i remember watching a tram driving along Swan St, Richmond. As sometimes happens, it was making intermittent contact with the powerlines above, creating little showers of sparks, and jerking a bit, as the power it needed was momentarily disconnected.
I found myself thinking that the tram bouncing down the street, drawing attention to its power source with showers of sparks, is actually not using the power that effectively. A neighbouring tram quietly humming along might be less impressive, but using power more according to its design.
Made me think, since i was pretty immersed into a pentecostal world at the time. (As an aside, thats a fact i don't feel any need to retrospectively denigrate, rather much to retain - much was grounded there that i am still grateful for - not least dimensions of experience and teaching. (That includes the formal study i did there one year, all deepened under a teacher who is still a prime example of serious theology and Spirit empowerment; the trajectory to becoming an NT professor at Regent was already well underway, post his Cambridge phd etc - and having just downloaded a thirty hour teaching series i can see many of the same themes were already in place. Also found that another theological text i'm revisiting is cross linked against that time in various ways and levels of connection, even family members in the local church. So i'm willing to assert that simple dismissal of Pentecostal dimensions may turn out to be too simplistic - my own story there is more subtle than that).
Anyway the tram did make me think, back then, about the benefit of getting on with it in an empowered way, rather than needing to always have displays of power - that might even not be a good thing at times. Still a relevant observation - although maybe only needed if a church culture can tend to lean a bit too much that way (wanting to cultivate the sparks all the time).
Of course its biblical to see signs and wonders - and one form of evangelism pursues these 'power encounters' as a testimony to the God who is there and who cares. But there are also other trams full of evangelicals on their way to beach mission or work in the office or whatever it is. God bless them too.
And may we know when we are meant to be in one or other ... when a visible zap of electricity is needed, and when consistent faithfulness on the way to the daily destination is more what is needed. Both are good and to be developed. Demonstrations of power are not faulty - unless we're meant to be getting on with it today. Getting on with it is not bad, unless we sometimes need to stop and explain why we can do this - and touching the wire might be good to show that too.
evidence of power? consistent work? 'both and' - not 'either or'
Friday, August 19, 2011
Friday, July 29, 2011
the dog : suspicion as a way of life
I played an interesting mp3 while walking tonight
Mentions a 'hermeneutic of suspicion' being a typical post modern mindset.
Sees that hermeneutic as the legacy of post freudian, post marxist mindsets.
Never mind all of the 'post isms' -even though i think there are a couple more that could be added - since those terms gets a bit too cozy sometimes.
The question of suspicion becoming a dominant principle is an interesting observation - the risk of getting too imbued with a spirit that 'won't be taken in again'
That is, its possible to be very critical of various things in the current state of the world on one hand - especially if the critique is presented in attractive form - say fitted out with new terms and analysis, touched with the appeal of a somewhat counter cultural presentation, and leaving us as the enlightened critic - and yet remain equally deeply moulded by its critical thought forms on the other.
I know something about that hermeneutic of suspicion. My way into faith went through a culture pretty influenced with this - which is only to say, a large uni. Having been broadly brought up in a weakening modernist framework (by which I mean a mindset where the big story of progress was good and we believed we could get there by working a bit harder etc, with a little dose of religion on the edges, so tending to the superficial Pelagianism of the age), I'd been vaguely deferring significant questions. Then i went to off to uni where there was suddenly time and space see how the various ideas and contradictions played out; or really for them to press with new urgency.
So, for example, picking up the works of Nietzsche in a friend's room one night, as a 19 year old; attracted by the incisive writing, fragments of which was soon slicing into the tentative faith formulations i was beginning to investigate, even as i also naively ran into Pascal and Buber and Chesterton and others along that path of reading.
That hurt, was painful to have your beginning faith demolished and shaken to its core by such a potent set of counter ideas.
Working out what the impact of that sort of post modern hermeneutic is going to be - a world where all stories and claims are suspect - is accelerated in this environment, reading chunks of this sort of material. One senses the power and attraction of these modes of thinking, indeed lives inside them to some extent - attracted by both their critique of things and their promise of change -and surrounded by friends becoming socialists and militant feminists, or at least trying on these ideas - and later feeling the illusions, the over-promise, seeing what false dawns are offered and feeling the nausea of things still out of place.
When you're seriously debating your approach to life - sounds overstated now, but did seem to have a lot riding on it - and have plenty of time to read and wander off the path, those years of academic incubation allowed you - allowed me at least - to try to see where these mindsets end up. Not that its as comfortable or clinical as that implies - a difficult and confusing, indeed sometimes painful and disorientating, process. (Learning piles of physics and chemistry was also interesting but often a lower priority and indeed possibility in the scheme of things; and so found myself picking up some 'history and philosophy of science' subjects as a path that also allowed me to engage some of these ideas by writing and reading etc).
So I began to see, to feel, that that this whole current of thinking can lead to a place where nothing can be asserted but all can be negated, where the best intellects seemed to have cornered the market -or at least blocked the path - as to why there can be no meaning, except another round of pulling things apart and reveling in the contradiction and demolition of yet another position. As a more recent example of the idea, we all see Shrek is fun as a reverse fairy tale, where we love the ogre and despise the prince, and prefer such complex stories to the brightly shallow alternatives - Wiggles should be banned for parents. And yet the same playful logic that is enjoyable in Shrek, has a more serious and surly older brother who plays that game for keeps; questions and reverses every cherished assumption till all is lying in shreds. Its not so cute when it presents the apostle Paul as the anti-hero, and his opponents as the real victims, whose useful perspectives we should try to recover as valid Christian experience, as i hear some post modern biblical studies have supposed. Not so cute -but basically the same method of reversing assumptions. Or the TV shows that invites you to have sympathy with a serial killer.
I wasn't studying theology, even though the Christian idea of God was often the target of similar approaches in various subjects. But certainly any 'convention' of nobility - even in fiction - indeed any stabilizing frame of reference in general, was often undermined with this sort of approach, this reading against the grain, and since the 'author is dead' and dismissed as providing any canonical reading or interpretive key, who is to dispute the approach - which first year will question the lecturer who suggests that when Shakespeare ('possibly a woman?') used the word 'die', we should substitute various explicit terms; and try reading various sonnets of beauty with that idea in mind. Enlightening.
So rather than reading great authors (another deconstructed concept) for their merits (likewise), this sort of thing tends to cultivate a mindset of suspicion as the dominant hermeneutic, wants to situate everything back in historical context, which is good in itself - but tends to operate from a framework where traditional morality and God are faintly ridiculous. Though by now i was evaluating all this by a better framework, having come back to do a dip ed after working in analytical chemistry for a few years; now a bit more settled in faith and church, just widening my studies to include an English method.
Anyway, i agree that the 'post' environment - the legacy of various intellectual systems that tend to parody the gospel with a structure of oppression (patriarchy, false consciousness) and redemption (feminism and revolution) - is something that cultivates suspicion.
This is all broad brush - I don't imagine all academics are subscribing to or promoting all of this - or even that its all wrong - and one finds some clear and well thought through Christian or kingdom counter examples, and people quietly working leaven into the lump - moderating the claims with sanity - but i wonder if a Christian world view is possibly easier to maintain in the sciences than some of these humanities.
And no doubt better grounded students might have filtered all of this off. But perhaps there is a reason why 'studies show' so many youth group christians claim to have lost their faith in the first few weeks of uni -saw that process in a few friends around me. I was going the other way, slowly and sometimes suddenly being called in against all the broken-ness and confusion that also went with my story; but i was always interested in the underlying assumptions of the thinking of all this.
As well as that academic mix, we're also double dipped in the mass media version of this cynical view point; as media endlessly celebrates the revelation that some other notable person is caught out and reduced to petty needs as well.
Tom Wright sees the academic fragmentation and deconstruction of postmodernism as the necessary judgement on the arrogance of modernity, with its false myth of progress, its tower of babel that seemed to organise the world around enlightenment premises, while still oppressing many. (Reminds me of someone having a go at the nice moral case studies of Victorian authors, conveniently skipping over the exploitation in the colonies; being the sort of thing that 'po-mo' wants to expose - how exactly are those lovely estates that the marriageable daughter and her family is aspiring to, creating a delicious tension between love and money, being funded, exactly? - who is suffering behind the scenes on the other side of the world, for this? )
But the post modern reversals are not, in themselves, enough - so while acknowledging that all positions are conditioned and are really 'perspectives' and that 'objective truth' is a often style of ideology, is all good as a corrective on modernist arrogance- yet the way this plays out often leads to fragmentation and despair; since what is left after all? What stands when all can be overturned like this?
Finding the edges and limits of post modernism ending in despair and confusion is not a new phenomenon -as old as Nietzsche breaking down and flinging his hands around the horse being whipped in the street.
The answer lies in a different place. We can't just analyse the contradictions. That probably has to be done, but its not enough.
Trust and love and redemption are the correction - not smuggling the hermeneutic of suspicion into our system - more of the world than we know in doing that.
We cannot fight suspicion with suspicion- can't hint suspiciously at the problems, just naming all this is of limited use - since finding a new angle to express this from, a new twist or take, is the endless game of post modernism; which lives, in that form, for the momentary justification and gratification of having exposed another position, revelling in the high moral ground that the critique temporarily enjoys - though of course its vulnerable as soon as it sets itself up as the next target to be critiqued. The solid verities of the past are useful for organising an anti movement - but once thats achieved, then what?
The corrective has to be more direct, more embodied, more relational. Expressing trust and love, by which example we expose the level of mistrust in all such mindsets as really akin to paranoia; as having eaten from the wrong tree, is the way that is suggested.
So, for example, perhaps we need to avoid buying into mindsets that correctly name an issue, but are full of suspicion - some of the emerging church critique of Christendom, for example, sometimes seem to lean this way. Not withstanding the accuracy of the diagnosis, and the discussions of what might follow, the attitude in which its done is equally important.
i'm wired to ask questions, so this is probably closer to home than i care to admit sometimes. Some of my blog posts never make it past being drafts, for that reason - i'm not sure sometimes i haven't stewed the wrong fruit.
Certainly we need new forms, clear critique and paths of action; but seems to me must be marked by love and trust, mercy and truth, power and grace, and by community and engagement - with all of the ambiguity and resolution that involves - not suspicion and mistrust. Indeed a people marked by righteousness joy and peace in the Holy Spirit, who engage and trust, feel whats wrong and hurt with the rest of the world, and express grace amidst that, but don't become bitter and suspicious - not least in how we relate to each other, are perhaps the antidote.
does this all matter? revisting this history is not helpful, its too long winded, if its just stops there. And understanding this - well - i'd be happy for my kids to bypass it, if possible, though i think its comes at you from the culture anyway - analysed or not.
But it is at the back of my mind, at some level. You don't just walk away without taking some this with you.
(and it is in the culture - i've found myself debating with my boss if Barthes really ended that article on the Death of the Author with one more reversal, ie a sly wink that undid the whole agenda).
Sometimes it seems what passes as 'watchman' style discernment in the church, too, can be more imbued with this critical spirit, is really more motivated by suspicion, than the spiritual gift of discernment - ie where nothing is right except our own little corner - and that applies to me as well of course.
So it seems to me as i walk the dog :)
Mentions a 'hermeneutic of suspicion' being a typical post modern mindset.
Sees that hermeneutic as the legacy of post freudian, post marxist mindsets.
Never mind all of the 'post isms' -even though i think there are a couple more that could be added - since those terms gets a bit too cozy sometimes.
The question of suspicion becoming a dominant principle is an interesting observation - the risk of getting too imbued with a spirit that 'won't be taken in again'
That is, its possible to be very critical of various things in the current state of the world on one hand - especially if the critique is presented in attractive form - say fitted out with new terms and analysis, touched with the appeal of a somewhat counter cultural presentation, and leaving us as the enlightened critic - and yet remain equally deeply moulded by its critical thought forms on the other.
I know something about that hermeneutic of suspicion. My way into faith went through a culture pretty influenced with this - which is only to say, a large uni. Having been broadly brought up in a weakening modernist framework (by which I mean a mindset where the big story of progress was good and we believed we could get there by working a bit harder etc, with a little dose of religion on the edges, so tending to the superficial Pelagianism of the age), I'd been vaguely deferring significant questions. Then i went to off to uni where there was suddenly time and space see how the various ideas and contradictions played out; or really for them to press with new urgency.
So, for example, picking up the works of Nietzsche in a friend's room one night, as a 19 year old; attracted by the incisive writing, fragments of which was soon slicing into the tentative faith formulations i was beginning to investigate, even as i also naively ran into Pascal and Buber and Chesterton and others along that path of reading.
That hurt, was painful to have your beginning faith demolished and shaken to its core by such a potent set of counter ideas.
Working out what the impact of that sort of post modern hermeneutic is going to be - a world where all stories and claims are suspect - is accelerated in this environment, reading chunks of this sort of material. One senses the power and attraction of these modes of thinking, indeed lives inside them to some extent - attracted by both their critique of things and their promise of change -and surrounded by friends becoming socialists and militant feminists, or at least trying on these ideas - and later feeling the illusions, the over-promise, seeing what false dawns are offered and feeling the nausea of things still out of place.
When you're seriously debating your approach to life - sounds overstated now, but did seem to have a lot riding on it - and have plenty of time to read and wander off the path, those years of academic incubation allowed you - allowed me at least - to try to see where these mindsets end up. Not that its as comfortable or clinical as that implies - a difficult and confusing, indeed sometimes painful and disorientating, process. (Learning piles of physics and chemistry was also interesting but often a lower priority and indeed possibility in the scheme of things; and so found myself picking up some 'history and philosophy of science' subjects as a path that also allowed me to engage some of these ideas by writing and reading etc).
So I began to see, to feel, that that this whole current of thinking can lead to a place where nothing can be asserted but all can be negated, where the best intellects seemed to have cornered the market -or at least blocked the path - as to why there can be no meaning, except another round of pulling things apart and reveling in the contradiction and demolition of yet another position. As a more recent example of the idea, we all see Shrek is fun as a reverse fairy tale, where we love the ogre and despise the prince, and prefer such complex stories to the brightly shallow alternatives - Wiggles should be banned for parents. And yet the same playful logic that is enjoyable in Shrek, has a more serious and surly older brother who plays that game for keeps; questions and reverses every cherished assumption till all is lying in shreds. Its not so cute when it presents the apostle Paul as the anti-hero, and his opponents as the real victims, whose useful perspectives we should try to recover as valid Christian experience, as i hear some post modern biblical studies have supposed. Not so cute -but basically the same method of reversing assumptions. Or the TV shows that invites you to have sympathy with a serial killer.
I wasn't studying theology, even though the Christian idea of God was often the target of similar approaches in various subjects. But certainly any 'convention' of nobility - even in fiction - indeed any stabilizing frame of reference in general, was often undermined with this sort of approach, this reading against the grain, and since the 'author is dead' and dismissed as providing any canonical reading or interpretive key, who is to dispute the approach - which first year will question the lecturer who suggests that when Shakespeare ('possibly a woman?') used the word 'die', we should substitute various explicit terms; and try reading various sonnets of beauty with that idea in mind. Enlightening.
So rather than reading great authors (another deconstructed concept) for their merits (likewise), this sort of thing tends to cultivate a mindset of suspicion as the dominant hermeneutic, wants to situate everything back in historical context, which is good in itself - but tends to operate from a framework where traditional morality and God are faintly ridiculous. Though by now i was evaluating all this by a better framework, having come back to do a dip ed after working in analytical chemistry for a few years; now a bit more settled in faith and church, just widening my studies to include an English method.
Anyway, i agree that the 'post' environment - the legacy of various intellectual systems that tend to parody the gospel with a structure of oppression (patriarchy, false consciousness) and redemption (feminism and revolution) - is something that cultivates suspicion.
This is all broad brush - I don't imagine all academics are subscribing to or promoting all of this - or even that its all wrong - and one finds some clear and well thought through Christian or kingdom counter examples, and people quietly working leaven into the lump - moderating the claims with sanity - but i wonder if a Christian world view is possibly easier to maintain in the sciences than some of these humanities.
And no doubt better grounded students might have filtered all of this off. But perhaps there is a reason why 'studies show' so many youth group christians claim to have lost their faith in the first few weeks of uni -saw that process in a few friends around me. I was going the other way, slowly and sometimes suddenly being called in against all the broken-ness and confusion that also went with my story; but i was always interested in the underlying assumptions of the thinking of all this.
As well as that academic mix, we're also double dipped in the mass media version of this cynical view point; as media endlessly celebrates the revelation that some other notable person is caught out and reduced to petty needs as well.
Tom Wright sees the academic fragmentation and deconstruction of postmodernism as the necessary judgement on the arrogance of modernity, with its false myth of progress, its tower of babel that seemed to organise the world around enlightenment premises, while still oppressing many. (Reminds me of someone having a go at the nice moral case studies of Victorian authors, conveniently skipping over the exploitation in the colonies; being the sort of thing that 'po-mo' wants to expose - how exactly are those lovely estates that the marriageable daughter and her family is aspiring to, creating a delicious tension between love and money, being funded, exactly? - who is suffering behind the scenes on the other side of the world, for this? )
But the post modern reversals are not, in themselves, enough - so while acknowledging that all positions are conditioned and are really 'perspectives' and that 'objective truth' is a often style of ideology, is all good as a corrective on modernist arrogance- yet the way this plays out often leads to fragmentation and despair; since what is left after all? What stands when all can be overturned like this?
Finding the edges and limits of post modernism ending in despair and confusion is not a new phenomenon -as old as Nietzsche breaking down and flinging his hands around the horse being whipped in the street.
The answer lies in a different place. We can't just analyse the contradictions. That probably has to be done, but its not enough.
Trust and love and redemption are the correction - not smuggling the hermeneutic of suspicion into our system - more of the world than we know in doing that.
We cannot fight suspicion with suspicion- can't hint suspiciously at the problems, just naming all this is of limited use - since finding a new angle to express this from, a new twist or take, is the endless game of post modernism; which lives, in that form, for the momentary justification and gratification of having exposed another position, revelling in the high moral ground that the critique temporarily enjoys - though of course its vulnerable as soon as it sets itself up as the next target to be critiqued. The solid verities of the past are useful for organising an anti movement - but once thats achieved, then what?
The corrective has to be more direct, more embodied, more relational. Expressing trust and love, by which example we expose the level of mistrust in all such mindsets as really akin to paranoia; as having eaten from the wrong tree, is the way that is suggested.
So, for example, perhaps we need to avoid buying into mindsets that correctly name an issue, but are full of suspicion - some of the emerging church critique of Christendom, for example, sometimes seem to lean this way. Not withstanding the accuracy of the diagnosis, and the discussions of what might follow, the attitude in which its done is equally important.
i'm wired to ask questions, so this is probably closer to home than i care to admit sometimes. Some of my blog posts never make it past being drafts, for that reason - i'm not sure sometimes i haven't stewed the wrong fruit.
Certainly we need new forms, clear critique and paths of action; but seems to me must be marked by love and trust, mercy and truth, power and grace, and by community and engagement - with all of the ambiguity and resolution that involves - not suspicion and mistrust. Indeed a people marked by righteousness joy and peace in the Holy Spirit, who engage and trust, feel whats wrong and hurt with the rest of the world, and express grace amidst that, but don't become bitter and suspicious - not least in how we relate to each other, are perhaps the antidote.
does this all matter? revisting this history is not helpful, its too long winded, if its just stops there. And understanding this - well - i'd be happy for my kids to bypass it, if possible, though i think its comes at you from the culture anyway - analysed or not.
But it is at the back of my mind, at some level. You don't just walk away without taking some this with you.
(and it is in the culture - i've found myself debating with my boss if Barthes really ended that article on the Death of the Author with one more reversal, ie a sly wink that undid the whole agenda).
Sometimes it seems what passes as 'watchman' style discernment in the church, too, can be more imbued with this critical spirit, is really more motivated by suspicion, than the spiritual gift of discernment - ie where nothing is right except our own little corner - and that applies to me as well of course.
So it seems to me as i walk the dog :)
Thursday, July 28, 2011
waves of power in Aus - who knew?
Was doing some homework on a conference speaker we're probably going to listen to.
I downloaded a couple of mp3s to hear Ken Fish's teaching; seems fairly standard approach to prophetic gifts (given his background with Wimber etc) - which I generally agreed with, but it was not that that most got my attention.
What caught attention, was the comment on one of the churches where he had been a speaker.
Goes on …
Well – how about that. Could this be on the move under my nose without knowing it? Probably.
When i think about it, a couple of friends in a local country church did describe a powerful leadership retreat – where God turned up in powerful ways - which had made me wonder if this dimension was again afoot - but basically i was ignorant of any widespread pattern.
Without being aware me having read any of this, Deb happened to download an mp3 from one of those churches mentioned above.
To paraphrase the first few minutes of the message she downloaded (which was basically teaching through early parts of Genesis) the pastor starts off by mentioning that someone in the congregation, earlier in the day, had had a word of knowledge: to the effect that God wanted to heal damaged knees. "Conservatively speaking", says the pastor, "we have had at least 11 full healings of knees today" - (5 in one service, 6 in another)– "excluding those who just felt quite a lot better etc".
No hype, relaxed down to earth tone, just a report of what God is doing, observing the increased level of healing that is now operative, noting the change of season it seems to be associated with. i know the church; friends know the pastor. Down to earth, balanced.
He goes on to say, there have been times that they would have thought 11 healings in a year was not bad; and 11 in a month was pretty good. But 11 in a day –seems a greater dimension of God's power and working for healing is happening.
Reminds me a verse in the Gospels:
But its rarely like this obvious proclamation; not 11 healings following one word of knowledge in one day. So teaching through that passage would rarely be accompanied by the expectation that something similar might occur today. Also seems even those churches that are seeking and pursuing such things, often find 11 healings a year is more the norm.
These things are signs as well - they point to something. What could it mean here?
God's increased presence is one thing. Of course its hard to comment on that from a distance, and i personally have no idea of other or more subtle meanings. It will quite probably mean something more in the context of the local church where it occurred, given the culture and dynamics of their church community- though no doubt there is always some element of mystery and sovereignty around what God does.
But the large scale pattern, of God visiting Australia in power, is what I’m interested in –including the possibility of missing it altogether, as i seem to have been. No doubt much more will soon be heard, (and probably will soon be contentious among those who don't like their such dimensions and unpredictable experiences like this - who believe perhaps that the power of the Lord was with Jesus, but cannot be present in the current church in any parallel way).
The closest thing i've ever seen to revival broke out in a little Anglican church on the outskirts of Melbourne in the mid 90s. Incredible blessing for many people, me included - but i think it was costly for the leaders in the end. I gather their own oversight eventually found God turning up like this to be outside the acceptable norm and form; or decided it was not God etc, though i don't know exact details. It had spread to other churches by them of course, but did seem like this little church had been chosen out as the entry point into Melbourne. At least 10,000 people must have gone through there - week after week they were packed out several nights a week; always asking for a show of hands as to who was new - always half the crowd was. The gentle style of the ministry, and the deep power of God moving, was amazing. I spent hours being touched and healed by the Presence of God in that setting, being taught, and experiencing, drinking it in.
I imagine the increased presence of God, and the strange ways He works, will always tend to be to something of sign that will be spoken against, revealing hearts, as that prophecy given to Mary about Jesus outlines. I'm not a naive enthusiast - there are always be risk of tares with the wheat, always possibility of counterfeit things and hypey or other human distortions that accompany this at some level - i can see some of that possibility just by looking at my own heart. But we have to decide if these are possible (and perhaps tragic) distortions around the edges, or go the core definition of what is happening. Even without knowing much of this current move, I think the core is real, mostly because i've tasted things like this before, have wrestled with how this reality intersects the biblical mandate etc, before.
And for those who want to go no further than the bible - i also like that principle. As long as we see whats really in there. We won't break the roof to lower people in, or see people healed by passing shadow or touch of an annointed cloth, unless God really is there in unusual dimension anyway. I haven't seen that much of those things, but enough to know it can still happen today, that its biblical, and to be desired.
humility is the first response - i don't want to miss what God is up to:)
I downloaded a couple of mp3s to hear Ken Fish's teaching; seems fairly standard approach to prophetic gifts (given his background with Wimber etc) - which I generally agreed with, but it was not that that most got my attention.
What caught attention, was the comment on one of the churches where he had been a speaker.
Since June 2010, the Lord has been visiting Australia with waves of greater and greater power.Really? I wasn’t aware, hadn't heard .. or seen
Goes on …
Many .. churches .. have experienced significant power encounters resulting in a large number of testimonies of healings and changed lives. This outpouring is now spreading to... churches in the eastern states and has been taken to Indonesia as well.
Well – how about that. Could this be on the move under my nose without knowing it? Probably.
When i think about it, a couple of friends in a local country church did describe a powerful leadership retreat – where God turned up in powerful ways - which had made me wonder if this dimension was again afoot - but basically i was ignorant of any widespread pattern.
Without being aware me having read any of this, Deb happened to download an mp3 from one of those churches mentioned above.
To paraphrase the first few minutes of the message she downloaded (which was basically teaching through early parts of Genesis) the pastor starts off by mentioning that someone in the congregation, earlier in the day, had had a word of knowledge: to the effect that God wanted to heal damaged knees. "Conservatively speaking", says the pastor, "we have had at least 11 full healings of knees today" - (5 in one service, 6 in another)– "excluding those who just felt quite a lot better etc".
No hype, relaxed down to earth tone, just a report of what God is doing, observing the increased level of healing that is now operative, noting the change of season it seems to be associated with. i know the church; friends know the pastor. Down to earth, balanced.
He goes on to say, there have been times that they would have thought 11 healings in a year was not bad; and 11 in a month was pretty good. But 11 in a day –seems a greater dimension of God's power and working for healing is happening.
Reminds me a verse in the Gospels:
One day Jesus was teaching, and Pharisees and teachers of the law were sitting there. They had come from every village of Galilee and from Judea and Jerusalem. And the power of the Lord was with Jesus to heal the sick.Seems that by and large we in the Western church have got used to the power of the Lord not really being there to heal the sick. Not that its that black and white – the teaching still impacts lives, hopefully, and other kinds of healing occur, we’re very blessed with medicine, there is still a trickle of testimony, of response to faithful prayer etc, still evidence of less dramatic but powerful healing, and occasional dramatic things - for all of which I’m very deeply grateful.
But its rarely like this obvious proclamation; not 11 healings following one word of knowledge in one day. So teaching through that passage would rarely be accompanied by the expectation that something similar might occur today. Also seems even those churches that are seeking and pursuing such things, often find 11 healings a year is more the norm.
These things are signs as well - they point to something. What could it mean here?
God's increased presence is one thing. Of course its hard to comment on that from a distance, and i personally have no idea of other or more subtle meanings. It will quite probably mean something more in the context of the local church where it occurred, given the culture and dynamics of their church community- though no doubt there is always some element of mystery and sovereignty around what God does.
But the large scale pattern, of God visiting Australia in power, is what I’m interested in –including the possibility of missing it altogether, as i seem to have been. No doubt much more will soon be heard, (and probably will soon be contentious among those who don't like their such dimensions and unpredictable experiences like this - who believe perhaps that the power of the Lord was with Jesus, but cannot be present in the current church in any parallel way).
The closest thing i've ever seen to revival broke out in a little Anglican church on the outskirts of Melbourne in the mid 90s. Incredible blessing for many people, me included - but i think it was costly for the leaders in the end. I gather their own oversight eventually found God turning up like this to be outside the acceptable norm and form; or decided it was not God etc, though i don't know exact details. It had spread to other churches by them of course, but did seem like this little church had been chosen out as the entry point into Melbourne. At least 10,000 people must have gone through there - week after week they were packed out several nights a week; always asking for a show of hands as to who was new - always half the crowd was. The gentle style of the ministry, and the deep power of God moving, was amazing. I spent hours being touched and healed by the Presence of God in that setting, being taught, and experiencing, drinking it in.
I imagine the increased presence of God, and the strange ways He works, will always tend to be to something of sign that will be spoken against, revealing hearts, as that prophecy given to Mary about Jesus outlines. I'm not a naive enthusiast - there are always be risk of tares with the wheat, always possibility of counterfeit things and hypey or other human distortions that accompany this at some level - i can see some of that possibility just by looking at my own heart. But we have to decide if these are possible (and perhaps tragic) distortions around the edges, or go the core definition of what is happening. Even without knowing much of this current move, I think the core is real, mostly because i've tasted things like this before, have wrestled with how this reality intersects the biblical mandate etc, before.
And for those who want to go no further than the bible - i also like that principle. As long as we see whats really in there. We won't break the roof to lower people in, or see people healed by passing shadow or touch of an annointed cloth, unless God really is there in unusual dimension anyway. I haven't seen that much of those things, but enough to know it can still happen today, that its biblical, and to be desired.
humility is the first response - i don't want to miss what God is up to:)
Thursday, June 30, 2011
kingdom is big
"most scholars agree that the kingdom of God is central to Jesus's ministry.
Unfortunately, there is no widespread agreement as to what the term and its cognate ideas actually mean. " Wright
so we have piestic traditions on one side (personal conversion, private devotions, spiritualised views of heaven) - and those agitating for workings of God in other spheres - political engagement and questions of justice - or even a well thought through theology of work and life in the world - often in another.
yet politics and salvation, theology and public life, work and religion, economics and morality, were not really separated out into different spheres in the original monotheistic Kingdom vision. And though Jesus redefines what that Kingdom is about (not another restoration of Israel's fortunes, but the deeper fulfillment of the original mandate in Israel's calling to be the chosen nation and light of the world) and how this reign is brought, the Kingdom still integrates these - all these concerns can at least be on the same page; we shouldn't frame a subset as the religious bit, as against the others.
the name of this blog is based on that instinct. Sometimes we are gathered church, where a laser like focus - all on the same wavelength - for say teaching or training in gifts etc - can be key. But we are also called to wider spheres: the light is diffused across other spaces. And we have to live in the rhythm of both.
that quote above from a lecture "what did Jesus mean when he announced the kingdom of God?"
Christians need a working answer to these questions i think. Much to learn. Actively seeking and reading and discussing.
Unfortunately, there is no widespread agreement as to what the term and its cognate ideas actually mean. " Wright
so we have piestic traditions on one side (personal conversion, private devotions, spiritualised views of heaven) - and those agitating for workings of God in other spheres - political engagement and questions of justice - or even a well thought through theology of work and life in the world - often in another.
yet politics and salvation, theology and public life, work and religion, economics and morality, were not really separated out into different spheres in the original monotheistic Kingdom vision. And though Jesus redefines what that Kingdom is about (not another restoration of Israel's fortunes, but the deeper fulfillment of the original mandate in Israel's calling to be the chosen nation and light of the world) and how this reign is brought, the Kingdom still integrates these - all these concerns can at least be on the same page; we shouldn't frame a subset as the religious bit, as against the others.
the name of this blog is based on that instinct. Sometimes we are gathered church, where a laser like focus - all on the same wavelength - for say teaching or training in gifts etc - can be key. But we are also called to wider spheres: the light is diffused across other spaces. And we have to live in the rhythm of both.
that quote above from a lecture "what did Jesus mean when he announced the kingdom of God?"
Christians need a working answer to these questions i think. Much to learn. Actively seeking and reading and discussing.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
of kids, coffee and creation
recently kicked off a midweek small group at our place. Early days but kind of fun to pack the house out with 6 additional kids on top of our two - bit of loaves and fishes in reverse there : packing them in - somehow they all go to sleep - and adults of course!
we got chatting over coffee, and conversation touched on blogging. Why would do people it? where is the boundary between private and public? between accountability to a local community, 'journaling style' for personal outlet and expressing burning questions; etc.
I've written a lot on an education blog. i used to wonder about those questions at the time. Why was I burning midnight oil chasing out possibilities in how IT and Maths overlap? i knew my posts were too long (the gurus say the optimum is considered 700 words, and at least weekly for interest). I wrote much more infrequently, and in much longer bites. but i wasn't really chasing followers : more exploring ideas.
i've recently come to see a bigger backdrop to it, perhaps even something that is found in Genesis:
We know before the fall there is meaningful work; Adam is given that purpose in the Garden. We can aspire to that again. And I see in this verse about naming, where God stands back to see what Adam does, what creative naming he will bring to bear, that there is also exploration and uncovering of the dimensions of creation.
I've come to suspect that in rattling on in the midnight hours about the possibilities of using IT in Maths ... i think i was trying to name something; exploring something under a redemptive influence, in the areas of education where God had and has me. (Practically it also had the unintended side effect of a being a helpful portfolio of interests when applying for an unexpected job a few years later.) And that aspect of cultivating inquiry is also something to weave into education in general; the redemptive leaven in education should mean we do more than transmit a certain fixed body of content, but that we model inquiry in the process.
Anyway, that personal snippet wasn't the topic of discussion except over coffee, and although its meaningful to me I wouldn't press it too hard as anything other than my own take on things: although it kind of relates to the study we did actually last night, which had big kingdom themes. Big enough to maybe warrant redoing here, so here goes:
Genesis implies a kingdom - first 3 days of creation sets up realms : light/ dark, sky/earth, water/land. Next three days set up rulers and creatures to occupy and fill: a great light to govern the day, a lesser another for the night. Birds for the sky, fish for the deep, animals for the land: all these fill and expand into the realms.
There is some implied dominion for the creatures in the blessing to 'be fruitful' in these realms; and in the lights 'ruling' over day and night.
And after this all goodness, mankind is made in His image, which i gather also implies as his representative - is given definite dominion to to rule and steward over all this.
There is a kingdom implied here: man as delegated ruler over creation, with God bringing peace and blessing overall.
So when mankind rebels to God and falls: creation falls as well. "Cursed is the ground because of you" enmity enters into the created order. Strain and struggle and toil - difficulty enters work, perils wrack childbirth - things go wrong on a cosmic scale; partly because mankind had that dominion and blew it; creation goes astray too.
Fast forward to the redemptive hope that is revealed through scripture (along the lines of Seth, Shem, Abraham, Israel --to the awaited Messiah) - and we find the reversal is also cosmic.
The end of the ages has been brought forward into the present : we get to taste and see and experience the redemption: and creation looks on, somehow knowing this is the hope of redemption for the whole created realm as well.
Yet we live, as it were, between the ages. The new creation has been inaugurated; we know it in our own lives, through the gift and witness of the Holy Spirit. And yet it is not yet complete, either for us or creation:
That's not going work with a vision like this, where the Author of all also redeems it all, by bringing it all to head at the Cross. As much as the world would like us to squeeze religion to the margins, this can't be a bit of personal spirituality round the edges:
And there also is a sense in which the reality of all this is hidden.
Its kind of mind blowing sketching it out: resonating the redemptive story across the creation wide kingdom. No wonder Paul prays for the Spirit to bring wisdom and revelation so we can grasp what is the height, width, depth of all this!! I quote the Message translation, not because it says anything different, but it cadences are less familiar and might startle us more with whats being said here in Ephesians!
but less is more next week:)
we got chatting over coffee, and conversation touched on blogging. Why would do people it? where is the boundary between private and public? between accountability to a local community, 'journaling style' for personal outlet and expressing burning questions; etc.
I've written a lot on an education blog. i used to wonder about those questions at the time. Why was I burning midnight oil chasing out possibilities in how IT and Maths overlap? i knew my posts were too long (the gurus say the optimum is considered 700 words, and at least weekly for interest). I wrote much more infrequently, and in much longer bites. but i wasn't really chasing followers : more exploring ideas.
i've recently come to see a bigger backdrop to it, perhaps even something that is found in Genesis:
Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.So it seems there is a sense there in which God inquires of Adam; what will you call this? how will you see it? its linked with the mandate to work in the garden.
We know before the fall there is meaningful work; Adam is given that purpose in the Garden. We can aspire to that again. And I see in this verse about naming, where God stands back to see what Adam does, what creative naming he will bring to bear, that there is also exploration and uncovering of the dimensions of creation.
I've come to suspect that in rattling on in the midnight hours about the possibilities of using IT in Maths ... i think i was trying to name something; exploring something under a redemptive influence, in the areas of education where God had and has me. (Practically it also had the unintended side effect of a being a helpful portfolio of interests when applying for an unexpected job a few years later.) And that aspect of cultivating inquiry is also something to weave into education in general; the redemptive leaven in education should mean we do more than transmit a certain fixed body of content, but that we model inquiry in the process.
Anyway, that personal snippet wasn't the topic of discussion except over coffee, and although its meaningful to me I wouldn't press it too hard as anything other than my own take on things: although it kind of relates to the study we did actually last night, which had big kingdom themes. Big enough to maybe warrant redoing here, so here goes:
Genesis implies a kingdom - first 3 days of creation sets up realms : light/ dark, sky/earth, water/land. Next three days set up rulers and creatures to occupy and fill: a great light to govern the day, a lesser another for the night. Birds for the sky, fish for the deep, animals for the land: all these fill and expand into the realms.
There is some implied dominion for the creatures in the blessing to 'be fruitful' in these realms; and in the lights 'ruling' over day and night.
And after this all goodness, mankind is made in His image, which i gather also implies as his representative - is given definite dominion to to rule and steward over all this.
Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.ruler over the other realms and creatures and authorities in those realms..
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”7th day is rest : God is over all.
There is a kingdom implied here: man as delegated ruler over creation, with God bringing peace and blessing overall.
So when mankind rebels to God and falls: creation falls as well. "Cursed is the ground because of you" enmity enters into the created order. Strain and struggle and toil - difficulty enters work, perils wrack childbirth - things go wrong on a cosmic scale; partly because mankind had that dominion and blew it; creation goes astray too.
Fast forward to the redemptive hope that is revealed through scripture (along the lines of Seth, Shem, Abraham, Israel --to the awaited Messiah) - and we find the reversal is also cosmic.
For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of GodSomehow creation itself is caught up in the drama of redemption. All creation fell- and redemption is being demonstrated across different realms as well. The kingdom reality still resonates across the various dimensions of creation, wherever the people of God bring His light into darkness, or where-ever God's original frame is still respected or restored.
The end of the ages has been brought forward into the present : we get to taste and see and experience the redemption: and creation looks on, somehow knowing this is the hope of redemption for the whole created realm as well.
Yet we live, as it were, between the ages. The new creation has been inaugurated; we know it in our own lives, through the gift and witness of the Holy Spirit. And yet it is not yet complete, either for us or creation:
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies.The Spirit, the same Spirit who was hovering over the waters in the beginning, who was there as God spoke light into being, who knows all creation, helps us now:
In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God.Paul describes Jesus as the second Adam, says that we are a new creation if we are in Him, and sometimes describes new creation in ways that parallel the original creation language:
For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ. (2 Cor 4:6)Our era is kind of ok with spirituality, as long as it stays as its own private domain.
That's not going work with a vision like this, where the Author of all also redeems it all, by bringing it all to head at the Cross. As much as the world would like us to squeeze religion to the margins, this can't be a bit of personal spirituality round the edges:
We look at this Son and see the God who cannot be seen. We look at this Son and see God's original purpose in everything created. For everything, absolutely everything, above and below, visible and invisible, rank after rank after rank of angels—everything got started in him and finds its purpose in him. He was there before any of it came into existence and holds it all together right up to this moment. And when it comes to the church, he organizes and holds it together, like a head does a body.A kingdom that was originally as wide as Creation; that fell and was in rebellion; is being and will be restored; and we're called into that story, included in that redemption and reconciliation for all people and creation. That must touch every sphere and area of life. (Though the message is also that some will resist and miss the hope and promise here).
He was supreme in the beginning and—leading the resurrection parade—he is supreme in the end. From beginning to end he's there, towering far above everything, everyone. So spacious is he, so roomy, that everything of God finds its proper place in him without crowding. Not only that, but all the broken and dislocated pieces of the universe—people and things, animals and atoms—get properly fixed and fit together in vibrant harmonies, all because of his death, his blood that poured down from the cross.
Col 1 (Msg)
And there also is a sense in which the reality of all this is hidden.
Your old life is dead. Your new life, which is your real life—even though invisible to spectators—is with Christ in God. He is your life. When Christ (your real life, remember) shows up again on this earth, you'll show up, too—the real you, the glorious you. Meanwhile, be content with obscurity, like Christ.And while we're called to bring kingdom of God into our own worlds, its not a linear progression of restoration: more like Dickens 'it was the best of times, it was the worst of times': the darkness deepens while the light gets stronger; both at once, as birthpangs of the end of the age intensify.
(Col 3:3)
Its kind of mind blowing sketching it out: resonating the redemptive story across the creation wide kingdom. No wonder Paul prays for the Spirit to bring wisdom and revelation so we can grasp what is the height, width, depth of all this!! I quote the Message translation, not because it says anything different, but it cadences are less familiar and might startle us more with whats being said here in Ephesians!
so that you can see exactly what it is he is calling you to do, grasp the immensity of this glorious way of life he has for his followers, oh, the utter extravagance of his work in us who trust him—endless energy, boundless strength! All this energy issues from Christ: God raised him from death and set him on a throne in deep heaven, in charge of running the universe, everything from galaxies to governments, no name and no power exempt from his rule. And not just for the time being, but forever. He is in charge of it all, has the final word on everything. At the center of all this, Christ rules the church. The church, you see, is not peripheral to the world; the world is peripheral to the church. The church is Christ's body, in which he speaks and acts, by which he fills everything with his presence. (Eph 1)got through something like that outline - slightly different path - a light rehash of topics from years ago with Rikki Watts; newly refreshed with NT Wright.
but less is more next week:)
Thursday, June 16, 2011
NT Wright is an Anglican? - part 1
i notice many Anglicans looking beyond Anglicanism for inspiration. i get that. Partly the era - a healthy cross fertilization of movements is at work.
(i did have a comment in here about my early experience of Anglicanism; schooling etc; but think it may possibly confuse the issue, so its gone. At least for now. )
Anyway, i wonder what would happen if Anglicans wrestled more with NT Wright - an Anglican theologian and bishop. Might be less need to always look elsewhere; good as the cross fertilization can be (and of course crossing these boundaries has been my story).
i've read a few of his books in last couple of years -enjoying these riches - Justification, Surprised by Hope, The Cross and the Fire, some of his articles, and some mp3s on parables, kingdom of God etc - and feel like i'm only skimming the surface.
so much richness and depth and critique and promise and hope in here
Surprised by Hope: have we misunderstood what heaven is all about? If we use the biblical, rather than the popular, images, then perhaps we have. 'Going to heaven when you die' is not the main use or focus of the term in the scripture - its not untrue, but hardly the point of most of the usage: inaugurating a new creation here and now, and exploring the fullness of what that means, what God is up to, is a better focus. Much follows on that: and it widens the dimensions of redemptive living.
Similarly in Justification he makes a compelling case for a scriptural critique and refinement of reformation doctrine; that we have extracted doctrines that are not wrong, but not as biblically based as they could be. The counter arguments - that its awfully unsettling to tinker with centuries old tradition, and it makes reading the text less transparent if we have to know something about 1st century Palestine or the whole bible, or 'look, this bit does say what we think it says' - seem less substantial than Wright's defence that he is following the original reformers' own agenda: deepening faith and practice against the bible itself; letting it be the guide, according to the best understanding that faithful scholarship can furnish.
The 16th C reformation formulations recovered much that we rightly treasure, but seems to me Wright rightly divides the places where they (and tradition) tightened the perspective into too narrow an arc; over stress certain terms and themes at the expense of underplaying others. If it turns out this can be conclusively demonstrated - and i for one think the arguments seem sound, we should let a fuller and better understanding of the text reform our categories. Not least, a fuller and more central doctrine and role of the Holy Spirit, and a stronger frame for the large scale redemptive story, across all creation.
The result is similar : we end up with all of the key doctrines intact, just reshaped in more biblical form - and surprisingly liberating to give other epistles their voice, not just Romans as the de facto base line to interpret the rest of the NT.
Of course that's potentially quite a large re-orientation: and he hardly needs a blogger pushing his work - he has some stern words for the vitriolic and unaccountable critiques that can issue from the blogosphere - but i write for my own reflection, and perhaps - hopefully - some local engagement and discussion.
The counter reaction to his work on Justification seems largely to derive from adherence to tradition: one hears comments like "don't touch this, or how i've got used to it, or how my parents and their parents saw it" (or, more generously, 'this might have some truth, but really, pastorally, don't unsettle the flock with the need for re-learning things they thought were bolted down').
Which is ironic indeed - as if protestants are now too invested in tradition (a charge they would previously have raised to catholics) to let relatively recent doctrine (16th C is still very late) be opened to fresh discussion by first-class biblical (and evangelical) scholars; to look again at the authentic 1st century usages and understanding? (I say evangelical, though part of the difficulty is his work might unsettle some of the things evangelicals thought they had all sorted out).
Perhaps we want to know all the answers already, in some prized areas, rather than risk the uncertainty of going deeper; but we might be holding something that is a little out of focus; and find there are dimensions we had truncated, which come back into focus, be restored to more biblical dimension, if are willing to let go of some of that 'certainty' and come back to the text, with all of its resonances.
Justification is not a light read, but carries the day for me in discussing this - and is itself only a summary of his more substantial work and research into Paul's use of various terms.
He's resigned as Bishop of Durham to take up full time academic study and work on Paul again, in his 60s. Admirable!
and here's a wonderful discussion of what biblical authority might really mean ...
so much to quote: the whole thing sings
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm
i picked up my blogging pen to comment on that article and what i'm finding: but it will have to be the next post.
So if all his discussion and theology is Anglican, well and good -and it seems maybe we could draw more deeply upon it. If not, guess i'll need to be shown where its not biblical:)
(i know people will perhaps point me at Piper for that though; and while he has much great to say, at this point i think Wright has the better of the (courteous) disputation where they differ- the counter arguments* alluded to above are not as strong, in my view. How can a non scholar judge such things? In the last resort, by what seems most resonant with reality. It seems to me to be likely that evangelicalism has backed itself into a few corners, and the bible is bigger, and more integrally connected, in the way that his careful scholarship is unpacking. Not that i can do any more than enjoy reading and working through his texts).
I guess evangelicalism is in the DNA of many churches - and the challenge of some of his work would resound widely - and surely at home in his Anglican tradition first?
* just ran across this, after posting : its a mini summary by Wright of the differences with Piper as expressed in Justification; though the book itself obviously is a better exposition.
** and also, lest all this maybe sound like an academic orientation is needed to get to terms with his approaches, he has a whole range of materials: i've only touched some of the less heavy and more accessible - but just found the 'nt wright for everyone series' his study guides on various biblical books; more accessible still - ordered some to have a look :) . So i see that one can enter at various levels : complaining that he's too difficult might we mean jumped a step i guess - but he certainly does provide accessible ways
(i did have a comment in here about my early experience of Anglicanism; schooling etc; but think it may possibly confuse the issue, so its gone. At least for now. )
Anyway, i wonder what would happen if Anglicans wrestled more with NT Wright - an Anglican theologian and bishop. Might be less need to always look elsewhere; good as the cross fertilization can be (and of course crossing these boundaries has been my story).
i've read a few of his books in last couple of years -enjoying these riches - Justification, Surprised by Hope, The Cross and the Fire, some of his articles, and some mp3s on parables, kingdom of God etc - and feel like i'm only skimming the surface.
so much richness and depth and critique and promise and hope in here
Surprised by Hope: have we misunderstood what heaven is all about? If we use the biblical, rather than the popular, images, then perhaps we have. 'Going to heaven when you die' is not the main use or focus of the term in the scripture - its not untrue, but hardly the point of most of the usage: inaugurating a new creation here and now, and exploring the fullness of what that means, what God is up to, is a better focus. Much follows on that: and it widens the dimensions of redemptive living.
Similarly in Justification he makes a compelling case for a scriptural critique and refinement of reformation doctrine; that we have extracted doctrines that are not wrong, but not as biblically based as they could be. The counter arguments - that its awfully unsettling to tinker with centuries old tradition, and it makes reading the text less transparent if we have to know something about 1st century Palestine or the whole bible, or 'look, this bit does say what we think it says' - seem less substantial than Wright's defence that he is following the original reformers' own agenda: deepening faith and practice against the bible itself; letting it be the guide, according to the best understanding that faithful scholarship can furnish.
The 16th C reformation formulations recovered much that we rightly treasure, but seems to me Wright rightly divides the places where they (and tradition) tightened the perspective into too narrow an arc; over stress certain terms and themes at the expense of underplaying others. If it turns out this can be conclusively demonstrated - and i for one think the arguments seem sound, we should let a fuller and better understanding of the text reform our categories. Not least, a fuller and more central doctrine and role of the Holy Spirit, and a stronger frame for the large scale redemptive story, across all creation.
The result is similar : we end up with all of the key doctrines intact, just reshaped in more biblical form - and surprisingly liberating to give other epistles their voice, not just Romans as the de facto base line to interpret the rest of the NT.
Of course that's potentially quite a large re-orientation: and he hardly needs a blogger pushing his work - he has some stern words for the vitriolic and unaccountable critiques that can issue from the blogosphere - but i write for my own reflection, and perhaps - hopefully - some local engagement and discussion.
The counter reaction to his work on Justification seems largely to derive from adherence to tradition: one hears comments like "don't touch this, or how i've got used to it, or how my parents and their parents saw it" (or, more generously, 'this might have some truth, but really, pastorally, don't unsettle the flock with the need for re-learning things they thought were bolted down').
Which is ironic indeed - as if protestants are now too invested in tradition (a charge they would previously have raised to catholics) to let relatively recent doctrine (16th C is still very late) be opened to fresh discussion by first-class biblical (and evangelical) scholars; to look again at the authentic 1st century usages and understanding? (I say evangelical, though part of the difficulty is his work might unsettle some of the things evangelicals thought they had all sorted out).
Perhaps we want to know all the answers already, in some prized areas, rather than risk the uncertainty of going deeper; but we might be holding something that is a little out of focus; and find there are dimensions we had truncated, which come back into focus, be restored to more biblical dimension, if are willing to let go of some of that 'certainty' and come back to the text, with all of its resonances.
Justification is not a light read, but carries the day for me in discussing this - and is itself only a summary of his more substantial work and research into Paul's use of various terms.
He's resigned as Bishop of Durham to take up full time academic study and work on Paul again, in his 60s. Admirable!
and here's a wonderful discussion of what biblical authority might really mean ...
so much to quote: the whole thing sings
http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm
i picked up my blogging pen to comment on that article and what i'm finding: but it will have to be the next post.
So if all his discussion and theology is Anglican, well and good -and it seems maybe we could draw more deeply upon it. If not, guess i'll need to be shown where its not biblical:)
(i know people will perhaps point me at Piper for that though; and while he has much great to say, at this point i think Wright has the better of the (courteous) disputation where they differ- the counter arguments* alluded to above are not as strong, in my view. How can a non scholar judge such things? In the last resort, by what seems most resonant with reality. It seems to me to be likely that evangelicalism has backed itself into a few corners, and the bible is bigger, and more integrally connected, in the way that his careful scholarship is unpacking. Not that i can do any more than enjoy reading and working through his texts).
I guess evangelicalism is in the DNA of many churches - and the challenge of some of his work would resound widely - and surely at home in his Anglican tradition first?
* just ran across this, after posting : its a mini summary by Wright of the differences with Piper as expressed in Justification; though the book itself obviously is a better exposition.
** and also, lest all this maybe sound like an academic orientation is needed to get to terms with his approaches, he has a whole range of materials: i've only touched some of the less heavy and more accessible - but just found the 'nt wright for everyone series' his study guides on various biblical books; more accessible still - ordered some to have a look :) . So i see that one can enter at various levels : complaining that he's too difficult might we mean jumped a step i guess - but he certainly does provide accessible ways
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
one chapter
Matthew 2.
Jerusalem: after hundreds of years of silence from the prophets; and a couple of fiery revolutions trying to reclaim and purge their homeland, they're at a dubious stage: present in their homeland, but under a Roman occupation.
And suddenly a few elders or mystics of another culture turn up; looking for the birth of a king.
Magi - who are they? Some sort of star gazing prognosticators. Apparently early translations used 'magician', and some cross of that with 'wise men' is probably correct.
Reading signs in the heavens. Not exactly kosher - probably don’t even know of the Hebrew scriptures: yet they come from over the horizon, following signs in the heavens; their journey a strange foreboding of the universal impact this birth will have.
Herod, the King, is disturbed "as is all Jerusalem"
They don’t know these strange foreigners: but they know their own history, enough to know this is potentially big news indeed, disturbing news. And why has it come first through strange outsiders?
So, seemingly pious, Herod acts; he call priests and teachers: where is this Messiah to be born?
The experts refer to the prophet (Micah) who says:
Bethlehem
So Herod now has two prophetic sources
i) the Magi who have come; with all of the strange cultural baggage that their understanding is wrapped in.
ii) the prophecy of Micah, explained by current teachers
does Herod believe any of this? Enough to triangulate the sources: he informs the Magi (in secret) of the Bethlehem reference; and again feigns a noble desire to ‘worship this king’.
So he believes enough to act on it: enough to want to abuse the information and secretly kill this king, even as a child.
This location of the biblical prophecy is accurate; and lines up with the Magi’s current path: the star guides them again; and so they arrive and bow in worship and open their exotic gifts of gold and spices to the infant. No doubt Mary adds this to the treasures she is already holding in her heart about this strange journey they are on.
The Magi, however, are ‘warned in a dream’ – more dynamic revelation given to these outsiders - not to return to the seemingly devout king.
So Herod is outwitted in his devious plots, and is murderously enraged. Mass graves all round the world testify of various rulers' maniacal desires to purge their enemies and protect themselves; Herod adds himself to that infamous list by murdering the local children of his own people.
Another prophet had foreseen this day of lament - Jeremiah.
Joseph though, turns to the scriptures is warned by an angel in a dream to leave. Maybe he his getting used to this sort of revelation: Mary had claimed Gabriel visited her; indeed vouched to her it was her God who had caused this pregnancy; he hadn't initially believed that, till he also saw an angel in a dream confirming her testimony; thus cementing him in a marriage with a pregnancy that the neighbours -who had no such dream - presumably calculate is a little too early.
If this is all of God then He seems willing to use very strange means and to risk plunging his servants into apparent scandal.
So warned by this new dream and angelic revelation, the family flees.
And again; after the massacre; while they’re sheltering in Egypt, the angel of Lord again appears in a dream to tell them to return.
But Joseph is afraid to return, and God has a hand in this fear; having been warned yet again in a dream – is he learning to trust this mode? - he withdrew to the district of Galilee.
And what is the summary: “So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets” - all of this flurry of activity and dreams and angels and star gazing foreigners – all this confirms what the scripture had predicted.
And so what of that experiential and revelatory dimension today: when we have the bible?
Well, the bible itself doesn’t teach this is all now ended; indeed the opposite. Eagerly pursue spiritual gifts, especially that of prophecy; exhorts Paul. Just as the accurate Old Testament prophecy in Joseph's day - which the scholars knew - didn’t rule out all that current activity and strange revelatory modes, giving guidance in dangerous times.
Might not be as neat and tidy as we’d like. But it is biblical by definition. So perhaps we shouldn't expect a neat and tidy path, God in rather predictable boundaries and locations, today?
As Lewis captured in the story of Aslan.
"Is he safe?" asks someone nervously.
"Goodness, no. He's not a tame lion you know. But he is good"
If a young couple claimed to be in touch with this mode of revelation, to any degree, they'd probably, in many places, be told to calm down; ground their experience more in the text of bible reading, let the experts in the law tell them why it can't be real, or how risky such things are. Certainly there is order and guidelines to be observed in such matters. But its also biblical for God's ways to be stranger than expected, and we might also find that dynamic still disturbs.
our exegesis depends at least partly on what we've seen, i think (a dubious sounding proposition but i think it is biblically demonstrable - will jot something on that too).
one chapter indeed
Jerusalem: after hundreds of years of silence from the prophets; and a couple of fiery revolutions trying to reclaim and purge their homeland, they're at a dubious stage: present in their homeland, but under a Roman occupation.
And suddenly a few elders or mystics of another culture turn up; looking for the birth of a king.
Magi - who are they? Some sort of star gazing prognosticators. Apparently early translations used 'magician', and some cross of that with 'wise men' is probably correct.
Reading signs in the heavens. Not exactly kosher - probably don’t even know of the Hebrew scriptures: yet they come from over the horizon, following signs in the heavens; their journey a strange foreboding of the universal impact this birth will have.
Herod, the King, is disturbed "as is all Jerusalem"
They don’t know these strange foreigners: but they know their own history, enough to know this is potentially big news indeed, disturbing news. And why has it come first through strange outsiders?
So, seemingly pious, Herod acts; he call priests and teachers: where is this Messiah to be born?
The experts refer to the prophet (Micah) who says:
Bethlehem
So Herod now has two prophetic sources
i) the Magi who have come; with all of the strange cultural baggage that their understanding is wrapped in.
ii) the prophecy of Micah, explained by current teachers
does Herod believe any of this? Enough to triangulate the sources: he informs the Magi (in secret) of the Bethlehem reference; and again feigns a noble desire to ‘worship this king’.
So he believes enough to act on it: enough to want to abuse the information and secretly kill this king, even as a child.
This location of the biblical prophecy is accurate; and lines up with the Magi’s current path: the star guides them again; and so they arrive and bow in worship and open their exotic gifts of gold and spices to the infant. No doubt Mary adds this to the treasures she is already holding in her heart about this strange journey they are on.
The Magi, however, are ‘warned in a dream’ – more dynamic revelation given to these outsiders - not to return to the seemingly devout king.
So Herod is outwitted in his devious plots, and is murderously enraged. Mass graves all round the world testify of various rulers' maniacal desires to purge their enemies and protect themselves; Herod adds himself to that infamous list by murdering the local children of his own people.
Another prophet had foreseen this day of lament - Jeremiah.
Joseph though,
If this is all of God then He seems willing to use very strange means and to risk plunging his servants into apparent scandal.
So warned by this new dream and angelic revelation, the family flees.
And again; after the massacre; while they’re sheltering in Egypt, the angel of Lord again appears in a dream to tell them to return.
But Joseph is afraid to return, and God has a hand in this fear; having been warned yet again in a dream – is he learning to trust this mode? - he withdrew to the district of Galilee.
And what is the summary: “So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets” - all of this flurry of activity and dreams and angels and star gazing foreigners – all this confirms what the scripture had predicted.
And so what of that experiential and revelatory dimension today: when we have the bible?
Well, the bible itself doesn’t teach this is all now ended; indeed the opposite. Eagerly pursue spiritual gifts, especially that of prophecy; exhorts Paul. Just as the accurate Old Testament prophecy in Joseph's day - which the scholars knew - didn’t rule out all that current activity and strange revelatory modes, giving guidance in dangerous times.
Might not be as neat and tidy as we’d like. But it is biblical by definition. So perhaps we shouldn't expect a neat and tidy path, God in rather predictable boundaries and locations, today?
As Lewis captured in the story of Aslan.
"Is he safe?" asks someone nervously.
"Goodness, no. He's not a tame lion you know. But he is good"
If a young couple claimed to be in touch with this mode of revelation, to any degree, they'd probably, in many places, be told to calm down; ground their experience more in the text of bible reading, let the experts in the law tell them why it can't be real, or how risky such things are. Certainly there is order and guidelines to be observed in such matters. But its also biblical for God's ways to be stranger than expected, and we might also find that dynamic still disturbs.
our exegesis depends at least partly on what we've seen, i think (a dubious sounding proposition but i think it is biblically demonstrable - will jot something on that too).
one chapter indeed
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)