on introductions and headings

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?

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

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

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

in the sidebar, or just click here!

any suggestions i should add to the list?

what would you have in yours?

cocktail church?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

1. why life isn't always tops now, despite a good God, and
2. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

[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

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

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

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

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

'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

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.’

1. 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
   
   
2. 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
   
   
3. Correct Use (20-32)
   • repentant
   • as saved sinners
   • unified
   • hungering
   
   
4. 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
   
   
5. 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?

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

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

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

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

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

Walk to Beautiful Fundraiser - 28/5/09

1. All Blues
   
2. Blue Bossa
   
3. I'm Beginning to see the Light
   
4. Nature Boy
   
5. Autumn Leaves
   
6. Satin Doll
   
7. Mercy Mercy Mercy
   
8. 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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The Reason for God - a review

I did a pop quiz at 6pm church this Sunday. I asked, ‘What are the top 5 reasons that people think Christianity is unreasonable, not even worth thinking about? what are the top 5 arguments that knock Christianity out of the water?’

I got four hands in the air:

• Science has disproved Christianity
  
• Christianity is a straightjacket, it curtails your freedoms
  
• how can we say Christianity is right and all the others wrong
  
• suffering and evil show there’s no God

They weren’t primed, but coincidentally, these were four of the seven topics that Tim Keller, the author of The Reason for God (Penguin: London, 2008), deals with. He doesn’t dismiss them, but essentially says – no, wait, don’t write us off that easily – we HAVE thought about that – we don’t exist in a cocoon – we HAVE thought about these issues, and are Christians not just despite these problems, but indeed, often because of them.


Apart from engaging thoughtfully and rigorously with these questions that would disprove God’s existence, he also raises suggestions why we should at the very least consider Christianity anew. Quite cheekily, he even suggests that the most hardened atheist, deep down inside of them, knows that there is a God (check out ch12 – the Knowledge of God).

Keller talks through all the big things. He goes places others might be scared to; he is open in sharing his own doubts and struggles, but he also shares with us the vast time he’s spent not running away from these questions, but chatting through them, reading through them, and praying through these issues.

At the end of the day, when everything else has been stripped away, we’re left with the cold realisation that “if there is a God, you are, in a sense, alone with him.” (p256)

The Reason for God helps us all to think through how we are going to respond to this God. In what is arguably the most important decision we will make in our whole lives, we need to ask ourselves whether we are going to obstinately refuse to think seriously about him, or whether we’ll give him an honest attempt.

as soon as church's website is back up, this review should end up there.

my first poll (ahhh) reprieve.

UPDATE: snappoll doesn't like apostrophes.

third time lucky (the cut and paste option failed also)

here's the new one: snappoll


read on for the instructions:


it's up to you to decide how this blog should look, as regards my previous post, regarding RefTagger.

minor change

after a recommendation from Reuben, i've decided to add RefTagger to my blog. it basically means when i write a bible reference like Ezekiel 33:11, if you move your cursor over it, it should just pop up! it's that easy. no running around to find a bible, no opening a bible gateway (or your bible viewer of choice's) window. just hover. like a hovercraft.

speaking of which, what ever happened to hovercrafts?

anyway, talking about minor change, here's Django Reinhardt (legend) with minor swing:

Alone

as mentioned, i'm reading Tim Keller's the reason for God for a book review. and just made it to the half-way point this afternoon (before succumbing to swine flu for an afternoon nap).

in it, this masterful quote from C.S. Lewis (who i think Keller really likes for his apologetics):

If what you want is an argument against Christianity... you can easily find some stupid and unsatisfactory Christian and say ... "So there's your boasted new man! Give me the old kind." But if once you have begun to see that Christianity is on other grounds probable, you will know in your heart that this is only evading the issue. What can you ever really know of other people's souls - of their temptations, their opportunities, their struggles? One soul in the whole creation you do know: and it is the only one whose fate is placed in your hands.

If there is a God, you are, in a sense, alone with Him.

You cannot put Him off with speculations about your next-door neighbours or memories of what you have read in books. What will all that chatter and hearsay count when the anaesthetic fog we call "nature" or "the real world" fades away and the Divine Presence in which you have always stood becomes palpable, immediate, and unavoidable?

this is from Lewis' Mere Christianity (Macmillan: 1965 p168), which (so it was sold to me) is what Tim Keller is trying to perhaps not emulate in the Reason for God, but retell, from his own perspective; to set out clearly, and carefully, just what it is that makes Christianity not stupid, but reasonable, and sensible.

i think Keller wants the non-Christian to pick up this book and say firstly, 'that's a stupid title - as if there's a reason for God'. then he wants their Christian friend to say, 'why's it stupid?' and then whatever their answer, be able to say, 'no, he talks about that too - he's thought about that, we - Christians - HAVE thought about that. you're not the first or the only one to ask that. read his answer. than come back to me'. or something like that.

if you're reading, Mick, i'll have that review out for you soon!

3 John Analysis

Greeting

1 The elder to the BELOVED Gaius, whom I love in truth.

Walk in Truth :: A Prayer

2 BELOVED, I pray that all may go well with you and that you may be in good health, as it goes well with your soul.
3 For I rejoiced greatly when the brothers came and testified to your truth, as indeed you are walking in the truth.
4 I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth.

Walking Well

5 BELOVED, it is a faithful thing you do in all your efforts for these brothers, strangers as they are,
6 who testified to your love before the church. You will do well to send them on their journey in a manner worthy of God.
7 For they have gone out for the sake of the name, accepting nothing from the Gentiles.
8 Therefore we ought to support people like these, that we may be fellow workers for the truth.

Walking Wickedly

9 I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority.
10 So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to and puts them out of the church.

Walk Well Not Wickedly

11 BELOVED, do not imitate evil but imitate good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God.

Witnesses (3)

12 Demetrius has received a GOOD TESTIMONY from everyone, and from the truth itself. We also add our testimony, and you know that our testimony is true.

Farewell

13 I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink.
14 I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face.
15 Peace be to you. The friends greet you. Greet the friends by the name.

books books everywhere

reading three good ones at the moment:

1. Reformation, by Diarmaid MacCulloch (Penguin: Victoria, 2004)
   
   you may remember it from here!
   
   i'm really enjoying it - it's engrossing, thorough, and good at drawing together various threads.
   
   
   
2. also on my stack is The Reason for God, by Timothy Keller (Penguin: London, 2008)
   
   
   
   i'm reviewing it for church, where we're trying to get regular book reviews going. if you've read his ground breaking article (download here i think), Deconstructing Defeater Beliefs, you'll know what it's about.
   
   
   
3. last on my list is a book that my friends at AFES ordered me a review copy of! It's called What are we waiting for? Christian Hope and Contemporary Culture, eds. Stephen Holmes and Russell Rook (Paternoster: Bucks, 2008)
   
   
   
   i originally heard about it from Chrisendom, and have already read the first three chapters - getting it only late last night!
   
   when i've finished and reviewed it, assuming i don't upset anyone in the upper echelons of AFES, it should turn up here, at the AFES online magazine, webSalt. (where you can sign up to get RSS feeds - you can even check out my old reviews of Lee Strobel's the case for easter and Peter Bolt's Living with the Underworld)

lots to read about, lots to think about, lots to chat about.

Proverbs 3:1-12 Chiasm

yes, i know, it's been too long between chiasms. here's a little sugar for you all:

1 My Son, do not forget my teaching,
 but keep my commands in your heart,
2  for they will prolong your life many years
 and bring you prosperity.
3  Let love and faithfulness never leave you;
  bind them around your neck,
  write them on the tablet of your heart.
4  Then you will win favour and a good name
  in the sight of God and man.

5        Trust in the LORD with all your heart
        and lean not on your own understanding;
6         in all your ways acknowledge him,
        and he will make your paths straight.

7               Do not be wise in your own eyes;
              fear the LORD and shun evil.
8               This will bring health to your body
              and nourishment to your bones.

9         Honour the LORD with your wealth,
         with the firstfruits of all your crops;
10        then your barns will be filled to overflowing,
         and your vats will brim over with new wine.

11 My Son, do not despise the LORD’S discipline
  and do not resent his rebuke,
12  because the LORD disciplines those he loves,
  as a father the son he delights in.

as you can see from what i've bolded, the structure presents itself:
1&11 - my son
5&9 - Trust/Honour the Lord
7&8 - the central idea
yep, we've got a typical A B C B' A' chiasm

i'm actually preaching on proverbs 3 this week (see post below), here are my notes that i plan to preach from for this section:

• My son - tefillin, t-shirt. v3b,c - breath, heart.
  
• maybe mention Hebrews 12 - the good father, the son who can trust in his father
  
• Trust - lean = chair
  
• Honour --> generosity
  
• Central idea = 7-8 = Don’t determine for yourself what wisdom is. but fear the Lord, knowing he is the one with power over life and death, he is the one who by means of a crucified Palestinian carpenter was able to reconcile a sinful humanity to himself.
  
• What healing and refreshment this will bring!
  
• It’s not all about us.
  
• We need to keep remembering our poverty, our inability to create a universe – let alone to keep a family functioning. But we have God’s wisdom – revealed ultimately in Christ.
  
• So we keep turning away from evil, and to this omniscient (all wise) God.

i think that with our new website at St Albans Lindfield, there may be the opportunity to listen to my sage words. check there in a week or so. or just check out the site anyway - it's pretty!

Paraphrasing Proverbs

The worshippers of Yhwh counted the wise among them, and the wise faced the realities of experience from the point of view of the Yahwist faith that was theirs.
R.E. Murphy, Proverbs WBC 1998, i think describing G. von Rad's understanding of OT wisdom

i'm trying to work out (preferably before Sunday @8:30am!) what the relationship is between

wisdom,

the son, and

the man (הַאָדָם)

do you think the above quote is right?

i'm thinking in particular about Proverbs 3:13-26, and throughout proverbs - i take it that instruction for the man is general advice to humanity, whilst that to the son is specific for the follower of Yhwh. but why would the man care unless he followed Yhwh?

backmasking for beginners

a post on Led Zep IV over at F&T reminded me about the eerie art of backmasking. my old music teacher once put on Queen's another one bites the dust, which when backmasked (ie, unmasked by playing it backwards i presume), appears to say 'start to smoke marijuana'. we then got to try it ourself, doing it both backwards and forwards (ie saying 'start to smoke marijuana' and seeing if it said 'another one bites the dust'). we did it on a cassette player with an adjustable head so you could read the tape going the other direction. it was pretty cool. a few years ago i tried the same thing with the Beatles' i'm so tired, which pretty obviously says 'paul's dead man. miss him, miss him' as i recall. Revolution 9 also says 'turn me on, dead man' under 'number 9'

as a youngin', i was pretty freaked out. we were played a gospel choir, and that was backmasked, and the subtitling told us we were hearing them say good things about God. even backwards! however when played death metal, they all seemed to be saying that Satan was a swell guy and they had fun serving him. [i'm not quite sure then where the other popular idea going around back then came from, that people in satanic churches read the bible back to front - is it back-to-front or all thru?!]

for your paranoid pleasure, check out this guy's site for a dozen more obvious songs backmasked (without you having to destroy your dad's records!)

it did put a lot of fear in me, but in retrospect it shouldn't have, for several reasons:

1. enough songs are, and always have been, explicitly immoral and crude, and generally against the very idea of God, that putting messages in backwards isn't really necessary
   
2. you have to be a] paranoid, and b] have someone tell you what it says in most cases for you find it plausible
   
3. who says we can hear stuff backwards anyway? it's not like it's straightforward - it's not like reading a word backwards, it's a completely different thing

it seems you can separate this into two groups: some are really bored people putting things into their music (including things really really slowly such that it just sounds like bass, or the converse - really fast so it seems like a quick electronic squeak - both needing to be played at an appropriate speed to get any meaning from them), or it's the paranoid people imagining things.

but i don't know - maybe there is something to it. but i doubt it. it's cool tho!

[i hope the thing with the tape made sense. there's two sides to a cassette reel, normally only half is played, whilst the other returns to the spool. when you spin it, that bit gets played. but if you move the head that reads the tape to the 'returning side', you are backmasking. easy!]

Maundy Thursday's Watchword

Thursday, April 9

Maundy Thursday

Watchword for the Day
He has gained renown by his wonderful deeds; the Lord is gracious and merciful. Psalm 111:4

Psalm 47
Job 12:13-13:19; Romans 15:17-29

'Am I a God near by,' says the Lord, 'and not a God far off? Do I not fill heaven and earth?' Jeremiah 23:23-24

Jesus said, "Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me; yet, not my will but yours be done." Then an angel from heaven appeared to him and gave him strength. Luke 22:42-43

Atoning Saviour, may your will be our will; may our lives reflect your love and compassion every day. Amen.

this is today's daily reading from the Moravian Church in North America .
as far as i can gather, these watchwords are put together by lay-people, and are sent out daily, and anonymously, which continues a tradition of almost three hundred years.

i started receiving the daily watchwords after doing some wiki-research about the Moravians and Count von Zinzendorf - absolutely the most astonishing missionary source in the last half millennium at least. have a read through. really fascinating.


the reason i haven't posted for sometime is i've been away. talking to people about Jesus. more about that later.

Allah and Yhwh

I've just finished reading 'Revelation?' by Mark Durie (2006), which asks the question, do Muslims and Christians worship the same God?

it's a really interesting book - well written, easy to read. the main thing it is asking, is whether it is right to engage Muslims (or for Muslims to engage Christians) with the premise, 'we all are talking about the same basic thing - let me show you how our understanding is different/better/correspondent.'

this is basically the approach suggested by Colin Chapman (Cross and Crescent), where you talk about Isa in the Qur'an and say 'see, don't you want to know more about him? read his biography with me (in the Injeel)' (hopefully this isn't too simplistic a summary)

Durie wants us rather to look at the characters of Isa, Allah, the Ruh Al-Qudus, and see what similarities and differences exist (between, respectively, Jesus, Yhwh, and the Holy Spirit). now, whilst this approach isn't as conciliatory as Chapman's, it's also not as polemic as Sam Green's (he works for AFES in Tassie i think), who attempts to show how wrong Islam is - the unreliability of the Qur'an, the questionable character of Muhammad etc - pulling no punches.

again, i found it an engaging book (there are bargain bin copies for $6 at Moore Books!), especially in countering Islamic claims that they're all the same - even the names of Jesus and Yhwh are corrupted when taken up by Islam - having no linguistic links at all (supporting the understanding of Muhammad's syncretism of the religions around without fully grasping them). however it does this linguistically, and based on the characters of the characters - trying to enter into the conversation in a way that distances the two religions - they are not, nor ever were, the same religion. Neither Adam, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Moses, David, Solomon nor Jesus were Muslims - which is not to say the characters of the Qur'an - Sulemann, Isa, Lut et al weren't - but they aren't the same bunch of guys.

i still need to think about the relative merits of the approaches - what do we lose by Chapman's approach? what do we gain by Durie's?

to decriminalise is to legitimise

Phillip Jensen wrote today on this issue in regards to the abhorrent victorian abortion legislation (is that too strong a word?). you can find it in today's SMH, or here.

despite the histrionics of Green's MP Lee Rhiannon*, i think Jensen makes a really good point:

Since the 1960s, censorship and gambling laws have been relaxed, and prostitution and homosexuality have been decriminalised.
[... T]o decriminalise is to legitimise.

whilst i am generally quite liberal (if i don't say so myself), i am thankful for this reminder about the impacts of decriminalising things that society has generally had questions about. decriminalising under-age sex for example sends the message not that society doesn't think jail is too extreme a punishment for teenage kids who have sex, but rather it says anyone is fair game - don't ever let age (or anything!) limit your sexual freedom. however old you are. and your respective age differences.

we need then to think not just about the immediate impacts of decriminalisation (eg ending backyard abortion clinics - tho i didn't think this was currently an issue), but what it implies society thinks on certain issues (eg an abortion is a lifestyle choice). it's about keeping the big picture in perspective.

* i should perhaps note, i have written written favourably about the Greens previously here. however i have sadly rarely found Rhiannon to be representative of myself or rational discussion.

Salt :: Resurrection

the latest AFES magazine is OUT. lots of zombie talk. among other things...

check out mark's blog for his thoughts on the issues - he's one of the editors of Salt.

check out also websalt, there's not nearly as much there as the hard copy, but some interesting articles to get you thinking and (hopefully) talking. included for your reading pleasure is my latest review on Lee Strobel's the Case for Easter.

a little primer:

The only thing that I perhaps missed was the other side – surely the atheists they line up for these apologists to knock down have heard their arguments and remain unconvinced? Does Strobel, writing after his conversion, truly represent the 4 billion plus who remain unconvinced about the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth?

But I guess that book is for others to write. Yet I still had a bucket load of questions I wanted to ask his experts – and that is as a Christian. To play the Devil’s advocate would have raised many more. As a journalist, he was surprisingly soft on his subjects. By no means was he the rock-hard Dick Tracy character he painted himself as in his introduction.

John 5:16-20 Chiasm

well, to all you who think i'm chiasm mad, i've found another one!

start from the top if you are a Greek nerd, from the bottom if you've got better things to do than learning a dead language (like talking to real people and that kind of thing)


16 καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἐδίωκον οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι τὸν Ἰησοῦν, ὅτι ταῦτα ἐποίει ἐν σαββάτῳ.

            17 Ὁ δὲ ἀπεκρίνατο αὐτοῖς· ὁ πατήρ μου ἕως ἄρτι ἐργάζεται κἀγὼ ἐργάζομαι·

18 διὰ τοῦτο οὖν μᾶλλον ἐζήτουν αὐτὸν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀποκτεῖναι, ὅτι οὐ μόνον ἔλυεν τὸ σάββατον, ἀλλὰ καὶ πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγεν τὸν θεὸν ἴσον ἑαυτὸν ποιῶν τῷ θεῷ.

            19 Ἀπεκρίνατο οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ οὐδὲν ἐὰν μή τι βλέπῃ τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα· ἃ γὰρ ἂν ἐκεῖνος ποιῇ, ταῦτα καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποιεῖ. 20 ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ φιλεῖ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πάντα δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ ἃ αὐτὸς ποιεῖ, καὶ μείζονα τούτων δείξει αὐτῷ ἔργα, ἵνα ὑμεῖς θαυμάζητε.

there is actually a purpose to this structure - the two A sections (v16, 18) give us the explanation - 'and because of this', 'therefore because of this'.

the B sections both give us Jesus' responses.

there is amplifying parallelism, as the As are upped - v16 they were pursuing him, v18 they are seeking to kill him. likewise v17 Jesus says that he and his father are both still slogging away as they always have been; v19-20 fill this out.

16 And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.

            17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”

18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

            19 So Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel."



i should add, we were warned in class about not finding chiasms under every rock we look under - if you think i've imagined this one, do let me know (hopefully before Tuesday midnight when i have to hand an exegetical on this passage in!). hmmm... maybe i should just talk about parallelism and not chiastic structures - they're usually more ABBA or ABB'A' than ABAB aren't they?

Plato, they say, could stick it away...

1. Plato: What is Plato’s theory of forms, and how does his ‘cave’ story help explain the theory?

One of the key problems Plato sought to solve was the relationship between forms and matter. In response to the Sophists, with particularly Gorgias’ radical scepticism, Plato sought to find a better answer than agnosticism, yet was dissatisfied with empiricism. Thus the sign in front of his Academy: ‘Let none but geometers enter here;’ his concern was with the formal sciences, with abstract ideas. For these abstract ideas, or forms, are part of the primary world, yet a metaphysical realm, yet one which is more real than this world which we inhabit. It follows then that this world is somehow corrupted – as the matter differs in its degree of correspondence to the ‘idea-’ or ‘form-world’. However, as Plato has Socrates ascertain in elucidating the Pythagorean theorem from an uneducated slave, within our souls we have this true knowledge of the forms.

The problem is however education. Education – from ‘educare’ (to lead out) – is quite literally Plato’s goal. We are all, he believed, in a darkness as if we were shackled to one another in a cave, looking at the flickering shadows on the cave wall. Since we have been in this state for such a long time, this is all we could believe to be reality. We are not cognizant of the source of the shadows, that they are only rough, imperfect representations of what is creating them. As we are led out of the cave, or educated, blinded as we may be at first by the light, we are then able to understand for the first time the forms that had been making the deceiving shadows.

The way for this education to happen is not by observing nature by experience (a posteriori knowledge), but by contemplative reasoning (a priori knowledge). Thus the best way to spend one’s time is in this honourable pursuit – contemplating the forms, the essences, rather than the materials, sciences, the receptacles of the forms.

this is part of a series