thru a mirror dimly

... it is as if this story's (Mark's biography of Jesus) method is to possess the reader through its characters, in order to provide a range of mirrors back on the viewing I.

what is the purpose of the scriptures?
what do you like about this quote?
what would you change?

(from John Carroll's The Existential Jesus)

guy dance

CampusBibleStudy's Mid-Year-Conference is on the topic of Guidance. as part of the advertising to this generation, there's a youtube campaign, replete with some very clever vids.
for any napoleon dynamite fans, guy-dance is particularly funny. actually i think only it, and Decisions, Decisions are the funny ones. all the others are interviews and such.
it's at youtube.com/campusbiblestudy
check it out. even better, GO! 16-20 july 2007AD

la science des rêves

wow. top film. the science of sleep, another astonishing film by michel gondry (also eternal sunshine of the spotless mind)

it's one of those movies where you smile almost incessantly throughout! which is great!

one of the toughest nuts to crack, scientifically, would surely have to be the science of dreams. maybe that and homeopathy. or chiropracty! do you ever do that? work out the source of the elements of your dream? why was that person in there - i haven't so much as thought about them in years!

one question i sometimes have is how much our dreams are guidance? to what degree should we take them as divine providence, communication from God - or are they more self-absorbed than all that, ie they're us communicating with ourselves what we want to hear, just making transparent what in waking was opaque.

or simply gobbledygook?

it's interesting seeing the visions of others of our subconscious, movies like the cell (i think with J-Lo?), as well as being john malkovich, which interestingly enough was written by charlie kaufman, who co-wrote eternal sunshine with michel gondry. quite freudian, really!

arrival or attestation?

the questions raised in my short comment below regarding talladega nights have been mulling over in my mind for some days now.

the incarnation of Jesus, the 2nd person of the trinity, born as a baby around 4-6BC, is oft quoted (particularly around Christmas time) as the pinaccle of God's creation.

yet i remain convinced that the resurrection of this self-same man is the attestation of his messiahship, the beginning of the in-reaching of the heavenly realms into this created order; the foreshadowing of what will be brought to it's mighty fulfillment when Jesus returns, when the faithful receive their resurrection bodies. (c/f Rom 1:4, Phil2:5-11, Eph2:16, 3:11, the vibe of Gal, 1Tim4:14 et al, not even going to Hebrews!)

whilst i am still thinking this through, is it too simplistic an answer to wrap this up in saying it's the narrative, the story, mabo, the vibe?

the word, spoken to us through the prophets in the past, which became flesh and dwellt among us, has now sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

jesus is Lord before all time and now and forever. to say that he is only king because of his death and resurrection would be to deny his power in having all things created through him. likewise, it would be to say that when he descends from heaven with a cry of command, that that authority is enabled only because of his death and resurrection.

we cannot summarise our great God in a simple statement of faith, a creed, much less a three-day period in the history of the creation of the creator. what we do have are snippets, fragments of a great tapestry, like this:

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works. Titus 2:11-14

who da king?

on a recent holiday in Geelong (about 1hr west-south-west of Melbourne) i watched Taladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, a fairly ordinary hollywood film, replete with a few guffaw-worthy scenes, my favourite was the one that was also on the ad (so just watch the trailer - no need to watch the rest of the film).there was Ricky Bobby and his wife sitting around the table, overflowing with his sponsors' food, and he starts to give thanks, saying, "Dear Lord Baby Jesus," and then proceeds to give thanks for his "hot wife", kids (Walker and Texas Ranger), as well as his sponsors for their gracious provision of food.

his wife then gets a little narky with his constant rememberance of Jesus as a baby; "he did grow up you know!"

isn't it funny how hollywood sometimes hits the nail right on the head?

he did grow up, he did die. and (perhaps surprising to those with nightmarish visions of this half-naked man eternally hanging on a cross), he did rise again from the dead.

yet, as we read from Matthew 2 this Sunday, he "was born king". He didn't become king, didn't kill off anyone and everyone who in his paranoia may have been a rival (c/f Herod, most of the successors to Jereboam's throne).

no; he was born king, with no regent, predecessor nor successor.

his life on earth was what it was, not that he might become king, but because he already was.

And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Philippians 2:7b-11

SMBC preaching conference

Don Carson and Dale Ralph Davis spoke to us over four days at the 2007 sydney missionary and bible college preaching conference.

Ralph Davis was really impressive, especially when we worked out he was translating on the run from the hebrew. i think most people walked out, keen to preach thru OT narratives.

Don took us thru:

1. biblical theology,
   
2. systematic theology,
   
3. historical theology and
   
4. preaching and pastoral theology

some of it i still have to process a little more, but a few highlights from his last talk, when asking how do we do pastoral theology?

cultivate compassion - how do you feel when you see sheep without a shepherd?

cultivate an understanding of people and their needs in biblical categories - if you analyse people in sociological categories, you'll start thinking of (pop)-sociological solutions

cultivate a prepared mind and heart for turning points in people's lives - be prepared to rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep, and often both on the same day! think about how you are preparing people for eternity in light of those events.

cultivate a connection between lofty thoughts of God, and people - hear hear.

cultivate a healthy independence from your congregation - fear God more than your congregation. they need you to be their pastor first, not letting your friendship get in the way of that.

cultivate your own maturation (and check your motivation) - your people need to see you being shaped and matured by the word of God

great conference, really encouraging, correcting and cautionary.

that hostile wall

writing a talk for youth group on ephesians 2:11-22, I got to thinking:
is there a point at which we may say that, although Christ lived and suffered and was tempted as a man, so in some ways he united man and God in that he himself was fully God and fully Man -
- yet it was only when he died that he was able to end the hostility?
man was hostile to God up to and including in Christ, in that this God-man was tempted in his flesh. so is the dividing wall of hostility simply that wall between jews and greeks, circumcised and uncircumcised, is that what was broken?
OR is the hostility of the law and commandments not the jew/gentile divide, but the man/God divide?

at least that’s what the 2nd half of ephesians 2 is leading me to think.
which is a different argument to the predominant line of thought going through galatians, romans...
the pre-eminence of jew over greek is something I’ve always seen as a main theme to be overcome in the fulfillment of God’s plan of unity.
is this a different theme, or one and the same? God v man, or jew v gentile?

in Christ alone

today marked the final in a series we've been doing at CBS Core* on church; what it is, what it isn't, when it is, and isn't, what it should, shouldn't be and so on.

as pontius pilate asked, the ultimate postmodern question, what is truth?**, when you think about it -

do you believe the same thing you did 10yrs ago?

will you have arrived at "the truth" by the time you die?

after my recent jude extravaganza, the question of truth - what it is and who arbitrates over the grey, fuzzy areas, came up again.

"we" would of course say that truth is what we declare it to be; what we teach, exposit, explain, live.
but we must humbly admit, as per the above questions, that even our own understandings will shift over our lives.
therefore to rule others out of God's kingdom (very risky business indeed! c/f 1Cor4) is extremely short sighted considering our own unsteadfastness.

so, for example, the lovely jehovah's witness ladies who visit me every now and then, whose hope is 100% rooted in the propitiatory act of Christ's death, whose lives speak volumes by their prayerfulness and other-person centredness - apart from continuing to try and show them how the Bible speaks of Christ's divinity, and the personhood of the Holy Spirit, what am i to say to them?

stepping back and trying to focus on what is of central importance, am I to exclude them, or anyone who believes an alternative doctrine, from God's kingdom?

* also known as i can't believe it's not SOCM
** John 8:28

the author of this blog reserves the right to make inflammatory posts, raising questions that he may or may not have completely resolved, in order to either help him or others be more sure of what they may or may not believe. ätsch!

s(un)shine

a question i've raised once before (here) has asked itself again, courtesy of a new film, sunshine.

without giving too much away, this film is set in the not too distant future, in a world where they've discovered that the sun is cooling down a little, and they need to "zap" a little more life into it!

so my question is to what extent will we (humanity, God's image bearers) be witnesses to the destruction, collapse of the physical universe?

this idea of the dying sun is not a new idea (arthur c. clarke thought of it yonks ago, and my recollection is that j.g. ballard also mooted the idea half a century ago), it is simply a device for bringing cosmic catastrophy into the present (much like that asteroid film with that guy and the girl and the father and stuff).

the waning sun postulated in the film is one thing, but:
what of the bomb-race that looks like it's getting a second-wind?
what of the disastrous state of the evironment?
what of the increased ability for those who would do great harm to many, to accomplish their desires?

at what stage is enough going to be enough? will ther ever be any of us around to see that day when evil will be completely vanquished?
OR, might there be a similar pattern to the death and resurrection of Christ?

ie, all that is evil - conquered. all that is good - gone.
then, bursting forth, the Lord, with (to quote Jude quoting Enoch) ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

that would include, i guess, doing their very best to destroy this good world that we have been given stewardship over, perverting this good creation for their own wicked ends.

but then again, i wonder, might it ever get that far?

*no points for guessing what i've just been preaching on!

theo blogs

i have no idea how this happened, but apparently, as of yesterday, YOU reckon i'm the 22nd most popular theo-blog in the universe!
that's according to unspun's top theology blogs list
however, 77 people had voted almost 900 times between them! always look at the fine print...

a blog list AND a novelty sweet! aah, the life.

guns and people

to start on a light note - have you seen the street art stating,

people don't kill forests, Gunns kill forests?

i always chuckle (and then feel sad when i look at photos of the environmental raping of old-growth forests and the incactivity of both tassie state, and aussie federal governments)

but moving into my main point, we’ve seen this week with the shocking events in Virginia in the US, listening to virginia trioli's interview on 702 ABC sydney the day afterwards with a representative from the seemingly omnipotent gun lobby, i couldn't help reflecting on the fallen state of mankind.

i heard again the same old thing dragged out – guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
The way to prevent mass shootings like this, claims the omniscient gun advocate, is to educate people - in the home, in the schools - to be nice to one another, to teach them they don’t need to kill one another, there are other ways to deal with issues.

Which is fine, is good, is a great idea – but it denies something that we’ve seen all through history, all over the world:
The state of man is fallen - we’re stumble-prone.

Jeremiah 17:9 is a top verse to remember. it says:

The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it?

who can understand why the only option remaining is to shoot dozens of people, to blow up bombs in a market, to carpet-bomb a city?

the desperation and frustration we feel with injustice and insecurity is not something that can be solved with violence;

but as long as people seek for justice anywhere else but in the judge of the world, in the Only Just God, our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord, maybe it's not such a great idea to supply them with semi-automatic weapons?

jude's saucy sources

anyone who may've been trying to keep up with jude, may well be asking the question, "where did he get it from?"

this table* shows us where he gets them from, the sources he's drawing on for his attacks on those who would pervert the grace of God into a license to sin.

click on picture to enlarge

now, don't go trying to find the Assumption of Moses - it isn't the Testament of Moses, nor is it the Apocalypse of Moses, fun as they are to read. it hasn't been sighted for over 1500yrs.

you can get a hold of Enoch if you want tho - enjoy the 119 chapters of hilarity, hijinks and slap-stick action, as the good angels take on the bad angels, in a do-or-die battle of cosmic proportions (the film version will be called License to Sin, or it should be. i still don't know why the makers of Bond chose against it.)

but both Enoch and Assump. Moses are typical examples of this apocalyptic, pseudepigraphical literature that was going around back in the day (ie C1 BC - C1 AD and thereabouts). Hence my attempts to contemporise his message with a previous post.

to really make sense of Jude's letter, copy it into a word document, and delete or move aside the examples, it's a really clear and easy read then, and when you put them back, Shazzam - It's super straight-forward!

big ups to mark for making that plain to me!

it's been really helpful in the way i read apocalyptic literature - thinking about the big picture, not getting ground down trying to understand the minutae - it's actually been an emancipating experience, not to put too high a note on it!

anyway, have a try, tell me what you think.

*not sure if you can make a table in blogger, hence the screen grab...

my best line

still tapping away, trying to get this sermon sorted, but i thought i'd share my best line so far:

i'm trying to explain the harshness of the examples jude uses from the OT, 1Enoch, the Assumption of Moses (a non-extant text - we have the rest), in terms that we might understand today.

... it's like saying, "these turkeys are as useless as wet toilet-paper, as destructive as the asian tsunami, as untrustworthy as paedophiles, and as mentally unstable as britney spears."

Chocolate Jesus

i was reading this post on byron's blog, as i am prone to do, and recalled one of my fave songs by tom waits.

more or less a twelve bar blues if you want to sing along:

Don't go to church on Sunday
Don't get on my knees to pray
Don't memorize the books of the Bible
I got my own special way
Bit I know Jesus loves me
Maybe just a little bit more

I fall on my knees every Sunday
At Zerelda Lee's candy store

Well it's got to be a chocolate Jesus
Make me feel good inside
Got to be a chocolate Jesus
Keep me satisfied

Well I don't want no Anna Zabba
Don't want no Almond Joy
There ain't nothing better
Suitable for this boy
Well it's the only thing
That can pick me up
Better than a cup of gold
See only a chocolate Jesus
Can satisfy my soul

When the weather gets rough
And it's whiskey in the shade
It's best to wrap your savior
Up in cellophane
He flows like the big muddy
But that's ok
Pour him over ice cream
For a nice parfait

Well it's got to be a chocolate Jesus
Good enough for me
Got to be a chocolate Jesus
Good enough for me

Well it's got to be a chocolate Jesus
Make me feel good inside
Got to be a chocolate Jesus
Keep me satisfied

this song written by Tom Waits and Kathleen Brennan, from the albumn mule variations. if you ever get a chance to listen to it, the song eyeball kid is sublime.

jude & today

for my upcoming sermon on Jude, i'm trying to work out, who are these people today?

4 [...] certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

and what about these kids?

10 But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively.

i've been listening to some sermons from the US - talk about a different world! they're talking about pastors who receive 7-figure salaries, viewing themselves as CEOs responsible for big companies, and should be rewarded as such. there are some extravagant churches around, but i think by-and-large any who have pursued such excesses are recognised as having [...] abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error [...](v11)

so can we say is it even talking about the church of today? who should we be looking out for? who is it today perverting the grace of our God?