duck5

kategoria

2011-10-11T16:41:00.002+11:00

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

2011-10-07T15:34:00.000+11:00

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

2011-09-23T17:31:00.000+10:00

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

2011-09-15T21:56:00.000+10:00

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

2011-09-12T16:34:00.000+10:00

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

2011-09-06T11:23:00.002+10:00

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!

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
the story of the son
mediator
theopoiesis
eternal word in creation
hypostatic union
heresy? Christological controversies.
4th Century truly God.
5th Century two natures.
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

2011-09-05T16:31:00.000+10:00

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

2011-09-02T15:23:00.000+10:00

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

2011-09-02T07:23:00.000+10:00

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?

2011-08-28T20:30:00.000+10:00

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

2011-08-16T18:15:00.000+10:00

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

2011-08-15T21:05:00.000+10:00

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

his argument is

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

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?

2011-08-08T13:24:00.000+10:00

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

2011-07-24T13:41:00.000+10:00

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

2011-07-23T05:25:00.000+10:00

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...

'marriage equality'

2011-07-12T10:26:00.000+10:00

i got a bit fiery listening to deborah cameron on 702 local sydney radio this morning.
i wrote:

seriously - what bollocks. the use by your guest and his organisation of the term 'marriage equality' is such a perverted use of 'equality'. it is a re-imagining of what marriage is, and has nothing at all to do with equality. by using it he is saying that the issue is equal to the fight against racism or slavery - for true human equality.
what he wants is to re-imagine marriage as no-longer a committed relationship open to welcoming children but as the epitome of a skewed idea of 'freedom' - everyone doing whatever they want.

how would you say it differently? or at which points would you disagree?

this is the word of the lord

2011-07-02T13:38:00.000+10:00

the response is supposed to go, 'thanks be to God'.

i remember the Don getting a bit sermonic when, getting up to preach after the bible was read, chastigated the reader for not offering a 'this is the word of the lord', whereupon he said it, and all the good Anglicans in the room responded 'thanks be to God.'

this is definitely not having a go at the Don, and his point was well taken, and he was making a point rather than having a go at the bible reader.

but i am reading John Goldingay's, 'Models for Scripture' (Eerdmans, 1994), and he suggested this might not always be the correct response (p10).

so after Mark 14.1-12 was read, he wanted the reader to say 'this is part of God's story'. or after Job or Ecclesiastes, 'isn't is amazing the things you can say to God'.

after either you could still respond 'thanks be to God.'

perhaps after prophetic oracles such as Isaiah 5.1-7 they could say 'this is the word of the lord', but a more appropriate response would be 'God help us.'

now i love formal liturgy as much as the next guy, but i like the point Goldingay is making here - 'word of God' is a model for parts of scripture, not scripture as a whole. it is used by scripture to describe particular words (cf eg Heb 4.12; Isa 55.11).

an automatic response to the reading of scripture can imply an lack of genuine listening; it would be good if there were a flexibility in responses that recognised the diversity of scripture.

the first australian lutherans

2011-06-16T09:43:00.001+10:00

enjoy this quick summary of an essay for australian church history. i haven't included any references, please ask if you would like to know how i know all this!

the east coast of Australia was first colonised by the British in 1788. South Australia was first colonised in 1836 (a convict-free zone).
the first Lutherans, fleeing the latitudinary Prussian union church, started arriving in SA in 1838.
they were led by their pastor Augustus Kavel, and named their two main settlements Klemzig, after their home-town, and Hahndorf, after Captain Hahn who piloted many of them to their new home.
the happy environment meant they invited others to join them, including another pastor, Gotthard Fritzsche, and his flock.
these were happy times, but schism was in the air:

the group had entered into financial agreements with their sponsor, George Fife Angas (no relation), and some had second thoughts over arrangements to buy such large amounts of land. Kavel saw this reneging as a breach of faith, and considered withholding communion from the offenders.
the doctrinal sloppiness in the Prussian union church meant Kavel saw Australia as a chance to start again, to be like the church of the apostles. in this vein he wrote the Apostolical Church Constitution, which among other things, was heavy on discipline. this would be another bone of contention; Lutheran missionaries in the colony refused to sign, and Fritzsche pushed for changes.
the religious air in England, where Kavel had stopped over briefly, was one of expectant hope of the return of Jesus. Chiliasm, or millenialism, became an increasing feature of his preaching. one listener recalls him teaching that God would provide them with reeds with which to build an ark with which they could sail to Israel or Egypt! Fritzsche in response preached against chiliasm, forming another fault line for this infant church.

1845 synod - the two pastors thrust into the fore, despite warm feelings to one another, cannot agree. they decide to take the next year to think through their positions.

1846 synod - neither had the time to do what they promised. they both became firmer in their stances, and Kavel, rather than critiquing his views by the Lutheran Confessions he held as regulative, critiqued them, finding them at points decidedly unscriptural.
he brought to the 1846 synod his Protestations for discussion. the synod quickly became a yelling match, Fritzsche tried to restrain Kavel from walking out, but in the end Kavel and his group had to leave.

from 1838 to 1846 there was one Lutheran Church of Australia, which would take 120 years to unite once again.

as an outsider, having only been to a Lutheran church on several occasions, it seems that both Fritzsche and Kavel would be unhappy with the basis for the reunion. the doctrinal latitude of the LCA is probably wider today than even the union church which persecuted them.

Hebrews 4.14-5.10 Wordle

2011-06-12T10:03:00.003+10:00

i haven't done a wordle for a while. so here is one from my recent Hebrews talk (click to enlarge):

Hippolytus on deception

2011-06-12T09:34:00.001+10:00

a great story - it'll be worth it - read on!

The Story Of A Maiden Of Corinth, And A Certain Magistrianus

There lived a certain most noble and beautiful maiden in the city of Corinth, in the careful exercise of a virtuous life. At that time some persons falsely charged her before the judge there, who was a Greek, with cursing the times, and the princes, and the images. Now those who trafficked in such things, brought her beauty under the notice of the impious judge, who lusted after women. And he gladly received the accusation with his equine ears and lascivious thoughts. And when she was brought before the bloodstained (judge), he was driven still more frantic with profligate passion. But when, after bringing every device to bear upon her, the profane than could not gain over this woman of God, he subjected the noble maiden to various outrages. And when he failed in these too, and was unable to seduce her from her confession of Christ, the cruel judge became furious against her, and gave her over to a punishment of the following nature: Placing the chaste maiden in a brothel, he charged the manager, saying, Take this woman, and bring me three nummi by her every day. And the man, exacting the money from her by her dishonour, gave her up to any who sought her in the brothel. And when the women-hunters knew that, they came to the brothel, and, paying the price lint upon their iniquity, sought to seduce her. But this most honourable maiden, taking counsel with herself to deceive them, called them to her, and earnestly besought them, saying: I have a certain ulceration of the pudenda, which has an extremely hateful stench; and I am afraid that ye might come to hate me on account of the abominable sore. Grant me therefore a few days, and then ye may have me even for nothing. With these words the blessed maiden gained over the profligates, and dismissed them for a time. And with most fitting prayers she importuned God, and with contrite supplications she sought to turn Him to compassion. God, therefore, who knew her thoughts, and understood how the chaste maiden was distressed in heart for her purity, gave ear to her; and the Guardian of the safety of all men in those days interposed with His arrangements in the following manner:
Of a certain person Magistrianus.
There was a certain young man, Magistrianus, comely in his personal appearance, and of a pious mind, whom God had inspired with such a burning spiritual zeal, that he despised even death itself. He, coming under the guise of profligacy, goes in, when the evening was far gone, to the fellow who kept the women, and pays him five nummi, and says to him, Permit me to spend this night with this damsel. Entering then with her into the private apartment, he says to her, Rise, save thyself. And taking off her garments, and dressing her in his own attire, his night-gown, his cloak, and all the habiliments of a man, he says to her, Wrap yourself up with the top of your cloak, and go out; and doing so, and signing herself entirely with the mystery of the cross, she went forth uncorrupted from that place, and was preserved perfectly stainless by the grace of Christ, and by the instrumentality of the young man, who by his own blood delivered her from dishonour. And on the following day the matter became known, and Magistrianus was brought before the infuriated judge. And when the cruel tyrant had examined the noble champion of Christ, and had learned all, he ordered him to be thrown to the wild beasts, — that in this, too, the honour-hating demon might be put to shame. For, whereas he thought to involve the noble youth in an unhallowed punishment, he exhibited him as a double martyr for Christ, inasmuch as he had both striven nobly for his own immortal soul, and persevered manfully in labours also in behalf of that noble and blessed maiden. Wherefore also he was deemed worthy of double honour with Christ, and of the illustrious and blessed crowns by His goodness.
Elucidation.
The conduct of Father Abraham, although not approved of by Inspiration, but simply recorded (Genesis 26:7), gave early Christians an opinion that the wicked may be justly foiled, by equivocation and deception, for the preservation of innocence or the life of the innocent. In such case the person deceived, they might argue, is not injured, but benefited (Genesis 26:10), being saved from committing violence and murder. The Corinthian maiden was accustomed to be veiled, and was taught alike to cherish her own purity and to have no share in affording occasion of sin to others.

from Schaff's ANF, vol V

Hippolytus was i think the first anti-pope - a rival bishop of Rome. some of his stuff is appropriately wacky for ~200AD, but other stuff is genius - his creed likely was the foundation for the apostle's creed.

apart from this being a great yarn, it's interesting to note his ethic - acting for the good of the other person. it's obviously not easy to work out the good for all involved, but the old question of lying about the Jews in the basement could be answered by Hippolytus - it's for the good of them, and it prevents the Nazis at the door from committing a great evil also. a win-win.

scripture sanctifies - stephen fowl

2011-06-08T18:03:00.000+10:00

i'm still trying to work out what my project is about. it's still something to do with Paul Ricœur. and how we read the bible.

along the way i thought i'd share this gem from Stephen E. Fowl, who is obviously a fan of John Webster's 2003 Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch.

The Spirit's work in the operation of God's providential ordering of things sanctifies the means and processes that lead to the production of Scripture, turning them to God's holy purposes without diminishing their human, historical character. Thus, in calling Scripture "holy," Christians are not making a comprehensive claim about the purity of the motives of the writers and editors of Scripture. These may well have been decidedly unholy. Even in the face of such unholy motives and actions, Christians are committed to the belief that the triune God has revealed a passionate desire to have fellowship with them, even in the light of their manifest sin. Scripture is chief among God's providentially ordered gifts directed to bringing about reconciliation and fellowship with God despite human sin. Thus, Scripture is holy because of its divinely wiled role in making believers holy. [p12]

Stephen Fowl, Theological Interpretation of Scripture, Paternoster 2009.

i think i like the way the acknowledges potential historical-critical issues yet the importance of the Spirit. i'm not sure how far i'd agree with his 'decidedly unholy', but he could just be suggesting people didn't sit down with a view to writing 'Scripture'. which is surely true. but maybe (hopefully?) they did think they were writing true things about God?

work on the web

2011-06-08T10:37:00.000+10:00

my article from my post from my sermon on work last year is up at websalt. check it. comment there or here or at my original post. love to hear your thoughts.

temporality and baptism

2011-06-03T12:38:00.000+10:00

reading Ricœur on temporality in narrative, who says with reference to Genesis 1 & 2-3 (and even the Abraham narrative) that we don't need to see there being a relative temporality. that is, the story of Abraham isn't necessarily a succession from Genesis 1-11; in a sense they could be co-terminus. they are stitched together in the narrative not to imply succession but so we might 'superpose' them on one another.

Colossians 2.12-14 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by cancelling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

i wonder if there is a sense in which, at baptism, when there is a sense that as you close your eyes to go into the water, you are to picture yourself as grasping on to Jesus as he descended to the place of the dead, and as you continue to grasp, you are raised with him in his resurrection, being recreated. so while it is true that Jesus' death and resurrection 2000 years ago brings about my salvation, is it not also true that he dies and is resurrected when you are baptised, that it is 'as if' that great salvation event were happening then and there.

i've been reading Ricœur's book 'Thinking Biblically' and the chapter 'Thinking Creation' and have obviously some thinking to go!

Hebrews 4.14-5.10 Chiasm

2011-06-01T17:38:00.000+10:00

what do you think:

A 4.14 – Because he’s ascended to heaven let us hold fast
B 4.15 – Jesus an empathetic human priest.
C 5.5 – Jesus a Son-priest
D 5.6 – Jesus a Melchizedek-priest
B’ 5.7 – Jesus lived an earthly life
C’ 5.7 – Jesus learnt obedience despite being the Son
A’ 5.9-10 – Source of eternal salvation for those who believe.
D’ 5.10 – Jesus the Melchizedek-priest

i was hoping it could be a little prettier.
maybe can't even call it properly chiastic. more recursive.
but i'm preaching on it tomorrow morning, important as the chiasm is it might have to wait...

punny hebrew

2011-05-27T13:00:00.001+10:00

i think the consensus is to not talk about Hebrew in talks. which is sad. there's three really cool puns in Genesis 3.14-24 that i'd love to mention. but i think those i've talked to are probably right, it's better not to.

but my faithful reader can surely handle them!

the crafty עָרוּם (arum) serpent is cursed עָרוּר (arur) by God.

from the tree עֵץ (aitz) comes trauma עֶצֶב (etzev) in childbirth.

he ate from the tree עֵץ (aitz) but will now eat from his tears זֵע (zai - sweat).

i think they're all pretty cool. but maybe i can mention the first one? it's probably the clearest and maybe the least nerdy. but i'll probably not mention any. that's probably best.

(apologies - not sure why the Hebrew unicode looks so weird - all the vowels should be under the letter to the right.)

the story of Genesis 2-3

2011-05-26T07:23:00.000+10:00

there's a pretty clear chiasm, which Blocher (In the Beginning, 1984) and Walsh (JBL, 1977) both explain:

A 2.4-17 God made man and put him in the garden
B 2.18-25 God made the animals and the woman
C 3.1-5 Dialogue 1: between the snake and the woman
D 3.6-8 The Sin
C’ 3.9-13 Dialogue 2: between God and his disobedient creatures
B’ 3.14-21 God declares his verdict on the animal and the humans
A’ 3.22-24 God kicks the man out of the garden

(with my adapted titles).

the thinking i was doing a couple of years ago on this topic led me to think this story is best read as a story, explaining the way things are. that is, in order to explain the existence of a tree lying on the ground, you can talk about a wind having blown it over. now there's a big disanalogy here, in that you can accurately hypothesise with a fallen tree in a way you can't with the universal sinfulness of humanity.

the difficulty comes when within the story itself there are various aetiologies - childbirth hurts because of sin; snakes don't have legs because of sin; work is hard because of sin - but how do i then talk about the relevance of the story to the state of affairs now? that is, can i say more than that it teaches us that the way things are isn't right, and that they will one day be made right (particularly now we know Jesus was raised bodily)?

Mark 5 Chiasm

2011-05-22T09:19:00.000+10:00

after an extended break - what else but a chiasm!

i may be doing a talk on this next week
so i needed to check if there was a chiasm
i think that's my general rule these days - no chiasm, no talk

A out of the boat
B demoniac runs to Jesus
C demoniac doesn’t want Jesus around
D the people are afraid of the demoniac
D’ the people are afraid of Jesus
C’ demoniac wants to be around Jesus
B’ demoniac goes from Jesus
A’ into the boat

a theme i particularly noticed doing a talk on Mark 16 a while ago was the movement from fear to faith. Mark keeps showing us (and particularly in the narrative around the sea) that Jesus wants people to 'not fear, only believe' (5.36). each time we see fear (for example at Mark 16.8), the point is: how are you going to react to Jesus - are you going to fear, or have faith?

piper and mclaren on suffering

2011-04-01T23:50:00.000+11:00

i may or may not be doing a seminar on suffering on sunday afternoon. but i thought i should mention these links i found over at chris's blog.

you've got Piper against McLaren on suffering.

Piper's point is that God's absolute sovereignty means he desired, for various and inscrutable reasons, the japanese earthquake. in so doing, he garners biblical data

McLaren counters by arguing that God doesn't delight in evil, and that Jesus indeed identifies with us in our suffering.

worth a read and a think.

how to read a narrative

2011-03-14T18:34:00.003+11:00

here's a great list of 10 questions on how to read narrative (biblical or otherwise).

who is the hero?
what constitutes the quest?
who are the helpers and the antagonists? (this can include people as well as factors)
do you sense the presence of the narrator anywhere in the text?
what does the narrator do with the chronology of the events?
what happens with the narrated time? (does it speed up, slow down, stop, are there gaps?)
is the plot clear on its own, or is it only understandable within a larger narrative? (if the latter, what is the macroplot?)
what can you say about the dialogues?*
what word choices or other style/structure characteristics strike you?
how is the unit divided? are there further subdivisions?

* i don't think the order is important, yet it is interesting that this comes so far down.

This list is adapted from Jan Fokkelman, Reading Biblical Narrative: An Introductory Guide (Louisville, K.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999 ET), as quoted in Provan, Long and Longman, A Biblical History of Israel (also Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), p90.

I was reading aBHoI as I think some more about narrative and history.

my question is: to what extent is it necessary to pursue/argue for/maintain the historicity of the claims to make sense of the text, particularly as one seeks to live a godly life in response to scripture? They (ch4 is mainly V. Philips Long's) argue that because biblical narratives make historical truth claims, 'ahistorical readings are perforce false misreadings' (p81).

i want to think some more on this.

patients and clients

2011-03-11T08:31:00.001+11:00

i've been meaning to write about this for a while now.

when i went to university the first time round, one of the first things we were told is that we didn't have patients anymore, we had clients. and we all nodded, recognising we weren't splint-makers, but health-service providers. we had an important task to work out in concert with our clients which services best fitted their needs. no more were we caring for, looking after, or helping people. we were professionals.

in the olden days, prosthetist-orthotists like me, wouldn't have been like me. they would most likely have been war veterans, with at the very least one prosthesis. their patients would have been people who lost their legs a little later than them, and, chances are, if they were up to it, would've been trained up to help the next lot.

but today, we're university educated, with a nice piece of paper, and we are the clients' health service providers.

i think my question is, what does this change in nomenclature mean for a) the way we treat patients, and b) for their expectations of us?

the words patient, treat, care, look after - all imply that there is something wrong. that there is something that needs to be made right. it is not about wants but needs. this doesn't mean the needs will always be met, that we will work toward goals, but if someone has lost a leg, their need is to be able to walk again, even if a wheelchair may be the best outcome considering various factors.

but the words client, health-service provider, management, service, imply a contractual relationship, where one's services are engaged for a particular agreed-upon purpose. the sense of caring for someone who unable is gone.

likewise, the recent don't dis- my -ability campaign baffles me. i get what it's saying. but, if i may make a tandem point (this is a blog, after all), part of being in community is helping those who need help. we (should) help people with prams on and off buses, we (should) give up our seats for others. yes, you can crawl the kokoda track, but why should that ever make it condescending for someone to offer or to receive assistance from a fellow human being.

after all, the worth of a person is not in what they can or can't do, or how many functioning limbs they have. but our value is in our created-ness, our innate image-bearing. and indeed, it is often those with so little who contribute so much - triumphing over adversity to achieve the unachievable.

in my short time working in the health-care industry, i have served patients from all walks of life - homeless, teachers, public officials, artists - and compassion, care and serving those unable to serve themselves has been what has driven the same level of care for all.

the road to clients is a road that means the end of multi-disciplinary teams, the end of public health care, the end of sympathy.

Those who are well have no need of a doctor, but those who are sick. Mark 2.17

you might want to make your own extrapolations for what this means in a ministry context.

doubt

2011-03-11T07:18:00.000+11:00

æ has written a great post, 10 thoughts about doubt

i added my own thought in the comments there, but thought i'd expand on it here:

doubt often drives us in the wrong direction. when we are faced with doubt, we tend to withdraw from those who (we think) don't doubt, not sharing with them. the people who are most likely to know what we're feeling, and to have been through what we're going through, are often ironically the last ones we share with.
and instead of being driven back to the bible to recall what we first believed, we read material of those we think are fellow doubters, but who never shared out faith in the first place. so if we are wondering about evil, we read 'God is not great'. if we wonder about whether we were brainwashed as a child, we read 'The God Delusion'.
in doubt, which happens to all, we need to go back to first principles. speak with, or read the thoughts of, fellow believers who have shared your doubts - what got them through? why did they believe despite their tragedy? how did they survive their philosophy degree without giving up hope?

projected project

2011-03-07T18:34:00.000+11:00

a couple of years ago i read a bit of Paul Ricœur at a reading group, from figuring the sacred. i didn't understand much, but over the next couple of years at college i kept trying to read him, using him for essays on the historical fall and historicity versus theological intent.

broadly speaking, he's been really stimulating for my thinking about hermeneutics - how we read the bible. Ricœur's big thing, best understood in contrast, is an hermeneutic of trust, not one of suspicion.

so what i hope to do is look at his work, and think about how some other guys in the hermeneutics field do it - people like Brevard Childs, John Goldingay, Walter Brueggemann, Francis Watson.

it doesn't mean i fully get him yet, nor do i expect to after this year. but i hope to be challenged about how to read the old and new testaments on their own and together, and to be able to keep pushing others to do their own thinking.

carbon tax

2011-02-25T08:25:00.000+11:00

my initial response to the carbon tax is ... yay!
the increases in the price of electricity and petrol will hopefully force us to be energy wise, and less car-reliant.

my hesitation is that this is just a tax dressed up in green. how many dollars of tax to be paid by the industrial polluters will be refunded them in subsidies? i fear that it will be almost 1 for 1.

and this carbon tax will only be appropriate if the money is used in helping rehabilitate the world we've polluted, and in investment in green energy sources, in particular solar.

Jesus the Leper

2011-02-17T10:22:00.000+11:00

three thoughts on Mark 1.40-45

1

people with disfiguring skin ailments weren't allowed in camp with the rest of Israel, they had to be outside the camp, in desolate places, calling 'Unclean! Unclean!' to warn people away from them. (See Lev 13)

Jesus met such a person, and what is particularly striking is the way he took the man's place. the man is unclean, outcast, rejected, excluded - and Mark tells us Jesus was himself in such a place, where he met the man, and remained in that place. yet the man was healed, cleansed, and was able to join again into his society.

furthermore, Jesus was killed, cursed, and buried outside the city walls. the life the man was condemned to live Jesus took.

2

after Jesus healed the man he told him to present himself to the priest, to fulfil the law in offering the appropriate sacrifices. (See Lev 14) but we are told by Mark, he instead went and told people about Jesus.

i wonder whether the reason he didn't offer a sacrifice is because the true sacrifice was standing there right in front of him. he was both physically clean, yet through faith he understood that Jesus also had cleansed him on the inside.

3

the issue of the messianic secret pops up here also. for the uninitiated (and please correct me if i've remembered this wrong), this is the idea suggested by Wrede that Jesus was a failed messiah, like many others. therefore he wanted to keep the whole subject secret. this explains why it was only after his death (and particularly with Paul's missionary activity) that people began to acknowledge him as the messiah.

this was countered by others who read the synoptic gospels as primarily historical, and that if Jesus told people to say nothing, then that's what he did. the reason? he had a plan, and being outed as the messiah anytime before 'the hour' was not on - he had his own divine schedule and it was the resurrection, rather than any miracles or preaching, that would reveal his true identity.

from a narrative position, i wonder whether the messianic secret is there for the benefit of the readers. as we read him telling people not to tell anyone, we say - as if you couldn't! it's obvious who he is! what excuse could an ex-leper make to explain his healing?! - reinforcing in the reader who we know Jesus to be - the messiah, the beloved son of God.

looking forward to Dave's talk on Mark 1.40-45 this sunday at wildstreet@5 - see what he has to say!

Ricoeur on Evil

2011-02-08T17:44:00.000+11:00

i'm still reading through Paul Ricoeur's Figuring the Sacred (Augsburg Fortress, 1995), but i really liked this on evil in the introduction:

While the Bible does offer a theodicy of retribution in which the victims, because of their faithlessness, are held responsible for the violence inflicted upon them, Ricoeur argues instead for a wisdom theodicy of lamentation and anger where the perennial cries of Why me? and How long? are seen as the most adequate responses to unmitigated evil.
Mark I. Wallace, introduction, Figuring the Sacred, p32.

having read David Bentley Hart on evil (the doors of the sea) and Miroslav Volf on forgiveness (exclusion and embrace), this is close to where Hart ends up (for whom God is always opposed to evil) - and quite different to Volf (who emphasises the responsibility of both the perpetrator and victim in seeking reconciliation).

i like the way he's not systematising, but using the bible's language we see in the context of suffering in evil.

hebrews + matthew OR zechariah

2011-02-07T08:14:00.000+11:00

i gots to decide - one year of college left, and i need to choose between OT in hebrew (where we do the entirety of Zechariah) or NT in greek (where we do Hebrews then Matthew). i could do both but that knocks out an elective and doing a project means i can only do two electives.

so far we've done
(nb: eng means only eng, heb or gk means both)

OT
Numbers (eng)
Deuteronomy (heb)
1-2 Samuel (heb)
Psalms (heb)
Job (eng)
Isaiah (eng)
Ezekiel (heb)
Daniel (eng)
Jonah (eng)

i'm hoping to do aramaic as one elective, so that would mean i'd get to do the aramaic section of Daniel and the aramaic paragraph of Ezra.we also did a bit of Ruth in hebrew, but just to think about text criticism.

NT
Mark (gk)
Luke (gk)
John (gk)
Acts (gk)
Romans (gk)
1 Corinthians (gk)
Ephesians (eng)
1-2 Timothy (eng)
Titus (eng)
1 Peter (eng)
Jude (eng)

reasons for NT4

can complete the quadrafecta (quadrilla?) of gospels
can study a non-Pauline epistle in greek
long term in ministry greek will probably be used more - and i'm more likely to take it for granted (i.e. i should keep working on it this year)
i i don't think i'll do ATBGE (advanced topics in biblical greek exegesis - or simply, nerd greek), but i plan to audit it
doing aramaic means i'll be doing a language related to hebrew anyway

reasons for OT4

we can do a whole book of the bible in an original language - everything else has been overview, with a deeper focus on particular areas only
zech is a pretty crucial book in the NT (particularly matthew i think)
it's my last chance to study in hebrew - i don't think any masters subjects are in hebrew, only greek
it'd probably make sense to keep hebrew up whilst learning aramaic

so that's my thinking. what do you think, faithful reader(s?)?

book reading tizzy

2011-02-05T10:43:00.000+11:00

i've loved getting my head into some books of late.
first came Gulliver's Travels (via gutenburg.org), then i finished off Calvin's Institutes, then Ben Elton's Inconceivable, then the diary of Anne Frank, then a penguin excerpt from Herodotus, Xerxes Invades Greece.

Gulliver was great, particularly as i'd only ever read a dumbed-down version of the first part, the voyage to Lilliput (which the supposed abomination of a film is broadly based on). what was striking was the decline in humanity evidenced in each of the four parts. the God-fearer Swift was interested to show the absolute depravity of man, which is revealed bit-by-bit throughout. indeed, by the end of the book (SPOILER ALERT) Gulliver cannot stand the sight nor smell of others of his species, so disappointed is he with the race he was unfortunate enough to be born of.

Calvin was long. and often concerned with defending orthodox Christianity against people who are long-gone and arguments long-forgotten. i was struck with his thoughts on baptism, as well as confirmation, which i will write about soon. i'll probably have to read it all again when i finish college - the beginning, read two years ago on the bus, is a distant memory.

Elton is a great writer, whether for TV or his novels. he did a great job in this book of making the whole vibe associated with trying to conceive a heck of a lot lighter. this isn't why i was reading it - but the depths of despair i understand can be associated with this issue, when cut with Elton's humour, couldn't hurt. i think...

Anne Frank was great. seeing the war from a little teeny-bopper's perspective (i refuse to say tweenager) was very different. i've talked to people who were her age but in Australia (my nan) - a thoroughly different perspective - as well as someone her age in Germany (my Gast-Oma). it's funny to think that they probably all would've gotten along well. what i found hard reading it was as the dates got closer to (SPOILER ALERT) her being found and taken to a concentration camp was her ignorance. the last entry shows her to be a typical selfish child - like all 14 year old girls the world over since time immemorial - who just happens to be in hiding with seven others in Nazi-occupied Holland. so she whinges to her diary - and that's it. no warning. the hagiography in the beginning of the book was a bit odd, yet not unexpected. but a great example of the pointlessness of war, greed, xenophobia, that catches all and sundry up in its wake.

finally, Xerxes. this is where the inspiration for the movie the 300 came from. a couple of years ago i read Thucydides' the Peloponnesian War, which has a very similar style. frustratingly, there are 9 and a half blank pages, and the story isn't finished - (SPOILER ALERT) Athens is sacked - and the book stops! what happens to the ships that have sailed down south? does Xerxes make it across the isthmus? of all the relatively inane things that are included, why include them, and not finish this part of the story, AND leave blank pages? what are you doing with Penguin Epics mr/mrs Penguin? anyway, it was interesting to read Herodotus explain the origins of all the various tribes and nations - where they'd come from, who they moved on, their descent, origin of their name etc. it is bizarre to think of a time when you could emigrate somewhere where there was noone where you were going - hey, this looks like a good place to start a settlement that will still be here in a few thousand years!

but otherwise, onto some serious reading. Ricoeur, Figuring the Sacred. should keep me going a little while.

Calvin: why baptism?

2011-01-27T21:32:00.000+11:00

i'm getting closer to finishing Calvin's Institutes. in the second-last chapter he has a go at the five sacraments rejected as unbiblical (confirmation, penance, extreme unction, orders and marriage). he doesn't have a problem with the first or last two, just with them being called sacraments in the same way as the lord's supper or baptism are.

in speaking against penance, he writes:

As if baptism were wiped out by sin, and is not rather to be recalled to the memory of the sinner whenever he thinks of forgiveness of sins, so that from it he may gather himself together, take courage, and confirm his faith that he will obtain the forgiveness of sins, which has been promised him in baptism!
IV.xix.17

that is, one of the key reasons for baptism is to recall, when you fall into sin, that you are one of those Christ died to redeem, and to go and sin no more.

the wisdom of wedlock

2010-12-07T09:30:00.000+11:00

i tried to follow the same basic outline for all three weeks, so the outline was again

i] what is wedlock?
ii] we need wisdom to guide us through wedlock
iii] Proverbs is not the end of the story - Jesus redeems wedlock

again, it was an opportunity to put together some of the strands from ethics this year.

i] we first thought through the importance of wedlock in the media - both the gossip columns as well as the political sphere. we also recognised that we all have some interest in the topic - most of us are the product of wedlock, and most of us either are, will be, or desire to be married one day.

again, we looked at Gen 1-2 and 3, to see that there is a tarnished goodness in marriage - it is spoilt by sin, but there is still goodness in marriage.

ii] Proverbs is a bit politically incorrect - the context is the father to the son. and you can't just make it all gender non-specific, it doesn't always work. so that, as well as the context where most people are married (most at church aren't) means we need wisdom to apply the wisdom of Proverbs to us in our situations and contexts.

the two extremes are the adulteress and the quarrelsome woman.

as far as the adulteress is concerned, this is not marriage advice but fooling around/sowing-wild-oats kind of advice. she is alluring
Come, let us take our fill of love till morning;
let us delight ourselves with love.
For my husband is not at home;
he has gone on a long journey;
he took a bag of money with him;
he won’t be back for a month.”
Prov. 7.18-20
but despite the intoxication of the thought of 'lovemaking till morning', this woman leads us to death.
the other extreme is marrying poorly
a quarrelsome wife is like a constant dripping.
Prov. 9.13b

Better to live on a corner of the roof
than share a house with a quarrelsome wife.
Prov. 25.24

Better to live in a desert
than with a quarrelsome and ill-tempered wife.
Prov. 21.19
the middle point, the third way, is to choose your wife well and enjoy your life with her.
May your fountain be blessed,
and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.
A loving doe, a graceful deer—
may her breasts satisfy you always,
may you ever be captivated by her love.
Prov. 5.18-19
an even better good tho, than finding a good wife, is finding miss wisdom herself, and marrying her.
Say to wisdom, “You are my sister,”
and call understanding your relative.
She will keep you from the forbidden woman,
from the adulteress with her smooth words.
Prov. 7.4-5
that is, finding true wisdom will keep you from following the path of folly to death.
this places the good of marriage into it's appropriate place, that is, it is a good thing to marry (Prov. 18.22), but this good is secondary to the goodness of seeking wisdom; the folly of marrying the quarrelsome woman is therefore not a good to be pursued.

iii] this then is how Jesus redeems wedlock. such that Paul can write to the Corinthians both of the goodness of marriage, but also great good of not being married.so then marriage is seen differently, as it points people to the love of Christ for the church.but singleness is seen differently also:

because we’re part of a community of believers, unmarried people can honour marriage, by being glad for those who are married without bitterness and envy, and caring for those who are married in their own areas of need.
part of this can be making sure marrieds don’t turn their marriages and families if they have them into an idol. you can do this by reminding them of those beyond their immediate horizon, that God’s Kingdom is to be our horizon, and service of others is to be the way of life for all Christians, whatever our marital status.
single people can model in a different way what it looks like to be a Christian who is content with the riches we share in Christ. this means being sexually pure, making the most of the gift of singleness. this also means that while you may ask God for the gift of marriage, there is no place for thinking of yourself as a second-class Christian, or for making crass jokes about getting people married. there may be many reasons that people are single, some not by choice, but others are single for well-thought through reasons.

finally, i reflected a bit more on the sadness that singleness can be, because it is good part of God's good creation.
and then there was a call in line with Heb. 13.4, that all are to honour marriage.
and lastly, a reminder to all, to keep focussing on the thing greater than the greatest marriage, the future of all believers, in the closest of relationships with our saviour.

the wisdom of work

2010-11-24T16:29:00.001+11:00

doing a series on proverbs at church atm.
the first week was an intro (1-9), 2 weeks ago was wine, last week i was on with work, as well as the next two weeks with wedlock and then words.
i stole the titles from st albans lindfield when we did these a while ago (you may remember me posting thoughts from my intro talk)

i've really found ethics helpful this year, and we spent a bit of time thinking about work, so it was nice to try and put it all together

my basic outline:
i] what is work?
ii] we need wisdom to guide us through work
iii] Proverbs is not the end of the story - Jesus redeems work

i] tried to show that work is part of creation, that even though tarnished by sin and cursed by God, it's not devoid of good. there's usually both good and bad in all work, and what's good one day can be toilsome the next.

ii] talked through three areas where proverbs is particularly vocal:

honesty
The balance and scales must be just according to the Lord;
he concerns himself with the weights of the pouch.
Prov. 16.11
the way you work
here i talked about the two poles - the sluggard on the one hand
The sluggard buries his hand in the dish;
it wears him out to bring it back to his mouth.
Prov. 26.15
- and the wicked, on the other, who i tried to show were not dissimilar to the workaholic.
10 My son, if sinners entice you,
do not consent 11 If they say,
“Come with us, let us lie in wait for blood;
let us ambush the innocent without reason;"
[...]
18 these men lie in wait for their own blood;
they set an ambush for their own lives.
19 Such are the ways of everyone who is greedy for unjust gain;
it takes away the life of its possessors.
Prov. 1.10-19
what proverbs advises is therefore contentment, such that we can pray this prayer with Jesus in the Lord's prayer:
Two things I ask of you;
deny them not to me before I die:
Falsehood and lies keep far from me;
give me neither poverty nor riches,
but give me only my daily bread.
lest I be full and deny you
and say, “Who is the LORD?”
or lest I be poor and steal
and profane the name of my God.
Prov. 30.7-9
generosity
Whoever is generous to the poor lends to the LORD,
and he will repay him for his deed.
Prov. 19.17

iii] Proverbs is not the end of the story - Jesus redeems work. yet even saying this, we need to recognise the deep fallen-ness of so much work, where people are forced into demeaning jobs, where people are unable to find work, where physical or mental illness or disability deny people the opportunities to work, and others are in pointless, purpose-less jobs. thankfully we can see how even in jobs that seem close to pointless, these areas of work have value

Creation
this is stuff like subduing and having dominion. like mothers changing nappies, people building engineers, weeding
Community
keeping society functioning. IT, accountants, all these sort of things which seem quite pointless in any eternal sense are hence given purpose
Gospel

i finished off talking about Luther, his idea of vocation (Beruf), that we are called by God into his service - thus making all of life holy, be it changing nappies, applying for jobs, plucking chickens, taking out the rubbish.

therefore we can understand why Luther, even if Jesus were coming back tomorrow, would still plant an apple tree today.

and that was it.
i wanted to talk about the idea of rest, and how that fits in. but no time.

Eucharist in John 6?

2010-08-17T07:29:00.000+10:00

a while ago i summarised Calvin's Short Treatise on the Lord's Supper.

i began thinking about it again in relation to John 6 and what's going on there. in the anglican prayer book service, i thought it said something like 'may the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ keep you in eternal life.'

in John 6.53-58 Jesus says

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.”

now, it's pretty clear that Jesus is talking about his death, but it's not insignificant that the same terms used to talk about his death are the used to talk about the remembrance meal he instituted.

Calvin says in the aforementioned treatise

The bread and the wine are visible signs which represent the body and blood, but the name and title body and blood are given to them because they are as it were the instruments by which the Lord distributes them to us. (Section 14)

we want to protect people from popery (check out not a couple of the 39 articles!), but what happens at the Lord's table isn't nothing either. Calvin does a great job of charting this line between Luther and Zwingli in this respect.

reading a couple of protestant commentaries on John 6 (Hendricksen and Köstenberg), neither think it's about the institution of the eucharist, but Köstenberg does suggest Calvin might be on to something in that it is derivative - that is, we celebrate what Jesus tells us about sharing in his death by sharing in the meal. indeed, whenever we remember Jesus' death on our behalf is a great opportunity to share in a remembrance meal, celebrating our union with him in his death and resurrection. we are not obliged to do it every time, but by never doing it we miss out on engaging all our senses (hearing, speaking, seeing, feeling, tasting) - a beautifully creaturely way for us creatures to join together to remember Christ's death, instituted by our creator!

being Hauerwas

2010-08-12T11:04:00.002+10:00

in between prolonged illness and exegeticals, i've managed to squeeze in a fair bit of Hauerwas. dan, pretty much the closest thing to a Hauerwas specialist, recommended i start with Hannah's Child: A Theologian's Memoir, which i really loved.

i should add - Stanley Hauerwas is an American ethicist, who is strongly influenced by John Howard Yoder who was a Mennonite pacifist.

Hauerwas has worked at a variety of institutions - most notably Arkansas (which i was taught this week is actually said Arkansaw - who would have guessed!), Notre Dame and Duke. he came over to do the New College Lectures back in 1990, and as well as being named by Time magazine America's best theologian, he presented the 2000/2001 Gifford Lectures.

he's a really interesting guy - as mentioned above, Hannah's Child is a great introduction to him. there are also some great anecdotes about him.
an untrue, yet very funny one, is that he visited Harvard, asked 'where the library was at', and upon being told that people at Harvard didn't end sentences with prepositions, rephrased his question, 'where's the library at asshole'.
he denies this ever happened - but not that it is at all against his character (i.e., it could've, but didn't happen).*

my biggest problem with Hauerwas is he's written so voluminously! it's really hard to get through all he's written, particularly with others wanting to borrow the same books from the library! what i like about him is his emphasis on the centrality of the church, and the importance of simple acts such as kneeling and doing communion as signifying what it is to be a set-apart community. although he perhaps overstates the importance of for example doing the eucharist weekly, in the Australian, and particularly Sydney context, we have definitely gone to far in the other direction - there is a fear of making church look like church.

anyway, i'll keep trawling through. will say more when i have more to say.

* in The State of the University, 2007, p133.

Gaudí en la favela

2010-07-31T10:40:00.000+10:00

a few years ago i stumbled upon a documentary about a guy in a brazilian favela who had been decorating it in a style uncannily like Gaudí. like all those living in the slums of brazil (he lives in sao paulo), he built his house from things he found, but in his case there was a tree on his 'property'*, which he incorporated into his dwelling, and it has gone from there.
bbc has a good report on their website here

the info for the doco is here, i'm pretty sure i watched it on abc, but it's probably pretty hard to find.

i love the creativity, the organic nature of his art, the unpretentiousness of it all (he trawls through building sites for things to keep adding to it). it reminds me of the refrain in Gen 1, where creation is to be fruitful and multiply - the creation keeps on creating with its God-given createdness. that is, Ezekiel's perfect temple is beautiful, but that perfect architecture gives way in Revelation to the perfect presence of God with us, and the river that feeds the trees that bring life and healing.

i love cities, but my favourite description of metropopli (?) comes from the sociologist Max Weber, who looked down from a sky-scraper and from there saw the city as an ecosystem, everything organically reacting to each other element. it's therefore not surprising to see the mixing of the metaphors of perfect city and garden, rather very fitting!

* i don't think favelas can ever be official even though there are millions living in them, they're 'domus non grata' (i don't actually speak latin, but that's my best guess!)

Hudson Taylor :: A Man in Christ

2010-07-21T14:44:00.001+10:00

i've been busy (you may've guessed that from the lack of posts this last month). i've just finished an essay on Ezekiel and Regeneration, which i would like to talk about at some stage. but for the moment, here's a book review of a book i read a couple of months ago, which will appear at some stage on the webzine of AFES - websalt. check out their site for some really great and current reviews and articles.

Roger Steer. J. Hudson Taylor. A Man in Christ. Carlisle: Paternoster Lifestyle and OMF Publishing, 2001. 372p.

The name of Hudson Taylor is synonymous for many with Christianity in China. A man used mightily by God, this book traces his life in 48 bite-sized chapters, from his youth in England to his missionary work in China. On the way, you see God powerfully at work through a fallible man – but you also get the love story (stories!) and an enthralling picture of perseverance too – as you journey with him.

The first thing you learn is about Taylor’s parents, they always had a deep love for China and for the millions who didn’t know the love of Jesus. They always prayed for him that God would use him to reach China’s Millions.^[1] However he didn’t share this vision until after his conversion at 17 through the persistent prayers of his family. This is a great story of the power of persistent of prayer, a theme returned to often in this biography.

There are some other themes we come across in the formative years of Taylor’s life, one his agonising over whether to finish his medical training before heading off to the mission field, but also his determination to ask no one for money. Both of these are still live issues for many, the first for anyone trying to work out whether to pursue full-time paid ministry. The second is a question for those in ministry, as they consider asking for financial support. Reading biographies of people like Taylor, but also Brother Andrew^[2] and others, the way God provides exactly the amount required – even for the most sceptical – is really challenging.

In China, Hudson had a phenomenal impact. He taught himself to read Chinese whilst still in England, and quickly became proficient in many languages and dialects. His time was rarely trouble free, with disagreements with some missionaries and his incompetent sending mission organisation, as well his chronic sicknesses, deaths of those around him, war, persecution and betrayal. He did have great joy in seeing many be converted and mature in faith. He founded a mission organisation, the CIM (now OMF), and saw his audacious prayers for many co-workers answered.

When you read this biography, you don’t get the picture of a superhuman. You do get the picture of a workaholic, and give thanks for those around him who made him rest. You also see a frail man, yet a man continuing to live the Christian life day by day, reading his bible and praying to the God in whom he put all his trust.

I don’t know if you get in to Christian biographies. I always feel a bit sceptical, wondering if they really did all that, and particularly what the biographer chose to leave out. You end up siding with Taylor in any dispute, the only failure I can think of is when he’s quite old and gets a bit lost in a talk – which happens to the best of us regardless of age! But that said, the book does seem to be really well researched, from personal letters, other biographies, and I guess any filing cabinets around the OMF offices – and is still crafted into a riveting story.

Reading this biography of the great Hudson Taylor is really rewarding – I tried to read it one chapter a night before bed, and often read many more. You really feel his deep love for the unreached people of China,^[3] and understood his absolute determination in going where reason should have deterred him. But the self-sacrificial love of Christ compelled him to go where no one else would. I would recommend getting into this biography, and to pray with him for the many unreached people throughout China, East Asia, and the world.

[1] the title of Hudson’s magazine, now called East Asia’s Millions.
[2] God’s Smuggler, London : Hodder and Stoughton, 1968.
[3] CIM stands for China Inland Mission – until Taylor, missionaries rarely ventured far from the main coastal cities.

i think you can buy it from OMF or perhaps here and support a great missionary agency at the same time!

girl power

2010-06-24T10:35:00.000+10:00

so we have:
a female monarch (QEII)
a female governor general (quentin bryce)
a female premier (christina keneally)
a female lord mayor (clover moore)
and now*, a female prime minister (julia gillard)

perhaps, for those still not sold on the 'noughty generation' (as the one which comes after gen-y), we label all those born now as gen-w, or maybe even gen-XX"

* i realise there is a handover period but it's as good as now

Acts 1 Chiasm

2010-06-21T09:33:00.000+10:00

Luke-Acts exam in a few hours.
a little chiasm to keep you going:

Acts 1.2

a ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας
b ἐντειλάμενος τοῖς ἀποστόλοις
c διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου
b' οὓς ἐξελέξατο
a' ἀνελήμφθη

... until the day he was taken up (a,a')
after commanding the apostles he had chosen (b,b')
by the holy spirit (c)

you like?

Matthew 18 (reprieve) - forgiving one another

2010-06-07T09:21:00.001+10:00

part 2 of my 2 part series on forgiveness yesterday. again, like last week, i had to change it up a fair bit. but that was a good thing, it meant it was fresh, and didn't feel like a recycled talk.

it was good to read the lead article in the catechist, on forgiveness in the face of unrepentance.

i think the issue is that we have one word, 'forgiveness', and we use it to cover two semantic fields:

forgiving the person who repents, holding no bitterness, no grudge, but freely forgiving as we have been forgiven
a readiness to forgive, to stand, arms outstretched, again holding no bitterness, but in the face of unrepentance, never shutting off the possibility of a reconciliation, although that is not at the present time a real possibility

thankfully there was a question in question time precisely on this, which meant i was able to draw the two threads of the talk together - both the readiness, as well as the actual forgiving.

a good case study is forgiving the dead person - you can't actually forgive them, in that a relationship is restored. but what you can do is give up the bitterness and hatred that would otherwise destroy you.

psalm 32 (reprieve) - forgiven by God

2010-06-02T12:02:00.003+10:00

i had the privilege of preaching from Psalm 32 again on sunday just gone. in a preaching group at college i got some great feedback leading into it. in thinking about 'exegeting your congregation', it was a completely different congregation. from the north shore to a city asian congregation was in many ways a whole different world.
i think the main change was from challenging the average north-shorer's expectations of the good life, to what the psalm promises - freedom from guilt and shame.

i'm still struggling with the both-and of exegeting the passage and exegeting the congregation, but having the talk already (from 18 months ago) and then rethinking it with a different group in mind really helped me to hone the message.
perhaps preparing a talk for one group and then redoing it for another is a good way to check if you're on message (God's) or just trying to target what you see as the particular traps a stereotyped group fall into.

this sunday: i'm redoing matthew 18vv15, the same congregation shift. just rereading the talk means there's a lot of change to do!

religion in the classroom

2010-06-01T21:30:00.000+10:00

here's another piece of gold from onn

Christian Groups: Biblical Armageddon Must Be Taught Alongside Global Warming
what i really like is you're not heaps sure who they're having a go at. it starts off having a go at the cousin of the young-earth creationist, the premillenialist (maybe once removed? i can never work that out). but by the end of the clip, i'm not so sure. what do you think?

h/t byron, who is back with a whole bunch of stuff thinking about this world.

the life-blood of the historian

2010-05-26T12:04:00.000+10:00

Just as Odysseus found on his visit to Hades that the dead seer Teiresias could not speak to him until his inarticulate ghost had been brought to life by the blood of a sacrifice, so from the life-blood of his own sympathy the historian gives a blood transfusion to the ghosts of the past.

G.B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible, 202-3, 1980 (1997).

the task of the historian is tough. it depends on what questions one asks of the past, and in some cases (of necessity?), creating the past. here is the understandable response:

It has been said that though God cannot alter the past, historians can; it is perhaps because they can be useful to Him in this respect that He tolerates their existence.

Samuel Butler, Erewhon Revisited, ch 5.

it is clear that sympathy is required, empathy even better. it doesn't make doing history any easier, but it surely helps.

Tom Frame :: Losing My Religion

2010-05-22T18:02:00.000+10:00

the moore college library lecture this year was given by Tom Frame.

his lecture, entitled The Apologist's Anguish: publishing Losing my Religion : unbelief in Australia, was great. not only great, but heartfelt, and obviously tough.

the book (available here), looks at the history of Australia, considering who we are as a nation, and what our attitudes towards religion are. there are many great things about this book. there are many books written about the 'four horsemen' (dawkins, hitchens, dennett, harris), which he did do, but he also looked at outspoken australian atheists. the disappointing thing is that the australians are generally no better than the rest. in a empistemically humble manner, Frame carefully examines their arguments, and acknowledges fault where fault is due. however the atheists generally turn out to be nothing more than anti-theists, resorting to unfounded (and inaccurate) statements in lieu of an argued position. that is to say, where a discussion, or even an argument, could begin, there is no interest on their side.

as Frame shared the aftermath of publishing this book as well as his earlier one, 'Evolution in the Antipodes' (which, he said, incidentally came as a result of research connected with LMR), it was saddening, if not completely surprising, to hear of the metaphoric 'bucket of bile' he received in response. while i like feedback (any feedback!), what you receive when you suggest that unbelief isn't as reasonable as it may seem, or at least no more reasonable than belief, is a torrent of abuse.

i remember looking at a video put out by CPX once, and finding out that it had been linked to by a dawkins fan site. the unreasoned, abusive, bigoted messages ('comments') on youtube were appalling. listening to Frame, you saw the toll that these unreasonable anti-theists take on a man.

finally, it was good to read the last chapter of the book, and hear how, while not losing his religion, he definitely, like all of us, thinks long and hard, from time to time, about whether to lose his religion. this is not to say he has lost it, far from it. but as we seek to live in a world where respect and honest discussion are valued virtues, it would be nice to hear that sort of honesty from the other side of the ring from time to time.

warner brothers won't let me embed the clip, but the title of his book, said Frame, comes primarily from the film clip

Jesus :: Man or Muse?

2010-05-20T08:47:00.002+10:00

Something i was thinking through last year was how the theology of the gospels affected their historicity. it was interesting to read of the recent NT Wright conference via Mark Thompson's blog, particularly Richard Hay's criticism that Wright's approach makes the individual voices of the evangelists disappear (see the third paragraph of this summary of the conference).

and this was exactly my issue with the attention on the historical followed by Schweitzer, re-appropriated by Wright and even Paul Barnett - we can continue on our 'Quest'*, but what are we truly seeking to find?

the Jesus we are presented with is at once the historical man who lived, died, rose, and ascended; but we also meet him as the apostles knew him and convey him to us. and this is no tension, but elements that amplify each other.

image from schweitzer's book

the abbreviated title of Schweitzer's 'Quest of the Historical Jesus'* - also an abbreviated title for a longer English, for an even longer German title!

the catechist

2010-05-19T13:21:00.000+10:00

so i haven't blogged.
but i have been doing stuff.
this is one:

the catechist was published online earlier this month. i wrote an article for it: a book review of Miroslav Volf'sExcusion and Embrace.
the book is great. hard work but great.
briefly, it's thinking about reconciliation and forgiveness.

have a read, tell me what you think.
and i'll try and post a bit more.

300

2010-04-23T13:59:00.000+10:00

it's been a while between posts.

for my 300th (only days, coincidentally before my 30th!), i thought:

if i was doing my own translation of Genesis 3, i would call Adam Graham, and Eve Olivia. Graham Ground and Olivia Living. heaps better than Adam Adamah and Chawa Chay (ie adam of the earth and eve of the living).

would you hire me as a translator?

Herod Chiasm (Luke 23.7-11)

2010-03-10T15:24:00.001+11:00

in contrasting Mark with Luke and the Pilate account (Mark 15.1-15, Luke 23.1-25), what is noticeable is the absence in Mark of the Herod account in the middle of the Pilate narrative (Luke 23.7-11).

The 'sandwich' technique is well known in the gospels, placing one story within another, perhaps to emphasise the centre, or even just to enhance memory in retelling the passage.

In Luke it seems both the Pilate and Herod accounts are important, but for different reasons. With Pilate, the flow of the narrative is what stands out: the mounting innocence of Jesus but the guilt of Barabbas. The Herod account however wishes to emphasise Jesus' innocence, but the guilt of the scribes and chief priests - and this is what the following chiasm reveals:

A 23.7 And when he learned that he belonged to Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him over to Herod...

B 8 When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had long desired to see him...

C 9 So he questioned him at some length,

D but he made no answer.
D’ 10 And the chief priests and the scribes stood by,

C’ vehemently accusing him.

B’ 11 And Herod with his soldiers treated him with contempt and mocked him.

A’ Then, arraying him in splendid clothing, he sent him back to Pilate.

Thematically, we see:

A: To Herod
A': From Herod

B: Herod's joy at Jesus
B': Herod's contempt at Jesus

C: Questioning Jesus
C': Accusing Jesus

D: No intervention from Jesus
D': No intervention from the scribes

like some chiasm action? get some more here!

sunset or scum?

2010-03-06T13:26:00.000+11:00

we were given a couple of marriage books - one good friend gave us The Good Marriage, we bought Married for God, but at the moment we're reading one another good friend gave us, The Mystery of Marriage by Mike Mason (Multnomah, CO: 2005).

what i was challenged about most recently was the way we think about people. chatting with someone about the work they used to do, i was taken back to hear the language used to describe their clients. sure, they were repeat offenders, you could even say stupid in their actions, but there is still a way you talk about fellow human beings, recognising their value as worthy of value and honour and respect, due not to themselves, but to their createdness, to their being God's image bearer.

but when reality kicks in, we see this doesn't shape our actions and our time - i would much rather walk in the forest, watch a sunset, watch nature documentary - than hang out in a dodgy venue in King's Cross, at night in the back streets of Macquarie Fields, in any number of the world's slums and ghettoes.

Mason writes:

The conclusion is inescapable, that to be in the presence of even the meanest, lowest, most repulsive specimen of humanity in the world is still to be closer to God than when looking up into a starry sky or at a beautiful sunset.
[T]here is nothing in the New Testament about beautiful sunsets. The heart of biblical theology is a man hanging on a cross, not a breathtaking scene from nature. For the Bible is centrally concerned with love, and the wonders of nature [...] touch only remotely on love. We cannot really love a sunset; we can love only a person.

pp46-47. emphasis added.

create in me a new heart, o Lord, that i might see things as you see them.

Robert Alter - Illustrated

2010-03-03T17:49:00.000+11:00

two translations of Robert Alter have been all the rage at college - The David Story (1&2 Samuel) and this year his translation of the Psalms.

the psalms is particularly good - his translation methodology is admirable - particularly the way he strives for terseness, in homage to the underlying Hebrew.

he has also written a great book the art of biblical narrative and translated Genesis

last year however i read an article he'd written in the New Republic called Scripture Picture. It's a four page article about the new illustrated Genesis by Robert Crumb using his translation (Crumb is probably quite famous in graphic novel circles, in others not so - check out the film Crumb where he plays himself, or even American Splendor [sic] for someone playing him in a minor roll - it's a good film!)

the article really is a good read. it's a fascinating discussion about what you do as you illustrate the bible, or depict anyone in another form. who are you when you hit the page in picture? it's hard enough to identify with yourself in print (ever critically read your own CV?), without having that then exported to another medium altogether.

there is something permanent-ising, objectifying, about turning the scriptures into pictures. the ambiguity is gone, the imagination, rather than engaging with ideas, is left to other devices - perhaps joining frame to frame in their head, filling out the missing action/movement.

and i wonder, do we do the same when children are read the scriptures as a child (i'm thinking big picture bibles)? why are we so fixated on the need for images to convey a message? do we not trust that people will do the imagining themselves?

(i think i was originally going to procrastinate about whether to buy Alter or Crumb - if you have an opinion, let me know in the comments. Cheers!)

This Present Darkness

2010-02-24T08:42:00.000+11:00

no, not my 3 month absence from blogging (however dark that might seem), but the 1986 bestseller (2.5mil sold) by Frank E. Peretti.

it's the book i chose to take on my honeymoon, mainly because it was a paperback and Calvin's Institutes was a hardback. but the recommendation for the book actually came from one of my lecturers, who billed it as:

"before there was Left Behind, there was Frank E. Peretti".

what i most enjoyed about this novel was the way it tried to minimise (erase) the distance between the earthly and the spiritual. it offers an example for anyone who's struggled to understand the biblical ideas of e.g. Ephesians 6:12; "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places."

on the earthly, we see the godly pastor Hank (yes, it is American) with his small yet faithful flock, but also the popular megachurch pastor Oliver Young - perhaps so named because of his involvement with new-age stuff - who is part of a group who are taking over town after town to turn them into centres for their deeper spirituality.

but on the spiritual, we see this deeper spirituality is only what the demons convince their people it is - the reader knows better. the reader sees the demons with their talons stuck into people's heads, whispering lies to them. the saints of Hank's church we see are those who give power to the angels; as they gather more prayer support, the energy of the angels increases accordingly.

now, there are already some questionable things here, such as how reliant God is on our prayers to accomplish his work, but it's just so engrossing! as demons are defeated we see people released from their grip, freed from the prince of the air, and putting their life into God's hands. people become Christians, the wicked are struck down, God's saints are vindicated even though they are broken.

yes, the "new age spiritualities" are very caricatured, and the spiritual cause of things is realised in a way with no basis whatsoever (as when the car conks out because an angel has thrust their sword through the engine), but it is a novel.

it was a ripping yarn, a good holiday read. i'm still not sure whether i'll make it to the sequels (piercing the darkness and prophet). perhaps i now need to try one of the left behind series for a bit of comparison.

on introductions and headings

2009-11-24T20:05:00.000+11:00

i don't like introductions. i don't like headings.

i've been reading and writing so much of late, and i've worked out how much i dislike overly structured writing. i actually find it quite disconcerting to read these little paragraphs between headings.

i'm not sure why, but it could be how disjointed it is, but i think more, how disjointed it is. i feel like i'm reading a microwave oven instruction manual.

particularly considering how difficult i find some material to understand, i think the vibe of what is written can be more helpful than the specifics. after all, someone who takes a couple of hundred (or thousand!) pages to say something surely can't expect you to read every single word and sentence equally, but to let it wash over you, taking you inside their thought processes.

but an introduction telling you exactly what is what, and then explaining those things exactly and specifically, point by point, is not taking me on a journey, it's not sharing their thoughts with me. it's just telling me a bunch of stuff.

if you read any of my essays (see post below) you might get what i mean. yes, there is an introduction (it's mandatory), and sure, there's a progression, but that's the journey. i'm happy if there's a few pointers on the way, but they should be signposts on the journey, not compartment labels.

read my essays?

2009-11-24T16:52:00.001+11:00

you may've listened to my sermons

you may have read the blog posts as i thought through Isaiah 26 here and here

you may have read the blog posts thinking through the historical fall here, here, here and here

well, thanks to jay-z and earngey, you can now read in full the essays that resulted, isaiah (with formatting errors - hebrew and spacing doesn't work so well across platforms it seems), and historical fall.

for other nerdy essays, you can look further at the filing cabinet, on the same topics (OT & doctrine), as well as church history and NT.

but do bear in mind, it's quite nerdy. read with due caution.

i hear mtc has relaunched but i don't believe it

2009-11-24T10:03:00.002+11:00

not sure if this counts as irony, but still haven't been able to load up the new moore college website since it's launch yesterday (and yes, using moore college's network)

i realise this isn't a glorious return to blogging, but exams were pretty full on, and getting married this weekend will probably keep me busy for a little while to come.

Mark 2 Chiasm

2009-10-13T21:44:00.003+11:00

not sure if this post will work - blogger's doing some funky things tonight - if it starts behaving again i'll remove this and maybe add a picture if any buttons appear to allow me to do so!

this sunday at GBC* we're doing Mark 2.1-12, and believe it or not - i've realised it's a chiasm.

A 2.1-2a - the big picture, a crowd astonished at Jesus

B 2.2b-5 - movement to Jesus, Jesus speaks

C 2.6-10 - opposition's negative reaction, Jesus' positive reaction

B' 2.11-12a - Jesus speaks, movement away from Jesus

A' 2.12b - the big picture, a crowd astonished at Jesus

mark does this a heap, or at the very least sandwiches (A B A' - cf Mark 5.21-24a; 24b-34; 35-43)

it's not so much a theological comment as a narrative device, guiding you into and then out and onwards.

* if you're a german speaker, you may be interested in coming along to german bible cafe - check out our facebook or blog if you're keen.

wishlist updated

2009-10-12T18:01:00.001+11:00

in the sidebar, or just click here!

any suggestions i should add to the list?

what would you have in yours?

cocktail church?

2009-10-12T17:44:00.000+11:00

wow. crazy.
a weeknight, food, drinks - and church?
what will they think of next!

anyway, you may be free on Tuesday 27 and Wednesday 28 October from 7.30 pm, and live somewhere near st albans lindfield - if so, get along, bring a friend or two.

apart from food and drink, there will be a talk each night:
27th :: A hell of a Life
28th :: A hell of a Death

get into to it!

Batman the Musical

2009-10-10T11:17:00.000+11:00

been oddly talking about musicals a bit lately. my parents took us to see the very fun wicked the other day, which fits in between the wizard of oz and return to oz - surely one of the scariest movies ever. i guess sort of like the sarah connor chronicles in between the terminator and T2. the interesting thing about wicked was the not just the freudian analysis of the wicked witch of the west - what made her the 'wicked' witch, why was glinda the 'good' witch. but if people talk about good and wicked, do we need to rethink what those titles mean; who gave them the titles; are we just buying into the hype?

and for some strange reason people are still banging on about buffy the musical which i pray i will never have to see.

anyway, this is a little more my taste. complete with the music meister and the black canary.

praxis vs theology

2009-10-08T17:32:00.001+11:00

chatting about evil again. reading david bentley hart's doors of the sea again.

but this time it's with others, including mark and steve, who have been interviewing christian counsellors for their pilgrims podcast.

the reason i mention this is not to promote them (they do enough self-promotion as it is), but to raise the question of how what we say to people relates to what we think - and particularly in the context of suffering.

if we believe evil is evil, an affront to God, an absurdity, then let us say this.

however, if we believe in a divine, universal harmony, where nothing happens but by the hand of God, and we are talking to someone suffering - why can we not say this? is this not the gospel of comfort to the suffering, the poor, the bound? but we realise that saying 'it's all a part of God's plan' is no comfort, and not pastorally appropriate.

my question is, if what we believe does not match with what we are willing and comfortable to say, are we too weak to say the truth that might hurt, or is our theology profoundly impersonal and thus leaving us in a schizophrenic state as we try to comfort the suffering?

what do counsellors do? what do you do?

can we in a clear conscience preach one thing from the pulpit and say another in the hospital room?

if evil is evil, it is evil. let us proclaim the goodness of God despite that evil.

no fall put to the test

2009-10-01T17:11:00.000+10:00

last night at bible study we did the final in our series based on Tim Keller's "The Reason For God". we looked at Sin, through the lens of Genesis 3:1-13, Romans 1:18-32, Romans 3:21-26.

as you would know, i've just finished an essay on the consequences of denying an historical fall (here, here, and here). the position i finished at was that the idea of "the fall" is not what Genesis 3, nor the rest of the testimony of the bible, is trying to get across.

rather, as Karl Barth agreed with me, "the first man was immediately the first sinner." (CD IV.1 §508)

so as we discussed the idea of the fall, we didn't use the terminology of "fall", but analysed what the story said. and it said that sin consists of disobedience, selfishness, disrespect, but primarily trusting Satan's lies. we agreed that none of us would have been different, and that this grasping against God is something we all continue.

i can perhaps post some of the best bits of my essay a little later, but i just thought it would be helpful to show where this thinking has ended me up (if that sentence makes sense!).

Markus Evangelium

2009-09-28T22:30:00.001+10:00

Übernächstewoche fangen wir bei German Bible Cafe eine neue Serie an. Hier ist meine entwurf der Werbung:

if you know any German-speakers who may be interested in studying the Bible in German, please bring them along.
if you're one of my German-speaking friends reading this, you know I'd love you to come along.

spread the word!

Historical Fall in the key of B

2009-09-18T17:01:00.004+10:00

so far i've narrowed my doctrine essay down to the following points:

Babes or bound (the historical debate - Pelagius vs Augustine)
Blocher or Barth (the current debate)
(Bavinck and Bloesch - minnows, relatively, yet helpfully starting with a B)
Bible (Romans 5 and Genesis 3)

and finally, inevitably, painfully:

Bibliography

i'll probably talk about Ricoeur also, but i may have to deliberately rename him Bicoeur for the purposes of this essay.

check here and also here for the background.

don't know why all this matters? this is why.

temporary new blog address

2009-09-18T09:41:00.004+10:00

for the special period of the AFL final series, in homage to the very important MTV awards, my blog has been moved to here. for a limited time only. this blog will return to the regular location after then.

(it only makes sense if you click)

h/t John

Naked. living in the past.

2009-09-16T15:23:00.002+10:00

Naked (1993, by Mike Leigh) is one of my favourite films ever, despite N, S, D, L, A, and any other warnings you can think of appropriately being on the video cover.

in other words, not a date movie.

but the following clip is from a section of the movie where Johnny (David Thewlis) is given a tour by Brian (Peter Wight) around the building he guards. their conversation reminds me both of conversations i've had with people who are not so well mentally, or alternatively of very very late-night chats that just get weird.
i think the only warning for this clip is L.

a great line from Johnny:

"So you think you can make the present palatable by projecting into the future. you're living in the past, pal. it's the future that f***s you up, Brian. it's the maggot in the apple."

the myth of the fall

2009-09-14T19:29:00.005+10:00

i've been thinking this week through the question of the theological consequences of denying an historical fall. one thing that has been growing on me today is the question of where the idea of the Edenic sinless perfectionism comes from. i'm sure everyone's seen the first two boxes of 2WTL (click on the link if you are unaware), the first one being the one where everything's perfect, sort of like the island the Phantom puts all his animals, after he's taught them to be piscetarians (is that what people who eat no meat except for fish call themselves?).

now the whole point of showing that everything was tops was to explain

why life isn't always tops now, despite a good God, and
to give a picture of what we're looking forward to.

however, on 2/, despite the line in the otherwise great Rob Smith song 'Worthy of All Praise' back to the garden, we don't really want to go back to the garden, but look forward to the new creation. so now i'm trying to work out the importance of 1/ - why do we need to say there was something perfect that humanity "fell" from?

it sort of smacks of platonism, and i have this vibe that it promotes a dualistic view of things. so can we read the account of "the Fall" in Genesis 3:1-13 differently? not that it doesn't depict perhaps the first direct transgression of God's law, but is it such a great "fall" as all that? where does our eschatology fit with a fall?

and yes, this is linked to my previous post!

[apologies for my absence. exegetical to hebrew to greek to doctrine has made for a busy period of time.]

nice guy jesus

2009-08-30T10:44:00.003+10:00

was with a friend trying to find some to talk to about jesus at sydney uni, and ended up chatting to this girl who had founded her own religion (membership = 1). what frustrated me most in the conversation was her inability to see the complete arbitrariness of a system that takes a foundation of pop-buddhism, part new-age-spirituality, and the nice-guy jesus who said some things that the gospels are just trying to distort.

it's not at all an uncommon thing, but i really don't know how to get through to this kind of person. C.S. Lewis' famous quote came back into my head as i've been reflecting on the conversation:

... you must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

quote originally from Mere Christianity, this one in From Narnia to a Space Odyssey, a conversation between Arthur C. Clarke (who could be classed as believing in 'scientism') and C.S. Lewis (who rejected the claim that science answered all of life's problems). book edited by Ryder W. Miller, iBooks, N.Y., 2004.

H. Richard Niebuhr on Sin

2009-08-25T23:30:00.004+10:00

how do you like this as part of a working definition?

Sin is not quite so much lawbreaking as vice; it is the perverse direction of the drives in man, or of his will in general, towards ends not proper to him.

H. Richard Niebuhr, The Responsible Self, Harper and Row, 1962?. p131.

for those interested, i think my next essay, due in around four weeks, is going to be discussing how important it is or isn't to affirm an historical fall (i'm thinking Romans 5:15 is pretty key).

Club Member or Kingdom Citizen

2009-08-12T12:10:00.007+10:00

as mooted, here is my article published just recently in AFES's Salt.

i should add, i didn't think of the title, that was all their idea. but it's something i want to keep thinking about, particularly as it has real impacts for how people think about what Christianity is when they first investigate it. maybe think, as you read it, how this way of thinking about Christianity (if you agree) could come in handy as you chat to people.

[i think my article's the 2nd row, 3rd from the right!]

A friend of mine was considering becoming a Christian. Maybe you too, dear reader, one day did the same. And like my friend, did you weigh up the pros and cons? Did you ‘count the cost’ as we say?

Is that a right view of becoming a Christian – is this the right way of working it out?

[Christianity is heaps like a club]

My friend was in many ways right to evaluate Christianity like a club. As he observed it, we all have a common purpose, we all share a love of the same thing (Jesus), and although we don’t have a dress code (Kathmandu jumpers and polo shirts aside), we do have an ethical code. We try to think things through in light of God’s commands and how they’re renewed in Jesus. You join up by applying (praying) and you’re accepted (Acts 16:31)!

BUT these are only things in common with a club. Indeed, most of the problems we see today in the church world have come from people seeing Christianity as a club and changing the rules as you might in a club: if Christianity is a club, then it’s a democracy. It’s got people who are voted in, and if enough of you want to change the rules of the club, or the emphases of a club, you do it.

[Christianity isn’t a club :: it’s a Kingdom]

One massive theme in the New Testament is that Jesus is the King of the whole world. He didn’t get voted for, there was no election, there was no charter of responsibilities and so on. The only one who had any say on the matter (God!) said that Jesus was His chosen son, Messiah, King.

You might feel a bit disenfranchised by this – why don’t I get a say, you say. Well possibly, because the club you would’ve made wouldn’t last!

If you’re part of a club – what do you have at the end of the day? You might get to along to a few meetings, get the club t-shirt (everyone loves those Christian t-shirts), and really have a great time of it. But if that is all Christianity is to you, then at the end of the day you’ve been sold a lie. The club will fold when there isn’t a quorum to vote, the club will get taken over, you’ll find out the things you signed up for in the first place aren’t even part of it anymore.

Christians believe that God speaks to us specifically, that the Bible is God’s Word to his people, by his Spirit, about his son. However in a club we don’t need this specific revelation; we can work it out for ourselves. Being part of a kingdom sees a purposeful revelation, a royal proclamation, with warnings, encouragements, promises and reasons to rejoice with your sovereign.

If Jesus is King, then there is a much bigger picture of reality we’re part of.

Philippians 3:20: “But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Saviour from there, the Lord Jesus Christ”. This is a deliberate portrayal of the peace won by Christ (Pax Christi) in terms of the Peace won by Rome (Pax Romana). Jesus guarantees your safety, will bring his army to protect you, will not let the enemy prevail.

If Christianity is a Kingdom, then you are safe. You will be safe. You are part of something bigger than yourself, which will continue on into eternity. You haven’t signed up, but you’ve been conquered. If you trust in Jesus, you are part of a kingdom that will never fade, spoil or perish, but is united and galvanised around the only sure anchor in the storm, and you serve under a king who gave his life for you, the one who sits in the power-seat of the universe, at the Right Hand of the Almighty.

Salt :: Identity

2009-08-08T14:10:00.005+10:00

that's right, pre-empting AFES's announcement, the new edition of Salt is out, on identity. it's so hot off the press there's not even a picture on their website to look at!

my article on Club Member or Kingdom Citizen? wasn't the leading article, but p23 is usually where you find the key ideas for most important books. check out CD, inst, the Bible, to cite just a few books with killer p23s.

explaining the thrust of the article just now, what i didn't write but would've been excellent, was:

a club reflects its membership, a kingdom reflects its king.

that's what it's about. i'll post the full article up here soon.

pick one up from your nearest AFES office, MTC mailroom, or university christian ministry (do go to AFES to find one if you aren't involved and are at uni - what's the worst that could happen?). you'll also get the chance to read some articles by Michael Jensen, Mark Barry and many others.

ecumenism 1

2009-08-08T09:45:00.005+10:00

a lot of thoughts in the last few months about ecumenism [= the promotion of unity among Christian churches], one of a few experiences and reflections:

vision valley snow camp
i did some talks on a camp where the leaders were from a variety of denominations which could in really broad brush strokes by typecast as evangelical, pentecostal, charismatic, liberal. one real positive was that there was a unity in purpose, in that we sought to care for and love the campers as taught by Christ. another positive for me was that i (because i'm perfect in doctrine and understanding!) got to set the theological brackets for the discussions that took place over the 3 days, in framing the gospel as a response to God's love for us shown in the death and resurrection of Christ. there were only positive responses to the way i explained the gospel from the other leaders.

some of the discussions i had with the other leaders showed some very different expressions, language like 'journeying', 'claiming' and so on. very different expressions for what i would maybe describe as 'seeking to live out in concord with the scriptures' and 'receiving new life given by grace'. what this shows is perhaps that it's not the base definition where we differ, but in what we'd add to that basic gospel outline. but the emphasis for the camp and the discussions on the ski lifts over the time was that basic outline.

so i was really happy to be a part of it, but was really thankful i was doing the talks. which goes to show, i'm all for ecumenism when i get to set the agenda. it definitely reeks of arrogance on my part.

more to come.

1 Samuel Song

2009-08-01T12:48:00.006+10:00

reading 1 Samuel this morning i was reminded of a song i wrote for a memory verse for sunday school a few years ago (to the tune of Arlo Guthrie's Alice's Restaurant)

The LORD has chosen you to be
to be his own people
The LORD has chosen you to be
to be his own people
He will always take care of you
Just to show how great he is
That's from 1 Samuel
chapter 12 verse 22

tune: (c) Arlo Guthrie 1967
words: (c) Douglas Fyfe 2005

as with the original song, you can just keep the chords going and tell the story that surrounds this verse, coming in every 10 minutes or so with the chorus here.

nb :: this is the GNB or CEV translation i think.

**UPDATE :: the chords**

A / F#m /
B E A /
A / F#m /
B / E /
A / A7 /
D / D7 /
A / F#m /
B E A /

Jesus in you

2009-07-29T13:54:00.003+10:00

i haven't yet read a Greek Grammar textbook and said 'oh wow'. but i did say 'that's really interesting' after reading the section on the preposition Πρός (pros).* i've always assumed the idea of 'asking Jesus into your heart' was a Biblical idea, talking about what you do when you become a Christian.

it seems the place this comes from is Revelation 3:20 (hovering should show the verse). but what does it mean to come in to (not into), and to whom is Jesus talking to?

anyway, long story short, the people he's talking to are already Christians, who are being lukewarm in the way they're living out their lives. and εἰσελεύσομαι πρός (eiseleusomai pros [enter in]+[to]) always has the idea in the NT of coming in toward/before someone/thing.

so what we can say is that it's not an offer of salvation, but a consequence thereof. and i would want to say it's a 'being with' idea, not 'dwelling within' - the verse continues with a shared meal, which would otherwise be parasitic!!! it's about fellowship with Jesus.

i was going to finish off this post talking about the fact that the holy spirit is who does dwell within the heart of the believer - but the closest i can find is 1 Corinthians 6:19 and 2 Timothy 1:14, but even they are inconclusive - especially 2 Timothy which could just as well be translated 'among us' (ἐν ἡμιν - en hemin) whilst 1 Corinthians talks about the Holy Spirit being in 'the body' of 'youse' - part of the theme of the picture of a church being one body, with Christ as the head.

where do we get this idea of inhabitation? sci-fi?
where else in the bible???

i guess if anything, it puts the emphasis back on salvation being relational.

* pp380 in Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan 1996

does music matter?

2009-07-27T20:36:00.004+10:00

this isn't one of those posts where i pose a question about which i've already made up my mind. rather, in response to a chat tonight at another sydney-theoblogger-hang (sign up to justin moffatt's blog to keep updated for future meet-ups), i was wondering to what extent our theory and praxis meet in this area.

i know not a few who go to hillsong or oxford falls ccc on an alternating basis with their 'regular bible-teaching place'; they get their worship one week, their teaching the next.

of course, this has a few presuppositions: that worship=emotional singing; that being changed and responding to a deeper and/or corrected understanding of who God is and how he has acted in his world is not worship - of course this does not diminish the importance of teaching and led reflection, but it does say they're different things.

but as mooted, this post is the question of the meeting of theory and praxis. to explain - at my old church they have an awesome band, most of whom play most weeks of the year. music there rocks. but where i went this week, while not bad, was... lacklustre? in comparison?

now while i want to say with all my mind that this doesn't matter, my heart tells me otherwise. so the question is then why? and is it a right feeling or a wrong understanding (if you understand my distinction).

someone suggested tonight (not sure if i should use their name or not - if they contact me i can know one way or the other!) that we should understand the distinction and emphasis as not music but singing. i guess this is to say that the best music in the world with lacklustre singing is nothing, because music is a servant to the singing of praises to God. but something i have been a part of is the most heartfelt singing with at the most a guitar or piano or organ or acapella.

i don't really know where this post is going except to say i want to know how better to match my theory with my praxis. hmmm i think i'm out of the swing of this whole blogging thing.

German Bible Café

2009-07-27T10:30:00.004+10:00

[UPDATE :: new site :: germanbiblecafe.com]

last sunday was the last at my church. this sunday was the first at German Bible Café.

it was pretty exciting to read and pray in German, in our first steps to reach out to the 20,000+ German speakers in Sydney, 5,000+ of whom live in Sydney's east.

seven grown-ups met at St Matthias, Paddington, and we ate, drank and chatted through Ephesians 1:1-14.

needless to say, your prayers are appreciated. if you know of German-speakers (hint: if they're from Germany, Austria or the east of Switzerland, they more than likely speak some kind of German) who are Christians, or who are interested in finding out about God, do point them in our direction.

anyway, that's what's going on. hope you're well.
D5

Honourifics

2009-07-16T09:33:00.005+10:00

there was a lively discussion on 702 about the place of honourifics - titles of respect.

Mr
Mrs
Master
Miss
Ms
Uncle
Auntie
Grandma
Grandpa
Grandfather

Do you use all of these - do you rebel against any of these?

on the radio a demographer said the honourific terms for grandparents were rapidly dying out as everyone says 'i'm too young to be called grandma'.

i had nan/grandpa on one side of the father, grandma/granddad on the other.
but none of my parents' siblings ever got the auntie/uncle - dunno why.

of course the Mrs/Miss vs Ms is a weird one - some people i know are completely revulsed by Mzzzzz - what does it mean, they say. they actually get quite angry when they fill in a form with Mrs and receive it back with Ms.

maybe it's nice to go from miss to ms, saying you're grown up now - in much the same way as boys go from master to mister at a certain age. it could just be about there being only two terms - much like German - either Frau or Herr (Fraülein - Miss - is dying out i think, and there's definitely no Herrlein!)

History versus Theological Intent

2009-07-07T21:45:00.003+10:00

that's what my essay's on. i've done 8hrs of reading thus far, still not sure what my question is asking.*

but i keep coming back to Spike Milligan's introduction to his ground-breaking memoir, Adolf Hitler: My Part in His Downfall.

“Of the events of the war, I have not ventured to speak from any chance information, nor according to any notion of my own. I have described nothing but what I saw myself, or learned from others of whom I have made the most careful and particular inquiry”.
Thucydides, Peloponnesian War.

“I’ve just jazzed mine up a little”.
Spike Milligan, WWII.

so is that what the evangelists have done? just jazzed it up a little?
are they historical fictions? are they based on a true story?

does it matter - it's all about faith, the Christ we apprehend by faith. but what's the point of a faith approachable only in a mythical fable?

* i mean, i do know what it's asking, the question is: The historicity of the synoptic gospels is compromised by their theological intent. discuss. i just don't know what it's asking. that's all.

'supdate

2009-07-06T15:51:00.003+10:00

if you've been grieving my blogospheric absence, let me fill you in on where i've been:

nowhere really – just busy!

i stepped in at the last minute to do a sermon on prayer, a great time - though not long enough - to think through whether i really do value prayer or not.

essay on Isaiah 26 was great fun, but took waaaaay too long - i spent 2 and a half weeks working on the Hebrew, and only a couple of days looking at the theological issues surrounding it.

next on the list was exam fun and games - philosophy was first, and then Church History (European Reformation).

the mayhem was broken up with a weekend camp for SWAC youth, where i had the honour of talking through 2 Peter with them.

i arrived back in time for my New Testament exam, translating and exegeting 2 passages from John 7:29-31 and John 1:11-13. it was good fun, but there was a little too much winging-it, not quite enough knowing-what-on-earth-i'm-talking-about.

i arrived back yesterday from speaking at a vision valley snow camp on the two sons in Luke 15. it was a great couple of days, very tiring, but an awesome opportunity to share the reckless love of our heavenly father with some young people who may not have heard of it ever before.

anyway, i'm off to Gradcon in a couple of days, i just need to knock this essay on the head before then!

anyway, that's where i've been. i hope you've been well too, dear reader.

speak soon,
D5

a mighty fortress

2009-06-26T08:59:00.006+10:00

just tidying up an article on Christianity - Club or Kingdom?

thinking about it, i've found it hard to get the jilting tune of Luther's Ein' Feste Burg ist unser Gott (english title: a mighty stronghold is our God)

here's the first verse:

Ein’ feste Burg ist unser Gott,
Ein gute Wehr und Waffen;
Er hilft uns frei aus aller Not,
Die uns jetzt hat betroffen.
Der alt’ böse Feind,
Mit Ernst er’s jetzt meint,
Gross’ Macht und viel List
Sein’ grausam’ Ruestung ist,
Auf Erd’ ist nicht seingleichen.

words and music: Martin Luther, 1521?

just checked wikipedia - tells me this song was sung by the German princes at the 1530 Augsburg Diät - you can see how it would have been a good reinforcement!

i'm trying to think of a way to link this picture i took of a fenced-off opera house during the APEC protests a couple of years ago, but i'm failing. i like the photo tho - trying to protect the poor citizens from the scary opera house, were they? protecting us from the nasty politicians? who knows.

kauf die zeit aus

2009-06-24T15:00:00.004+10:00

'make the most use of your time', or better, 'buy up the time', 'kauf die Zeit aus', or 'τὸν καιρὸν ἐξαγοραζόμενοι'

at the moment this seems like a hard thing to do. i don't actually feel like i have any time to make the most of, even though i finished my last exam yesterday (yay!).
i'm booked out for most of the holidays, all with good things, but on top of it all, i must attend a jury preselection trial on monday, for a potential 12 week trial, clearly impossible for me to do. this is my third jury duty call up, the first was during Orientation Week at uni, the key time in the uni-ministry year. the second was during Mid-Year-Conference, ditto. so kind people wrote letters for both of these and i didn't have to attend. but i was told i must attend and try my luck.

i spend all my spare time thinking about how nice it would be to have spare time, but also that i'm really enjoying how much i am doing. but what i really should be doing is as above; Colossians 4:5.
(i also need to remember what i preached on the weekend, that (2 Peter 3:9,15) God's patience means salvation, we have what time we do for a purpose.

my good friend Michael Morrow has written a good song on this, 'let us tell of his great love, he will come, for his patience means salvation'. buy it here. you can also hear another good friend's band, garage hymnal, have a crack here. the song, btw, is 'we belong to the day'. good stuff.

Calvin on the Lord's Supper

2009-06-19T09:57:00.004+10:00

something that struck me about this document (which i've summarised below) is just how unlike himself Calvin is here - i feel like i've been reading Luther! How i wish he had've stopped at one of his earlier editions of his Institutes - when concise he is a pleasure to read! [incidentally, his earliest edition (1536) of his Institutes was only 50pp - my copy of his 1559 edition runs to 1521pp!]

and it's also like he just couldn't get around to writing this letter - it was really in 1529 (Marburg Colloquy) and 1530 (Diet of Augsburg) when this issue came up, particularly in point 5 where he explains the disputes between protestants on the matter.

Short Treatise on the Holy Supper
of our Lord Jesus Christ

John Calvin, 1541

Why did he write it?
‘It is a very perilous thing to have no certainty on an ordinance, the understanding of which is so requisite for our salvation.’

Why Instituted? (3-6)
just as in Baptism we enter into a new family
so the Word nourishes children
BUT due to our weakness*, a visible sign is required → Bread and Wine
• it Signs and Seals Promises with certainty
• that we might rejoice and praise
• to lead us to holiness, innocence and brotherly charity
Fruit and Utility (7-19)
• a mirror of Jesus’ death and ascension
• Jesus and all his promises are found in the supper
• receive the supper that we might receive the benefits & the benefits are only found there
• Christ is offered to us there that we might possess him
• spur to holiness and charity
Correct Use (20-32)
• repentant
• as saved sinners
• unified
• hungering
Errors (33-52)
• not a sacrifice we make but one that has been made
• no such thing as transubstantiation
• not to be worshipped
• not a Jewish festival
• not in the bread alone but in both elements do we receive the benefits
Divisions (53-60)
Luther is interested in holding onto Jesus’ words
Zwingli & Œcolompadius are against idolatry, thus emphasis on signs
→ Neither listen to where the other are coming from

Big Picture:

Jesus isn’t contained in a piece of bread (despite the jaffles you can buy on ebay with pictures of jesus - scroll down!)
Don’t knock the efficacy of the Lord’s Supper

* by weakness i take it he means more our mortality than our sinfulness, although his inherent dualism means these are a little too closely linked for my liking

does social action save?

2009-06-14T10:35:00.004+10:00

at bible study on wednesday we looked at Matthew 5:13-16; the metaphor of unsalty salt being trampled underfoot was quite frightening, and had a completely opposite effect to the reassuring metaphor of light on a hill - we were encouraged to be lights, but warned against being flavourless salt.

we then went on to read Matthew 25:31-46, which Tim Keller picks up in the Prodigal God (which i finished last night). he says

There is no contradiction to what we have heard from Jesus in the Parable of the Prodigal Son. He is not saying that only the social workers get into heaven. Rather, he is saying that the inevitable sign that you know you are a sinner saved by sheer, costly grace is a sensitive social conscience and a life poured our in deeds of service to the poor. p112

i should mention, we started out by reading Amos 5, and i just kept thinking, 'we're gonna get so hammered for this'. to define 'we', 'hammered' and 'this' in reverse order,

this = turning aside the needy (Amos 5:12), taking pride in our buildings of stone and the ceremonies that go within them (Amos 5:21)
hammered = the day of the Lord for such as these will be darkness and not light (Amos 5:18)
we = pretty much all western Christians

i might add, the sunday morning before this i visited a well known church and saw a hapless welcomer faced with a homeless man joining church that morning. they didn't say 'welcome, please take a seat, would you like a glass of water, meet gerald, one of our regulars', but 'can i help you?'

James would have welcomed him with open arms, walked him up the front, kicked one of the regulars out of their personalised pews and sat this man down there so he had every opportunity to hear of the healing words of a loving God (James 2:1-7).

Isaiah and annihilationism

2009-06-12T20:06:00.004+10:00

well, i was surprised to find Isaiah's view of the afterlife is that Sheol, the place of the dead, will be annihilated.

Isaiah 25:7-9

7 And he will swallow up on this mountain
the covering that is cast over all peoples,
the veil that is spread over all nations.
8 He will swallow up death forever;
and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces,
and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth,
for the LORD has spoken.
9 It will be said on that day,
“Behold, this is our God; we have waited for him, that he might save us.
This is the LORD; we have waited for him;
let us be glad and rejoice in his salvation.”

my thesis was essentially that Sheol is the place of both the just and the unjust, but the righteous are not 'natural' residents - as death is a curse, and to be dead, to be in the place of the dead, in the company of the wicked (who are rightly there) is not something that will be eternally countenanced there.

as we meet the rightful inhabitants of the underworld in Isaiah 26:12-19 (esp. 14,19), the OT version of ghosts or ghouls, the Rephaim, we see that they, and their dwelling place, the land of the Rephaim will both be destroyed, and the righteous will be freed.

this understanding came as i worked on my structure a little more, coming up with:

12 Yhwh’s great deeds
13 Others try to destroy us – we will remember you
14 The dead will not rise*
Others will be destroyed by you – they won't be remembered
15 Yhwh's great deeds

16 Yhwh brings man down
17 Pregnant writhing
That was us
18 Pregnant writhing
Man is brought down

19 Your dead will rise
They'll rejoice
They'll be sustained
But their dead won’t rise*

*14 this includes the dead and the rephaim
*19 lit, 'you will cause the land of the rephaim to fall'

so the hope is a positive one for Israel. the rescue and restoration of the righteous, but and end to the wicked dead, the underworld and all that is associated with it. i'm not sure to what extent this rules out a new testament understanding of the underworld, but until i get my essay back i'll stick with this reading of Isaiah!

enjoy the pic if you're into hebrew at all:

(i think you're supposed to click to enlarge)

Isaiah 26 Chiasm

2009-06-02T19:46:00.003+10:00

so i have this essay, right, on Isaiah 26:12-19 and what it contributes to an OT theology of the afterlife. i still have no idea of the answer, but i think i've found some more chiasms!

12 God's great deeds
13 Others may take your place - we will remember you
14 Others will be punished - they won't be remembered
15 God's great deeds

16 God brings man down
17 Pregnant writhing
That's us
18 Pregnant writhing
Man is brought down

19 the dead will rise
they'll rejoice
they'll be sustained
the dead will rise

and 19a is even a little chiasm of its own (will live - your dead, my corpse - will rise i.e. A-B, B-A).

BUT WHAT DOES IT ALL HELP ME?

i don't think i need to talk about the chiastic structure - it doesn't change the argument one way or the other as regards the afterlife, so i'm not quite sure what to do with it all!

music and moving

2009-06-01T09:47:00.004+10:00

a long time ago (my first post) i wrote about time, where we think it's heading and how that affects how we live today (i may not have mentioned all that but it's there implicitly).

so what does music say about time? Russell Rook writes

"Eschatologically speaking, music seems capable of conveying our greatest hopes and most terrible fears. It can transport us from the heights of heaven to the gates of hell."139*

reflecting on the type of music i like depending on my mood, this chapter has been really helpful.

because repetitive music (i like repetitive music, i like repetitive music) is about escapism - that time is cyclical, that there is no eschaton, that we all just keep going around and around with no consequences, as eagle eye cherry so well put it:

Go on and close the curtains
cause all we need is candle light
You and me and a bottle of wine
going to hold you tonight
Well we know I'm going away
and how I wish, I wish it weren't so
So take this wine and drink with me
let's delay our misery

Save tonight
and fight the break of dawn
Come tomorrow
tomorrow I'll be gone

there is a deep need in us for escapism, for forgetting that tomorrow will come with all its consequences. and it makes sense then that repetitive music is escapist, in popular music, and in Christian music also. anyone who has heard a group singing the chorus to 'How Great is our God' for an hour (as i heard a couple of years ago) has to question whether they are actually looking forward to Jesus' return.

but the Christian's hope is not escapist - it is towards a renewal of this earth, a restoration of justice and peace and true kingship under God's anointed king. platonic escapism that is so ingrained in so much Christian music is nothing more than a gnostic mysticism. we want to praise God with our songs, but that doesn't mean ceasing to exist as we lose ourself in the brahmanistic pantheism repetitive music encourages.

Russell Rook, 'In God's Good Time', 138-148 in Stephen Holmes and Russell Rook, What are we waiting for? Christian Hope and Contemporary Culture.* Bucks, UK: Paternoster, 2008.

Prayer as Mission

2009-06-01T09:26:00.005+10:00

to my surprise they decided to put last week's talk on prayer on the web

24 May 2009 Promoting Jesus :: Our prayers Matthew 9:35-10:5

feedback was:
you were positive, encouraging us to pray, and showing that it's a great and powerful thing because we have a great and powerful God
some good catch phrases (something i've been encouraged to do)
you didn't link that well
you didn't think about biblical theology
good to get feedback. even better to get feedback that pushes you on (as opposed to bemusing/befuddling you!)
cheers guys

feedback welcome
warnings as per last time

Set List

2009-05-28T17:49:00.004+10:00

Walk to Beautiful Fundraiser - 28/5/09

All Blues
Blue Bossa
I'm Beginning to see the Light
Nature Boy
Autumn Leaves
Satin Doll
Mercy Mercy Mercy
Chamæleon

let's see how many we get thru.

any requests for other songs to play on our international tour (assuming recording companies sign us up as a result of tonight)?

(if you haven't got tix yet you're too late - they're all sold out. how much that's due to the pulling power of duck5.blogspot.com and how much that's due to the movie and the cause will be told at 7:15 or 8 - the movie starts at 8.)

the basis for blogging

2009-05-28T07:33:00.003+10:00

on monday there was a flotilla of bloggers (not sure of the collective noun) - mark justin michael craig george and karen (erro turned up 20min after the advertised finish time - i don't think that counts as attending. not really). (i think mark has the blog links all set up).

conversation started by thinking about 'why blog?'; it turns out for quite varied reasons.

some as a postcard to home,
others don't blog so much as comment,
some i know use their blog as a prayer letter,
others are using each post as a chapter for a book or a hoped-for book,
some want to challenge world-views by being provocative and testing how far they can push the boundaries,
there are blogs that are a window into a soul - or a magnifying glass, bringing you closer than you ever could be meeting them in person,
there are comedians,
agony aunts,
artists,
film/art/music critics,

i could go on.

in this 259th post, i wonder why i blog, and i think it's the same as when i began:

writing something down in public place (on a wall, on the internet) is both cathartic and stimulating. as opposed to writing an invariably unpublished letter to a newspaper, or a song that is never sung to anyone, or a play that is never performed (all of which i've done), even if noone ever says anything (comments, scibbles it out, yells at you, doesn't speak to you), at least it's out there. you've said 'this is what i'm thinking about this at this stage of my thought life. i think this is a fair presentation of it. if you want to say anything, please do, but you don't have to.'

i think that's it. but enough about me, why do you think i blog?

religious? moi?

2009-05-25T21:11:00.004+10:00

i listen to the radio a bit. mostly to 702 ABC Sydney. they often have interviews with various people, and they often get asked the 'so are you religious?' question.

and i can't remember yet hearing anyone say 'no'. and this frustrates me. partly because making up your own religion doesn't make you religious; if anything it says you're deluded. secondly because being superstitious about which sock you donn first does not equate with trusting that your eternal salvation is in the hands of something or someone greater than yourself.

but i think the final reason i find such a response so frustrating is that i spend so much of my time trying to explain that i'm NOT religious, that Christianity is a-religious, that Jesus didn't spend much time going around exonerating the religious leaders of his day, rather hammered them for being false shepherds, hired men, duplicitous wolves. i therefore go to great lengths explaining the difference between following Jesus and religion.

am i right to do this? or in this culture of postmodernity does everyone have the right to determine for themselves what religion entails?

sermon downloads a plenty

2009-05-24T10:43:00.006+10:00

if you don't find my voice whiney, nasal, dull, or patronising, you may be tempted to listen to some of my sermons which are available to download.

09 Mar 2008 Grace that Works Philippians 2:12-30
i particularly liked the way Daniel 12 helped us think through what this meant.

15 Jun 2008 Between A Rock & A Hard Place Exodus 16-17
i tried something quite different here - i tried to start with the OT, jump to the NT and explain how that increased our understanding of what is going on in the OT. i wanted to get away from the 'here's the OT, but don't worry about that so much: here's where it points to in the NT' - as if there were no value in it of itself, as if the OT were only of value for showing us the NT. tell me if you think it worked!

20 Jul 2008 The King with Authority Luke 4.1-13
how to do a sermon on Isaiah 61 without really going there properly

11 Jan 2009 The Blessing of Forgiveness Psalm 32
interestingly, i did a sermon in October on Matthew 18 also on forgiveness (the guest speaker in the evening is the one who made the web page, mine obviously didn't make the cut), so i really enjoyed having a second dip into this really tough topic.

19 Apr 2009 The value of wisdom Proverbs 1-3
an introductory sermon on the prologue to Proverbs, focussing on ch3

i'm also on tonight, talking about prayer as mission, but the boss is speaking (as i write this!) on the same topic: i'm assuming i won't make the cut, but thinking about how our prayers promote the gospel has been quite rebuking for me as i think through it. perhaps i'll post some thoughts on it sometime.

UPDATE:

24 May 2009 Promoting Jesus :: Our prayers Matthew 9:35-10:5
trying to think through where prayer fits in in promoting the gospel. i wonder where you might have gone, what you would have emphasised, whether you would have done a bit more of a systematic theology of prayer.

a new reading group

2009-05-21T22:02:00.002+10:00

a friend has asked if i want to come along to an LXX (the greek translation of the hebrew scriptures) reading group.
cool!
apparently only few are christians; most are jewish, trying to get a different perspective on their scriptures.

i've never made much effort to get into the septuagint, except to have a look when the hebrew just seems wacky.
unfortunately whenever i think that the LXX will fix it up, it generally doesn't.
some things have been quite interesting however, such as in Deuteronomy 30:14(13)

ESV: But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.
LXX: The word is very near to you, in your mouth, and in your heart, and in your hands to do it.

so it's actually just making a bit clearer that doing it (the commandment that Yhwh commands Israel) isn't just about your words or your thoughts but your hands - something that could actually be implicit in the 'do it' - indeed the LXX could be a little tautologous by adding that. although at the very least poetically, it's good to have 'mouth, heart and hands' - a real sense of completeness.

anyway, that's on tomorrow. no idea how it'll go. but do pray that some great conversations may come out of it as we chat about how God reveals himself in his Word.

walk to beautiful

2009-05-19T07:15:00.005+10:00

we're putting the band back together. we're playing at a fund raiser for the fistula hospital in Ethiopia. if you don't know what a fistula is or why they would have a hospital for them, you should probably find out.

we're playing and then they're screening the film about women who've been involved with the hospital:

This award-winning feature length film tells the stories of five Ethiopian women who suffer devastating childbirth injuries and portrays the hope provided by Dr Catherine Hamlin A C & Addis Ababa Fistula Hospital (The Hospital by the River).

Date: Thursday 28 May

Time: 7:15 pm refreshments & jazz band
8:00 pm screening

Venue: St Alban's church hall
Corner Lindfield Ave and Tryon Road, Lindfield, Sydney, Australia

Price: $20; $15 concession, includes refreshments

Tickets: Available after each service from Sunday 3 May or from the church office from Tuesday 5 May - call in or phone +61 2 9416 1703

Find out more about the film at www.walktobeautiful.com

This screening is a fundraiser to mark the Hamlin Golden Jubilee of 50 years in Ethiopia. See www.fistulatrust.org

Please come and celebrate the occasion.

And, as i said, you can hear the band. Back together.

David Hume could out-consume

2009-05-17T09:20:00.003+10:00

6. Locke, Hume and empiricism: In what ways do these thinkers differ from Descartes?

It seems the empiricists, most especially in Locke and Hume, were the new sceptics. They sought to question knowledge, truth, work out on what basis we know things. Locke questioned in particular how we connect with objects in the real world – and decided that we didn’t! Rather, we have ideas in our heads of objects, and it is in the world of ideas that there is interaction, rather than physically coming into contact with another physicality. However these ideas we contract from experience (a posteriori), and only after seeing something can we have an understanding of that object and others like it. It is as if we are blank slates, who accumulate forms as we go, and build on these more simple ideas to understand more complex ideas.

However, Hume’s thinking in light of Locke about how we gain knowledge led him to question the idea of causality – concluding that we believe the idea of cause and effect, but only from habit, not from any abstract reasoning. In the famous billiard-ball analogy, we may expect a certain result from one striking another, but there is nothing inherent in one billiard ball that should mean its interacting with another ball should have the expected result.

From a small amount of reading, it seems as if the empiricists are leaning towards an atheistic, or at least deist, world-view, whereas the rationalists (in Descartes) saw God as the glue that held everything together. When Descartes asks why a thought leads to an action, he cannot see this as anything but secondary to the will of God who first thought and acted, and from whom all thoughts and actions stem. The empiricists however, although publicly agreeing (Locke more than Hume) that the idea of God ‘makes sense’, see God as having no part in the process – the mind wills and the arm moves. Why does it happen? Because we’ve seen it happen before.

This idea of a general movement towards atheism (or deism) is further shown in Hume’s discounting of miracles – his experience tells him that the normal way of things is for miracles to not happen. If given the choice between miraculous and the empirical, he concludes, the sane man has only one choice.

this is part of a series

Oliver Cromwell

2009-05-12T21:12:00.002+10:00

Hi.
i've been pretty busy
drowning in a church history essay
there's no answer.
so i turned to my old friends, monty python, for some themed comic relief.

this is a pretty nice little vid put together by 4x4wheeldrive productions, whoever he/she/it is.
the song was on a CD i had called 'monty python sings'. i don't know who borrowed it. it's sad. so long ago. and i probably used to know this song off by heart too!!!

for those interested, my (unanswerable) question is, How important was Geneva in shaping English Protestantism? possible answers so far: not very. heaps. a bit. depends who you ask. depends how you define 'geneva', 'english' 'protestantism' 'important' and 'shaping'. tho i'm sure there are some nuances to 'how', 'was' and 'in' that i haven't thought thru yet.