Jülicher on 1 Peter

Just finished my 1 Peter essay.
Didn't get to put this quote in.
(What else are blogs for?)

Every word of the Epistle is directed towards encouraging and strengthening the readers in the face of persecution and suffering: they were not on that account to lose sight of the great hope or to fall back exhausted into the old ways, nay rather, by dwelling in light, love and purity, they must provoke the admiration of their enemies, and advance the victory of the Gospel.

Adolf Jülicher (obviously before Adolf was a name only for tyrants), An Introduction to the New Testament Smith, Elder, & Co.: London, 1904. p206-207

Theory of Discourses - Alain Badiou

i'll need to think this through a little more, but this was certainly a thought provoking quote in Alain Badiou's Saint Paul : the History of Universalism (2003) p48, contrasting Paul with Pascal, Badiou writes,

With Paul, we notice a complete absence of the theme of mediation. Christ is not a mediation; he is not that through which we know God. Jesus Christ is the pure event, and as such is not a function, even were it to be a function of knowledge, or revelation.

contrasting with Pascal, i think he's got the appropriate emphasis, although perhaps not the whole story. there is definitely "mediatory language" in Paul's Christology (c/f Col1:15), we know things about God because of Jesus. although i must admit there is a transcendence that is found "in" Christ (c/f esp. Eph1) that is almost beyond that of simply a mediator (in the terms of say Heb1 or 1Pet1).
i shall reflect some more on this.
and shall post some more Badiou!

apologia

chatting to someone in first year at college the other day. i mentioned case, the Centre for Apologetic Scholarship and Education.

and they said something like, "yeah, i don't really like apologetics."
so i says, "what?" (please bear in mind, this is someone who has just enrolled in 4 years at theological college)
and they says, "Christianity isn't just about arguing."

my eyes slowly returned to their sockets, as i realised how common a misunderstanding this must be.

of course the cornerstone apologetic bible verse is that of 1 Peter 3:15,

but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord, always being prepared to give an answer (απολογια, apology) to anyone who demands a reason for the hope in you.

on the bus today, reading this great little book, Shining Like Stars (IVP)
Lindsay Brown, present past General Secretary of IFES* writes, "The Christian faith goes against reason but is not against reason," yet "we must not pander to people's intellectual curiosity, but give them a full basis for believing," as "Christianity is never exclusively rational - it also has moral dimensions."

of course, my fave apologetics quote comes from Irenaeus,

to describe is to refute

that is, simply by explaining what it is the-one-demanding-a-reason-for-the-hope-that-is-in-you is saying, the inconsistencies with a Christological world-view. it is then, that, as Tim Keller puts it in this really tops article, you can put in truth of the gospel. however he puts this "dismantling defeater beliefs" in the middle of his "apologetic sandwich", or, in his words:

1. The attractive gospel – Brief gospel connected to baseline narratives
   
2. Why Christianity can be true- Dismantling doubts and defeaters
   
3. The Biblical story of the gospel – A more thorough telling

so, my good college friend, this is apologetics: sharing, in an inherently attractive way (joyful as we Christians all are), the gospel in which you trust. i say to you therefore, apologise away!

* International Fellowship of Evangelical Students (website here)

the problem of evil

are things as good as they can be?
no.
why aren't they?
God uses bad stuff for 3 reasons:

1. as judgement because of sin (c/f isa45:7 dan9, 1cor11:30)
   
2. to discipline us as his children (c/f heb12:10)
   
3. to test/make sure of our faith (c/f 1pet1)

therefore we should be satisfied that God is in control over all, knowing he works all things for good (Rom8:28)

right?
wrong.

reading this article by Matheson Russell, it was good to see his righteous indignation at this "ideology", this apathetic, laissez-faire view of the evil.

Theodicy [This idea of God using evil for good] misrepresents evil by saying that evil is necessary for the good; God is weaving a tapestry and he needs the light and the dark thread to make the picture beautiful. But the analogy won’t wash: while the weaver may need the light and dark threads, the creator of heaven and earth made a world that was good, very good without a drop of blood being spilt. And theodicy puts us in the wrong relationship to evil since it asks us to put our pain, outrage and opposition to one side and to see the bigger picture, the harmonious and rational whole of the universe in which evil has its place. But this does not do justice to victims of pain, loss and injustice. And even more importantly, it doesn’t do justice to the good news of the gospel [...]

and what is the good news of the gospel?
that God is seeking to right the wrongs.
that he will not be content with a world that is self-destructive, consuming itself in hatred.
that no price is too great a price to pay, that this world might be redeemed for that which he purposed it.

sun-work does not equal son-work

my continuing thinking through of eschatology has brought me back to the frustrating area of teleology.
for the uninitiated, eschatos = the end, telos = the end. eschatos being the point in time, telos being the goal, the aim, the purpose.
as i have previously considered here, it may well be that the end of man (telos) is indeed the end (finish) of man. a look at the world today, especially at the doomsday clock can but confirm this.

thankfully, however, this is not my task.
i am still trying to figure out how to make sense of the seeming futility of today, with nothing new under the sun, and all that we do is simply trying to grasp the wind; whilst knowing that there is indeed purpose in our lives, there is a goal, that being to seek God and his glory.

yet, despite all this, we are still hopelessly impotent in our striving, as byron's blog so well states, that all is new only in the son. but, whilst being in the son, we still are under the sun.

i believe that is what peter is trying to make clear as he holds up the two truths of being subject to the emperor, whilst retaining their true identity as the very building blocks of Christ's church, the oikos.


one of the problems i see is this pedestal some climb upon, maintaining their particular work, under the sun, has some kind of überwert, super-spiritualising their own work in and of itself. that includes summing up ecclesiastes 1:12-2:26 as "work done using worldly wisdom bad, Godly good." rather than the way the author sums up, that all work is vanity and a striving after wind.

we are headed for the same goal. the reality of the eschaton means all our sun-work is vain.

2Peter3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

that is to say, even our sun-work will be exposed for what it is. and it will be in no way different to the sun-work of those not under the son.

in conclusion, sun-work is not our goal. bearing in mind peter's correction, we need to remember why we are to keep-on keeping on.


for those now thorougly depressed, this is not to say there is no work of worth, that is simply not current focus.

apologies to byron for use of his bookends.

WSBI 3

well, WSBI has begun! incarnate as WaSaBI, the first week: last week, was well attended and was quite encouraging.

the topic was Sanctification, and much to our collective amazement, it seems the picture the Bible paints is one of positional sanctification. this means that Sanctification (in essence, becoming more like Jesus), is something that has been done: in God's eyes we are sanctified, as well as being justified (declared right).
so it's not just that because we have been justified, we are now acceptable to God, and therefore over time we will become more like Jesus, or more sanctified - rather, our identity as Christians is now one of being positionally sanctified, as it says in 1Peter2:9,

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

as for style, it was a bit more MYCesque, more group work, whereas i was thinking more along the lines of a talk, followed by some small group stuff. but the presenter did an admirable job.

so the 2nd one kicks off in a fortnight, with the hopefully juicy topic of sin. John Macarthur (not Mark Driscoll as i previously believed) said that, 'If I had one hour to tell somebody the
gospel, I'd spend 55 minutes on sin, five minutes on everything else.'


will keep you posted...

God - The Ultimate Terrorist?

with no more SOCM, i am able to go to the Christianity and Contemporary Thought seminars held by CASE, and heard this talk by Andrew Cameron, entitled Terrorism and Christianity.

as the talk went on, with various definitions of Terrorism being bandied about, i kept thinking more and more (no pun intended), that God would actually fit many of the definitions of a terrorist.
Oliver O'Donovan's definition is (paraphrased, from memory), "one who furthers their viewpoint by intimidation", excluding those who would set up a viable, alternative government.
but would not this include God? i present the following reasons:

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)
For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God. (Deuteronomy 4:24)
Honour everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the emperor. (1 Peter 2:17)

God obviously presents a choice of Him, or destruction. if you're not on the God-Train, you're going to get run over.

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” (John 18:36)

there is no viable alternative government (at least in the here-and-now) proposed. rather (as in 1 Peter 2:17 ob cit.) we are to honour, not least pray for, the secular governments placed over us.

this sounds not at all dissimilar to many terrorist manifestos, there is simply a claim to legitimacy, of heritage, of third-knowledge, and the proven ability to carry out any and all threats.

of course the thing with terrorism is the unacceptability of their methods and the questionability of their ends. God, being the creator of all that is seen and unseen, is righteous. though perhaps not not a terrorist.

is this an acceptable apologetic angle, or has psychodougie gone too far this time?

ps sorry about the lack of blogging of late. i have no excuse, my priorities have simply been elsewhere.

strike!!!

as much as i love a good rally, holding up a sign, and traffic, what role are Christians to play, when it involves contradicting the wishes of your employers. specifically:
1 Peter 2:13-14 Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.
and
18-19 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly.

is the question whether you place the union as supreme, ie worthy of more respect that your employers? what should Christians have done in Tienanmen Square, what about in Thatcher's England?
what about caring for the weak, the unprotected among us, those unable to stand up for themselves?

would not not striking mean you are complicit in their mistreatment? we can't all be Daniel, having a chat with the King, or the CEO i guess in our case.

thoughts? advice?

slaves and free

reading through Colossians, and thinking about the up-coming 1 Peter series, i got to thinking:
the Apostles Paul and Peter both address slaves and teach the subversive message of Christ; that this world is passing away, along with its distinctions of slave and free.
at no point do they encourage dissent against human authorities, so long as this does not contravene their master who is in heaven.
how did william wilberforce*, and how do we, justify the abolition of slavery?

* a late 18th/early 19th century (Christian) leader of the campaign to abolish slavery