Skip to main content

More on Death and more on Love (being inadequate)

I am always badgering my students to make their reflections rooted in specific events and circumstances instead of the general sweeping statement, Clayboy's reflection on the death of one of his parishoners shows why.

Interestingly Magret Hebron also comes to the conclusion (pace the Beatles and Steve) that love does not equal Christianity, although she is coming at it from a totally different perspective than Hays, her argument ends up being remarkably similar.


  1. Well, to begin with, I shouldn't be taken even as seriously as the Beatles, much less Richard Hays or Jonathan or Margaret!

    My observation is that if we were to try to distill the energy and power of our faith into a single word (which I am not convinced is a worthy effort or even possible), it would seem to have to be love, as "boring" as that sounds -- and I agree that it sounds trite. But it's easy to arrive at love as a fundamental elemental by asking the "why" question:






    The Calvinist, of course, would answer "God's glory" to all that, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree so long as God's glory is recognized as emanating from His nature as perfect love.

    But technically speaking, unlike Margaret you weren't asking (and Hays wasn't answering) what the basis of Christianity itself was, were you? We're looking for the motivating factor of Christian action, for Christian ethics, unless I'm much mistaken. But even in that case, I still find "love" to be at the root of it all as an integral sina qua non. The question, I think, is how we decide which actions are Christian, and to that, I don't know how "cross" (for instance) comes into it unless taken as "self-sacrifice", which is undertaken as an act of love (either love toward God or toward those for whom one the sacrifice is intended to save). The same goes for community, redemption, etc.

    So it seem to me that love is an elemental, and likely the prime (only?) elemental. Yet I can see how that would make it an inadequate answer, much like looking up a word in the dictionary and finding that word being used as its own definition. But "unifying theme" sounds abour right.

    I seem to be blathering on as though I think I'm knowledgable, but I'd really like to hear your perspective here about why (as I fully expect) I'm missing the point.

  2. Hi Steve, :-)
    As always, thanks for your contribution.
    I think the issue is that for you or I, conditioned as we are by our respective understandings of Jesus and the gospel, love is adequate for the unifying theme of Christianity (although Hay's first point stil stand regarding the NT, but if we are synthesising you've always got to lose some detail) and I think especially once you start dealing with Trinitarianism, love becomes even more foundational. However for those without such conditioning (i.e. most of humanity) love needs qualifying with other words, and therefore is not sufficient on its own. It needs to be reemptive love, or self giving love, love on its own it too vague and meaningless. At the very least it needs to be separated from the sort of love that our society champions: grasping, subjective, contrary, unfaithful, lusting, temporary love.

    But yeah, probably both Hays and Margret are stretching the point to make a point.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

That one time Jesus got the Bible wrong

It's so typical isn't it? You are preaching all day long, training your disciples, sparring with the Pharisees, encouraging the poor and down trodden, healing the sick and casting out demons, all day, day after day, and even when you go up a mountain to get a rest the crowds hunt you down and follow you up, and then the one time you get a bit muddled up with some of the details of a biblical text . . . that is the one they write down in the first gospel - verbatim. At least Matthew and Luke had the good sense to do some editing. But Mark, he always had his eye on giving the public the "historical Jesus" whoever that is supposed to be . . . warts and all. Thanks a lot Mark!

Some think I made the mistake on purpose, just to show the Pharisees up.

For some there is no mistake worth mentioning, only a slightly ambiguous turn of phrase.

Others think I am doing something tricky with Abiathar's name, getting him to figuratively stand in for the priesthood.

It really has…

Thor Ragnarok and Parihaka: Postcolonial Apocalypse

Thor: Ragnarok is a riot of colour, sound, violence, humour, sci-fi and fantasy. As a piece of entertainment it is the best Marvel has produced so far. As in many of Taika Waititi's films the plot often seems secondary to the humour and a number of quirky moments seemed only to serve for a quick giggle. I left the theatre overwhelmed by the sensory experience, but ultimately unimpressed by any deeper meaning.

It wasn't until the second morning after my trip to the movies that I woke to the realisation that the movie could function as a profound postcolonial metaphor (I do some of my best thinking while alseep, also it can take me a while for the penny to drop). Unfortunately a quick google showed me that I was neither the first, nor the second to have this thought.

[Spoiler Alert!]

It's easy to miss with all the other stuff going on but Thor undergoes a postcolonial awakening during the film as he slowly realises that his beloved Asgard and its dominion of the nine realms …

Dale Martin does Mark

Dale Martin is an important and frequently controversial NT scholar. Those of us who can't make it to Yale to hear him teach can access some of his lectures, in fact his entire introduction to the NT course, through the magic of the internet.

Here he is holding forth on Mark . . .