the Law

So I'm reading a new book -Christ's Fulfillment of Torah and Temple- Salvation according to Thomas Aquinas. I've started it under John's recommendation to help me begin to systematise my thoughts and theology in a healthy way (I am oh too familiar with how unhealthy oversystemising can be...so helpfully that realization will allow me to keep a sense of wonder and awe and prevent me from putting God into too many boxes...)

anyway, I've always had a bit of difficulty when it came to understand 'the Law' when I came to look at it in the Bible and try to think of how it apples to me today and some of what I have found here has been helpful. Levering talks of how Aquinas divides the Mosaic Law into three kinds of precepts- moral, ceremonial and judicial and he talks of how the latter two came to an end with Christ.

I find this helpful, although I still have questions and difficulties- how do we decide which laws fit into which category? He explains the separations, and on the face of it the whole idea seems quite straightforward. But as I began to think about it more and try to put a day-to-day practical face on the idea, I had difficulty doing so- what would a good example be of some of the ceremonial and judicial laws which are no longer relevant but which we still strive after today?

I have a feeling that a lot of the unnecessary, painful, ridiculous, religious (in a bad sense) and just plain hairpullingly stupid things that I see going on in the Church and world around me (and within me) has got to come about from us following ideas, principles (laws if you will) that have already been fulfilled by Jesus- I just have a hard time thinking of an example (0r 10).

I plan to give this more thought because I feel that this is key to my past experience with the church and maybe even evangelical Christianity- I just cannot fully articulate it yet...

Love

is content to wait
takes things slowly
looks good without makeup
doesn't worry that it might not have anything to say right now
looks you in the eye during the awkward, difficult silences
is quietly hopeful
does not love with an agenda or selfish desires
breaks down and builds up
keeps even the hardest moments in perspective
lives and dies
wins
knows where the lines are but is not defined by them
is ok when feelings cant be put into words
shows we are lovable
risks
hardly thinks of itself
helps, at times to forget about our problems
and makes other problems beautiful
is not afraid to ask questions
and is not scared of not getting an answer right away

Sheena

So Sheena has been encouraging me to write about me and my own thoughts instead of just always quoting from books. While I agree with her, it is definitely more difficult, for a lot of different reasons. So as an attempt to get there, I thought I'd begin that journey by quoting myself from my old journals

I like to re-read through my old journals every now and then, for a lot of different reasons. I thought I'd share my first mention of Sheena in a Matthew Dick journal- from the summer of confusion that was 2004:

"17/7

Why?

I am writing about what has been begging of me for what seems like an eternity, yet it has been, comparatively, for a moment.

A time when I have made a decision not to, I have. I am afraid to mention particulars- even here- and why? Even if someone where to read this...part of me wishes someone would, then I could talk to them...

It is consuming, everything has become secondary, everything but You- and that is why I have come to You now, when there seems to be no-one else.

I am feeling trapped- trapped by expectations- of mine and of others- by decisions I have made and possibly regret?

I don't even really know her, yet she is always in my thoughts, indirectly in my plans. A beauty with which I have never truly conversed, until now. a beauty within and without. I struggle to write of feelings, perhaps a first- afraid, of what, perhaps more relevant- of whom?

Help me here- I don't ask that you take this away, for I fear the knowledge, or lack thereof, of never knowing if she feels the same would be worse than the personal denial itself.

A loneliness has begun to show itself- has it been here the whole time- or is it presenting itself because of these new desires- new thoughts? Is this ridiculous? Perhaps this is the reason of the fear of someone else reading this- that what I have is an immature, storybook, unrealistic (unGodly?) love for someone?

Love, I wrote it! Yet I hardly know her- but never have I been engulfed with the thoughts (not even images) of one whom I know so little. I decided to write here to see where I ended, my thoughts would become somewhat clearer, even less numerous.

Is it becoming a sign from You to help me with the Affiliate decision- or will this just pass away like it did at Christmas- a large, large part, no, all my being, begs that it won't pass- and with more than my being I cry out that I will not be rejected- but for that to happen I would have to build more of a relationship- something hard to do without hurting people, especially amongst the mutterings, her past, raised eyebrows, envy, commitments made before my arrival, before I began to know her, set-ups, match making, obsessions with relationships to an extents where people will make sacrifices which would not normally be made. Are these barriers of You or of you?

I am ready to explode- this is totally illogical, unreasonable or is it?

Is this why you sent me this summer, or am I totally missing the plot- it's hard to HIYA here with my mind elsewhere.

I won't talk to the one closest to me here because I...well I don't know why- it seems she has plans for me and anything which doesn't fit into it, she doesn't want to know about it.

I have thought all day about her, spending next summer with her, yet not an impure thought and this realisation only occurs now as I write- just being with her, spending time, time...so precious, so often wasted, over-valued, under-valued?

When I'm down...

Is this the first time I have been completely honest with my pen? Yet I can't even write her name...?!"

Tash

“So I went over much grass and many flowers and among all kinds of wholesome and delectable trees till lo! In a narrow place between two rocks there came to meet me a great Lion. The speed of him was like the ostrich, and his size was an elephant’s; his hair was like pure gold and the brightness of his eyes, like gold that is liquid in the furnace. He was more terrible than the Flaming Mountain of Lagour, and in beauty he surpassed all that is in the world, even as the rose in bloom surpasses the dust of the desert.

Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him.

But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou are welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of Thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service to me.

Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false.

Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him, for I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then thought he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted.

Dost thou understand, Child? I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou shouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek."

The Greatest Calling?

When you were born
Our hearts were so full of happiness
That there was no room in us
for words.

When you were growing
Our hearts were so full of care for you
That we spoke soothingly
And sometimes sharply,
Fearful for your safety,
But always- in the deepest places
of our hearts
We spoke lovingly.

Today, as we watch you
Moving forward with your friends
We marvel at all you have done
And become.
Our spirits sing praise to God
For the gift that is you.
And, though our hearts
Have stretched to love others,
yet, there is a place within us
That is yours, and only yours
Always.

For the light you have shone on us
For the life you have called us to,
For the special gift of God you are
now, and will ever be

Thank You

The First of the Misnamed Parables...the good samaritan

'I suppose I had best lay my cards face up right here. To me, the central figure in the parable is not the Samaritan. He is simply one of the three characters in the story who have the opportunity to display neighbourliness as Jesus defines it. The defining character- the one to whom the other three respond by being non-neighbour or neighbor- is the man who fell among thieves. The actual Christ-figure in the story, therefore is yet another loser, yet another down-and outer who, by just lying there in his lostness and proximity to death...is in fact the closest thing to Jesus in the parable.

That runs counter, of course, to the better part of two thousand years' worth of interpretation, but I shall insist on it. This parable, like so many of Jesus' most telling ones, has been egregiously misnamed. It is not primarily about the Samaritan but about the man on the ground (just as the Prodigal Son is not about a boy's sins but about his father's forgiveness, and just as the Laborers in the Vineyard is not about the workers but about the beneficent vineyard-owner)...

What I am most concerned to skewer at this point is precisely the theological mischief caused by the misnaming of this parable. Calling it the Good Samaritan inevitably sets up its hearers to take it as a story whose hero offers them a good example for imitation. I am, of course, aware of the fact that Jesus ends the parable precisely on the note of imitation: "You, too, go and do likewise." But the common, good-works interpretation of the imitation to which Jesus invites us all too easily gives the Gospel a fast shuffle. True enough, we are called to imitation. But imitation of what, exactly? Is it not the imitatio Christi, the following of Jesus? And is not that following of him far more than just a matter of doing kind acts? Is it not the following of him into the only mystery that can save the world, namely, his passion, death, and Resurrection? Is it not, tout court, the taking up of his cross?

Therefore, if you want to say that the parable of the Good Samaritan tells us to imitate the Samaritan in his sharing of the passion and near-death of the man who fell among thieves- if you want to read his selfless actions as so many ways in which he took the outcastness and lostness of the Christ-figure on the ground into his own outcast and losing life- then I will let you have imitation as one of the main themes of the parable. But please note that such an interpretations is not at all what people generally have in mind when the subjects of imitating the Good Samaritan is broached to them. What their minds instantly go to is something quite different, something that is utterly destructive of the notion of grace that works only by death and resurrection. Because what they imagine themselves called upon to imitate is not a mystery of lostness and death graspable only by left-handed faith; rather it is a mere plausibility- a sensible if slightly heroic career of successful care-giving based on the performances of right-handed good works.

What is wrong with that? Quite simply, it blows the Good News right out of the water. For if the world could have been saved by providing good examples to which we could respond with appropiately good works, it would have been saved an hour and twenty minutes after Moses came down from Mt. Sinai...

Jesus' whole parable, especially with its piling up of detail after detail of extreme, even irrational, behaviour on the part of the Samaritan, points not to the meritorious exercises of good will but to the sharing of the passion as the main thrust of the story. What is to be imitated in the Samaritan's action is not his moral uprightness in doing good deeds but his spiritual insight into the truly bizarre working of the mystery of redemption. The lawyer is told by Jesus, in effect, to stop trying to live and to be willing to die...'

Inspiration and it's Critics

During my studies at undergrad, I always struggled with such topics as 'The Search for the Historical Jesus' or some of the Jesus Seminar stuff.

For those of us who are quite unfamiliar, according to Wiki,

The Jesus Seminar is a group of about 150 individuals, including scholars with advanced degrees in biblical studies, religious studies or related fields as well as published authors who are notable in the field of religion, founded in 1985 by the late Robert Funk and John Dominic Crossan under the auspices of the Westar Institute.^[1] One of the most active groups in biblical criticism,^[2] the seminar uses votes with colored beads to decide their collective view of the historicity of Jesus, specifically what he may or may not have said and done as a historical figure.^[3] In addition, the seminar popularizes the quest for the historical Jesus. The public is welcome to attend the twice-yearly meetings. They produced new translations of the New Testament and apocrypha to use as textual sources.

The seminar's reconstruction of the historical Jesus portrays him as an itinerant Hellenistic Jewish sage who did not die as a substitute for sinners nor rise from the dead, but preached a "social gospel" in startling parables and aphorisms. An iconoclast, Jesus broke with established Jewish theological dogmas and social conventions both in his teachings and behaviors, often by turning common-sense ideas upside down, confounding the expectations of his audience: He preached of "Heaven's imperial rule" (traditionally translated as "Kingdom of God") as being already present but unseen; he depicts God as a loving father; he fraternizes with outsiders and criticizes insiders.

While my classes and teaching on all this may not have been as extreme as the description above, I always got bothered with what they were saying fundamentally about the Bible and about it's inspiration specifically.

While I try to have a trampoline understanding of God rather than a wall (see Rob Bell), I feel that the inspiration of Scripture is a Truth I hold onto which I am not yet willing to really deconstruct or question seriously. For now, a bit like the trinity, not only am I quite content to trust those before me who have articulated such doctrine, but more importantly, I really don't worry about it all too much because for me, my relationship with God is more personal and experiential than it is logical or reasonable.

However, I was reminded of my Jesus Seminar frustrations when I agreed with Capon,

'As far as I am concerned, the Jesus of the Gospels is the only available Jesus there is and it is idle to postulate any other, no matter how likely such a Jesus may seem on the grounds of form criticism or historical surmise. For my money, it was over the literary presentation of this Jesus of the Gospels that the Holy Spirit brooded when inspiring the Scriptures; the same cannot be said for subsequent literary efforts on Jesus' behalf. If the presentation we accept by trusting biblical inspiration is in error, then not only are we stuck with it; we will never even (on any basis "inspired" or "factual") be able to say exactly what it is in error about'

Why I want to study and teach theology

'A certain couple once built a house. They set it on solid foundations and made it proof against all weathers. But in their haste to take up occupancy, they made no provision for access to the front door. To enter, they simply leaped up onto the doorstill and yanked themselves in. As they began to feel more at home, however, they decided to make their comings and goings more convenient. First, they built a short flight of steps. These served well for a while, but eventually they replaced them with a small, plainish porch on which they could sit and contemplate the excellences of their house. In good weather, they even entertained friends there with wine, cheese, and conversation.

Soon enough, though, they tore down this porch and built a much lager one. They gave it a roof supported by carpenter Gothic columns; they surrounded it with intricate railing; they provided it with a wide, low-pitched staircase; and they decorated it everywhere with gingerbread ornamentation.

Many years passed, during which they enjoyed both the porch and the house. But then, on a cold and stormy night, the woman came to the man as he sat by the fire and shook a sheaf of bills in front of him. "Have you ever considered," she said annoyedly, "how much we spend on the upkeep of our porch? For something that's usable only four months of the year- and not even then, if one of us is sick- the cost-benefit ratio is appalling. Between the dry rot and the peeling paint, not to mention the lawsuit your friend Arthur brought against us when he caught his ankle in the gap left by those missing boards, it's more trouble than it's worth. Tear it down and let's go back to the way we started: no porch, no steps, no nothing; just up into the house by one leap."

My parable, obviously, is about the relationship between faith and theologizing. Equally obviously, it is more an allegory than a parable...the house in which the couple lived represents faith- the simple act of deciding to trust Jesus...on the other hand, the various accesses, plain steps or fancy porches, that they added to their house stand for out attempts at theologizing- that is, for any and all of the explanations we come up with when we try to render our house of faith more intelligible, more attractive, or more acceptable to the intellectual tastes of our neighbours or friends.

Inevitably, any author who tries to interpret Jesus' parables will spend most of his time on the porch. He will, of course, take it for granted that there is a house of faith to which the porch should remain firmly attached, and he will, if he is wise, make it clear that only the house can provide a completely safe place in which to live. Nevertheless, since the woman in my parable came to such a dim view of porches, a few comments on her objections would seem to be in order...

It is tempting simply to agree with her. So much of what both the world and the Church consider to be essential message of the Gospel is simply interpretation. It is generally assumed that Christianity teaches that people cannot be saved unless they accept some correct, or at least some Official Boy Scout, understanding of what Jesus did or said. Take the atonement, for example- the scriptural insistence that our sins are forgiven by trusting a Jesus who died on the cross and rose from the dead. The usual view is that this trust inevitably involves accepting some intellectual formulation of how Jesus' death and resurrection could possibly have achieved such a happy issue out of all our afflictions. You know: he was able to bring it off because he was both God and man and so he could bridge the gulf that sin had put between the two; or, his death was effective because it was a ransom paid to the devil; or, it did the job because the power of his sacrificial example softened even hard hearts and moved people to better behaviour; or, his resurrection solved the problem of sin because it brought about a new creation in which sin had no place. The point is not whether any of those interpretations is true, or even adequate (some are more so, some less); it is that none of them is strictly necessary for laying hold of the atonement Jesus offers. All you need for that is to believe in him...your subsequent understanding of how such a simple yes can do so vast a work may make you glad, sad, scared, or mad; but in no case can it be what saves you- or, for that matter, condemns you...

Still, interpretation, like porch-building, is practically inevitable. We are, after all, thinking beings, and we think about everything we do, up to and including the act of faith: almost no one lives out an entire lifetime simply by leaping into the ungarnished doorway of the house of faith. Accordingly, the woman in my parable was advocating a rather more austere lifestyle than most of us are in fact willing to put up with. Let's see, then- assuming that her husband took exception to her comprehensive demolition plans- what might be said for his more tolerant view of the situation.

...To begin with, it is mostly just a fun thing to do in good company on a warm afternoon when your kidney stones are not acting up. If it is taken much more seriously than that- if it is seen as the center from which life derives meaning- it will fail us in precise proportion to our need to make it succeed...

Once someone devises a system or theme for building the porch to his faith, the temptation is to continue the work of construction whether it serves the purposes of the house or not. Hence all the theologies that manage to take the Gospel of grace- of forgiveness freely offered to everyone on the basis of no works at all- and convert it into the bad news of a religion that offers salvation only to the well-behaved. Hence, too, all the moralistic interpretations of the parables: sermons on the duty of contentment from the Laborers in the Vineyard, and little lessons in loveliness from the parable of the Good Samaritan...

Still, having made those concessions, the man in my parable would insist that porch-building, whether it is inevitable, worthwhile, tasteful, expensive, or not, is a fact. Most people who have faith have some intellectual structure tacked in front of it. But precisely because that is true, those who invite others to visit or stay in their house of faith are faced with a difficulty: the only way to get guests to the door is to walk them across the porch. Theologizing may not be a saving proposition, but it lies between almost everybody and the Saving Proposition Himself.

Accordingly, he would point out that there is something to be said, no matter how much or how little porch you have on your faith, for keeping that structure as attractive and sound as you can...above all, its floorboards must be all in place and all nailed down tight. It will not do for anyone to leave spaces in the decking- to install only the scriptural boards he likes and to omit those he doesn't'. A theological porch must include every side of every scriptural paradox. A system, for example, that is all love and no wrath is no better than one that is all wrath and no love. In either case, the unsuspecting guest is liable to break an ankle because of what was left out.
But enough. My parable was as much, ro more, for me as for you. If you will try not to insist that my porch be exactly like yours, I shall resist the temptaion to force mine on you. All i really care about is that both our structures have no missing boards...'

The Treasure and the Pearl

"All the children of Adam- all human beings, at all times, and in all places- are in the kingdom business, shopping night and day for the mystery of the city of God. Oh, true enough, like any random group of shoppers, they have their share of gullibility, questionable taste, and proneness to buy what's in the store rather than wait for what they're really looking for. But they are shopping. And they are, as often as not, quite willing to put their money where their heart's desire is. They are not simply a bunch of cheapskates; and they do not, given half a chance to see some first-rate goods, simply fob off the storekeeper with an 'Oh, we're just looking'...

...It is catholic not only because the mystery it proclaims is already hidden everywhere but because the market for the mystery is a catholic market".

Forgiveness and Permission and our addiction to Eschatology

"A good many Christian theologians, even among those who know Greek, have managed to miss the point completely. Indeed, the first objection usually raised to letting evil be- let alone to forgiving it- takes the form of agitated moralistic hand-wringing: 'But if you simply tell people in advance that they're going to be forgiven, won't they just go straight out and take that as permission to sin? Don't we have to keep them scared out of their wits by continually harping on the big difference between forgiveness and permission? '

I have a number of replies to that. The first is, 'What big difference? In Greek, the same word is used for both.' The second is, 'There's no difference between them at all. If you're an utterly serious forgiver, and if you make your forgiving disposition known to a solid brass snake-in-the-grass, he will obviously play you for the sucker you are as often as he feels like it: what do you think the world, the flesh, and the devil thought about a Jesus who died on the cross instead of nuking his enemies?' The third is, 'What on earth are you talking about? God, in the act of creating you, gave you permission to do any damned fool thing you could manage to bring off. Forgiveness neither increases nor decreases the level of God's permissiveness; instead, it just fishes us out of the otherwise inescapable quicksand we so stupidly got ourselves into and says "There! Isn't that better!" ' My fourth and final reply, though, is, ' Of course there's a difference; and it's a whopping one. But since that makes no difference at all to either the farmer in the parable or to Jesus on the cross- or, for that matter, to any Christian committed to forgiving his skunk of a brother seventy times seven times- why harp on it?'

'...Oh, of course. I know that by now you are mighty tired of all this emphasis on the Divine Sweetness. You are just itching to remind me that at the harvest, the weeds are going to be bound up in bundles and burned in an appropriately eschatological fire. And so they are. And to finish off the text, so is the wheat going to be gatehered into the barn. But if I may try your patience just one minute more, let me ask you to consider the proportions of this parable as Jesus first tells it. The words that you have all along been holding your breath to hear constitute only two thirds of its final verse. The rest of the parabel- Matthew 13:24-30a- is entirely about the aphesis of evil, not about the avenging of it...

...the human race is hooked on eschatology: give us one drag on it, and we proceed to party away our whole forigven life in fantasies about a final score-settling session that none of us, except for forgiveness, could possibly survive'

More weeds and wheat- the problem of evil...

'The weeds may not be real wheat, but they look just like it; if the servants can be inveigled into taking up arms against them, a truly catholic and actual disaster can be brewed.

And one almost is. Coming to the farmer, the servants are totally preoccupied with the problem of evil, "you sowed good seed in you field, didn't you, Sir?" they ask him. "Where then did the weeds come from?" Just like two thousand years' worth of Christian theologians- though more excusably, perhaps, since the workers were ignorant of the crucifixion- their first intellectual efforts are directed, not to finding out how they should act in the presence of evil, but to looking for an explanation of it that they can understand'

Pulling Weeds

As I finished The Colours of God, the parable of the weeds from Matthew 13 was very much in my mind. They provided me with some interesting insight and things to ponder.

They talked of how God says to us here that we don't have the capacity to make a distinction between what is truly good and what is truly evil; between the wheat and the weeds, 'In other words, God is saying, "I'm not wigged out by the fact that there's evil and good growing together. As a matter of fact, in your well-intentioned attempts to root out the weeds, you're actually pulling out more of the good than the bad- please, just leave the whole field alone." He's telling us not to be weed-pullers...hands off, trying to rid the world of all evil and start getting okay with living in a world of risk and potential harm. God is telling us to relax and just go in and enjoy the field...'

Then as I re-continued this current book (see last post) I came upon additional thoughts which I thought I'd share (although he's making perhaps a different point, he is talking about the same story),

'As the parable develops it's point, though, the enemy turns out not to need anything more than negative power. He has to act only minimally on his own to wreak havoc in the world; mostly he depends on the force of goodness, insofar as he can sucker them into taking up arms against the confusion he has introduced, to do his work. That is precisely why the enemy goes away after sowing the weeds: he has no need whatsoever to hang around. Unable to take positive action anyway- having no real power to muck up the operation- he simply sprinkles around a generous helping of darkness and waits for the children of light to get flustered enough to do the job for him. Goodness itself, in other words, if it is sufficiently committed to plausible, right-handed, strong-arm methods, will in the very name of goodness do all and more than all that evil ever had in mind'.

virtually and actually

So, I've finished The Colours of God and have gone back to a book I had started reading a couple of times before (only this time I'm determined to finish it!). It's called Kingdom, Grace, Judgment- Paradox, Outrage, and Vindication in the Parables of Jesus and is written by a guy called Robert Farrar Capon.

http://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Grace-Judgment-Vindication-Parables/dp/0802839495

My memories are that this book is awesome (although I'm not sure why I haven't finished it, maybe for the same reasons I have never finished the Divine Conspiracy...?!). It's one of those books that has been recommended or mentioned in a bibliography by a lot of authors I respect and love. So...

'The history of Christian thought is riddled with virtualism. "Sure", we have said, "the Lamb of God has taken away all the sins of the world." But then we have proceeded to give the impression that unless people did something special to activate it, his forgiveness would remain only virtually, not actually, theirs. Think of some things we have said to people. We have told them that unless they confessed to a priest, or had the sacrifice of the mass applied specifically to their case, or accepted Jesus in the correct denominational terms- or hit the sawdust trail, did penance, cried their eyes out, or straightened up and flew right- the seed, who is the Word present everywhere in all his forgiving power, might just as well not really have been sown'.

What do we think?

so no disappointment, how about grieving?

'I love the word grieve because it sets up the conversation far better than the language of disappointment. The word disappointment, as we've articulated before, puts forward this idea of an expectation unmet; however , the word grieve has none of that. The word grieve has to do with a sense of sadness or a sense of something that is somehow diminished.

Right, it's about a sense of loss. So, here's God who created us and his Spirit lives inside of us. When we get into a pattern of behavior that seriously hurts us or others, the Spirit of God feels sad, he grieves the loss of the happiness and fulfillment we could be experiencing. It's like when someone has died at a young age, we don't say' "oh, you let me down, I'm so disappointed in you"; it doesn't even make any sense. But instead, I'm sad, I'm grieving because I might think he was so young and I miss him and the life he should have led. That's the sense of loss I'm talking about'

I love this book!

Right, I'm off for a run...

run fat boy run

so I've been training for a half marathon...

it all started in may of 2008. It was the last high school night of my church youth intern career and I was speaking. I talked on your body being a temple and as usual attempted to deconstruct it way too much. Only this time I felt I was onto something...and not only that, for once I felt like I was talking to myself as much as to the students (sad I know)

I talked of how we miss so much of what God has for us individually when we understand verses like this simply in terms of abstaining from sex. While this is probably something worthwhile, I talked of how there was so much more...if our bodies truly are a temple of God, then...what about what we eat? what about how much we eat? what about what we do after we eat? what about why we eat? what about how much time we sit on our backsides and watch tv or play pro ev? what about the time we goto bed? what about the time we get up? what about exercise? what about what we watch on tv... you get the idea?!

and it spoke to me

and i did absolutely nothing about it.


then 7 months later I went home for Christmas. at the time i was a top notch 205 pounds (14.5 stone). which is way more than i had ever weighed before. And, as only northern Ireland people can do, everyone seemingly made me aware of my chin and my overweightness! It was definitely true, and at the heart of it was a lifestyle of god-knows-how-long laziness. Fortunately, I didn't really fall into my usual insecurities and subsequent depression. Mainly because I think I was able to see God using all the abuse as reminding me of the talk I gave 7 months ago.

now, i really hate running. I mean REALLY hate it. It's so boring. I love sports- I'll play anything that can occupy my brain- where I can think (and by think I mean look for the closest and best player to hack on a football pitch and work out how i can do it without getting caught...). But that's the problem with running- there's no passes to make, no runs into the box to wish I could make, no set plays...just running

but I came back home to Reno in mid January amid Sheena signing up for new classes...one of which was a marathon class.

I decided to do it for a number of reasons.

For one, I think i managed to convince her to lower it to a half marathon. It was also a perfect opportunity to work on that templeness daily. Before I knew it I was buying ridiculously overpriced shoes, eating daily shakes of pure fruit, counting calories, eating healthily, running 5 or 6 times a week and very occasionally I even enjoyed it (although those occasions where about as infrequent as Rafa rotating his squad.) It was also a really good opportunity for me to commit to something (something which I'm not so hot at) and not only that, but to commit to something I absolutely hate (which for me is huge! As a big advocate of the 'if you don't enjoy it don't do it' rule for life, there was something profound for me to be doing something purely, or mainly, because I had committed to it!)

About mid to late March I was absolutely cruising. I had even beaten my goal for a race time during one practice run (i think this was the only run I enjoyed and definitely couldn't have done it without U2's newly released album). I finished the 13.1 miles in 1hr52 minutes i think it was- which destroyed my goal of 2hrs for may!!

Subsequently however, I have stopped. I'm not sure why, but it kinda just happened. It's been like 3 or 4 weeks I think. I was happy with myself, I was quite proud in fact (in a not too unhealthy way as well!) I had beaten my goal already and was eating healthily (plus my football season was starting too). But whatever...i stopped.

And I didn't really care either. The only time I felt bad was when Sheena got sad.

But somewhere deep down, there was still the commitment aspect. I had also fallen into my oft-lamented routine of drink lots of beer, stay up late, wake up late, sit around and play xbox most of the day. and this bothered me the most (although, thanks to my job at bjs i think, this time was not followed by the usual spiral of Matthew depression!!)

Which brought me today, when I was playing pro evo on my own with no-one in the house. I felt a little depressed- I could feel the spiral beginning to vortex it's way back into my skull and eventually my life. So I went outside into the ridiculous-makesmereallygladtoliveinreno type heat and read. here's some of what I read

'we think health should be defined holistically, not just "spiritually". I've met a lot of people who will say "It doesn't really matter whether your emotional life is in shambles, as long as your spirit is in good health, then you're fine"...we are holistic human beings. There's no such thing as health in one part and a disease in another part. If we are hurting, we are hurting in the whole person...you cannot be healthy spiritually, as it's constructed within modern Evangelical framework and a jerk to live with. So, in other words, if I am holistically connected or systemically connected, if I want to pursue spiritual health, I can do that sexually as my sexuality is part of the whole of me. If i get healthier sexually, I have ipso facto become healthier spiritually. If I am becoming clearer in my faith, that is more clear in my understating about God (i.e. spiritual health) I am ipso facto becoming more emotionally healthy. IF I AM PURSUING AN EXERCISE REGIMEN AND I'M PRACTICING GOOD NUTRITION AND MY BLOOD PRESSURE IS GOING DOWN, I AM IPSO FACTO BECOMING HEALTHIER SEXUALLY AND SPIRITUALLY. We are connected holistically like this'

And so I got off my lounger and went and ran a bit. And during the run I felt good, almost like I hadn't stopped. I enjoyed it and recommitted to run the half marathon next month!

so here's to my blood pressure or something...

zakar

So I go to my first day of hebrew class (warning- this is not a 'look at me I'm awesome, I know more about the bible than you cos I studied Hebrew story') and I'm so ready. I love languages for so many reasons...I'm not sure why.

And I will never forget what I learnt that day.

The first verb I was ever taught in Hebrew....?

to be, to have, to love, to forgive, to sacrifice, to pray, to give, to unblemish a lamb, to resurrect, to sanctificy, to transfigure, to save, to tithe...???

no

it was none of those...

the first verb i learnt...

was

remember.

I still remember how, with the little experience of other languages I had, this puzzled me.

Remember??

As the year(s) went on though it has began to make a little more sense.

That God always wants (commands, desires?) us to remember

Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. deut 5:15

Remember how the LORD your God led you all the way in the desert these forty years. deut 8:2

Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. deut 15:15

Do not eat it with bread made with yeast, but for seven days eat unleavened bread, the bread of affliction, because you left Egypt in haste—so that all the days of your life you may remember the time of your departure from Egypt. deut 16:3

Remember that you were slaves in Egypt, and follow carefully these decrees. deut 16:12

Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you from there. That is why I command you to do this. deut 24:18

Do you still not understand? Don't you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? matt 16:9

Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don't you remember? mark 8:18


Because what happens when I stop remembering?

I forget!

I forget about my uberblessed life
I forget about others
I forget that the world doesn't revolve around me
I forget that other people are more important
I forget about forgiveness
I forget about grace
I forget about peace
I forget about slowtoangerness
I forget about Love

and I think that's part of why remembering seems to be reasonably important to God

because as I continue to learn the art of remembering

life gains a little more perspective

and life is usually more beautiful with a little more perspective

remember

says it all...

does God get disappointed with us?

ok, so this may be a long one, part from a book i'm reading:

If I ask someone, 'does God love you?' Most people would answer yes, of course. He has to love me. He made me. However, if I change the question and ask if God ever gets disappointed in you, I get a much different answer. Most, I'd guess over 90% of Christians would say, 'Oh, yes- There are many times when He is disappointed in me'. It is this disconnect between saying that I believe God loves me and yet not feeling unconditionally loved that challenges the modern understanding of the Gospel. The sense that God can be disappointed in me reveals the performance ideas still resident in my theology. On an emotional level, when we've disappointed someone we care about, there is an unsettledness that goes on inside of us. Depending on how sensitive we are, it can get pretty intrusive and most of us feel like we need to do something to repair the relationship. sometimes this sense of obligation motivates us to make it right or apologise or whatever because we want to feel at peace again inside; sometimes the motivation is self-serving like with those who cannot tolerate conflict and negative emotions. Either way, this feeling usually moves us to repair the relationship. Now while this works fine in human relationships, it is absolutely mistaken when it comes to the Gospel. Because, for disappointment to exist, there must be some sort of prior expectation. We live with appropriate expectations all of the time in human relationships, but the Gospel says that Christ has fully met ALL the expectations and requirements of God on my behalf. If there are no expectations, then there can be no disappointment.

So what do you think? I was brought up all the time being told (in?)directly that I was never doing enough for God and (perhaps even unintentionally?) that He was therefore disappointed in me (as supposed to an unconditional guilt-free inabilty to be disappointed crazy love)

so far...

wow, not only 12 hours since i've started blogging and already I've seen it's (indirect) effects!! As I got off the freeway coming home from work there was a homeless guy standing on the exit under the bridge. I've seen this guy there before, not only him, but others too. Normally I will feel bad that I have no food to give him (I don't want to give him cash). Sometimes I will feel bad that I don't want to give him the food I am taking home from work. I never give him food. I just ignore his gaze. But today was different

I was thinking on the way home about what I was going to write here as a way to introduce myself a little more. I was remembering and thinking about my life (zakaring if you will- we will definitely get to that later). I felt tremendously lucky and very blessed (I hate that word for some reason). I was in a good place. So I gave him my food.

I even talked to my neighbour when I got home- I usually make any excuse to run inside and ignore her

beautiful