Work?

I sit at my desk. (ie. A table at the local cafe).
I have my UBS 3 Greek new testament open. Bruce Metzger's textual commentary. Commentaries from longenecker, Hays, Silva, martyn. A big fat book of Doug Campbell. My laptop is open and receiving notes. My brow is furrowed in thought.

Someone taps me on the shoulder. A paishoner.
She smiles
"Just taking a break?"

I don't know what to say

Athletic Preaching

What does it take to win in a sport?
I want to propose 3 things
1. General fitness
2. Specific skills
3. A game plan

What about winning preaching? I suspect that much of our preparation to preach is like category 3. A plan for the game day. Sunday looms, and we must find something to say.
I suspect the best preachers, however, are putting more time into 1. and 2.

1. General fitness. Though sometimes poo-pooed as unspiritual and worldly, effective preachers need some general, non-specific skills.
Can I speak loud enough for people to hear?
Can I speak clearly enough for people to understand?
Can I read a complex text and understand it?
Do I have at least some grasp of logic, literature, poetry, philosophy?
How are my interpersonal skills and empathy?
Some exercise in these areas (outside of sermons) will lift your preaching game. And deficiency in any one of them will severely limit your 'game plan'

2. Specific skills
I would want to throw into this one general bible knowledge, wide and deep theological reading, growth in language proficiency, consistent wrestling in prayer, rigorous theological and ethical reflection, humility, confession, grace.

Pushing yourself with these 'skills' will make you a better player, week in, week out. Rehearsing these skills (outside of sermon preparation) will mean that difficult manoeuvres and plays will become second nature on game day.

Of course, both general fitness and special skills aren't enough to win a tough game.
And both general fitness and skills can be built by playing a lot of games.
That is generally how ametuers play social games.
Is that how you would like people to view your preaching?
As something you do to entertain yourself?

Glenn Davies for Archbishop

You may have missed the launching of two websites that are dedicated to the promotion of Glenn Davies as the next Archbishop of Sydney.

To tell you the truth, I rarely hear ministers saying positive things about their Bishops. But with Glenn, everything I have heard is that he is an excellent leader, biblically solid, but who also deals very well with conflict and difference. If he were elected, I think we would be blessed with a leader who could move the WHOLE Diocese forward in it's mission, rather than simply one part of it.

If nothing else, the websites are worth visiting because they have links to many of the articles he has published over the years.
Take a look

http://www.glenndavies.info/index.html


http://www.facebook.com/GlennDaviesForArchbishop

Apologetics and strength

How do you answer friends objections to Jesus, when you are massively ahead when it comes to information and argument? Without them feeling like you have bludgeoned them?

Apologetics and strength

How do you answer friends objections to Jesus, when you are massively ahead when it comes to information and argument? Without them feeling like you have bludgeoned them?

Does the Father reveal the Son negatively or positively

So I'm working on some thoughts from John 5:16-30, especially around verse 19, the Son can do nothing by himself, only what he sees the Father doing.

This passage should be favourite for those who want to emphasise the functional subordination of the Son. After all, Jesus seems to determined to emphasise that the Father has given him life, judgement, honour...

But what does the functional subordination of the Son reveal about the Father.
If verse 19 is correct not just of Jesus actions in the economy, then doesn't it mean that the Son cannot submit unless he sees the Father also, in some way, submitting?
Isn't the whole point that there is a correlation between the action and will of the Father and the Son (and a positive correlation!)


And doesn't the Father in fact do this? By handing all judgement to the Son, by granting for the Son to have life in himself, by, in a sense giving up his identity to the will of the Son, since the Son gives life to whomever he pleased to give it.

Because of the gender debate, those who push functional subordination seem to want to posit a negative correlation between the action of the Son and the action of the Father (i.e. Jesus' submission shows us that the Father commands, rather than showing us that he Father also, in his own way, submits)Is this in any way related to the kind of crucifixion division of labour in popular evangelical piety, ie the Son is loving and forgiving and the Father is wrathful?
Wasn't it Arius who had the problem of asserting a negative correlation between the Son and the Father?any way related to the kind of crucifixion division of labour in popular evangelical piety, ie the Son is loving and forgiving and the Father is wrathful?


So I want to propose that asserting a functional subordination of the Son only avoids a Arius-ish mistake when it notes a positive correlation between the action of the Son in submitting and the action of the Father in giving him all things.

Not very useful for a gender debate though

Do people think you like to think?

My son likes to get up early in the morning. Really early.
Every now and then we head off to a local cafe which has two distinct advantages. It opens at 7 am, and has what I like to call 'a baby cage', and others call a play area.
So this one monday morning I take in what I've been reading, Barth's Church dogmatics, 3/3. as I stumbled in bleary eyed, the owner of the cafe looks at the book in my hand "what on earth are you reading?"
I hand her the book
"Oh, theology. Are you studying?"
"No, I'm a minister with the Anglican Church"
"So it's for work, a sermon or something"
"No, I just like to think"
"Really? I get loads of ministers in here. They look stuffed on a Monday. They're pretty good looking too
((I don't know if I should be offended by this comment))
Lots of students too. always with their theology assignments. But you are the first I've ever met who reads it because you want to. Most ministers don't like theology because it raises questions. Ministers don't like questions".

Now we had a good conversation about this and all sorts of other Jesus stuff. But it did get me thinking.
Did we really study all that theology just to pass exams?
Are we committed f to thinking and learning and listening. Or is that only for four years and then it becomes just another job.
Do thou read theology for the pleasure of thinking about god?

A Climate (and environmental) solution

It is increasingly clear that humans are having massive and devastating impact on our environment.
This includes (but is not limited to) climate change.
This damage seems to be to the extent that the world will become increasingly hostile to human living, and may reduce the carrying capacity of the earth.
Part of the problem is levels of consumption, especially in wealthier countries.
Part of the problem is an expanding population, which aspires to live at levels closer to those in wealthier countries.

It has become increasing clear that the people in wealthier countries are extremely unlikely to give up the power and comfort involved in their levels of consumption, even if it means hurtling headlong into a situation where the environment becomes exceedingly hostile.

In all likelihood, it will be the poorest who are affected the most by climate change and other environmental degradation.

So it is with a heavy heart that I propose a solution hinted at by the Dead Kennedys in 1980, the year of my birth

Of course, nuclear weapons cause their own problems, but a simpler solution could be found. Perhaps if a particularly destructive virus could be released, and then the vaccine sold at a high enough price that only the wealthy could afford it. This would have the added bonus of removing some money from the economy (hence lowering consumption) which could then be put into adaptation programs for survivors.

I know there will be some moral recoil to this proposal, but it must be remembered that killing the poor is what we are going to do anyway. This will simply speed things up a bit, and those who remain will hopefully be left with a far more habitable world. Life would not necessarily be easy for those who remain (who would make our shoes??), but the wealthy are obviously going to be far more adaptable anyway.

Hearing her voice: an analogy

The year is 4000AD
 Someone very well respected from 2013 once said
' I do not permit a woman to be a policeman'. And we are trying to understand and apply such a command.
Looking through various uses we come up with a general definition
'A policeman is someone who enforces the law with authority'.
It works for all cases so everything looks good. And perhaps we have come to call in our culture all instances of law enforcement and the legal process 'policing'
But then we come to historical cases of women (affirmed by our writer) being lawyers and judges.
We provisionally accept that women may do some kind of activity called 'lawyering' or 'judging', but because of our general definition of 'policeman', whatever they were doing couldn't be enforcing the law (perhaps they were only defence lawyers, or perhaps they were just commenting but with no authority).
The more conservative among us would also question whether a wife who questioned her husband at home was in some way acting as a policeman, after all, they were attempting to enforce a code, with some kind of authority.

So a historian comes along and says, "hey wait a minute, when this person was writing, police had batons and guns to enforce the law, they walked and drove the streets trying to keep peace, and involved themselves in investigation, in fact context seems to suggest that our writer was speaking specifically of cops on the beat. Perhaps we could allow women some involvement in court prosecutions, deliberation and even investigation."

But his critics reply, "no, no, we all know what 'policing' means, it means 'enforcing the law with authority'. That definition works in every case. It simply does not matter that you can show copious historical evidence that the practice of policing at that time primarily involved getting on the street and investigating crime. I can even show you some historical evidence of police going into a courtroom, and some other evidence of police directing questions to someone who is accused, the very things you want women to now do as 'lawyers' and 'judges'. I'm afraid this is simply because you want to evade the text. You haven't even addressed WHY a woman couldn't be a policeman, which as we all know is about her having authority."

HT Luke for the converation that brought this up for me

Why I don't think Lionel Windsor has nailed John Dickson, and the worrying approach to language that comes from his reply.

In John Dickson's 'Hearing Her Voice', John puts forward a particular understanding of what Paul means by 'didaskein' in 1 Timothy 2. Lionel Windsor has responded to John's claims. I have said elsewhere that I (and others, including John) are still waiting for someone to do the work on a proper critique. Some have asked why Lionel's critique isn't 'proper'.

This is a debate about the meaning of a particular use of a particular word, so it is interesting to contrast the linguistic approaches of John and Lionel.

1. Lionel seems to think that words have a 'general' meaning, and perhaps a more 'technical' meaning, and that the general meaning can be assumed until otherwise disproved.

This is a false approach to language. Words do not have a 'core' or 'general' meaning. Words simply mean whatever they mean when they are used. Different contexts, registers, different places in sentences, different combinations of words show different meanings for the same bunch of letters.

So, the word 'set' can mean a complete collection

the word 'set' can mean the hardening of concrete

the word 'set' can mean a unit of games in tennis

the word 'set' can mean to place down

None of these are 'general' or 'technical', they are simply available meanings.

Where words are set within a given set sets their meaning. Game ,set and match Dickson.

Everyone has the burden of proof when the meaning of a word is contested.

But where will this proof and evidence come from?

2. Dickson looks for his evidence internally to the Pastoral letters of Paul. How is didaskw used in these letters?
   He then correlates his findings to external historical evidence to practices in the first century

Lionel Windsor on the other hand appeals to conceptual analysis of a translated gloss. That is, he is asking philosophical questions about a 'concept' in English, 'teach'. This is the lexicographical equivalent of allegory. It can sound quite profound, and can even bring some insight, but struggles to find objective controls. Whatever may be conceptually said about the concept can be transferred back into the source language, or made the chief emphasis. Lionel goes for a relational dynamic of authority for 'teach', but it could as easily be.. 'all teaching requires the breathing out of truth.. breathing is the essential part of teaching and therefore didaskw.

3. But conceptual analysis shouldn't be thrown away altogether. There is at least one control in this debate, and that is the way Paul uses other terms about speaking (or breathing out!) truthful statements about Jesus. That is the importance of lexical choice. Now, we shouldn't be fooled into thinking that every time a writer uses a different lexeme they must have a completely distinct concept in mind. Sometimes we use different words simply for variety. But in the conceptual framework of a writer, if they say forbid 'x', but explicitly encourage 'y' and 'z', we would expect ther to be some significant difference between x and (yz). This is exactly the case for Paul, who forbids 'teaching' but encourages 'prophesying and exhorting' for women.
   John's definition makes the difference quite clear by positing 'teach ' as a particular office of handing down the apostolic deposit (an office largely taken by our written Gospels)
   I don't think Lionel's definition of 'relational dynamics involving authority' makes a clear enough difference between 'teach', 'prophesy' and 'exhort' to make any sense of Paul (unless we say that Paul is incoherent, not somewhere I am going). Is there no authority in prophesying? Is there no authority in exhorting? This is particularly distressing for those of us who see authority lying in Scripture, and why Lionel's position, though in theory allows women to speak with a church service, actually allows them no place..lest God exercise his authority through them. (and indeed, why restrict oneself to the church service, or even the church, if what Paul is disallowing is a 'general' conveying of truth within a relationship of authority.... ie taking the definition to it's extremes (which Lionel doesn't), if a female expert in Art History tells me the truth about a painting, and knows more than me, then she is breaking Paul's command)
   That is, because Lionel is unwilling to the historical work of asking 'What relationship?' 'What Authority?' of the text in Timothy, it can be expanded to any and every relationship and authority.

So, there you have my reasons. Jury is still out for me re the whole passage, we still havn't touched on 'authentein'. Nevertheless, I'm still waiting for someone to do a proper job on Dickson's work

You are not Paul, I am not Timothy

John Dickson has noted with surprise that none of the evangelical critiques of his recent work 'Hearing Her Voice' have really done the work on the text of the Epistles to prove him wrong.

I'm not so surprised. Partly because of the way the Pastorals are taught in Sydney.

There is very little room for a special theological place for the Apostles. People equate their own opinions and words directly with the words of the Apostle Paul.
The logic goes, if I am the preacher, then I am like Paul. If you are my little ministry intern, then you are Timothy. It is a kind of helpful way to teach the Pastorals as a 'handbook for ministry' 'passing on the baton' yadyada...

So, then John Dickson asks, 'What is Paul actually talking about here?". But the person who has been through their ministry training program doesn't need to do linguistic work, contextual analysis, historical reflection, precisely because THEY HAD PAUL STAND RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM to tell them what it means. Their ministry trainer 'was' Paul.
In fact, if they have started preaching, or if they have ministry interns now, THEY have become Paul. Their words from the pulpit are the apostolic deposit.

The real offence of John Dickson's argument in 'Hearing Her Voice' has nothing to do with women. The real offence is telling male preachers and ministry trainers that they are in fact, not Paul.
That the words coming out of their mouth may, or may not be, the infallible apostolic deposit of the gospel.
That those words have to be tested against the text, and preferably with responsible methods of interpretation, like context, decent linguistics (not just equivocating), historical consideration. The very things John is attempting to do.

Hauerwas: prayer on Trinity and loneliness

Blessed Trinity, you gather us so that we will not be alone. You will us to enjoy one another, to rejoice in one another’s existence. Just as you can be three, perfectly sharing but without loss of difference, so you make us capable of love without fear that in our love we will be lost. Yet we do find ways to be alone, to be in hell. Caught up in fantasies that we can create ourselves, we become frozen in our self-imposed smiles of self-satisfaction. Because we can fool others into believing we are in control, we even come to believe it ourselves. Great and powerful Lord, shake us free of such loneliness that we may cry for help and be surprised by the willingness of your people to share. How happy we are to be your people. Amen.