Our Father ...
Last night was the first of the Annual Moore College Lectures (AMCL) for 2006. Dr Gerald Bray is delivering five talks on the theology of the Lord's Prayer. For more details, click here
Last night he spoke on the first clause of the prayer 'Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed by thy name' and delivered a clear, pastorally sensitive and encouraging message that taught us about the nature of prayer and particularly the nature of the God whom we address as Father.
He helpfully observed that the Lord's prayer was not a mantra for us to repeat over and over, but was a pattern to be followed and adapted. It's simplicity belies the depth of theology contained within it.
He reflected on the difference between God and humanity. While Jesus invites us to share with him and enter into his relationship with the Father by addressing him as 'Our Father' we remain different to God. We do not naturally share in God's nature. While we are in God's image, this refers not to our sharing of God's nature (something that only the Son and the Spirit share) but to our personhood. Bray argued that we image God in our ability to create and sustain relationships with others. These relationships exist at a horizontal level, with other persons and at a vertical level with God himself. Our relationship with the Father is not contractual, but familial. To pray 'Our Father' is to confess the trinity and obtain access into the divine being. There was much to mull over and be encouraged by.
Much discussion was generated about the transcendence and imminence of God. If God is wholly other, and different to us, how can we relate to him? How can this wholly other God come into the world and what light does the incarnation shed on our understanding?
Dr Bray's answers to these questions reminded me of some of the discussions we had in Doctrine of God classes at Oak Hill as we grappled with the humanity and divinity of Jesus. If I understood correctly, he observed that we must remember that on the cross Jesus died according to his human nature, thus we can say in one sense that 'God died on the cross' but we must remember that it was the son who died and not the father (we are not patri-passianists ). I think he tried to tie together the dual nature of the son by saying that we must remember that it is Jesus' divine nature that is in control of all things and sustains the world - and thus remains in control of his human nature. I'll be interested to see how he develops this further in the later lectures.
Last night he spoke on the first clause of the prayer 'Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed by thy name' and delivered a clear, pastorally sensitive and encouraging message that taught us about the nature of prayer and particularly the nature of the God whom we address as Father.
He helpfully observed that the Lord's prayer was not a mantra for us to repeat over and over, but was a pattern to be followed and adapted. It's simplicity belies the depth of theology contained within it.
He reflected on the difference between God and humanity. While Jesus invites us to share with him and enter into his relationship with the Father by addressing him as 'Our Father' we remain different to God. We do not naturally share in God's nature. While we are in God's image, this refers not to our sharing of God's nature (something that only the Son and the Spirit share) but to our personhood. Bray argued that we image God in our ability to create and sustain relationships with others. These relationships exist at a horizontal level, with other persons and at a vertical level with God himself. Our relationship with the Father is not contractual, but familial. To pray 'Our Father' is to confess the trinity and obtain access into the divine being. There was much to mull over and be encouraged by.
Much discussion was generated about the transcendence and imminence of God. If God is wholly other, and different to us, how can we relate to him? How can this wholly other God come into the world and what light does the incarnation shed on our understanding?
Dr Bray's answers to these questions reminded me of some of the discussions we had in Doctrine of God classes at Oak Hill as we grappled with the humanity and divinity of Jesus. If I understood correctly, he observed that we must remember that on the cross Jesus died according to his human nature, thus we can say in one sense that 'God died on the cross' but we must remember that it was the son who died and not the father (we are not patri-passianists ). I think he tried to tie together the dual nature of the son by saying that we must remember that it is Jesus' divine nature that is in control of all things and sustains the world - and thus remains in control of his human nature. I'll be interested to see how he develops this further in the later lectures.
posted by Mandy at
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
1 Comments:
I found this very lengthy post on divine im/passibility very helpful (though not simple - sorry). Worth reading in full if you've got the time and inclination. He is responding to another six theses written by someone else.
Thanks for writing these summaries Mandy, they are useful records of the lectures.
By
byron smith, at Friday, August 11, 2006 11:04:00 am
Post a Comment
<< Home