so i haven't blogged.
but i have been doing stuff.
this is one:
the catechist was published online earlier this month. i wrote an article for it: a book review of Miroslav Volf'sExcusion and Embrace.
the book is great. hard work but great.
briefly, it's thinking about reconciliation and forgiveness.
have a read, tell me what you think.
and i'll try and post a bit more.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
300
it's been a while between posts.
for my 300th (only days, coincidentally before my 30th!), i thought:
if i was doing my own translation of Genesis 3, i would call Adam Graham, and Eve Olivia. Graham Ground and Olivia Living. heaps better than Adam Adamah and Chawa Chay (ie adam of the earth and eve of the living).
would you hire me as a translator?
for my 300th (only days, coincidentally before my 30th!), i thought:
if i was doing my own translation of Genesis 3, i would call Adam Graham, and Eve Olivia. Graham Ground and Olivia Living. heaps better than Adam Adamah and Chawa Chay (ie adam of the earth and eve of the living).
would you hire me as a translator?
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Herod Chiasm (Luke 23.7-11)
in contrasting Mark with Luke and the Pilate account (Mark 15.1-15, Luke 23.1-25), what is noticeable is the absence in Mark of the Herod account in the middle of the Pilate narrative (Luke 23.7-11).
The 'sandwich' technique is well known in the gospels, placing one story within another, perhaps to emphasise the centre, or even just to enhance memory in retelling the passage.
In Luke it seems both the Pilate and Herod accounts are important, but for different reasons. With Pilate, the flow of the narrative is what stands out: the mounting innocence of Jesus but the guilt of Barabbas. The Herod account however wishes to emphasise Jesus' innocence, but the guilt of the scribes and chief priests - and this is what the following chiasm reveals:
A 23.7 And when he learned that he belonged to Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him over to Herod...
B 8 When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had long desired to see him...
C 9 So he questioned him at some length,
D but he made no answer.
D’ 10 And the chief priests and the scribes stood by,
C’ vehemently accusing him.
B’ 11 And Herod with his soldiers treated him with contempt and mocked him.
A’ Then, arraying him in splendid clothing, he sent him back to Pilate.
Thematically, we see:
like some chiasm action? get some more here!
The 'sandwich' technique is well known in the gospels, placing one story within another, perhaps to emphasise the centre, or even just to enhance memory in retelling the passage.
In Luke it seems both the Pilate and Herod accounts are important, but for different reasons. With Pilate, the flow of the narrative is what stands out: the mounting innocence of Jesus but the guilt of Barabbas. The Herod account however wishes to emphasise Jesus' innocence, but the guilt of the scribes and chief priests - and this is what the following chiasm reveals:
A 23.7 And when he learned that he belonged to Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him over to Herod...
B 8 When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had long desired to see him...
C 9 So he questioned him at some length,
D but he made no answer.
D’ 10 And the chief priests and the scribes stood by,
C’ vehemently accusing him.
B’ 11 And Herod with his soldiers treated him with contempt and mocked him.
A’ Then, arraying him in splendid clothing, he sent him back to Pilate.
Thematically, we see:
A: To Herod
A': From Herod
B: Herod's joy at Jesus
B': Herod's contempt at Jesus
C: Questioning Jesus
C': Accusing Jesus
D: No intervention from Jesus
D': No intervention from the scribes
like some chiasm action? get some more here!
Saturday, March 06, 2010
sunset or scum?
we were given a couple of marriage books - one good friend gave us The Good Marriage, we bought Married for God, but at the moment we're reading one another good friend gave us, The Mystery of Marriage by Mike Mason (Multnomah, CO: 2005).
what i was challenged about most recently was the way we think about people. chatting with someone about the work they used to do, i was taken back to hear the language used to describe their clients. sure, they were repeat offenders, you could even say stupid in their actions, but there is still a way you talk about fellow human beings, recognising their value as worthy of value and honour and respect, due not to themselves, but to their createdness, to their being God's image bearer.
but when reality kicks in, we see this doesn't shape our actions and our time - i would much rather walk in the forest, watch a sunset, watch nature documentary - than hang out in a dodgy venue in King's Cross, at night in the back streets of Macquarie Fields, in any number of the world's slums and ghettoes.
Mason writes:
pp46-47. emphasis added.
create in me a new heart, o Lord, that i might see things as you see them.
what i was challenged about most recently was the way we think about people. chatting with someone about the work they used to do, i was taken back to hear the language used to describe their clients. sure, they were repeat offenders, you could even say stupid in their actions, but there is still a way you talk about fellow human beings, recognising their value as worthy of value and honour and respect, due not to themselves, but to their createdness, to their being God's image bearer.
but when reality kicks in, we see this doesn't shape our actions and our time - i would much rather walk in the forest, watch a sunset, watch nature documentary - than hang out in a dodgy venue in King's Cross, at night in the back streets of Macquarie Fields, in any number of the world's slums and ghettoes.
Mason writes:
The conclusion is inescapable, that to be in the presence of even the meanest, lowest, most repulsive specimen of humanity in the world is still to be closer to God than when looking up into a starry sky or at a beautiful sunset.
[T]here is nothing in the New Testament about beautiful sunsets. The heart of biblical theology is a man hanging on a cross, not a breathtaking scene from nature. For the Bible is centrally concerned with love, and the wonders of nature [...] touch only remotely on love. We cannot really love a sunset; we can love only a person.
pp46-47. emphasis added.
create in me a new heart, o Lord, that i might see things as you see them.
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Robert Alter - Illustrated
two translations of Robert Alter have been all the rage at college - The David Story (1&2 Samuel) and this year his translation of the Psalms.
the psalms is particularly good - his translation methodology is admirable - particularly the way he strives for terseness, in homage to the underlying Hebrew.
he has also written a great book the art of biblical narrative and translated Genesis
last year however i read an article he'd written in the New Republic called Scripture Picture. It's a four page article about the new illustrated Genesis by Robert Crumb using his translation (Crumb is probably quite famous in graphic novel circles, in others not so - check out the film Crumb where he plays himself, or even American Splendor [sic] for someone playing him in a minor roll - it's a good film!)
the article really is a good read. it's a fascinating discussion about what you do as you illustrate the bible, or depict anyone in another form. who are you when you hit the page in picture? it's hard enough to identify with yourself in print (ever critically read your own CV?), without having that then exported to another medium altogether.
there is something permanent-ising, objectifying, about turning the scriptures into pictures. the ambiguity is gone, the imagination, rather than engaging with ideas, is left to other devices - perhaps joining frame to frame in their head, filling out the missing action/movement.
and i wonder, do we do the same when children are read the scriptures as a child (i'm thinking big picture bibles)? why are we so fixated on the need for images to convey a message? do we not trust that people will do the imagining themselves?
(i think i was originally going to procrastinate about whether to buy Alter or Crumb - if you have an opinion, let me know in the comments. Cheers!)
the psalms is particularly good - his translation methodology is admirable - particularly the way he strives for terseness, in homage to the underlying Hebrew.
he has also written a great book the art of biblical narrative and translated Genesis
last year however i read an article he'd written in the New Republic called Scripture Picture. It's a four page article about the new illustrated Genesis by Robert Crumb using his translation (Crumb is probably quite famous in graphic novel circles, in others not so - check out the film Crumb where he plays himself, or even American Splendor [sic] for someone playing him in a minor roll - it's a good film!)
the article really is a good read. it's a fascinating discussion about what you do as you illustrate the bible, or depict anyone in another form. who are you when you hit the page in picture? it's hard enough to identify with yourself in print (ever critically read your own CV?), without having that then exported to another medium altogether.
there is something permanent-ising, objectifying, about turning the scriptures into pictures. the ambiguity is gone, the imagination, rather than engaging with ideas, is left to other devices - perhaps joining frame to frame in their head, filling out the missing action/movement.
and i wonder, do we do the same when children are read the scriptures as a child (i'm thinking big picture bibles)? why are we so fixated on the need for images to convey a message? do we not trust that people will do the imagining themselves?
(i think i was originally going to procrastinate about whether to buy Alter or Crumb - if you have an opinion, let me know in the comments. Cheers!)
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
This Present Darkness
no, not my 3 month absence from blogging (however dark that might seem), but the 1986 bestseller (2.5mil sold) by Frank E. Peretti.
it's the book i chose to take on my honeymoon, mainly because it was a paperback and Calvin's Institutes was a hardback. but the recommendation for the book actually came from one of my lecturers, who billed it as:
what i most enjoyed about this novel was the way it tried to minimise (erase) the distance between the earthly and the spiritual. it offers an example for anyone who's struggled to understand the biblical ideas of e.g. Ephesians 6:12; "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places."
on the earthly, we see the godly pastor Hank (yes, it is American) with his small yet faithful flock, but also the popular megachurch pastor Oliver Young - perhaps so named because of his involvement with new-age stuff - who is part of a group who are taking over town after town to turn them into centres for their deeper spirituality.
but on the spiritual, we see this deeper spirituality is only what the demons convince their people it is - the reader knows better. the reader sees the demons with their talons stuck into people's heads, whispering lies to them. the saints of Hank's church we see are those who give power to the angels; as they gather more prayer support, the energy of the angels increases accordingly.
now, there are already some questionable things here, such as how reliant God is on our prayers to accomplish his work, but it's just so engrossing! as demons are defeated we see people released from their grip, freed from the prince of the air, and putting their life into God's hands. people become Christians, the wicked are struck down, God's saints are vindicated even though they are broken.
yes, the "new age spiritualities" are very caricatured, and the spiritual cause of things is realised in a way with no basis whatsoever (as when the car conks out because an angel has thrust their sword through the engine), but it is a novel.
it was a ripping yarn, a good holiday read. i'm still not sure whether i'll make it to the sequels (piercing the darkness and prophet). perhaps i now need to try one of the left behind series for a bit of comparison.
it's the book i chose to take on my honeymoon, mainly because it was a paperback and Calvin's Institutes was a hardback. but the recommendation for the book actually came from one of my lecturers, who billed it as:
"before there was Left Behind, there was Frank E. Peretti".
what i most enjoyed about this novel was the way it tried to minimise (erase) the distance between the earthly and the spiritual. it offers an example for anyone who's struggled to understand the biblical ideas of e.g. Ephesians 6:12; "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places."
on the earthly, we see the godly pastor Hank (yes, it is American) with his small yet faithful flock, but also the popular megachurch pastor Oliver Young - perhaps so named because of his involvement with new-age stuff - who is part of a group who are taking over town after town to turn them into centres for their deeper spirituality.
but on the spiritual, we see this deeper spirituality is only what the demons convince their people it is - the reader knows better. the reader sees the demons with their talons stuck into people's heads, whispering lies to them. the saints of Hank's church we see are those who give power to the angels; as they gather more prayer support, the energy of the angels increases accordingly.
now, there are already some questionable things here, such as how reliant God is on our prayers to accomplish his work, but it's just so engrossing! as demons are defeated we see people released from their grip, freed from the prince of the air, and putting their life into God's hands. people become Christians, the wicked are struck down, God's saints are vindicated even though they are broken.
yes, the "new age spiritualities" are very caricatured, and the spiritual cause of things is realised in a way with no basis whatsoever (as when the car conks out because an angel has thrust their sword through the engine), but it is a novel.
it was a ripping yarn, a good holiday read. i'm still not sure whether i'll make it to the sequels (piercing the darkness and prophet). perhaps i now need to try one of the left behind series for a bit of comparison.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
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.
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.
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.
Monday, October 12, 2009
wishlist updated
in the sidebar, or just click here!
any suggestions i should add to the list?
what would you have in yours?
any suggestions i should add to the list?
what would you have in yours?
cocktail church?
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!
Saturday, October 10, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, October 08, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
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!).
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!).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)