Monday, November 30, 2009
Greg Boyd is working on a new book reconciling "the violent God of the O.T. with the crucified God of the new." He helpfully lists his six principles which he will expound in the book. He has some really interesting ideas there. Boyd is also one of the more vocal Open Theism proponents, he provides an article arguing that the "two driving motivations that led early Christians to assume God knows the future exhaustively as a realm of definite facts (rather than partly as a domain of possibilities) derive from pre-Christian pagan philosophy." I'm looking forward to reading it sometime.
On the other hand Steve of Undeception appears to be going to town on Gen 1-11 posting on Gen 1 and on the Fall. I hadn't been to his blog in ages but he seems to be going off on one regarding inerrancy, etc. Can't help but feel he is ploughing some tired old ground, but good on him for trying.
And this one is old, but I came across it recently, let me just warn you, it could ruin your enjoyment of the Lord of the Rings films forever . . . but you should still read it.
The Jews of the Hellenistic Diaspora thus found themselves interpreting their particularity in terms of a thought-world that bore no original relationship to it. The particularity of Israel was sometimes a burden to them in relationships with Gentiles, but it was also essential to their own sense of national and religious identity. Without it, they could not survive as a people. yet they could not survive with it, either, unless they were prepared to explain and defend it in terms intelligible to the larger world, and the very process of explanation and defense tended to alter the characteristic of the thing being explained.
From, Dirt, Greed and Sex, by L. William Countryman.
The great problem with today's Christian public interaction is that it is largely reactive and so the agenda has been set from outside the church. The result is that the church becomes increasingly positioned over and against secondary and marginal issues which in turn become much greater and assume a more central significance than they should have. In defending our faith against these attacks we run the danger of becoming a caricature of ourselves and losing sight of what really makes us who we are. Apologetics is very important, even essential, to maintaining a diaspora identity but it must be done wisely with an eye on the effect engaging in such a defense has on us. The first task of apologetics should not be to convince the scoffer but to preserve the integrity of that which is being defended. Otherwise even if we win such battles they will be only Pyrrhic Victories.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
According to Paul, again in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, the risen Jesus was seen by individuals and groups . . . This early tradition interlocks with the multiple accounts in the Gospels that narrate persons seeing, hearing and touching the resurrected Jesus. There are clear divergences in the details provided by the Evangelists that do not appear to add up; indeed, we can speak of an excited bewilderment as to exactly where, when and who saw the risen Jesus and in what order, but this only adds to the realism. In the words of E.P Sanders: 'Calculated deception should have produced greater unanimity. Instead there seems to have been competitors: "I saw him first!" "No! I did."' [The Historical Figure of Jesus, 1993, p280] As we investigate the various stories of the appearances at the tomb, in a locked room, on a road out of Jerusalem, in Galilee and by the Lake of Tiberius we are led to the conclusion that several individuals and groups believed that they had genuinely seen Jesus alive in a physical mode of existence after his death.
There is often the idea in people's heads, it seems to me, of a monolithic early Christian group agreeing on a fiction or delusion on which will rest the substance of their faith and then producing or selecting only those documents that seemed to substantiate those claims. But what is evidenced by the narrative in Acts and the composition of the NT itself is that from an early stage the church as a whole was scattered to different localities and although there would have been contact between the different groups (especially through relationships to significant figures) to some extent they evolved independently of each other. This is seen most clearly in the Gospel of John which relates a very different tradition to the other three gospels.
Instead the NT is something of an "ecumenical" document representing a number of different strands of early Christianity (e.g. Matthean, Johanine, Pauline, Petrine, etc). This is why each gospel shows evidence of having access to different sources than the others, although Mathew and Luke both seem to have had access to both Mark and a sayings tradition, "Q". The scattering that took place near the start of Church history meant that no harmonized authoritative version of events could be established. Instead, different communities independently recorded their best version of events. And this is exactly what the "contradictions" in the Resurrection narratives display, competing versions of an event that these different communities are nonetheless absolutely convinced took place. A convincing that was probably the result of hearing eye witness testimony and having it verified in their own personal religious experience. The fact that the gospel Resurrection accounts contradict each other in the details does not stop them all confirming the same event in its essentials.
To conclude: I couldn't give a tinker's fart how many angels were present or who saw him first, but if Jesus of Nazareth really was raised from the dead then that is something worth knowing about!
Thursday, November 26, 2009
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. (NIV)
yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (NRSV)
I have taken the liberty of putting every word which the Greek text does not include in bold italic. When there is no verb the interpreter has to decide what is intended. Is it simply an equative construction that is establishing a general relationship between the subject and object, or is there a verb implied by the context, or is it an ellipsis (missing verb) that indicates a well know saying where the verb does not need to be supplied because the original reader already knows the saying? 1 Corinthians 8:6 could be translated,
but for us one God, The Father, out from whom everything and us into him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom everything and us through him. (my rough trans.)Which makes quite a bit of sense even without those verbs, and even perhaps makes a different sense once deprived of those verbs. It sounds now possibly like a statement of theosis. You might then interpret it to be saying, "Everything has come from God, and our destiny is to become like him. Everything that is came from God through Christ and it is through Christ that we will become like God."
In the context of 1 Corinthians 8 and its discussion of idolatry this makes as much sense as the other interpretations. It is then not just that God is the only god because he is the only creator but also that he is the only God because he is the only god with whom we anticipate union through Christ.
Let me know what you think :-)
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
I know I could not expect much hope at a non-christian funeral. Although the clergy person on duty was quite frankly a total waste of space, I have never heard anyone before use the theory of emergence to comfort grieving people and I hope never to again. I think I was probably the only person there to know what he was going on about, how many people have studied emergence theory in relation to theology? (maybe lots have, I have led a sheltered life) Certainly his incoherent ramblings, pseudo-scientific speculations, and half hearted biblical allusions didn't leave anyone the wiser.
But everyone seemed angry at the universe or God or whatever for what had happened. Fair enough, those feelings were real and needed to be expressed. But that same universe in which the dearly departed had suffered a tragic death was the only universe in which she could ever have existed. In one sense, for that wonderful person to have existed in the way she did, she also had to die the way she did.
When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other.
These words from Ecclesiastes 7:14 make the point. When we are angry about the bad we need to remember that we didn't complain when we received the good. Whether it is God or just some faceless universe everything in life ultimately comes to us from the same hand. Even at times of loss gratitude needs to be expressed. Gratitude for a life well lived and for love given and received. Remembrance will bring pain but it should also bring happiness, because although you feel the loss now, it would have been worse to never have known who you are missing at all.
Another verse from Ecclesiastes 7, verse 2:
It is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of feasting, for death is the destiny of every man; the living should take this to heart.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
2 Kings 5, I did this one following the flow of the three sections of narrative calling attention to the "small things" on which the story turns:
Vs 1-7. The contrast between the mighty military commander Naaman afflicted with a nasty skin condition and the nameless Israelite slave girl who takes pity on him. And the contrast between the King (Jehoram?) of Israel's poverty of faith and that of the slave girl.
Vs 8-19. We then have Naaman learning about the god of Israel. A God who is no respecter of persons. Who cannot be bought. And yet who gives his grace and healing in return for the simplest of obediences. It is another nameless servant who convinces his master to humble himself to such a small deed. And Naaman is healed and is converted to the worship of the God of Israel.
Of course this is a great point to talk about how God saves us in Christ, something we could never buy or acheive but that is given to us in the simple act of obedience when we come to Christ to be cleansed of our sin - so that's exactly what I did.
So far so good, God at work in the little people and the small things, and an OT gospel message as an added extra. At this point we are all feeling pretty good. But this story has a sting in its tail . . .
Vs 20-27. Gehazi, Elisha's servant, doesn't get that Naaman is being taught about God and doesn't want him to get let off lightly. He tells a little lie and gets a little treasure. in doing so he undermines the lessons Naaman has been taught, makes out that God's grace is something that can be bought, and on the cheap at that. Then he tells another little lie to Elisha. His punishment, he gets stricken with Naaman's skin disease.
So, the small things matter, both the good and the bad. Don't despise the little people and the small deeds, and don't imagine the small sins don't matter either.
Acts 5:1-11, I did a little differently to normal as it is one of those texts where I think we need to acknowledge our discomfort and difficulty.
First I talked about the contrast between our cuddly domesticated God and the "wild God" of the Bible, who is dangerous and does things we don't expect or like. Christian maturity comes when we still seek to know and serve God when it turns out he is not tame and may allow or even cause bad stuff to happen to us and the people we love.
Then I pointed out that most of the questions we tend to come to this text with simply aren't answered here. E.g. why did they die? or, why didn't Peter try to warn them or intercede for them? Instead we are really told two things with certainty.
Vs 3 & 9. As Jews who had the history and scriptures, they knew about their "wild God" and as Christians they knew they and the community had received the Holy Spirit, and yet they still lied. In that moment they were acting as atheists, as if God were not dangerous and as if the Holy Spirit were not in them. In many ways the surprise is not that they were treated so harshly but that the rest of us get off so lightly.
Vs 5 &11. What happened to Ananias and Saphira had the effect of inspiring reverent fear in the church. I took some time to explain the difference between that sort of fear (fobos - terror awe, respect, reverence) and the fear described in 2 Tim 1:7 (deilia- cowardice, timidity, weakness). It should not be so much a case of, “God is watching you so don’t do anything naughty!” but instead of, “God is with you, wow! Live a life that is holy!”
I finished up with the suggestion that the issue is what we fill our hearts with (vs 3) and that we need to cultivate our sensitivity to and awareness of the Spirit and guard against getting filled up with sinful desires. I almost used the Native American illustration of the two wolves but didn't at the last minute. I also majored on the importance of being a people of truth and scrupulous honesty. I felt the application of this one needed more work, it seemed to go a bit flat at the end, (although it may just have been me running out of blood sugar) but hopefully that is something people can do for themselves anyway, I just dig for treasure it is up to them how they spend it . . .
So, there you go, two sermons on sin, exactly what it said on the tin.
Let me know what you think :-)
Friday, November 20, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
While it is true that the terrible toll of the victims of totalitarian regimes have pricked the conscience of the international community, that conscience has not been uniformly reformed. The moral revolution that was hoped for has been frustrated in innumerable instances. One example is the prevalence of a spurious language of victimhood. Claiming “victim status” has now become a familiar manipulative technique in politics. A contributing factor in this distortion is the missing element in the UNDHR itself. As it framers admitted, there was no accompanying declaration of responsibilities—on the part of persons, groups or institutions—to assume the duty of implementing the basic rights in question. Another document was promised, but never appeared. With no reasoned grounding of universal human rights in universal responsibility, rights-language can be simply taken over by a consumerist culture. If that is the case, the appeal to rights is no more than a political machination, a useful rhetoric for the exercise of power. It balloons out into an uncontrolled assertion of rights, individual or corporate, against others, without any commitment to the common good and of responsibility for the truly powerless. And so it happens that the originally noble conception of human rights for all is trivialised, liable to exploitation by the politically adept few. Shared responsibility for the most vulnerable and powerless is thus compromised. A study by L. C. Keith sought to assess how much belonging to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights affected the promotion of human rights. [Journal for Peace Research 36, no. 1 (1999): 95-118] After examining a hundred and seventy eight countries over an eighteen-year period, his conclusions were not optimistic: observable impact was minimal.He sees this lacuna as an opportunity for constructive theological work:
The very gap in the UNDHR Declaration and the current confusion as to what constitutes the basis of human rights is an open door for Christian theology, inviting it to recover a distinctive voice. The message would be something like this: Jesus’ rising from the dead undermines the history of mutual blaming and victimisation. For he freely exposed himself to the violence of cultural forces in order to disrupt, once and for all, the old world order based on the victimisation of others. His resurrection is not a new thought, but an interuptive and communicative event. It has its effect in a human community transformed into the image of the self-giving love of God. Jesus is glorified, not so as to glorify the role of the victim, but to unmask the victimising dynamics latent in all societies. The resurrection of this victim has a disturbing but liberating effect in the human community. It demands to be taken as the decisive influence in human relationships, the inexhaustible inspiration of responsibility for those victimised by suffering and oppression. Those who have suffered (victims, martyrs), and those who have caused such suffering (the enemy), are alike enfolded in the originary compassion and forgiveness embodied in the risen One.Extracts from the article "The Resurrection and Moral Theology".
I think Kelly is working here in the direction that Jurgen Moltmann has already taken, and I'm surprised not to see Moltmann referenced in the article (he has been heavily involved in the ecumenical movement.) The themes of hope and the resurrection' s contradiction of death and violence are Moltmann's bread and butter.
The real concern I have is that while such thinking provides an ethic for the Christian it is is not easily applicable to the political sphere where most people live in ignorance of the resurrection of Christ and its implications. Moltmann has been saying this sort of stuff for decades and many Christians have taken notice, but it has had little or no effect on such organisations as the UN because the logic on which it is founded is peculiarly Christian. I have to be honest, in my old age I think I am becoming a Niebuhrian Christian Realist. I don't like it, I especially don't like how close it seems to bring me to being a Lutheran "two kingdoms" kind of thinker, but it is better than classical just war theory (although this guy doesn't think so) because it refuses to relativise the teaching of Christ .
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
These sermons are published at the request of some who heard them, but against the judgement of the Author. Should they, however, be found useful by but one reader, in the work of self examination and penitence, he will be content to bear the blame which he is conscious of deserving, for committing to the press discourses which have little but the importance of the subject to recommend them.
Page vii of The Sinfulness of Little Sins, by John Jackson which I haven't read yet, and he may well be right, but such a prologue surely invites you to find out if the modesty is false or much needed?
Endorsed by no less than Gary Badcock, Amos Yong, and Ralph Del Colle! (All heavyweights in the the area of Pneumatology/Holy Spirit) Del Colle writes:
After the initial emergence of Spirit Christology some three decades ago, various models from different perspectives have been proposed. In this comprehensive work by Myk Habets we now possess a definitive account of this new approach to the mystery of Christ and the Spirit that will stand as a classic in its own right. Habets advances the conversation with his own constructive proposal that garners biblical, historical, and systematic arguments in demonstration of the rich harvest that was once only a promise.
His other book to come out this year is too pricey for me! But has also received a warm reception. Don't forget me, Myk, when you are rich and famous! :-)
Monday, November 16, 2009
Shun not only the worst of evils, injustic and self-indulgence, but also their causes, pleasures. For you will concentrate on these alone, both present and future, and on nothing else. And pursue not only the best of goods, self control and perseverance, but also their causes, toils, and do not shun them on account of their harshness. For would you not exchange inferior things for something great? As you would receeive gold in exchange for copper, so you would receive virtue in exchange for toils.
From this book.
I especially like the last sentence. As a teacher I have found this one of the hardest things to help students appreciate. The rewards of hard work! But then it took me thirty years to work it out, so why should they be any quicker? Of course, the satisfaction of hard work and the development of self control and perseverance are not without their own dangers: pride, self reliance, and addiction to work. It's a good quote for a pagan but I prefer Ecclesiastes 2:24,
There is nothng better for mortals than to eat and drink, and find enjoyment in their toil. This also, I saw, is from the hand of God; for apart from him who can eat or who can have enjoyment?
Or even better, our NT purveyor of wisdom, James 1:17
Every generous at of giving, with every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change.
The good deeds and the good things are all from God, so particpate and enjoy with thankfulness.
Friday, November 13, 2009
It gave me a warm glow at the time.
Love needs to be public. Somehow a love that we keep to ourselves and hide away from others is not really complete. The public declaration of an internal feeling lends it a substance and reality that it lacks when only a secret. Not only that, but when public that love can benefit others around who witness it. God's love for us was made public in the cross of Christ (1 John 3:16) and continues to be made public when those who God loves take up their own crosses, discipleship. When we live according to the radical demands of the gospel it is not a burden but a gift (1 John 5:3). we don't live in denial of ourselves to show how much we can love, but to show how much we are loved by God and our acceptance of that love. Just like that lady's number plate showed first that she was loved, and only then that she loved back, our lives should show that "We love because God first loved us." (1 John 4:19)
Thursday, November 12, 2009
It is penned by an atheist and is obviously designed to poke fun at and expose the hypocrisy of Christians. While I obviously don't agree with much of the content and aims of the site, exposing hypocrisy is, I think, a valuable contribution.
But I also think the cartoon is a wonderful introduction, both to the importance of the study of Biblical hermeneutics, i.e. how we interpret the scriptures, and secondly a rather pointed reminder that discipleship is far more about radical living than just assenting to radical beliefs.
Let me know what you think :-)
P.S. And if anyone wonders why I don't do Christmas trees... now you know!
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Gary Hamel in two excellent posts on his management blog, how to tell if you are a natural leader and the hidden cost of overbearing bosses, unknowingly critiques Brian Tamaki by arguing how organisations need to move away from formal authority (which demands things from the top) towards accountable and decentralised leadership:
Now this is cutting edge management theory but it is something those who claim to be Bible readers should have known for a long time (try reading 2 Samuel or Romans 12:1-8 for example!). Formal rigid power structures are simply not appropriate to churches because they disenfranchise the people of God and instead put all the responsibility for discerning the mind of Christ on the "anointed few." Brian Tamaki's excess is unfortunately only an extreme example of a much wider trend among evangelical/charismatic churches to treat the pastor as an some sort of anointed leader CEO instead of demanding that he or she (but lets face it it's mostly he) actually "equips the saints for the work of ministry" (Eph 4:12). The leader that wants to see Christians going the extra mile in their dedication to building the Kingdom of God doesn't need an oath of obedience, they need to edify, involve, and empower all the members of the body of Christ.
In traditional power settings, key decisions have to be approved by one’s superiors, but merely explained to one’s subordinates. This reality often tempts managers to ignore the disquieting views of direct reports, and to content themselves with compliance when they should be seeking genuine commitment. The result: employees who can no longer be bothered to bring troublesome truths to light and are unlikely to go the extra mile.
But this empowerment of the whole congregation is not just for the sake of the Kingdom and the members, it is also for the sake of the pastor. The pastor who places themselves above reproach or criticism is surely heading for disaster. Tamaki complains that in forming this "covenant" he has done nothing wrong... "I didn't steal or sleep with the church secretary," he says. The problem is he has created the exact environment for himself where he is most likely to do such things. Surrounded by people who wont dream of criticising or warning him if his behaviour becomes risky or questionable it is surely only a matter of time before some scandal ensues. Power corrupts. If Brian really is a "man of God" then he will be seeking to make sure he is not corrupted by the power he has as the leader of such a large church. The only way to do that is to surround yourself with people who will disagree and criticise you and keep you honest (and yes Brian if you are reading this, I do volunteer to help!). 700 men sworn to stand up when you enter the room and silence those who criticise you wont help one bit, sorry.
Let me know what you think :-)
PS. For another perspective on leadership see Simon Walker's trilogy on leadership, the undefended leader, reviewed by Paul Windsor here, here, and here! I'm yet to get hold of the books, but after the enthusiastic endorsement of Paul and others I think I need to.
Friday, November 6, 2009
The real contradictions in the Bible are the source of its most beautiful theology. When you contradict something your speak (dict) against (contra) it. In Deuteronomy 10:14-19 we have two wonderful examples of Biblical contradictions that result in meaningful practical theology.
14. To the Lord you God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it.
So here we have a clear statement that God is in sole possession of the whole universe both seen and unseen. This is a clear affirmation of God's universality (i.e. he is no provincial deity belonging to a local people group) and of his transcendence (i.e. otherness and difference from the concerns and world of humanity).
15 Yet the Lord set his affection on your forefathers and loved them, and he chose you, their descendants, above all the nations, as it is today.
Yet in the very next verse this picture of a universal transcendent almighty God is contradicted by the statement that God had chosen Israel (i.e. was behaving not universally but particularly) and loved them (was allowing himself to be concerned and affected by their actions and well being). And so the Israelites are being presented with a tension that this contradiction has created. They believe both statements even though there appears to be an incompatibility between them. This tension creates an energy that pushes Israel to respond in a certain way.
16. Circumcise your hearts therefore, and do not be stiff necked any longer.
Because the universal God has chosen to be God to Israel in particular they must do two things: maintain a purity and holiness of "heart" (i.e. the inner person), and must be humble and teachable (because they will be the ones to teach the rest of the world about God).
The pattern is then repeated in 17-19:
17. For the lord you God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.
Once again God's transcendence is asserted and this time also his great power. Of course, God accepts no bribes, not only because he already owns everything (vs 14), but because of his totally incorruptible character.
18. He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien [foreigner], giving him food and clothing.
Wait a minute, if God is impartial, how can he take sides and defend the cause of these? Wait a minute, if God is powerful why does he have any interest in the powerless of society? Once again this contradiction creates a tension that requires action of those who know God.
19 And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens [foreigners] in Egypt.
And so the people of Israel are not to behave like some super race, feeling superior that God has chosen them. Instead they are to love (!!!) those who are different and vulnerable in their society reflecting the fact that their God contradicts his universality and unlimited power with a particular concern for the powerless.
Now some of you will be thinking that those contradictions are nothing of the sort. But that is only because you are used to thinking about God from the end of 2000 years of Christianity, 2000 years after God was revealed in and through Jesus Christ. From the point of view of the ancient near east when these text were given to Israel, many centuries before Christ, these contradictions are both blatant and highly surprising.
Let me know what you think :-)
[Thanks to Chris Wright, The Mission of God, p79, for this structural analysis of Deut 10:14-19!]
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
INDIA - ANTI-CHRISTIAN VIOLENCE TOWARDS PASTORS WAGED ACROSS INDIA
EGYPT - MOB SURROUNDS CHURCH WITH CONGREGATION TRAPPED INSIDE
CHINA - TEENAGER EXPELLED FROM SCHOOL FOR HIS FAITH
SENEGAL AND UK - CHURCHES ACCUSED OF NOISE POLLUTION
USA - HILLARY CLINTON TAKES A STAND ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
EGYPT - RELATIVES ARRESTED TO FORCE CHRISTIAN TO TURN HIMSELF IN TO POLICE
As always more info at the BF website. The final story is particularly emotive. The man wanted by the police had helped to rescue a Christian girl who had been abducted and forced to marry a Muslim. As always this newsletter reminds me how so much of the church around the world face great sacrifices for their faith and risk danger to them selves and to their families.
In short the Hebrew word often translated "in the beggining" (B'reishit)has a number of unusual gramattical features. The commentary argues that probably the most accurate translation is not "in the beggining God created" but actually reading it as the first of a long series of subordinate clauses, e.g. "When God began to create heaven and earth—the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water—God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light." (JPS trans). Thus grammatically, "God said..." is in fact the first proper sentence of the Bible.
However, the gramatical peculiarities have also opened up the possibility for some Rabbinic interpreters to find quite different meanings for that first word. Suggesting instead of "in the beggining" we could actually read "For the sake of Torah" or "For the sake of Israel."
So, my thought is, if we understand God created the heavens and the earth for the sake of his word (Torah) and the sake of his elect (Israel), the Christian could equally well say, "For the sake of Christ," who is the fulfillment and antitype of both!