An email I received today from my university:
During wintry conditions all staff should take extra care while driving and walking on campus.
Whilst every effort is made to ensure that paths and car parks are kept clear of ice and snow, staff/students should continue to exercise caution when walking or driving on the campus even after grit/salt has been applied. In order for gritting/salting to be effective it is necessary for a degree of foot and/or vehicle traffic to take place.
Safety Tips
Here are some helpful hints from winter-safety experts that will reduce the risk of falling when slippery conditions exist:
Avoid walking in shoes that have smooth surfaces, which increase the risk of slipping.
Walk consciously. Be alert to the possibility that you could quickly slip on an unseen patch of ice. Avoid the temptation to run to catch a bus or beat traffic when crossing a street.
Walk cautiously. Your arms help keep you balanced, so keep hands out of pockets and avoid carrying heavy loads that may cause you to become off balance.
Walk "small." Look ahead of where you step. When you step on icy areas, take short, shuffling steps and walk as flatfooted as possible.
Remove snow immediately from footwear before it becomes packed or turns to ice.
Issued by the Estates Department.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Making my task too easy and doing violence to the Bible
If, however, this speculative rationalistic process of the viae in the sphere of a Christian doctrine of the Divine Attributes is forbidden to us once and for all, on the other hand a purely literalistic Bible statement is also insufficient. It consists, like all other 'biblicist' procedures, in collecting Bible passages, arranging them in some kind of order, and then summing all this up. Although this process is not so dangerous as the speculative method, yet it is very unsatisfactory, because it is so arbitrary. The Biblical statements about the Attributes of God are, however, now parts of a whole which only need to be fitted together. Such a use of the Biblical testimony contradicts the nature and intention of the testimony. The very fact that the Bible uses so much poetical, pictorial language should suffice to warn us not to follow this line of thought. In so doing the theologian both makes his own task too easy, and does violence to the Bible.
Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God
Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Do the chickens know?
'Having lots of money doesn't buy me happiness'
Yes- I KNOW that
'I am supposed to put people first'
Yes- I KNOW that
We all KNOW that.
As soon as I walk away from this computer, however, I begin to act as if money can buy me happiness. Or I start to act like I'm the center of the world.
It's not about what I BELIEVE...
A man who believes himself to be a grain of seed is taken to the mental institution where the doctors do their best to finally convince him that he is not a grain but a man; however, when he is cured (convinced that he is not a grain of seed but a man) and allowed to leave the hospital, he immediately comes back trembling and scared - there is a chicken outside the door and he is afraid that it would eat him. "Dear fellow," says his doctor, "you know very well that you are not a grain of seed but a man". "Of course I know that," replies the patient, "but does the chicken know that?"
The point is this-
You don't have to convince me that having the bigger car won't make me happier
Or the house
Or the money
Or...
I KNOW that.
You don't have to convince me
You have to convince the chickens...
The advertisers
The magazines
The movie casters
The shops
The system and the structure in which I participate(No, I'm not necessarily going all Rage Against The Machine)
Is part of our role as the Church not to create another structure?
To present a structure to the world around us that not only says 'No', but also gives an alternative?
To poke holes in the lies in the world around us (around and within us). Holes that say No.
And along the way on our journey, we begin to learn to live differently.
Not just in where we go on a Sunday
Or by what we say or don't say
Or what we do with our money
Or what we BELIEVE
But to live differently in everything.
Holism.
Because when we forget to say no, we're telling the chickens that they're right.
And they're not.
Living differently is an incredibly painful process.
Participating in Crucifixion is painful
And so is resurrection.
(99% Plagiarized from Zizek, Pete Rollins and Rob Bell )
Yes- I KNOW that
'I am supposed to put people first'
Yes- I KNOW that
We all KNOW that.
As soon as I walk away from this computer, however, I begin to act as if money can buy me happiness. Or I start to act like I'm the center of the world.
It's not about what I BELIEVE...
A man who believes himself to be a grain of seed is taken to the mental institution where the doctors do their best to finally convince him that he is not a grain but a man; however, when he is cured (convinced that he is not a grain of seed but a man) and allowed to leave the hospital, he immediately comes back trembling and scared - there is a chicken outside the door and he is afraid that it would eat him. "Dear fellow," says his doctor, "you know very well that you are not a grain of seed but a man". "Of course I know that," replies the patient, "but does the chicken know that?"
The point is this-
You don't have to convince me that having the bigger car won't make me happier
Or the house
Or the money
Or...
I KNOW that.
You don't have to convince me
You have to convince the chickens...
The advertisers
The magazines
The movie casters
The shops
The system and the structure in which I participate(No, I'm not necessarily going all Rage Against The Machine)
Is part of our role as the Church not to create another structure?
To present a structure to the world around us that not only says 'No', but also gives an alternative?
To poke holes in the lies in the world around us (around and within us). Holes that say No.
And along the way on our journey, we begin to learn to live differently.
Not just in where we go on a Sunday
Or by what we say or don't say
Or what we do with our money
Or what we BELIEVE
But to live differently in everything.
Holism.
Because when we forget to say no, we're telling the chickens that they're right.
And they're not.
Living differently is an incredibly painful process.
Participating in Crucifixion is painful
And so is resurrection.
(99% Plagiarized from Zizek, Pete Rollins and Rob Bell )
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Making the world safe for democracy and for thrifty, brave, clean and reverent ex-sinners like me
No matter how much we give lip service to the notion of free grace and dying love, we do not like it. It is just too...indiscriminate. It lets rotten sons and crooked tax farmers and common tarts in the kingdom, and it thumbs its nose at really good people. And it does that, gallingly, for no more reason than the Gospel's shabby exaltation of dumb trust over worthy works. Such nonsense, we mutter in out hearts; such heartless, immoral folly. We'll teach God, we say. We will continue to sing 'Amazing Grace' in church; but we will jolly well be judicious when it comes to explaining to the riffraff what it actually means. We will assure them, of course, that God loves them and forgives them, but we will make it clear that we expect them to clean up their act before we clasp them seriously to our bosom. We do not want whores and chiselers and practicing gays...thinking they can just barge in here and fraternize. Above all, we do not want drunk priests, or ministers who cheat on their wives with church organists, standing up there in the pulpit telling us that God forgives such effrontery. We never did such things. Why, we can hardly even bear the think...
Do you see now? We are second sons, elder brothers, respectable Pharisees, twelve-hour, all-day laborers whose moral efforts have been trampled on by the Feet beautiful upon the Mountains. We are resentful at being the butts of the divine joke of grace that says nothing matters except plain, old, de facto, yes-Jesus faith. And when we institutionalize that resentment by giving the impression that the church is not for sinners and gainsayers, we are a disgrace to the Gospel- a bushel of works hiding the Light of the world. We are under judgment. Oh, yes; we say we believe. But what we believe is largely an ethico-theological construct of our own devising. a system in our heads that will make the world safe for democracy, and for thrifty, brave, clean and reverent ex-sinners like ourselves.
Do you see now? We are second sons, elder brothers, respectable Pharisees, twelve-hour, all-day laborers whose moral efforts have been trampled on by the Feet beautiful upon the Mountains. We are resentful at being the butts of the divine joke of grace that says nothing matters except plain, old, de facto, yes-Jesus faith. And when we institutionalize that resentment by giving the impression that the church is not for sinners and gainsayers, we are a disgrace to the Gospel- a bushel of works hiding the Light of the world. We are under judgment. Oh, yes; we say we believe. But what we believe is largely an ethico-theological construct of our own devising. a system in our heads that will make the world safe for democracy, and for thrifty, brave, clean and reverent ex-sinners like ourselves.
Some thoughts on Judgment
I've finally finished some books!!
The last third of one of the books I've been reading deals with judgment- here are some introductory thoughts:
As a preacher, I can, with the greatest of ease tell people that God is going to get them, and I can be sure that they will believe every word I say. But what I cannot do, without inviting utter disbelief and serious doubts about my sanity, is proclaim that he has in fact taken away all the sins of the world and that he has, accordingly, solved all the problems he once had with sin. I cannot tell them, as John does, that he 'did not come to judge the world but to save the world'. Nor can I ask them, as Paul does, to believe the logical consequence of that statement, namely, that 'there is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus'. Because if I do, the same old question will come pouring out : 'What about Hitler? What about child molesters? What about my skunk of a brother-in-law?' Their one pressing worry is always, 'What have you done with the hell we know and love?'
It is a mistake to come to them (Jesus' parables on judgment) as if we already understood what judgment is all about and were simply trying to see how they can be made to confirm what we think. Come to them that way and you will get only what so many preachers have gotten: a Messiah playing cops and robbers, a vindictive God bent on putting all the baddies under flat rocks. But come to them as the words of a Savior who has just spent weeks or months making death the principal device of his parables of gracious love- and which is now, under the compulsion of the same gracious love, about to die in order to activate the device once and for all- and you will see something new. You will see Gospel, not law; good news, not bad; vindication, not vindictiveness.
If I have anything to contribute to the interpretation of the parables of judgment, it is my steadfast refusal to separate them from the rest of Jesus' parables...Therefore I am convinced that anyone who interprets them as if Jesus had decided simply to abandon his previous palette...is making a crashing mistake.
As a general rule- and especially in his specific parables of judgment- Jesus is at pains to show that no one is kicked out who wasn't already in.
The last third of one of the books I've been reading deals with judgment- here are some introductory thoughts:
As a preacher, I can, with the greatest of ease tell people that God is going to get them, and I can be sure that they will believe every word I say. But what I cannot do, without inviting utter disbelief and serious doubts about my sanity, is proclaim that he has in fact taken away all the sins of the world and that he has, accordingly, solved all the problems he once had with sin. I cannot tell them, as John does, that he 'did not come to judge the world but to save the world'. Nor can I ask them, as Paul does, to believe the logical consequence of that statement, namely, that 'there is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus'. Because if I do, the same old question will come pouring out : 'What about Hitler? What about child molesters? What about my skunk of a brother-in-law?' Their one pressing worry is always, 'What have you done with the hell we know and love?'
It is a mistake to come to them (Jesus' parables on judgment) as if we already understood what judgment is all about and were simply trying to see how they can be made to confirm what we think. Come to them that way and you will get only what so many preachers have gotten: a Messiah playing cops and robbers, a vindictive God bent on putting all the baddies under flat rocks. But come to them as the words of a Savior who has just spent weeks or months making death the principal device of his parables of gracious love- and which is now, under the compulsion of the same gracious love, about to die in order to activate the device once and for all- and you will see something new. You will see Gospel, not law; good news, not bad; vindication, not vindictiveness.
If I have anything to contribute to the interpretation of the parables of judgment, it is my steadfast refusal to separate them from the rest of Jesus' parables...Therefore I am convinced that anyone who interprets them as if Jesus had decided simply to abandon his previous palette...is making a crashing mistake.
As a general rule- and especially in his specific parables of judgment- Jesus is at pains to show that no one is kicked out who wasn't already in.
Monday, May 31, 2010
The Prodigal Son II- what else the Father said to the Older Son
‘You little creep! his father says. What do you mean, my living? I’ve been dead since the beginning of this parable! What your brother wasted was his, not mine. And what you’ve been so smug about not wasting has actually been yours all along. Don’t bellyache to me. You’re in charge here; so cut out the phoney-baloney. If you were really dying for veal, you could have killed the fattened calf for yourself any day of the week. And if you really wanted to be ready to entertain customers at all hours of the day and night, you would have kept a dozed fattened calves on hand, not just a single measly one you have to have a fit over every time it gets cooked. And as far as your brother’s sexual behavior is concerned, listen Mr.Immacualte Twinkletoes, you’ve got a lot to learn. I have no idea how much fun he had getting himself laid, drunk, and strung out, but even if it was only marginal, it was probably more than you’ve had sitting here thinking.
But see? the father continues, you even get me off the track. The only thing that matters is that fun or no fun, your brother finally died to all that and now he's alive again- whereas you, unfortunately, were hardly alive even the first time around. Look. We’re all dead here and we’re having a terrific time. We’re all lost here and we feel right at home. You on the other hand, are alive and miserable- and worse yet, you’re standing out here in the yard as if you were some kind of beggar. Why can’t you see? You own this place, Morris. And the only reason you’re not enjoying it is because you refuse to be dead to your dumb rules about how it should be enjoyed. So do yourself and everybody else a favour: drop dead. Shut up. Forget about your stupid life, go inside, and pour yourself a drink.’
But see? the father continues, you even get me off the track. The only thing that matters is that fun or no fun, your brother finally died to all that and now he's alive again- whereas you, unfortunately, were hardly alive even the first time around. Look. We’re all dead here and we’re having a terrific time. We’re all lost here and we feel right at home. You on the other hand, are alive and miserable- and worse yet, you’re standing out here in the yard as if you were some kind of beggar. Why can’t you see? You own this place, Morris. And the only reason you’re not enjoying it is because you refuse to be dead to your dumb rules about how it should be enjoyed. So do yourself and everybody else a favour: drop dead. Shut up. Forget about your stupid life, go inside, and pour yourself a drink.’
Confession, forgiveness and Babies in waters
‘Confession is not a medicine leading to recovery. If we could recover- if we could say that beginning tomorrow or the week after next we would be well again- why then, all we would need to do would be apologize, not confess. We could simply say that we were sorry about the recent unpleasantness, but that, thank God and the resilience of our better instincts, it is all over now. And we could confidently expect that no one but a real nasty would say us nay.
But we never recover. We die. And if we live again, it is not because the old parts of our life are jiggled back into line, but because, without waiting on our realignment, some wholly other life takes up residence in our death. Grace does not do things tit-for-tat; it acts finally and fully from the start…
Confession is not a transaction, not a negotiation in order to secure forgiveness; it is the after-the-last gasp of a corpse that finally can afford to admit it’s dead and accept resurrection
The sheer brilliance of the retention of infant baptism by a large portion of the church catholic is manifest most of all in the fact that babies can do absolutely nothing to earn, accept, or believe in forgiveness; the church, in baptizing them, simply declares that they have it. We are not forgiven, therefore, because we made ourselves forgivable or even because we had faith; we are forgiven solely because there is a Forgiver.’
But we never recover. We die. And if we live again, it is not because the old parts of our life are jiggled back into line, but because, without waiting on our realignment, some wholly other life takes up residence in our death. Grace does not do things tit-for-tat; it acts finally and fully from the start…
Confession is not a transaction, not a negotiation in order to secure forgiveness; it is the after-the-last gasp of a corpse that finally can afford to admit it’s dead and accept resurrection
The sheer brilliance of the retention of infant baptism by a large portion of the church catholic is manifest most of all in the fact that babies can do absolutely nothing to earn, accept, or believe in forgiveness; the church, in baptizing them, simply declares that they have it. We are not forgiven, therefore, because we made ourselves forgivable or even because we had faith; we are forgiven solely because there is a Forgiver.’
Interlude on an Objection
‘Christianity is not a religion; it is the announcement of the end of religion. Religion consists of all the things (believing, behaving, worshiping, sacrificing) the human race has ever thought it had to do to get right with God…
…the reason for not going out and sinning all your like is that same reason for not going out and putting your nose in a slicing machine: it’s dumb, stupid and no fun. Some individual sins may have pleasure still attached to them because of the residual goodness of the realities they are abusing: adultery can indeed be pleasant ,and trying one on can amuse. But betrayal, jealousy, love grown cold, and the gray dawn of the morning are nobody’s idea of a good time.
On the other hand, there’s no use belaboring that point, because it never stopped anybody. And neither did religion. The notion that people won’t sin as long as you keep them well supplied with guilt and holy terror is a bit overblown. Giving the human race religious reasons for not sinning is about as useful as reading lectures to an elephant in a rut…
Furthermore, the usual objection to God’s silence, namely, that people will take such graciousness on his part as permission to sin, is equally nonsensical. For one thing, he made us free, so we already have his permission- not his advice, mind you, nor his consent, nor his enthusiasms- but definitely his promise not to treat us like puppets.’
…the reason for not going out and sinning all your like is that same reason for not going out and putting your nose in a slicing machine: it’s dumb, stupid and no fun. Some individual sins may have pleasure still attached to them because of the residual goodness of the realities they are abusing: adultery can indeed be pleasant ,and trying one on can amuse. But betrayal, jealousy, love grown cold, and the gray dawn of the morning are nobody’s idea of a good time.
On the other hand, there’s no use belaboring that point, because it never stopped anybody. And neither did religion. The notion that people won’t sin as long as you keep them well supplied with guilt and holy terror is a bit overblown. Giving the human race religious reasons for not sinning is about as useful as reading lectures to an elephant in a rut…
Furthermore, the usual objection to God’s silence, namely, that people will take such graciousness on his part as permission to sin, is equally nonsensical. For one thing, he made us free, so we already have his permission- not his advice, mind you, nor his consent, nor his enthusiasms- but definitely his promise not to treat us like puppets.’
Interpreting Jesus
I remember a conversation I had with my brother. I think it was me talking to him animatedly about some deeper understanding I had just read concerning something about Jesus (probably). Ultimately, while he listened, his point was that he wasn’t sure God had ever wanted it to be that difficult to understand what He was trying to say to us.
That has stuck with me forever.
However,
‘One of my convictions about interpreting Jesus’ parables is that it is always a mistake to say too quickly what we think is their ‘main point’. Had he wanted to give us glittering generalities, he could no doubt have unburdened himself of them in plain Aramaic and avoided the bother of having to make up artful stories. But in fact he did tell stories; and since he was no slouch at crafting them, we should spend more time than we do on their details ’
That has stuck with me forever.
However,
‘One of my convictions about interpreting Jesus’ parables is that it is always a mistake to say too quickly what we think is their ‘main point’. Had he wanted to give us glittering generalities, he could no doubt have unburdened himself of them in plain Aramaic and avoided the bother of having to make up artful stories. But in fact he did tell stories; and since he was no slouch at crafting them, we should spend more time than we do on their details ’
High Low Jack A Lo (Christology)
My reading has gone into overdrive recently. As my time committed to basketball coaching is decreasing, my time devoted to reading and preparing for my masters in September has increased.
I have loved all the time I’ve had to read and am making steady progress (although I’ve been getting daily headaches and am wondering if they’re from all the reading)
Anyways, an increase in reading equals an increase of blogging (that’s the theory anyways…)
A lot of the following blogging will be thoughts and quotes from a book Ive recently finished : Kingdom, Grace and Judgment- Paradox, Outrage and Vindication in the Parables of Jesus. Robert Farrar Capon
I was accused the other day of having a low Christology. I say ‘accused’. That was maybe the wrong word. The gentleman (and I use this word seriously, with no sarcasm, I love this man) I think was merely pointing out that he probably disagreed with me.
A low Christology, to me, means that when it comes to understanding Jesus as God and man, one focuses more on his humanity (thus a high Christology being when one focuses more on Jesus’ divinity).
I’m quite happy to be a low Christologist (I think I just made up a word). I am not happy that we have to fit into such either/or understandings of Jesus. However, if you’re going to make me choose, then ok…
‘some Christians…feel obliged to maintain that, right from the beginning, he [Jesus] had everything figured out completely and that any apparent developments in his awareness were simply due to the way he deferred to our slow-wittedness by doling out his revelations piece by piece. But to put it that way is to expose their fallacy. ‘From what beginning?’ such theologians should be asked. Presumably, they are thinking of the beginning of his public ministry or perhaps those first words of his at age twelve when he told his parents he had to be ‘about his Father’s business.’ But those are plainly not beginnings enough’.
Cappon continues his thoughts as he considers the temptation of Jesus-
‘But those two natures…are distinct and unconfused. The Incarnate Lord is not a mismash of divinity and humanity. There is not a scrap of human nature in his Godhead, and most important here, there is not a smitch of deity in his manhood, any more than there is in yours or mine…
In Scripture it is precisely the Holy Spirit, the Thrid Person of the Trinity, who is given credit for enabling and guiding the humanity of Jesus. For example, Jesus casts out demons not by means of some more-than-human power that he has in and of himself, but by the Spirit- by, as he puts it, the Finger of God…
To all of this Jesus simply replies from chapters 6 and 8 of Deut, the sections recapitulating the ten commandments in chapter 5. Do you see what that means? It means that when the devil talks messiah, Jesus answers with passages that are not messianic at all, but simply addressed to humanity as such. He says, in effect, ‘You can’t conceive of a messiah unless he’s dedicated to a lot of superhuman, right handed punching and interfering; but as far as I’m concerned, just plain human obedience to God’s prescriptions for plain old humanity will do the messianic trick. Thank you very much, but peddle your phone booth somewhere else.’ ’
I have loved all the time I’ve had to read and am making steady progress (although I’ve been getting daily headaches and am wondering if they’re from all the reading)
Anyways, an increase in reading equals an increase of blogging (that’s the theory anyways…)
A lot of the following blogging will be thoughts and quotes from a book Ive recently finished : Kingdom, Grace and Judgment- Paradox, Outrage and Vindication in the Parables of Jesus. Robert Farrar Capon
I was accused the other day of having a low Christology. I say ‘accused’. That was maybe the wrong word. The gentleman (and I use this word seriously, with no sarcasm, I love this man) I think was merely pointing out that he probably disagreed with me.
A low Christology, to me, means that when it comes to understanding Jesus as God and man, one focuses more on his humanity (thus a high Christology being when one focuses more on Jesus’ divinity).
I’m quite happy to be a low Christologist (I think I just made up a word). I am not happy that we have to fit into such either/or understandings of Jesus. However, if you’re going to make me choose, then ok…
‘some Christians…feel obliged to maintain that, right from the beginning, he [Jesus] had everything figured out completely and that any apparent developments in his awareness were simply due to the way he deferred to our slow-wittedness by doling out his revelations piece by piece. But to put it that way is to expose their fallacy. ‘From what beginning?’ such theologians should be asked. Presumably, they are thinking of the beginning of his public ministry or perhaps those first words of his at age twelve when he told his parents he had to be ‘about his Father’s business.’ But those are plainly not beginnings enough’.
Cappon continues his thoughts as he considers the temptation of Jesus-
‘But those two natures…are distinct and unconfused. The Incarnate Lord is not a mismash of divinity and humanity. There is not a scrap of human nature in his Godhead, and most important here, there is not a smitch of deity in his manhood, any more than there is in yours or mine…
In Scripture it is precisely the Holy Spirit, the Thrid Person of the Trinity, who is given credit for enabling and guiding the humanity of Jesus. For example, Jesus casts out demons not by means of some more-than-human power that he has in and of himself, but by the Spirit- by, as he puts it, the Finger of God…
To all of this Jesus simply replies from chapters 6 and 8 of Deut, the sections recapitulating the ten commandments in chapter 5. Do you see what that means? It means that when the devil talks messiah, Jesus answers with passages that are not messianic at all, but simply addressed to humanity as such. He says, in effect, ‘You can’t conceive of a messiah unless he’s dedicated to a lot of superhuman, right handed punching and interfering; but as far as I’m concerned, just plain human obedience to God’s prescriptions for plain old humanity will do the messianic trick. Thank you very much, but peddle your phone booth somewhere else.’ ’
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Gagging on the unfairness of it all
...which was commentary on the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-17). NB- Tax collector = Publican
Now then. The first thing to get off the table is the notion that this parable is simply a lesson in the virtue of humility. It is not. It is an instruction in the futility of religion- in the idleness of the proposition that there is anything at all you can do to put yourself right with God...
It is therefore not a recommendation to adopt a humble religious stance rather than a proud one; rather it is a warning to drop all religious stances- and all moral and ethical ones, too- when you try to grasp your justification before God...
Do you see now what Jesus is saying in this parable? He is saying that as far as the Pharisee's ability to win a game of justification with god is concerned, he is no better off than the publican. As a matter of fact, the Pharisee is worse off; because while they're both losers, the publican at least has the sense to recognize the fact and trust God's offer of a free drink. The point of the parable is that they are both dead, and their only hope is someone who can raise the dead.
"Ah but" you say, "is there no distinction to be made? Isn't the Pharisee somehow less further along in death that the publican? Isn't there some sense in which we can give him credit for the real goodness he has?"
To which I answer, you are making the same miscalculation as the Pharisee. Death is death...
If you now see my point, you no doubt conclude that the Pharisee is a fool. You are right. But at this point you are about to run into another danger. You probably conclude that he is also a rare breed of fool- that the number of people who would so blindly refuse to recognize such a happy issue out of all their afflictions has got to be small. There you are wrong. We all refuse to see it. Or better said, while we sometimes catch a glimpse of it, our love of justification by works is so profound that at the first opportunity we run from the strange light of grace back to the familiar darkness of the law.
You do not believe me? I shall prove it to you: the publican goes down to his house justified rather than the other. Well and good, you say; yes indeed. But let me follow him now in your mind's eye as he goes though the ensuing week and comes once again to the temple to pray. What is it you want to see him doing those seven days? What does your moral sense tell you he ought at least to accomplish? Are you not itching, as his spiritual adviser, to urge him into another line of work- something perhaps a little more upright than putting the arm on his fellow countrymen for fun and profit? In short, do you not feel compelled to insist on at least a little reform?
To help you be as clear as possible about your feelings, let me set you two exercises. For the first, take him back to the temple one week later. And have him go back there with nothing in his life reformed: walk him in this week as he walked in last- after seven full days of skimming, wenching, and high-priced Scotch. Put him through the same routine: eyes down, breast smitten, God be merciful, and all that. Now then. I trust you see that on the basis of the parable as told, God will not mend his divine ways any more than the Publican did his wicked ones. He will do this week exactly what he did last: God, in short, will send him down to his house justified. The question in this first exercise is, do you like that? And the answer, of course, is that you do not. You gag on the unfairness of it. That rat is getting off free.
(Pause: see my previous post about Romans 2 and the contempt for the richness of his kindness)
For the second exercise, therefore, take him back to the temple with at least some reform under his belt: no wenching this week perhaps, or drinking cheaper Scotch and giving the difference to the Heart Fund. What do you think now? What is it that you want God to do with him? Question him about the extent to which he has mended his ways? For what purpose? If God didn't count the Pharisee's impressive list, why should he bother with this two-bit one? Or do you want God to look on his heart, not his list, and commend him for good intentions at least? Why? The point of the parable was that the publican confessed that has was dead, not that his heart was in the right place. Why are you so bent on destroying the story by sending the publican back for his second visit with the Pharisee's speech in his pocket?
The honest answer is, that while you understand the thrust of the parable with your mind, your heart has a desperate need to believe its exact opposite. And so does mine. We all long to establish our identity by seeing ourselves as approved in other people's eyes. We spend our days preening ourselves before the mirror of their opinion so we will not have to think about the nightmare of appearing before them naked and uncombed. And we hate this parable because it says plainly that is is the nightmare that is the truth of our condition. We fear the publican's acceptance because we know precisely what it means. It means that we will never be free until we are dead to the whole business of justifying ourselves. But since that business is our life, that means not until we are dead.
Now then. The first thing to get off the table is the notion that this parable is simply a lesson in the virtue of humility. It is not. It is an instruction in the futility of religion- in the idleness of the proposition that there is anything at all you can do to put yourself right with God...
It is therefore not a recommendation to adopt a humble religious stance rather than a proud one; rather it is a warning to drop all religious stances- and all moral and ethical ones, too- when you try to grasp your justification before God...
Do you see now what Jesus is saying in this parable? He is saying that as far as the Pharisee's ability to win a game of justification with god is concerned, he is no better off than the publican. As a matter of fact, the Pharisee is worse off; because while they're both losers, the publican at least has the sense to recognize the fact and trust God's offer of a free drink. The point of the parable is that they are both dead, and their only hope is someone who can raise the dead.
"Ah but" you say, "is there no distinction to be made? Isn't the Pharisee somehow less further along in death that the publican? Isn't there some sense in which we can give him credit for the real goodness he has?"
To which I answer, you are making the same miscalculation as the Pharisee. Death is death...
If you now see my point, you no doubt conclude that the Pharisee is a fool. You are right. But at this point you are about to run into another danger. You probably conclude that he is also a rare breed of fool- that the number of people who would so blindly refuse to recognize such a happy issue out of all their afflictions has got to be small. There you are wrong. We all refuse to see it. Or better said, while we sometimes catch a glimpse of it, our love of justification by works is so profound that at the first opportunity we run from the strange light of grace back to the familiar darkness of the law.
You do not believe me? I shall prove it to you: the publican goes down to his house justified rather than the other. Well and good, you say; yes indeed. But let me follow him now in your mind's eye as he goes though the ensuing week and comes once again to the temple to pray. What is it you want to see him doing those seven days? What does your moral sense tell you he ought at least to accomplish? Are you not itching, as his spiritual adviser, to urge him into another line of work- something perhaps a little more upright than putting the arm on his fellow countrymen for fun and profit? In short, do you not feel compelled to insist on at least a little reform?
To help you be as clear as possible about your feelings, let me set you two exercises. For the first, take him back to the temple one week later. And have him go back there with nothing in his life reformed: walk him in this week as he walked in last- after seven full days of skimming, wenching, and high-priced Scotch. Put him through the same routine: eyes down, breast smitten, God be merciful, and all that. Now then. I trust you see that on the basis of the parable as told, God will not mend his divine ways any more than the Publican did his wicked ones. He will do this week exactly what he did last: God, in short, will send him down to his house justified. The question in this first exercise is, do you like that? And the answer, of course, is that you do not. You gag on the unfairness of it. That rat is getting off free.
(Pause: see my previous post about Romans 2 and the contempt for the richness of his kindness)
For the second exercise, therefore, take him back to the temple with at least some reform under his belt: no wenching this week perhaps, or drinking cheaper Scotch and giving the difference to the Heart Fund. What do you think now? What is it that you want God to do with him? Question him about the extent to which he has mended his ways? For what purpose? If God didn't count the Pharisee's impressive list, why should he bother with this two-bit one? Or do you want God to look on his heart, not his list, and commend him for good intentions at least? Why? The point of the parable was that the publican confessed that has was dead, not that his heart was in the right place. Why are you so bent on destroying the story by sending the publican back for his second visit with the Pharisee's speech in his pocket?
The honest answer is, that while you understand the thrust of the parable with your mind, your heart has a desperate need to believe its exact opposite. And so does mine. We all long to establish our identity by seeing ourselves as approved in other people's eyes. We spend our days preening ourselves before the mirror of their opinion so we will not have to think about the nightmare of appearing before them naked and uncombed. And we hate this parable because it says plainly that is is the nightmare that is the truth of our condition. We fear the publican's acceptance because we know precisely what it means. It means that we will never be free until we are dead to the whole business of justifying ourselves. But since that business is our life, that means not until we are dead.
how to condemn yourself
Romans 1 continues on about the wrath of God.
about exchanging the truth about God for a lie.
worshiping and serving things rather than the Creator
about being filled with every kind of wickedness (a great word):
evil, greed and depravity.
Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice.
about being gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful
etc etc etc
It then continues into Romans 2, which is a little bit interesting
"You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, FOR AT WHATEVER POINT YOU JUDGE ANOTHER, YOU ARE CONDEMNING YOURSELF, BECAUSE YOU WHO PASS JUDGMENT DO THE SAME THINGS"
Holy shit.
"Or do you show contempt for the richness of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?"
which lead me into what I was reading today in my current book...
about exchanging the truth about God for a lie.
worshiping and serving things rather than the Creator
about being filled with every kind of wickedness (a great word):
evil, greed and depravity.
Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice.
about being gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful
etc etc etc
It then continues into Romans 2, which is a little bit interesting
"You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, FOR AT WHATEVER POINT YOU JUDGE ANOTHER, YOU ARE CONDEMNING YOURSELF, BECAUSE YOU WHO PASS JUDGMENT DO THE SAME THINGS"
Holy shit.
"Or do you show contempt for the richness of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?"
which lead me into what I was reading today in my current book...
Thursday, May 6, 2010
God's wrath against sinful humanity
Romans 1:18
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of human beings who suppress the truth by their wickedness...
When I read this this morning I was struck by a few things.
First, the convenient 'title' that came before it. God's wrath against sinful humanity (of course there were a lot more capital letters in the title...)
Secondly I was struck by what the verse didn't say.
It doesn't read
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all human beings who suppress the truth by their wickedness...
It doesn't even read
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godless and wicked human beings who suppress the truth by their wickedness...
Interesting?!
It does talk about wrath being revealed. Revealed seems a strange choice of word (a more in depth word study should probably follow...). Revealed, to me, has positive connotations. Wrath does not.
It also, most interestingly, talks of how this wrath will be revealed against (again, 'against' puts another tick in the negative connotations column. Wish it had said 'towards' instead) the characteristics of human beings (their godlessness and wickedness). It does not say it will be revealed against humanity itself...(does it?)
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of human beings who suppress the truth by their wickedness...
When I read this this morning I was struck by a few things.
First, the convenient 'title' that came before it. God's wrath against sinful humanity (of course there were a lot more capital letters in the title...)
Secondly I was struck by what the verse didn't say.
It doesn't read
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all human beings who suppress the truth by their wickedness...
It doesn't even read
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godless and wicked human beings who suppress the truth by their wickedness...
Interesting?!
It does talk about wrath being revealed. Revealed seems a strange choice of word (a more in depth word study should probably follow...). Revealed, to me, has positive connotations. Wrath does not.
It also, most interestingly, talks of how this wrath will be revealed against (again, 'against' puts another tick in the negative connotations column. Wish it had said 'towards' instead) the characteristics of human beings (their godlessness and wickedness). It does not say it will be revealed against humanity itself...(does it?)
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
How?
So I've started reading Romans. (Also I moved home 4 months ago and am now living in a house in Belfast!!)
Not sure why but I think it was because I want to start getting serious about my upcoming studies in September and Romans is a serious book??!!
Anyway, I've been struck even in the opening passage about how many times Paul talks about being called by God.
'Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle...'
'Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all Gentiles to faith and obedience'
'To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people'
and that's just in the first 7 verses!!
I'm sure I'll do a word study on it one day (perhaps) soon. But right now, I have some questions...
Paul was called to be an Aposlte. Called. That seems a strange word. Told more likely? His calling couldn't have been more obvious and, in a way, easier,
'As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him...I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting...now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do'
Paul heard a literal out-loud voice. Bastard! I wish that would happen to me.
But what about me?
Does God call me?
To every little small detail?
Or just to the 'big' things?
What about freedom?
And most important personally, HOW do i know?
Because after all, we don't all meet God on the Damascus road (despite what some people like to think)
For Paul it was certain.
Not sure I feel certain about this stuff very often.
What if I'm wrong?
Thinking I'm called to something but I'm not?
Yes, God is big enough to deal with this kind of stuff- these misunderstandings.
I've moved back home to a community of beleivers who have a bottom line. And the bottom line is 'has God called you to this?'
It's a good bottom line to have.
One that I missed in Reno. Because without this question people can feel much more free to come and go when certain things hit certain fans. Without this bottom line, this question of God's calling which underlines an entire way of life, can there truly be community? Truly be accountability? Truly be commitment?
My question is HOW do i know? (People here would use the word discern)
My question to that would be what is discernment?
How do I discern?
How do I come to a place where i can be certain about my discerment?
The bottom line for me right now is how do I know if I'm called?
Or rather,
if we assume God is calling everyone (and everything) to something
HOW do I know what He's calling me to?
Not sure why but I think it was because I want to start getting serious about my upcoming studies in September and Romans is a serious book??!!
Anyway, I've been struck even in the opening passage about how many times Paul talks about being called by God.
'Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle...'
'Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all Gentiles to faith and obedience'
'To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people'
and that's just in the first 7 verses!!
I'm sure I'll do a word study on it one day (perhaps) soon. But right now, I have some questions...
Paul was called to be an Aposlte. Called. That seems a strange word. Told more likely? His calling couldn't have been more obvious and, in a way, easier,
'As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him...I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting...now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do'
Paul heard a literal out-loud voice. Bastard! I wish that would happen to me.
But what about me?
Does God call me?
To every little small detail?
Or just to the 'big' things?
What about freedom?
And most important personally, HOW do i know?
Because after all, we don't all meet God on the Damascus road (despite what some people like to think)
For Paul it was certain.
Not sure I feel certain about this stuff very often.
What if I'm wrong?
Thinking I'm called to something but I'm not?
Yes, God is big enough to deal with this kind of stuff- these misunderstandings.
I've moved back home to a community of beleivers who have a bottom line. And the bottom line is 'has God called you to this?'
It's a good bottom line to have.
One that I missed in Reno. Because without this question people can feel much more free to come and go when certain things hit certain fans. Without this bottom line, this question of God's calling which underlines an entire way of life, can there truly be community? Truly be accountability? Truly be commitment?
My question is HOW do i know? (People here would use the word discern)
My question to that would be what is discernment?
How do I discern?
How do I come to a place where i can be certain about my discerment?
The bottom line for me right now is how do I know if I'm called?
Or rather,
if we assume God is calling everyone (and everything) to something
HOW do I know what He's calling me to?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
