Upcoming Theological Comments

The next few posts and others after them will be devoted to theologically commenting on the John’s First Epistle. They are not to be received as what we definitively take to be the meaning of his letter, though they are the product of a group study on these texts that will hopefully continue here. Rather, I’m sure there is much in them that needs to be either corrected, clarified, and elaborated.

I’ve opted for the label ‘theological comments’ instead of ‘commentary’ to indicate their humbler position and the lack of erudition involved here compared to more learned tomes. Still we hope there is wisdom in them that will benefit the Body of Christ and others as we are folded into God’s life.

I leave you with ‘a few thoughts‘ from Halden that indicate the spirit of what hopefully happens here. Make sure to read the rest. It’s excellent and short.

1. Theological commentary is a practice of commenting on Scripture. It is not an attempt to excavate the determinate meaning of the text, or make definitive statements about the text as such.

2. Theological commentary is theological. It is a practice of reading and interacting with Scripture from a distinctly Christian perspective that is fundamentally informed by Christian commitments to the triune God and the centrality of Jesus Christ.

5. Theological commentary is ecclesial in shape and practice. Commenting on Scripture theologically means doing so within the context of the church’s interpretive tradition and history. It likewise means doing so within the immediate communal setting of the local church which serves as the primary locus of testing and exploring claims and questions about Scripture.

6. Theological commentary is an offering to the church for consideration, dissection, correction, and edification. It is to be done in the mode of gifting, not in the mode of confrontation. Unlike the role of the preacher who is called to confront the church with the Word of God, theological commentary is a humble attempt to engage with the Word of God, not knowing how such engagement will turn out. It is prior to and grounds the practice of proclamation.

7. Theological commentary is not done rightly unless done in the context of doxology and prayer. The end of theological commentary is an ever-deepening union with the triune God through Christ. Such communion only occurs through being drawn, by the Spirit of Christ, into God’s life through the posture of worship.

Sharing Our Books: Please Take or Borrow These Ones

All the books sitting on my shelf have been urging me to find a way to share them with my church and friends, and now that my family is renting out this place and moving to a smaller one, I've finally taken the time to catalog them all - with much help from lovely Zotero. So please feel free to take or borrow the items below especially if you attend 180 or are part of the Vine. Even if I don't know you well or at all, I consider these books our communal property to be distributed by need. Friends are welcome as well.

There's not all that much there, but if you like or are studying literature, comparative literature/critical theory, philosophy or love Jesus, there should be something for you. Also the bibliographical information should be fairly accurate for those who need particular editions or translations.

For the time being, the way it will work is that I'll keep track of who has what on a spreadsheet, which I'll make public via a link and we'll contact each other if we want something. When books move places, people can let me know and I'll update excel document. I know it's pretty makeshift, but you're welcome to suggest or set up something better - like an online database. Also other people can add their collection to the list to share as well. The idea is not to need a centralized storage facility but to pass books between houses by meeting up or perhaps leaving books for pickup at the Vine. When they are not in use they can stay with the Vine member who last had it, unless they don't have the space.

Hopefully this, or something better, will save us some money which we can direct to other causes. I just ask that you handle to the books knowing they are ours. For me this doesn't bar writing in them with pencil or the development of mild creases on their spines, but perhaps this standard is too low for some.

Below is a spreadsheet with all the books and their details including their current caretaker. Also, for easier browsing purposes, there are lists of the major categories in the collection. Please leave comment if you see something you like and I'll get it to you. Sorry, that doesn't include those of you outside of Hong Kong.

Shared Books Spreadsheet, Of Christ, Literature & Criticism, Philosophy & Critical Theory

Enjoy!

Deleuze and Agapic Perception

Last week I came across a quote from French philosopher Gilles Deleuze responding to Claire Parnet's question, 'What does it mean to be on the left?'.

First he states that it is a matter of perception. Those who are not on the left and who live in the comparative wealth of a relatively privileged first world country perceive the problems of inequality and injustice from their own perspective. Sensing that their position is untenable and under threat, they ask 'What can we do to make this situation last? By contrast, those on the left perceive the situation from the perspective of the horizon, the point farthest from their centre of privilege. These people 'know it cannot last, that it's not possible, [the fact that] these millions of people are starving to death, it just can't last, it might go on a hundred years, one never knows, but there's no point kidding oneself about this absolute injustice'. Those on the left know that such problems must be dealt with, that the problem is not to find ways to maintain the privileges of Europe but that of 'finding arrangements, finding world-wide assemblages', which address these problems. -- Paul Patton, "Deleuze and Democratic Politics" in Radical Democracy, p. 56-57

Now, it seems to me that Christ has beqeauthed his Church with desires that rupture the right or left dichotomy, for how does it make sense for a follower of Jesus to be completely on right fighting for the rights of the unborn while claiming your money is your own and not the poor's? That said, as far as Deleuze here describes a "left perception" of the "horizon, the point farthest from [our] centre of privilege", does it not also resonate with an "agapic perception" for the orphans, widows and poor? Furthermore, the task for "finding arrangements" even "world-wide assemblages" is also the task for forming the Church anew for our time that shares God's abundant love to the ends of the earth. Paul exhorts us to work to give to those who don't have, and John calls any self-proclaimed Christian a liar if she has the worlds goods but does not give to her brothers and sisters in need. For to know God is to "judge the cause of the poor and needy" (Jer. 22:16). For the love of God is to love the lowest and offer forgiveness and reconciliation to all by welcoming them to the community of eternal life, fellowship with God and his children. A welcoming that in our world necessarily includes the gift of money if we have it.

The farthest thing from grace is to "grasp" a right to one's earnings. And, how much closer is it to give the culturally acceptable ten percent if others barely live at the expense of an affluent ninety? To protect our centre of privilege at the expense of suffering of others does not even touch the Spirit that births the Church. Does an atheist, like the Samaritan, know God better than me?

Yet, the Christ has come, the Spirit has been given and the Church is here preaching a gospel not only of facts for mental assent but of a new life inaugurated by Jesus' death and resurrection. An eternal life of love, sacrifice, forgiveness, reconciliation, communion and worship with God and his people. Lives that perceive the world through God's agape together and together fulfill his love in action.

Lord, this Good Friday and Easter Sunday, let us see your glory, see your love, eat your bread and taste your wine. May the joy and peace of new life come again. In Christ, Amen.

"Did Darwin Kill God?"

Those of you in England might want to check out Conor Cunningham's program "Did Darwin Kill God?" airing on BBC2 Tuesday 31st March 7:00pm. Cunningham is the assistant director of the Centre for Theology and Philosophy at the University of Nottingham and has just finished his book Evolution: Darwin's Pious Idea, which is due out this autumn. His showing on the BBC will be for an hour in which he contends that the debate between Creationists and scientists like Dawkins is unnecessary. Here is Eric Lee's summary:

In his documentary - Did Darwin Kill God? - Conor travels around England, America and Israel interviewing philosophers, Bible scholars and scientists in a bid to discover how this destructive conflict arose, and in the process concluding that it is based on bad science, inaccurate history, inadequate philosophy and even worse theology.

The main purpose of the documentary is to offer a critique of both Christian fundamentalists who reject evolution, doing so, Conor argues, because they display a complete lack of understanding about the Christian tradition, and Darwinian fundamentalists - those such as Dawkins who take Darwin's theory beyond the domain of science and apply it to all aspects of life, and is so doing undermine the very cogency of evolution as a science. Consequently, Darwinists such as Dawkins are as great a threat to evolution as are creationists. In addition Conor seeks to remind viewers of the orthodox understanding of Christianity's God, for it is this understanding that makes opposition between Darwin's theory of evolution and Christianity not only misplaced but impossible.

Also, download Cunningham's podcast A plague on both houses (mp3 Friday 13 March 2009; 32.1MB, 34.41mins). Listening carefully pays off well. He goes through the historical, theology and philosophical myths and mistakes that have become part of popular culture that has opened the room for our current tension between creationist belief and atheistic unbelief. Here are some provoking excerpts for Christians especially. There are others for everyone.

Theologically, most of the church fathers ... had never read Genesis literally. Or if they read it literally, it wasn't our version of literal. ... What the church fathers understood as 'literal' was ... a communication of truths, not of historical description. Genesis 1 [describes] why there is existence at all and Genesis 2 is [a description] of man's place or humankind's place in it. ... It was only in the 20th century, with a little few blips in the 16th century, that people sort of take this literally at all. In fact, during the 2000 years of history of Christian tradition, those who did take it literally were ... uneducated and ignorant*

I'm no fan of Creationism. To me it's a heresy. It's actually atheist in terms of its theology.

They started to fetishize the Bible, which itself was an anomaly in the Christian tradition. The Bible was only ever in conversation with tradition, in conversation with interpreters--a place to base your faith but from which to develop your faith. It wasn't a place in which to simply make your home in. Unfortunately, they just all thought they could just open the Bible and understand it immediately. This was an aberration and it should never have happened.

Look forward to your thoughts and reactions.

*Didn't get some of the words because of the accent. Help me out here if you can.

(HT: Eric Lee)

Memorizing Scripture: Download the ESV for free

Having Scripture to listen to as you commute to work or walk around campus is a great help in memorizing the passages you want at hand for meditation, renewal of the mind, communion and battle with the evil one. Thankfully this brother has figured out a way to download the ESV for free from their online website.

If you worried if it is legal or not, Justin Taylor, who is an editor at the ESV's publisher, is the one who passed on the link.

May we abide in his words and abide in him.

(HT: Justin Taylor)

Augustine & the Erotics of Christian Love

Kate Sirluck expressed the sentiments of the poets like Donne and Herbert in the phrase "Holy Eroticism". The idea was that unless one's love for God is erotic, it is nothing. Now, Jesus meets, embraces and graces us at many of the postures along the road of true desire, not the least of which is a kneeling repentant sorrow for our lack, but nevertheless, knowing the glory of God is our pursuit. A relationship and knowledge towards the wedding night of the Bride and the Lamb (Hosea 2:20, cf. Gen 4:1).

Gladly, this view of our highest end has been a part of our tradition against the apathy of the Stoics or of the unmoved contemplation of Aristotle. In contrast, of Augustine, these words could be penned.

We hear sighs of longing and groans of profound desolation. We hear love songs composed in anguish, as the singer's heart strains upward in desire. We hear of a hunger that cannot be satisfied, of a thirst that torments, of the taste of a lover's body that kindles inexpressible longing. We hear of an opening that longs for penetration, of a burning fire that ignites the body and the heart. All of these are images of profound erotic passion. And all of these are images of Christian love.
--- Martha Nussbaum, Upheavels of Thought, (Cambridge, 2001.) p. 528

From this I am constantly tempted, distracted and slide. But, again, the Spirit whispers, sweetly inviting, 'enter in and know pleasure again'.

"God's Grandeur"

Yesterday, I was moved to read Gerard Manley Hopkins' poem "God's Grandeur". It amazes me. The intensity engendered by his syntax, the senses imitated by his rhymes, and the light that shakes off the page or warms and illumines the dark soul brings me to praise God's glory and how it breaks forth in the world all around us. Enjoy!

God's Grandeur

The world is charged with the grandeur of God.
.....It will flame out, like shining from shook foil
.....It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
.....And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
.....And wears man's smudge and shares man's smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.

And for all this, nature is never spent;
.....There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
.....Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, spring---
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
.....World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.

--Gerard Manley Hopkins

Yes, the gifts exist, but it's no big deal...

Andrew Faris has just written a wonderfully direct post exhorting those who believe the supernatural gifts still continue for us today but live as if they don’t. Now, if you don’t believe the Spirit still imparts prophecy, tongues, word of knowledge, and healing to his church regularly, then you probably won’t be convinced by his defense from experience, unless you think he is a person whose testimony you can trust. But, if you at least trust the testimony of others predicting the future, receiving information about others’ lives for their edification, healing the sick, or spontaneously speaking in an unknown tongue, then this is especially relevant for you. It is the same clarity that convicts me when I live not seeking what God offers me. Check it out!

(For those not familiar with the theological jargon, to simplify,’cessationism’ is the belief that the ’supernatural’ gifts ended after the apostles or the New Testament was finished. ‘Continualists’ are those who belief the gifts are still given to the church today.)

If charismaticism was an assumption before college, it became a conviction by the end of it. After spending some time thinking through the issue seriously, I came to the following quasi-syllogistic conclusions:

1. Cessationism is dead wrong, and it’s obvious.

2. If cessationism is dead wrong, the only Biblical option is full-fledged but non-Pentecostal charismaticism.

Yet it appears to me that many evangelicals affirm step 1 but don’t bother with step 2, and it is not because they are all reading Robert Saucy’s “Open But Cautious” essay in the counterpoints book (as an aside, what am I not “open but cautious” about in evangelical theology…other than cessationism anyway?). A small fraction might have thought through the issue and arrived with Saucy. But most, I am convinced, simply don’t address it. “Sure,” they think, “the Spirit still works in the 1 Cor. 12-14 ways today.” But after that mental affirmation, nothing.

This troubles me, for at least the following reasons:

1. If the Holy Spirit (i.e. God Himself dwelling among His people for the sake of their sanctification and perseverance, in case you forgot) really does give us gifts, why would we not unwrap them, so to speak? Affirming the continuation of the so-called “miraculous” gifts but not pursuing them is about as logical as affirming that I will die if I don’t eat but refusing to eat the food that is right in front of me. I need what the Holy Spirit has to offer. The Church needs what the Holy Spirit has to offer. Why not pursue it?

2. If spiritual gifts (no matter how we conceive of them, but think “ministries“), are given to the church for the sake of its edification, why would we not pursue them? This is the same as saying that we do not think we need to be edified the way that the Holy Spirit thinks that we need to be edified.

3. 1 Cor. 14:1 explicitly says that we should earnestly seek to prophesy. Simple enough.

4. Every Christian, not just the leadership, is supposed to serve the body of Christ. Few if any ministries that believers experience together actually expect every believer to actively participate like spending time seeking the miraculous gifts. Seriously, when has your church ever had the problem that too many people are speaking at the same time and thus making your service disorderly (you know, because they all have edifying hymns, prophecies, and words from Scripture to share; cf. 1 Cor. 14:26ff)?

And yet Christians don’t pursue these gifts, and I’m just not sure why. Wait, actually, scratch that; I know of a few reasons why we do not do this:

Read the rest.

"This is Christianity: The Lord Appears!"

I love this excerpt from Martin Lloyd-Jones sermons on John 4:

Possibly one of the most devastating things that can happen to us as Christians is that we cease to expect anything to happen. I am not sure but that this is not one of our greatest troubles today. We come to our services and they are orderly, they are nice ‒ we come, we go ‒ and sometimes they are timed almost to the minute, and there it is. But that is not Christianity, my friend. Where is the Lord of glory? Where is the one sitting by the well? Are we expecting him? Do we anticipate this? Are we open to it? Are we aware that we are ever facing this glorious possibility of having the greatest surprise of our life?

Or let me put it like this. You may feel and say ‒ as many do ‒ ‘I was converted and became a Christian. I’ve grown ‒ yes, I’ve grown in knowledge, I’ve been reading books, I’ve been listening to sermons, but I’ve arrived now at a sort of peak and all I do is maintain that. For the rest of my life I will just go on like this.’

Now, my friend, you must get rid of that attitude; you must get rid of it once and for ever. That is ‘religion’, it is not Christianity. This is Christianity: the Lord appears! Suddenly, in the midst of the drudgery and the routine and the sameness and the dullness and the drabness, unexpectedly, surprisingly, he meets with you and he says something to you that changes the whole of your life and your outlook and lifts you to a level that you had never conceived could be possible for you. Oh, if we get nothing else from this story, I hope we will get this. Do not let the devil persuade you that you have got all you are going to get, still less that you received all you were ever going to receive when you were converted. That has been a popular teaching, even among evangelicals. You get everything at your conversion, it is said, including baptism with the Spirit, and nothing further, ever. Oh, do not believe it; it is not true. It is not true to the teaching of the Scriptures, it is not true in the experience of the saints running down the centuries. There is always this glorious possibility of meeting with him in a new and a dynamic way.

(HT: Justin Taylor)

"Advice for theological students"

A brilliant and incisive list of "advice" for those who take theology "seriously" from Ben Myers:

1. As a theological student, your aim is to accumulate opinions – as many as you can, and as fast as possible. (Exceptional students may acquire all their opinions within the first few weeks; others require an entire semester.) One of the best ways to collect opinions is to choose your theological group (“I shall be progressive,” or “I will be evangelical,” or “I am a Barthian”), then sign up to all the opinions usually associated with that social group. If at first you don’t feel much conviction for these new opinions, just be patient: within twelve months you will be a staunch advocate, and you’ll even be able to help new students acquire the same opinions.

2. At the earliest possible opportunity you should also form an opinion about your favourite theological discipline: that is, you should choose your specialisation. To communicate this choice to others, you should dismiss as trivial or irrelevant all other disciplines: the systematic theologian should teach herself to utter humorous remarks about the worth of “practical” theology, while the New Testament student should learn to hold forth emphatically on the dangers of systematic theology; and so on.

3. As far as possible, you should try to avoid all non-theological interests or pursuits. All your time and energy should be invested in reading important books and discussing important ideas. (Novels in particular should be avoided, as they are a notorious time-waster, and they furnish you with no new opinions.)

Here for the rest. As for me, Number 10, the last one, is the best, confirmed by the sting and warning in my heart. Check out the comments too for other confessions. Time to do some more of not letting theology replace worship.