ξἐνος

Foyle, Honourably Wounded: A Book Review

2012-01-11T12:53:00.000+13:00

I got onto this book from a review by Paul Windsor, its primary target is missionaries, i.e. those involved in cross cultural work as expatriates, and those in home churches involved in sending missionaries. As a (very) secondary target group many of its insights into stress and other issues can be related without too much effort to ministry in churches and other organisations. Foyle is a psychiatrist with decades of experience in India, Nepal and Pakistan and since retirment has continued to research and interview missionaries about stress and its symptoms and solutions.

Foyle's immense experience and pastoral concern come through the book, you can hear a caring grandmotherly voice behind the words. She writes clear and simply and with a palpable kindness. As someone who uderstands a little bit about the causes and treatement of stress there were no real powerful revelations from this book. Foyle takes a matter of fact down to earth approach and for anyone experiencing stress I think this would be very reassuring. She is very aware of the fact that she is writing to Christians and always takes care to balance the clinical with explanationa and consideration of how Christian teaching might affect different scenarios. For me, her dealing with theological and biblical issues often seems a little home spun and simplistic, but doesn't signifiantly detract from the book.

I expect for someone like me in a "home church" situation, the beneift of the book is being exposed to the wide variety of ways in which those our church might send on mission can experience and react to stress, thus helping me be more informed and aware of the challenegs they are faces. The chapter on occupational stress, however, bears application across a wide range of roles both missionary and otherwise.

Held-Evans on Pastor Omnicompetence

2012-01-09T15:53:00.000+13:00

I thought this was worth a ponder (from here)

Evangelicals expect too much of their pastors.

In addition to demanding they serve as nearly flawless leaders and teachers, many of us demand that our pastors serve as professional counselors and advisors, experts on everything from politics to science to sex to health to money to marriage to relationships.

As a result, some pastors simply crumble beneath the weight of the pressure, “faking it” for years and then burning out. Others develop a heightened sense of self-importance and arrogance, as they slap the word “biblical” in front of each of their opinions, claiming to speak on behalf of God on every given topic. Still others live complete lies, lecturing the congregation on the importance money management on Sunday while struggling to overcome secret credit card debt on Monday. Others project their insecurities and obsessions onto their followers and demand that everyone look just like them. Very few manage to remain humble, honest, and brave in the face of our unrealistic expectations.

Let me know what you think :-)

Brick-a-Brack 060112

2012-01-09T12:40:00.000+13:00

A new religion has been recognised in Sweden around the sacrament of file sharing. While in London good old church going is having a "resurgence".

For all you Kiwi's, Aussies and Yanks who are butchering the English language here is a poetic lesson in pronounciation.

Johannes Kepler has written the obituary for intelligent design

And from somewhere in Asia a new technology for dealing with slow walkers, and it really is impressive.

llll

Hermeneutics remains the only question in town

2012-01-03T13:44:00.000+13:00

Dan Kirk offers a list of what he feels are the big issues being discussed at the moment on Christian blogs. You'll need to read his post for a full description but in short:

The Gospel.
Human origins after evolution.
Gender in the church.

A couple of his commenters also suggest that conversations around inerrancy and the nature of scripture deserve to be on that list as well. Inerrancy has certainly been a hot topic this year. While inerrancy could certainly be a #4 on that list (and creationism #5 and homosexuality #6), each one of these issues and the conflicts that they generate stem from the way we read the Bible and the interpretive decisions that we make. These issues are really only test cases for the hermeneutics that generate the readings of scripture that are being defended or attacked. The only really important question is How do you read scripture?, after that the outcomes of those other debates are more or less determined.

The problem is, of course, that if scripture is our standard but we have to interpret scripture one way or another (ruling out of court the idea that such things are just plain obvious - because obviously they are not to everyone!), then what is to stop our interpretations of scripture being totally arbitrary? The answer, I think, is to be found in scripture itself as many books of scripture interpret other books of scripture and thus in scripture itself we are offered examples of legitimate interpretation. It is possible to read the last 61 books of scripture as a commentary on the first 5, and perhaps until we we do that - and study the other ways in which scripture interacts with scripture, our own commentary on the rest will be doomed to the frustration of our own blinkered biases.

Let me know what you think :-)

Dallas, Lessons from San Quentin: A Book Review

2012-01-02T21:00:00.000+13:00

Well the idea is good. Let's tell the story of a high flying real estate entrepeneur who gets into legal trouble and by an unfortunate grilfriend related accident gets sent to the wrong prison and instead of serving his time with all the other white collar criminals ends up in maximum security San Quentin with all the bad boys. Add a spirtual awakening and a life turn around and surely nothing can go wrong? John Ortberg even says from the back cover, "Read Bill's story only if you want to risk a changed life." And Chuck Colson, who wrote the excellent Born Again - a similar story of jailhouse redemption, also endorses with, "A riveting story."

Bill Dallas definately does have an amazing story, unfortunately the book does not convey it well. Rather than tell his story the book gives short installments of his story followed by tedious teaching sections where he extrapolates and explicates the life principles he picked up in San Quentin. Yes, the story of transformation gets totally overwhelmed by the self help book. The result is that everything is so neat and tidy and so focussed on teaching us "principles" that what should be a riveting story is actually lost and somewhat distorted by smug "do this and you/God will make your life better" type advice. In the end Dallas' time in San Quentin ends up sounding like a spiritual retreat rather than a traumatic spell in a high security prison.

The book is not without its insights and Dallas' story really is amazing, but overall I would have liked to have the story told better and in more detail and leave the "life lessons" for the reader to figure out on their own. I didn't like the book, but to show I'm not bitter I'll leave you with a quote I did like:

San Quentin dislodged my perception of the church as an institution and redefined it as a unified group of sinners who were so thrilled to be accepted by God that they accepted anyone who wanted to join them on the journey. Their emphasis was on love, not rules; character, not attendence; spiritual fruit, not information retention. (p60)

Davidson, A Public Faith: A Book Review

2011-12-28T20:23:00.001+13:00

I try and read at least one church history book a year. Every time I do it always amazes me how different the perspective of a different historian can be. Ivor Davidson is head of St Andrew's divinty school at the moment although he used to be at Otago in NZ. Davidson's book is part of an 8 part Monarch History of the Church, so this book covers 312-600AD (actually we get well into the 600s by the end of the book) and so is a nice medium between one volume church histories and a more detailed study on one characer or controversy. I picked this up in the bargain bin at my local Christian bookstore and have been glad I did. On the strength of this one I'll be looking out for the others in the series.

Davidson accomplishes the usual survey of historical theological disputes in 7 of the 14 chapters. The writing is engaging and Davidson is admirably evenhanded taking care not expose and explain the political influences on the debates and their results but without overstating them. He is careful to locate each theological dispute in its context. Davidson's phd is in patristics and this shows up in his affectionate and assured handling of the church fathers. The emporers, from Constantine onward, are also major characters. Davidson clearly has his own opinions on the theological subjects and isn't shy of exposing his own bias, but usually only towards the end of chapters and certainly not in a way that suggests it affects his portrayal of the protagonists.

The other 7 chapters help keep the book really interesting, taking on either broad surveys or more detailed examinations of certain areas. For example, chapters on Christian ascetics, worship, barbarian Europe and the spread of christianity in England. Those chapters help the book go into areas that (at least in my limited reading in Church history) tend to get sidelined and certainly kept things interesting.

Given that this is more of a survey of a historical period the book's primary thesis is that the era 312-600 represents the church going public (with emperial support) and that this new public persona for the church was a mixed blessing. I doubt it is a thesis anyone sensible would quibble with but as a deliniation of the ways in which the church's public character both brought opportunities for the gospel and resulted in compromises of the gospel A Public Faith is excellent.

Quote of the day: Mariottini on the end of the world

2011-12-22T12:22:00.000+13:00

[P]eople who are worried about the end of the world are people who are not prepared for the end of the world.

if you want to read the rest of the article click on this bit

In the meantime please leave a comment about how you would prepare for the end of the world, I'll start you off with after the rapture pet care. ;-)

Dr Norman's Atheist Christmas Sermon

2011-12-22T10:37:00.001+13:00

Continuing my irregular series on great preachers who are not preachers see here atheist Dr Russell Norman, new co-leader of the NZ Green party, with a powerful and emotive economic exposition of the Christmas story (HT Hamish and Stu). Notice how he seemlessly moves from story to meaning to application.

previous posts in this series have featured JK Rowling and Stephen Colbert

and while we are on the subject, if you don't yet know about Carey Baptist College's provocative new leadership blog, it has a guest post on the Green Party's recent electoral gains and what it might mean for the church.

let me know what you think :-)

brick-a-brack 13/12/11

2011-12-13T15:27:00.000+13:00

Keener again, this time talking about miracles (HT JB)

Marc Cortez wants someone to write his sermons for him and that's OK

Greg Peters questions the rise of "retreats" and what it says about how churches look after people

Aditya Chakrabortty denounces British Bancrocracy and pairs Rowan Williams with Bill Nighy!

And it appears the cliche of Americans being overpaid, oversexed and over here is true, at least of one rather enthusiatic sperm donor (yet of coure the first thing the Herald does is point out his alleged Christianity).

Quote of the Day: Davidson on Ordinary Christians in History

2011-12-08T16:46:00.000+13:00

[T]he assumptions, arguments, and acheivements of the famous few must never be treated as the only history that matters. In every age, it is through the faith and witness of the vast innumerable ranks of ordinary Christians that the gospel has been lived and encountered.

Ivor Davidson, A Public Faith, p8

Santa Punched Arius

2011-12-07T11:22:00.000+13:00

Well, yesterday (Dec 6) was St Nicholas day, and our Anglican and Catholic friends have been very excited this year to remember that St Nicholas, who eventually transmogrified into Santa Claus, is remembered not just for giving money to poor people but for punching the heretic Arius in the face during the first council of Nicea (325 AD). I cannot agree that Christians should celebrate the day by punching a heretic themselves nor do I think "H-Slapping" (heretic slapping) should become the norm for theological debate. But then after all I am a recalcitrant Baptist who scorns the veneration of saints as rank idolatry.

" KER - POWWW! "

The first hymn

2011-12-06T17:00:00.000+13:00

The Cyber Hymnal records that the first hymn written in English for public worship was penned by Isaac Watts at the ripe old age of 14 . . .

In a lengthy discussion with his father, Watts argued that singing only the Psalms in church made them miss much important New Testament truth. Once his congregation was convinced of what Isaac was saying, he began turning out a new hymn a week. But this one is the very first, making the words Prepare new honors for His name, and songs before unknown especially meaningful. This hymn also reveals Watts’ amazing breadth of biblical knowledge (he was only a teenager at the time); there are allusions to many Scripture passages.

And the following is what resulted

Behold the glories of the Lamb
Amidst His Father’s throne.
Prepare new honors for His name,
And songs before unknown.

Let elders worship at His feet,
The Church adore around,
With vials full of odors sweet,
And harps of sweeter sound.

Those are the prayers of the saints,
And these the hymns they raise;
Jesus is kind to our complaints,
He loves to hear our praise.

Eternal Father, who shall look
Into Thy secret will?
Who but the Son should take that Book
And open every seal?

He shall fulfill Thy great decrees,
The Son deserves it well;
Lo, in His hand the sovereign keys
Of Heav’n, and death, and hell!

Now to the Lamb that once was slain
Be endless blessings paid;
Salvation, glory, joy remain
Forever on Thy head.

Thou hast redeemed our souls with blood,
Hast set the prisoner free;
Hast made us kings and priests to God,
And we shall reign with Thee.

The worlds of nature and of grace
Are put beneath Thy power;
Then shorten these delaying days,
And bring the promised hour.

Obviously the main muse for the hymn comes from the book Apocalypse of John. Watts went on to be a very serious non-conformist theologian and preacher as well as penning nearly 800 hymns. Of course, my favourite Watts hymn is entitled "Blest is the man whose bowels move." I kid you not, and the second verse is even better than the first line!

Cake or Death

2011-12-06T16:50:00.000+13:00

Hi lovely and much neglected blog readers. It's been a bit crazy here in meatspace and so cyberspace has had to be a little neglected, as I plough through my blog reader from the last few months, I'll be sharing some highlights with you. Alex Baker is a cartoonist who works out of the UK and features in the Baptist Times over there. You can go to his website here. I liked both these cartoons, for very different reasons,

this one rang true:

this one is puntastic:

Keener on Paul and Women

2011-11-30T11:34:00.000+13:00

A helpful article from Craig Keener - something of a NT scholarly ninja - on the subject of Paul and Women in leadership. Check it out.

Paddling Slogans

2011-11-17T11:48:00.000+13:00

Just posting this for my own later reference, but don't let that stop you from commenting. ;-)

Jenson frequently gestures to the ambiguity or confusion of certain slogans, not simply to their “use” or “abuse”. This ambiguity is sometimes terminal (as seems to be the case for sola Scriptura). Slogans, we are told, are a necessary shorthand that emerges over time to signify a complex of propositions and practises. Despite the word’s stigma, slogans have a positive function. The problem with slogans is that they tend to develop a certain independence as they age, becoming untethered and paddling to foreign shores.

From Steve Wright's review of a Jenson book on Lutheran Slogans

Subdugating Women With The Bible (again)

2011-10-05T06:50:00.001+13:00

Someone has caused a stir by parroting the typical nonsense you hear from more hard line complementarians,

Claude Mariottini takes exception as does Darrell Pursiful.

In a similar vein but with a more positive aproach Rachel Held Evans lists ten biblical reasons for women to be in leadership.

All of which reminds me of an insightful and creative post (even if I do say so myself) from last year on this very topic. If you missed it, now you have another chance.

Ladies First: Genesis 3 and Gender Roles

Let me know what you think! :-)

Does God Cause Spontaneous Combustion?

2011-09-24T09:39:00.001+12:00

The first recorded case of spontaneous combustion in Ireland has provoked retired professor of pathology Mike Green into some theological speculation, saying he doubted spontaneous combustion could be explained by divine intervention on rather surprising grounds.

I think if the heavens were striking in cases of spontaneous combustion then there would be a lot more cases. I go for the practical, the mundane explanation.

Apparently God can't be doing it because it doesn't happen often enough. Only things that happen infrequently need mundane practical explanations.

Confused yet? :-)

Brick-a-Brack 230911

2011-09-23T17:01:00.000+12:00

Take note oh teachers of theology! your sins will find you out! (thanks Alex)

John Byron ponders the way we translate slavery in the Bible
Paul Windsor critiques short term mission, and it aint pretty
Reuben Munn wonders who his enemy is when he preaches
Richard Fellows has an idea as to why the Corinthians got themselves into so much trouble
John Hobbins reminds us not to be too kind, or something

Let me know what you think :-)

Words and Music: Kate Tempest

2011-09-23T16:47:00.000+12:00

For those of your interested in the spoken word as performance, here is some really powerful Shakespe inspired poetry by Kate Tempest which was posted on Billy Braggs FB page.

"What we came after" by Kate Tempest from RSC Sound & Fury on Vimeo.

She is new to me but apparently fronts a really interesting band The Sound of Rum, if the idea of a north London girl rapping left wing politics over trip hop and Jazz beats doesn't inspire you, then you probably haven't heard it yet.

Let me know what you think :-)

Confessions of a Lapsed Charismatic

2011-09-23T16:36:00.000+12:00

I reckon my charismatic credentials are pretty solid, i have hung out with all stripes of charismatics from crazy independent pentecostal revivalists to charismatic high church Anglicans, and I liked them all and learned form them all. I am a firm believer in speaking in tongues, guidance and inspiration, and God's power to heal. But when I came to NZ I subconsciously moved out of the charismatic stream i had been inhabiting and became much more middle of the road. Now it is time to confess

I love 1 Cor 12 but the work of the Holy Spirit is about so much more than giving gifts to particular Christians - what about Rom 8, John 14 &16, Gal 5, etc, etc?
An emphasis on gifting is often at the expense of an emphasis on character, the gifts of the Spirit get prefered over the fruit.
The pressure in charismatic circles for something to happen means that people are tempted to manipulate God or others in order to validate their ministry.
Those who do not or cannot operate in the gifts are often made to feel like second class Christians
An over emphasis on healing can make it hard for people to deal with the reality that often the thorn in our flesh is not taken away but God's grace is sufficient for us
When experience and power become the key criteria, Christ and the right handling of scripture often get lost in the shuffle.
Many non charismatic Christians and churches are filled with the Spirit
I long to see the Spirit moving more and more in my own life and faith community - but I don't want to presuppose how it is going to happen or what it will look like.
I'm not going to mention "falling" over or gold dust.
When you get given a few to many meaningless "word of knowledge" you start to wonder if you can trust these people at all.
I love going to church where people put their hands in the air
Most of the charismatics i meet are the most sincere, loving and passionate Christians you could hope for.

Let me know what you think, what has your journey with charismatic Christianity been like? :-)

Perhaps related, Daniel Kirk has been wondering if god really speaks, and John Byron wonders if beinga Christian has anything to do with being bad at maths.

brick-a-brack 140911

2011-09-14T11:39:00.000+12:00

Ben Myers defends Rob Bell's Love Wins (and of course Karl Barth as well)
Daniel Kirk explains to his students how biblical studies will ruin their faith (in a good way)
Kevin DeYoung lists the values that guide the way his church worships (HT Marc)

let me know what you think! :-)

Brick-a-Brack 030911

2011-09-03T15:42:00.000+12:00

This prophesy is true, although about 5 years late ;-) (HT Marc)

I’m going to stick my neck out and say that I think I know what the biggest theological debate of the next twenty years is going to be about. It doesn’t sound very exciting – and certainly not as likely to make headlines as hell, or penal substitution, or the roles of men and women, or the various other theological hot potatoes that the last decade has seen chucked around – but fundamentally, it is the issue that drives all the others. It is the question of the doctrine of Scripture: how we read, understand and apply the Bible.

Of course as I was told by my theology teachers in entry level hermeneutics - all Christian theological debate is really a debate about hermeneutics. One reason why this blog spends so much time on it! (plus it is really interesting!)

These resources are very useful (HT Mark and James)

And this lady is brilliant! (HT Tony)

On airplanes, I dread the conversation with the person who finds out I am a minister and wants to use the flight time to explain to me that he is "spiritual but not religious." Such a person will always share this as if it is some kind of daring insight, unique to him, bold in its rebellion against the religious status quo. [. . .] Being privately spiritual but not religious just doesn't interest me. There is nothing challenging about having deep thoughts all by oneself. What is interesting is doing this work in community, where other people might call you on stuff, or heaven forbid, disagree with you. Where life with God gets rich and provocative is when you dig deeply into a tradition that you did not invent all for yourself.

But has she actually ever said that to anyone, and would she be willing to say it to certain people i know in exchange for money?

Let me know what you think. :-)

Politics and Theology in the New Testament

2011-09-01T12:24:00.000+12:00

John Byron writes a characteristically wise and informed blog post urging scholars to maintain balance in their political interpretations of the NT. He raises the issue of how,

It has become quite popular over the last few decades for New Testament scholars to bash ancient Rome and suggest that when first century Christian writers use terms like gospel, Lord, savior, kingdom, etc, that these authors are deliberately critiquing Rome and its emperors. Some modern scholars have pushed this interpretation so far that the New Testament looks less like a theological book and more like a political manifesto.

But to what extent are politics and theology seperate things? I know in the USA they have a constitutional separation between church and state, but we international observers notice how big (even exagerated) a role theology still plays in US politics. But would Romans or Jews of the first century really have distinguished between politics and theology? When your Emporer is also divine - or at least eligible for divinity after death, when he has a cult dedicated to him, when you pray and offer sacrifices to him, how is that political situation not also theological? And when your Jewish God claims to be King, how is that theology not political? And when you believe that a man executed by Roman political authority at the request of the Jewish religious authorities has been raised from the dead as vindication from God how is that belief not inescapably fraught with concrete political and theological implications?

Too often some of these interpretations of "Rome's gospel" are clearly motivated by frustration with American hegemony. And while I think American policy does need to be critiqued and criticized, I am not sure that authors like Paul and others were doing same thing with Rome as some modern scholars suggest. To hear some New Testament scholars talk there was nothing good about ancient Rome and that the world would have been better off without it.

Yes it is fair to say that the writing of Bible scholars living in a representative democracy with a proud record of free speech will not engage in the same sort of political-theological critique as Paul and others might. There was little point in Paul trying to influence public opinion or critique a foriegn policy which made no claim to be serving any ends other than its own. It is also fair to say that Paul was more than happy to take advantage of Roman protection and legal processes whenever it suited him to do so (at least that is how Acts portrays things). So scholars with an axe to grind about the moral failings of the American imperial enterprise need to take care that they are not simply reading into the texts what they would like to be there to bolster their own political rhetoric. But if we are being balanced let's not pretend that anything theological is without concrete political implications - even if sometimes those are not immediately clear. And likewise no political creed is without its theological implications - no matter how vigorously the lady doth protest "but I'm purely secular!". The far greater danger is to suggest that the New Testament in somehow non-political and should never be allowed to stand in judgement of our human behaviour in the public sphere. As that great self-consciously political theologian Moltmann writes,

During the Third Reich, Dietrich Bonhoeffer pointedly reminded the church that "only those who cry out for the Jews may sing Gregorian chants," and he gladly sang Gregorian chants. The memory of what happened at that time has made us increasingly aware that we also have no right to speak of God and with God if we do not do it in the midst of the conflicts of our political world.

Or if you prefer a more secular approach spend some time with Roland Boer and see how all readings (and by implication writings) of religious texts have their political implications. You may not agree with me that the Bible is a socialist tract but your understanding of that most influential text - and as a scholar the understanding you relate to others - is not without its repercusions in the world of politics that you inhabit.

Van Hecke on Metaphor

2011-08-30T12:18:00.001+12:00

This is a nice concise definition of the way metaphors work:

Metaphor is considered not so much as a way in which people speak but rather as a way in which people think. We use metaphors in our language because, to a large extent, we think metaphorically. The essence of metaphor, according to cognitive linguistics, is that we make use of our knowledge of one conceptual domain (the source) in order to gain new understanding of a second, non-related domaim (the target).

Pierre van Hecke, "Conceptual Blending" in Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible, pp 218-19

cited in Dearman, Hosea, NICOT, p11

Monday Morning Quotes: Jesus, Israel and Election,

2011-08-29T12:21:00.000+12:00

In terms of the open questions of the Old Testament and the apocalyptic promises, and the existential experience of Israel in exile and alienation, Jesus is revealed as the one who fulfills these promises. This of course can be described superficially as a proof from prophecy. But what is meant is that the person and history of Jesus have been manifested and understood as open to the future of God in a way which was characteristic of the distinctive existence of Israel among all the nations.

Moltmann, The Crucified God, Fortress 1993, p99

Election needs to be seen as a doctrine of mission, not a calculus for the arithmetic of salvation. If we are to speak of being chosen, of being among God's elect, it is to say that, like Abraham, we are chosen for the sake of God's plan that the nations of the world come to enjoy the blessing of Abraham.

Chris Wright, The Mission of God's People, 2010, p72

The Death of Postmodernism

2011-08-25T12:03:00.001+12:00

Thanks to Tony Jones for pointing to a very useful article on the death of postmodernism and what is to come after.

The death of postmodernism,

For a while, as communism began to collapse, the supremacy of western capitalism seemed best challenged by deploying the ironic tactics of postmodernism. Over time, though, a new difficulty was created: because postmodernism attacks everything, a mood of confusion and uncertainty began to grow and flourish until, in recent years, it became ubiquitous. A lack of confidence in the tenets, skills and aesthetics of literature permeated the culture and few felt secure or able or skilled enough or politically permitted to distinguish or recognise the schlock from the not. And so, sure enough, in the absence of any aesthetic criteria, it became more and more useful to assess the value of works according to the profits they yielded [. . .]
In other words, increasingly, artistic success has become about nothing except money; and, increasingly, artists have come to judge their own success that way, too [. . .] The paradox being this: that by removing all criteria, we are left with nothing but the market. The opposite of what postmodernism originally intended.

And, of course, there’s a parallel paradox in politics and philosophy. If we de-privilege all positions, we can assert no position, we cannot therefore participate in society or the collective and so, in effect, an aggressive postmodernism becomes, in the real world, indistinguishable from an odd species of inert conservatism.

And what will it be replaced with? Rather optimistically,

If we tune in carefully, we can detect this growing desire for authenticity all around us. We can see it in the specificity of the local food movement or the repeated use of the word “proper” on gastropub menus. We can hear it in the use of the word “legend” as applied to anyone who has actually achieved something in the real world. (The elevation of real life to myth!) We can recognise it in advertising campaigns such as for Jack Daniel’s, which ache to portray not rebellion but authenticity. We can identify it in the way brands are trying to hold on to, or take up, an interest in ethics, or in a particular ethos. A culture of care is advertised and celebrated and cherished. Values are important once more: the values that the artist puts into the making of an object as well as the values that the consumer takes out of the object. And all of these striven-for values are separate to the naked commercial value.

Go deeper still and we can see a growing reverence and appreciation for the man or woman who can make objects well. [. . .] It’s not just the story, after all, but how the story is told.

These three ideas, of specificity, of values and of authenticity, are at odds with postmodernism. We are entering a new age. Let’s call it the Age of Authenticism and see how we get on.

Three words I think it is good to hold dear, whether or not they are the new hallmarks of the incoming "Age of Authenticity": Authenticity, Values, Specificity. Of course it is worth saying that modernism is still very much with us and postmodernsim will linger with equal vigour, people are very inconsistent and flip switches with the least provocation, it is not like "authenticity is a good thing" is really news to anyone!

Was Paul a Trinitarian?

2011-08-23T21:39:00.000+12:00

Eddie Fearon and Daniel Kirk have been reflecting on the Theological Interpretation of Scripture Colloquium that I also attended this weekend past, although neither of them found my paper worthy of mention ;-) but like the Murphy's i'm not bitter. Kirk shares the following exchange,

In a side conversation with one of the presenters (whose paper I very much appreciated and whose overall position on theological interpretation I find quite congenial), I made a brief case for why Christian hermeneutics should be Christological rather than Trinitarian.
He sees these working together. And I get that. But in trying to situate my point I asked, “Was Paul a Trinitarian?” He said, “Yes.” End of conversation.
That’s a small picture of where a biblical scholar can’t say what a theologian presumes, and why scholarship’s Bible will continue to be an enigma to the church. Beyond whether scholars are approaching their exegetical task as Christians, theologians (and church people) often want the Bible to say what it does not say, to support what it does not speak to.
I do wonder if the church’s theology will need to learn to hear what it takes for throat clearing as the song of the Spirit before the chasm will bridged between theology and the Bible

Which raises a number of very interesting points.

It is certainly true that Paul never made anything approaching the trinitarian declarations of the historic creeds, but as the paper I shared attempted to show, Paul was certainly capable of theologising within a theological framework that gave significance to the work of God, Jesus and the Spirit. many biblical scholars have been happy to call this something like a "latent trinitarianism" but you do need to be careful that that doesn't get confused with talking about ousias and stuff. The kind of counterfactual arguing that this might lead to would go something like "would Paul have signed the Chalcedon Creed if he had been presented with the same circumstances as that creed was addressing?" Which of course could only degenerate into a useless giving of opinions. My useless opinion is that he probably would have but only after they added a substantial "therefore" section detailing the believer's ethical response to the theological mysteries contained in the Creed.

Asking Paul whether or not he is a Trinitarian is a waste of time, but, as Kirk eloquently puts it, if we listen to what "the song of the Spirit" through Paul is actually saying we may learn many things that will enrich our own Trinitarian (or otherwise) theology no end.

The Social Location of the Preacher and the Blame Game

2011-08-22T17:18:00.000+12:00

Since coming to NZ I have heard a common refrain despairing at the poverty of preaching in NZ, how preachers willfully abuse the scriptures and fail to feed their hungry people on the word of God instead feeding them a toxic mix of homespun advice, pop psychology and gratutuitous proof texting.

As a foreigner i would confidently guess that the percentage of good preachers to bad ones here is probably the same as anywhere else in the world, though i'm not sure i have sufficient experience to know for sure. But for sure the percentage of those NZ academics ready and willing to decry the state of preaching is sky high. The accusation is always that the preacher does not respect The Word, that they are too busy pushing their "leadership" agenda to properly minister the scriptures, or that they just don't spend enough time in preparation - all of which may be quite true.

But like all of God's creatures the preacher is a product of their environment, most particularly the church, the academy that trained them, and of course our consumer society. Those despicable preachers cannot shoulder the blame for all their failings. I could go on to list ten reasons why the Church as a whole is to blame for the situation (i mean who employs these turkeys?), or even twenty why the academy is to blame (when you divide biblical studies, theology, church history and homiletics into different subjects don't be surprised if they don't interact in the student's brain) but passing the blame from preacher to congregation to academy manages to culture only serves to mimic the post-lapsarian shuffling of feet of Gen 3:11-13. Instead we need to work out the ways in which we can cover our nakedness. Making preachers feel guilty for not meeting the standards of their theology teachers is not one of them.

The truth is (and here comes some of my own pop pschology) the worse a preacher feels about their preaching, the less time they are likely to give to it. The more they feel those in the academy they look up to have set an impossible standard the less they will work to reach it. The more the church praises them for giving them junk food instead of real meat the less likely they are to take the time to cook a square meal.

In today's consumeristic world, which has fully infiltrated the church preachers serving MacDonalds will draw the crowds, while those serving finely honed nourishing food will only attract the connoisseur. And even those who are drawn to "real preaching" are in danger of making a marketing choice rather than a real act of devotion. Spiritual pride can still be found in those listening regularly to "biblical preaching."

There is no fix, but for those of us who care about this, and i do, i can only suggest the following homespun wisdom:

1. If you are a biblical preacher teach your congregation what biblical preaching is and how to train their preachers in it and let them train you! (and make sure you are actively training others)
2. If you are an academic adopt a different preacher each year, be nice to them and encourage them in their preaching of scripture.
3. If you are a frustrated congregant pray for your pastor and talk to him or her gently but matter of factly about what is missing from the sermons.

Let me know what you think, and how you get on :-)

Paul’s Unconventional Sexual Ethic

2011-08-22T13:35:00.000+12:00

This paper is what I presented at the recent Laidlaw-Carey/Otago sponsored colloquium on theological interpretation. If you've already read my thesis, there is nothing new here, but if you haven't will give you a skeletal version of my last chapter. Enjoy!

The Problem

In warning the Corinthians against πορνεία, sexual immorality, Paul does not appeal to OT law or the ruling of the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:20, 29)[1] instead he gives a stricter indictment against prostitution than anything found in the OT.[2] David Horrell argues that Paul’s argument here is based on the “presumption” that sex with a prostitute is illicit, while sex with a spouse, believing or not, is permitted. He claims that, “while Paul uses arguments about holiness and bodily union with Christ to support and promote his sexual ethics, the substantive ethical convictions themselves are not derived from these arguments but are already assumed.”[3]

In Horrell’s reading Paul is using the theological indicative only to support a previously assumed moral imperative.[4] The ethical motivation is theological but the ethical content is merely conventional. On the other hand for Karl Barth, in 1 Cor 6:18, “Paul is speaking of a sin of which only the Christian is really capable.”[5] That is, not only is the ethic not conventional, but even the sin is not conventional! Horrell and Barth cannot both be right.

My argument then is this

There were both Jewish and pagan objections to the use of prostitutes, but Paul’s argument does not resemble those nor show any concern in whatever ways prostitution might have been generally viewed as immoral. Although 1 Cor 6:12 does read in many ways like a general argument from benefit and permission, using the language of similar pagan arguments,[6] Paul expands those principles in vs13-20 in a way that could only apply to the Christian. He does not describe social, moral, or material consequences, norms, or ideals. Instead the command to flee πορνεία is located solely in the Christian’s relationship to God through Christ in the Spirit.

At stake is whether Paul’s ethic is truly theological in content or merely conventional? All of which is to beg the question, what exactly was the conventional morality?

So, what was Conventional Morality?

Paul is certainly not the only moralist of antiquity to exhort against prostitution, however, such exhortations were rare. Given that prostitution was ubiquitous throughout the Greco-Roman world it receives surprisingly little attention for something that was a morally questionable act.[7] 1^st cent. Jews found prostitution one repugnant example among many of gentile sexual immorality[8] [9] and a well worn metaphor to condemn idolatry.[10]

Josephus provides a significant Jewish parallel, in Ant. 4.8.9/§206. There, in his retelling of Deut 23:18 (v.19 LXX), the Israelites are told,

From the hire of a prostitute let no sacrifices be paid; for the Deity has no pleasure in naught that proceeds from outrage, and no shame could be worse than the degradation of the body. Likewise, if one has received payment for the mating of a dog, whether hound of the chase or guardian of the flocks, he must not use thereof to sacrifice to God. (Thackeray)

Here, The wages of a prostitute are compared to the price given for the servicing of a bitch, and both are deemed unsuitable for offering sacrifices to God. The profits from selling sexual intercourse, whether human or canine, are tainted with the shame of that intercourse (τοῖς σώμασιν αἰσχύνης).

It is interesting that Josephus does not condemn the owning or use of prostitutes or dogs, only the use of profits from their sexual activities for sacrifices. The uncleanness of the sex act attaches itself to the money made through it. In the case of the dogs, the shame does not spread to the sheep they keep, the game they catch, or its owner. In the same way, Josephus gives no indication that the shame of prostitution affects those who own or use prostitutes – only the prostitute bears the shame.

The only contemporary sustained treatment is in Dio Chrysostom’s 7^th Discourse (7:133-37).[11] Chrysostom’s target is those who rule the city (7:136-7) and his concern the way in which they deal with the “brothel keepers” (πορνοβοσκῶν, 7:133). In line with some other Greek moralists he considers that sex should be reserved for marriage and even then only for procreation (7:134-5) (compare that to Paul’s attitude in 1 Cor 7).[12] Chrysostom considers it wrong to profit by human misfortune, assuming prostitutes to be slaves by either war or purchase (7:133; cf. 7:52). He refers to the “hapless women and children” involved as σώματα (7:133), exploiting them is beneath the dignity of any moral man. Such sexual activity outside of a productive marriage is a source of shame (αἰσχύνω) and constitutes disrespect of the gods (7:133-5, cf. 1 Cor 4:14; 6:5).[13] Although much of Chrysostom’s treatment is humane, ultimately his concern is with the effect unrestricted prostitution has on the overarching morality of the city (7:140-52; cf. 1 Cor 5:6-13). The holiness that is potentially defiled is not that of the individuals involved but of the “government buildings and temples” (7:133-4). Moreover, his injunctions are not absolute; the city rulers must moderate their response to prostitution according to what is “practicable” (7:137).

In both examples there is a focus on the shame of sex and in both the prostitutes are referred to as σῶμαta, a word which when referring to the human body emphasised objectification. We see how hard it would be to define a conventional ethic of prostitution, but that if we did both Jews and Greeks would focus on criteria of shame and consider the prostitutes as objects, somata, on which the male moral agents acted.

And so we return to Paul and 1 Corinthians

1 Cor 5:1 is evidence that Paul is aware of conventional pagan morality; however, such morality is not regarded as a standard for the community so much as a mark of how far the community has fallen short.[14] On the other hand, in arguing against prostitution in 6:12-20 Paul does not draw on a wider morality. In contrast to Dio Paul shows no concern for the effect of prostitution on the rest of the church community (cf. 1 Cor 5:1-13)[15] or for what is “practicable,” his command to “flee sexual immorality” (6:18a) leaves no room for compromise or negotiation.

Instead, the weight of the argument in 1 Cor 6:12-20 comes from shared convictions (or what Paul hopes are shared convictions) that are theological in nature. The threefold occurrence of οὐκ οἴδατε “do you not know!” is a rhetorical device that serves to mark those shared convictions: membership of Christ (6:15), the nature of marriage as an order of creation as taught by Gen 2:24 (6:16), and the believer’s inhabitation by the Spirit (6:19). Additionally, by the same token, οὐκ οἴδατε occurs in 6:2 and 6:9 showing that eschatological expectation is another shared conviction on which Paul can lean, and he does so in 6:13-14.

Furthermore, the “diatribal style” that Paul uses here, often used “in philosophical schools to portray mistaken inferences,”[16] argues in favour of the fact that the visiting of prostitutes is a consequence of incorrect ethical inferences from the theological principle of Christian freedom. 1 Cor 6:12-20 presents itself as a corrective working from that principle of freedom in vs12 to the ethical result of avoiding πορνεία in vs6:18. Paul certainly appears to be trying to demonstrate a theological rational for his ethic, but does this reveal or conceal its true source?

3.3.3 God

Paul’s logic begins in 6:13 with God, who will be the one to bring history to its end, demonstrating responsibility for its event and course (1 Cor 6:13). God’s re-creative power displayed in the resurrection of Christ will ultimately accomplish the resurrection of the dead (6:14). The expectation of God’s raising of the dead is so fundamental to Paul’s understanding that he is able to state in 1 Cor 15:34 that those who deny it have “no knowledge of God”.[17] This eschatological fact defines not just the telos of history but also of every body destined for that resurrection.

In v16 the citation of Gen 2:24 grounds the argument in the order of creation and thus θεός as creator. The re-creative power which raises the dead has the same source as the creative power that shaped man from the mud, breathed life into him, and formed woman from the man’s rib (Gen 2:7, 21-25). God’s creative ordering of male female relationships within the marriage covenant and the human body as object of God’s eschatological resurrection are both denied when the unifying aspect of sex is ignored and a human being made in God’s image is treated as a commodity to satisfy an appetite.[18]

In v20 the final indicative statement of the pericope is to affirm the believer’s possession by God in the present. In Gal 5:1 Paul had described the Christian’s relationship to God in terms of the ransom of a slave or prisoner. In the Greco-Roman world, once set free, a ransomed slave remained heavily indebted to their benefactor.[19] Thus the freedom granted in Christ also creates a responsibility to Christ.[20] In Galatians Paul wants to encourage the use of freedom in opposition to dependence upon the law, in 1 Cor 6:12-20 the image is of a transfer of ownership because he is encouraging the voluntary restriction of freedom in respect of the one who has granted that freedom.[21] The price Paul refers to in v20 is of course the death of Jesus Christ, which has brought them freedom and so obligated to God, over and above their relationship to God as creator and judge. God’s saving action in Christ is thus revealed as a “fundamental motivation of Paul’s ethics.”[22]

3.3.4 Christ

So as the believer’s relationship with Christ is taken into account that the argument begins to take on a specifically Christian character.

In 1 Cor 10:23-11:1 Paul’s second and longer exposition of πάντα ἔξεστιν “everything is permitted” concludes with the injunction to imitate Paul’s imitation of Christ. The avoidance of domination, of giving an unqualified other authority over your body, is important (6:12)[23] but it is not an abstract freedom, it is a freedom from and a freedom for. Nevertheless, the Christian’s experience of freedom is constrained primarily by the need to seek the advantage of others (σύμφορον, 6:12; 10:33).[24] Given how important the consideration of others for the purpose of their salvation (σῴζω) is in 1 Cor 10:28, 33, it may be asked whether Paul shows no concern for the prostitute, her advantage and salvation, in 6:12-20.

In 6:14 Paul makes a switch from using “body” to “us”.[25] Interpreters have sometimes missed that the correlation in Paul’s parallelism is between body and food, not between body and stomach.[26] This is perhaps indicative of a wider assumption that the body or σῶμα refers in this instance to the target of Paul’s diatribe. However it may make as much, or even more, sense to see the σῶμα as the object of the appetite of πορνεία, just as the food is the object of the stomach’s appetite. This reading gives full weight to the parallelism found in 6:13-14. If that is the case, Paul’s objection to the use of the σῶμα for πορνεία, instead of for the Lord, is not only his objection to the use of the believer’s body for the satisfaction of the appetite, but also to that use of the prostitute’s body.

We have no reason to assume that the σῶμα in 6:13 is exclusively the male believer’s, except that it has consistently been interpreted this way by men. Although in v. 13 the definite article with each use of σῶμα is masculine, if it was meant to include both male and female, that is the form it would take. Although it is in singular form, Paul uses σῶμα as a distributive singular elsewhere and so could be doing so here.[27] From a man’s point of view it is natural to assume that Paul’s is concerned with the man’s destiny, but σῶμα “body” was often be used to refer to slaves and objects of sexual desire, and a prostitute was usually both.[28] In both the significant parallels of Dio Chysostom and Josephus, it is the prostitutes that are referred to as σώματα, not the men.[29] It is a plausible suggestion, then, that Paul expects his readers to understand σῶμα as referring to both πορνεύων and πόρνη, both prostitute and client. Paul’s argument in 6:13-14 could then be paraphrased thus: we will be raised, so by what right do we treat another body as if she will not, as disposable property, as something that has no stake in eternity, like mere food?

The feminist biblical scholar Angela West has rightly shown how traditional interpretation of this passage neglected the exploitation of the woman in the act of prostitution.[30] It may be, however, that Paul’s concern is more explicit than that and has only been hidden by a failure to allow σῶμα its polyvalence as potentially referring in 1 Cor 6:13-14 both to the abused and the abuser. In 6:15 Paul then specifies that “your bodies” are members of Christ as opposed to using the inclusive “the body” of 6:13.

Concern for the other body, the prostitute, can be seen as a consequence of a desire to imitate Christ and to follow his teachings in general. We read in 7:10 that Paul’s view of marriage is self-consciously derived from Christ’s teaching on the subject, but Paul’s argument in 6:16-17 assumes that marriage confers authority on each partner over the other’s body (7:4), which is a totally unconventional suggestion in both Jewish and Greek thought, could well be a development of Jesus’ teaching on divorce found in the gospels (Matt 5:31-2; 19-1-9; Mark 10:1-12) which profoundly redefined Jewish teaching on marriage and adultery, as William Countryman writes, Jesus “not only forbade the man to divorce his wife, but also gave her a permanent and indissoluble claim on him as her sexual property.”[31]

In 1 Cor 6:15 Paul’s concern is revealed to be the believer’s union with Christ. We havenow uncovered two ethical reasons why using the prostitute violates union with Christ, firstly because it fails to imitate Christ’s concern for the other’s salvation and secondly because it fails to apply Christ’s teaching on marriage. For Paul, union with Christ is thus practised and maintained in the believer’s ethical life through the imitation of Christ and adherence to his teaching.

The assertion in 6:15 that the believer’s unity with Christ can be broken through actions which contradict it argues that Christ’s saving work is not yet complete. Thus, the Corinthian believer exists in a liminal state for which the desert wanderings of Israel in the OT are paradigmatic as Paul explains in 1 Cor 10:1-13. A “carelessness” about ethical conduct, resulting from an over confidence in their new status in Christ, puts them in danger of suffering “divine rejection.”[32] Paul is concerned to reorient the Corinthians’ eschatological map, hence Paul’s extensive presentation of the resurrection hope in ch.15. The resurrection of the body is the fundamental landmark of the future against which the Corinthians are to locate their present.[33] [34]

It is this salvation historical tension that generates the connection and conflict between indicative and imperative.[35] What has been started by Christ will only be brought to completion if the believer remains united with Christ (cf. Phil 1:6; Gal 3:3), otherwise they may very well “have come to believe in vain.” Consequently in 1 Cor 6:12-20 the use of prostitutes constitutes for the believer not just a denial of their present relationship to Christ but also a potential forfeiture of their ultimate salvation.

3.3.5 Spirit

The ethical motivations of God as creator and eschatological judge, the generative norms of Christ’s teaching and life and the necessity of right living for the maintenance of salvation would, on their own, only produce a legalistic framework for the believer’s ethical performance. Paul’s theological ethic in 1 Cor 6:12-20 contains, however, one further vital strand, the Holy Spirit.

6:14 probably contains an implicit reference to the Spirit. In 6:17 This second reference to the Spirit, is primarily intended to explicate the nature of the believer’s union with Christ rather than make a statement about the Spirit per se.[36] Nonetheless, unity of Christ and believer is for Paul always a function of the Holy Spirit.[37]

The only explicit mention of the Spirit in 1 Cor 6:12-20 is in 6:19. It is preceded by the third οὐκ οἴδατε of the pericope. Against the πορνεύων, who sins into his own body, God gives the Holy Spirit who inhabits the body. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit did not render Corinthian bodies of no account but, on the contrary, gave their σῶμα special significance as the Spirit’s temple.[38]

In 1 Cor 13:1-3 Paul makes the surprising assertion that ethical or miraculous action without “love” is “nothing.” In Rom 12:1-2, the “new moral life” requires the discernment made possible by a renewed mind rather than “simple conformity to a blueprint provided by external law or sanction.”[39] In Gal 5:16-26 we read how behaviour stems from one of two apocalyptic powers, the flesh and the Spirit[40] and the works of the flesh are evil in and of themselves because of their source.[41] Paul’s consistently shows himself concerned with the source of behaviour rather than adherence to rules.

The Corinthians’ misunderstanding of the relationship between Christ, the Spirit, and their bodies, has resulted in their failure to use the Spirit as a source for their ethical actions. Yet another way in which Paul’s sexual ethic is not “conventional.” Paul has no desire to see the Corinthians try harder to be moral, burdened by a strict ethical code. Instead he wants to see them orientating their lives according to the reality of the God given Spirit. With the twin commands of “flee fornication!” and “glorify God in your body,” Paul is calling the Corinthians to realise in their behaviour the fact of Christ’s saving work past, present, and future, as evidenced by the gift of the Spirit.

Thus the presence of the Spirit in the body not only mandates a bodily life that glorifies God but enables it.[42] The Holy Spirit is not primarily an ethical burden but ethical empowerment.[43] Importantly, this enabling varies from person to person. In 1 Cor 7:7 we see that Paul considers the ability to remain celibate a “particular gift” from God. The assumption of 6:18-20 is that fleeing fornication is not a “particular gift” but one given to all believers.

From this pneumatological perspective we are now in a position to suggest a solution to the problem of why,

. . . according to 1 Cor 6:12-20 the close and sinful relationship of a believer to an unbeliever cancels membership in Christ and the church; according to 1 Cor 7:12-16 the close and legitimate relationship of a believer to an unbeliever draws the unbeliever into membership in Christ and the Church.[44]

David Horrell’s argument really rests upon the apparent arbitrariness of this distinction. The assumption is that Paul is obsessed with the boundaries of the Christian community being preserved from outsiders, in 1 Cor 7:12-16 the unclean relationship with an unbeliever is only legitimised through the sanitising and stabilising effect of marriage.[45] However Paul shows no concern that the prostitute is an outsider to the community and she could very well have been a member of the community herself. Prostitutes were usually slaves, and there were certainly slaves in the Corinthian church (cf. 7:21).

Alternatively David Garland suggests that the nature of the unions allows the transmission of different effects, thus the unclean union with a prostitute transmits uncleanness while the holy union of marriage allows holiness to be transmitted.[46]

Nevertheless, for Paul the two relationships are not equal: Firstly, in 7:12-16 sanctification of spouse and children does not necessarily result in salvation, but in 6:12-20 union with Christ results in salvation and removal from him causes the reverse.[47] Secondly, in 7:12-16 the sanctification through marital union does not operate through sex but only “homelife.”[48] If we see sexual and marital union as channels for transmission of holiness or uncleanness we are forced to admit that the effect of marriage is much weaker than the effect of fornication, despite marriage being God ordained (Gen 2:24, 1 Cor 6:16) and fornication being “of the flesh” (Gal 5:19).

But if Paul’s concern is not with the transmission of holiness or uncleanness but with the source of the behaviour that forms those unions then the problem disappears! The relationship with the prostitute results in the believer’s disconnection from Christ because the source of that behaviour is not the Spirit but the flesh. The relationship of the believer to her unbelieving spouse and children generates holiness because the source of that behaviour – peacefully remaining in marriage – is the Spirit, whose fruit is peace (1 Cor 7:15; Gal 5:22). Thus for Paul the distinction between marriage to an unbeliever and sex with a prostitute is not a “presumption” imbibed from the “conventional morality” but a theological distinction based on what Paul perceives to be the apocalyptic sources of the different behaviours.

3.3.6 Conclusion: An Unconventional Ethic

To conclude, I have attempted to show how despite the difficulty of establishing a conventional ethic of prostitution, a theological reading of Paul’s ethic in 1 Cor 6:12-20 demonstrates that Paul’s ethic is not just theological in motivation but also derives its norms from the theological reality of the Christian’s relationship to God through Christ in the Spirit. Contrary to Horrell and in agreement with Barth, not only is the ethic described in 1 Cor 6:12-20 uniquely Christian, so is the sin – in this way it is decidedly unconventional.

[1] Roland Allen, Missionary Methods: St. Paul's or Ours? (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1962), 114.

[2] Rose Wu, “Women on the Boundary: Prostitution, Contemporary and in the Bible,” Feminist Theology 10 (2001): 69-81, 75.

[3] Horrell, Solidarity and Difference, 149, also 163-65.

[4] Horrell, Solidarity and Difference, 149.

[5] Barth, Church Dogmatics, III:2:307; also Bultmann, “The Problem of Ethics in Paul,” 213.

[6] See §2.1.

[7] See Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica 12.21.2; Atemidorus, Oneirocritica 1.78; Aulus Gelius, Noctes Atticae 9.5.8; 15.12.2-3; Titius Livius, Ab Urbe Condita Libri 23.18.12; Plutarch, De Liberis Educanis 7, 2; Moralia 1AB, 5C; cited in Craig S. Keener, “Adultery, Divorce” pp.6-16 in DNTB, 11; Plutarch, does, however, allow extramarital sex of other varieties, Moralia 140B, and Cicero defends the use of prostitutes by young men, Pro Caelio 20.48, see Garland, 1 Corinthians, 227. Plutarch’s defence of extramarital sex does not seem to contradict his negative comments regarding prostitution, pace Garland.

[8] See e.g. J. Edward Ellis, Paul and Ancient Views of Sexual Desire: Paul's Sexual Ethics in 1 Thessalonians 4, 1 Corinthians 7 and Romans 1, LNTS 354 (London: T&T Clark, 2007), 41, 45, 49, 55, 62, 66, 71, 87; William Loader, The Dead Sea Scrolls on Sexuality: Attitudes Towards Sexuality in Sectarian and Related Literature at Qumran (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), 14-15, 48-49, 57-58, 142; Keener, “Adultery, Divorce,” 11.

[9] See Gen 34:31; Lev 19:29; Deut 23:18; Prov 6:26; 23:27; Sib. Or. 5.388; Ex. Rab. 43:7; Num. Rab. 9:24; 20:7; 1QS 4:10; CD 4:17; 8:5; see also Keener, “Adultery, Divorce,” 11.

[10] E.g. 2 Chron 21:13; Isa 23:16; Jer 3:3; Ezek 16:1-52; Hosea; Mic 1:7; Nah 3:4;

[11] Dio Chrysostom, Dio Chrysostom: Discourses 1-11, trans. J.W. Cohoon, LCL 257, (1932), 364-65.

[12] Cf. Malherbe, Moral exhortation, 152, 154.

[13] The absence of any discussion of procreation in 1 Cor 6:12-7:40 is a noticeable lacuna in Paul’s sexual ethics there and NT ethics generally.

[14] Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 121; Contra Horrell, Solidarity and Difference, 164.

[15] Cf. Gupta, “Which Body is a Temple?,” 527.

[16] Wayne A. Meeks, The Origins of Christian Morality: The First Two Centuries (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University, 1993), 132.

[17] Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1256-57.

[18] Barth, Church Dogmatics, III:305-07.

[19] Countryman, Dirt, Greed, and Sex, 183.

[20] Schrage, The Ethics of the New Testament, 10.

[21] See §2.6.3.

[22] Ibid., 282.

[23] Garland, 1 Corinthians, 229.

[24] Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 795.; cf §2.1.3

[25] See §3.2.3 above.

[26] See §2.2.7.

[27] Cf. 1 Cor 6:18, 20; 2 Cor 4:10; Rom 8:23; Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 263, n. 65; also §2.6.2.

[28] See §1.3.5, §2.2.7, and §3.2.2.

[29] Dio Chrysostom, Dio Chrysostom: Discourses 1-11, 7:133, p364.; Jospehus, Ant. 4.8.9; See above, §3.3.1.

[30] West, “Sex and Salvation: A Christian Feminist Bible Study on 1 Corinthians 6:12-7:39,” 72-3.

[31] Countryman, Dirt, Greed, and Sex, 171.

[32] Oropeza, “Apostasy in the Wilderness,” 77.

[33] Fee, God's Empowering Presence, 83.

[34] Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, through which you are also being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you – unless you have come to believe in vain. (1 Cor 15:1-2)

Neither is this tension unique to 1 Corinthians. In Rom 5:9-11, for example, Christ’s work in justifying and reconciling the believer to God is juxtaposed with a future salvation from God’s wrath in Christ. In Gal 5:16-21, the Galatians, though set free by Christ, still need to be warned to avoid the work of the flesh if they are ultimately to inherit the kingdom of God.

[35] Schnabel, “How Paul Developed His Ethics,” 274.

[36] As argued in §2.4.4.

[37] Rom 8:2, 9; 9:1; cf. 1 Jn 2:27; 3:24.

[38] Thielicke, The Ethics of Sex, 45.

[39] Byrne, Romans, 364; also Schnabel, “How Paul Developed His Ethics,” 275-76.

[40] Martyn, Galatians, 493-501.

[41] Betz, Galatians, 283.

[42] Schnabel, “How Paul Developed His Ethics,” 296; see also §2.6.4.

[43] Furnish, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 93; Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, 235.

[44] Ernest Best, One Body in Christ: a study in the relationship of the Church to Christ in the epistles of the apostle Paul (London: SPCK, 1955), 77-78.

[45] Horrell, Solidarity and Difference, 148-49; Neyrey, Paul, in Other Words, 114-29; Martin, The Corinthian Body, 163-69.

[46] Garland, “1 Corinthians,” 235.

[47] Gundry, Soma in Biblical Theology, 68.

[48] Ibid., 238-39.

The so-called "Slogans" of 1 Corinthians: 6:12: 1 Cor 6:12

2011-08-08T14:46:00.001+12:00

1 Cor 6:12, A Corinthian slogan or Paul’s own words?

(12) Πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν ἀλλʼ οὐ πάντα συμφέρει· πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐγὼ ἐξουσιασθήσομαι ὑπό τινος.

(12) Everything is permitted to me, but not everything is for the good. Everything is permitted to me, but I will not be ruled by anything.

The consensus view is that the phrase "everything is permitted to me" is a citation of a Corinthian slogan. Some translators go even further than merely putting the phrase in inverted commas and insert “you say” or words to that effect into the text.[1] Brian Dodd traces this tradition back to Johannes Weiss and finds Weiss’ argument, based on what Paul didn’t write rather than on what he did, unconvincing, given the frequency with which Paul does signal his citations.[2] Fitzmyer takes exception to Dodd’s thesis but does not tackle the issue of Paul’s failure to indicate a citation. For Fitzmyer the statement cannot be Paul’s own words because it is “proverbial” and because of the following ἀλλʼ οὐ(κ) which “pits Paul’s reaction over against the saying.”[3] Fee, writing too early to interact with Dodd, nonetheless follows a similar line of reasoning to Fitzmyer in arguing for a slogan. For Fee, “[Paul] qualifies [the slogan] so sharply as to negate it.”[4]

Nevertheless, there is no reason why ἀλλʼ οὐκ should be considered to have this extreme negating effect. The adversative particle ἀλλά functions to contrast two clauses,[5] but what is the effect of this particle when combined with the negative οὐκ? Paul has twice used this same construction earlier in 1 Corinthians without any suggestion that ἀλλʼ οὐκ serves to negate the prior clause:

1 Cor 4:4: οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐμαυτῷ σύνοιδα, ἀλλ' οὐκ ἐν τούτῳ δεδικαίωμαι,

I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted, (NRSV)

1 Cor 4:15: ἐὰν γὰρ μυρίους παιδαγωγοὺς ἔχητε ἐν Χριστῷ, ἀλλ' οὐ πολλοὺς πατέρας,

For though you might have ten thousand guardians in Christ, [but] you do not have many fathers. (NRSV)

In fairness, the qualifications in both verses do nullify the preceding clause, but only within the immediate context of that argument. In 4:1-4, Paul is arguing that only the Lord’s judgement is of consequence,[6] and in 4:14-16 Paul is establishing his unique relationship with the Corinthians.[7] In neither instance, however, is there any requirement that the initial propositions be attributed to anyone other than Paul, nor that in other contexts Paul might not happily acknowledge the proposition without qualification. Furthermore, in 2 Cor 4:8-9 and Rom 10:2 the same construction is used to qualify one clause with another, but in these instances the prior clause remains significant for the argument of the pericope.

Fitzmyer’s argument on ἀλλʼ οὐκ is therefore not convincing. His argument that it is “proverbial” would be pertinent, but only if the phrase, as many slogan advocates suggest, was in common currency at that time. Even if this could be shown, however, that would not in itself necessitate the conclusion that Paul is distancing himself from these words in 1 Cor 6:12 rather than affirming them. It could rather be that Paul is here using an expression current within the popular culture of Corinth to communicate his teaching on Christian freedom.

Bruce Winter writes, “Lists of aphoristic sayings were propagated across the Hellenistic world and were placed so that they were visible to all. However they contain no examples of the statement in 1 Cor 6:12, 10:13 . . . The closest we come [to] the sayings in 6:12 is ‘do good to yourself’ [σεατὸν εὖ ποίει] but it by no means matches the forcefulness of the statement ‘everything is permitted.’”[8] Instead, evidence for the saying is found in the arguments of those who are apparently refuting it. Each example succeeds in demonstrating only that issues of “what is permitted” were significant in Greek culture; there is no evidence that any contain or refute a particular slogan.[9] Winter’s discussion of Dio Chrysostom does, however, throw up one very significant parallel. In Or.14:18, on “Slavery and Freedom,” Dio writes that, “We are forced to define freedom as the knowledge of what is permitted and what is not” (ὧς τε ἔξεστι και ὧς μή).[10] This reinforces the suggestion that Paul is here using the language of permission (ἔξεστι) as a way of talking about Christian freedom and in doing so is utilising a particular Greek expression to contextualise his theology for the Corinthian church. Some commentators suggest that while πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν is a Corinthian slogan the source of that slogan is Paul himself and that it represents a misapplication of Paul’s teaching about Jewish food rules to sexual behaviour (cf. 1 Cor 10:23-11:1).[11] Either way, the issue is freedom and its right use.

Garland writes, “The number of those who favour the view that the Corinthians spouted this maxim to justify their licentiousness is more overwhelming than the weight of the arguments presented in favour of it.”[12] He then proceeds to list four considerations which suggest that πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν is not a Corinthian slogan:

1. 1 Cor 5:9 shows that it is unlikely they could be misconstruing Paul’s teaching on sexual immorality, and if it was a teaching introduced by another party Paul would surely denounce that false teacher.

2. Going to prostitutes is likely to be a consequence of Greek cultural habits reasserting themselves rather than a theological misapplication, it is unlikely that the Corinthians would feel the need to justify what came naturally.

3. It is more plausible that Paul recasts a familiar Greek notion about freedom than that “he parrots the arguments of sensualists.”

4. The inclusion of μοι in 6:12 but not in 10:23 suggests that Paul is “adapting this saying for his own purposes rather than quoting verbatim some Corinthian byword.”[13]

Murphy-O’Connor in his extensive 2009 postscript to his 1978 essay, “Corinthian Slogans in 1 Cor 6:12-20,” takes issue with Garland’s logic. He disagrees that Paul’s failure to indicate a citation rules out a citation,[14] although to be fair to Garland, he had only suggested that this placed the burden of proof on the slogan hypothesis, not that it vitiated it completely.[15] First, Murphy-O’Connor argues that where Paul does indicate he is citing the Corinthians, e.g. 1:12 and 3:4, these cannot be taken as the Corinthians’ actual words but only as a caricature of their position and that therefore these indicators are “irrelevant for the question of slogans.”[16] Paul’s use of indicators to signal a caricature, however, hardly argues against Paul needing to indicate when he makes an actual citation. Second, he argues that because Paul does not always signal when he cites or alludes to scripture then he would not always signal when he cites words his readers had spoken. Rather, he “could certainly take it for granted that the Corinthians would recognise words that they had spoken.”[17] Caution is needed, however, in applying Paul’s practice in citing scripture to the very different matter of citing slogans,[18] not least because Paul cites scripture to support his arguments rather than to oppose its message.

Murphy-O’Connor does rightly address Garland’s second consideration, and shows that although visiting prostitutes might well have been a vestigial pagan practice, “theological reasoning would have been a defensive reaction, not the operative principle Garland imagines.”[19] This, however, would only constitute a defensive argument if the slogan were to be assumed. It is not in itself an adequate reason for making that assumption initially. The burden of proof still remains with the slogan hypothesis, and Garland’s three other considerations still stand, as Murphy-O’Connor does not address them.

Fitzmyer writes that, “It is difficult to determine whether the “I” in Paul’s reaction is to be emphasised . . . or it is merely reflecting the “me” of the slogan.”[20] The fact, however, that this “me” is not present when the slogan is used again in 1 Cor 10:23 suggests that the “me” is not there by default but is intended by Paul.[21] Collins, although a slogan advocate, acknowledges that here Paul is arguing on the basis of his own example and that the use of μοι and ἐγώ are an “integral element of Paul’s rhetoric.”[22] Indeed, the fact that throughout 1 Corinthians Paul uses himself as an example is actually the principal argument that Dodd makes,[23] his discussion of the signalling of citations is merely the prolegomenon. For Dodd, “Paul’s ‘I’ appears [here and elsewhere] as a stylistic way of making the exhortation effective when he speaks for the reader as a kind of epistolary ventriloquist, placing words on their lips that will hopefully express their future commitment.”[24] Additionally, the use of a father figure as an example was a standard device in paraenesis and Paul clearly sees himself in this role in relation to the Corinthians (1 Cor 4:15).[25] Regarding the parallels mentioned earlier, in Galatians ch. 4 the order is reversed, as Paul makes his argument against enslavement (Gal 4:1-11) and then presents himself as an example (Γίνεσθε ὡς ἐγώ, Gal 4:12; cf. 1 Cor 4:16, 11:1), but in Romans ch. 6 this rhetorical device is not used, presumably because Paul did not have the same founding relationship with the Roman church as he did with the Galatians and Corinthians.

Holladay argues convincingly that in the history of the interpretation of 1 Cor 13, “the sensus literalis,” has often been ignored, “in favour of a far more problematic interpretation.” Instead 1 Cor 13 is “self referential,” and functions as, “part of Paul’s own self-presentation.”[26] 1 Cor 8:13-9:27 and 10:31-11:1 are also substantial examples of Paul switching to the first person plural in order to illustrate the moral behaviour he is advocating. As Holladay shows, this is both consistently Pauline and “thoroughly typical of Greco-Roman parenesis.”[27] For the purposes of this exegesis, 1 Cor 8:13-9:27 and 10:31-11:1 are especially significant because they are both discussions of Christian freedom and both clearly involve Paul offering himself as an example of how that freedom is limited by other concerns. The sensus literalis of 6:12 can thus be understood as one more instance of this technique. Moreover, when 6:12 is contrasted with 10:23 the omission of the paradigmatic “I” and “me” from the construction is explained by the fact Paul has simply moved them to 11:1 the final verse of the inclusio.[28] 1 Cor 9:19 also presents itself as a reformulation of the same thought (10:23) and there can be no mistaking that the “I” in question there is indeed Paul.

If Paul is saying, “but I will not be ruled by anything,” then this shows clearly that he considers the so called slogan to be true of himself also. All things are permitted to him (he is saved by grace not law) but he will not be ruled, enslaved, or dominated by anyone or anything (cf. Gal 5:13).[29] Hence the designation of the phrase πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν as a slogan and not Paul’s own words is unnecessary. As Garland writes, “If the Corinthians used this slogan to argue for complete freedom to indulge in sexual licence, he would have objected far more directly and forcefully. If, on the other hand, he cites a commonplace view about freedom, then he redefines and limits it.”[30] It is possible to go further, however, and say that in Paul’s logic it is the very fact that the Corinthians in Christ can say πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν that demands that they avoid that which imperils their God given freedom. [31]

[1] Rosner, Paul, Scripture and Ethics, 146; see also Good News, CEV, TNIV, God's Word Translation and NEB.

[2] Dodd, “Paul's Paradigmatic 'I',” 40-43.

[3] Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 263.

[4] Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 251.

[5] BDAG 44-45.

[6] Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 340-42.

[7] Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 185.

[8] Winter, “Gluttony and Immorality at Elitist Banquets,” 81.

[9] Ibid., 80-81.

[10] Ibid., 81.

[11] West, “Sex and Salvation: A Christian Feminist Bible Study on 1 Corinthians 6:12-7:39,” 72-73.

[12] Garland, 1 Corinthians, 226; See for example Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 460-61 who asserts, "There can be no question that the initial clause of v.12 represents a quotation used as a maxim by some or by many at Corinth," although he offers no evidence other than that, "The overwhelming majority of modern scholars adopt this view".

[13] Garland, 1 Corinthians, 227-28.

[14] Murphy-O'Connor, Keys to First Corinthians, 25-26.

[15] Garland, 1 Corinthians, 226.

[16] Murphy-O'Connor, Keys to First Corinthians, 25; following Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 85.

[17] Murphy-O'Connor, Keys to First Corinthians, 26.

[18] For a detailed treatment of this issue see Dodd, “Paul's Paradigmatic 'I',” 43-44.

[19] Murphy-O'Connor, Keys to First Corinthians, 26.

[20] Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 264.

[21] Cf. Garland's fourth consideration, 1 Corinthians, 228; see also Dodd, who argues that the repetition of a phrase within a letter is no argument that it is a citation, “Paul's Paradigmatic 'I',” 42.

[22] Collins, First Corinthians, 243-44; but compare Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 263 who considers the omission of μοι in 1 Cor 10 "an insignificant difference".

[23] Dodd, “Paul's Paradigmatic 'I',” 46-58; 1 Cor 5:12; 8:13; 10:29-11:1; 12:31-13:3; 13:11-12; 14:6, 11, 14, 15, 18-19.

[24] Ibid., 48.

[25] Via, Self-Deception and Wholeness in Paul and Matthew, 64; see also Eckhard Schnabel, “How Paul Developed His Ethics: Motivations, Norms and Criteria of Pauline Ethics,” in Understanding Paul's Ethics: Twentieth Century Approaches, ed. Brian S. Rosner (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995), 292.

[26] Carl R. Holladay, “1 Corinthians 13: Paul as Apostolic Paradigm,” pp80-98 in Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honour of Abraham J. Malherbe, ed. David L. Balch, Everett Ferguson, and Wayne A. Meeks (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1990), 89.

[27] Ibid., 84, 82-88.

[28] See §1.3.1; Collins, First Corinthians, 241.

[29] Dodd, “Paul's Paradigmatic 'I',” 56.

[30] Garland, 1 Corinthians, 228-29.

[31] Cf. Garland, 1 Corinthians, 223; and Dodd, “Paul's Paradigmatic 'I',” 55.

Evangelicals Mourn Stott

2011-07-28T16:37:00.002+12:00

John Stott has gone on to glory, well deserved. He will be missed by an evangelicalism that is increasingly polarised, fractured and antagonistic as an irenic, gracious and trustworthy voice.

Other reflections include

Marc Cortez: his emphasis on the centrality of Jesus Christ and his atoning life, death, and resurrection had the greatest impact on me.

Michael Gorman: I came to admire John Stott early on for his deep commitment to both the Great Commission and the Great Commandment, an admiration that has become a constitutive part of my own spiritual and theological personality.

Tim Bulkely: Through scholarships, a library fund and the preaching initiatives John Stott will continue to impact wider and wider circles of humanity.

[Update] Paul Windsor shares his top ten Stott books with notes on how they have influenced him

Abstract for TI Colloquium

2011-07-27T17:16:00.000+12:00

I am presenting a paper at a colloquium on theological interpretation this month. I put myself in for this last year, knowing full well that I would regret it but having committed to do it have to do something. This should hopefully be a reworking of the last chapter of my MTh thesis but I have been away from the material so long I'm worried even I'm not going to be convinced by my arguments! I'm going to get started on the paper in the next few days, be keen to hear any initial reaction or questions to the abstract. This will be my first proper presentation at an academic colloquium and there are some fairly heavy weight contributors so it will be inspiring and perhaps intimidating. It will hopefully also result in a book so will be a first publication for me so I will try not to screw it up!

Paul’s Unconventional Sexual Ethics: A Theological Reading of 1 Cor 6:12-20

ABSTRACT

David Horrell argues that Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 6:12 – 7:16 is based on the “presumption” that sex with a prostitute is illicit, while sex with a spouse, believing or not, is permitted. He claims that, “while Paul uses arguments about holiness and bodily union with Christ to support and promote his sexual ethics, the substantive ethical convictions themselves are not derived from these arguments but are already assumed.” Likewise, Bernard Lategan, in a study on Paul’s ethics in Galatians, comes to a similar conclusion: that the content of Paul’s ethics is merely conventional but that “Paul develops a new understanding of what ethical responsibility entails – an understanding that flows directly from his theological assessment of the new existence in faith.” Thus for Horrell and Lategan Paul’s motivation and responsibility for ethical behaviour may be transformed by his theology, but the actual ethics are both “universal” and “conventional.” In opposition to this view, this paper will give initial consideration to what a conventional 1st century ethic of prostitution might be, with particular reference to Josephus and Dio Chrysostom. Paul’s own ethic will then be explored revealing both a radical contrast to the conventional ethics of his contemporaries and a robustly theological ethic constructed from the perspectives of God, Christ, and the Spirit. Finally it will be argued that, in this instance, a theological reading of the text has served as a valuable corrective to the readings produced by the social science methodology of Horrell and others.

The so-called "Slogans" of 1 Corinthians: Introduction

2011-07-26T10:25:00.001+12:00

I will begin our discussion of slogans in 1 Corinthians by looking at 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 and revisiting some of my work from my MTh thesis. Then I plan to address every every possible instance of Corinthian slogans in 1 Corinthians paying attention to the resulting exegetical and theological ramifications of the argument. Let me know what you think, :-)

Jay Smith defines a Corinthian slogan as,

[A] motto (or similar expression that captures the spirit, purpose, or guiding principles) of a particular group or point of view at Corinth, or at least a motto that Paul was using to represent their position or attitudes.[1]

Smith rightly warns that there is a risk in not attributing slogans, that the interpreter might mistake the Corinthians’ words for Paul’s.[2] What also needs to be acknowledged is the risk of mistaking Paul’s words for the Corinthians’. Although there is a range of nuances to the way such slogans might be derived and operate the basic question is whether or not those phrases identified as slogans should be read as Paul’s words or the Corinthians’; that is, should we understand that Paul is distancing himself from the assertions made in the slogan or do we distort Paul’s meaning by using quotation marks to signal a slogan?

There is no doubt that some of the phrases in 1 Cor 6:12-20 are pithy, even epigrammatic, in character. When such phrases are identified as slogans there is a spectrum of possible implications:

A. Corinthian Slogan: Paul cites actual words used by the Corinthians and then opposes them with his own slogans.

B. Commonplace Slogan: Paul uses a commonplace slogan to represent the Corinthians’ arguments or as a ‘straw-man’ against which to argue.

C. Corinthian Ideas: Paul invents a slogan to summarise or encapsulate the Corinthian position which he then rebuts.

D. Commonplace Ideas: Paul invents a slogan to summarise or encapsulate a commonplace idea which he then qualifies with further considerations.

E. Paul’s Ideas: The slogan is an ad hoc expression of Paul’s own convictions which he then develops and explores.

F. Paul’s Slogan: The slogan is actually a phrase that Paul uses in his teaching and is thus stated as a reminder of previous teaching and as a foundation on which to build an argument.

There are three potential Corinthian slogans in 1 Cor 6:12-20. Within the limits of this study the question will be simplified as to whether or not the suggested slogans should be understood as Paul’s own words (options E-F) or as his rendering of the Corinthians’ position (options A-C). If Paul is merely citing a commonplace view of freedom (option D) then he still does not distance himself sufficiently from the slogan for it to qualify as a representation of the Corinthians’ position over and against Paul’s.

Generally the repeated πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν of verse 12 is considered to be a Corinthian slogan, to which Paul twice responds creating a parallel construction. This looks something like:

Corinthian Slogan: πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν

Paul’s Response: ἀλλʼ οὐ πάντα συμφέρει

Corinthian Slogan: πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν

Paul’s Response: ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐγὼ ἐξουσιασθήσομαι ὑπό τινος

A significant reason for the success of this view is that it is such a tidy structural explanation. However in the next verses (13-14) things are less clear cut, with scholars divided as to where the slogan ends and Paul’s response begins.

Corinthian Slogan: τὰ βρώματα τῇ κοιλίᾳ καὶ ἡ κοιλία τοῖς βρώμασιν,

Slogan or Response?: ὁ δὲ θεὸς καὶ ταύτην καὶ ταῦτα καταργήσει.

Paul’s Response: τὸ δὲ σῶμα οὐ τῇ πορνείᾳ ἀλλὰ τῷ κυρίῳ, καὶ ὁ κύριος τῷ σώματι

ὁ δὲ θεὸς καὶ τὸν κύριον ἤγειρεν καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐξεγερεῖ διὰ τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ.

If verses 13-14 do contain a Corinthian slogan then the disputed 13b would need to be part of that slogan to maintain the parallel structure with the subsequent phrases 13c-14. However, as we have already noted there is some confusion as to where the quotation should end. Nonetheless, the status of these two slogans as citations of Corinthian positions is generally assumed in scholarship. Although usually prefaced with the language of probability, the alternative is seldom discussed.[5]

The last potential slogan in this passage is not normally marked in translations although significant scholars have argued for it. This is 18b, which if it is a slogan is answered by Paul in 18c. This lacks any intrinsic parallelism except perhaps to echo the construction of the previous slogan-refutation constructions.[6]

Corinthian Slogan: πᾶν ἁμάρτημα ὃ ἐὰν ποιήσῃ ἄνθρωπος ἐκτὸς τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν

Paul’s Response: ὁ δὲ πορνεύων εἰς τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα ἁμαρτάνει

There are many pertinent reasons for considering these to be citations of Corinthian slogans and these will be discussed in due course. However, it is exegetically dubious to start with the assumption that these are necessarily slogans. Brian Dodd observes that the modern tradition of reading “πάντα μοι ἔξεστιν” as a Corinthian slogan can be traced back to Johannes Weiss’ 1910 work, Der Erste Korintherbrief.[7] Weiss’ argument rests on Paul’s omission of τοῦτο δέ to introduce his own speech, as he does in 1 Cor 7:6, 29, 35; 11:17; and 15:50.[8] Thus Paul does not directly signal that these are his words in the way that he does signal them in five other places in 1 Corinthians.[9] Nonetheless, when it is considered that in 32 instances in 1 Corinthians Paul clearly signals citations, “whether from the Corinthians, other literature or from hypothetical dialogue,”[10] it seems apparent that Paul is more than able to signal a citation if he needs to, and far more likely to signal a citation than he is to signal his own words. This is not to say that one or more of these phrases cannot be Corinthian slogans, but that the initial assumption must be that these are not citations but Paul’s own words, because Paul has not signalled otherwise. Our exegesis may eventually convince us of the presence of slogans but the burden of proof rests with the slogan hypotheses. As Fisk writes, “Without any marker to signal the presence of a slogan . . . this view should be adopted only as a last resort.”[11]

The question then becomes, by what criteria may we discern the presence of a Corinthian slogan? Carson suggests three criteria for evaluating the presence of a slogan:

[T]hey are short, they are usually followed by sustained qualification, and the Pauline response is unambiguous and does not require the addition of words or phrases to make sense of the text.[12]

Smith, following the work of others, offers a more extensive list, which is reproduced in the table below and correlated to an initial analysis of the three slogans in 1 Cor 6:12-20.[13]

Table of Slogan Criteria and Slogans in 1 Cor 6:12-20

Smith’s Slogan Criteria	6:12	6:13	6:18
Introductory formula	No	No	No
Brief, pithy, elliptical statement in the present tense	Yes	Yes	Yes
Rhetorical features, parallel structures	Yes	Yes	Yes
Repetition	Yes	No	No
Diatribal, dialogical	Yes	Yes	Yes
Vocabulary, syntax, or ideas foreign to or inconsistent with Paul	No	Possibly	Possibly
Contextual or syntactic dislocation	No	No	No
A sharp counterattack, or point-counterpoint argument	Possibly	Possibly	Possibly
Vocabulary or theology that other contexts suggest is exclusively or characteristically Corinthian	Possibly	Possibly	Possibly
Identifying slogan leads to contextual congruency	Possibly	Possibly	Possibly
Confirmation by others in the history of exegesis	Yes	Some	Few
Convergence of multiple strands of evidence	Yes	Yes	Yes

While not every criterion will be appropriate for every possible slogan Smith’s list does suggest that all the possible slogans in 1 Cor 6:12-20 should be given serious consideration. Smith rightly suggests that slogans should be identified by applying a number of different approaches “in a balanced and self correcting fashion,”[14] and there is no dispute that, “Given the theological sparring between Paul and the Corinthians . . . between the lines of Paul’s text lie Corinthian theology and practice.”[15] Nevertheless, finding the Corinthians’ words in the text as opposed to merely between the lines is another matter.

[1] Jay E. Smith, “Slogans in 1 Corinthians,” Bibliotheca Sacra 167 (2010): 68-88, 82.

[2] Ibid., 86.

[5] E.g. Martin, The Corinthian Body, 70; Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, 56; Thielman, Paul and the Law, 94.

[6] See below, §2.5.6.

[7] (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht); Dodd, “Paul's Paradigmatic 'I',” 40; but see Smith, “Slogans in 1 Corinthians,” 80, n.39 who cites John Calvin, Matthew Henry, and Theodoret, as historical examples of this interpretation.

[8] Dodd, “Paul's Paradigmatic 'I',” 43.

[9] Also see Rom 1:12; 2 Cor 9:6; Gal 3:17. It should be noted that in all there only eight examples of this.

[10] Dodd, "Paul's Paradigmatic 'I,'" 43; 1 Cor 1:19, 31; 2:9; 3:19, 20; 4:6; 6:16; 7:1; 8:1, 4; 9:9; 10:7, 26, 28; 11:24, 25; 12:3, 15, 16, 21; 14:21, 25; 15:27(x2), 33, 35, 45, 54-55.

[11] Bruce N. Fisk, “Porneuein as Body Violation: The Unique Nature of Sexual Sin in 1 Corinthians 6:18,” New Testament Studies 42:4 (1996): 545 n.10.

[12] D. Carson, Showing the Spirit (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1987), 55.

[13] Smith, “Slogans in 1 Corinthians,” 84-85.

[14] Ibid., 76.

[15] Ibid., 79.

Blog renewal

2011-07-25T12:32:00.000+12:00

I realise Xenos has been a bit flat this year, in fact it lost its way a while ago when I made my bid to enter the Biblioblog top 50 relying on sheer volume of posts to drag me into the ranks. It is now time for Xenos to shake off its chequered past, to lose its pretensions of grandeur and to embrace its humble blogness. Gone are the manifesto and overtly pious tag line, the blog roll is much reduced, and I hope this trimming will result in a sleeker more efficent blogging experience for us all.

Preaching Under Fire

2011-07-07T14:15:00.000+12:00

Some looney is discussing preaching and spiritual warfare over at Kiwimade Preaching. Go over there and tell him what you think. ;-)

God and Dog

2011-07-05T11:41:00.000+12:00

This is really beautifully simple, fun and profound. thanks to David McLeod-Jones in the NZ Baptist Magazine for pointing this out.

Greg Laurie Harvest Auckland 25th June 2011: A Review

2011-06-28T17:02:00.000+12:00

OK, I have a feeling that getting into this is going to cop me similar flack to what I got from daring to critique Charles Stanley many moons ago. And if it does that is OK but if you are going to flip out on me, at least do me a favour and read what I actually write!

The church I am part of took two buses to the Vector Arena on the weekend to attend Greg Laurie: Auckland Harvest. I had initially been resistant to getting involved, but at an initial interest meeting they sold it to me on the basis of their own financial commitment (the harvest guys were putting in plenty of their own cash), the commitment to follow up (they clearly put a lot of effort into turning converts into disciples), and to church unity (they laid the whole thing about churches working togther on thick). I also saw this as a good opportunity of the sort that we can't usually offer our people for evangelism, inviting people to a church event is one thing but free tickets to the Vector Arena is another.

The first item of the evening was a film trailer of Greg Laurie's life. I began to get a sinking feeling. This was one of the things I was afraid of, celebrity hype. Sure enough this trailer left us in no doubt that Greg was a really great guy, great enough that they'd already made a film about him and he wasn't even dead yet.

Then the Katinas came on, the first of four bands. They were great, their second song in particular was actually truly uplifting, they were joyful and funky. After three songs they were off.

Now I wasn't taking notes so I may get the order of things wrong, but one of the things we were told was that no particlar auckland church was going to get highlighted at this event so you can imagine my dissapointment when both Life Church and C3 Church were singled out by having their pastors on stage to pray and to get a shout out to their congregations. Maybe these churches had done more for the event, they probably had but I felt this was a let down, there were many other churches who had put a lot of work in to this event proportional to their size and I felt this contradicted what we had been assured of earlier.

Then came Phil Joel, he is a Kiwi artist and did a great rendition of the national anthem, although didn't get the words on the screen and didn't do it in Maori, but it was a a good moment anyway. After Phil we had three songs from Martin Smith of Delerious fame, who cracked me up by summoning up a mosh pit in the space that was supposed to be for all the converts to come forward to later. But he is a seasoned performer and lovely nutty charismatic. He reminded me of my younger days going to Delirious concerts in Blighty. Then we had Jeremy Camp who only arrived due to miraculous ciircumstances but didn't go into detail about what they were, only that he only just got here. Jeremy Camp has big muscles, I say that because I found it very distracting every time he lifted his arms in praise his pendulous triceps would hang off his arms and it made me wonder how much time he spent weight lifting. He has a great voice and I realised I knew most of his songs from the radio. He finished with a song about taking up the cross and counting the cost - I thought that was interesting because that was the exact opposite of the message I was expecting to get from Greg.

Greg's talk came next. He had been hyped up so much "great communicator", "really knows how to connect with kiwis" that I was expecting something super flash. Really, he was nothing of the sort, very much in the tradition of Billy Graham his message was very simple and not at all flash. In fact his jokes and anecdotes, with which he liberally peppered his talk were all deeply old and tried and true preachers jokes, like the one about the burglar and the parrot who says "Jesus is watching you." His relating to kiwis was pretty simple too, he made one joke about the different words Americans and Kiwis have for things, one joke about sheep and one reference to earthquakes. It is hardly probing deep into our national psyche, but it was enough becaue people did love it. No one seemed to mind that he used the word "irregardless" or referred to "CS Lewis the author of the Narnia Movies" or still insists on calling evangelistic events "crusades" (all things that would destroy your credibility in my eyes if I were a seeker).

He was preaching on John 3 and Nicodemus' encouter with Jesus. Point 1. Nicodemus was rich and religious, he should have been happy but he wasn't - people who are rich are not happy. 2. Nicodemas came to Jesus by night because he was afriad of what his friends might think - don't let peer pressure put you off following Jesus (this was where the sheep joke came, I'm sure you can work it out). 3. Jesus told Nicodemas he had to be born again - everyone wants to be transformed but only Jesus can give us the transformation we really want. I actually found the talk quite hard to follow, although the illustrations and things were simple all the jokes and anecdotes made it hard to keep track of the point he was making and the scripture was all but lost. then without passing go he went straight to the "roman road" "here is how you get saved" type of thing and told everyone to do it now cos they might die and then the Katinas came back and played this really nice altar call song and like 15% of the arena crowd (10,000) came forward to commit or recommit themselves to Christ.

It was quite impressive, although they couldn't actually cope with the number that went forward and the same thing happened the next night which meant that a number of people who tried to go forward wre not counselled and had that moment of commitment spoiled by being turned away by a steward. Not having a contingency for that level of resonse and not being flexible enough to at least be ready the next night for it to happen again was another dissapointment.

On balance though, it was a good night. the people who came with me were encouraged and many were moved. As an evangelism tool it did seem to move a number of people who have been sitting on the fence to step up and commit to Christ. However I don't feel the gospel was well explained or that anyone was allowed to obey the call of Jeremy Camp (and Jesus) to count the cost. It has also been valuable for me to discover some of those in our church with a heart for evangelism. In the future though I would rather put our efforts into something local and less celebrity driven.

Let me know what you think.

brick-a-brack 20/06/11

2011-06-20T12:03:00.000+12:00

Ramachandra gets stuck into the IMF

We have been intimidated for far too long by the pseudo-scientific pronouncements of economists and the lies of politicians. Banking is not so complex that we cannot understand how we are being conned. Where are the Christians in economics and finance who dare to think “outside the box” and write the kind of books that Susan George writes, explaining to “ordinary” folk how not to be hood-winked by the games the rich play?

Steve ponders whether he is a skeptic or a faith blogger

I know that both the Defenders and the Disillusioned/Deconverted would consider me and the growing numbers of people like me to be living in an untenable state of cognitive dissonance. They would say I am the unreasonable, illusioned defender, denying the fruits of the doubts and disbelief I have uncovered and at times trumpeted.

John Byron points to some useful resources for Bible background

Geoff New levels an indictment against multimedia preaching

Michael Patton struggles with depression as a preacher

Rachel Held Evans champions the church of the uncool

Enjoy!

Sexy Church?

2011-05-26T09:23:00.000+12:00

Ok I wouldn't normally click on any fb video with the word "sexy" in the title but this seemed like a genuinely interesting social experiment. It was eye-opening but not entirely surprising.

Documentary : Sexy Girls Have It Easy from Bright Hand Pictures on Vimeo.

Now I have not the remotest hope that anything I could do or say could change the fact that this is how our society works, and as a guy with two young daughters already obsessed with disney princesses I worry about how these social realities will affect and form my girls and their self understanding . . . whether they grow up to be "hot" or not. My question is how this social reality has affected the church? And I don't think it is just girls either, look around you at the people who are celebrated and encouraged at your fellowship, are many ugly, are many poorly dressed, or does God seem to only call the hip and good looking?

The truth is that those who do not fit the outside world's criteria of attractiveness will not be found to fit the church's implicit criteria of what will work and who God can use. I think of 1 Cor 1:28 and I think of Isaiah 53:1-3 and I have to wonder if good looking churches have any power to reach our broken world at all, or if they are merely hostage to the same lies.

What do you think?

JK Rowling on Failure and Imagination

2011-05-23T14:06:00.000+12:00

Continuing my irregular series on good preachers who are not preachers . . .

This is well worth a listen not just for the message but also for the insight into the life of one of the few modern authors who is truly a household name.

J.K. Rowling Speaks at Harvard Commencement from Harvard Magazine on Vimeo.

Hat tip to Robyn and Sarah on FB!

Why Are Stupid Christians News?

2011-05-23T11:30:00.000+12:00

Now I know the media has a general bias against Christians, fair enough, but there is something sinister about the desire to publicise every stupid Christian group they can find. This month we had the idiots from California and not long before it was the idiots from Florida. Now I have no desire to defend such stupidity but why should it be international news? Do they say of every madman, murderer and fraudster in the news who isn't a Christian, "and of course this man never went to church" as if that has anything to do with his madness? Why then does peoples' idiocy, which would otherwise not be newsworthy, suddenly becomes worthy of international attention because they are a "pastor" in the USA?

*headslap*

Bill Maher on Christian Violence

2011-05-19T09:31:00.000+12:00

There is so much going on in this one that I don't know where to begin. As atheist rants go this is a pretty good sermon. BTW for those of you who read this blog with your kids, some foul language follows if you press play. Let me know what you think. (HT to TB on FB)

Resonant Reading

2011-05-18T16:46:00.000+12:00

From the Sacred Sandwich

. . . we must of course guard agains over-exegesis. Under-exegesis, though, is also risky, sometimes even more so . Historical exegesis is not simply a matter of laying out the lexicographical meanings of words and sentences. It involves exploring the resonances those words and sentences would have had in their contexts. Like anthropologists learning a language and culture simultaneously, we have to be prepared to hear more in a word or phrase than could be caught by a dictionary equivalent. A small saying can function like a spyglass through which one can glimpse a large and turbulent world. To object to this exercise, whether through pedantry or positivism, is like protesting that houses, fields and ships cannot be contained within the physical body of a telescope.

From NT Wright, JVG, xvii

Blowing in the wind: A parable

2011-05-12T10:38:00.000+12:00

Bob Dylan recently came to NZ and put on a show, many of his oldest fans turned up to hear what they hoped would be a trip down memory lane, like listening to their old vinyl but with the added thrill of the man himself sitting there. Instead they were shocked by the terrible racket being produced and dissapointed not to recognise more than a tiny handful of songs. In disgust many fans walked out.

Others though had followed Dylan's career a bit more closely and knew that he wasn't still rehearsing karaoke versions of his 60's material, some of them were still dissapointed with the performance, but others thrilled to find themselves in the presence of musical genius.

People who expect musicians to remain solidly stuck in the past, don't buy their later records but then complain when they don't know any songs at the concert strike me as being hopeless. They are not fans of the musician at all but instead only fans of a recording, perhaps one that is tied to their youth or a different era, they weren't paying homage to Dylan, they were paying homage to their own nostalgia. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, but how churlish to complain that Dylan had moved on without them, that he had a life of his own and hadn't stayed stuck in their past.

Like the wind, he had moved on. "So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." (John 3:8)

brick-a-brack 05/10/11 Love Wins Special Edition

2011-05-10T16:49:00.000+12:00

It is probably pretty obvious that I haven't had much time this year for reading or writing blogs, one day I'll tell you all about it. But I really do appreciate you keeping me in your feedreaders, and promise (foolishly) that one day it will all be worth it . . . until then I give thanks for the creativity of others . . .
like Alex Baker . . .

. . . and Angus Wordsworth Duncan

. . . not to mention John Birch

And if you haven't yet read enough reviews of Love Wins you might like to check out my friend Rhett's review. And BTW I have no opinion on the matter but I do wear glasses and try not to be too dogmatic about the ultimate fate of rabid Bible thumping fascists.

Mega Pastors' Management Philosophy ;-)

2011-04-21T10:12:00.000+12:00

Quote of the Day: Peterson on Pastors

2011-04-01T09:46:00.000+13:00

"Impatience is the besetting sin of pastors . . . sometimes you've got to read 300 pages before something happens"

From the following video interview of Eugene Peterson, well worth a watch for a number of reasons.

Thanks to Matt who shared this video with a different quote of the day. Definately worth sharing.

Also a choice moment, when the interviewer asks how he could have turned down a chance to hang out with Bono in order to keep working on The Message Eugene replies, "Dean, it was Isaiah!"

brick-a-brack 23/03/11

2011-03-23T18:25:00.000+13:00

Sacred Sandwich unveils their youth enfranchisement policy:

Al Mohler thinks single guys shouldn't be pastors (at least in the US)
Marc Cortez has his feelings hurt by Calvin
Gary Hamel appears to be firing up his blog again:

Management 1.0 was built to encourage reliability, predictability, discipline, alignment and control. These will always be important organizational virtues, but in most industries, getting better at these things won’t yield much of an upside. That’s why our management systems need to be re-engineered around the goals of adaptability, innovation, engagement and accountability—which brings us back to the issue of leadership.

Cake or Death gets all whimsical in the face of war

Ancient Greek Poetry?

2011-03-21T11:20:00.000+13:00

John Hobbins of Ancient Hebrew Poetry takes a break from Hebrew to give us a schooling in translating the NT.

Is it hard to translate the gospel of John? Not really. Its diction in the original is clean and terse. The author relies on a bundle of bright oppositions expressed through cascades of words that repeat. A faithful translator does well to mirror such in translation. Why do so many modern translations take away from the text by adding to it? Why set aside repetends and parallelisms in the source text if they can be reproduced? It boggles the mind.

Interesting how the comments completely ingnore the issue of translation and get stuck into arguing about universalism and evangelicalism, go figure.

Church is just a Funeral Society

2011-03-17T12:23:00.000+13:00

Thanks to Pam for pointing out this excellent article from a Lutheran perspective on funeral societies, missional church, Bonhoeffer, and death. Some excerts below, you really need to read the whole thing though.

For centuries, Christian community, organized as a funeral society of a higher order, has played on the natural fear of mortality, even hyped that fear as a motive for Christian life “so that we can go to heaven when we die.” That was the “attraction.” But with humankind’s coming of age, the jig is up. Religion cannot prey on human weakness this way any longer. . .

If we are to continue in Christianity in this religionless new age, then, we are going to have reconceive our relationship to death and understand it once again as the Pauline power that overwhelms and corrupts the creation, which in turn waits in eager longing for the redemption of our bodies in the revelation of the glorious liberty of the children of God. . .

The handful of strident, fire-and-brimstone religionists who sense this breach from our religious past and loudly still try to terrorize people into heaven above only reinforces the vast majority in their secularism. Easy, indeed, when the alternative to dying naturally is to live life now by flattering a divine Egotist who eternally tortures those who don’t pay the bribe of living “religiously.” . . .

I just wish I had the time to respond to such a stimulating article, I'll be printing it out and chewing on it some more anyway. Let me know what you think.

Olsen Defines Fundamentalism

2011-03-09T14:54:00.000+13:00

Words are slippery characters, but I think Olsen's definition of fundamentalism as he applies it to other Christians is very helpful:

Today fundamentalism seems to be defined two ways: 1) by a certain ethos or attitude with regard to doctrinal differences, and 2) by the doctrine and practice of “biblical separation” which really means “secondary separation.” First, fundamentalism appears whenever Christians elevate what have usually been considered secondary doctrinal matters to the status of litmus tests of authentic Christian faith; second, it appears whenever Christians refuse to have Christian fellowship with those who they believe are tainted by secularism or liberalism.

From this comment on this post.

Narrative Context and Character Formation

2011-03-09T14:43:00.000+13:00

Thanks to David J on Facebook! From here.

Worship Wars in The Cafeteria of Life

2011-03-08T16:14:00.000+13:00

Thanks to DP for pointing to this provocative "rant from a loser in the worship wars", well worth a read and uncannily appropriate given the Sacred Sandwich cartooon for today:

Why Evolution Is Bad For Humanity

2011-03-03T09:25:00.000+13:00

Thanks to Phil on Facebook, dedicated to Jim West.
"Time is the only thing between cats and opposable thumbs . . . "

"the sermon hangs in mid-air like the pungent remains of a flatulent child"

2011-02-28T11:54:00.000+13:00

That is possibly the most graphically descriptive line of any commentary on preaching I have ever read, well done Myk, may the same never be said of your preaching! :-)

P.S. Perhpas you want to feed your kids a few less raisins?

Christchurch Earthquake Liturgy

2011-02-26T19:50:00.000+13:00

I have wanted to blog meaningfully about the earthquake, but found myself inadequate, preparing for this Sunday's service has been hard enough, but unlike a blog post I have no choice about doing that. Three posts about the earthquake that I believe are meaningful and am not ashamed to be leaning on in my own preparation for tomorrow:

Christchurch Earthquake: Worse This Time

2011-02-23T15:01:00.000+13:00

Half a year after the last one Christchurch has been hit again. This time there has been considerable loss of life, although again it is noticable how living in a developed country improves your chances in such events. Love and prayers to all in Christchurch. Those who want to donate should go to the Red Cross or the Salvation Army. Go here to see before and after pics of the city's cathedral.

A group of new pastors I'm in touch with have been discussing what we will preach on this Sunday in light of the event. My texts for this Sunday,

1 Kings 19:9-18 (for the children's talk)
Luke 13:1-9 (for the grown up's talk)

Three Tips for Church Leaders

2011-02-21T11:23:00.000+13:00

Thanks again to Sarah on FB :-)
If the previous post got you down, here is some hope.

Tamaki, Cultwatch and the Herald

2011-02-21T11:20:00.000+13:00

Once again Brian Tamaki, New Zealand's highest profile and possible richest church leader is in the news. This time it is a Herald editorial, blasting Cultwatch for categorising Brian Tamaki as a cultist because he has denied the bodily resurrection of Christ. The writer of the editorial appears to be under the impression that this then places Tamaki in the same camp as Lloyd Geering and other liberalising theologians in their rejection of orthodox Christian doctrine in the name of embracing the fruits of secular modernity. Said editor displays a complete failure to grasp that this is not "Bishop" Tamaki bowing to the reason of the modern age but his out of control ego propelling him to reinvent Christianity in a way that serves his own ends more efficiently. I would, however, agree with the nameless Herald editor that Cultwatch has been a bit slow on this one, it is not doctinal unorthodoxy that makes a cult but the systematic manipulation of the vulnerable. True followers of Jesus are good news for the poor, they don't use the poor to bankroll their next pruchase of a Lexus. If a pastor has a personalised number plate it should read "here to serve," Tamaki's betrays his true heart:

The connection between cell phone radiation and eternal damnation

2011-02-20T18:18:00.000+13:00

:-) Thanks to Sarah on FB.

The Arminian Creed(?)

2011-02-18T09:27:00.000+13:00

This tongue in cheek creed comes from an hilarious order of service from a (otherwise unimaginative) calvinist website, (HT Justin)

“I believe in God who once was Almighty, but sovereignly chose not to be sovereign; and in Jesus, my personal Lord and Saviour, Who loves me and has a wonderful plan for my life, Who came into my heart when I asked him to, and is now seated at the right ventricle of my belief in Him, Who walks with me and talks with me along life’s narrow way, and tells me I am His own, Who shall come again with secrecy to rapture us out of here, Whose Kingdom shall last one thousand years; And in the Holy Ghost, who did some weird stuff at Pentecost, but doesn’t do much more anymore except speak secretly to the hearts of individual believers. And I believe in this local, independent, and powerless church, insofar as it is in line with my personal interpretation of the Bible and does stuff! like; in one believer’s baptism for the public proof of my decision for Christ; and in giving my personal testimony for soul winning. And I look for the identity of the Antichrist, and know that the Last Days are now upon us. Ay-men.”

Meanwhile John Hobbins calls us to a more excellent way out of the Arminian/Calvinist debate.

Two posts on Mark's Gospel

2011-02-17T15:43:00.000+13:00

Steve Douglas discusses equal opportunity salvation,

Neither the rich nor the poor are demonized, because the author understood a focus on class or status to be missing Jesus’ point.

And James McGrath has a hunch (AKA an essay) as to how the gospel story ended in Mark's mind if not on paper.

Two posts on worship

2011-02-17T10:50:00.000+13:00

pic from Sacred Sandwich

I am very excited about Marc's new series on lessons from the Dark Ages for church worship.

And Roger Olsen poses an interesting question about a perplexing correlation between different churches' worship styles and their theology.

Two Helpful Paul Resources

2011-02-14T14:27:00.000+13:00

A brief and helpful summary and comparison of tradition protestant readings of Paul against three different "new perspective" scholars.

Some interesting discussion of the "missional" Paul and his approach to church evangelism.

In both instances hat tip to Michael Gorman

Time To Lose All That God Talk

2011-02-11T13:30:00.000+13:00

John has been wondering about a recent CofE move to change the baptismal liturgy to something a little more accessible to those illiterate oiks who have never read the Bible, know no Bible stories, and have the theological eduation of a bean sprout. But the problem is more widespread, if we are going to appeal to the lowest common denominator of each and every gathering we should remember that there may be someone there who doesn't believe in God at all, even in the most watered down wishy washy new age way imaginable.

Because of this all church liturgy, sermons and songs should avoid things that someone in the room might not know about and should instead revolve around sports results, discussing the weather, and gentle exhortations to drive a little closer to the speed limit, recycle anything that isn't too much trouble, and be nice to people unless you are having a bad day. At all costs no sense of curiosity, wonder, challenge, or discovery should be risked otherwise someone might not feel as safe at church as they do in their own living room wearing nothing but their underpants and eating day old chips while watching reruns of Postman Pat.

God Changes The Past All The Time

2011-02-11T13:15:00.000+13:00

Roger Olsen has an interesting post wondering why calvinists don't think it limits God if he cannot change the past. But both Olsen and his calvinist sparring partners are wrong, God changes the past all the time, it is just no one ever notices because he changes our memories too!

However, there are some tell tale signs that this goes on more than we realise. For example, thousands of years ago when Moses wrote Genesis the world had only taken 6 days to make, but today if you examine the planet and its surrounding environs you can see it took around 40 Billion years to make. Or if you read ancient documents you would see that the Sun used to rise up in the sky and go down at night, but today it is Earth which rolls around the Sun. The only possible explanation is that what used to be really was then, but then it got changed retrospectively and now we are living with a new version of the past. QED.

Of course the nice thing about having a changeable past is that when we argue about what really happened back then, we can both be right! And as far as I remember I never lent you that $20.

The Ruthless Monk Discovers Buffy

2011-02-10T16:01:00.000+13:00

She does, and she likes it, read her theological review of watching 7 seasons of Buffy here. She starts like this,

It's all Netflix's fault. Since both Criminal Minds and Burn Notice were on hiatus a few months ago, I decided to give Buffy the Vampire Slayer a try. I ended up spending two months of my life obsessively watching the entire 7 seasons of what I now consider to be one of the most insightful and well-written shows ever made. Anyone who can get past the creepy monsters, (and there were a few that even made me hide my eyes) and commit to reliving high school with the kids from Sunnydale, will be rewarded with an epic modern-day parable about good vs. evil, sacrifice, and redemption. It's also really, really funny.

Why I Love Old People

2011-02-10T15:59:00.000+13:00

You never know what they might do. All those years of experience and frustration can come out in the most interesting ways. This video shows an English grandmother bashing the daylights out of a gang of six jewlery store robbers while everyone else hides out the way.

The Cutting Edge of the Church

2011-02-07T06:09:00.000+13:00

A year or so ago one of NZ's top surgeons came to speak at Carey Baptist College. A staunch and thoughtful Christian, he was asked by the interviewer at one stage, "what is it that future church leaders in this room can do to support people like you in their work?" He looked genuinely shocked by the question, "I have always felt that pastors were far more intereted in how I could support their ministry than in helping me in mine."

I preached an experimental message yesterday evening on Eph 4:1-14. It was a pretty simple message really, that Jesus has given apostles, prophets, pastors and teachers to the church to edify the church to do God's work in the world. Or put another way, it is not the job of the church to support the ministry of the pastors, but the job of the pastors to support the ministry of the church. It is not the minister, or the youth pastor, or whoever else happens to be on stage on a Sunday meeting that is the cutting edge of the church, it is everyone else, those who spend their days at work, in school, or making home in the neighbourhood. Beyond this basic attitudinal shift what can we do to reorient church away from the ministry of those upfront on Sunday towards the ministry of everyone's everyday lives?

Let me know what you think :-)

Jonathan Robinson on Educational Preaching

2011-01-31T14:51:00.000+13:00

If you have been missing my posting, sorry about that moving house and starting a new pastoral role have rather limited my time for blogging (not to mention the phone company messing up our internet connection), but over at Kiwi-Made Preaching you can see (and comment on!) a provactive and thoughful post by your's truly. Normal service at Xenos may or may not resume shortly. ;-)

brick-a-brack 12/01/11

2011-01-12T10:45:00.000+13:00

Think you are being persecuted? (From Alex)

Sufi comics have launched their free ebook of 40 sufi comics, as I mentioned before, this is a good introduction to a different side of Islam
An essay on Gerhard von Rad, OT scholarship, Jesus, and resistance to the Nazis, HT John Byron
Bruce Winter lectures on the Pastoral Epistles and Hebrews, HT Ali
Steve Douglas and friends launch a new podcast "Ad Hoc Christianity" with a dicsussion of doubt and faith
This guy thinks he is a manly preacher and the rest of us are sissys, but he can't even bring himself to say toilet: HT Loren Rosson

This is more than a little whimsical, which of course makes it true art. HT Doug Chaplin

And finally, thanks to Calum for sharing this but not sharing that,

brick-a-brack 06/01/11

2011-01-06T12:44:00.000+13:00

Cartoon from ASBO Jesus

Doug Chaplin (UK) complains about American imports (namely creationism)
Staurt points out a UK report on converts to Islam
While Jason Hood talks about loving our Muslim neighbours (HT Bird)
Michael Horton discusses Jesus and Paul
Marc Cortez calls for more pastor theologians
Jonathan Fitzgerald calls for more appreciation for the critics of Christianity
Jeremy starts a new series on using videos in teaching about the Bible

Egocentric Literalists: Quote of the Day

2011-01-06T09:57:00.000+13:00

I often say that what lies at the heart of most lovers of literature is a single impulse: “Let me read a story about someone who is unique and interesting, someone just like me.” Ego-centrism, to a great extent, is the highest form of literalism.

Gene Fant, An Obituary for Allegory, HT Darrell & Marc

There is so much truth in that statement i could unpack it for hours, but i don't have those hours today so you'll have to do it yourself. The rest of the article is worth a read too, and it is not too long.

Wesley and Child Theology

2011-01-05T11:01:00.000+13:00

My friend Peter Benzie has just put his MTh thesis online. From the abstract,

Through considering the writings of John Wesley, as well as the work of other scholars, this thesis finds that children were evident in his theology. Wesley is shown to have undertaken something akin to child theology when he, for instance, allowed his theology to be informed and changed by the many instances of childhood faith he witnessed. He is shown to be a man who treasured children as a gift from God, who, he believed entrusts parents and teachers with the responsibility of educating them so that they can live lives of true holiness, that is, loving God and their neighbour.

Check it out and share it round with anyone you think might be interested.

How the KJV has influenced English

2011-01-03T19:31:00.000+13:00

This will almost certainly be the only mention I make of the KJV's 400th birthday this year so make the most of it.

Even when the KJV was written it read a bit funny and faux archaic. But by and by some of the snappier phrases got picked up, a couple of my favourite that many people have no idea come from the Bible are "apple of my eye" and "skin of my teeth." The KJV is worth reading, at least once, as literature, but as scripture it was suspect from the start and for most of us now is of definate limited use due to the way the English language has changed over the 4 centuries since. But anyway some chap is blogging through all the phrases that have made their merry way into English usage and you may want to check him out, after I tip my hat to Richard Walker.

Giles Fraser's excellent Guardian post is also worth a read. A snippet:

Except, of course, that is precisely what the KJB was: an attempt by the Church of England to control the religious and cultural agenda. A team of academics was established in 1604 to translate the Bible in such a way that it bolstered the authority of the established church. James I gave the specific instruction that the translation must toe the official line on the importance of bishops. The Greek word ekklesia was to be translated as "church", rather than "congregation" or "assembly" – the translators thus giving the impression that the Bible proposes a top-down form of ecclesiastical authority.

Unfortunately even modern translations still often continue the tradition of translations that support the status quo, those in power and the peculiar pruderies of dusty old scholars.

New Year, same old blogging

2011-01-02T15:50:00.000+13:00

Xenos has slipped a few places in the ranking this month, but still hanging on in the top 50 for now!

Another mamoth BS carnival has come out.

Rhett has started blogging again, again.

Hiestand, Raising Purity: A Book Review

2010-12-31T21:07:00.000+13:00

My thanks to the author Gerald Hiestand for a review copy of his book. The book's website is here and you are able to download the first two chapters as well as listen to some of the related seminar material. Gerald is also a contributor to the SAET blog.

Well, the book has a smart cover, is well presented and has a nice modern crisp feel to it. This is going to be a mixed review and I am never sure with such things whether to give the good news or the bad news first, so I am going to be nice, then nasty, then nice again, just to warn you.

A nice bit
The first thing to say is that I liked the author, he has clearly given the issue at hand plenty of thought, has a pastoral heart and is concerned to give practical real life help to parents. His analysis of contemporary trends in romantic relationships in chs. 3 & 4 is excellent, insightful and helpful. It is clear that when he is talking about the sturggles different people face in these areas he knows what he is talking about and wants to empower people to a better way of doing things. In fact whenever Hiestand is talking about practical pastoral issues I find myself either in agreement or at least sympathy (not everything will translate culturally from USA to NZ/UK).

The nasty bit
I do how ever have a number of reservations regarding this book and the first and most serious perhaps stems inevitably from the subtitle, "Helping Parents Understand The Bible's Perpsective On Sex, Dating, And Relationships." The book turns to the Bible to find a "perspective" on North American relationship culture and inexorably, because the Bible contains no such thing, there are a number of points where the exegesis/interpretation of the texts that are brought into action acheives the status of Biblical Theology Train Wreck. This is a shame because I think his practical conclusions are essentially sound, it is merely a case of "why do it that way?" For example with both Ephesians 5:24-32 (p17-20) and Song of Songs 2:7 (p77-79) Hiestand takes a debatable interpretation of a single verse and then proceeds to build unwieldy theological edifices on top of them which then are constantly referred back to in order to support his arguments. In ch. 8 Hiestand does demonstrate that he is capable of doing more than prooftext by bringing a useful discussion of legalism in Galatians to bear, but unfortunately this is not the primary M.O. of the book. The extent to which some of the more peculiar theological equations are woven through the book also means that Hiestand produces a text that is rather strained and at times not appropriately "readable" for the intended audience, e.g. "when a man looks with desire upon the nakedness of his wife, he images forth accurately the desire that Christ has for his bride" (p125). A book aimed at regular folks should aim to be more conversational and clear, I feel a bit churlish pointing this out, but it is a significant enough problem that I feel in honesty I must.

Another nice bit
However, as I have already said, despite a methodology and writing style in need of a thorough tune up, Hiestands advice makes good common sense. He doesn't just critique, but in ch.7 lays out a constructive and helpful solution to the issue at hand. Hiestand is also to be commended for the way he exhorts parents not to give into fear or a fortress mentality but to teach young people discernment and enable them to function in a world which has very different standards of sexual purity (p118ff). This is a call which needs to be heard loud and clear and is applicable to many other areas of cultural engagement.

A Fourth Edition
As this book is already in its 3rd edition I see no harm in a 4th, and I would like to suggest a couple of ways in which it could be positively expanded.

1. I think Hiestrand is aware, as the book progresses, that sexuality is really a subset of discipleship to Christ, or holiness, and that the best way to help young people live to a biblical standard of sexual purity is to first teach them to live wholly for Christ. Sexual purity is not, therefore, an end in itself. I think the book would be stronger if this point was made sooner and clearer, that unless your kids are following Christ the whole thing is just going to be an exercise in trying to force your own sexual hangups on your kids. Although this does come through the book, I'd like to see the dog wagging the tail more than the other way round.

2. While parents do have a role to play, the book is in danger of suggesting it is all about them. I'd like to see some account taken of the role of the church and the child's peers in the process of character formation, especially the church. Relatedly there should be some acknowledgment in the book of issues for single parents and for those in religiously divided marriages, as it is the book runs the danger of addressing an idealised family world that doesn't exist.

There is more I could say, both positive and negative, but I think I have said enough. If you want to do some serious thinking about this subject than Hiestand's book is not a bad place to go for the practical side of things, but for the biblical and theological I would look elsewhere, at least until the next edition. As a critique of current practice chapters 3&4 are well worth a read by any concerned pastor. Hiestand is to be commended for an ambitious attempt to bring a much needed theological and pastoral treatement to an issue about which there is so much confusion.