Glocal Christianity

In honour of Cara and Greg, on their wedding day

My child, do not forget my teaching, 
  but keep my commands in your heart,
for they will prolong your life many years
  and bring you peace and prosperity.
Let love and faithfulness never leave you;
  bind them around your neck,
  write them on the tablet of your heart.
Then you will win favor and a good name
  in the sight of God and man.
Trust in the LORD with all your heart
  and lean not on your own understanding;
in all your ways submit to him,
  and he will make your paths straight.

- Proverbs 3:1-6

Appearances Can Be Deceiving

They will hold to the outward form of our religion but reject its real power. (2 Timothy 3:5a)

 

Breaking the Cycle

"The gospel says that the cycle of violence, in which each new act of vengeance elicits a new act of vengeance in return, has been broken in the cross. Jesus absorbed all the violence and hatred the world could hurl at him and bore it without retaliation or bitterness. He died forgiving those who tortured him. To bear witness to Jesus, the church proclaims the end of the cycle of violence through forgiving love and it does so in word and deed. This is why the church must be pacifist. Logically there is no other way for it to fulfill it mission of bearing witness to the cross and resurrection ..."

Craig A Carter - The Politics of the Cross

Reasonable Faith versus Blind Faith

"Trust is not 'blind faith'. Trust comes over time, and is built up as people show that they can be relied on. And so, if we trust someone, we have some kind of evidence that they can be relied on. It's no different with God. God has shown throughout history that He can be relied on, and that He always has our best interests at heart. He never lies, and He never breaks promises. When He asks us to trust Him, it's based on His unfailing record of perfect love and keeping promises." - Rupert Lineage

Faith is not something that comes easy for me. I naturally question everything, even myself, so it is natural for me to question God too, even now that I follow God. I suppose I'm a bit of a Job, or at least a Thomas in that respect.

My mother, when she gets to reminiscing, often tells the story that one of my favourite words as a child was "why?" and how I wore her out with it. So it may not surprise you then to hear I have little patience for "blind" faith. For faith that never asks "why?" I can be as contemptuous of blind faith as a hardened atheist. That's something I have to watch, I know. Contempt is not a virtue. Nevertheless I confess this so that you know where I'm coming from. Faith is something that's come upon me unnaturally. Faith has come through finding God trustworthy even when I didn't expect it.

You know what though? It means that God never ceases to surprise me, never ceases to limitlessly exceed my limited expectations. Take the healing I witnessed a few years back. On one level, of course I know God heals. Nevertheless, when he healed the gangrenous and soon-to-be-amputated hand of an addict friend of mine, when another friend and I prayed over it, it felt surreal. I felt like Thomas exclaiming, "My Lord and my God!" or "Lord I believe, help me in my unbelief!" Nevertheless, my experience that God can be expected to surprise me gives rise to an unshakable faith. He will keep surprising me, because he has reliably proven himself so surprising so far!

But enough about me, what's your experience of faith? Has faith ever seemed illusive? Do you find faith compelling? Has your ability to entrust yourself to the transcendent, to risk yourself to the transcendent, grown through experience? Do you see strength in a vulnerable faith?

Justification has a horizontal dimension.

Michael Bird has posted a great summary of the "new perspective on Paul" over at Euangelion (see part 1 and part 2), but the new perspective I personally find most significant is this:

Justification has a horizontal dimension. Justification is clearly vertical and declares one’s right status/standing before God (e.g., Rom 5:1, 8:1), but also declares that a person is a member of the messianic community, the Israel of God. Note that the first thing imputed to Gentile believers in Romans is “circumcision,” i.e. covenant membership (Rom 3:26). Jesus was cursed on the cross so that the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles (Gal 3:14). The first implication that Paul draws after Eph 2:8-10 is not sanctification, but the unity of Gentiles with Jews in the commonwealth of Israel defined by the Messiah (Eph 2.11ff).

What say you?

What fundamentalists won't tell you

We've all heard the fundamentalists trying to seize the high ground of biblical literalism. What this rhetoric often masks however are two simple truths: (1) that the Old Testament and New Testament differ from each other in important respects, so consequently (2) there is a trade off between biblical literalism and biblical unity whichever way you interpret the Bible.

Reformed Christians, for instance, tend to emphasize the soveriegnty of God and the unity of scripture. They suggest the differences between the two testaments are more apparent than real as "God does not contradict himself" and any apparent contradictions can be harmonized when we look deeper. They advise that when one is faced with many clear verses apparently teaching one ethic and few unclear verses apparently teaching another ethic, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the former as being God's word for us. The clearer scripture relativises the unclearer scripture. There is much merit to this approach I think.

Anabaptist Christians, however, have critiqued this method for its tendency to domesticate the radical teaching of Jesus. For instance, when one is faced with the apparent contradiction between the wars of YHWH in the Old Testament and the "love your enemies" teaching of Jesus in the New Testament, should we allow the former to correct the latter? Or shouldn't it be the other way around, even when it seems to buck the Old Testament status quo and even when it seems cryptic? Is Jesus not the revelation of God? If so, it is Jesus we should take most literally. Let lesser revelation be relativised. As you may gather, I favour this approach.

Dispensationalist Christians, the fundamentalists, would critique both approaches as insufficiently literal. What about YHWH's promises to Israel they ask? What about the prophecies? Can you allegorize them away so easily? We should treat New Testament and Old Testament, clear verses and unclear verses with equal seriousness! Superficially this sounds sensible. However, what such a position commits them to is this: they can't do it without dividing up scripture to an insanely complicated degree and denying the applicability of every scripture to everyone at everytime. Way beyond the simple divide between New Testament and Old Testament. This is what fundamentalists don't tell you. They affirm different ethics for diffent "dispensations". And since Jesus belonged to a past dispensation, his teaching, however literal, in important respects no longer applies for Christians of this dispensation. This is a literalism that casts the literal teachings of Jesus to one side in the name of literalism.

Cynical wisdom in the Old Testament

How's this for a quick explaination of Ecclesiastes in relation to wisdom lit?

• God shows Job - a righteous man - that he is a sinner in God's sight
• God shows Solomon - the wisest man - that he's a fool in God's sight

Apart from God everything is meaningless

Apocalyptic moments in Mark

For some time I have been intrigued by the parallels between the baptism account, the transfiguration account and the crucifixion account in the gospel of Mark. Particularly the parallels regarding the veil between heaven and earth being torn open and the consequent revelation of Jesus as the son of God. 

But this presentation at VirtualTheology.net has made me realise I missed something. The parallel mentions of Elijah (and John as the new Elijah) in each instance. And this Orthodox interpretation made me realise I missed something else. The descending movements in each event.

Many have drawn attention to the messianic secret theme running through the gospel of Mark. Consider, however, how these apocalyptic moments at the beginning, middle and end of the gospel of Mark serve as moments of messianic revelation. 

With his last breath, his enemy experienced enlightenment. 

Life, the Media and Everything

Just finished reading through Metamorphasis, the manga version of the Acts of the Apostles, with my six year old son this week.

He was so wrapped by the finish of it that he wants to read the book again and read more. I'm just blown away as, although I expected him to like it, the depth of his engagement exceeded my expectations.

It gives me much food for thought as I reflect on Huxley's Brave New World and Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death. Multimedia communication has a corrosive effect on intellectual culture. I accept that thesis, particularly as it applies to Protestant Christianity. But whether we like it or not that's the culture we have to disciple our kids in the midst of. How do we pass on the tradition? I think we need an iconigraphy that engages.

Image by Siku

Piper says God talk doesn’t cut it anymore

JOHN PIPER TO RICK WARREN: "This is a very theocentric emphasis here, as oppose to Christocentric. So my question is would you, I ask this question because it was asked to me at The Gospel Coalition panel the other night, has your Godcentric message become more or less Christocentric, or Christ oriented? I told the story of how in the last 10 years or so, I have felt impulses in me, partly because of what I’ve seen in the Scripture as the cross being the center of everything and party because of the Islamic influences in the world. God talk doesn’t cut it anymore."

Wow. I'm very intrigued and encouraged by this comment, coming as it does from the heart of the Reformed stream. Does anyone know where to get the rest of this transcript?