Another link

Great post by Peter Leithart. It can be read with a post I made in September (Revelation, Gas, and Hurricanes). On the one hand, I sure do wish scientists would start reading Thomas Kuhn before too long! On the other hand, it is encouraging to see Christian philosophy leading the way, as it used to. Of course, this means rolling our eyes and explaining to the media why some scientific discovery does not mean what they think it means.

Thoughts on homosexuality pt. 2

A few weeks ago I linked to a post on homosexuality and its consideration being within covenant. This is an excellent follow-up post. If you are tempted to disagree right off the bat with McKnight, just remember that wonderful rule when reading scholars: They are likely smarter than you. Now, I disagree with people who are smarter than me all the time, but only after careful consideration. So, disagree with McKnight if you will, but remember he's a NT scholar! :)

Putting my finger on something

I am close to putting my finger on something. Here's my problem. I think that libertarian free-will has problems with the effects of original sin. Wesley's doctrine of prevenient grace helps make sense of our perception of freedom, while taking seriously original sin. Wesley says that one's freedom is restored in certain moments of hearing the gospel so that one may respond to the message at these times. But this person is not untethered and in complete control of their will all the time. Still, the emphasis on "choice" and "response" seems to be the true sentiment of many Wesleyans--they were free to make the choice even at the time they decided. This takes seriously neither original sin nor God's role in the initial moment of faith.

However, if repentance is prior to belief, then I think compatibilist freedom becomes incoherent vis-a-vis repentance. This is because repentance requires *agency* and I do not know what sense it makes to say that a person "repents" if they could not have willed otherwise. In a compatibilist framework, it could be said that a compatibilistically free person is the object of repentance, but not the subject (they were 'turned' but did not 'turn').

Here's my problem (as it will become clear): The best vision of freedom is eschatological. In having a conversation with some friends about people who have been harmed and have a subsequently skewed vision of God, I said that anyone who ultimately rejects God does so with "eyes wide open." In other words, the person who rejects God cannot do so out of misunderstanding who He is and what He is like.

The vision Scripture gives of justice is the communal worship of God. This is not a cosmic balancing of scales, but mutual and free worship--the saving relationship. Such worship is "communicative"--it involves give and take relationships between people and between God and people. It seems to me that the quasi-Wesleyan view of brute freedom (completely individual; my decision; my choice) and the incoherent compatibilist view find their weakness here: The freedom is not completely individual, nor is it God working through secondary agents. It is mutual participation in community; mutually free individuals eternally conditioned by the prior free acts of others (the free acts of whom are eternally conditioned, as well, and so on). This is neither libertarian nor compatibilist because free acts are not self-caused, nor are they simply the follow through of always and only doing what you want (as any meaningful relationship testifies to).

In thinking about this freedom in terms of the eschatological rejection of God, I realized something. If God is consistently wooing persons to Himself, then his influence is to the good. The ultimate rejection of God, then, must be contrary to His loving will. If freedom means 'unhindered,' and completely individualized without outside factors, then the decision to reject God is the *only* truly free act. Alternatively, it can be said that entering into covenant with God is far from a free act--because of the wooing and drawing of his Spirit (and, hopefully, loving relationships with the church).

Thoughts?

Radical Orthodoxy and "Lord of the Rings"

I've been reading a little bit of Radical Orthodoxy lately. Let me say first that I think I like it; second, I don't understand it. (Third, I think it's detrimental to study a linguistically driven theology when you are a pastor in a Wesleyan Church. Longer story required, I know...)

I like RO because it sounds cool. It is intriguing. It takes Christianity seriously. Theology is the Queen of the Sciences for RO. I don't understand RO because it is neo-Platonic and exceptionally abstract. It feels foreign.

It reminds me of Lord of the Rings. The first time I read LOTR I didn't finish it. How could you finish such a book when you're 10 years old? The second time I read it, I liked it. It had a new world. It felt different. It confronted my boring world of television. But I still didn't understand it.

I think that quality of not-understanding is important for both RO and LOTR. Not-understanding is the first step to taking something as fresh. RO does not simply want to warm-over the faith; it seeks an all out confrontation between the world and Christian theology. Since I live both in the world and in a Christian theology the fight of RO is happening around me. The casualties are evidenced by my simultaneous not-understanding but liking.

I think if I could describe RO in two words they would be: Intentional Obscurity. Sounds like some prophets I have read about...

the right take on a few things

so that the conversation of the last post doesn't get too ridiculous, time to move on.

Kirk Bartha gets a several things right in his latest blogging (plus he has some photos from Harper's campaign victory). My favourite quote is his slam on Michael Moore for his ridiculous comments concerning the Canadian election. (On the whole I have been amazed at the consistent inability of US journalists (David Frum an exception) to misunderstand exactly what Canadian politics is about.) Anyway, here's the quote:

"Buddy, stick with crucifying your own government. South of the border it seems that Democrats create straw men and Republicans burn well. Maybe Paul Martin had Michael Moore writing his campaign speeches. Harper is not the straw of American right."

That is just it: Canadian Conservatives are not the U.S. conservatives. That is neither an endorsement nor beration of either group. It is simply a fact. If Michael Moore misses the point so badly on the Canadian election, then I wonder how badly he misses the point elsewhere.

Missing the point. On the internet. Michael Moore missing the point. I'm not making this up.

reason to be hopeful

at first i was rather disappointed by the election results. but i am beginning to change my mind.

1. perspective. one month ago this result looked impossible.
2. bad polling should never control my emotions.
3. the Liberal party has a chance to redeem itself. this one takes some explaining. first, new leader: i expect frank mckenna or john manley. only a birthing party like the Conservative Party could have people like Belinda Stronach get a shot at leading the party. both mckenna and manley are worthy leaders. here's the thing: if they are worthy leaders, they will not run a campaign of lies. ultimately, i think the scare tactics of paul martin were effective. i think neither mckenna nor manley will run such a campaign. we'll see.
4. huge gains in Ontario and Quebec. there is a second viable federalist option in Quebec. Lawrence Cannon wins my home riding of Pontiac and i expect will be deputy PM. he's got a chance at least. sharp people elected all through central and eastern Canada will make it into the Cabinet which will only strengthen the momentum built there. provincial politics in quebec and ontario will play huge roles in the next federal election.
5. the Liberal Party is mired in debt. i expect legislation will be passed to limit the amount of funds donated to a party per person to about $1000. the Conservatives have no trouble financially and, in the end, this makes a difference.

this all being said: i was way off in my predictions for the Tories and Liberals. ah well. in the end, after writing this one year ago, my overall prediction is heading in the right direction. who would have thought that the cries of extremism and bigotry would be effective for only 30 seats? my predictions of quebec has come true; my prediction of solid conservative values is not far off the mark... let's hope my optimism proves its worth.

Election Prediction

I started this campaign by being positive and I'm ending it being positive. I am not right yet, but I'm looking better with each passing day. My brother Tim was a little worried about a Conservative win because it would mean I was right all along. That remains to be seen. And so we shall see. Here, though, are my predictions, in all their optimism:

Conservatives: 157
Liberals: 64
NDP: 32
Bloc: 55

I would also like to clear one thing up. Living in the USA, many people equate Republicanism with Christianity. In seminary, however, many equate Democratism with Christianity. Both are wrong... (but I think more Democrats know it than Republicans; hence, my more secure friendships with Democrats.) Anyway... This election I am not supporting the Conservatives because I am a Christian. I am supporting the Consevatives because I am a Canadian. It does not take explicit Christian faith to hate corruption and elitism. It only takes the fresh air found when one's head is not buried between one's own butt cheeks.

What are you predictions?

Ethics and covenant

Well, since everyone is in apparent agreement with me, contrary to Larry Norman and later DC Talk, about Matt 23-25, I'll move on. Found a great post on homosexuality. For those who may be tempted to think, "Great, another conservative talking about homosexuality," you'll likely be surprised. For those thinking, in light of the last sentence, "Great, another liberal talking about homosexuality," you'll likely be relieved. Either that or both groups will be annoyed. The gyst is that sexuality is defined in terms of covenant between God and humanity. I especially appreciated his consistent linking of marriage, procreation, and child-rearing, making sure Christians take seriously adultery and divorce, in addition to homosexuality.

Some Guy: I have in mind your question about the 10 Commandments from FT a year or so ago. I wonder if you were asked that question again whether you'd go into covenant requirements and faithfulness. Seems like a tough thing to 'splain in a page. Would you write it any differently?

Reading Matthew 23-25

I started doing a study on Revelation on Sunday night (after a SWEET FOOTBALL GAME). One of the things we did was re-look at Matt. 25 and the classic "rapture" passage, which actually says the opposite of what we often read. (Those taken are those taken in judgment; those left are those spared judgment. See the parallel language between those *taken* in the flood, and the ones *taken* from the field and while grinding grain.) Anyway, a little discussion took place then with a follow up email of good questions. I put my answer here. Bear in mind, a good deal of this is Wrightian, and some of it may be Wright verbatim. I don't claim it as my own, except that my fingers typed it--some from my brain, most from his. Read at your own leisure!

1. What are the disciples referring to with their question in 24:3 which
Jesus then answers?

The most obvious reference is the destruction of the temple which Jesus has just mentioned in 24:2. The addition of "...the sign of your coming and of the close of the age..." is unique to Matthew. Do the disciples have in mind the end of the space-time universe with "close of the age"? There is no reason to think so. The end of the universe is not a very Jewish idea. They were much more concerned with seeing Israel restored and not being under foreign reign. They have hitched their wagons to Jesus' claim to Messiahship (Kingship). The prediction of the temple destruction (much like Jeremiah) was not a unique thing to Jesus, but for those who said judgment was coming on Jerusalem (see the end of Matt. 23). So, the question is best understood as, "When will the destruction you have just prophecied take place, and what will be the sign of your enthronement (see below), and the end of ISrael's age in exile?"

Another word in question is "coming," which I have put above as "enthronement." Obviously this is not a literal translation, but showing the story that comes to mind from Zech. 14 (see below). The Greek word for "coming" here is "parousia" which has been almost always associated with "second coming." It itself, however, simply means "presence." The constant association of parousia with second coming is not a necessary one, nor, I think, most faithful to this text. The setting itself, the Mount of Olives, brings to mind Zech 14 which is about Jerusalem's last great struggle, the 'coming' of God, and the final arrival of the divine kingdom. Jesus has told many stories that are about God's visiting Israel in him...and now the disciples are asking about his coming and the restitution of Israel.


2. How do the signs which Jesus described in 24:4-8 relate to the
destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD?

It is apocalyptic language (actually stretching to v. 14), the like of which is found in many prophets. The message to stay true in spite of betrayal and persecution, just as Israel was called to at many times, and God will bring judgment against their enemies and vindicate them. Now, however, the people who are told to stay true are the disciples (v. 9--he is still talking to them).

But they need not endure only. Flight is appropriate at the proper time. Jesus has announced that Jerusalem will be destroyed in ch. 23 because they will oppose him (and killed the prophets), even though he wishes he could gather them and protect them. Without taking all the necessary time to spell it all out, the flight is abandonment of the temple cult and Jerusalem because faithfulness to them is apostasy to God. To be the true Israel, one now flees--showing allegiance to a new way to be God's people, the way which centered around Jesus.

3. How does 24:15 relate to any event which happened after Jesus spoke and
before the destruction of Jerusalem?

Now I'll have to flesh out a little bit of the previous answer! The reference is coming from Daniel, as you know. The mingling of the pagan and the sacred by Antiochus Epiphanes sacrificing a pig in the temple shows the corruption of the temple (not by Israel, though) is what is important to keep in mind. Jesus says when they see this happening--the corruption of the temple cult, and then says "let the reader understand" which is a euphemism for "Pay attention because this is now happening!" The corruption of the temple--which was first seen by Daniel--is now coming back and as a result, God is bringing judgment. Staying loyal to this system is going against God, so flee.


3. Who were the false Christs and false prophets who appeared before 70AD
and performed great signs and miracles?

Don't know. There always were lots of people making messianic claims and doing things to gather followings. It's also a regular biblical theme (Dt. 13, Jer. 6:13f., etc.). This is all in the context that the coming (see above) of the Son of Man will be obvious--just as he has predicted. Look now at v. 28, which both the KJV and NKJV translate 'eagles.' It's a strange statement translated eagles or vultures, unless it's a clever mentioning of the Roman military (eagles!) and their destruction of Jerusalem.

3. Is there any record of the sign of the Son of Man coming in great power
and glory, all the nations morning at His coming and the elect being
gathered from the four winds in the first century? Is it not reasonable
to assume that these prophecies are still to be fulfilled?

The issue is what makes the most sense of the text in its setting. I will say that it is not unreasonable to interpret this as you do. It is a legitimate interpretation. However, I don't think it makes the most sense of what's going on. Taking in mind what the Son of Man (vindication of Israel against other nations in Daniel, a notion taken up by Jesus for himself) 'coming' means as I have described above--enthronement as real King, vindication, etc. and that 'angeloi' is just as easily translated 'messengers,' then it makes sense that Jesus' coming (see Dan 7 where the Son of Man comes to heaven from earth, he comes **to** the Ancient of Days; the Gk word 'erchomenon' can be translated either 'coming' or 'going') is to heaven in vindication (not that he wasn't there after the Ascension, but is now enthroned because of the things he prophecied coming to be. It then makes perfect sense why Jesus would then say "this generation will not pass away until these things have happened" and why the hearers are to learn the lesson of the fig tree--"When you start to see what I have predicted, you'll know to be ready."

Reference Help

A few weeks ago, listening to a Wright lecture, I heard him say that the story of God's command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac cannot be understood without remembering what he and Sarah had done to Ishmael and Hagar. Does anyone have any commentary recommendations on this idea? Has anyone heard it before? (Can God's language of "Take your son, your only son..." be taken for irony and perhaps sarcasm in the Gen. 22 passage?)

what kind of life does God want me to live?

my sister-in-law rachel got me a sweet Christmas present: a year's subscription to FIRST THINGS magazine. some of my friends may not agree with the politics of the magazine's editors richard john neuhaus and joseph bottum, but they will do you the **great service** of letting you know exactly what it is you disagree with. this post is inspired from a section by neuhaus in First Things called "while we're at it." here's the scoop: ted haggard, president of the National Assoc. of Evangelicals, was interviewed in Christianity Today about evangelicals. Haggard is a likeable guy, pastors a mega-church, probably pretty sharp. what neuhaus took exception to was haggard's comments about "living a pretty good life" and how many Christians can do so in colorado (where haggard pastors). neuhaus responded with something like, "i guess it would be inappropriate to mention the cross." here's the question i have: what kind of life does God want me to live?

now think about two recent books published by evangelicals: "Purpose-Driven Life" and "Your Best Life Now" and maybe check out my friend mark brewer's blog on doing what you do best. (i think mark gets it right, btw, even if the people he quotes don't.) does God want us to live "pretty good" lives (read: fairly comfortable lives)? is that what ministry is and is for? is it possible that a faith in a free-market leads to a faith that competes in the spirit of the free-market--i.e., with best benefits, most to offer, "meaning," and that facilitates my best life?

pot probs in JC

well, the title is a little misleading. BBC taught a class called "Potential Problems in Youth Ministry." the title was of course shortened to "Pot Probs." so, i am not talking about marijuana problems in Johnson City, but potential problems for preaching in JC. here's the issue:

i test ran a dialogue forum last night at my small group. some engaged well; some got alot better; some preferred to do nothing. one girl, actually quite brave i think, asked, "are you going to look up what repentance means before sunday?" she then asked a very profound question: "why do we get to decide what repentance means?" if this is what i communicated last night, it cannot be what i communicate sunday. repentance is not ours to mould, deciding what repentance is. it is an act, however, that confronts us differently than it did Jesus' hearers (Mark 1:14-15 being the text). if the goal of Scripture is community and character formation (I think I could get there from Greg Bloomquist's statement that the Scriptures are "soteriological" in nature, Some Guy!)--a big if, btw, and one open for discussion--and the call of repentance is to God's kingdom, then where we miss God's kingdom, no doubt conditioned by our time, heritage, etc., must be the content and subject of repentance. we don't get to choose what repentance means; we just have to listen with our hands, feet, and characters on the table for change.

reading, preaching, and stanley hauerwas

i just tossed stanley hauerwas in there to get the goad of some guy. i don't mind hauerwas, even though i think he's wrong on some things, and being out of the asbury environment makes me appreciate him more. now that i'm away from his doting fans, i can see what's of value in him.

anyway, i'm still thinking about preaching. if i take seriously the nature of the Scripture and remember that it the OT was oral to begin with, and that letters were read aloud in the NT churches, then something may need to change with how i preach. the text becomes not the pastor's to proclaim, but the community's to submit to; but the community can only submit to what they know and interpret. so, preaching must involve "owning" the text corporately. of course, there is room for authority and leadership and trained theologians. but their responsibility is not to spout all they know, but to increase Scriptural literacy and humility in interpretation (the truth will out!) so that the Scripture is indeed primary (rather than the preacher's interpretation of Scripture).

so, i'm preaching a different way this Sunday. part one: i'm guiding discussion about repentance. what is it? how do we embody it? what themes can be traced through stories about repentance? part two: i'm preaching mark 1:14-15, with an eye to what we have just discussed. part three: i'm asking the question, "if kingdom of God points in this direction, and repentance involves this, how do we now embody and live repetance, as Jesus calls us to?" where have we misunderstood kingdom and need to repent? what does this involve and entail?

thoughts? comments? questions? what does repentance mean?

Language, Metaphor, and the Incarnation

I was told today that God as Father is a metaphor that we know is limited. I reacted strongly against this statement. My issue is that Father is the new language we are taught both about God and how to pray to God. Winking at this language, knowing it to be limited, seems the liberal move that makes reason and, I expect more accurately once fleshed out, feeling the more important theological source (we all feel rather strongly about dead-beat dads, right?), rather than Scripture. This position says that while Scripture teaches us God is Father and Jesus teaches us to call God Father, we know it's metaphor.

Here's my concern: Where do we get the arrogance to say we know that it is metaphor? Clearly this is not the same as metaphorical language of God having feathers, eyes, etc. Scripture's confrontation of our world involves teaching us a new language to speak, with new vocabulary. It should flip our relationships on their heads, so that our earthly father-son language is the metaphor of the true, eternal begottenness of the Son by the Father.

Now, to the Incarnation. If the Father is truly the ontological (in his very being) Father of the Son (not with the sex-act, etc. that we have in the human act of fathering), then the Incarnation, by which we are made brothers and sisters of Jesus, changes our ontology, as well, to make us ontologically Son and Daughters of God. God's embrace of humanity is final and complete, never to be rejected, as the Ascension affirms, and that embrace of humanity, done through his human Son!, includes us.

Larry Wood and the meaning of preaching

I am becoming more and more convinced that being a pastor is about being a theologian. (Actually, this is one reason why I am excited about the house church movement and Barna's findings in "Revolution": the pastor is freed to be a theologian, and not mainly an administrator.)

Anyway, Larry Wood is one of the smartest people I know. He's an Asbury prof who actually teaches. Teaching is about teaching for him. It's not a necessary evil of being an academic (which I think, not know but think, is a genuine vocation), but his passion. His greatest strength is knowing the interconnection of the history of philosophy. He sees how it fits together and why movements arise, stumble, get rejected, etc.

All this makes me think of preaching: It seems to me that preaching is about, more than anything, connection. It is a connection of a talkative God with his people. It is a connection between the preacher and the Word. It is thereby a connection between the preacher and God. And it is a connection between the preacher and the people. (The preacher is mentioned quite a bit here because his job is the one most in jeopardy. Another issue...)

Tying all this together: The valuable preacher is the one who can connect his/her people to the Bible (not the Bible to her/his people). That is the work of theology. Hence, the pastor must be a theologian...or else s/he can't preach.