tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-85057496221830396502024-03-14T09:39:48.246+11:00Dead Flies and PerfumeAs a dead fly ruins a whole bottle of perfume, so a little folly outweighs much wisdomMike Whttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13382354162198484322noreply@blogger.comBlogger646125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8505749622183039650.post-34493523884048797202017-07-08T16:38:00.000+10:002017-07-08T16:38:00.391+10:00Psalm 3A David Psalm, when he was running from his son Absalom.<br />
<br />
Oh Lord, I've got alot of enemies<br />
Loads are rising up against me<br />
Loads are saying of my life<br />
"God won't rescue him"<br />
But you are my shield, my glory, you lift up my head.<br />
<br />
I yell to the LORD and he answers me from his holy mountain.<br />
<br />
See, if I lie down and have a sleep, and then I wake up again from that sleep; why is that?<br />
Because the Lord has sustained me.<br />
So, I won't fear the thousands circling against me.<br />
Rise up LORD<br />
My God, recuse me.<br />
Punch my enemies in the face<br />
Smash the teeth of the wicked<br />
<br />
Rescue belongs to the LORD<br />
<br />
May your blessing be on your peopleMike Whttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11525682801952791861noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8505749622183039650.post-77088013630094712472017-07-08T16:33:00.001+10:002017-07-08T16:33:16.085+10:00Psalm 2Why are the nation's all worked up?<br />
People muttering over nothing?<br />
The king's are all set,<br />
rulers of this earth plot with each other<br />
Against the LORD and his Messiah<br />
"Let's chuck off their chains, let's bust off their ropes"<br />
The one who lives in heaven laughs,<br />
The master takes the piss out of them,<br />
Then turns on them all angry and speaks<br />
And makes them all "oh...shit" with his fury<br />
"I, I put my King on Zion, my holy mountain"<br />
Wanna know what he set?<br />
He said<br />
"You are my Son. I made you my Son. Today. Myself. Ask me, and I'll give you the nation's. Your inheritance, the ends of the earth will be yours. You'll smash them with an iron bar. Smashing up like a porcelain cup"<br />
So, listen up kings<br />
Be warned rulers of the earth<br />
Worship the LORD with fear<br />
Rejoice, but tremble<br />
Kiss the son, in case he gets pissed off,<br />
Because his fury can flare up in a moment<br />
And all those people who find refuge in him,<br />
They're happyMike Whttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11525682801952791861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8505749622183039650.post-25469246937048551542017-07-08T16:25:00.002+10:002017-07-08T16:25:41.681+10:00Psalm 1Do you want to know who's happy?<br />
The guy who isn't walking around getting advice from the wicked;<br />
Who doesn't stand himself on the offender path,<br />
Who isn't sitting down making plans with mockers, schemes with scoffers.<br />
He is chasing though,<br />
Chasing after the LORDs teaching.<br />
You can hear him muttering it night and day as he reads.<br />
That fella is like a tree near a good stream.<br />
Nice ripe fruit,<br />
Leaves that don't wither.<br />
Whatever he's doing, he's doing alright.<br />
Not the wicked but.<br />
They are like dead grass husks<br />
Bwfffff<br />
Blowing in the wind.<br />
They won't stand up under judgement.<br />
You won't have offenders standing with the righteous.<br />
Because God loves the way of the righteous.<br />
The way of the wicked though?<br />
Meh<br />
It'll die offMike Whttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11525682801952791861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8505749622183039650.post-27788883654273645332014-11-12T01:37:00.001+11:002014-11-12T01:37:29.191+11:00Fear of verbatim<p dir="ltr">As part of a pastoral course we were required to do a verbatim. That is, we had to make a record of a pastoral conversation, then bring it in to be scrutinized by or peers.<br>
The idea filled me with trepidation, but I couldn't quite tell why.<br>
I brought in a fairly intense conversation from my workplace, though at the time of the conversation I felt fine about it. But after the verbatim I welled up tears, and a couple of hours later when my wife asked about it I was cagey and aggressive and then sobbed uncontrollably for some time.<br>
I just figured out why.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Last year I had to report someone for covering allegations of abuse and for abusive behavior themselves. This person was always changing their story, always shifting..basically always lying. And so at the end there I got into the practice of trying to keep exact notes of our conversations..much like a verbatim.<br>
Of course no one has an exact memory, and so as you make notes you are reconstructing the conversation. As you reconstruct, you are faced with the choice of remembering yourself in the best it worst light. In the abusive situation, I tended toward viewing myself in the worst light. I realize now that I did the same with the verbatim, portraying myself as the worst possible pastor, because who wants to construct themselves to look good?<br>
And then there is the panel of your peers...who assess and judge the situation from outside,<br>
Very much like the stressful situation of explaining yourself to a bishop/mediator/warden who doesn't seem inclined to believe claims of abuse.<br>
So now I know... Verbatims trigger me... Not quite sure how I will get through another semester of <u>them</u></p>
Mike Whttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11525682801952791861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8505749622183039650.post-74355609216368442832014-11-07T12:26:00.001+11:002014-11-07T12:26:50.867+11:00I've been feeling spread a bit thin lately.<br />
Doing two part-time ministry jobs. I crunched the numbers, and it made me realise why I'm feeling a bit thin.<br />
<br />
2 Jobs...<br />
5 days a week...<br />
6 different talks/ teaching elements to prepare each week...<br />
to present 8 times to 8-10 completely separate groups of people...<br />
total pastoral responsibility for 350 people....<br />
but only 50 are stable...<br />
the others churn every 3 months...<br />
so about 1250 people a year....<br />
which means I can give each of you about 1.8 minutes of my time each week....<br />
HA!<br />
<br />
<br />Mike Whttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11525682801952791861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8505749622183039650.post-6748043403788072142014-04-05T23:49:00.001+11:002014-04-05T23:50:24.693+11:00Ministry expectations<p dir="ltr">Miracles should be expected of the clergy, otherwise it may seem the job could be done without <u>them</u></p>
Mike Whttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11525682801952791861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8505749622183039650.post-28910322617422909392013-11-28T14:15:00.001+11:002013-11-28T14:15:10.396+11:00Work?<p dir="ltr">I sit at my desk. (ie. A table at the local cafe).<br>
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.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Someone taps me on the shoulder. A paishoner.<br>
She smiles<br>
"Just taking a break?"</p>
<p dir="ltr">I don't know what to say</p>
Mike Whttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11525682801952791861noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8505749622183039650.post-9908343752522713602013-05-20T12:03:00.001+10:002013-05-20T12:03:51.326+10:00Athletic Preaching<p dir="ltr">What does it take to win in a sport?<br>
I want to propose 3 things<br>
1. General fitness<br>
2. Specific skills<br>
3. A game plan</p>
<p dir="ltr">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.<br>
I suspect the best preachers, however, are putting more time into 1. and 2.</p>
<p dir="ltr">1. General fitness. Though sometimes poo-pooed as unspiritual and worldly, effective preachers need some general, non-specific skills.<br>
Can I speak loud enough for people to hear?<br>
Can I speak clearly enough for people to understand?<br>
Can I read a complex text and understand it?<br>
Do I have at least some grasp of logic, literature, poetry, philosophy?<br>
How are my interpersonal skills and empathy?<br>
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'</p>
<p dir="ltr">2. Specific skills<br>
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.</p>
<p dir="ltr">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.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Of course, both general fitness and special skills aren't enough to win a tough game.<br>
And both general fitness and skills can be built by playing a lot of games.<br>
That is generally how ametuers play social games.<br>
Is that how you would like people to view your preaching?<br>
As something you do to entertain yourself?</p>
Mike Whttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11525682801952791861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8505749622183039650.post-35973171132157998102013-05-06T10:14:00.000+10:002013-05-06T10:14:07.753+10:00Glenn Davies for ArchbishopYou may have missed the launching of two websites that are dedicated to the promotion of Glenn Davies as the next Archbishop of Sydney.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
If nothing else, the websites are worth visiting because they have links to many of the articles he has published over the years.<br />
Take a look<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.glenndavies.info/index.html">http://www.glenndavies.info/index.html</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/GlennDaviesForArchbishop">http://www.facebook.com/GlennDaviesForArchbishop</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Mike Whttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11525682801952791861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8505749622183039650.post-53605270505004145452013-05-03T20:02:00.001+10:002013-05-03T20:02:04.585+10:00Apologetics and strength<p dir="ltr">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?</p>
Mike Whttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11525682801952791861noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8505749622183039650.post-66228846168525483202013-05-03T19:58:00.001+10:002013-05-03T19:58:11.112+10:00Apologetics and strength<p dir="ltr">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?<br>
</p>
Mike Whttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11525682801952791861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8505749622183039650.post-3587529924857905822013-04-27T20:19:00.001+10:002013-04-27T20:19:17.264+10:00Does the Father reveal the Son negatively or positivelySo 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.<br />
<br />
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...<br />
<br />
But what does the functional subordination of the Son reveal about the Father.<br />
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?<br />
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!)<br />
<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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?<br />
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?<br />
<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Not very useful for a gender debate thoughMike Whttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11525682801952791861noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8505749622183039650.post-79176983211672388542013-04-12T22:16:00.001+10:002013-04-12T22:16:52.875+10:00Do people think you like to think?<p dir="ltr">My son likes to get up early in the morning. Really early.<br>
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.<br>
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?"<br>
I hand her the book<br>
"Oh, theology. Are you studying?"<br>
"No, I'm a minister with the Anglican Church"<br>
"So it's for work, a sermon or something"<br>
"No, I just like to think"<br>
"Really? I get loads of ministers in here. They look stuffed on a Monday. They're pretty good looking too <br>
((I don't know if I should be offended by this comment))<br>
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".</p>
<p dir="ltr">Now we had a good conversation about this and all sorts of other Jesus stuff. But it did get me thinking.<br>
Did we really study all that theology just to pass exams?<br>
Are we committed f to thinking and learning and listening. Or is that only for four years and then it becomes just another job.<br>
Do thou read theology for the pleasure of thinking about god?</p>
Mike Whttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11525682801952791861noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8505749622183039650.post-60298574072528878542013-04-05T13:14:00.001+11:002013-04-05T13:14:14.491+11:00A Climate (and environmental) solutionIt is increasingly clear that humans are having massive and devastating impact on our environment.<br />
This includes (but is not limited to) climate change.<br />
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.<br />
Part of the problem is levels of consumption, especially in wealthier countries.<br />
Part of the problem is an expanding population, which aspires to live at levels closer to those in wealthier countries.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
In all likelihood, it will be the poorest who are affected the most by climate change and other environmental degradation.<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://img.youtube.com/vi/euqf_UKFtgY/0.jpg"><param name="movie" value="http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/euqf_UKFtgY&source=uds" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed width="320" height="266" src="http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/euqf_UKFtgY&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></div>
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.Mike Whttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11525682801952791861noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8505749622183039650.post-22567980818402431382013-03-04T14:48:00.001+11:002013-03-04T14:48:50.121+11:00Hearing her voice: an analogyThe year is 4000AD <br />
Someone very well respected from 2013 once said<br />
' I do not permit a woman to be a policeman'. And we are trying to understand and apply such a command.<br />Looking through various uses we come up with a general definition<br />'A
policeman is someone who enforces the law with authority'.<br />
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'<br />But then we come to historical cases of women (affirmed by our writer) being lawyers and judges. <br />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).<br />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.<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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."<br />
<br />
HT Luke for the converation that brought this up for me <br />
<br />
<br />Mike Whttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11525682801952791861noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8505749622183039650.post-17203409349758890582013-03-01T23:05:00.003+11:002013-03-01T23:05:51.532+11:00Why I don't think Lionel Windsor has nailed John Dickson, and the worrying approach to language that comes from his reply.
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
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'.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
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.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<ol>
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
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.</div>
</li>
</ol>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
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.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So, the word 'set' can mean a complete
collection</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
the word 'set' can mean the hardening
of concrete</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
the word 'set' can mean a unit of games
in tennis</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
the word 'set' can mean to place down</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
None of these are 'general' or
'technical', they are simply available meanings.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Where words are set within a given set
sets their meaning. Game ,set and match Dickson.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Everyone has the burden of proof when
the meaning of a word is contested.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
But where will this proof and evidence
come from?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<ol start="2">
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Dickson looks for his evidence
internally to the Pastoral letters of Paul. How is didaskw used in
these letters?</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
He then correlates his findings to
external historical evidence to practices in the first century</div>
</li>
</ol>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
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.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<ol start="3">
<li><div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
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.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
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)</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
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)</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
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.
</div>
</li>
</ol>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
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</div>
Mike Whttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11525682801952791861noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8505749622183039650.post-61828576952930905892013-02-26T14:31:00.003+11:002013-02-26T14:31:57.355+11:00You are not Paul, I am not TimothyJohn 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.<br />
<br />
I'm not so surprised. Partly because of the way the Pastorals are taught in Sydney.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
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...<br />
<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
That the words coming out of their mouth may, or may not be, the infallible apostolic deposit of the gospel.<br />
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.<br />
Mike Whttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11525682801952791861noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8505749622183039650.post-25362934479259513392013-02-09T13:38:00.002+11:002013-02-09T13:38:44.716+11:00Hauerwas: prayer on Trinity and lonelinessBlessed 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.Mike Whttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11525682801952791861noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8505749622183039650.post-77328831832193381532012-11-21T13:18:00.000+11:002012-11-21T13:18:01.260+11:00All I can do is pray: pushing through number twoSo,<br />
the stomach healed up. Lost a couple of days.<br />
Got back into the swing of things. Kept swinging.<br />
A couple of days ago my eye starts weeping. Rinsed it, left it, slept on it, worked a day.<br />
Still weeping at 9pm. Hmm. Back to hospital. 6hr wait in emergency. Looks like another corneal infection, maybe an ulcer. Up to the specialist in the morning. Hourly drugs and daily visits for the next few days.<br />
Get a call from a retired pastor who is worried about my health.<br />
"Oh yeah" he says. "I get eye problems like that."<br />
"Though not so much now that I have retired and am not under so much stress"<br />
"You wouldn't be under any stress though would you... hahaha".<br />
<br />
Another week of Scripture lost. Feeling really useless. Can't read, not meant to mix socially (could be contagious). All I can do is pray<br />
<br />
<br />Mike Whttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11525682801952791861noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8505749622183039650.post-35257246891183964772012-11-04T10:57:00.001+11:002012-11-04T10:57:41.371+11:00On 'pushing through'It has been a big couple of weeks.<br />
A lot on at work. A big fundraising push. 'Interesting' pastoral issues. Diocesan training. Lots of meetings with big, controversial, difficult decisions to be made. As well as the usual week to week stuff. Friday night we had a '24hrs of prayer' at church that had me filling a gap at 2am.<br />
The temptation has been to push on through this tough time.<br />
<br />
Yesterday I got a massive headache. In bed all morning. Then in the afternoon I started vomitting blood. Not just vomit with tinged with blood. Rich red mouthfuls of blood.<br />
Freaked out, called the ambulance. Off to hospital. Blood tests. CT scan. Morphine, mmmmm, morphine.<br />
8 hours later I was released. <br />
The most likely scenario is that the overtiredness gave me a migraine. The migraine gave me nausea, and the force of the vomitting, as it pushed through, tore the lining of my stomach. I'll have to go and get a camera down there to check.<br />
<br />
Which makes me question the idea of 'pushing through'. When you 'push through', things get torn.<br />
<br />Mike Whttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11525682801952791861noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8505749622183039650.post-55450125532394521302012-10-29T22:37:00.001+11:002012-10-29T22:38:25.676+11:00Our church has great Bible teachingEvery church thinks that it has great Bible teaching.<br />
It is a simple law of attrition.<br />
Whoever is left likes it<br />
Whoever does not like it has left Mike Whttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11525682801952791861noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8505749622183039650.post-65947079637490034892012-10-09T16:32:00.002+11:002012-10-09T16:32:58.193+11:00Principles for preaching: Who are you speaking for?So, as far as I can see at the moment, preaching involves three distinct but related movements or postures.<br />
<br />
1. You are listening to God on behalf of others.<br />
You've spent those hours in the study(or wherever) , pouring over the scriptures, trying to hear what God is saying, not just to the original readers, not just to yourself, but to the congregation you are to speak to. Preaching is standing alongside that congregation and listening on their behalf<br />
<br />
2. You are speaking to the congregation on behalf of God.<br />
There is no way around this. When you get up to preach, you are saying that you have some access to the mind of God, and that he is speaking through you. You are claiming that you have something to teach the congregation, somewhere to take them. Perhaps this is the mode we are most comfortable with. <br />
<br />
3. You are proclaiming God on behalf of the congregation.<br />
I reckon this is the one we think about the least. Proclaiming Jesus is the job of the whole church, and when you get up to speak, you speak on the congregations behalf. You don't just talk to them, you talk for them. This is an encouraging thing for younger preachers (or older!!) who feel like the congregation knows more than them, who feel as though they have very little to 'teach' the congregation. The preachers job isn't to bring us something new, or even simply to teach us, the preachers job is to proclaim Jesus Christ. Our current emphasis on 'exegeting the congregation' is good, but it can tend to obscure this third role. We can fall into thinking that preaching is all about achieving some outcome for the listeners. Sometimes you need to cry out things for which the only response is 'Amen'. In fact maybe we need to do that a whole lot more often. I reckon the American preaching culture can be a bit better at this.<br />
<br />
I think this is also why crap preaching is so offensive. It isn't just that you bored me for 30 minutes, or that you didn't teach me, it is that you spoke drivel on my behalf.<br />
<br />
<br />Mike Whttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11525682801952791861noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8505749622183039650.post-21237142556433115502012-10-09T10:10:00.000+11:002012-10-09T10:10:26.916+11:00Andrew Shead: A mouth full of fireI somehow missed the fact that Andrew Shead's awesome Moore college lectures on Jeremiah have finally been released as a book<br />
"A Mouth Full of Fire" in that silver Biblical Theology series.<br />
Jeremiah is still my biggest biblical blindspot (though revelation has to come close too), so I'm really looking forward to reading this oneMike Whttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11525682801952791861noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8505749622183039650.post-36643502207752980202012-09-28T09:32:00.000+10:002012-09-28T09:32:15.162+10:00You can't read the Bible like any other book...?I recently took some holidays.<br />
One of the projects I set myself was to re-read my favourite novel, David Foster Wallace's "Infinite Jest". I wanted to get a better grasp on the novel, and test out some theories about what DFW was up to.<br />
So I committed to taking notes. Nothing too onerous. I set out to list the order of scenes, and to map the chronology of scenes. I also noted references to language and speech (testing a theory about the influence of James Incandenza), and also attempted to diagram what Enfield Tennis Acadamy looked like. (given references to the lung and the brain).<br />
Anyway, just paying this close attention to the book meant all sorts of interesting things turned up in the first 30 or so pages. All sorts of interesting links and themes and clues. I loved it. I got so much more out of those 30 pages. But then I gave up. Mostly because when I was too tired to take notes, or couldn't, or didn't have my notebook, I didn't read. So 30 pages was all I got through.<br />
Instead I picked up the 'Hunger Games' series and knocked one over each afternoon for three afternoons. Now, admittedly, they are an easier read. But it got me thinking...<br />
<br />
Has our approach to 'Bible Study' made us people who can't read the Bible.<br />
<br />
That is, because we move so slowly through the Bible, trying to milk every last drop, does it put us off actually reading the thing. <br />
<br />
So spurred by these thoughts, and by some stuff from 'Cor Deo', our young adults group is trying something different.<br />
<br />
We are just going to read the Bible because we love it, and love God. We aren't going to set aside a disciplined time for reading. You don't do that with a book you love, you pick it up whenever you get a chance. We aren't going to set the number of chapters you 'must' read each day, we are just going to read it because we love it. As we read, we will highlight the bits we like, and then share those together when we meet. We won't labour through any passages. After sharing the bible bits, we will talk about it together, and how we think we need to respond<br />
We have set a provisional goal, the whole thing in 4 months, and so a provisional target of about 40 chapters a week. As one of our ladies said ' yeah then people can read more if they want to'.<br />
The idea then, is that you could get through the whole bible three times a year. You may miss some things as you whizz through the first time, but the second? third? fiftieth time? My hunch is you will know and love the Lord and his word a whole lot better than our plodding method <br />
<br />
I'll let you know how it goes<br />
<br />
<br />Mike Whttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11525682801952791861noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8505749622183039650.post-47674954584409812682012-09-20T16:10:00.000+10:002012-09-20T16:10:01.019+10:00Wisdom and Education<blockquote><p>…the values which we most ignore, the recognition of which we most seldom find in writings on education, are those of Wisdom and Holiness, the values of the sage and the saint….Our tendency has been to identify wisdom with knowledge, saintliness with natural goodness, to minimize not only the operation of grace but self-training, to divorce holiness from education. Education has come to mean education of the mind only; and an education which is only of the mind…can lead to scholarship, to efficiency, to worldly achievement and to power, but not to wisdom.</p> <p>- T.S. Eliot. <em>The Idea of a Christian Society and Other Writings</em> (London: Faber and Faver, 1982), p 142, cited by Craig Bartholomew & Ryan O’Dowd, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0830838961/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thechildrshou-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399373&creativeASIN=0830838961">Old Testament Wisdom Literature: A Theological Introduction</a><img style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important;" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=thechildrshou-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0830838961&camp=217145&creative=399373" alt="" width="1" border="0" height="1" />, 293</p></blockquote>Mike Whttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11525682801952791861noreply@blogger.com0