly at the Lord’s Supper therefore I get sick.
But the connective doesn’t necessarily have to mean “therefore”, although it often does. It can equally well mean “because”, and only the context determines it. Technically, it is dia with the accusative, touto, and according to the mainstream lexicon BADG it can mean “the reason why someth(ing) happens, results, exists: because of, for the sake of “, as well as “for this reason” [2]
Traditionally “for this reason” has been the preferred translation, but it is not clear why that has been chosen. Fee seems to say that “for this reason” ought to be chosen because if the phrase clearly means “because” the Greek ought to include the word “that” (either hoti or hina)[3], but that’s not required by BADG. Context, rather than a strict grammatical rule, seems to be the deciding factor at work here.
Discerning the body
Let’s slow it down. I’m not going to argue the case for this part, but I reckon, along with most Protestant commentators, that “discerning the body” here is principally to do with the relationships between the Corinthian Christians, albeit at the Lord’s Supper. Some are ruling others out of fellowship. It’s been common currency since 1 Corinthians 1 that they are a divisive and divided fellowship, divided one from another, from the other churches, and also from Paul. He has already argued that the danger they run in that is to divide themselves off from the Lord Jesus.
What is it that the Corinthians do not like about Paul? That he came in “weakness” (2:3). Paul’s argument is that their dislike of him is grounded more deeply, in that they do not like the message of the cross, which is also “weakness” (1:25). This sets up a theological battle that runs right through to chapter 15, where the pre-resurrection body (which the Corinthians despise, but which is actually our right home at present) is sown in “weakness” but raised in power. The very things the Corinthians love: power, glory and spiritual life are features of the future resurrection body, and the very things they despise, like weakness, dishonour and perishability, are not only features of life here and now, but hallmarks of the authenticity of Paul’s ministry because they are hallmarks of the cross (1 Cor 15 passim.).
On what grounds, then, are the Corinthians dividing from Paul, and the authentic gospel of the cross? Among others, their dislike of weakness. On what grounds then, might they be refusing to discern the body, and divide from one another? Might it not also be those same issues of accepting or denying the reality and weakness of physical life and ministry before the resurrection? I think that’s plausible from the rest of I Corinthians.
Why does God judge?
At which point, the alternative translation of 1 Cor 11:30 becomes very plausible too. Just swapping the words is a bit clunky, but it shows the issue:
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself, because many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.
or, more easily to our ears,
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, because many of you are weak and ill, and some have died, eats and drinks judgment on himself
In other words, the issue is now the basis on which the Corinthians are discerning the body. And what some of them are doing is saying that because others are falling sick, weak and dying, then they do not rightly belong to Christ because they do not exhibit the true resurrection life. If they did, we might guess they would say, there would be no such weakness. The very presence of sickness and weakness in you proves that you are not a true believer.
This doesn’t stop the verses being very troubling, because the reality is still that failing to discern the body rightly incurs God’s judgement. But it removes the need for an immediate judgement, which is what the traditional translation seems to imply but which our ears and eyes tell us doesn’t seem to happen, and it removes the need to require a greater self-examination by the sick, which is pastorally helpful. If I’m right, it’s the healthy, strong and powerful who need to take greater care, because they might be despising those who are actually closer to the reality of gospel ministry.
[1] Gordon Fee: The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) p.565.
[2] W. Bauer, W.F.Arndt, F.W Danker: A Greek-English Lexiconoif the New Testament (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) p181, their italics.
[3] Fee p.518.
Fresh Expressions
I don't know if anyone else has spotted this, but there's a fascinating confusion in the CofE's report 'Mission Shaped Church', which might explain why some odd expressions of church get included.
On p. 96 it attempts an ecclesiology, and says, The four classic marks of the Church, enshrined in the Nicene creed, as 'one, holy, catholic and apostolic', remind the Church of its true nature and calling...
It then gives a brief summary of each of them, and goes off into more Anglican territory with Episcopacy, and so on.
BUT...
these aren't the 'marks' of the church. The marks of the church are described in the 39 Articles in classic Reformed style as 'a congregation of godly (people) where the word of God is preached and the sacraments duly administered'. That is, they describe the church observably, in its activities. (On the old Reformed question about discipline as a mark, with a typical Anglican shimmy the Articles don't include it but the Book of Homilies does)
The four creedal definitions (one, holy, catholic and apostolic) are technically the notae of the church, and they define us more by who we are than what we do.
I reckon we need both together for a reasonable self understanding. Only using the creedal four (and then mistakenly calling them the 'marks') gives the impression that bible teaching and so on is optional - which of course it is in some of the church-as-skateboard-park options.
I don't have a problem with meeting in a skateboard park, and I reckon we're going to have to get a lot more radical yet to reach today's cultures. But I do have a problem with using the concept 'church' for something which lacks some of its core definitions, and is -at best - much needed pre-evangelism.
BUT...
these aren't the 'marks' of the church. The marks of the church are described in the 39 Articles in classic Reformed style as 'a congregation of godly (people) where the word of God is preached and the sacraments duly administered'. That is, they describe the church observably, in its activities. (On the old Reformed question about discipline as a mark, with a typical Anglican shimmy the Articles don't include it but the Book of Homilies does)
The four creedal definitions (one, holy, catholic and apostolic) are technically the notae of the church, and they define us more by who we are than what we do.
I reckon we need both together for a reasonable self understanding. Only using the creedal four (and then mistakenly calling them the 'marks') gives the impression that bible teaching and so on is optional - which of course it is in some of the church-as-skateboard-park options.
I don't have a problem with meeting in a skateboard park, and I reckon we're going to have to get a lot more radical yet to reach today's cultures. But I do have a problem with using the concept 'church' for something which lacks some of its core definitions, and is -at best - much needed pre-evangelism.
European Leadership Forum, May 2006, Eger, Hungary
The European Leadership Forum is a relatively new annual gathering of leaders of Evangelical movements and organisations from all over Europe, from the west coast of Ireland to the border with China, and from Siberia down to the bottom of Greece, to focus on issues of evangelism, apologetics and biblical truth. Over 350 people attended, from 32 countries (I think we’ve been at war with each of the other 31 at some point!), for five days in a large hotel in Western Hungary.
To be allowed to be present at a moment in history when with a common language (English) and gospel passion we can pray and co-ordinate across an entire continent is quite extraordinary. On the Wednesday I stood on a balcony with Sergei Korniyenko, who leads a seminary in the Ukraine, and we marvelled that to have such a conversation, quite openly, in Hungary, is possible in 2006.
Don Carson gave the main Bible readings, working through the Pastorals Epistles in typically brilliant style, and participants then spent most of our time either in one of several tracks (Apologists, Evangelists, Theologians, Scientists, Counsellors, Artists etc.) or in some integrated workshops. I was both a participant in the Theologians network and a speaker on the Leaders of Christian Organisations network. I was genuinely surprised and humbled at the enthusiasm, passion and sheer hard work for the gospel that is happening across the globe. It is such an encouragement and blessing to be among people like that. I was also surprised by the very high profile and reputation of Oak Hill. Almost without exception people knew of us, and many were aware of what we are trying to do. Because there are several colleges our size in the UK, and many much larger ones in the States, we fail to see that we have resources and size that dwarfs anything comparable anywhere on continental Europe. I think that gives us a responsibility to make more of it publicly and freely available, probably on the web.
Brilliant though Don Carson was, the high point for me came at the end, with two long seminars, one on Pastors and Pornography, and the other on Homosexuality, both led by Dr Richard Winter who has worked in these and related areas for a number of years. He was at L’Abri in England for many years, and now teaches at Covenant Seminary in the States. We are trying to arrange for him to come across and speak at College,
If you wish to know more, or think you might wish to attend next year, the forum website is http://www.euroleadership.org/ and all the talks will appear there, free, together with all the material from previous years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
