kategoria

awesome - kategoria is now online!

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

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

trinity talks to download

they're up.

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

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

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

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

orthodox and catholic

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

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

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

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

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

not a chiasm, but

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

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

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

Matthew 22.34-46 and the Shema

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

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

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

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

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

the story of the trinity

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

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

so any ideas would be appreciated!

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

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

giving up hope

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

same kind of bad as me

Tom Waits' new album out soon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

you can listen to it here

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

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

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

and just before that we find

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

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

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

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

Pogonotrophers ahoy

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

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

read the full article here

what do you get when you give football fans AK47s?

according to Peter Hitchens: the Arab Spring.

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

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

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

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

talk on galatians 3-4

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

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

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

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

Rowan Williams on Scripture

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

his argument is

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

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

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

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

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

anyway, it was good.

why are people cheering for kate?

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

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

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

carnage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus' family

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

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

'marriage equality'

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

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

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

this is the word of the lord

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the first australian lutherans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hebrews 4.14-5.10 Wordle

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

Hippolytus on deception

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

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

There lived a certain most noble and beautiful maiden in the city of Corinth, in the careful exercise of a virtuous life. At that time some persons falsely charged her before the judge there, who was a Greek, with cursing the times, and the princes, and the images. Now those who trafficked in such things, brought her beauty under the notice of the impious judge, who lusted after women. And he gladly received the accusation with his equine ears and lascivious thoughts. And when she was brought before the bloodstained (judge), he was driven still more frantic with profligate passion. But when, after bringing every device to bear upon her, the profane than could not gain over this woman of God, he subjected the noble maiden to various outrages. And when he failed in these too, and was unable to seduce her from her confession of Christ, the cruel judge became furious against her, and gave her over to a punishment of the following nature: Placing the chaste maiden in a brothel, he charged the manager, saying, Take this woman, and bring me three nummi by her every day. And the man, exacting the money from her by her dishonour, gave her up to any who sought her in the brothel. And when the women-hunters knew that, they came to the brothel, and, paying the price lint upon their iniquity, sought to seduce her. But this most honourable maiden, taking counsel with herself to deceive them, called them to her, and earnestly besought them, saying: I have a certain ulceration of the pudenda, which has an extremely hateful stench; and I am afraid that ye might come to hate me on account of the abominable sore. Grant me therefore a few days, and then ye may have me even for nothing. With these words the blessed maiden gained over the profligates, and dismissed them for a time. And with most fitting prayers she importuned God, and with contrite supplications she sought to turn Him to compassion. God, therefore, who knew her thoughts, and understood how the chaste maiden was distressed in heart for her purity, gave ear to her; and the Guardian of the safety of all men in those days interposed with His arrangements in the following manner:

Of a certain person Magistrianus.

There was a certain young man, Magistrianus, comely in his personal appearance, and of a pious mind, whom God had inspired with such a burning spiritual zeal, that he despised even death itself. He, coming under the guise of profligacy, goes in, when the evening was far gone, to the fellow who kept the women, and pays him five nummi, and says to him, Permit me to spend this night with this damsel. Entering then with her into the private apartment, he says to her, Rise, save thyself. And taking off her garments, and dressing her in his own attire, his night-gown, his cloak, and all the habiliments of a man, he says to her, Wrap yourself up with the top of your cloak, and go out; and doing so, and signing herself entirely with the mystery of the cross, she went forth uncorrupted from that place, and was preserved perfectly stainless by the grace of Christ, and by the instrumentality of the young man, who by his own blood delivered her from dishonour. And on the following day the matter became known, and Magistrianus was brought before the infuriated judge. And when the cruel tyrant had examined the noble champion of Christ, and had learned all, he ordered him to be thrown to the wild beasts, — that in this, too, the honour-hating demon might be put to shame. For, whereas he thought to involve the noble youth in an unhallowed punishment, he exhibited him as a double martyr for Christ, inasmuch as he had both striven nobly for his own immortal soul, and persevered manfully in labours also in behalf of that noble and blessed maiden. Wherefore also he was deemed worthy of double honour with Christ, and of the illustrious and blessed crowns by His goodness.

Elucidation.

The conduct of Father Abraham, although not approved of by Inspiration, but simply recorded (Genesis 26:7), gave early Christians an opinion that the wicked may be justly foiled, by equivocation and deception, for the preservation of innocence or the life of the innocent. In such case the person deceived, they might argue, is not injured, but benefited (Genesis 26:10), being saved from committing violence and murder. The Corinthian maiden was accustomed to be veiled, and was taught alike to cherish her own purity and to have no share in affording occasion of sin to others.

from Schaff's ANF, vol V

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

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

scripture sanctifies - stephen fowl

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

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

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

Stephen Fowl, Theological Interpretation of Scripture, Paternoster 2009.

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

work on the web

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

temporality and baptism

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

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

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

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

Hebrews 4.14-5.10 Chiasm

what do you think:

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

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

punny hebrew

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

but my faithful reader can surely handle them!

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

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

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

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

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

the story of Genesis 2-3

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

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

(with my adapted titles).

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

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

Mark 5 Chiasm

after an extended break - what else but a chiasm!

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

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

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

piper and mclaren on suffering

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

you've got Piper against McLaren on suffering.

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

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

worth a read and a think.

how to read a narrative

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

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

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

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

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

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

i want to think some more on this.

patients and clients

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

doubt

æ has written a great post, 10 thoughts about doubt

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

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

projected project

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

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

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

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

carbon tax

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

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

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

Jesus the Leper

three thoughts on Mark 1.40-45

1

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

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

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

2

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

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

3

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

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

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



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

Ricoeur on Evil

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

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

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

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

hebrews + matthew OR zechariah

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

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

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

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

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

reasons for NT4

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

reasons for OT4

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

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

book reading tizzy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Calvin: why baptism?

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

in speaking against penance, he writes:

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

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