Jonathan Alan Wells

Jonathan Alan Wells, born 21/6/11. Everyone is doing well, if a bit tired.

God just wants you to be 'nice'

How do we reenchant the everyday with the sense that God is in fact active by his Spirit, bringing new creation, without reaffirming our basically banal, middle class existence as the chief place of God's activity? Without saying that what God really wants is to make you a super smiley, luxury 4WD driving soccer mum who doesnt get flustered, is generally dissapproving of unnice people, but really knows how to throw a pink everywhere fairy party to 'serve' all the other smiley luxury 4WD driving soccer mums, because it is 'for the kids'. Which is a round about way of saying that as I watched 'The Blind Side' , with it's sugar sweet spirituality and 'O you are so generous' overtones, all I could think was 'why dont you just pay more taxes so that your country might have a chance at fixing it's problems'. There is plenty in the New Testament that speaks against 'playing the benefactor'. (although still plenty about generosity too) Anyway, all this was from repeated listens to his inane song that plays on the local Christian radio

Artist: Francesca Battistelli Title: This Is The Stuff

Lyrics to This Is The Stuff :

I lost my keys in the great unknown
And call me please 'Cuz I can't find my phone

This is the stuff that drives me crazy
This is the stuff that's getting to me lately
In the middle of my little mess
I forget how big I'm blessed
This is the stuff that gets under my skin
But I gotta trust You know exactly what You're doing
It might not be what I would choose
But this is the stuff You use

45 in a 35
Sirens and fines while I'm running behind
Whoa

This is the stuff that drives me crazy
This is the stuff that's getting to me lately
In the middle of my little mess
I forget how big I'm blessed
This is the stuff that gets under my skin
But I gotta trust You know exactly what You're doing
It might not be what I would choose
But this is the stuff You use

So break me of impatience
Conquer my frustrations
I've got a new appreciation
It's not the end of the world
Oh Oh Oh

This is the stuff that drives me crazy
This is the stuff
Someone save me
In the middle of my little mess
I forget how big I'm blessed
This is the stuff that gets under my skin
And I've gotta trust You know exactly what You're doing
It might not be what I would choose
But this is the stuff You use

Oh Oh Oh Oh
This is the stuff You use

I lost my keys in the great unknown
And call me please 'Cuz I can't find my phone

This is the stuff that drives me crazy
This is the stuff that's getting to me lately
In the middle of my little mess
I forget how big I'm blessed
This is the stuff that gets under my skin
But I gotta trust You know exactly what You're doing
It might not be what I would choose
But this is the stuff You use

45 in a 35
Sirens and fines while I'm running behind
Whoa

This is the stuff that drives me crazy
This is the stuff that's getting to me lately
In the middle of my little mess
I forget how big I'm blessed
This is the stuff that gets under my skin
But I gotta trust You know exactly what You're doing
It might not be what I would choose
But this is the stuff You use

So break me of impatience
Conquer my frustrations
I've got a new appreciation
It's not the end of the world
Oh Oh Oh

This is the stuff that drives me crazy
This is the stuff
Someone save me
In the middle of my little mess
I forget how big I'm blessed
This is the stuff that gets under my skin
And I've gotta trust You know exactly what You're doing
It might not be what I would choose
But this is the stuff You use

Oh Oh Oh Oh
This is the stuff You use"

Sure, in one sense it s a good attempt at patience through providence, but on the other hand, it is annoying

Phoebe flutters

People are all in a flutter at what the bible actually says about women serving the church, and how the early church interpreted it

Calvin on wisdom and peace

Calvin comments on James 3:17-18
" But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace."

"those who wish to be physicians to heal vices out not to be executioners".
His basic thrust is to cut people some slack. Not in the sense of turning a blind eye, but in the manner you raise issues. .Calvin connects this to the pride of the previous verses

"They, then, are alone wise in the sight of God, who connect this meekness with an honest conversation; for they who are severe and inexorable, though they may excel others in many virtues, do not yet follow the right way of wisdom".
It is interesting stuff to hear from Calvin, given the caricature that accretes around his more outspoken followers.
Speaking of outspoken followers, the footnote from John Owen on these verses is fascinating too.
"Pure,, is to be understood according to what the context contains. It means what is free from taint or pollution: the kind of taint must be learnt from the passage. The wisdom from above is contrasted with the wisdom from below: the latter has envy and contention; the former is "pure", being free from envy, and is "peaceable" "
Calvins Commentaries Vol XXII Baker: Grand Rapids, 324-328

More surprises from Thomas: only the scriptures revealed

But sacred doctrine makes use even of human reason, not, indeed, to prove faith (for thereby the merit of faith would come to an end), but to make clear other things that are put forward in this doctrine. Since therefore grace does not destroy nature but perfects it, natural reason should minister to faith as the natural bent of the will ministers to charity. Hence the Apostle says: "Bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. 10:5). Hence sacred doctrine makes use also of the authority of philosophers in those questions in which they were able to know the truth by natural reason, as Paul quotes a saying of Aratus: "As some also of your own poets said: For we are also His offspring" (Acts 17:28). Nevertheless, sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities as extrinsic and probable arguments; but properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors. Hence Augustine says (Epis. ad Hieron. xix, 1): "Only those books of Scripture which are called canonical have I learned to hold in such honor as to believe their authors have not erred in any way in writing them. But other authors I so read as not to deem everything in their works to be true, merely on account of their having so thought and written, whatever may have been their holiness and learning."

Thomas on God as the aspect of theology

Thomas is interesting.


"God is the object of this science. The relation between a science and its object is the same as that between a habit or faculty and its object. Now properly speaking, the object of a faculty or habit is the thing under the aspect of which all things are referred to that faculty or habit, as man and stone are referred to the faculty of sight in that they are colored. Hence colored things are the proper objects of sight. But in sacred science, all things are treated of under the aspect of God: either because they are God Himself or because they refer to God as their beginning and end. Hence it follows that God is in very truth the object of this science. This is clear also from the principles of this science, namely, the articles of faith, for faith is about God. The object of the principles and of the whole science must be the same, since the whole science is contained virtually in its principles. Some, however, looking to what is treated of in this science, and not to the aspect under which it is treated, have asserted the object of this science to be something other than God---that is, either things and signs; or the works of salvation; or the whole Christ, as the head and members. Of all these things, in truth, we treat in this science, but so far as they have reference to God." Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica I:I:7

This passage reminds me of Calvin's glasses, though here, God himself is the pair of glasses that we look through to see him. Thomas is adamant that theology is a sharing in God's own knowledge f himself, as it is revealed to us.
Like i said, interesting

Carelessness

It is annoying when you find out that your favourite scholar/ all round good guy isn't as careful as you had once thought.

I felt the same as this guy (the comment, not the post)about Justification and Variegated nomism

"I have read both volumes of Justification and Variegated Nomism. After reading the first volume (for those who do not know, the one interacting with Sanders’ view of Judaism) I was pleased to find that almost every published review I read (and I read many) had the same opinion of it that I did: excellent (though uneven in quality) collection of essays that critically engage Sanders and a concluding-summary essay (Carson’s) that misrepresents the contributors.

Though the contributors have differing assessments of the adequacy of Sanders’ model for their assigned types of Jewish literature, most think that Sanders’ critique of the traditional view of Judaism (e.g., merit-theology, earning salvation, priority of “works” over “grace,” traditional Lutheran-Reformed views of Judaism, etc.) is correct; many think his “covenantal nomism” model helpfully captures the dynamics of their assigned Jewish works to varying degrees; a common criticism (one of the same ones I have of Sanders too) is that Sanders asks Protestant questions of Jewish sources. Just for fun, one of the authors (Richard Bauckham) doesn’t think Sanders went far enough: Bauckham thinks that 4 Ezra also manifest the pattern of “covenantal nomism.” Those who have read Sanders will know that 4 Ezra was a writing he considered an exception to “covenantal nomism.” He thought it represented good ‘ole fashioned legalism.

Don’t get me wrong, some contributors were more critical of Sanders than others, but they did not advocate a return to the traditional view of Judaism (e.g., legalism, etc.). Some think Philip Alexander’s essay is an exception, but his main critique is mine: stop asking Protestant questions of Jewish sources. Mark Seifrid’s tendentious essay on righteousness language in the Hebrew Bible and Early Jewish sources is also a highly critical exception that remains difficult to take seriously (I doubt many broader scholars would deny that it’s a highly theologically-motivated/slanted treatment of the data). Carson made me laugh when he referenced perhaps the most inane snipped of it in his RTS lectures; how Seifrid points out that “covenant” and “faithfulness” never occur next to each other in the Hebrew Bible. That’s about as persuasive a criticism to broader scholars as me pointing out to folks here that “Christ’s righteousness” is a phrase that never occurs in Paul’s writings.

Carson’s summary essay, however, gives the impression that the contributors were far more critical of Sanders than they actually were and that they were critical of Sanders in ways that they were not. Carson does this primarily through the rhetoric of the “diversity” of Early Judaism; e.g., Sanders is right about some ancient Jewish sources, but in general it’s just so diverse, it’s just so diverse, it’s just so diverse, etc. etc. etc. Overall Carson, through this rhetoric, implies the irrelevance of Sanders’ work for reading Paul. He furthermore implicitly (and this comes through quite clearly in the 2nd volume of the series) leaves open the option of just reading Paul and ancient Judaism the way they’ve always been read. The logic seeming to be that since the Sanders challenge has been overcome, there is now no viable competing alternative to the traditional view.

This is disingenuous historical arguing that only persuades non-specialists and/or people who just want to know that the NPP is wrong and traditional readings are correct. The fact that Sanders’ formulation only applies to a few (and not most) early Jewish sources would in no way certify traditional readings of Paul and cleaned-up traditional articulations of Judaism in the old Lutheran-Reformed mold. One has to offer positive arguments for the traditional readings as well. Given my focus thus far how Carson’s concluding essay to volume 1 misrepresents matters, his suggestion in the RTS lectures that people there just skip all the essays in the volume and read only his introduction and conclusion is…well…humorous to me.

Carson’s rhetoric of “Judaism is just so diverse” is a smoke-screen for smuggling in a cleaned-up traditional view of Judaism. One can see this from his own words elsewhere. See, for example, the revised version of his dissertation, “Despite all the diversity which enriches intertestamental Judaism, certain trends are so clear they can scarcely be ignored. With the partial exception of the Dead Sea Scrolls, legalism is on the rise, and with it merit theology” (Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility, 120).

Just to be clear, I too affirm the diversity of Hellenistic and Roman-era “Judaism.” In fact, my own projects seek to deepen articulations of that diversity by emphasizing…well…perhaps more on that when I or others I know who are tracking down the same path publish our thoughts on this : ).

BTW, the main problem with the second volume of the series is that the authors start with “the conclusions” of volume 1, by which they mean what Carson’s concluding essay distortingly lays out. They generally do not grapple with how they need to offer positive arguments for why the traditional questions they still bring to the texts are the most salient and contextually fitting, if that makes sense.

This may be more of a reply than you wanted or expected. A while back I started writing a review-article of the Justification and Variegated Nomism series. Perhaps I will complete and publish it at some point in the future. For now you get part of its basic argument :)."

or when you find out Kostenbergers analysis of infinitives in 1 Timothy 2 doesn't bother looking at functional equivalents with nouns.

Oh well

The misanthropic principle

The world is not designed for my flourishing. It has a nasty streak.
I proffer exhibit 'A'

I rarely have an itchy eye. In fact, I would say 'never', except for this one case.

Whenever I cut chillies by hand.

Sometimes the itch starts straight away. Sometimes it waits a couple of minutes, until I forget.

No more chilli

Behold the resurrection

Nathaniel over at Behold reflects on Alan Badious take on Paul and the resurrection, especially as it relates to law and subversion.

"this means that idealistic notions of pure materialism or trancendentalism must both be rejected along with all forms that disguise the one within the other. The conviction must hold that Resurrection cannot be laughed out of material significance into the realm of the failed transcendent, nor can it be thrown up into the sky or into an afterlife in rejection of its reality here and now (leading to the acceptance of the status quo). Both of these ways of dealing with the Resurrection make the same mistake. They fail to take it seriously as an ontologically constitutive reality for God, creation, and the subject. They believe in something else, not the Resurrection Event."

Tied into this view is the conviction that it is Jesus, not me, nor my community, that has been raised. I may be raised by connection to him, but I still have some dying to do before that is the case. Therefore I cant project my own understanding of justice (where I am safe and others are not) onto God's resurrection future.
Interesting stuff.
Though I wonder how it explains our agency in 'putting to death' the sins of the body, if all our conceptions of just and right are too tied to the current order.

Singer swinger

Byron has this link to an amazing article in which Peter Singer both leans away from pure preferential utilitarianism and admits belief in God is the only conclusive reason to act morally!

Coffee is evil

This is a hard post for me to write.
I find it hard because I don't want to say it. I find it hard because I don't want to change. I find it hard because it seems so extreme.
Yesterday I read some articles about consumption and global warming, and basically how our lifestyles are screwing the world.
Last night I had a serious conversation with R. about how we could simplify our lives.
This morning I went for a walk down to the beach. I had had breakfast already, and a coffee.
But there were shops there, and a bakery.
So I walked in and purchased a regular flat white and a mini pizza thing. I knew I didn't need it. But as I sat and chewed on the bread I tried to justify it. "It is just one" "I'm thinking about a sermon" "I'm eavesdropping on those two ladies conversations and therefore researching the way people think"
All of these excuses were, in fact, bullshit.
The terrible reality of the evil lives that we live (evil because they harm so many others and are responsible for some serious upcoming problems), is that they are an accumulation of seemingly innocuous, seemingly innocent decisions.
No one could fault me for eating a mini pizza and having a coffee.
Yet I am massively at fault.
Just like I am massively at fault for going on a long and mostly pointless drive yesterday.
But no one will reprimand me for that either.
David Foster Wallace diagnoses this as an ongoing adolescence in our culture.
He isn't talking about the people who live with their parents until 30, don't get a job or have kids, ala Mark Driscoll.
He is talking about the fact that we will keep on doing something, even if we know it is wrong and destructive, until our parent (the government) legislates against it. And then we pout and sulk about the parent.
I am one such product of this adolescent culture.
I'm really not sure whether I need to be grounded or kicked out of the house.

Boredom as heroic

I've been reading David Foster Wallace's 'The Pale King'. I stumbled upon Wallace while searching for a Jonathan Franzen book. While I was reading a review of Franzen, one of the commenters said that Wallace was similar but actually loved his characters. This is true, Wallace oozed narrative compassion.
The whole theme of the book (I'm only halfway through), seems to revolve around boredom.
in the brilliant chapter 19
"Sometimes what is important is dull. Sometimes it's work. Sometimes the important things aren't for your entertainment, X."
or 21
"To experience commitment as the loss of options, a type of death, the death of childhoods limitless possibility, of the flattery of choice without duress- this will happen, mark me. Childhoods end. The first of many deaths....I wish to inform you that the accounting profession to which you aspire is, in fact, heroic...Exacting? Prosaic? Banausic to the point of drudgery? Sometimes. Often tedious? perhaps. But brave? Worthy? Fitting, sweet? Romantic? Chivalric? Heroic?... Gentlemen- by which I mean, of course, latter adolescents who aspire to manhood- gentlemen, here is a truth: Enduring tedium over real time in a confined space is what real courage is...The truth is that the heroism of your childhood entertainments was not true valour. It was theatre. The grand gesture, the moment of choice, the mortal danger, the external foe, the climactic battle whose outcome resolves all- all designed to appear heroic, to excite and gratify an audience. An Audience... Gentlemen, welcome to the world of reality- there is no audience. No one to applaud, to admire. No one to see you Do you understand? Here is the truth- actual heroism recieves no ovation, entertains no one. No one queues up to see it. No one is interested."

Boredom seems to be the unspoken topic in our churches. Should we avoid it, embrace it? Perhaps both. I still need to do some thinking on boredom, especially for young people.
This article helps

Ben Myers on a theology of boredom

Style: lessons in Clarity and Grace

I picked up this book based on Joel Willitts review on Euangellion.
It is fantastic. Every student and preacher should read it.
The book covers both the basics in how to write clearly, and the more technichal side of writing elegantly. The section on how to write motivating introductions was particularly useful.
You should get it. Now

"Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace" Tenth Edition Joseph M. Williams, Gregory G. Colomb


* I realise I haven't used any of their advice to write this post.