A note on glory

Nobody ever 'gives' glory to God in the Bible, as though glory were an object that people possessed but could hand over to God.
Every case of people 'glorifying God' is a case of people recognising the glory God has and has shown.
They recognize his glory because he does cool, loving, justice bearing redemptive acts.
God's 'glory' is not the praise of his people, rather, the people praise his glory.
Neither does God 'pursue' his glory. HE IS HIS GLORY! Indeed, in the OT, glory is closely ties to YHWH's presence. (fire, cloud, giant shiny eye covered wheels etc..)
Go read the book of Numbers for the easiest way to make the glory of God appear: whinge! But it might be to your downfall.
God, however, can give glory, he can share himself around. He can invite mere humans into his divine life. Aaron and the priests are given garments of glory so that they serve in the temple.

We have to carefully distinguish between the noun 'glory' and the verb 'glorify'. Except when God does it, the verb does not produce the noun. The noun calls forth the verb.

To have the glory of God manifest in our own lives is to
1. Be recepients of his cool, loving, justice bearing, redemptive deeds
2. To praise him for those cool redemptive, justice bearing deeds
3. To live in a way consistent with a God who acts in cool, loving, redemptive, justice bearing ways

Even to say that we are 'formed for God's glory' needs to be read in context, where it describes the people of Jacob who are the object of God's cool, loving, justice bearing, redemptive acts.

So, there is a similarity between the verbs 'glorify' and 'praise', but the noun 'glory' is a different thing.

Is theology possible?

'Does not the word "theo-logy" entail the deepest possible contradiction, does not this term signify an "utterance of the unutterable and inconceivable"? Yet man is not just a perceiver and an actor, he is also a thinker, speaker and formulator. What, then, is the value of the quasi-scientia that he develops under the name of "theology" and in which he obviously attempts to translate God's logic into his own?..... Theology, to answer our question, is possible, but it will primarily be, not a human achievement, but an acheivement of the divine Father, who is able truly to exposit himself and make himself understood in his incarnate Word, albeit only to those whom he equips for understanding this exposition by the gift of the Holy Spirit. And in all this something curious happens: the God who truly and unreservedly ex-posits himself does not therefore cease to be a mystery'
Hans urs Von Balthasar Theo-logic: Theological Logical Theory Vol 1, Truth of the World., Sanfrancisco: Ignatius, 200, pp22

Belief when a 2yr old dies...

We buried a two year old today at church. Do you tell people he's in heaven?

As I was thinking this through I realised that Jesus demanded all people to become like little children to enter the kingdom of heaven. Maybe my problem is that I have an inflated opinion of the mature adult ability to confess Jesus and enter the kingdom of heaven. So instead of wondering if children are saved, I began to wonder where I got my thought that I could earn heaven be rational thoughts rather than grace.

If infants cannot be saved, neither am I.
"I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 18:3

Truth without good and beauty is banal.

"there can be no satisfactory resolution of the theological problem of faith and reason unless we recognise and describe the unity of theory and ethics, of evidence and decision, that is the philosophical origin of the problem... Modern rationalism, attemptingto narrowthe range of truth to the supposedly isolable ore of pure theory, has exiled the good and the beautiful from the domain of the rationably verifiable, relegating them to arbitrary subjectivity or to a world of private belief and personal taste.

"If truth lacks decision, then decision, the personal decision that determines one's view of the world, lacks truth"
Von Balthasar, Theo-Logic, Vol 1: The truth of the World, 2000, San Francisco: Ignatius, pp (cant find the book now, get back to you)

So, hows that workin out for ya?

One of the things I appreciate in Phillip Jensen's preaching is his tenacity in challenging the smug idea that ignoring God 'works' better than obeying God. Phillip is always finding new research that shows the downsides of ignoring the scriptures, individually and socially.

Last week I was preaching on Haggai 2, where Haggai (and YHWH) call for close attention to how obedience and disobedience 'worked out' for the people.
Now, while we are no longer under the covenant of Deuteronomy, and can't 'read' disaster and hardship the way it could be in the Old Covenant, ie as a sign of God's displeasure. (indeed, since we follow a Messiah who suffered outside the camp, perhaps we should be reading a lack of hardship as a sign of our disobedience). Still, there is a place for asking those who ignore God
' How's that working out for you?' . To give people the opportunity to stop and think.
Evangelism Explosion, with its new XEE, has a similar question 'on a scale of 1-10, how fullfilled would you say your life is right now? Would having God in your life make that number lower or higher?

In another tip of the hat to Dean Jensen, I wanted to centre my sermon around one word in the Hebrew, (roughly 'how was it for you'), but found the NIV didn't really translate that word at all. (to be fair there are some textual issues with the vowels, but 'how was it for you' is what BHS goes with). Sitting in Bible Study, one of the gents read out the passage, with the phrase I wanted. I jerked forward in my seat " ooo what translation was THAT, I like it". It was the ESV.
I still did the sermon the way I wanted to, just without the word to back me up.

Be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They need something to threaten you with to rob you and others

Speaking of the BP oil spill

"What do you get when you cross a long drug habit, a quick temper and a gun? The answer is two life terms for murder, earliest release date 2026. On the other hand, what do you get when you cross two nation states, a large corporation, three tons of poison and 8,000 dead human beings? The answer is, retirement with full pay and benefits."

Romans 13:4
⁴ For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

At what point does a structure of power stop being an authority and start being a gangster?

Possibly heretical Speculations on Hell

Hell is the grace and horror of a constantly thwarted suicide.

It is the hatred of the thankless self in the light of the goodness and graciousness of God revealed in Jesus Christ.

In it, the continuing gracious and abundant 'Let there be.." is experienced as limit, as enemy, as a light and fire from which there is no escape. Its goodness merely heightens the shame and hatred of self. Hell is grace unaccepted.




Any thoughts on my speculation? Heresy or no?

A prayer for Haggai 2

God of the covenant
You are
God of all strength
Lord Almighty, God of armies, king of kings,
You command us to ‘Fear not’, to 'be strong', to 'work'

We say the names, we hear the stories, we remember your earthshaking resurrection,
and we still tremble. We are still afraid. Calm our fears.

We look at our broken world and wonder if there is hope. We look at those in power and assume they will last forever. But you have promised to shake again the heavens and the earth, and so we beg you today

Shake up our world

Shake away all that is evil
Shake the powers that enslave us
Shake away our greed and rampant desire
Shake tyranny to its core
and then build your temple, build your church, build your people.

Strengthen all of us, that we might work as for our Lord Jesus Christ
that we might not be distracted and choked by the pleasures around us
that we might not be disheartened by hardship
but that we might know your presence Lord God,
that your Spirit might dwell in us,
empowering us to love wildly,
to obey freely,
and to work wholeheartedly for your Gospel,
knowing that our work in the Lord is not in vain.

Beware the translator who interprets!!!

Last week a church leader sent out a warning in a sermon
"Watch out for when Bible translators start interpreting the text for you"
"They want to be bible teachers instead of translators".
"Avoid dynamic equivalence!"

The claim that a bible translator would 'sometimes' be just translating, and 'sometimes' be interpreting is absurd.
All translation always requires interpretation all the time.
A (good) translator will always be paying attention to co-textual and contextual factors in the text's language and in the receptor language, and will ALWAYS make interpretive decisions. As a preacher, you may disagree with some of those interpretive decisions, but you cant escape the interpretive process itself.

I pointed out to the church leader that the language teachers at the theological college I attended generally think his warning is absurd. Hilarious. There is no such thing as 'avoiding dynamic equivalence' or 'accuracy to the greek'.

He responded that he was ' just a preacher, trying to teach his congregations from the greek text, and I don't want to take the bible out of my peoples hands'. I understand his frustration. There is always more going on in a greek text than an English translation can render, there is always more that we would love to pass on. I hate correcting a translation, and generally try to avoid it, teaching what I think is going on, without mauling the text. But underlying his answer seems to be an understanding of translation that is outdated and flawed.
It is the idea that there is a direct, one to one semantic fit between greek words and 21st century english. So, if a gar is in the text, there must be a for in the English. The idea is that translators translate words, not texts. It is a philosophical idea that meaning is essentially bound in words rather than in their combination. It is tied into the fact that most readers of koine greek learn greek from flash cards and lectionaries, and then think that by doing so 'they understand greek', (and also think that their understanding of greek is pure, unmediated by scholarship, when centuries of scholarship lie behind their learning).
The reason language teachers laugh at this idea is because it isn't how language works. You can attempt to have a 'word for word translation', the only thing you will lose is any coherent meaning.
And this is (partially) the solution of those who claim to have a 'word for word' translation. They don't really, what they have is a translation into a third language (the church leader called this 'trans-english'), which nobody speaks or hears, which can then be mediated to people by Bible teachers. You either take the Bible out of peoples hands (since it speaks a different language to them, they are foreigners to it), or you teach your people a different language (trans-english) that makes them foreigners to everyone who isn't sitting under this teacher (only when they talk about God, indeed this church leader later lamented that 'we speak a different language' to the people around us. ). That is, when you read a passage of the Bible that is in trans-English, to those who do not understand it, you are speaking in tongues in the assembly. You are a foreigner to them, and you speak God's judgement (go check out 1 Corinthians 14, humourously, this was the passage the church leader was speaking on!!).
One of the key features of the New Testament writings is that they are not esoteric. They seem to be written to communicate, that is, they seem to be written to be understood. Any so called 'translation' that misses this is in no way accurate to the original text, however 'word for word' it may be.

Stopping a large, hurtling object requires force

An interesting article on using violence to achieve environmental goals.
I'm particularly interested in this quote, which, like Zizek, argues that Empire is violent anyway.



"I would just add to that, if you live in one of the rich nations, you live behind a military barricade, and the only reason that you don't know that every single thing you buy is based on violence is because of that military barricade. So we can turn away in complete denial to the real cost of every single piece of food we eat and everything we buy — the cell phones, the ipods, the cars, whatever. There are a whole bunch of dead people and dead bioregions behind everything that we buy. And it is that military barricade that keeps us safe and keeps us in a complete land of dreams. But it is all based on violence. All we are saying is that we want to stop the violence. We don't want to make violence.

My friend Gail Dines has a lot of students that work at places like Old Navy and the Gap, and they regularly find, when they're unpacking the jeans and the T-shirts, little notes stuffed into the pockets that say "Please help us." This is from the factory workers in China or Taiwan or wherever."

Is it time to literally smash the idols that enslave us?

"I know that every prediction about global warming is that they underestimate it on the previous one, and I know that those in power are looking with what can only be described as lust at the melting of the Arctic ice caps. They are not looking with horror. They are not looking with shame. They are not looking with sorrow. They are not looking to change things. They are looking with lust at the access to resources. Anyone who thinks that they are going to stop before every living being on this planet has been killed is not paying any attention."

H/T Byron

TV: Infinite crap- John piper and DFW on the uselessness of television

John Piper on why he doesn't own a TV

David Foster Wallace on Television and stupidity

Wright summarises Romans

If you can't be bothered reading NT Wright, or if you think he is undermining the Reformation, or if you just want to understand Romans, watch this

Avoid "other peoples sins"

One problem that I hear in many preaching ministries is the disease of "other peoples sins". Speaking to a bunch of Australians, we will talk about how Americans get it all wrong. Speaking to a group of teetotallers, we will bemoan the sins of alcoholics, and so on. The preacher justifies this as 'warning his flock', and sometimes this is appropriate. But often the flock is in no danger of falling into these sins. It is simply easier for the preacher to take a cheap shot. The congregation will see him as 'challenging' and 'hardhitting', while at the same time being inoculated into the comfortable thought that sin is everyone else's problem. As a preacher, you have a job, and that job is preaching Christ to whoever is in front of you. However smooth or hardhitting your sermon is, if it isn't addressing the congregation in front of you, you are wasting their time and yours.




* Can I just note that I wrote and scheduled this post well before I went to the Ministry Training and Development conference last week. Though those who were there may notice some similarities to this post. Certainly in my discussions with people after the various talks, the sociological observation (inoculated into thinking sin is everyone else's problem) rang true. Now, I agreed with pretty much all of the critique of charismatic theology. But you have to ask the question, so what? ( that said, his stuff on love as the mark of true spirituality was hot, and could have been developed and poked further). But as it was, I fear many at the conference will think the point of 1 Corinthians 12-14 is "the pentecostals are wrong", rather than, "I need to love my brothers and sisters more". I hope I am wrong in this assesment.

Calling the rich to repent?

"Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches corrupted, and your garments are moth eaten. Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as if it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.
Behold, the hire of the labourers which have reaped down your field, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.
Ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and have been wanton; ye have nourished your hearts, as in the day of slaughter. Ye have condemned and killed the just; and he doth not resist you."
James 5:1-6 (John Owen translation).

Over the past century or so, our nation, along with other western nations, have grown incredibly wealthy and comfortable. Comfortable beyond anything ever known before on earth. If anyone is to be placed in the category of 'the rich', it is us. We have lived in pleasure. We have heaped up treasures, personally and collectively. I dare say we have frauded other peoples out of their fair pay. The world itself is now facing quite a calamity due to our consumption patterns in the form of climate change and environmental degradation.

So, here is what Calvin has to say
"They are mistaken, I think, who consider that James here exhorts the rich to repentance. It seems to me to be a simple denunciation of God's judgment, by which he meant to terrify them without giving them any hope of pardon; for all that he says tends only to despair. He, therefore, does not address them in order to invite them to repentance; but, on the contrary, he has a regard to the faithful, that they, hearing of the miserable end of the rich, might not envy their fortune, and also that knowing that God would be the avenger of the wrongs they suffered, they might with a calm and resigned mind bear them"
Calvins Commentaries Vol 22, pp 342.

We can rest assured that God's church will continue until the end of the age, but it may not necessarily be in our part of the world.

Act now please

Byron has given me a link that graphs out the various effects of climate action (and inaction).
Very handy for seeing the necessity of change.
Here it is.
Of course, compounding this whole problem is the idea that experts aren't really experts and can't be trusted.
The real experts are opinion columnists, not scientific communities.
I wonder what the damage will be from their ctying out "Peace, peace" when there is in fact, no peace.