Quote of the Day: Bruce on Biblical Theology and Magical Roundabouts

Our biblical theology must depend on our exegesis, not vice versa. If we allow our exegesis to be controlled by theologoumena, we shall quickly find ourselves involved in circular reasoning. I have friends who say, 'Well, yes; but then all theological reasoning is circular; let us simply make sure that we get into the right circle.' I have no wish to accompany them on this magic roundabout.

F.F. Bruce from The Canon of Scripture, 1988, p333

Pic from Dave Block

Jesus Heals Cancer: A Tale of Media Hype and Church Marketing

A certain church made national headlines last week with a billboard advertising Jesus' medicinal properties.

This has not gone unremarked, e.g. Dr Mark Keown (he of the remarkably poo coloured blog) has pontificated at length.  Now for the record, I do believe that Jesus heals cancer, but it it is also rather evident that he does not always heal cancer, which means those of us who believe he does heal need to be sensitive in how we express that in public settings - this sign manifestly fails to do that. But I am not wanting to blog about that, because, well, it is just a bit obvious.  Instead I want to ask two questions that don't seem to have been asked by anyone but that bug me no end.

1. Why is this a national news story?  This was not a national advertising campaign, but one billboard on one church in one town.  Local community newspapers are actually very good at reporting positive church events, if a church does a working bee or organises help for a local school or runs a special service for asylum seekers or some such the local paper will be happy to say what is going on.  The national media couldn't care less, and why should they?  But when a local church does something questionable, why should it appear on the national TV news and in the national papers?  Am I missing something here?  This is not a story of national importance, it is a local issue and the only reason it has become a national story is because the national news media has hyped it up into one.  Why is that?

2.  The second thing is that for me this billboard not only disrespects those who are suffering from cancer but also implies rather directly that Jesus only heals cancer at this particular church.  Now this suggestion has created some hostile reactions on facebook where I first mooted it, but let me explain:

The billboard proclaims, I quote, "Church, but not as you know it" - claiming other churches are not like this one.
And in what way is this church different from the ones I know (i.e. any other church I may have been to)?
Answer: This church is different because in this church "Jesus heals cancer."

We are so used to churches appropriating inappropriate marketing methods from the commercial world that we don't even notice where such comparative advertising leads us, but it actually leads us to denigrate God's people who sincerely worshipping him in the other churches around the town.  Why is it that this church feels that Jesus healing cancer should be or could be their unique selling point?  Do they think that Jesus isn't at work healing in other churches with different styles and pattern of worship?  Do churches in this country need their own advertising standards to help those churches who struggle not to embrace comparative commercial and insensitive advertising to stick to a standard that doesn't lead them to slander the bride of Christ?

I'm just asking.

Let me know what you think :-)

Brick-a-Brack 100312

Wow, it had been pretty lean picking on the blog reader for a while now but just in the last day lots of juicy morsels have appeared, you, faithful reader, may well enjoy the following,

• Tim Bulkely is finding unicorns in the Bible
• Loren Rosson has a cracking quote on biblical metaphors
• Nick Norelli ponder the old debate over topical V expository preaching
• Eddie Fearon looks at sin as an epistemological problem 
• Richard Bauckham weighs in on the Talpiot Tombs 

But all this talk about unicorns is a good excuse for this song, a perennial favourite in my family of about the real unicorns (of the sea).

Brick-a-Brack 080312: Special Whoop Ass Edition

Ok, all sorts of folk have been putting the internet smack down on some baddies this week,

• Goodacre and McGrath have been tag teaming James Tabor over the Talpiot Tombs
• Meanwhile John Byron puts the boot in on Christian colonialism (Go John GO!)
• Mike Bird simultaneously clothelines über-secularists and boring fundamentalists with his approach to the gospels
• And Franklin Graham body slams President Obama . . . no wait a minute, Franklin Graham body slams his own face into the ground and Gavin Rumney then pins him with precision for an easy win 

Real Sex - Lauren Winner: A Book Review

Winner's book came to me highly recommended.  It is a 161 pages and a fairly light read, aimed at the thinking Christian and not requiring any specialist knowledge to engage.  Lauren Winner is probably most famous for her two memoirs, Girl Meets God and Still.  This book has the odd autobiographical moment but on the whole is a practical theological exploration of the topic of chastity.

OT Background to the Narrow Road

I was preaching on Sunday on the narrow road bit of the sermon on the mount, Matt 7:13-14,

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

There is more here than meets the first glance. Long before Jesus' time choosing the right road/path was a well worn scriptural metaphor, e.g. Psalm 23:3, 86:11, Prov 2:20, to name but a few.   Now I think this whole section of the sermon, 7:13-27 echoes strongly Deuteronomy 30:11-20 where Moses puts "the decision" before Israel, but there are a further two passages from the prophets which I think should be seen a background to Jesus' words and applied when understanding the extent of Jesus' claims about his teaching and himself.

Quote of the Day: Fredriksen on History

If we as historians seek to understand how people in the distant past made sense to each other, then we have to work hard to reconstruct their world, not to project upon them concerns from ours. . . . . The dead are not our contemporaries, and if we think they are, we are not listening to them, but talking to ourselves.

Paula Fredriksen, cited by Larry Hurtado in a post on Paul and the continental philosophers

What a cracker, should probably be on the wall of every historian's study. But of course if we didn't find these dead people's words reflecting or illuminating our own concerns in some way we wouldn't bother with them at all.  The trick is not to let our resonance with their words (or other remains, e.g. art, narrative, etc) obscure the fact that that may well not have been what they meant to say, even if that is what we hear them saying to us.  Even in communicating to our living contemporaries we constantly risk misunderstanding, how much more with those removed from us in time, space, language, and cultural context.

What Pastors Should Really Be Doing

Well a couple of interesting posts recently on the subject,

Pastors should spend less time in cafes drinking coffee from Carey Leadership Blog and

7 Things the Church Expects from the Seminary. Which should actually be titled 7 Things the church expects its pastors to be able to do. To which I say, good luck with that.

Lots of things I'd like to respond to in them but today I don't have the energy. Instead I'll give you 4 things pastors (and anyone else) should base their ministry on based on Mark 1:9-13 the start of Jesus' ministry.

9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.” 12 At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness, 13 and he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.

So

1. We should minister out of the love and acceptance of our Father in Heaven - not our own needs and agendas. (v11)
2. We should be following the leading of the Spirit - not the latest techniques from the USA. (v12)
3. We should understand our vocation is constantly at risk of being derailed by the temptations of Satan - and so our enemy is the devil not the people who annoy us and inside us as much as outside. (v13a)
4. We should embrace the unpredictability and uncertainty of the company of wild animals and angels - not seek to control our lives so that God's work is limited to only what we can imagine and control. (v13b)

Let me know what you think, :-)

What do Adam and Satan have in common?

Whilst doing some reading on a completely different subject I was struck by the similarity between the issues with Adam we were discussing earlier and another biblical character, namely Satan. In Satan's case the transformation is even more profound.

1. If in Adam's case he barely gets another mention after Genesis, Satan does at least get a mention in a few different OT books, 1 Chron, Job and Zechariah.  But the situation is complicated, like Adam's, by the fact his name is also a noun, "accuser." 
2. Satan's role in the gospels as Jesus' tempter is congruent with OT behaviour, but he seems to take on a less ambiguous role, no longer merely an accuser but God's enemy whose works are to be undone. In the NT Satan is presented more as being in diometric opposition to God, rather than just stirring up trouble for human beings as in the OT.
3. Unlike Adam, the promotion of Satan (who is now also identified as or conflated with "the Devil", a Greek word - diabolos - to the Hebrew word satan) happens across a broader range of NT scripture, all the gospels, Paul, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 1 John, and especially Revelation all reflect his importance as God's enemy. 
4. Back to the problem of original sin, the association of the serpent with Satan which is so easily made by evangelical theologians is actually only made in Revelation, and it is hard to say whether the author was intending to be 'literal" (;-)) about the connection.  In actual fact Genesis 3 is at pains to mention the serpent is a  חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה "beast of the field" or "wild animal" (Gen 3:1) which surely precludes him from being the personification of an evil supernatural entity.

So what do Adam and Satan have in common?  Well they both receive a significant theological promotion in importance between testaments and they both have been part of the traditional Christian answer to the origin of (original/hereditary) sin, but neither of them really have the scriptural mandate to take the blame for that first sin (if there ever was one, Tim).

Let me know what you think, :-)

Theology of Hospitality

I'm preaching on Acts 16:11-15 this morning, and although I think the main point of the passage is Paul's multiple boundary crossing acceptance of Lydia, it's got me thinking too about hospitality - a notable subtheme of Luke/Acts.  here is a quick sketch of a biblical theology of hospitality, I'm sure more could be added, please do so in the comments!

Creation - In the biblical account of creation God is portrayed as the divine host making a home for all earth's creatures and providing them with food.

Israel - In the desert God hosts his people on their pilgrimage, providing water, bread and meat.  At the same time he teaches them to host him, by providing a tabernacle and sacrifices they play host to God.

Incarnation - Jesus' first act is to be a guest of someone else, and throughout his ministry as an itinerant preacher he is dependent on the hospitality of others, his gratuitous "guesting" brings him criticism (friend of sinners) but was a central part of his message.  But in the feeding of the 5,000 and 4,000, in the miraculous provision of fish or even a room to share passover Jesus reveals himself as host, echoing both Gods hosting in creation and in the exodus.  In giving himself upon the cross Jesus offers us his own body (John 6, 1 Cor 11) and in his triumph over death prepares a home for all God's people to live as God's guests (John 14, Rev 21).

Eschatology - Isaiah 25 promises a divinely provided feast for all nations, while Matt 22 uses the image of a wedding feast with God as host to describe the kingdom.

Ecclesiology - So as God's people a key spiritual discipline is to image, enact and embody both God's hospitality and God's condescension as guest, in sharing bread and wine, in opening our homes to strangers, in being willingly dependent on the hospitality of others (esp in mission), in giving thanks for the gifts of creation and in sharing them with an open hand.

⁶ On this mountain the LORD Almighty will prepare
   a feast of rich food for all peoples,
a banquet of aged wine—
   the best of meats and the finest of wines.
⁷ On this mountain he will destroy
   the shroud that enfolds all peoples,
the sheet that covers all nations;
 ⁸ he will swallow up death forever.
The Sovereign LORD will wipe away the tears
   from all faces;
he will remove the disgrace of his people
   from all the earth.
            The LORD has spoken. (Isaiah 25)

Adam and Paul

This post on Jesus Creed is mind blowing, although it is really just a summary discussion of some of Peter Enns book, The Evolution of Adam.

The basic points are:

1. Nothing in the OT gives Adam the importance protestant theology does
2. Nothing in the OT suggests that Adam's sin is imparted to his offspring
3. Paul's emphasis on Adam is an innovation in terms of the OT resulting from his encounter with Christ

I would add to those points that Adam is mentioned in only 3 of Paul's letter (Rom, 1 Cor, 1 Tim) and only twice in the NT outside of Paul.  Both those occurences are in terms of genealogy rather than assertions of hereditary sin (Luke 3:38, Jude 14) . He gets a total of 9 mentions in the NT. By contrast Abraham is mentioned over 70 times in the NT, in all four gospels and across both Pauline and catholic epistles.

Now I think those points are more or less irrefutable, but of course the implications are not so clear.  I know Enns' thesis is really about whether or not Christians need to understand Gen 2-3 as literal history or something else.  But long before we get to that topic I'd say this suggests our protestant emphasis on hereditary sin is at the very least an overemphasis and most likely a misreading of Paul.  Which send me scurrying to look at Rom 5:12-21 and 1 Cor 15 again, and I think to myself, this is possible . . .

Action points: I'm going to have to read Enns' book myself (I thought Inspiration and Incarnation was overrated, so wasn't going to bother) and I'm going to have to do some exegesis on these Pauline Adam passages.

So, what do you think? :-)

The Jerk Factory

This article by Richard Beck is doing the rounds again, and there are some classic quotes there. Here's a great bit:

"Christianity" has essentially become a mechanism for allowing millions of people to replace being a decent human being with something else, an endorsed "spiritual" substitute. For example, rather than being a decent human being the following is a list of some commonly acceptable substitutes:

• Going to church
• Worship
• Praying
• Spiritual disciplines (e.g., fasting)
• Bible study
• Voting Republican
• Going on spiritual retreats
• Reading religious books
• Arguing with evolutionists
• Sending your child to a Christian school or providing education at home
• Using religious language
• Avoiding R-rated movies
• Not reading Harry Potter.

The point is that one can fill a life full of spiritual activities without ever, actually, trying to become a more decent human being. Much of this activity can actually distract one from becoming a more decent human being. In fact, some of these activities make you worse, interpersonally speaking. Many churches are jerk factories. 

It resonated with me a bit because last month I was talking with a guy who runs a home for migrants and Christians in trouble.  What he found was that many of the (Asian) migrants were far better human beings than the local Christians.  The foreigners would help with household chores cheerfully and without complaining, while the Christians would often complain or avoid helping altogether and were often surly and unpleasant to be around.  This was a problem for that guy and it is clearly a problem for Richard Beck.  You can read Beck's article for yourself but I think he has two main concerns.

1. Christians are supposed to be nice people
2. If Christians aren't nice people that will put others off Christianity

Now I am all for decent human behaviour, I get very stressed by people who are rude or antisocial and do not respect others. But on the other hand I'm not sure the jerk factory is the church.  I encounter jerks everywhere.  Today I had to ask one jerk to collect the turd that his dog/wolf left on my front lawn.  Jerks regularly leave their rubbish around the parks and beaches where I like to walk.  A beaurocratic jerk sent a 30 page document back to me because one word was missing from my address when I wrote it for the 3rd time, despite the fact that that word was not necessary for the address to be clearer as there is only one road by the name in the entire country!  Jerks are endemic, prolific and pretty much under or crapping on every rock you pass.  And so in a world loaded with jerks you kind of hope lots of Christians are jerks because well, if God doesn't save jerks then we're screwed.  Yes I would hope being a Christian would mitigate that behaviour, and as sanctificatinon takes place jerkish behaviour should reduce.  I don't have a problem with wanting Christians to work on not being such jerks - I'm working on such things myself and on myself.

But here's the thing.  I don't believe if all Christians stop being jerks everyone is suddenly going to convert.  "Wow you Christians are such nice people can I join your wierd religious club?"  And neither do I believe it is an acceptable excuse for turning your back on God just because Christians/church didn't behave very well sometime.  I see jerks everyday on the road, I still drive a car.  I hear jerks everyday on the radio phone ins, I still use a phone and listen to the radio.  Jerks go to supermarkets, schools, swimming pools and beaches but I do not use their behaviour as a reason to put me off these activities.  But people often use the jerks in church as an excuse not to be part of what God is doing in the world, and frankly that is a pathetic reason.  And now Beck has validated one more poor excuse for turning your back on God, "those Christians don't tip very well."  But I am unvalidating it.  If you are letting jerks put you off from the glories and hope of Jesus Christ, stop it right now!

Why should your salvation be dependent on the actions of jerks?

Things I Know Nothing About: A Theology Student's Song

I wrote this a few years ago when I was a student and thought some of my readers might enjoy it.

If you like it then you might want to like my Jonathan Robinson (Music) page on Facebook and keep up with my other musical offerings as they appear.

A short thought on Euodia and Syntyche

Larry Hurtado makes some interesting observations this morning about women in Acts, but even before I checked my blog reader (!) I had been reading Philippians and among other things was struck by the Euodia and Syntyche bit (Phil 4:2-3).

I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to agree with each other in the Lord.  Yes, and I ask you, loyal Syzygus, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

No I don't think I've noticed this passage coming up in the complementarian/egalitarian debate (perhaps I just didn't notice), but it seems to me highly relevant.  Firstly, in pleading with the two women Paul is hardly assuming either their submission or his inherent gender based authority. Secondly in saying they contended at his side (along with Clement and others) he is presumable referring either to their joining with him in preaching and evangelism or their participation on Paul's side with internal disputes within the church - all of which render highly problematic the suggestion that Paul did not allow women to teach or have authority.

Let me know what you think :-)

Cover Version Redaction Criticism

So the first time I encountered this song was in a youtube clip shared on facebook by my friend Dale.  It is most notable for the extremely creative way 5 people (Walk off the Earth) are playing just one guitar simultaneously.  I have seen and even particpated in 2 people playingone guitar but five is pretty special.  As far as I know that was a first?  The girl is playing diads on the top, the long haired dude is playing the melody around her, and the guy next to him plays the bass line on the low E (top) string. Of the remaining two, fresh face plays percussion and hat+beard strum the strings above the nut. It is a cool song, but the unusual mode of delivery tends to overshadow the song. 
--

--
Then Nick Norelli linked to this video, by an a cappella group called Pentatonix.  This is another nice arrangement, with impressive beat boxing and gorgeous harmonies.  Notable consistency between the versions is the lyrics and bass line, the lyrics pass between a male and female singer and the bass line remains the same.  There is also a guy with a beard and a beanie standing on the far right with a strange expression on his face in both versions. So one might posit that we could expect to find these characteristics in the original. 

---
So after some digging on youtube I found this live version by the original artist.  Interestingly while the lyrics, girl guy exchange and bass line are consistent across versions, the original does not have a guy with a beard and beanie, standing on the right, or indeed anywhere on camera.  I would therefore posit that this development happened during the period of the first cover version perhaps due to the great wooly hat controversy that may have been raging at that time.  What we can see is that the original guy in a beard actual is on the right and wears not a beanie but a pair of headphones denoting status.  In the cover versions, however, the guy with the beard has been moved and given a wooly hat, denoting homelessness and an uncompromising right wing ideology.  We can see in these cover versions a clear example of the marginalisation and mockery of bearded men as part of the anti-beard culture which became prevalent in the music community early last year.  Thus the original message and purpose of the song has been subtly corrupted despite many features remaining otherwise undisturbed.

----