brick-a-brack 14/12/10

• A Douglas Campbell interview
• Paula Fether riffs on the theme of diaspora
• Marc shares a quote about an apophatic anthropology
• Duane wonders where the craftiness of the serpent came from (Gen 3)
• Mike Bird directs us to a trio of interesting posts about women in leadership (sometimes I feel embarassed to even be having this discussion, but it still needs to be had, although one of the links in particular show how silly this can get, i'll let you work out which one)

Rowan Williams on Resident Aliens and Social Justice

This essay by Rowan Williams (HT Jason) fits nicely into the diaspora theme of this blog, and also relates to my recent altercation with Steve Douglas ;-), here's an excert.

. . . one of the mainsprings of Christian self-understanding in the formative years of the Church's life was the idea that the believer was essentially a 'migrant', someone who was in any and every situation poised between being at home and being a stranger. In the New Testament and a good deal of the literature that survives from the first couple of Christian centuries, one of the commonest self-descriptions of the Church is in the language that would have been used in the Mediterranean cities for a community of migrant workers, temporary residents.

Xenos themes from around the blogosphere

Bruce Hamil on how the Bible subverts our consumer culture

Steve on choosing to believe as a basis for theology

Tim on Christian life as diaspora

Is Church a Net or an Ark?

I remember being involved with a university mission week once, it was a pretty massive effort with rather minimal results.  Lots of big events and speakers and stunts to get people's attention.  One memory from that week is how a girl from my circle of friends was accidentally invited to a prayer meeting (for Christians only ;-)) by one of the guest evangelists who presumably mistook her for a Christian.  What a disater!  How are the Christians supposed to pray with an unbeliever in their midst?  But, surprise-surprise, she was so impacted by seeing Christians praying passionately to their God that faith found her there and then.

Often when we are exhorting Christians to be more missional and to think more about people outside of church we are reacting against an experience of church that has been insular, selfish and out of touch with the world around it.  However this can become a reflex that has its own tendency to a different extreme that is so focused on reaching the world it forgets to edify (build up) the saints.  It is not that I think Christians should go to church to "get something" for themselves but at the same time they perhaps should not be expected to turn up week after week purely on the off chance that a stranger walks in from the street and therefore gets to see a room full of "happy" people.

The thing is, maintaining one's faith is really hard work.  We are surrounded by forces that wear down our resolve and passion.  Church mission is so often lackluster and passionless because church people are so often underfed and barely keeping their heads above water themselves.  We don't feel like sharing the gospel because we are not so sure we still want it ourselves. Worship should not be primarily about evangelism or being seeker friendly.  It should first be about seeking God and second about reafirming and strengthening the congregation in their diaspora identity as the people of God.  If God's people are meeting with God in spirit and in truth that should be a more powerful way to introduce and strangers to Christ than creating some kind of inoffensive tepid bath of a church experience in the hope of enticing them back again. 

I've got to be honest, I go into 2010 kind of jaded about church wondering if I will ever find it the source of life, joy, and inspiriation that I used to.  Still, I am a great believer in trying to be part of the solution (cos let's face it, I do my share of whinging about the problems).  For the first half of this year, at least, I am withdrawing from preaching duties.  This was initially for the purpose of making time for finishing my thesis and for the family issues that we will be facing this year.  But I will be leading worship about once a month, and I am looking forward to having a bit of headspace and really working to create worship services that connect people to God and build them up in their faith.

I'll let you know how it goes.  Pax

A Two Faced Approach to Idolatry?

I continue my slow but very enjoyable reading of Chris Wright's, The Mission of God (IVP, 2006). (Which also inspired this earlier post.) Wright's treatment of idolatry, the subjectof his second major section, is simply fantastic and he has both answered a number of questions and posed questions I hadn't properly thought of before. In pages 179-188 he finishes his chapter on idolatry with an examination of Paul's approaches. To summarise, in Acts Paul's evangelistic preaching treats idolatry markedly differently to how he does in Romans and 1 Corinthians. Wright suggests that Paul reserves his strongest langauge about idolatry for theological and pastoral discussions with Christians (Rom 1:18-32, 1 Cor 8-10) but moderates his tone considerably when talking to pagans (Acts 14:8-20; 17:16-34; 19:23-41).

Wright, also argues that this approach of Paul's is entirely consistent with the modus operandi of the OT prophets who would accuse the pagan nations of numerous moral wrongs but would only mock idolatry per se when confronting those who should know better, the people of God (e.g. Amos, who lists the sins of the surrounding nations in 1:1-2:3, but only mentions idol worship in connection with Judah in 2:4).

Wright concludes, "in confronting idolatry, we need to be discerning about what responses are appropriate in different contexts, learning from the apostles and prophets as we do so." (p188)

The conclusion then seems to lead us to have two faces with regard to idolatry. When talking to pagans we major on the kindness and mercy of God and don't attack their gods directly, but when dealing with those who should know better we pull out all the stops and expose idolatry in all its depraved sinfulness. Now on one hand this makes sense, there is no point lambasting people for what they cannot help, if you don't know God then you have no reason not to worship others gods (whether they be traditional idols or contempary analogues), but those who do know God are doubly culpable. But on the other hand it does seem like there is potentially going to be some inconsistency between what is said in house and in public. The problem is exascerbated by the way so little Christian discourse is actually in house anymore. We put our sermons on the internet, we publish our books, and our inter and intra denominational disuputes are the stuff of news programs and history books. What we say in private will be shouted from the rooftops one way or another, especially if it is deemed offensive by the general public. The recent furore over Brian Tamaki's oath is a good example of that. While I am convinced by Wright's arguments, I think the onus needs to be on us to make sure that what we say in private is still something we would be happy to be heard in public. And if you aren't, best not to say it at all!

Let me know what you think, :-)

The Danger of Apologetics

The most neglected theme of this blog is the one of diaspora. But it is one I am keen not to lose grip on because it is a metaphor that has many insights to offer and is an important antidote to many vices that are the hangover from "Christendom." In recent past the church in NZ has probably been most noticeable in the public arena regarding the evolution/creation debate, same sex marriage, and to a lesser extent the anti smacking bill. All of these issues stem not from essential Christian doctrines but from Christians trying to answer challenges the wider society has given.

The Jews of the Hellenistic Diaspora thus found themselves interpreting their particularity in terms of a thought-world that bore no original relationship to it. The particularity of Israel was sometimes a burden to them in relationships with Gentiles, but it was also essential to their own sense of national and religious identity. Without it, they could not survive as a people. yet they could not survive with it, either, unless they were prepared to explain and defend it in terms intelligible to the larger world, and the very process of explanation and defense tended to alter the characteristic of the thing being explained.

From, Dirt, Greed and Sex, by L. William Countryman.

The great problem with today's Christian public interaction is that it is largely reactive and so the agenda has been set from outside the church. The result is that the church becomes increasingly positioned over and against secondary and marginal issues which in turn become much greater and assume a more central significance than they should have. In defending our faith against these attacks we run the danger of becoming a caricature of ourselves and losing sight of what really makes us who we are. Apologetics is very important, even essential, to maintaining a diaspora identity but it must be done wisely with an eye on the effect engaging in such a defense has on us. The first task of apologetics should not be to convince the scoffer but to preserve the integrity of that which is being defended. Otherwise even if we win such battles they will be only Pyrrhic Victories.

Home away from home

I'm just reading (or rather skipping through) Erich Gruen's excellent book, Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans (Harvard, 2002). In it he suggestes there were two ways in which the Jews related to their situation as diaspora, i.e. living being away from their homeland. The first was negative, to think in terms of "exile, a bitter and doleful image, offering a bleak vision that leads either to despair or to a remote reverie of restoration." Or a positive approach, to seek "refuge in a conforting concept: that Jews require no territorial sanctuary or legitimation. They are "the people of the Book." Their homeland resides in the text." (p232) And how did the diapora Jews "make their home in the text"? Well, primarily by meeting regularly with each other, to read and interpret those texts in their diaspora locality (p116).

I think this is an important concept for us Christians given how much pressure, traditional forms of church, and especially the 'sermon' is currently under. As a diaspora ourselves we need to maintain our emphasis on making our home in the text and not the world. We need to ensure that in the desire to do something different we do not lose that diaspora imperative to regularly meet for the reading and interpretation of the text that gives us our identity, that we don't stop being 'people of the Book.'

James 1:1

James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes
in the diaspora: Greetings.

• James is held in church tradition to be the (half) brother of Jesus (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal 1:9), who became the leader of the early church in Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 15:13-19; Gal 2:9-12) despite his unbelief in Jesus prior to the crucifiction/resurection.
• Even if this is a different James writing here the only credential the writer sees fit to give is one of servanthood towards both God and Jesus.
• This is an unashamedly Christian document and yet by refering to the recipients of the letter as 'the twleve tribes' James is showing both how he understands the Christian community to be a continuation of Israel but also the fulfillment/restoration of Israel (which had been reduced to only two tribes by the time of the Roman occupation). He also demonstrates this sense of continuity in the letter by drawing heavily (and directly) on the Old Testament.
• This fulfillment/restoration though is only partial however, not least because the 'twelve tribes' are a disapora, a dispersion, a scattered people. The book of James is often refered to as a catholic (all embracing) epistle (letter) because it is not addressed to a specific situation or set of circumstances (e.g. Paul addresses infighting amoung particular factions in 1 Corinthians 3) but is a more general letter aimed at a wider audience, although still within a certain historical and cultural context.
  

Living life in the diaspora

A diaspora is a scattered people. The word has been commonly used of the Jewish people who for centuries have been a minority group in nations around the world. In most European countries, the USA, Australia and even New Zealand, Jews live and work, often participating as full citizens of their host nations. The explosion over the last century of global migration has meant that Jews are no longer unique in being a diaspora. Now Europeans, Africans, Asians, Indians, and Pacific Islanders are found throughout world in nations in which they are resident aliens. However much a first generation migrant to a new country tries to assimilate and adapt, she will always be aware of difference. There will be cultural and social norms in their new country that just dont come naturally; stories, beliefs and attitudes that are integral to the host nation but that are foreign to her, and vice versa.

But with each generation those distinctives must be held tightly or the host culture will eventually absorb its immigrants. Many migrant communities hold tightly to their identity and often get criticised for failing to adjust to their new country. In cities throughout the world you will find communities of ethnic minorities that are attempting to maintain their ethnic identity without any change at all. Who can blame them? If they dont they will be completely absorbed in a couple of generations and they will have lost their identity. The middle ground between absorbtion and stuborn refusal to change is a hard place to live. Identity is easy to maintain when you refuse to accommodate yourself to your new country. As soon as you start to make accommodations for your host's culture you are constantly having to draw lines around which parts of your ethnic identity need to be maintained and which can be adjusted to context.

Living in this middle ground, as a distinctive minority who yet engage their host culture, is the task of the church. When we fail to draw those lines well we end up with the crusades, or the inquisition, or George Bush jnr. These failures are the result of absorbtion, a failure to maintain our distinctive identity. But where accommodation is not made at all the church becomes an exclusive ghetto unable to fulfill her mission to bring God's peace, reconciliation, and love to the world.

The task of the church is to maintain our identity and connect with the country in which we are resident aliens. The task of theology is to draw lines in some places and enable accommodation in others. This is done by reading the Bible carefully and respectfully, aware that it, and we, are in a strange land.