a break and a driscoll

have not been posting much.
except to lament my poor pens.
partly coz of busyness, partly coz our internet went over 350Gb!

one possible reason for this is (ruling out for the minute porn) massive downloading of vodcasts - and very probably of Mark Driscoll, pastor of super-church (i think they call 2000+ a mega-church, but super-church sounds so much better) Mars Hill in Seattle.

he's in town, talked at a RICE event on Saturday, at St Thomas' North Sydney on Sunday, at bible skool on Wednesday, at the Sydney Entertainment Centre last nite (burn your plastic jesus), and is sharing the stage with Don Carson at Engage this weekend. he's also been up and down the central coast like a nomad (according to DMDC).*

apart from constantly berating Australians, and Australian men in particular, for not moving out of home and getting married, he's been quite interesting.

i can really see how he's worked hard at dissecting Australian culture; it was interesting to say that one of the main ways he does that is watching TV - he says back home he has two tevos, one for him, another for his family. and they watch, dissect, discuss etc.

i'll post some more thoughts when i've thought some more.

* i'd put links to all these, but your internet is probably much better than ours - at least until monday!

upside down

i have two ballpoint pens sitting in a drawer, nib-end down, above my heater.
my hope was that soon the ink would return to the nib end so i can use them.

but nothin' doin'.

i don't want to be a cheapskate, but neither do i want to be a western consumerist who chucks stuff out just 'coz it's a bit broke.

any ideas anyone? how do i make the ink go where it should be?

take up your cross

how do you understand the take up your cross passage?

Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."

Matthew 16:24 (cf Matthew 10:38, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23, Luke 14:27)

is it:

1. follow Jesus, even to the point of death?
   
2. forget who you are, think only of the crucified Christ?
   
3. to follow Jesus is to count your life as cursed?

i always thought the third, but realise others feel quite differently about it. mind you, i've never thought super-deeply about which it is.
compounded with that, there is (at the very least) an element of truth in each of my options.
there may of course be other readings.

i believe in God

a common statement indeed.
the question the christian asks is then: which god? or perhaps: what do you mean you believe in god - are you a christian?

Karl Barth in Dogmatik im Grundriß says that when Christians say: i believe in (on) God, they mean to say i believe in (on) the Lord Jesus Christ.*

firstly, i wonder how this might work apologetically. imagine a conversation with a non-Christian:
NC: yeah i believe in God
you: oh right, so you believe in Jesus?
NC: um i dunno about Jesus, i mean i believe he existed and stuff...
you: i guess my point is that to say you believe in God is to say that you believe that God reveals himself, that he doesn't want to remain a mystery, but wants to be known, and that God has made himself known is in the man Jesus, who incidentally, said that he was the only way to know the Father, that is, God.


i guess where you go then is to say that for someone to believe in an abstract idea of 'God' is simply that: abstract. but the way Barth so simply puts it makes it 'konkret', a statement of fact that must be engaged with.

worth a try, anyway!

*Und wenn wir sagen, ich glaube an Gott, so heisst das konkret: ich glaube an den Herrn Jesus Christus. the german isn't in (in) but an (on). it makes logical sense but not grammatical. hence my brackets.

#11 - Thou shalt not ogle

growing up in canberra, i would always be amazed at how one prang could lead onto a series of lesser prangs.
you'd see all these people on the side of the road exchanging details, wonder what's going on, and then see there'd be a bigger prang off to the side.
i don't know if it's a canberra thing, but they are worse drivers there generally.

but i guess my question is about voyeurism. not in the sexual way my dictionary wants to explain it, but more just the general staring and taking an unnecessary interest in things that do not concern us.

on the way to the snow, we saw cars off the side of the road, some even upside down, even one with the numberplate 'LEJND', or something just as bad (can't remember - how could i forget!). now it was really hard to not watch it - but it does get you wondering - what is it that makes this SO irresistible to look at?

is it the same thing as greed, or envy? well, i don't want to be in that car lying upside down in the ditch.
it it just simple schadenfreude? possibly.
it could just be thankfulness that it wasn't me! or possibly pride? being haughty?

maybe it's just harmless, but i never feel like laughing watching Australia's Funniest Home Videos. maybe it's cause i know it could very probably be me!

it could also be i'm worried about this sort of response:

“You have heard their taunts, O LORD,
all their plots against me.
The lips and thoughts of my assailants
are against me all the day long.
Behold their sitting and their rising;
I am the object of their taunts.

“You will repay them, O LORD,
according to the work of their hands.
You will give them dullness of heart;
your curse will be on them.
You will pursue them in anger and destroy them
from under your heavens, O LORD.”

Lamentations 3.61-66

providence v sovereignty

well, after my ponderings a couple of weeks ago, i had a look, and wouldn't you know it - there is a Providence - Providence, Rhode Island:
just nor-west of Nantucket (isn't there a poem about a chap from those parts?), and i'm a little dubious as to what qualifies Rhode Island as an Island - either it's just a region under the jurisdiction of the island, or it never was an island, they just thought there was a lot of water (seasonal flooding, perhaps?), or there are now so many roads, tunnels, bridges, that the term island is simply an anachronism now.

but my question, after pondering, and before my Doctrine essay due in on Monday, is:

What is the difference between Providence and Sovereignty?

i look up one book, it ways sovereignty, another providence, but in my mind they are slightly different things.
Sovereignty is to say that God is complete control, that not a sparrow falls from the sky without his willing it; whereas Providence is to do with nothing being able to thwart the culmination of God's plan of redemption.

it seems to me a distortion to conflate these two - but is it really just Orangen and Äpfelsinen (that is, six of one, half a dozen of another)?

any help (before Monday, preferably) would be most helpful.

* (map obviously from google maps - not sure how to give exact long/lat references.)

blokes and sheilas in Galatians 3 (reprieve)

thinking and chatting some more about Galatians 3:28,

οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ· πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.

i wrote about it previously here.
basically the greek says there is no, because of Jesus, all who are baptised into him are one: no more Greek/Jew, slave/free, male&female.
the problem is most translators translate it male/female. which seems directly contrary to the difference in the pattern.

it's like telling a joke where the Englishman, Irishman and Scot all do precisely the same thing. it doesn't make sense and isn't funny (unless you dislike all 3 nationalities!). this is not to say Paul's telling a joke here, but he's obviously doing something by saying no more "male and female".

whilst happy to be convinced, following conversations this week i think it's saying that although there is no place in God's new Kingdom for the slaves/master dichotomy, nor for the divides over who is in the covenant and who is out based on their nationalities - for we are all one in Christ.
what clearly does not happen is that maleness and femaleness is dissolved (cf the Gospel of Thomas 114*). rather, maleness and femaleness is part of God's good creation, there is nothing sinful or fallen about being male and(/or!) female.
what it may mean then is the complete opposite to the pseudepigraphical Gospel of Thomas! that there is no gender basis on which your importance, your ranking, your importance to God, the depth of his love poured out for you in Jesus, is judged.

i don't think this is all, but i do think it preserves the innate goodness of God's creation, and the maintenance of that in the new, but it also does away with the false way that these things are seen in the eyes of sinful people, who constantly look for ways to push others down, to identify with the in-crowd, or to despise the authority figure(s) - the common love of your group, the common hatred of the other.

* 114) Simon Peter said to Him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of Life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

last week's talk

went a bit like this one:
i should add: except for the asking questions bit at the end.
it made a change from the way i normally picture myself as preaching - start watching about 10 seconds before the end to see that style!

if you're interested, the talk was from Luke 4:31-44, was called:
Confronting Jesus :: The King with Authority (it was part of a series we're doing called confronting Jesus, or for the oldies: encountering Jesus!
and it went a bit like this:

• 31-32 Authority to Teach
  
• 33-37 Authority to cast out Evil Spirits
  
• 38-39 Authority to cast out Sickness
  
• 40-41 Authority of the Christ
  
• 42-44 Authority for the Kingdom

i thought it went ok. had a bit of fun.
the wordle:

a wedding telegram of sorts

I will sing for joy in GOD,
explode in praise from deep in my soul!
He dressed me up in a suit of salvation,
he outfitted me in a robe of righteousness,
As a bridegroom who puts on a tuxedo
and a bride a jewelled tiara.

For as the earth bursts with spring wildflowers,
and as a garden cascades with blossoms,
So the Master, GOD, brings righteousness into full bloom
and puts praise on display before the nations.

- Isaiah 61:10-11, The Message

(click on pic to view at original location)

while i was at an accordance (mac bible software) seminar today, some friends were getting married. and i'm preaching tomorrow morning on this passage*, which i can now read in dozens of different translations at a glance, because of my new software.

it all comes together so nicely!

i pray Nath and Kat would continue to look forward, from their great day, to this even greater one.

* well, Luke 4:31-44 but my OT reading is Isaiah 61

Dogmatik im Grundriß I

finally started reading this after buying it way back when (see here).

despite a semester of Biblical Theology at bible skool, with a focus on how this is different to other 'theologies', i think it's only now in reading these 1947 lectures by Karl Barth that i've read a clear explanation of where Exegesis (which includes Biblical Theology), Dogma (Systematic Theology) and Practical Theology fit together.

Es gibt in der Theologie die Frage nach der Quelle, nach dem Woher des Wortes, und die Antwort auf diese erste Frage wird immer wieder zu geben sein in jener Disziplin, die wir Exegese nennen.

Auf der andere Seite aber erhebt sich auch die Frage nach dem Wie, nach der Form und Gestalt der Verkündigung, die der Kirche aufgetragen ist, und dort befinden wir uns auf dem Felde dessen, was man die praktische Theologie nennt.

Genau in der Mitte zwischen Exegese und praktischer Theolgie steht die Dogmatik oder umfassender ausgedrückt: die systematischer Theologie. In der Dogmatik fragen wir nicht: Woher stammt - und nicht: Wie gestaltet sich die kirchliche Verkündigung, sondern in der Dogmatik fragen wir: Was haben wir zu denken und zu sagen? [...] im Blick darauf, dass wir nicht nur theoretisch etwas zu sagen haben, sondern etwas in die Welt hinein rufen sollen.

so basically, in Exegesis we have the source (die Quelle), on the other side, asking 'how?', we have practical theology. and in the middle, coming out of the one, and informing the other, we then have Dogma, or ST, which is we have to think and to say. and it is not just in theory, but rather, Dogma is rather something we can cry out into the world.

i don't think i was ever encouraged to think of ST in this way. but ST, for example in creeds (see here for a fun discussion on creeds!), as Barth works through in the rest of this book, is what we believe, it is thus what we should speak to the world. not so much a how, but perhaps a what. this is i guess why creeds are so controversial (see aforementioned blog to see this played out), as simply stating what it is you believe, what you think, can be really confronting.

especially in a world of relativism and post-modernity, it is particularly important to wtate that we do believe something, something in particular, something to the exception of all else.

quotations from Karl Barth, Dogmatik im Grundriß, Theologischer Verlag Zürich: 1947 (2006 reprint), p12-13.

love, providence & Doors of the Sea

love is not:

a reaction. in God, who is its transcendent origin and end, it is the one infinite and changeless act of being that makes all else actual, and so is purely positive, sufficient in itself, and without any need of contrariety to be fully vital and creative. As trinity, God [...] has not need of any external pathos to waken or fecundate his love. We are not necessary to him: he is not nourished by or sacrifices or ennobled by our virtues, any more than he is diminished by our sins and sufferings. [...] though he had no need of us, still he loved us when we were not. And this is why love, in its divine depth, is apatheia.

David Bentley Hart, Doors of the Sea 2005: p77

In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

1 John 4:10



providence is not:
a small town in the midwest. well, it might be. in fact it probably is. i need to go to bed so can't be bothered checking.
but the point is, i never really considered what providence meant until quite near to the end of the Doors of the Sea.
to paraphrase Hart, Providence is the idea that God will not allow evil to subvert the bringing about of his Kingdom. it is not to say that he must use evil to bring it about, for that would be to grant evil a place it does not deserve. nor does providence collapse the transendence of God, and the rest of the created order, into one homogeneous amalgam, where God is not only sovereign over, but also one with, the evil deeds.
i think this is starting to make sense of what i've been struggling with for a while; this book along with conversations with friends, has been really helpful in trying to nut some of this stuff out.

scroll down to look for other posts about my thoughts on this book. there should be one more soon - the last.

Christocentrism

sometimes I get a bit over Christocentrism.
it’s not that I don’t agree that all the scriptures point to Christ. But I always thought Christ came to show us God -

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, [Jesus] has made him known. John 1:18

If the Bible is God’s self revelation, Christ is the Word of God, revealing God to us – then why do we always talk about reading and preaching Christocentrically?
Jesus is about revealing to us God
Jesus is about reconciling us to God
Jesus is about bringing us into God’s Kingdom
Jesus is about bringing about God’s Kingdom
and on top of all that, Jesus is God
so why Christocentric?
why not Theocentric – you cover Christocentric anyway.

i think a little levity on this would make free preachers up to preach God from all the Scriptures. To preach God, who is revealed throughout his scriptures, who is revealed in Jesus, but also reveals himself to us as he relates with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; with Jepthah, Gideon and Barak, with Rahab, Ruth and Rehoboam.
i think as we then preach God, we will preach Christ – the Son of God; we will preach the Holy Spirit, we will preach the whole host of God’s revelation to us in his Word, as well as in his words.

if you're wondering why i've been moved to write this? listening to some Dale Ralph Davis talks from last year's SMBC Preaching Conference as he worked through Judges and some other OT narrative passages, i am thinking more and more that we are allowed to just preach God.
it may be that the pressure i feel to make everything Christocentric is from a perceived lack of this around the world, but the error of not preaching Christocentrically is not preaching Theocentrically, but moralistic sermonising. so as a reaction to doing bad biblical theology i can understand the emphasis on Christocentrism, but that's not the direction i'm wanting to go.
make sense?

an important quote about a man you don't know.

Barmen helped the church seek to be a faithful community of witness and service, but it did not require it to develop a prophetic, "watchman" or public theological role, shaping the moral and spiritual architecture of civilisation. [...] it distanced itself equally from all social theories and political systems. In asserting that the gospel stands far beyond all forms of human wisdom, Barmen limited the church's capacity to develop modes of discourse and social convictions necessary for creative participation in society.*
you may not know who Barmen is. in fact, it's maybe better if you don't. the question is one of relevance. what is the church? what does it seek? from what does it distance itself from? from what does it shirk from discussing, interacting with?

at my old church, i was really excited at the 'untouchable' series we did every year, as we do exactly what the quote above maintains of Barmen. it was a great testimony to God as we saw many people from the community drawn not to an irrelevant piece of architecture from another age, but to a church that speaks the truth in love.

* quote from Revisiting the church in socialism. Max L. Stackhouse, in Christian Century, 115 no 25 S 23-30 1998. p867

wordle

wordle is fun. and not procrastination either. well, it is, but there is a purpose, as justin via mpj rightly say.

Firstly then, from my sermon last week on Exodus 16-17: (CLICK TO ZOOM IN ON PICS)

then we have, from earlier in the year, a sermon on Philippians 2:12-18:

A two-part series from last year on Lamentations:

and finally, a wordle from what you see on this blog!

i'm not sure what to say about all this, what i can understand better about how i preach, at least the words i (intend to) read out aloud. i would like to see the word love there a little more, it really doesn't stand out as it should, except in the Philippians talk. thankfully there's not too many 'churchy' words, which pleases me. i'm glad to see hope stand out in the Lamentations talks, that's something i really wanted to impress from that book.

what else? what stands out and doesn't? what should stand out but does?

wright and women

trying to write (no pun intended) a practice essay for my Biblical Theology exam on Thursday, trying to write a biblical theology of men and women. which isn't as hard as it sounds - it's just i can't keep focussed.

i keep thinking about this paper by N.T. Wright, entitled Women's Service in the Church, which really is a cracker of an article.

the thing i keep coming back to (yes, i did a little scribbling out in my bible) is his translation of Galatians 3:28

the NIV has,

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

there's a nice rhythm there, neither A nor A', B nor B', C nor C'.
however, as Tom Wright puts it:

That is precisely what Paul does not say; and as it’s what we expect he’s going to say, we should note quite carefully what he has said instead, since he presumably means to make a point by doing so, a point which is missed when the translation is flattened out as in that version. What he says is that
"there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, no ‘male and female’".

so i checked my greek*, and he's right.

the question is of course however not if Wright's right (he is Wright, after all), but what are the implications? why the marked difference from Paul's neither this nor that formula? especially in the context of elsewhere affirming maleness and femaleness, the differences and complementarity between the two.

i do wonder about IVPs New Dictionary of Biblical Theology's quote in thinking through the implications of maleness and femaleness in the new creation,

the people of God will be 'like angels in heaven', in that the centre of their existence will be undivided communion with God. Then the beautiful and delicate interplay of man and woman with one another will give way to the ultimate reality of Christ and his church for ever at one.

i'm not sure what that bit at the end means (at one), but the picture i get, despite the author's assurances, is that of androgynous winged angels playing harps in the clouds. which i don't quite get from Galatians 3 (nor elsewhere really).

so why's he done it? what's the point? whaddya reckon?

*greek language version New Testament, not a person of Grecian origin routinely asked to clarify translation issues. (ed)