the authentic Jesus

up at nextgen (formerly known as KYLC), a week-long conference where leaders of youth and kids are taught and trained to be better able to teach the youth and kids they disciple about Jesus.

the morning talks have been on Jesus' discourse on the Spirit in John (14:22-17:26), and by Grant Retief (from RSA).

he said (on 16:12-15) that we ought to submit to the apostolic interpretation of the ministry of Jesus because the promised Holy Spirit will teach the disciples, he is the promised Spirit of Revelation.
Thus (and this is my thinking), what does this say to the quests for the historical Jesus? the reconstruction of his life apart from, or behind, the obviously slanted teaching in the gospels. that is, knowing there is a purpose (ie that - in John's words - that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and that by believing, you may have life in his name), means that we're not getting a facts-only view of Jesus of Nazareth.
so is there a point in seeking to discover him apart from the gospels and epistles - finding the Jesus that is not portrayed through the filter of the paraclete?
what should we say to people with projects like John Carroll's The existential Jesus?

i'm really interested to find out - but i wonder why? am i dissatisfied with the Jesus revealed to me by the prophets by the Spirit? why do i have this insatiable desire to be able to picture Jesus banging away at an A-Frame* in Capernaum by the Sea of Tiberias?

* the word on the street is that Jesus wasn't so much a french-polisher or a cabinet maker, but a carpenter who builds houses. which a chippie friend of mind says says a lot about Jesus - not about the showy-heights of cabinet making, but the grunt work of foundation building. but that's exactly the kind of stuff i'm talking about - why do we want to know this stuff!

9. How do you solve a problem like Derrida?

Derrida: Why does Derrida ‘deconstruct’ things?

Derrida was motivated primarily by political and ethical reasons. From a linguistic perspective he was interested in being aware of the histories and bases and implications of the language we use, for much of what we say can have meanings beyond what we may be aware of. He raised awareness of this by closely scrutinising the text to discover what else it may be saying. What may be seen as literal may indeed be a caged metaphor, with a whole world of meaning possible. And what may be discovered, at least this is his premise, is that within the thesis there is also the antithesis.
So when he looks at something such as forgiveness, he discovers a paradox: to forgive someone means that the deed was forgivable. But if that deed was forgivable, then it was hardly worth forgiving them in the first place. Rather, what truly deserves forgiveness is the truly unforgivable act. Yet this act is so heinous that it, by definition, is unforgivable. Uncovering such a paradox should then change the way we see something such as forgiveness – viewing the small forgiveness as but a picture of the big act that truly requires forgiveness.
Forgiveness and justice (and indeed his whole project), are ultimately impossible things. Yet they occur daily, and should be pursued, but must be more properly understood. For Derrida then, deconstruction is no idle task, for it reshapes our ethics, pulling them apart, like the reductionists of long ago, helping us see what is at the heart of them. His hope is then a real sincerity in the way we relate, and a decrease in dogmatism.
From my brief reading about Derrida, it seems that although unique, he was influenced by Kierkegaard, Roland Barthes, and even bears some semblance to the psychoanalysts.
It should also be noted that Derrida sees language as iteratible, that is, easily transplanted and ‘emic’ meaning thence lost. Thus there is no sanctity in language as such, the deconstructor is free to pull it apart as much as one will.

i should add, i've been reading On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness to help me think through this. more on that book in particular later

this is part of a series. check here for the others uploaded.

What about me?

chatting to my french neighbours tonight, one of whom went to what sounds like a pretty average bible study - they read the bible, discussed the passage, and prayed for one another. something that happens very similarly all over the world every day of the week.

but what struck this girl was the selfishness of the prayers - "help me with this exam", "help me with my sickness" and so on. pretty typical really.

so two questions i guess -

1. is this just because we do all the 'big picture' praying at home on our own?
   
2. is this actually an accurate reflection on many of the psalms' prayer patterns - hence worth echoing?

      so then, on:

1. i think probably not, although having operation world as your homepage (and actually praying about it), and/or getting the voice of the martyrs' rss feed can be big helps to praying for things of bigger import than your pet rock's well being.
   
   and regarding:
   
   
2. many of them are selfish - in that they talk about themselves - YET they talk about themselves so as to talk about God. and there are plenty that talk only about God. and they're poems - of course they need some sort of perspective, and it makes sense to talk in the first person - have you ever been around someone who talks about themselves in the third person? very irritating indeed.

however, all this said, i still think my neighbour has a point - we can be selfish, and trivial, unreflective (non-reflective?), and ungrateful in our prayers. and regardless of the context and whatever and whenever else we may've prayed, the way we pray and the subjects of our prayers can say a lot about the motivations for praying, for meeting together, for attending church, for reading our bibles.

i would like to be one in whose spirit there is no deceit. (Psalm 32:2b)

8 - Nothin' Nietzsche couldn't teachya

Nietzsche: In what ways did Nietzsche disagree with most of what had gone before him?

The most overwhelming difference to those before Nietzsche was his foundation. Whereas they were interested in proofs for God, he had Zarathustra proclaim ‘God is dead’. Whereas they were interested in understanding why we think the way we do, he told us we thought wrong.

Born into the new era of an evolutionary understanding, he sought to apply this to religion, philosophy and logic. As such, he saw that humanity has been going about their business poisoned by Christianity. We had adopted a slave mentality, or herd mentality. We needed to rise above this, put off this pitiful state, and courageously take on our true nature – the mentality of the master or the nobleman. Indeed, Nietzsche saw those things inherited from Christianity not as the pinnacle of humanity, but as its lowest point, the point at which it began to fall below that of even the animals. His goal then was to shatter the idols that propped up the weak, that held us down in guilt.

He saw only a few in history to have risen above this guilt (such as Napoleon or Alexander the Great), and he calls this archetype der Übermensch. They were those who pursued their will to power, or to overpower. He saw this as our truest desire.
As regards teleology, he saw each one of us as having this overpowering as our goal, yet macro-history he saw as cyclical – if there were a goal, we surely would’ve reached it by now! Yet his nihilism means that there is no purpose for pursuing this course except for being honest to ourselves.

Uniquely among philosophers, Nietzsche ventures into realms previously only really entertained by theologians – dealing with questions of suffering, yet obviously from an atheistic perspective. His famous maxim that ‘what doesn’t kill me makes me stronger’ is of little comfort to those suffering, but like Machiavelli’s Prince, one wonders whether Nietzsche’s Übermensch should have any concern for such a soul.
Finally, one fascinating way Nietzsche stands apart from his forerunners is his absurdist view of his own discipline. The happy philosopher is the philosopher happy to rely on appearances – to go on instinct – he does not need to constantly justify everything or seek a higher status of affirmation than his own. What a truly emancipatory view of thought!



as hinted at last post, this is a part of my requirements for entering Philosophy 2. please feel free to comment, correct any assumptions i've made, suggest ways of clarifying my thinking.
oh, and very copywrite.

Thinking like a Philosopher :: Series

To get into second year Philosophy (i did fun subjects like World Religions and the Gospel instead in first year), i've had to write 3,500 words all up on various philosophers, 250-400 per topic.

As i publish them, come back here to see the newest ones.

But they are:

1. Plato: What is Plato’s theory of forms, and how does his ‘cave’ story help explain the theory?
   
2. (a) Aristotle: How does Aristotle differ from Plato?
   OR
   (b) Aristotle: Briefly summarise what teleology meant for Aristotle.
   
3. Aquinas: In what ways was Thomas Aquinas interested in philosophy?
   
4. Theology: What are some examples of the impact of Greek philosophy on Christian theology?
   
5. Descartes and rationalism: How did Descartes seek to secure true knowledge?
   
6. Locke, Hume and empiricism: In what ways do these thinkers differ from Descartes?
   
7. Kant: Why might Kant be described as ‘the answer’ to the dispute between rationalists and empiricists?
   
8. Nietzsche: In what ways did Nietzsche disagree with most of what had gone before him?
   
9. Derrida: Why does Derrida ‘deconstruct’ things?
   
10. Philosophy and theology: In what ways does the study of philosophy help, and/or hinder, the study of theology?

hang on for the ride.

by way of bibliography, to be honest, it's pretty loose. in the end, i drew fairly freely from the following works (whilst hopefully refraining from plagiarism of any kind - i went with the vibe):

Sproul, R.C. The Consequences of Ideas: Understanding the Concepts that Shaped Our World. Wheaton: Crossway, 2000.
Fearn, N., Zeno and the Tortoise: How to Think Like a Philosopher. London: Atlantic, 2001.
as well as from a really great podcast,
Warburton, N., Philosophy: The Classics.
and an interview of Robert Rowland Smith by Nigel Warburton on the Philosophy Bites podcast,
Edmonds, D., and N. Warburton, Robert Rowland Smith on Derrida on Forgiveness. Philosophy Bites.

A Nietzschean T-Shirt

what about this for a t-shirt design?

Front:
  "God is Dead" - Friedrich Nietzsche 1844-1900


Back:
  "Friedrich Nietzsche is dead" - God
'For man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment' - Hebrews 9:27


t-shirt design at foghorn (i tried to embed from there but it doesn't seem to work really at all)

idea from Sproul, R.C. The Consequences of Ideas: Understanding the Concepts that Shaped Our World. Wheaton: Crossway, 2000; required reading to get into Philosophy 2

a brief Christmas sermon

my thoughts about the importance of Christmas in light of tonight's sermon at St Matt's Wanniassa
(i should add, the sermon made me think about the importance Christmas should, and does have, and i also got to thinking about what would i say were i up the front doing the talk &c.).


Christmas recognises the God who crossed THE great divide: on one side the wholly other Holy Other, on the other fallen humanity. yet in reaching out to a world lost in sin, God reached out, crossed over, became one with us.

  The Word became flesh
and took up residence among us.
We observed His glory,
the glory as the One and Only Son from the Father,
full of grace and truth.
  (John testified concerning Him and exclaimed,
"This was the One of whom I said,
'The One coming after me has surpassed me,
because He existed before me.' ")
  Indeed, we have all received grace after grace
from His fullness,
  for although the law was given through Moses;
grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
  No one has ever seen God.
The One and Only Son —
the One who is at the Father's side —
He has revealed Him.
John 1:14-18

yet even though this eternal logos became flesh, it became flesh in the most paradoxical of ways - a bub in a food-trough.

God has chosen the world's insignificant and despised things — the things viewed as nothing — so He might bring to nothing the things that are viewed as something,
1 Corinthians 1:28

angry prayers

do you ever get angry praying?

i reckon Job got a bit fiery. Jeremiah wasn't always heaps relaxed. David didn't take it lying down.

i get the voice of the martyrs feed and, honestly, it makes me angry. why does God not intervene?

you get headlines like

CHINA: Officials Reach Out to House Churches; Raids, Arrests Continue;

BANGLADESH: Christian Family Beaten, Cut - and Face Charges;

COMOROS: Christians Oppressed on Pemba Islands;

and that's just the last week.

this happens all the time, all over the world. and i know that despite the abhorrent evil of these deeds God can and will work good. and i pray that the people who commit these horrors would repent and would know the forgiveness available in Christ.

but most of all i just wish they would stop.

Big Berkhof

i attended a preaching conference at SMBC a couple of years ago now - one of the best things (apart from the teaching of course) was that their library was doing a bit of a clean out.
so anyway, the Don recommended, out of his talk on Systematic Theology, both Big Berkhof and Little Louis. and i went down to the library sale and picked up Louis Berkhof's Manual of Christian Doctrine (Eerdmans: 1931, reprinted 1981) - ie Little Louis.
and i can honestly say that it's been one of my most helpful para-biblical books - it goes through the issues, through all facets of Christian Doctrine, but straightforwardly (whoever would have thought the difference between supra- and infra-lapsarianism would be made straightforward?!), as well as showing the varying views of different denominational traditions, where they stand and where the important and trivial differences are.

he is fair to both sides, happy to say when there is good justification for either, but also not backward in pointing out, in all humility, the flaws in flawed standpoints.

with my doctrine exam looming nearer, a few weeks ago i decided i needed to step up - and get my hands on Big Berkhof - or Louis Berkhof's Systematic Theology (Eerdmans: 1938, reprinted 1996), and found it here for only 17 bucks, WITH his 1932 Introduction to the Study of Systematic Theology in the one volume!

BARGAIN!!!*

it's pretty thrilling - great quotes, such as this on the Holy Spirit:

The Bible never deals with the doctrine of the Trinity as an abstract truth, but reveals the Trinitarian life in its various relations as a living reality, to a certain extent in connection with the works of creation and providence, but particularly in relation to the work of redemption. Its most fundamental revelation is given in facts rather than in words. (ST p85)

Big Berkhof is not a book you'll read cover to cover, but it's by far my most used reference book. well, it will be - after Little Louis!
there was a stack of them at West Ryde Koorong - you just need to step over the realised eschatology section, block out the 'jesus is my boyfriend' music, and wear sunscreen to shield yourself from the glare of the gold-plated 'the message' 'bibles'. jokes, of course!

*i just checked Amazon - they're flogging it for double, plus that's US dollars, so super expensive

Fruity Gifts

what is a gift? what is fruit?
the new testament tells us both of these are from the holy spirit.
they're both great things to have.
but what's the difference?

[T]he fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. (Galatians 5:22-23)

so the fruit is these things. these are not some of the fruits, nor optional extras - these are both things we see in all who are new creations in Christ. a lack then of these things must require earnest repentance - for these are the very lifeblood of our spirit-enlivened lives.

what of gifts? - 1 Corinthians 12:

Now there are different gifts, but the same Spirit.

to one is given a message of wisdom through the Spirit,
to another, a message of knowledge by the same Spirit,
to another, faith by the same Spirit,
to another, gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
to another, the performing of miracles,
to another, prophecy,
to another, distinguishing between spirits,
to another, different kinds of languages,
to another, interpretation of languages.
But one and the same Spirit is active in all these, distributing to each one as He wills. (4,8-11)

these are then all to each individually, each being gifted for a purpose.

as a Christian then, with regards to:
Fruit --> pursue as you would a great pearl (Matthew 13:44)
Gifts --> if you've been given them, use them for the building up of God's people.

there's more to be said on this (duh) but the distinction i thought (from my pastor at St Albans) was a really helpful one.



apologies (and thanks) to those who still bother looking at this blog - been soooo busy - exams were hectic. not sure how much i'll be on here in the next whilst...

What is God like?

been reading Louis Berkhof's Manual of Christian Doctrine (also known as Little Louis).
got some questions for him:

how is God independent, yet all things depend on him?

how is God immutable yet ever creating, ever generating, ever sustaining?

how can we know about God's incommunicable attributes?
(that is, his independence, immutability, infinity, simplicity)


it does seem that there are two categories of attributes of God: Incommunicable and Communicable. That makes sense of a quote i read last night,

What appears as imperfect in man, exists in infinite perfection in God. (Systematic Theology (also known as Big Berkhof), p84)

which must be referring not to the incommunicable but the communicable. that makes much more sense.

just a post about jazz

been enjoying a lazy saturday morning - drinking a coffee, doing a few hebrew exercises before monday's all-determining exam, and listening to my good friend Richard Maegraith's album Free Running.

i saw them last week at the sound lounge at the seymour centre, as well as at the album launch at the basement. they filmed them and interviewed them for 'live at the basement' - hopefully we'll see it on telly sometime soon! if you don't get to see it, or hear the CD, perhaps you'll hear them on Qantas radio, on 'James Morrison presents'!

Expectantly Waiting For You (track 7) is probably my fave - i'm a big fan of Gary Daley - i've heard him a few times around the place, and Tim Firth (on drums) is amazing at setting what i like to call a 'soundscape'. you also hear the great back and forth between Rich (tenor) and Jonathan Zwartz (double bass), and Kristin Bernadi's (vocals) close just means that the track gets better all the way!

for some earlier stuff, here's Richard doing Duke's caravan

Backyard Bard does Baldhead

just got back from seeing the backyard bard's production of Elisha.
basically it's just really good bible telling, or bible storying - listening to real people reading out God's word in an engrossing fashion. they came up to Sydney last year also, to do Elijah; they've also done Ruth, and one of the members has been in the states doing Elijah on his own. see him here below (the top clip is just a promo, this is the sort of stuff they actually do:

on a personal note, it's pretty cool to see where they're at now - i went to uni with some of these guys around the turn of the millenium; working out how to use both gifts in theatre, or artistic gifts in general, and love for Jesus to serve the gospel is a real challenge - it's great to see the sort of things they're up to. they started with lots of non-actors doing the whole of Mark's gospel, now they've got a whole swathe of Bible stories up their sleeve!

Wilberforce on Moralism

William Wilberforce writes against moralism and good manners in A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System of Professed Christians, in the Higher and Middle Classes in This Country, Contrasted with Real Christianity:

  Suppose, however, their standard of these amiable qualities of benevolence and usefulness were greater than what we have depicted. Could they still be a substitute for the supreme love and fear of God, and the dominant desire to promote His glory?
  To allow them this plea would be like allowing men to abolish the first commandment in preference to obeying the second commandment.

a great response to the inclusivists, who would insist upon the good moral character of many who do not claim the name of Christ, and would love to believe that this is grounds for their salvation. how i wish they were right, but this quote (and the Bible) mean we have to say no.


they printed only 500 copies of this book in 1797. within the year they were up to the 5th edition and 7,500 copies. besides possibly the record holder for the longest title of any book ever written, it (like many old books) is just as potent today as ever.

Historic and Historical

been pondering MPJs words on tuesday - the gist being that the resurrection of Jesus is not remarkable because it is historical, but because it is historic. that is, we can well say that it did happen, and the importance of it having happened, and the historicity of the event. but in reflection, the fact that is is historical is only important because it is historic - epoch making, a new paradigm, a new way of understanding the world, a vindication of the promises of a creator God both fulfilled and beginning at this moment.

Badiou's book that i wrote about earlier in the year discussed this also - i was concerned because he didn't care so much about the historicity of the event, believing it was secondary. now i wouldn't want to go that far, in that it is causative (you can't have an historic moment without the historical event), but i think i get his emphasis a little more now.

i think i get too hung up on trying to convince people of the fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, rather than the difference that makes - i need to emphasise that it changes everything!

[i might add, i feel the former is what Driscoll did when he was here - tried to convince people of the death of Jesus for them, but not of the resurrection of Jesus as changing everything. so saying Jesus died for you, so you can be forgiven - but not challenging their world views, that Jesus being raised makes everything different. just a thought.]