kategoria

awesome - kategoria is now online!

i've been trying to buy up back issues for a while now. but it seems i don't have to any more.

if you've no idea about it, it's essentially a science and christianity magazine. well worth a read.

trinity talks to download

they're up.

the story of the Trinity
the story of the Son
the story of the Spirit

let me know what you think.
more particularly, if you had a 3-talk series on the trinity, how would you break it up? as you can see, i did one on how we went from the Shema to the creeds, then one on why Jesus being God matters for salvation, then the same for the Spirit.

part-way thru, i thought about for 2 and 3 doing salvation and creation or something. so as not to split it up artificially. but i think this worked well as a series.

i won't think less of you if you don't listen. you're still my friend. and you're still welcome to comment on how you'd break it up.

orthodox and catholic

orthodox means straight/normative (orthodontics, orthotics, orthoptics - straight teeth, straight [limbs], straight vision) teaching/opinion (doxa)

catholic means with respect to the whole (kata + holos)

so unless there is the either explicit or implicit linking of orthodox with eastern or greek or coptic, it just means true or right, teaching.

likewise, unless catholic is qualified by roman or marionite, it just means, this is the same thing all people believe.

i don't know whether we'll ever be able to retrieve either of these words for regular use, but it would be nice to be able to use them without qualification or substitution for wordy or unequal equivalents (such as universal or apostolic).

not a chiasm, but

further on Matthew 22.34-46 and the Shema - the parallel structures:

A Pharisees together (34)
        B Pharisees question Jesus (35-36)
                C1 Jesus Answers (37-38)
                C2 Jesus Answers (39-40)

A' Pharisees together (41a)
        B'1 Jesus questions Pharisees (41b-42a)
                C' Pharisees answer (42b)
        B'2 Jesus questions Pharisees (43-45)

Matthew 22.34-46 and the Shema

still thinking about the trinity (first talk this Sunday. see previous post for details).

in Deuteronomy 6, we have the Shema: "Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is One." and following that is the command to love your neighbour as yourself.

and then when Jesus in Matthew 22 quotes the command, which sums up all the prophets, it's interesting that he follows it with a question about Psalm 110, one of the most popular texts in the NT for pointing to Jesus' identity as the Christ.

So my question is, is Jesus (or the evangelist) saying something about the Shema, in particular, questioning the identity of Yhwh as a monad, and perhaps making room in the description of Yhwh for the Christ?

or is there not really much of a link between Matt 22.34-40 and Matt 22.41-46? (or is it just a different link?)

the story of the trinity

i'm going to be doing a series of three talks at wild street at 5 on the trinity.

here's my plan so far.
but it doesn't really sound like sermons, rather three lectures with some points i thought were interesting and worthy of inclusion.

so any ideas would be appreciated!

1. the story of the trinity
   how do we get from the shema to the creed?
   perichoresis
   act and being
   Yhwh
   who's who in the OT?
   St Francis and the Crusades
   heresy? Trinitarian controversies i the 4th Century.
   dynamic vs modalistic monarchianism
   
   
2. the story of the son
   mediator
   theopoiesis
   eternal word in creation
   hypostatic union
   heresy? Christological controversies.
   4th Century truly God.
   5th Century two natures.
   
   
3. the story of the spirit
   individual and communal
   spotlight on the son
   OT & NT indwelling
   Nazianzus: OT reveals Father clearly, Son opaquely; NT reveals Son clearly, spirit opaquely; Church reveals the Spirit.
   heresy? Pneumatological Heresies.
   continuing revelation (montanism, anabaptists, mormons?).
   4th Century: fully God.
   

UPDATE: i've added a few more things to the list. mainly the heresies.

giving up hope

i like paul ricoeur. heaps. i'm writing 15,000 words on him (well, trying to).

but sometimes i don't get him. but that's also when i should most try and get him.

he reflected on Jesus' words 'whoever would save his life must lose it', and figured this included losing even the hope of the resurrection. [Critique and Conviction, 155-8]

his point is simple - holding on to the hope of reward means that you haven't given everything up. so his question is, in effect, would you still follow Jesus even if there was no new creation to look forward to?

so after my initial recoil, i think i get his point, but then i ask, who is this Jesus that bids us give up our all? he is the one who makes promises he can keep: 'in my fathers house there are many rooms,' 'blessed is the one who is persecuted on my behalf, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,' and so on.

the life lost that it may be found is the life that builds up treasure in heaven and not on earth. faith is trust in the promise maker to keep his promises, despite appearances.

perhaps what Ricoeur is tapping in to is what it meant for Job to trust God chinnam (for naught)? but still, while this may represent one shade of meaning, it is not the final word, but qualifies what it is to trust in this life, without saying anything about the next.

same kind of bad as me

Tom Waits' new album out soon.

here's the lyrics to a song from it, Bad as Me

You’re the head on the spear
You’re the nail on the cross
You’re the fly in my beer
You’re the key that got lost
You’re the letter from Jesus on the bathroom wall
You’re mother superior in only a bra
You’re the same kind of bad as me

I’m the hat on the bed
I’m the coffee instead
The fish or cut bait
I’m the detective up late
I’m the blood on the floor
The thunder and the roar
The boat that won’t sink
I just won’t sleep a wink
You’re the same kind of bad as me

No good you say
Well that’s good enough for me

You’re the wreath that caught fire
You’re the preach to the choir
You bite down on the sheet
But your teeth have been wired
You skid in the rain
You’re trying to shift
You’re grinding the gears
You’re trying to shift
And you’re the same kind of bad as me

They told me you were no good
I know you’ll take care of all my needs
You’re the same kind of bad as me

I’m the mattress in the back
I’m the old gunnysack
I’m the one with the gun
Most likely to run
I’m the car in the weeds
If you cut me I’ll bleed
You’re the same kind of bad as me
You’re the same kind of bad as me

you can listen to it here

i'm trying to work out what it's about.
on the surface of it, it's saying don't feel you're too bad to be with me, coz i'm bad too.
I know some people who've got in a terrible mess, worrying they're not good enough for the other person in their life. and they're not good enough. but neither is the other person!

although Jesus is an indirect object (especially in the first verse), there is something right in saying that Jesus is the same kind of bad as me. God lowered himself to become a man, to get down and dirty in the grime and muck of human existence. he identifies fully with us.
the author to the Hebrews writes

Son though he was, he learned obedience through what he suffered
Heb 5.8

and just before that we find

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathise with our weakness, but one who has in every respect been tempted as we are.
Heb 4.15

Waits does use lots of Christian imagery in his music (Chocolate Jesus, God's away on business etc.), so i wonder if this is part of his Christian osmosis. that is, when weighed down by sin, we can know that God knows our struggles and temptations. and knowing us, knowing the wickedness of our hearts, he values us so much that he lived, suffered and died as one of us, in order to redeem us.
Hebrews 5 continues

being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who are obedient to him.
Heb 5.9

so Jesus is the same kind of bad as you, and he became that and died as that, sinless, eternal Son though he was, so that you might have life in him.

Pogonotrophers ahoy

despite my positive thoughts about Rowan Williams below, this is a great opening comment from his fellow pogonotropher, David Bentley Hart:

In a bracingly venomous Spectator article on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent remarks about sharia law in Britain, the journalist Rod Liddle opined that it must be Rowan Williams’s beard that has won him the reputation of an intellectual. Certainly, Liddle remarked, “it cannot be anything he has ever said or written”. I have to confess my doubts that Liddle has really read much of Williams’s oeuvre. No one who had – whatever reservations he or she might harbour as to the Archbishop’s wisdom, prudence or pogonotrophy – could possibly dismiss the man as a featherweight or a fraud.

read the full article here

what do you get when you give football fans AK47s?

according to Peter Hitchens: the Arab Spring.

i wish it weren't true, but the enthusiasm for 'regime change' seems to forget this truism:

Just because existing regimes are bad, it does not follow that their replacements will be any better.

i sincerely hope and pray that this will not be so - that what replaces the regimes of Mubarak, Gadafi et al will be ones who govern for the good of their people and not for themselves.

my friend steve has written a great post on politics, reflecting on Daniel, which i would love to see him apply to the current goings-on. Daniel is written to believers, who will by all accounts remain on the outer with the regime changes, if not further so. the good news for them is the apocalyptic vision of the ancient of days, who remains in control despite appearances - for their power is limited and contingent.

talk on galatians 3-4

if you've missed my posts, you've probably missed my voice also. the previous talk on Genesis 3 didn't work, but i think this one on Galatians 3.19-4.7did.

my favourite analogy was that the law is just like Mary Poppins:

she came in for a set period of time, was found to be practically perfect in every way; she taught the children how to tidy up and take their medicine and enjoy life, whilst the parents learnt to love their children. but then they were all off flying kites - and they didn't even notice that the wind and changed and Poppins had left.

Galatians says the law was like a locum. as good as it was, it was not meant to bring life, for God gives life. so Abraham was blessed by God as he trusted him, and Jesus likewise, and the law has now gone. and all are children of God through faith in Jesus.

Rowan Williams on Scripture

i stumbled across this as i stumbled across this old post from the blogging parson. and it's gold.

his argument is

1. christians are people who read scripture - or have scripture read to them.
2. hearing implies silence, we sit as listeners.
3. we imagine that the original audience are in some sense one with us.
he writes:

the ‘time’ in which we hear Scripture is not like ordinary time. We are contemporary with events remote in history; we are caught up in the time of recitation, when we are to reimagine ourselves. For this moment, we exist simply as listeners, suspending our questions while the question is put to us of how we are to speak afresh about ourselves. We stand at a point of origin, and, as listeners, our primary responsibility is to receive.

it sounds like he's already thought through what i want to say. and said it better.

but he's drawn out well for me the implications of being a Christian listener.

further down in his essay he fleshes out both what it looks like to read a text as a listener, as well as to receive said text.

anyway, it was good.

why are people cheering for kate?

part of the reason i feel uncomfortable with people lauding 'kate the christian' is you then have to come up with a reason to distance yourself from the christian brother done for disgusting dodginess.

i don't want people to consider christianity just because christians are good people or nice cooks, in the same way as i don't want them to write it off because of people like the victorian paedophile or the norwegian mass murderer.

rather i want people to consider christianity because they see in Jesus a God who has proven his love for them, and they see in the bible a way of looking at things that makes sense of the world and ourselves, our ability to do great and beautiful things but also to commit great evil.

carnage

i still struggle to understand the proximity/distance thing with death.

one kills at least 90 in norway, one woman joins the 27 Club.

meanwhile, a train crash in china kills at least 30, and there is a famine in africa too.

the first two make the news, and push the others off the front page.

what is it about celebrity that makes the suffering of millions not worthy of mention (particularly where it is a suffering we can help)?

and is it because i look more norwegian than chinese that that story draws my interest?

is it compassion overload in cases like famine and asian train crashes? they seem to happen a lot, but it isn't every day that a westerner goes on a killing spree?

each life is a life that is precious to God and to countless of their family and friends, so what is it in my heart that needs to change?

(i guess i could also ask why do i care more about my friend than the person i walk past on the footpath. my heart goes out to those i am closer to - is it selfishness, self-interest? do i have an interest in them because i can get something out of them?)

Jesus' family

there's a great post by peter bolt on Jesus' family.

my favourite was the name of Jude's grandson, Zoker! now that's a good boy's name...