Tree lobster game?

And while we're on the subject of psuedoscience. . .

God and Guinness: a Book and Beer Review

I love God, and although it is very much a lesser and less frequently indulged love, I also love Guinness.  I also have a small personal connection with some of the ancestors of the Arthur Guinness who founded the Guinness brewery and dynasty(s).  So the title of this book was too hard to refuse.  It is well written, light and fast paced, an easy read with lots of fascinating facts and takes the reader from the beggining of the brewery in the 18th century up to the modern day.  As a bonus there is a brilliant introductory chapter that introduces the history of beer and civilisation and of beer and Christianity.   So far so good, 4/5 stars.

I did dislike a few things though.  The book is a little uneven as Stephen Mansfield slips from historian to motivational speaker to preacher, this is OK but in a couple of places he quotes historians without even mentioning their names, i don't expect footnotes, and there is an adequate sources section in the appendix.  more annoying than this is that Mansfield manages to mention 3 times in the book that he has also written a book about the faith of Barak Obama, but that doesn't mean that he likes Barak Obama, in fact he is at pains to tell us he is a CONSERVATIVE christian.  Frankly, I am reading the book to find out about Guinness not about him.  If people are judging him like that, he shouldn't give them the dignity of a response, especially not in an unrelated book. Why waste my time?  His "conservative" idea of truth also spoils the historical narrative a couple of times.  For example he fails, as a good historian should not, to point out that while an evangelical member of the Guinness family may have thought that Darwin was an "infidel" who profaned Christ and attacked the authority of the Bible, that is not a very fair assement of Darwin himself.  You may think that was an ommission but on the next page he describes Darwin's theories as "pseudoscience."  I mean, I accept that he may not be a payed up evolutionist, he may even be a dyed in the wool creationist, but to say one of the most influential scientists ever, was only doing "psuedoscience" beggars belief.  Mansfield also ends the book with a highly irritating and trite 5 things to learn from the story of Guinness like some half rate preacher who has to list at the end of the sermon all the things he hoped you'd picked up on the way.

So read and enjoy, but as you chew the meat you might have to spit out the bones.  Thankfully, Guinness stout is made to a much more exacting standard! And now i'm feeling thirsty! :-)

[With thanks to booksneesze.com's book review blogger program!]

Warning: Evangelistic Message

Just been having a chat about how certain churches tend to operate on the assumption that anything that grows the church must be good and that even the gospel might need changing if it doesn't result in church growth.  It reminded me how I once challenged an evangelistic group that were visiting my university in the UK.  I asked them why their message was all about God as your best friend and going to heaven when you die, and had nothing about sacrifice, the cross, and the commitment that Christ asks from us.  The reply I got was instructive: "well who would want to become a Christian then?"  It is worth noting that this reply wasn't delivered with any trace of irony or sarcasm.

So this would be a good point to demonstrate how far from the NT such an attitude is, but that will have to wait for another day.  The new academic year is beggining and I need to make this quick.  Here is my alternative evangelistic message, and maybe it explains why I am not a very good evangelist . . . i'm just too honest!

*Message begins*

Repent and believe, the kingdom is at hand.  It's gonna cost you big.  Don't take this on lightly, don't rush into this decision.  Because pretty soon you are going to have to make some huge sacrifices and I want you to be certain that you really want to do this. 

Christianity does not give you all the answers, in fact it will likely give you far more questions to worry about than you had in your previously apathetic state.  Christianity does not solve all your problems, in fact it will show you problems that you were previously oblivious too.  Christianity will complicate your life horrendously.  All those people you are used to ignoring and not caring about, if you become a Christian you will have to love them all unconditionally! 

As a Christian you will need to commit to sharing your life and resources with people who you would never otherwise have anything to do with.  Not only that but most of the rest of the world will not understand your basic motivations, constantly misrepresent you and assume the worst about you because of your affiliation.  Even in the group of people you hang out with to encourgae each other in this new lifestyle their will be people who try to hurt and discourage you and who will misunderstand you at every opportunity. 

Not only so.  This decision means that you accept as Lord a person whose greatest acheivement was dying a horrible and unjust death for the sake of others, this person does not share your concern for your personal and financial well being but is obsessed by building a kingdom that has nothing to do with all the idolatrous pleasures you currently delight in and will have huge difficulty in letting go of.  Instead this kingdom's ideal is that of sacrificial love and you can expect many opportunities to express it. 

However, I should probably say that knowing this person (their name is Jesus) makes all of the above somehow worth while and even fills life with a joy and grace that transcends my pathetic desires and frustrations and links me tangibly to the life of eternity. 

So . . . Anyone interested?

*Message Ends*

More on the whole egalitarian vs complementarian thing

For those who don't have fatigue over this Clayboy pretty much sums it up.

Kasemann Quotes

Been enjoying reading Kasemann today.  Here is a smorgasbord of his brilliance!  All quotes from Perspectives on Paul, SCM 1973.
On idealism, 

Contemporary theology is still having to pay for the fact that it is still a victim of the heritage or curse of idealism to a greater degree than it cares to admit.  It could have learned as much from Marxism as it did from Kierkegaard and would then have been unable to go on assigning the absolutely decisive role to the individual. - p11

In relation to the interpretation of 1 Cor 2:11 as suggesting "as a spiritual being man is called to knowledge of himself," (p14) he writes,

We are bound to ask whether nineteenth-century New Testament exegesis was not the victim of a disastrous mistake, and that on the basis of a single verse. - p15

In conclusion to a chapter on anthropology (what it means to be human - excuse the non inclusive language, man person of his time and all that!),

Man cannot be defined from within his own limits, but he is eschatologically defined in the light of the name of Christ, just as Adam once received his name from God, thereby aquiring definitionas a creature.  It is true of both that they are unable to give themselves being and existence, but remain dependant on grace, which is new every morning and never finds an end. - p31

In an exegetically dubious but theologically neat meditation on the church as the body of Christ,

The human body is the necessity and reality of existential communication; in the same way, the church appears as the reality and possibility of communication between the risen Christ and our world, and hence is called his body. - 117

Let me know what you think, :-)

Rolf Potts on the body of Christ

I'm really gutted not to be able to include this in my thesis, but it just isn't going to fit.  I'll just have to find another way to get the Wittenburg Door into my bibliography.  BTW if you have yet to discover this magazine . . . you need it in your life!

I’d consider myself a post-evangelical.  I have a private, Jeffersonain faith – one that would make most evangelicals a little nervous.  But that’s fine.  Paul says in the letter to the Corinthians that we are all part of the body of Christ.  People tend to think this means the spiritual body is an expression of hegemony, a sum of evangelical components: you know an alliance of schoolteachers, accountants with fish symbols on their BMWs, born again organizers of ping pong tournaments, and so on.  But I’d reckon American evangelicals are themselves just parts of a larger body that includes Egyptian Copts, Peruvian Catholics, and syncretistic Nigerian Mennonites.  Not to mention the quiet post modern types who feel a part of the greater Christian tradition, yet don’t identify with a specific orthodoxy. 

– Rolf Potts in interview with Kristin Van Tassel, “Travelling Mercies” p 5-8 the Wittenburg Door, Nov/Dec 2007, no214, p8.

So here's the discussion, do you think this is a valid description of "the body of Christ"?

Brilliant!

Just found this blog, was attracted by seeing the acronym ASBO, which if you have spent any time in innercity UK will mean a lot to you.  That (above) wasn't the best but it fitted in with the last post.  I could spend all day looking at these, could come in handy for all sort of applications and they are kindly offered for free use for anything and anyone.

http://asbojesus.wordpress.com

Go there and enjoy :-)