Monthly Archives: August 2013

The Theme of the Pentateuch

Leave a Reply

A book I found very helpful in comprehending the first five books of the Bible is The Theme of the Pentateuch, by David Clines.

Preparing for a church series on Genesis 12-22, I thought it good to re-read the relevant statement of the theme, as formulated by Clines. Here it is:

The theme of the Pentateuch is the partial fulfilment – which implies also the partial non-fulfilment – of the promise to or blessing of the patriarchs. The promise or blessing is both the divine initiative in a world where human initiatives always lead to disaster, and a re-affirmation of the primal divine intention for man.The promise has three elements: posterity divine-human relationship, and land. The posterity-element of the promise is dominant in Genesis 12-50, the relationship-element in Exodus and Leviticus, and the land-element in Numbers and Deuteronomy.

When reading any part of the Pentateuch, it’s productive to ask, ‘How does this part contribute to the whole theme and unfolding story?’ I hope we will do this at church over the next few weeks!

 ···•••···

An odd afterward. Clines’ book was re-published on its twentieth anniversary. He decided not to radically edit the original ten chapters, because he had changed thinking so greatly. Instead, he appended an eleventh chapter that says, in short, ‘I don’t think this any more.’

He now says there’s no such thing as a text’s meaning, no such thing as author’s intended meaning. Instead, meaning is created by readers: “the idea of responsibility to the author … fades away.” Why then did he write a book?!

The first edition of this book feels timeless and always useful. The second edition, 20 years later, feels already out of date because it was so tightly tied to yesterday’s postmodernism.

 


 

Ten laws of prayer, and one instruction

Leave a Reply
  1. Distraction was not invented by social media, but by a mind trying to pray
  2. The day you really can concentrate on morning prayer is also the day the fascinating colourful birds frolic outside the window
  3. The invisible cafe worker collects amazingly loud crockery the instant you pray with your friend
  4. Eyes closed for prayer causes amnesia for names, starting with people in the same room
  5. The quietest person when sharing prayer points has the loudest tummy rumbles in prayer time
  6. The moment for prayer is also the moment for long-lost friends to call or to send a text message – and the phone volume setting is 100%
  7. Our most accurate and complete shopping lists are assembled during prayer
  8. While finding the perfect Bible verse to pray for a friend, the copyright notice becomes strangely compelling reading
  9. We know exactly how many times he said “yeah, Lord”, but have no memory of what he asked God
  10. Everyone else sounds so heartfelt, and they never stumble in their words

So, says Jesus, stick at prayer!

And he told them a parable to the effect that they ought always to pray and not lose heart.

The parable is in Luke 18:1-8.

 


 

Quick review: A Short History of Secularism

Leave a Reply

A Short History of Secularism by Graeme Smith is both insightful and flawed. The insight, I think, does not undo the flaws. Neither do the flaws negate the insight.

This is Smith’s one point summary:

What I shall argue in this book, in very general terms, is that secularism is not the end of Christianity, nor is it a sign of the godless nature of the West. Rather, we should think of secularism as the latest expression of Christianity.

Instead of reviewing the whole book, I will highlight one big insight, and one significant flaw.

Insight
Smith challenges current assumptions about religious decline and the triumph of secularism.

The popular story (myth?) is that religious practice and devotion has, since its Middle Ages peak, been in decline. And that this decline has been accelerating with the rise of reason and science. Smith disagrees.

Instead, claims Smith, the reality is that Victorian religious observance was the exception. And the religious life of the Middle Ages was much more varied than any caricature allows – in fact, its complexity is comparable to the present. Hence, the ‘long decline’ point of view does not apply. Nor is it useful to compare observance now (or at any time) with the extraordinary data of the Victorian period.

What’s failed, says Smith, is atheism. The west may be secular, but those who identify as atheist are a small minority. It’s not the case that atheism is automatically linked with belief in a secular state.

Likewise, it’s not the case that failure to attend church means Christianity has no value. “What we have today is minority Christian activism, the 15 per sent or so who attend church, alongside majority passive Christian support, the 70 percent and more who claim some sort of Christian identity and express a vague support for the idea of a God.”

Smith’s insight means there’s no reason for unbelieving triumphalism, nor for believing no-hopism. (I’d say that believers need be wary of using a ‘no hope’ attitude to excuse a ‘no effort’ way of life. But’s that’s another matter!)

Flaw
The problem I had with Smith’s book – and this is some problem – is that it’s totally confused about what Christianity is. He coalesces Christianity with how Christianity is lived. For him, belief and practice are not merely related, they are identical.

Smith writes, “It is not possible to separate the ahistorical and transcendent from its immediate local expression.” The book therefore, assumes that Christianity is what Christians do. It is not, it seems, about the work of God in Jesus.

That is, Christianity is not expressed in a culture. Christianity is a culture. The trouble with this is that Christianity then becomes everything and nothing. ‘The technology of ethics – oh, that’s Christian, even though there’s no God-talk.’ ‘Respecting the existence of church, while not attending – that’s Christian too.’

I don’t think Smith needs to go down this path to indicate that Christianity is still active, even in a secular society. His book would still work with a better definition of Christianity. I think this cultural (and relativising) approach of Smith is his personal starting point. The shorthand for this is liberalism: answering religious questions by appeal to some aspect of humanity, rather than some aspect of divinity.

In summary: I’d recommend this book because it challenges some of the endemic secularism myths of the West, though it is not the place to go for a good description of Christianity.

 


 

 

Intelligent atheism

Leave a Reply

Here is a report of a meta-analysis (a gathering of many individual studies) that establishes a “reliable negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity”.

That is, atheists are smarter than believers.

Go ahead and read it – it’s an article with nuance. I worried that it might simply crow about superior IQ, but it avoids that. It recognises the cringe factor in raising the issue, the potential to be smug, or the possibility of defensiveness. It also touches on the complexity of finding causes for this association.

Intelligence

Credit: flickr user cjbaker4

I won’t repeat the points of the article here. Instead my starting point is the conclusion of this study, that higher intelligence correlates with agnostic or atheist beliefs. Given this, what can I say to atheists, and to Christians. (I limit myself to Christians, rather than the broader ‘religious’ group.)

Something for atheists
Firstly, intelligence does not automatically make for good arguments. An intelligent person can (and will) hold to crazy wrong ideas.

I am amazed that so many intelligent atheists have dumb ideas about Christianity. Richard Dawkins is the perfect example. When I’ve seen his input to science shows he’s interesting and engaging. When he talks on God-stuff, I scratch my head. He would lose a schoolyard debate with 12 year olds. He simply does not seem to get it. Similarly, sports writer Peter Fitzsimons likes to poke fun at God-botherers. No problem there because he writes to entertain, and being a stirrer is the persona he adopts. But, again, his writing comes across as clueless. When I read these guys, I feel like I’ve been threatened by an angry drunk, who proceeds to swing his fists at an imaginary image of me.

My request: if you are ‘on the side of intelligence’, please come up with real thought.

Secondly, intelligence is an excellent path to self-deception. I’ve seen clever thought and sophistry used to justify the ridiculous. ‘Of course I should leave my spouse and kids because of the psychological damage we’re causing each other.’ ‘I’m not doing this with any hubris, it’s purely a rational decision for the sake of my career.’ Yeah, sure!

As a rule, I’ve found those with less pretension to be deep thinkers are less likely to believe their own crazy rationalisations. (Actually, this applies as much to believers as to unbelievers.)

My request: if you think you’re smart, be humble enough to see that smarts are often misused.

Something for Christians
Firstly, we can admit that Christian folk sometimes peddle senseless ideas. We can be illogical and paranoid. We can speak out of misunderstanding. We can repeat arguments that are effectively urban myths, but sound convenient to our position.

Perhaps – and I sure am guessing here – but perhaps churches are liable to greenhouse such ideas because we don’t make intellectual rigour our top priority. It should not be top of the priority list, but that’s no excuse for a brain shut-down.

Just to get myself into trouble, I’ll say that I often find arguments of young earth creationists to be incredible. Too often the arguments go one of two ways. Either, ‘This is so important theologically that I will only talk about science.’ (Huh?) Or, ‘You are wrong because you are a fear-filled compromiser of truth.’ (Ad hominem.)

I have to say, sadly, that poor Christian thinking is not limited to a single area. It can crop up anywhere: creation, politics, family, church practice, music, …

My request: take time to think, and not to pass on half-baked thoughts.

Secondly, and most personally, I know I flinch at the suggestion that the average intelligence of atheists is higher than that of the religious. Perhaps you flinch too. We Christians want our people to be better than them.

We want to be better at thought, at work, at marriage and sex, at enjoying culture, at giving thanks to people, at contributing to the community. If we somehow fall behind in these areas we reckon we’re letting the side down. Or letting God down.

To be honest, we want to boast in ourselves. But God’s people are intrinsically un-boastworthy. Our only boast is in the Lord.

For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
1 Corinthians 1:23-29

When Jesus said, ‘Blessed are the poor’ he spoke of more than mere money. In all ways, Jesus’ disciples admit poverty. Including in the ability to impress God by high IQ. The measure of Christian truth is not my vocabulary. The only measure is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

My request: Christians, remember our gospel, that we are saved by the grace of God.

 


 

Quick review: The Gospel and the Mind

Leave a Reply

The Gospel and the Mind: Recovering and Shaping the Intellectual LifeThe Gospel and the Mind: Recovering and Shaping the Intellectual Life by Bradley G. Green

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

In the ‘vibe’ of the modern world, my impression is that the life of the mind is most commonly associated with the secular and dissociated from the Christian church. Witness: the (strange!) assumed opposition between science and Christianity; the absence of theologians from the standard panel of folks called to speak on big issues; arguments against God do not need to be arguments for mockery suffices.

Christians have not always been helpful, either. I’ve received earnest advice saying, ‘Oh, don’t go there – they will only fill your head with knowledge.’ (Assumed: that’s a bad thing.)

What’s more, in the academy generally there’s growing despair at the possibility of knowledge. Postmodernism (so-called) and the linguistic turn succeed in undermining confidence in any knowledge.

In this book, Green argues against any marginalisation of Christianity regarding the life of the mind. Far from it – Christian theology, he says, is the only hope. Green has two arguments.
1. The Christian vision of God, man, and the world provides the necessary precondition for the recovery of any meaningful intellectual life.
2. The Christian vision of God, man, and the world offers a particular, unique understanding of what the intellectual life might look like.

Green covers the importance of creation and history (we may be confident that there is something to know); of the future (eschatology gives purpose to all things, including thought); of words that really do refer to things (our speech is not a mere game); of knowledge as love (knowledge is never neutral, but always moral).

In each of these areas, he builds important biblical foundations while also identifying the malaise of modern thought. The arguments are accessible, aimed for the (serious) general reader. And I think they succeed! In short, this is a coherent appeal for Christian theology to lead to Christian thought – in many spheres of thought.

There are a couple of things I would like to have seen. Perhaps they were precluded by the intended length of the work.

Firstly, what response does Green think should come from academics who don’t share Christian convictions? Doe he think they can be renewed by learning theology? Does he suggest that current dead-ends in thought will benefit from considered application of historical theology? Or does he think that conversion is the most important need for their academic development?

This first matter is, I believe, directly relevant to the purpose of Green’s book. He’s proposing a way to rescue modern academia. A brief sketch of the map ahead would be most informative.

Secondly – and this is definitely some way from Green’s book – I wondered how this might work in a non-Western context. Of course, an answer would need knowledge of the intellectual tradition in non-Western settings – a huge area to cover (a different study and a different book). But, because the gospel claims all the world and all cultures, I did wonder!

This is a good book, and recommended.
View all my reviews


 

The disgrace of Christian outreach

The whole Bible shows God’s concern for the whole world.

The first three quarters of the Bible maintain focus on one people: Israel. The final one quarter is where God’s word goes out to all, freely offered to all cultures, languages and people.

Why the difference? And what made the change? A short passage in Hebrews powerfully captures the switch. It tells me that God spent great effort establishing a system of imperfect honour so that he could trump this system with perfect disgrace.

Firstly, here’s some evidence for my first two paragraphs.

Whole Bible, whole world
Page one: God created the heavens and the earth. As Genesis continues, we run into those pesky family trees. We might find them tiresome, but they place the narrower Biblical story inside the story of ‘all people.’ When Abraham enters, his promised blessing is at once very personal and universal (see Genesis 12:1-3).

Abraham’s story narrows down again and again: it’s Isaac, not Ishmael; then it’s Jacob, not Esau. This narrow group of Hebrews dominates the limelight for the Old Testament. Even so, the world is linked to their fortunes. Israel is the Lord’s nation because the whole earth is his (Exodus 19:5). The glory days of Israel’s kingdom were a magnet for the whole world (1 Kings 10:23-25). Despite later sin and judgement, God promised a glorious future where the world would again make pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Micah 4:1-2).

Three quarters, one quarter
Despite this universal concern, most of the Bible covers relatively local events. We mostly stay in the land of Canaan, with the people of Israel. When the story goes outside of this (in the first 75%) there’s usually something wrong: drought, famine, judgement, military loss, … Jesus himself sent his disciples, but not to the Gentiles – they went on a Jewish-ears-only mission (Matthew 10:5).

It’s in the book of Acts that there is an explosive change. From Acts onwards, even Gentiles come to trust Jesus. Without having to become Jewish first! Gentiles who trust have exactly the same access to forgiveness as do Jews who trust. Hear the astonishment in the voice of Jewish Christians: ‘Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life’ (Acts 11:18). Inconceivable!

The time we live in now is marked by an astonishing reality: Gentiles listen to the word of salvation (Acts 28:28).

Imperfect honour, perfect disgrace
To understand this change, here’s that paragraph from the book of Hebrews.

We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured. (Chapter 13, verses 10-13)

Hebrews engages with many details of the old covenant, including priesthood and sacrifice. The altar of sacrifice was to be pure, and to provide purification. The place of sacrifice had many exclusions in order to uphold its holiness (no priests outside the tribe of Levi, no high priest outside the family of Aaron, no high-priests in the temple without blood of sacrifice, …). This system rammed home the truth about God: he’s pure, perfect, clean, holy. This is why sacrificial blood was brought into the holy place, but the unclean carcass was taken outside the camp. Holiness inside, uncleanness outside.

The tabernacle (later temple) was to be honoured highly by God’s people. And when the system was in ideal operation … it was a failure. Blood of bulls and goats does not remove sin (Hebrews 10:4). The centre of honour to the Lord in Israel never worked. Hence: imperfect honour.

But Jesus …

Jesus changed things. Jesus’ death, the perfect sacrifice, occurred in disgrace. He died as an outsider, and died outside the city gates. His death was administered by the world (Romans), not by an appointed priest. This moment of unclean disgrace, however, is the very working of God to save. It is perfect disgrace.

A world of mission
So why, after Easter, do God’s people now actively seek the world? Why is mission normal, for those who trust Jesus?

Because of Jesus’ perfect disgrace. Jesus, on the cross, went to the world. Jesus went to the place most alienated from the Father. Jesus outside the city completed his journey of love. How do we trust Jesus? We trust by going to him in that place of disgrace. We find Jesus ‘outside the camp’, as Hebrews says, not cloistered and hidden behind holy walls. We do not withdraw – we go out and suffer reproach.

Christians should be willing to go public and to be open in precisely the place where we are not safe. (So many times I have been part of the opposite, a comfortable conversation with ‘insiders’ in which we gently mock ‘outsiders.’)

There are many ways to ‘go public’ as Christians. The most important and fundamental, it seems to me, is evangelism. When we ask people to change and to trust Jesus we are most open about our disgraceful beliefs. When we refrain from inviting Christian belief we are most likely to be hiding the disgrace of a crucified Christ.

And now, my idea for a short post has become longer than I usually write for this blog. There’s so much more to consider … Unexplored: what disgrace can look like in daily life; how Christians tend to sanctify avoiding disgrace despite following the crucified one; the difference between reproach and being insensitive. A ripe field for comments and discussion (hint, hint).

In short: mission is placing our disgraceful beliefs in public, because what we believe was the public disgrace of Jesus’ cross.