Peter, how did you come to Christ?
In my final year of high school, I came across some Christians who told me the gospel. I thought, “If that is true, that is the best news I have ever heard”. It took me about 12 months to work out that it was true.
How do you occupy your time?
I have the privilege of working at Moore College, teaching students eager to learn about the Lord Jesus Christ.
Tell us a bit about your background or other interests.
I’m Tasmanian by birth, then from country NSW. I was converted at 17. I studied medicine and left it to go into ministry. I love music of all kinds, I love swimming, I like humour and good conversation. I have four daughters who are my life.
What are some books that really helped you grow as a Christian?
- L Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination: this helped me to work out who is in charge.
- J Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion: this helped me to understand the Christain faith in which I stand.
- K Barth, Church Dogmatics: this helped me to understand the world christocentrically, and in the light of the freedom of God and the freedom of his creatures. (SG: I just linked to Vol I.1!)
What are you reading now?
K Barth, The Christian Life. It was not published by him in his lifetime, but it was published later, and comes from his notes as the final bit of the Church Dogmatics.
And what books would you recommend as must-reads right now?
- K Barth, Evangelical Theology: here is our faith and piety.
- M Wilcock, I saw heaven opened: here is our future! (SG: Peter has used the original title; Wilcock’s book was a commentary on Revelation, now issued in the Bible Speaks Today series.)
What would you say are Barth’s strengths and weaknesses, speaking to someone like me who has not read very much of him at all?
Barth was self-consciously standing in the Reformed Tradition, and he sought to write theology that was God-honouring, Christ-centred and true to the word of God. Weaknesses? He wrote too much; will I ever get to the end of it all?
What would your friends say are your hobby horses?
Christ-centred understanding of Scriptures. Anti-moralism.
What’s something that makes you angry?
The bullying of people that is done in the name of Christianity, but is really the false religion of moralism.
Who is someone who inspires you?
My daughters. They show me what grace is really all about.
Describe your ideal day off.
Eating bacon and eggs with one of my girls (or more); doing washing for the week; cleaning the house; reading the paper; doing the crossword; walking the dogs and/or swimming with them across Botany Bay; having lamb chops for dinner; and enjoying an evening of reading or listening to music, or good conversation with friends or family.
Give us your top five consummate musicians.
- Led Zeppelin
- Rolling Stones
- Mozart
- Nickelback
- The Divinyls
Thank you, Peter!
Led Zeppelin
Rolling Stones
Mozart
Nickelback
The Divinyls
Important comment topic:
Which is the odd one out, and why?
<i>Barth was self-consciously standing in the Reformed Tradition, and he sought to write theology that was God-honouring, Christ-centred and true to the word of God. Weaknesses? He wrote too much; will I ever get to the end of it all?</i>
Hang on though, brother Bolt. I haven’t read much Barth either (all of Church Dogmatics Vol IV, and various bits over the years that friends have pointed out, so although it feels like a lot, I realize it isn’t).
But my reading of Barth—and yes, readers who have read Barth—suggests that he refuses to identify the Bible with the word of God, leaves the door open to universalism, and hesitates to remind people of judgement and the need to repent.
Now that may be second-hand scuttlebutt, but it’s scholarly scuttlebutt that appears to be well researched. I read it most recently in this book.
So if it’s true, it hardly stands in the Reformed tradition, does it? Any more than N.T. Wright, at least?
May I add that Peter was a very gracious and thorough doctoral thesis examiner. However, I’m curious as to how a Tasmanian could ever grow to be so tall. I thought most of them were hobbits who ate apples all day long and played cricket without ever winning.
Contra Gordon, I think Wright and Barth are in the “Reformed Camp” although we don’t have to like all the camping gear that they bring with them. Read Barth’s “Evangelical Theology” and his book of collected prayers and you’ll see where Peter is coming from.
<i>we don’t have to like all the camping gear that they bring with them.</i>
That’ll be the ‘plus’ in ‘gospel plus’ then.
I tend to think of Wright as Gospel plus works, and Barth as Gospel minus judgement, but then that’s probably just me.
‘Barth was self-consciously standing in the Reformed Tradition, and he sought to write theology that was God-honouring, Christ-centred’. Are you saying that he was NOT attempting to stand in this tradition? Is the ‘orthodox’ in the ‘neo-orthodox’ not his attempt? It sounds like are saying that he didn’t get there (by your standards), but this is not the same as saying this is not where he saw himself standing, is it?
The ‘refusal to identify the Bible with the word of God’ is a common furphy and caricature—he is protecting the fact that God revealed himself in the Word of God (i.e. The Word became flesh)—a thing that evangelicals who are increasingly a-historical need to keep remembering. He ‘leaves the door open for universalism’, in the same way as John 3:16 does. He ‘hesitates to remind people of judgement’—not so, he reminds people, just like the gospel does, that the judgement of God has already been borne by the Son of God on their behalf, so why take it upon themselves? And ignoring the need to repent?—not so, but perhaps the concept is missed by some when he puts it far more positively (following Scripture’s lead) that God has now invited fallen humanity to live truly as human beings for the first time in the freedom that has been brought by Jesus Christ.
Peter