Theology & Snack

Updike's Easter Poem

2008-03-26T16:26:00.002+05:30

Make no mistake: if He rose at all
it was as His body;
if the cells’ dissolution did not reverse, the molecules
reknit, the amino acids rekindle,
the Church will fall.

It was not as the flowers,
each soft Spring recurrent;
it was not as His Spirit in the mouths and fuddled
eyes of the eleven apostles;
it was as His Flesh: ours.

Reformed catholicism claims permission to reprint it, so read the whole thing there. Here's someone who gets it.

Bye-Bye, Tigers

2008-02-13T08:05:00.000+05:30

Over half of tigers lost in 5 years: census

NEW DELHI: India has lost more than 50 per cent of its tiger population in the past five years with the numbers dwindling to 1,411 from 3,642 in 2001-02, according to the latest tiger census report.

A Liberation Theology Analogy

2008-02-03T20:48:00.000+05:30

This rough analogy of the relationship between "liberation theology" and "theology" came to me tonight at church:

You have a collection of 100 CDs. You only play one, and of that one, you only listen to three tracks, and of those three tracks, you only listen to the middle three minutes of each one. You then proclaim yourself an expert on music, proclaim that music never really existed before this CD came out, and insist there really is no other kind of music besides what is on that album, even though you have so many other CDs.

Really, guys, not everything is about poor people.

Light Blogging...

2008-02-03T20:44:00.000+05:30

I know blogging has been very sparse the last month or so. It's not likely to improve any time soon. It is, however, likely to improve some time after that. So, please don't delete your link or bookmark.

Profound Thought of the Day

2008-01-22T20:10:00.000+05:30

Of yesterday, actually:

Justification is not the article by which the church stands or falls. The resurrection of Jesus is.

Brrrr. Cold in South India!

2008-01-22T19:29:00.000+05:30

Not really. It gets down into maybe the 60's (18-ish C). Mornings are REALLY foggy until 9:00. I can't see the big mansion down the road or even where in the sky the sun is. Apparently this is "cold" enough to interfere with the wires and boxes of my ISP. I lose internet access several hours a day, and they have to come and manually reset it.

Just thought I'd share.

I Was Wright about 1 Cor. 15.44!

2008-01-18T20:12:00.000+05:30

Mistranslation and misinterpretation of this verse has led many to conclude that Paul did not believe in a physical resurrection, only a "spiritual" one. The ESV gives it as follows:

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.

The NRSV is worse with "physical body" versus "spiritual body." Actually, in Greek, the terms are soma psychikon and soma pneumatikon, which are more literally rendered as "soulish body" and "spiritual body," respectively. Both are types of bodies and both are physical--if a "spiritual body" is not physical, then neither is a "soulish" body; no one uses the word "soulish" as a synonym for "physical" or "soul" as a synonym for "body." As Wright repeatedly points out, in a nice way, "Yeah right. Everything in the NT, including Paul's other writings, points to physical resurrection, but then Paul, with one verse, shows that no one really meant or believed in that."

What Wright (The Resurrection of the Son of God, p. 346) actually says:

What Paul desires, to take his terminology at face value, is not to let the soul fly free to a supposed astral home, but to stop the "soul," the psyche, from being the animating principle for the body. Precisely because the soul is not, for him, the immortal fiery substance it is for Plato, he sees that the true solution to the human plight is to replace the "soul" as the animating principle of the body with the "spirit"--or rather, the Spirit.

The neat thing that made me go "Yes!" when reading this was that this is exactly what I had figured out on my own, at age 16 (or was it 17?), with my trusty (but not so good) interlinear Greek New Testament.

The Pentecostal Corner: Our Hermeneutics of Suspicion

2008-01-14T20:02:00.000+05:30

This is intramural sports; I'm not connecting all the dots.

The Pentecostal doctrine of subsequent Spirit baptism, we admit, is developed primarily from the book of Acts and not the Pauline corpus.

Evangelical scholars such as John Stott say that it is a basic hermeneutical principle that we must form our theology only from didactic portions of Scripture, not narratives. Accordingly, Pentecostals misuse Scripture to demonstrate their doctrine.

Some thoughts I've had over the years:

Who decided this rule, and what name did he adopt for his papacy?
Isn't it convenient that this rule usually precludes just one book of the New Testament from our theological formation (some Paulinists also sadly extend it to the Gospels as well) and is used primarily to rule out just one particular doctrine?
Why is it that the same people who say we must follow this rule still use Acts 5.3-4 as their primary prooftext for demonstrating the divinity of the Holy Spirit?

Some Thoughts on the Fatherhood of God

2008-01-13T19:19:00.000+05:30

Or, turning a recent lesson into a post-not-a-book.

In studying about "God the Father," it is somewhat surprising to find that in many theological texts, the Fatherhood of God is not treated in a systematic fashion, certainly not in any way comparable to "God the Son." The subject is primarily as it relates to the development of Trinitarian doctrine. In some ways, this is understandable; it is not the least bit controversial to say, "The Father is God." No one disagrees with that.

When we casually think about the subject, we tend to view the Father as "God in the Old Testament." Actually, God is rarely called "Father" in the OT; it is through Jesus Christ that we really come to know him as such. Important OT references to the Fatherhood of God include Deut. 32.6, Isa. 64.8, Hosea 11.1, and Exod. 4.22

Feminist theologians have raised concerns about the depiction of God as Father, particularly as it is used to reinforce patriarchical dominance and communicate the idea that maleness or men are somehow more like God and women somehow less. It is important to remember that in Gen. 1.27, "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Both are equally created in the image of God. It is from Gen. 1 and 2 that we should get our ideas about how God intends the relations between men and women, not Gen. 3 onwards with the Fall and its aftermath.

The solution to traditional views of God the Father and the problems it can produce is not through the "balancing out" of our view of God by highlighting the "Motherhood" of God. There are a few feminine analogies or depictions of God in Scripture such as Isa. 66.13 and Lk. 23.37. We should always be hesitant, however, to project sexual imagery onto our understanding of God; we need less, not more, of this. God is unique, one, and Other; he does not contain the sexual dimorphism or division present with the human race and created order of life.

Jesus told us to call God "Our Father," and so we should not hesitate to do so, but our understanding of God's Fatherhood should accordingly be formed by Jesus' teaching, including his anti-domination and hierarchy sayings such as Matt. 23.1-12 and Mark 10.42-45. The Fatherhood of God must be understood as primarily analogy and metaphor, not as something literal. Israelite religion showed considerable restraint and did not take the idea of a "male God" as far as what the pagan religions did with fertility gods, spawned demigods etc.

In Hosea 11.1, God says of Israel, "Out of Egypt I called my Son." Recall that Hosea is best known for his prophetic illustration of God's relationship with Israel via his relationship with his adulterous wife, Gomer. In the same book, then, we see God depicted as both Israel's husband and father. This should be a clear signal that God as Father is essentially metaphor and should not be pushed too far.

Quicky Wright Quote

2008-01-08T08:25:00.000+05:30

Yes, I'm still around, getting back into the swing of things after a wacky non-productive, non-restful break. I'm way behind on my readings but trying to get caught up. All I'll say at this point: N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God (2003) is awesome. It's very clear (why can't the German theologian write like this?) and very devastating in its tight common-sense logic. I love this quote on the resurrection in 1 Cor. 15:

[For Paul] You may be allowed to eat meat offered to idols, but you cannot deny the future bodily resurrection and claim that denial as an allowable Christian option.

It's sad that some need to be reminded of this.

Happy New Year

2007-12-30T15:34:00.000+05:30

I'm out of town for the next week, and my internet access will be spotty while away. Have a great one!

BENAZIR BHUTTO ASSASSINATED

2007-12-27T19:14:00.000+05:30

Pray for Pakistan. That country is a mess.

Feeling Stupid from Time to Time

2007-12-26T17:37:00.000+05:30

The past few weeks I have been feeling very stupid. As reflected in the paucity of the quality and quantity of my posts lately, I have not been oriented toward theology at all. I'm far behind on my various reading projects. I feel very inadequate to think theologically, and I'm glad that I don't have to face a classroom full of students for nearly two weeks. The last question of one of the last lectures I taught directly concerned the subject of my D.Th. thesis, and I was almost like, "Duh...", which was scary. (Some of that, however, I will blame on too many administrative pressures at the time.)

This happens from time to time. When I was doing my M.Th., sometimes all of a sudden I would feel like I was totally in over my head and incapable of doing what I needed to do. After struggling for a while, grace would be given, new folds would pop over in my brain, and I would emerge from the period of cloudiness better than before. I'm hopeful that this will happen soon, but this is a deeper funk of stupidity than what I have experienced before.

Has anyone else experienced something similar, or am I alone in this?

Violence against Christians in Orissa (Again)

2007-12-26T17:20:00.000+05:30

I missed this reading the morning paper:

BERHAMPUR: Curfew was imposed in four towns of Orissa’s Kandhamal district on Tuesday after violence which broke out on Monday escalated. A youth was killed, six churches were vandalised and two houses of a Minister were targeted in largescale communal violence and arson, following an attack on a VHP leader, who led an anti-conversion movement.

The youth, yet to be identified, was killed and 25 were injured in mob violence at Barakhamba, a senior police officer said. Six churches, mostly thatched, were either ransacked or the vacant premises set on fire since Monday night, Revenue Divisional Commissioner Satyabrata Sahu said.

Updates here. Pray for the suffering Christians of Orissa; they have it very difficult in that state.

EDIT: Here's a more lucid summary from BBC News.

Christmas Eating Highlights

2007-12-26T16:38:00.000+05:30

Nothing too exciting. We prepared mediocre Thai food. Thai is a good compromise; it's something a little different but most people will try it. (I know too many people who refuse to try Western food and will only eat Indian.) The coconut curries are also exceptionally easy to prepare, which is good for a holiday like Christmas when we have no help around the house. (The maids have the day off. Yes, I have maids. Two of them.)

As I noted, the results were mediocre. For some reason, the chicken curry was not as good as it normally is--still nice, though. We ran out of eggs, so the fried rice was a little dull. And for some reason, I am hopeless with noodles. They always say, "Cooks in X minutes," but after X+5 minutes, mine are never ready, and then when I do whatever needs to be done with them, they don't really turn out all the great, certainly not like anything you'd get in a good or even just decent restaurant. I am great with pasta, but for some reason I can't get Asian noodles to turn out right. That's a pity as I really like them.

No special dessert as my wife has been baking nonstop the past week or so and we've been pigging out on cookies and cakes. She's a great baker.

Christmas is so much more than food, of course, and all in all it was a great day.

Theologians Confusing One Another

2007-12-26T16:24:00.000+05:30

I fully stand by this post, but I also affirm that theologians sometimes try to confuse each other. As N.T. Wright writes in The Resurrection of the Son of God:

There are at least ten meanings of the word "eschatology" currently being employed within the guild of New Testament Studies.

We like to use certain buzzwords to show that we are hip and in with the current theological trends. "Eschatological" is one of these; I've read some works where it occurs in every third line. Rarely, however, is it defined to show which particular sense is intended. Quite often, the work would make just as much sense omitting it or substituting "red," "happy," or "cubic."

Lazy liberation and contextual theologians are especially guilty of this sort of thing; I'm half sure some of the articles I've read on the subject were just written automatically via Word macros. Just throw out the terms "liberation," "oppression," "perspective," "globalization," "eco-feminist," etc. in some random order, and there are some "journals" that will automatically publish whatever happens to stick to the paper.

Hark! The Herald! (My All-Time Favorite Carol)

2007-12-22T19:11:00.000+05:30

"Hark! the herald angels sing" is by far my favorite Christmas carol. I love the theology of the hymn--and it is very good theology--and how it captures the jubilation of the triumph of Christ.

Like most good hymns, this one was written by Charles Wesley. He wrote thousands. What many people do not know, however, is that usually they were originally much longer than the different versions that have ended up in our hymnals. Here is "Hark!" in its close-to-original form, courtesy of the Cyber Hymnal:

Hark! The herald angels sing,
“Glory to the newborn King;
Peace on earth, and mercy mild,
God and sinners reconciled!”
Joyful, all ye nations rise,
Join the triumph of the skies;
With th’angelic host proclaim,
“Christ is born in Bethlehem!”

Refrain:

Hark! the herald angels sing,
“Glory to the newborn King!”

Christ, by highest Heav’n adored;
Christ the everlasting Lord;
Late in time, behold Him come,
Offspring of a virgin’s womb.
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see;
Hail th’incarnate Deity,
Pleased with us in flesh to dwell,
Jesus our Emmanuel.

Refrain

Hail the heav’nly Prince of Peace!
Hail the Sun of Righteousness!
Light and life to all He brings,
Ris’n with healing in His wings.
Mild He lays His glory by,
Born that man no more may die.
Born to raise the sons of earth,
Born to give them second birth.

Refrain

Come, Desire of nations, come,
Fix in us Thy humble home;
Rise, the woman’s conqu’ring Seed,
Bruise in us the serpent’s head.
Now display Thy saving power,
Ruined nature now restore;
Now in mystic union join
Thine to ours, and ours to Thine.

Refrain

Adam’s likeness, Lord, efface,
Stamp Thine image in its place:
Second Adam from above,
Reinstate us in Thy love.
Let us Thee, though lost, regain,
Thee, the Life, the inner man:
O, to all Thyself impart,
Formed in each believing heart.

Refrain

I particularly like the last two sets of verses, which sadly are rarely sung. "Rise the woman's conquering seed/bruise in us the serpent's head" refers to the protoevangelion of Gen. 3.15 and reflects the Christus victor theme of the work of Christ, not just the putting away of sin but his triumph over the powers of evil. These two sets also portray a powerful understanding of salvation and the desire for a holy, transformed life. Salvation is not simply God pardoning us few wretched sinners over against the masses of the hopeless lost. Rather, salvation is God pardoning and restoring and gloriously uniting himself to all who call upon him in faith.

May we all, in the coming year, desire and seek after such transformative grace for our lives.

For the Children

2007-12-21T06:55:00.000+05:30

For those interested in the subject:

Orphanages stunt mental growth
Foster care boosts IQ of children in orphanages

Coffee Victory!

2007-12-19T20:19:00.000+05:30

Yes! I finally got a new cappuccino machine yesterday. (My old one died on Thanksgiving.) It took me nearly a month to find one. I had to go to the big city so I was able to get one from the Big Bazaar. This pretty much constitutes my Christmas present, so, Merry Christmas!

Joke Posts

2007-12-19T20:01:00.000+05:30

I had a post all ready to go in response to the stupidity that is this, but it appears that it is somewhat of a joke. Hence, I shall refrain.

I do, however, have in the works a few posts about synergism and salvation and the whole problem exemplified in the statement here that "belief is a work." Hopefully I will get it up around Christmas. More fluffy stuff is coming in the meantime.

Yet Another Nice Thing about Living in India

2007-12-17T08:13:00.000+05:30

Camels for your Christmas pageant, $12/night. Donkeys, $2.50, and they'll throw in some lambs for free.

I got called on to give "greetings," which means a mini-sermonette. I took the easy way out (hey, the week's been crazy) and shared some of Barth's thoughts on the virgin birth. Got a couple "Ooh, interesting"s afterwards.

Theologians vs. Preachers

2007-12-15T21:14:00.000+05:30

Or, "You Can Keep All That Junk to Yourself"

A couple weeks ago at our college, we had a little half-day paper reading. Even though it was from the Old Testament department, it was rather interesting; I didn't come close to falling asleep. The main topic, succinctly put, was that of historical criticism versus canonical criticism. More simply put, it raised the question, "Do we in biblical studies spend more, or even too much, time investigating the historical background to the text and not enough theologizing about and applying the text?" A good time was had by all. Our college is very new, and we have not done much of this sort of thing. I am happy it was a success.

This was mostly an academic seminar attended by students, faculty, and a few outside friends of the college. One from the last category raised an all-too-familiar question, or rather objection (paraphrasing):

I don't know why we need theologians. There are so many great preachers in our area that are winning so many people to Christ. Theologians just seem to confuse the people. Please, don't confuse the people.

Or, in other words, be more like the big preachers. He tried not to make it insulting, but of course, in the end it was. (Just imagine how you would feel if someone came to a meeting your company/school/church was holding and told you your chosen profession was worthless.) Like I said, this is not an unfamiliar question or objection; I've heard similar sentiments many times before. A few points of response:

First, this was an academic seminar, not a church service. In such a setting, certain assumptions are made about the technical knowledge and abilities of the audience. Anyone not interested in such stuff should not attend or at least not be surprised at the level of the discussion. In other words, it's not our fault if you come and can't understand it. (It would, however, be our fault if you invited us to speak at your church and you couldn't understand our message prepared for that context.)

Second, anyone who makes such a point has never actually read a theology book; for that matter, such a person does not even know what the word "theology" means. Yes, theologians can complicate things, but in the end, theology is simply "talking about God," and systematic theology is "talking about God in a systematic way." Anyone who does not understand the need for such talk is fundamentally lacking a clue as to what it is about.

Third--and this is the really ironic part--this objection was raised by someone who himself is an academic in the humanities. The impression we get, then, is that higher studies are fine for all other branches of knowledge but not for Christian studies. Learn all you want about science and the arts, but your knowledge of the Gospel should be able to be summarized in a tract. Men and women who devote their lives to serious, disciplined study of the things of God are not responding to a higher calling but simply wasting their time. Keep all that junk to yourselves.

Finally, the main point: big preachers do a lot of good work, but theologians just confuse people. Excuse me? Are you saying the big name preachers don't confuse people? Turn on your TV and let me know after a few hours if you still feel the same way. Enormous problems are created in the church today because of preachers who have rejected theological training to come up with their own messages and slants on the Gospel. In India, we have huge problems of syncretism and grace-less-ness that could be fixed by the healthy teaching of theology. Yes, there are problems with academic theology, but simply dumping it wholesale won't fix its problems. Something always comes to fill a vacuum, and people who think they can get away from tradition/religion/theology always ending replacing such things with their own, usually much lesser, versions of the same.

The main speaker deftly handled the question by saying, "I think we (preachers and theologians) need each other." Academic theology is needed because, in a disciplined environment of mental accountability, we are forced to face the questions we really should be facing and work through the problems we are confronted with by the Word and by the world. The history of Christian theology has been the story of just that. It happened the way that it happened for valid reasons, and it was it is today because of those questions and problems. We cannot throw out its fruits because we do not like or understand its agenda. If you do not understand, please ask questions; if you feel there is more we need to be doing, please let us know; but please do not judge and reject us when you really do not know what we are all about.

Posting to Annoy!

2007-12-14T21:31:00.001+05:30

Over here, Nick is annoyed with blogger who don't post that often. We'll do something about that soon.

My chosen light reading for this holiday break is N. T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God, which is sure to annoy Dr. Jim West. I've read some portions previously and they've given me glory bumps--nice BibStudies that won't put me to sleep.

Finally, I have in the works a post on synergism in salvation that's sure to annoy the Calvinists (not a difficult task). Yup, you have to do stuff to get saved. It doesn't just happen and then you find out about it later. Nope, I'm still not a Pelagian. (See, you're annoyed already!)

/removes tongue from cheek to go for dinner...

Taking a Little Break

2007-12-10T20:12:00.000+05:30

Frequent interruptions in my power supply and internet service are keeping me from blogging. Additionally, at this stage in the term, I need a little break; theology's not just a hobby but my job. Thankfully, my last class is Thursday then it's basically three weeks off. I'll try to get a post or two up later this week then more after the weekend.

Be blessed!

Barth on the Virgin Birth

2007-12-05T09:53:00.000+05:30

In doing my read through of Barth's Church Dogmatics (CD), I certainly don't intend to do a section-by-section summary. (I can do one or the other, either write about Barth or read Barth.) Some--thankfully few--parts are boring, and I am hurrying through them at a responsible speed. However, his section on the virgin birth ("The Miracle of Christmas,"CD I.2, 172-202) is quite fascinating and worth sharing.

Barth affirms the virgin birth, which is quite a bold step for a German theologian. (In fact, he basically tells those who deny it to shut up.) No single miracle, not even the resurrection of Jesus, has caused as much uproar among modern theologians as the virgin birth. Some are simply squicked out by it ("No no-sex, please, we're moderns"), while other do have genuine theological problems with it. A readable and powerful presentation of the case against the virgin birth is given by Emil Brunner in his Dogmatics, vol. 2, 353ff. While one may not agree with his position, it is worthy of respect; one great advantage to it is that it immediately and completely terminates all Mariolatry. That's not such a bad trade-off.

Earlier, Barth likewise denounces Mariology and Mariolatry: "Mariology is an excrescence, i.e., a diseased construct of theological thought. Excrescences must be excised" (p. 139). Twisting a quote from a Roman Catholic source, he also states,

We can only confront Kiekamp's declaration with the equally definite Evangelical declaration that where Mary is "venerated," where this whole doctrine with its corresponding devotions is current, there the Church of Christ is not. (p. 143)

I was a little surprised at the harsh tone, but we must keep in mind that this was before Vatican II. Barth also states on the same page, "In the doctrine and worship of Mary there is disclosed the one heresy of the Roman Catholic Church which explains all the rest.. [the cooperation of humanity] in its own redemption on the basis of prevenient grace..." which made my Arminian ears burn. (Addressing this, however, will have to wait until a later time.)

Aside from the purpose of simply being faithful to Scripture and affirming what it affirms, we do have to ask, of what the theological value and purpose is the virgin birth? The old traditional belief is that Jesus had to be born of a virgin in order to be sinless as the sinful nature is passed on by the male in the procreative act. This is, of course, ludicrous as well as sexist, and there are enormous problems presented by pursuing such a line of thought. Women are just as sinful as men. The main purpose of the virgin birth, of course, is as a sign; that is how it is prophesied in Isaiah 7.14, which Matthew quotes, and Barth speaks of this in detail. It is important that we not confuse the sign with the thing signified. To paraphrase his conclusion, the Son of God was not sinless because he was born of a virgin, rather he was born of a virgin because he was the sinless Son of God.

Barth brings out a number of other valuable insights:

The virgin birth (in Latin, ex Maria virgine) parallels creation (creatio ex nihilo). The new creation inaugurated in Jesus Christ presupposes the old and is both in continuity and discontinuity with it (186-187).
In keeping with his agenda of denying all true natural knowledge of God, he sees the virgin birth as yet another indicator that knowledge of God comes only through his initiative and grace. By sending his ultimate revelation, Jesus Christ the Word, by miraculous means, he closes the possibility of another such revelation being generated by human beings through natural means (188).
Although it should not be interpreted so as to judge all sexual relations as utterly sinful, the ex virgine precludes the possibility of divinizing eros or confusing agape with sex (192).

Again, summaries do not do adequate justice to Barth's brilliance. The insights given here can help us form a much richer doctrine of the virgin birth, and it is because of such insights and depth that I read him.

The Great BW3 on the "Gospel of Judas"

2007-12-03T22:13:00.000+05:30

And related sillinesses:

It is time to stop talking about 'lost Christianities'. For one things, scholars have known about the Gnostics, the Ebionites, the Marcionites and others for centuries. Neither Gnosticism nor Marcion's movement has any serious historical claims to have begun during the time that the original eyewitnesses and apostles of Jesus lived. Indeed, there is no good historical evidence either existed before the second century A.D. And it is especially unhelpful to call something a form of early Christianity which is in fact antithetical to the claims made about Jesus and his movement by our earliest and best sources for the study of early Christianity-- the documents that ended up in the New Testament. If one is 'Christian' the other is not, or else the law of non-contradiction must be deemed to have ceased to function in the discussion of earliest Christianity.

The Gospel of Judas and Translation Agendas

2007-12-03T09:52:00.000+05:30

Well well well well. You know the whole "Gospel of Judas" stink of a few months ago? Apparently there were some major problems with the translation done by National Geographic that skewed it in the direction it went. (Hat Tip: Rod Dreher)

As I've remarked previously, these attempts to overthrow the foundations of Christianity on the basis of late gnostic writings are nothing new. Mainstream Christian scholars are quite aware of them and have been for some time; they are dismissed simply and decisively because there's no substance (and never has been) to this whole sensationalistic enterprise. Lay people, however, can become disturbed upset by it, which is precisely the intent (besides making money) of those promoting this agenda. To take care of this problem on a long term basis, we need to teach more theology and history in our churches. Trying to skip from the first to the sixteenth to the twenty-first century while ignoring everything in between simply isn't working.

Shah Rukh Khan's Nipples

2007-12-03T09:07:00.000+05:30

Or, Kaho Naa... Moobies Hain.

(Please note: This post has nothing to do with food or theology. It will make no sense if you are not familiar with Indian cinema, Bollywood actors, and how films are advertised here. It is also a twisted attempt on my part to drag in more page views via people doing Google searches for, uh, something other than theology. Be thankful at least that I'm not putting up a photo.)

Dear SRK,

Hi. You don't know me from Adam (though we do have, believe it or not, a mutual friend we've both lost touch with), but I thought I'd send you this friendly note. First, let me say that I'm very happy that you have discovered the benefits of anabolic steroids (and also the airbrush) this late in your acting career. It's quite obvious that you are happy with the results and want to show the world your newly acquired buffness. You've certainly achieved that goal. Even in this small, non-Hindi speaking town, every available free space is plastered with posters of your naked torso. We have no choice; we have all now Beheld.

Except not all of want to see your moobies.

India is a big country. I would cautiously estimate that there are several hundred million people who don't want to see them. Yet, we have no choice. "Avert your eyes, Sean," some would say. That's difficult to do while driving around, when I have to make sure no one to my side is going to do anything crazy all of a sudden. Yesterday while driving around at lunch time, I got more than a healthy dose. **barfs**

I'll never forget what my wife said about such men. "From biology class, you know how the frog you are dissecting looks after you get the skin off? That's exactly what they look like."

Shah Rukh, do us a favor please and cover up, m'kay?

If you need me, I'll be in the vomitorium.

Cordially,

Sean Babu

Objections to Barth and How NOT to Do Theology

2007-12-02T11:20:00.000+05:30

Lots of ideas right now, but there seems to be some blockage between my brain and my fingers. I don't feel so much like writing (typing). Anyway, here's a little something...

As far as I can tell in my reading of different sources, there are four major and substantive conservative complaints against Karl Barth's theology:

His alleged modalism
His alleged denial of the sinlessness of Christ
His denial of inerrancy
His doctrine of election and its potential for universal salvation

We could also add to this list his total rejection of natural theology and the analogia entis, but it's difficult to say if all conservatives would agree that that was a bad thing, particularly given his context. I still have not made up my mind about this one; I want to read further in his Church Dogmatics (CD) as well as his debate with Emil Brunner.

Number 1 was discussed and dismissed here in my discussion of CD I.1. With a theologian of Barth's caliber, I am willing to take him at his word when he rejects modalism even if his trinitarian language is somewhat different than we are traditionally accustomed to.

Number 2 I have encountered in CD I.2 and will discuss in a later post after I have finished his treatment of the virgin birth, which he affirms. Number 3, which is quite true, will also come up soon in CD I.2., whereas no. 4 comes up much later in subsequent volumes.

As I said, these are the four major complaints that conservative (i.e., evangelical) theologians have with Barth's theology. As has been shown and will be shown further, not all of these complaints are warranted. Barth's positions are what we could nicely describe as "nuanced" or not so nicely describe as "typical of German theologians" in their lack of clarity and conclusiveness.

More important than these specific concerns are the broader issues raised by evangelical objections to Barth in general. While widely acknowledged as one of the greatest theologians in the history of the church and indisputably the greatest of the twentieth century, few theological camps are willing to claim Barth as one of their own. For (American) evangelicals and fundamentalists, the above complaints (especially no. 3), rule him out as "one of their own." Many do not realize, however, that Barth did more than any other to reign in the excesses of 19th century liberalism; in many ways, he was liberalism's complete antithesis. He fit comfortably only in the narrow space of "neo-orthodoxy," the heyday of which is long over.

In my view, this evangelical rejection is quite unfortunate. More than anything, it is the result of a methodological problem I call the "cherry-picking of heresies," a habit derived from the tendency to polemics inherited from the Reformation. Too often, theological works aren't read for the positive contributions to our understanding of theology, which is our understanding of God. Rather, they are first searched for potential errors and heresies to determine if they are one of the "good guys" or not. If any objectionable point deemed serious enough is found, the theologian and his or her writings are dismissed as "liberal," not one of the "good guys," and not necessary for study by the real "good guys." (Barth, while acknowledged as great, isn't always acknowledged as good and therefore not read as widely as he deserves.) Pretribbers won't read (for edification and learning, at least) posttribbers; Calvinists won't read Arminians; supralapsarians won't read infralapsarians (at least not happily). (Arminians read Calvinists because they write all the books.) No, not everyone does this (must every statement be qualified by weasel words?), but the reality of this tendency cannot be denied. Many people refuse to read the primary sources of such theologies, instead trusting the assessments made by other "good guys." This is quite unfortunate as first, the "good guys" aren't always fair and accurate in their representations, and second, a lot of good theology is thrown away with the alleged bad.

Barth's greatness, his brilliance as a theologian, shines forth on virtually every page. Most people could read hundreds of pages in one of his volumes before encountering anything objectionable; should 500 pages of holy insights be thrown away because of five that are found to be disagreeable? Even if one disagrees with the ultimate results of a particular theologians meditations, it's very helpful to read those we disagree with simply to see how they think and how they address different theological problems. (Let's face it: if you've read one traditional 5-point Calvinist systematic theology, you've read them all.) I have problems with Barth's Calvinism--in fact that is my greatest problem with him--but I've been incredibly edified by everything of his that I have studied. The same goes for theologians such as Jürgen Moltmann, the various liberation theologians, even Rudolf Bultmann! And, most who come to disagreeable conclusions do so out of a genuine belief in their approach, their perspective on a problem, not because they are simply anti-God, anti-Bible libruls. (Most conspiracy theories are wrong.) Again, studying their reasoning in such cases helps with our own thinking; we do not have to agree with everything in order to be respectful.

This "cherry-picking of heresies" is one major way in which theology should NOT be done. While there is an essential core we can never safely move away from, we should not become overconfident of our own knowledge and its finality. We must acknowledge that theological knowledge is contingent until the eschaton. Till then, the goal of theology as our talk about God is to try to grow in that knowledge despite its contingency. The way of humility and therefore growth is found in listening to other voices in the conversation and sometimes being surprised by the profoundness we hear from unexpected sources.

A Friday Devotional

2007-11-30T12:53:00.001+05:30

I'm not very big on daily devotional works, but while using my Bible software this morning, I took note of the day's selection from Oswald Chambers's My Utmost for His Highest and liked it:

By the grace of God I am what I am

His grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain. 1 Cor. 15: 10.

The way we continually talk about our own inability is an insult to the Creator. The deploring of our own incompetence is a slander against God for having overlooked us. Get into the habit of examining in the sight of God the things that sound humble before men, and you will be amazed at how staggeringly impertinent they are. ‘Oh, I shouldn’t like to say I am sanctified; I’m not a saint.’ Say that before God; and it means—‘No, Lord, it is impossible for You to save and sanctify me; there are chances I have not had; so many imperfections in my brain and body; no, Lord, it isn’t possible.’ That may sound wonderfully humble before men, but before God it is an attitude of defiance.

Again, the things that sound humble before God may sound the opposite before men. To say—‘Thank God, I know I am saved and sanctified,’ is in the sight of God the acme of humility, it means you have so completely abandoned yourself to God that you know He is true. Never bother your head as to whether what you say sounds humble before men or not, but always be humble before God, and let Him be all in all.

There is only one relationship that matters, and that is your personal relationship to a personal Redeemer and Lord. Let everything else go, but maintain that at all costs, and God will fulfil His purpose through your life. One individual life may be of priceless value to God’s purpose, and yours may be that life.

Chambers, O. 1993, c1935. My utmost for his highest : Selections for the year (November 30). Discovery House Publishers: Grand Rapids, MI

My ISP, He Bad Man

2007-11-29T23:03:00.000+05:30

It's supposed to be a cable problem, but then all of a sudden it started working this evening. Anyway, a twitchy internet connection and a ton of work are keeping me busy at the moment. Blogging should resume next week, this weekend if I stumble across/think up anything interesting.

Thanks for dropping by.

My Little Barth Project: CD I.1 Finished!

2007-11-25T23:07:00.000+05:30

The week was bad but the weekend was good; Sunday afternoon I finished the first volume/part of Barth's Church Dogmatics in English. (I recorded my first impressions here; I've not done much with Romans since and might abandon it.) This volume introduces Barth's understanding of the Word of God and the Trinity; in this post I focus on the latter.

This was more familiar territory for me; there was less philosophy (yuck) and more straight Bible and theology, both systematic and historical, so I was able to progress much faster. I enjoy reading about the Trinity. It is an important issue but also one about which some are entirely too pedantic. I appreciate that while Barth affirmed all the classical formulation, specifically the Ni-Con Creed, he also acknowledged how inadequate our language and expressions are for the task.

I detected nothing heretical in his presentation. Barth eschews modalism and subordinationism, Ebionism and docetism. He prefers to refer to the "persons" of the Trinity as "modes of being" (Seinsweise), which I'm fine with for two reasons. First, the problems of the Latin term persona are well known. Second, as long as Sabellianism is consciously and continuously repudiated, discussion of "modes" is a fruitful line of thought for expression of Trinitarian dogma. We students need to hear both Barth and Moltmann, in the end most likely taking a comfortable place between the two. (For more on this, see I. Taylor, "In Defence of Karl Barth's Doctrine of the Trinity," International Journal of Systematic Theology, Vol. 5, No. 1, March 2003.)

Barth fully embraces the filioque, which was not surprising in the least. Not a few recent protestant theologians have begun to question it.

One nice thing reading this was confirmation of some of thoughts on the Trinity and theology I had worked out on my own.

I didn't copy many lengthy quotes from this section in my notes, but here are a couple I liked:

For the feminists: "When Scripture calls God our Father it adopts an analogy only to transcend it at once.... It is from God's fatherhood that our natural human fatherhood acquires any meaning and dignity it has." (p. 398)

For the Calvinists: "Even and especially the child of God in the New Testament sense will never for a moment or in any regard cease to confess: 'I believe that I cannot of my own reason or power believe in Jesus Christ my Lord or come to Him.'" (p. 465)

For the conservatives: "Modernist Protestantism in its entirety has simply been a regression to pre-Nicene obscurities and ambiguities regarding the Spirit." (p. 468)

Up next is part two of volume one, the conclusion of his "Doctrine of the Word of God." At 900 page, this second part is nearly double the size of the first. Sitting on my desk right now, it looks very intimidating, but I look forward to getting into it as it is in this volume that Barth lays out his doctrine of Scripture.

What I have enjoyed most about reading Barth thus far is what initially pulled me into the study of systematic theology to begin with: its ability to sweep you out of the secular into the presence of the holy. Reading theology should be a spiritual experience, and Barth's certainly is. Rather than taxing and tiring, it is refreshing and reviving and edifying to both the spirit and the mind.

Annoying Trend in Popular Entertainment

2007-11-24T19:51:00.000+05:30

I could probably put this better if I wanted to take more time, but here goes:

Recently my intake of popular entertainment has been on the increase. This has been due to 1) small children in the house who force me to watch kids' movies and 2) an extremely long-lasting cold that drives me to brainless novels. (I don't do theology when I'm too tired/sicky. Life has its limitations.) To the producers of these forms of entertainment, I have a request: please put a moratorium on the use of journalists, reporters, and news media exposition in your stories.

It's gotten way overdone. I'm scratching my head trying to figure out the last time I read or watched something where none of the following were present:

A journalist or reporter is a main or significant minor character
Television or print reporting is used for significant plot exposition (forgetting the maxim of "show us, don't tell us")
A television or print news story deus ex machina (Kids' shows are particularly guilty of this.)

Seriously, never mind that journalists are up there with lawyers and slick TV preachers as the world's most annoying professions, this has gotten old old OLD. Its triteness is beyond measure. I know #1 is useful because it opens up a lot of possible story lines, but #2 and #3 are simple laziness. Examples of this sort of thing are endless:

Preston & Child thriller novels: Bill Smithback (journalist, major minor character)
Spiderman movies: Peter Parker (duh), plus the ridiculous play-by-play commentary of the final fight scene in III
Superman movies: see above
EVERY SINGLE LIVE ACTION KIDS' MOVIE IN THE LAST 15 YEARS: "Oh wow! We're such extraordinary kids, we're going to have a 20 second spot at the end of tonight's local newscast!" **barfs** (Ever notice how all these movies seem to have the same soundtrack as well?)
The lamentable Left Behind series, which I'm reading vicariously over here (Special challenge for prospective rapture fiction writers: also drop the equally trite airplane scenario.)
Even my camp favorite, Slap Her, She's French, uses a journalism theme to move the plot along .

On and on I could go with more examples. It should stop, but I'm under no illusions that my whining here will accomplish anything; originality is too much to ask for in an age of endless remakes. I do pledge, however, if I ever try my hand at fiction (unlikely), I will not include a single reference to the field of journalism. Either that or a very vicious parody might be in order... **Sean's mind goes off in devious directions.**

The Big Fat Aftermath

2007-11-24T09:26:00.000+05:30

(Remember, this is not just a theology blog; this is a food and theology blog.)

I freely admit I am somewhat obsessed with food. My wife calls me a foodie; I prefer the more accurate and blunt term of food snob. I have few habits or hobbies and lead a relatively simple lifestyle, but food is a Big Deal for me. (BTW, IANA fattie, NTTAWWT.) I like the finer gastronomical delights, and when I am able, gladly indulge myself.

Calling and mission, however, involve sacrifice, and as it turns out, my present location is one of the worst possible for a food snob. Not India; I love good Indian food, but in my town, even good Indian food is difficult to find, let alone other cuisines. There's an extremely small number of restaurants; there's not even a Punjabi dhaba (normally ubiquitous even in very small towns)! The food section of our largest and best "super" market has fewer items than a single aisle of your average American grocery store. Except for a few quirky exceptions (praise God for olive oil and Italian pasta), it's difficult to get ingredients for anything beyond the lamentable local cuisine, one of the worst in India. (Don't even get me started on the vegetable selection.) Seriously. It seems like most people eat only about seven different dishes and will refuse to try a dish from even a different part of the same state.

So, it's a tough place for a food snob. Putting together an American-style Thanksgiving is a challenge. One has to use ingenuity and work with what is available (and shop strategically when one visits the capital.) Here's what we did:

Rotisserie chicken in our fancy new micro-grill (quite good, but the appliance can only hold a three pound bird at most)
Bread stuffing (sage is awesome)
Mashed potatoes & gravy (meh)
Sweet corn (one of the few nice canned items available)
Peas & beans
Deviled eggs
Carrot & raisin salad (unfortunately California raisins are no longer available, but the local variety tastes fine if a little crunchy)
Meat loaf (was quite good but sort of got lost in the shuffle)
Apple pie (my wife is an awesome baker)
Banana bread

I think that was all. Overall, it was quite enjoyable, though a lot of work as everything has to be made from scratch. Thankfully, except for a few minutes at the end, there were no power cuts to interrupt all the baking. We have plenty of leftovers, so no need to cook today.

Yay! The holiday eating season has officially begun!

Friday Morning Horror!

2007-11-23T08:20:00.000+05:30

(Introductory note of confusion: No Thanksgiving in India BUT everyone in my house likes the food, so we are having it EXCEPT we had a big wedding to attend on Wednesday SO we postponed Thanksgiving to Friday. So for us there is no turkey day but we are having it on Friday with no turkey but a roasted chicken instead.)

For the last six years, I have begun every morning with a huge cappuccino brewed fresh from my little faithful steam-driven espresso machine. Today (pseudo-Thanksgiving, of all days!), to my great horror I discovered that its heating element has Passed On. Turn the dial, no delightful "FOOSH!" just "Click." I can't say I'm surprised--it's over four years old, and my first two only lasted a year each. It has served me well, and I'm sure it has Gone On to a Great Reward.

Thankfully, I have a backup French press, so I am not without caffeine. I can also get a replacement machine, though I am reluctant to do so with Christmas so near and the U.S. dollar in the toilet as it is. Bummer.

Sean's Take on the Ordo Salutis

2007-11-20T17:48:00.000+05:30

...I think! To some extent, I agree with what James Dunn wrote that these terms are (partially) metaphors that should not be hardened into fast theological categories. That's most especially true with those "steps" revolving around our subjective experience of "getting saved."

Here goes. Rom. 8.29-30, classical (Wesleyan) Pentecostal take with a few twists:

Foreknowledge
Predestination
Calling
[Evangelistic Calling]
Repentance & Faith
Justification
Regeneration
Adoption
Progressive Sanctification (?)
[Spirit Baptism]
Progressive Sanctification (!)
Entire Sanctification
Glorification

Fresh Hollywood "Secret Jesus" Silliness

2007-11-20T14:23:00.000+05:30

Jesus trail in India: Film to cover the years left out of the New Testament

New Delhi: Hollywood is to fill in Jesus’ “missing years” in the Bible with a story about him as a wandering mystic who travelled across India, living in Buddhist monasteries and speaking out against the caste system.

One of the best parts:

The producers say they are hoping for commercial and spiritual gains. “We think that Indian religions and Buddhism, especially with the idea of meditation, played a big part in Christ’s thinking. In the film we are looking beyond the canonised gospels to the ‘lost’ gospels,” said William Sees Keenan, the producer, who is currently making Lindsay Lohan’s Poor Things. “We are looking at new themes. In our story Jesus was loyal to the untouchables and he defended them with his life by saying that everyone could read the Vedas,” said Mr. Keenan.

I'd better be careful not to roll my eyes so hard they fall out. This stuff is beyond ludicrous. For anyone who knows the least bit about mainstream historical Jesus research and its constraints, these claims are laughable beyond words. They have the same credibility as the following conjectures:

"Don't you know? They faked the lunar landings. I have this email that tells all about it."
"No really, the earth really is flat. The mainstream scientists are suppressing the evidence!"
"Hey, you should buy this book! It's all about this guy over in Latveria who knows how to turn lead into gold, but the government is trying to keep him quiet."

It's sad that many people are so ignorant of both Christianity and history that this stuff has to be debunked. I will leave that tedious task to my betters. However, I do have three points I'd like to share with the "secret life of Jesus" true believers and marketers:

First--and this is the single most important point--you guys really need to make up your minds: Is Jesus buried with Mary Magdalene outside of Jerusalem, or is he buried in Kashmir? Both can't be true. I foresee some problems in your convincing the rest of us of your story until you get this one straight.

Second, despite what the Disney songs tell you, really, really, really wishing that something is true doesn't make it so, particularly with regard to history.

Third, to the followers of hippy Jesus who assert that his true message, long forgotten by the church, was only about free love, peace, tolerance, and flower power, I have a question: have you ever read the New Testament? You know that nasty little doctrine of hell the church has? Guess who we got it from. Hint: It wasn't Paul.

Mull these things over then get back to me, m'kay?

Link: Answering the Atheists

2007-11-19T14:07:00.000+05:30

Subtitled "A Reader's Digest Version of Why I Am a Christian."

Critics are ignoring the "Reader's Digest version" disclaimer. As a theologian, I would elaborate, qualify, and greatly complicate most of these points. I'd also like to drop or tone down the unnecessary polemics against other religions, but in the end, "Yeah. That's basically it."

That, and to borrow a phrase from Chesterton, terror from the presence of that "tremendous Reality."

My Little Barth Project: First Impressions

2007-11-19T08:23:00.000+05:30

First impressions from my little Barth project. I'm trying (but not alway succeeding) to read around 20 pages a day so I can finish Church Dogmatics (CD) in a year (this is not all I have to do in life). Right now, I'm about 25% through The Epistle to the Romans and nearing the end of the first volume of CD (I.1), "The Doctrine of the Word of God." The latter primarily covers the relationship of the Word of God to theology and the Trinity.

On Romans:
I am simultaneously reading Romans and CD, with priority going to the larger work. Looking back, this is probably not a good idea. For anyone interested in a similar project, I'd recommend starting and completing Romans before going on to CD. In the earlier parts, they overlap some in topic, and it's easy to get them confused. Romans is a much easier read and serves as a good introduction to Barth's thought. Be advised that is not anything remotely resembling an exegetical commentary; though he is faithful to the text, it is more of a vehicle for communicating his protest against modern liberal theology. The form of the work resembles a (very!) long sermon.

On CD:
First, some technical stuff: I never fully understood the purpose of this in my targeted study of later volumes, but the text is printed in two different sizes. The larger print is Barth's basic overall narrative; the smaller text is more advanced commentary that takes the place of footnotes. If one is interested in just a "casual" (ha!) reading, one can skip the smaller text entirely, and the uninterrupted narrative of the larger text flows smoothly. I am reading most the smaller text but trying not to spend too much time on it because of the next point.

I am reading the English translation, not the German original, which would take me forever and I don't have access to anyway. One irritating feature of this translation is that German is the ONLY language translated. (When Luther writes in German, it's translated; when his original is Latin, it is not.) There are huge untranslated Latin and Greek quotes throughout the work as well as a smattering of French. (Of course, they don't do this with Hebrew because of the difficulty in those days of typesetting its script.) I have studied both Latin and Greek but am rusty; also, I've only studied NT Greek, not its use in later church writings. This results in huge frequent speedbumps. If important, I work my way through them, but quite often I just skip them. It's also irritating to get slowed down by a Greek Bible verse thrown in just as an illustration, not for exegesis, and to have to pause for a minute before saying, “Oh yeah, that one.” Yes, I understand the value of reading originals, but THE WHOLE WORK IS A TRANSLATION; we're already missing out on the primary author. All this accomplishes is to make Barth less accessible to non-experts, a huge problem I will address later.

Now, on to the substance: Just starting CD, one is struck by Barth's brilliance; he truly does deserve to be considered one of the top theologians in the history of the church. Even if you don't agree with Barth, it is very instructive to see how he thinks. His mind takes different paths than theologians traditionally go, and he opens up whole news dimensions that we may never have considered before. Practically every page has a jewel on it.

This is not a dry, cold, analytic work; Barth's passion and fire come through strongly. It is a pity, but summaries of his work, including my own halting descriptions, fall far short of capturing the feel, tone, and depth of his thought. I would caution those who read a summary somewhere and think they understand Barth, even more those who read reactionary critiques and thereby rule him out as one of the acceptable "good guys." I have come across blatant misrepresentations in such works, and again, even if you disagree with him, he's still worth reading.

Barth deserves very careful reading. Some statements, if read hastily, can be construed very controversially; translation compounds this problem. For example, Barth has been accused of modalism, and statements I have read in later volumes would seem to confirm this; moreover, he's very fond of the word "mode." However, in reading his treatment of the Trinity in this volume, he directly addresses and rejects modalism (Sabellianism) and makes numerous statements totally incompatible with it. Until I encounter overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I will take him at his word on that issue.

One is struck by how highly contextual Barth's theology is. Often European (and American) theologies are viewed as “universal” theologies, and contextual theology is the special task of the developing world. However, Barth cannot be understood without knowledge of classical liberal theology, the European situation between the wars, and the history of protestant theology on the continent. While one finds his arguments highly persuasive, full commitment is checked by this recognition of contextualism, and one wonders whether Barth himself ever came to realize how this undermines his approach. Typical of German authors, he rarely takes the time to get the uninitiated up to speed on these issues.

Related to this, and while I have yet to commit to a position, Barth's arguments against natural theology are compelling; his discussion of the vestigium trinitatis (vestige/footprint/trace of the Trinity in nature--see, that wasn't so difficult) particularly illustrates the problem with it. Consequently, although traditional Calvinism disagrees with him on this point, to some extent his thought is the logical end of Calvinism's and Calvinism the natural home of his. Whether or not a responsible Arminian appropriation is possible remains to be seen.

My biggest criticism, one that I will repeat loudly and often, is that Herr Barth desperately needed an editor. Someone needed to intervene at the early stages, throw his first draft back at him, and say, "Cut a couple hundred pages out of this and then we'll talk." At this point some will protest, "But he's so brilliant! He need so many words to get his message across the way he wants! It's his style!" Yes, but the primary effect of this is to remove Barth from the reach of the vast majority of his potential audience. Very few people will actually take the time to work through so many thousands of pages; for goodness' sake, he has paragraphs that run three pages without a break. Theologians have a responsibility to be deep and to be detailed, but they also have a responsibility to share their work with the wider church. For that to occur, it must be accessible. Seven thousand pages and long passages of untranslated Greek and Latin do not constitute accessible.

Barth stumbles at this point. To 90%+ of people who would ask me what portions of his Dogmatics to read, I would recommend Emil Brunner's instead. Brunner is a far more disciplined writer and completes his systematic work in fewer pages than Barth's entire "Doctrine of the Word of God." For ministers in training, for beginning to intermediate students of theology, his work is far more accessible and therefore useful to the church.

I'm Back. Did You Miss Me?

2007-11-18T16:51:00.000+05:30

Or even notice I was gone? Ha. Actually, my ISP went down for 48 hours. How they do "broadband" in much of India is to simply string up ethernet cable on the power poles. Sometimes power maintenance interrupts the service, as was the case here.

The death toll from cyclone Sidr is up to about 1,900. It's still a catastrophe, but given the history of cyclones in Bangladesh, it could have been much, much worse. Timely evacuations seemed to have helped. Here's hoping the toll does not go up significantly.

Ongoing Sidr Updates

2007-11-15T22:32:00.000+05:30

Here on weather.com's blog.

I go to bed tonight with a heavy heart, knowing what's going on in the North.

Pray for the people of Bengal.

Sidr Update

2007-11-15T13:46:00.000+05:30

Cyclone Sidr unfortunately has not decreased in strength and continues to be exceedingly nasty. It's tracking pretty much straight north and is going to hit the Indian state of West Bengal and Bangladesh.

Article 1
Article 2

This is going to be bad. It probably would have done less damage if it had hit peninsular India instead. I hate to speculate, but probably thousands will die. Let's pray it doesn't go down that bad.

CNN.com finally a story up on its international site, but so far there's been little coverage in the Western media. A Google News search, sorted by date, for "Sidr," the storm's name, yields about 46 hits (granted, all stories are not using the name).

On the other hand, a restricted search for "Kanye West" and "mother" yields about 1,593 hits.

Priorities and values.

Sickness & the Son of Man

2007-11-15T07:55:00.000+05:30

Got one for you. The other day this popped up from my memories for some reason. This fits in the category of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"-type theology questions, so don't say I didn't warn you.

The seminary where I did my M.Div. was charismatic. Half the students were roughly "hyper-charismatic" and the other half were "Well, I guess I'm not a cessationist" charismatic. (The reader may guess which category I fit into.) In our theology classes, I recall three major controversies:

Calvinism versus Arminianism (Duh, like we were actually going to resolve that one.)
Can Christians be demonized? (I'm not even touching that one here.)
Could/did Jesus get sick?

The last question is the one I'm addressing here, and I'd like to hear others' opinions about it.

Some believed, and this, if I recall correctly, was our professor's position, that since Jesus was without sin, he was also without sickness. Sickness was a consequence of sin, therefore he was exempt from it.

Others, including me, responded, "Of course he got sick. He was truly a human being and was subject to the same bacteria and viruses etc. that everyone else is. Why would he be exempt?"

My biblical backing for this view comes from Rom. 8.3, which states that the Son was sent "in the likeness of sinful flesh." His flesh, though not actually sinful, was like sinful flesh in all other ways and subject to the same afflictions that every other human is. Some people believe that in the original creation before the fall, Adam and Eve had special graces that would seem super-human to us today; these were then lost in the fall. Whatever the case may be with those, Jesus didn't have them. He was free from sin, not from infection. The other view strikes me as somewhat docetic and ignorant of biology to boot.

Now, here is the interesting part. As I noted earlier, about half the students were hyper-charismatic and the other half technically charismatic. The hyper-charismatics believed it was always or normally God's will to heal and that healing was part of the atonement; the others didn't. The hyper-charismatics were the ones who believed Jesus could get sick. The technically charismatics didn't.

Interesting, at least to me.

Very Nasty Cyclone in the Bay

2007-11-13T16:44:00.000+05:30

A very nasty cyclone (Indian Ocean hurricane) has formed in the Bay of Bengal. They're not sure yet where it will land, probably somewhere between Orissa and Bangladesh.

Here are the best articles I've found on it so far, though not exactly from a regular news source:

Article 1
Article 2

Please PRAY that this thing weakens and dissipates. In the past, this sort of storm has killed hundreds of thousands; even a weak storm will kill a few hundred as the houses of the poor in coastal are very flimsy. We're well enough inland that we're in no danger whatsoever, but please pray for those in its path.

Light Blogging This Week

2007-11-13T16:28:00.000+05:30

At least in terms of substance, if not frequency. I've got entirely too much work building up, so I need to scale back my internet time.

Bored? Then in the meanwhile, why don't you take a stroll over to the Boston Collaborative Encyclopedia of Western Theology? There's some good stuff over there.

Monkeys Are Evil!

2007-11-12T08:12:00.000+05:30

Woman battles for life after monkey attack:

New Delhi (PTI): A woman was battling for life in a city hospital on Sunday after a monkey attacked her and 25 others in an east Delhi locality, giving its residents a fresh scare about the simian menace.

And the more scary last paragraph:

Last month, Delhi's Deputy Mayor met with a tragic end after he fell down from the first floor of his residence following an attack by a monkey.

Monkeys are evil! Foreigners think they are cute, but really they are huge pests. Evil, even. As dirty as a pigeon and in some places as plentiful, they get into everything. With the intelligence of a small child but no morality or compassion, they will steal, destroy, or hurt anything they want to.

Articles like this make me feel less bad about the time I popped one on the road.

Warfield on the Web

2007-11-11T14:03:00.000+05:30

During my daily Barth reading today, I thought it would be useful to compare his thought with more traditional works; my mind drifted specifically to Warfield's "It Says:" "Scripture Says:" "God Says." We have it at our library, but I don't want to go out to get it on a Sunday afternoon, especially when I'm down with the sniffles. Then it hit me: Warfield's been dead quite a while! Ergo, his works should be in the public domain, at least outside of the U.S. (that Disney-controlled state).

Looking around, I saw that the otherwise excellent CCEL doesn't have his works. A Google search led me to monergism.com, which in turn led me to Soli Deo Gloria. Among other stuff, this site has a bunch of Warfield writings, including "It Says." It looks like a very well-done scan & fix and even includes the Greek and Hebrew fonts.

(Now, Calvinists, you can't say I never did anything for you.)

Unfortunately, this site doesn't have everything; Counterfeit Miracles and some longer works are missing. If anyone has a link to an even more complete collection of Warfield's works, I would appreciate it.

Edited for: Wittier title.

Why I'm Still Down with Pentecost

2007-11-10T20:21:00.000+05:30

Pentecostalism, that is.

Over the years, I must admit my approach to Christian theology has changed greatly. This saying is quite true:

When you think you know everything, they give you a bachelor's.
When you find out you don't know anything, they give you a master's.
When you finally realize that you don't know anything but neither does anyone else, they give you a doctorate.

I haven't completed my D.Th. yet, but beyond the obvious hyperbole, I believe the last is quite true. I'm not as confident or dogmatic about every single one of my beliefs as I used to be. I've moved away (almost but not completely successfully) from the polemical approach to doctrine we've been taught for so many centuries that's so easy to fall into, towards a more irenic, ecumenical approach. I've come to realize that most of the time our differences aren't as important as what we choose to do about them (thanks K. for that lesson six years ago).

One the whole, I haven't changed significantly my position on most of the theological loci except for eschatology. I have changed a lot how I do theology. I no longer take a fundamentalist/evangelical approach but identify more closely with neo-orthodoxy. I'm sorry if this offends, but I find the former's view of Scripture and revelation less mature than the latter's. I've also come to embrace the riches of Christian tradition and acknowledge that "real" Christianity didn't begin in 1901 or 1517 but goes all the way back to the beginning when Jesus said, "Come, follow me." I still identify as protestant and believe that the Roman Church is in serious error, but I feel less compulsion to fight so much about it. Like I said, I'm tired of the polemics.

Despite this, however, if you ask me for a one-word description of my flavor of Christianity, I would immediately answer, "Pentecostal." Not just any Pentecostalism either, but hard-core, three-act classical Pentecostalism. I wring my hands as much as anyone at some of the inanities of the broader renewal movement, and its anti-intellectual tendencies can be stifling (though not nearly as much as conservative evangelicalism's anti-charismatic tendencies), but on the whole, I'm comfortable with its core theology and values.

I could probably come up with more, but here's a list of 12 reasons why I'm still down with Pentecost:

I still find the classical Pentecostal interpretation of Spirit baptism and its corollary of initial evidence to be the best handling of the available biblical data. I find the counter-arguments unpersuasive, and believe me, I'm very current on the debate.
Following on that, for too many reasons to go into here, I prefer Pentecostalism's heavy reliance on the Gospels and Acts for theology rather than filtering everything through an exclusively Pauline grid.
I can't buy into cessationism at all. Either God still does the stuff he did back then or it's all bunk (Heb. 13.8).
In a similar vein, salvation must be real salvation; the blood of Jesus is truly sanctifying (1 John 1.7). Simul iustus et peccator may be a good place for starting soteriology, but God help us if we remain there forever.
When I don't know how to pray, I'm glad for the Spirit's help (Rom. 8.26-27, 1 Cor. 14.14-18, 28). The Pentecostal gift is of value to all believers; don't knock it until you have tried it.
I appreciate how Pentecostalism was not a party to the fundamentalist-modernist controversy. The movement is perfectly positioned to steer a course between the two, though I'm gravely concerned it might not be wise enough to take that path.
Although the movement has not made the most of this potentiality, it's a wonderful avenue for accessing the riches of Christian history. Scratch a Pentecostal and underneath you will find a Methodist, and a Methodist is essentially an Anglican pietist. Through the Anglo-Wesleyan-Pentecostal stream, I have access to a very deep Christian tradition.
Following on no. 5, I find this Arminian stream of Christianity more compatible with Scripture and more sensible than the continental Reformation traditions and more coherent than attempts at hybridization. You may feel otherwise; we can agree to disagree.
Through its doctrine of healing in the atonement, Pentecostalism added a non-spiritual dimension to the work of Christ and provided at platform for a non-dualist, more holistic soteriology.
This tradition has correctly interpreted ministry primarily as a function of gifting, and as a corollary, has recognized the call and value of women in ministry. While it has by no means been perfectly egalitarian, but from a practical standpoint, it has done more to empower women than many others.
I seriously believe this wave of the Spirit is a move of God, even, as its earliest adherent professed, an eschatological sign (Acts 2.17-21).
Whatever else you can say, you can't say our church services are boring.

Friday Theology Quotes 9

2007-11-09T10:25:00.000+05:30

It's Barth all the way down. After some time I will share some initial reflections on my little Barth project, but for now, here are some gems I've picked up (CD has one on nearly every page) this week. All of these are from Church Dogmatics, vol. I.1, "The Doctrine of the Word of God":

Theology guides the talk of the Church to the extent that it concretely reminds it that in all circumstances it is fallible human work which in the matter of relevance or irrelevance lies in the balance, and must be obedience to grace if it is to be well done. Theology accompanies the utterance of the Church to the extent that it is itself no more than human "talk about God," so that with this talk it stands under the judgment that begins at the house of God and lives by the promise given to the Church. (p. 4)

The Bible, speaking to us and heard by us as God' Word, bears witness to past revelation. Proclamation, speaking to us and heard by us as God's Word, promises future revelation.... The Bible is not in itself and as such God's past revelation. (p. 111)

On the one hand Deus dixit, on the other Paulus dixit. These are two different things. And precisely because they are not two things but become one and the same thing in the event of the Word of God, we must maintain that it is by no means self-evident or intrinsically one that revelation should be understood primarily as the superior principle and the Bible primarily as the subordinate principle. (pp. 113-114)

If "written" and "preached" denote the twofold concrete relation in which the Word of God is spoken to us, revelation denotes the Word of God itself in the act of its being spoken in time. Above this act there is nothing other or higher on which it might be based or from which it might be derived unless it was from the transcendence of the eternal Word of God that it came forth in revelation." (p. 118)

To say revelation is to say "The Word became flesh." (p. 119)

The equation of God's Word and God's Son makes it radically impossible to say anything doctrinaire in understanding the Word of God. In this equation, and in it alone, a real and effective barrier is set up against what is made of proclamation according to the Roman Catholic view and of Holy Scripture according to the later form of older Protestantism, namely, a fixed sum of revealed propositions which can be systematised like the sections of a corpus of law. The only system in Holy Scripture and of proclamation is revelation, i.e., Jesus Christ. (p. 137)

The doubtful thing is not whether God is person, but whether we are. (p. 138)

Is it clear to our generation in life as well as thought that the serious element in serious theological work is grounded in the fact that its object is never in any circumstances at our command, at the command of even the profoundest biblical or Reformation vision or knowledge, at the command of even the most delicate and careful construction? (p. 163)

If a man, the church, Church proclamation and dogmatics think they can handle the Word and faith like capital at their disposal, they simply prove thereby that they have neither the Word nor faith. When we have them, we do not regard them as a possession but strain after them, hungering and thirsting, and for that reason blessed. (p. 225)

Good stuff all around.

My Little Karl Barth Project

2007-11-07T22:35:00.000+05:30

I am impressed with Karl Barth for many reasons. Not the least of these is his writing (but not completing) his massive 7,000 page Church Dogmatics. Say what you will, but few human beings ever accomplish something like that.

I am also impressed with the work done by the translators. That, too, is a remarkable life time achievement.

Hey, I'm impressed by anyone who can read a 7,000 page work. That is no small achievement.

Recently, I've felt a little guilty. How can I be a true Barth fan boy without having read CD? Sure, I've used it some and read some of his smaller works and the interpretations of others, but not the whole thing systematically and in order.

I was waiting for Logos Bible Software to come out with their electronic edition. I like reading on the screen more than on the page, and this seems a perfect way to tackle CD. Sadly, though they've advertised it for years as in pre-publication, at this point they seem to be teasing.

So, last week I decided to do something about the situation and borrowed volume I.1 from our library. I figure at 20 pages a day, I can get through the whole work in about a year.

The next day I realized my error. I went and got Romans too. I'm reading it concurrently with I.1.

So far, so good. I've met or exceeded my quota every day, though I don't think I'll be able to sustain it when my thesis work gets going strong next year. It will take a life time of study to truly grasp Barth's thought, if then, but I think now is the right time to take it in in a broad swoop.

Later I'll post some thoughts and impressions after a week of being in Romans and "The Doctrine of the Word of God."

I Am So Smart, S-M-R-T

2007-11-07T20:14:00.000+05:30

My readability after that last post:

Still pretty good. Its probably because I use apostrophe's correctly.

Of Gnosticism, Translations, and Original Languages

2007-11-07T20:11:00.000+05:30

Messy writers need lots of prefaces (or disclaimers if you prefer):

Prefatory comment 1: As a general rule, I don't like to drag arguments over the blogosphere. This entry, however, was stimulated by some discussions at other places, and those discussions helped to clarify and coalesce my thoughts. Although this is in some ways a response, I am not specifically pointing out anyone, more a general sentiment I've perceived in many different places and times. I'm not judging anyone I've interacted with lately. How can one judge, after all, just from reading a few words on a screen?

Prefatory comment 2: I really dislike when differing views are haphazardly slapped with the label of a particular heresy that has little to do with the situation and grossly exaggerates the difference. (Sean the Marcionite isn't really a Marcionite.) But again, to some extent I am doing that here. Please view this as more of an analogy than an accusation. To anyone who thinks this post applies, no, I really don't think you are a gnostic.

Prefatory comment 3: This post is aimed mostly at "lay" students of the Bible, not seminary students who should be working their behinds off in language classes. It is intended to keep the former from being intimidated and silenced by people with Bibles printed in fancy typefaces. It should not be interpreted, however, as a decisive judgment on the issue raised here, which is rather broader.

Prefatory comment 4: In my teenage years I went to a very dynamic, exciting youth group, and we had very dynamic, exciting preachers. In one of the first meetings I attended, I remember a girl from another church who got excited and testified after a rather intense worship time. "I just love God's word. I want to know God's word," she emotionally repeated. "Even more," the pastor responded, "know the One behind it." That incident has stuck with me throughout all my journeys in faith and knowledge. The Bible is a means, not an end. We use it to gain a relationship with God; we are not to (primarily) have a relationship with a book. As I perceive it, this is at the heart of a very fundamental difference between most Pentecostals and many evangelicals. The latter see Bible study as an end in itself, a worthy terminal point, whereas the former do not. (And feel free to flame away about this one, but first please note the italicized weasel words.)

Now on to the main feature:

What does gnosticism have to do with Bible translations and the original languages? Are there really New Age Bible versions out to destroy your soul? Not really, though there are some atrocious ones out there (Old Living and Amplified, I'm looking at you. And the NIV is hyped wayyyy above its actual quality, which is rather mediocre.) No, I'm talking about gnosticism as a belief in secret knowledge necessary for salvation or higher spiritual life that is hidden from novice Christians and known only to special initiates to a select group.

The analogy I'm making is to people who know biblical Hebrew and Greek. Some of them, anyway. No, they're not really like historical gnostics in any real sense, but some of them do feel that their knowledge of the languages gives them access to secrets hidden from other believers. The sentiment is communicated--sometimes quite openly--that unless you know the languages, you can't get to the "real" Bible. It's only after you learn all the rules and tenses and about little party zipples that you can understand what the Bible "really" says. There is a related belief popular in some circles, fed by the inferiority complex common among people who know only English and no other languages, that Greek and Hebrew are somehow extra special languages that almost mystically pack each word with incredible amounts a meaning. (My evidence that this belief exists: the travesty that is the Amplified Bible.) Again, it is only the initiates who have invested many years in study who can know the true riches of the Word of God.

I do not at all wish to portray knowledge of the originals as unimportant, and I do encourage everyone who has the opportunity to learn the languages to do so. It is better to read and study in the original than in translation, and certain things are clearer. However, I disagree with the sentiment that knowing Greek and Hebrew somehow opens up a new plane of knowledge so far above what is available to the person who has to make do with a translation. I disagree primarily for two reasons:

The best translations, which were done by some of the best Greek and Hebrew scholars in the world, really aren't that bad, and
Few theological matters of import are settled by skills only available to experts in the languages.

First, the quality of the translations: I am amazed when people disparage translations and claim that you can only really know the Scriptures by reading them in the original. In a sense that's true (but remember, Jesus didn't go around preaching in Greek, so you don't exactly have the original anyway), but when zealously overstressed, the implication is that the translations do not do a good job of communicating the original meaning. This is another way of saying the translations are bad. That's not a wise move. The better translations were done by some of the best Bible scholars in the world, not seminary grads with a few semesters of languages under their belts. Yet, it is often the latter judging the former. Let's face facts: those of us who have had Greek and Hebrew are a very small minority of the Christian church, and most of us who have are not worthy of untying Bruce Metzger's shoes when it comes to proficiency. Most of the time we are better off trusting his work such as is seen in the NRSV, which he oversaw, than our own feeble efforts. Yes, there are things we can see more clearly in the Greek and Hebrew; yes, there are problems with the NRSV as there are with all good translations; no, you can't do truly serious study without them BUT: all these things are known by the great men and women who do the translation work. We should be quick to trust and slow to disparage their work. In most cases I certainly trust them more than my own feeble efforts and more than many of the experts floating around in the church and on teh internets.

Second, to the best of my knowledge, no major point of doctrine and few minor ones are settled by a detailed exegesis of a particular passage in the original language. In fact, it's virtually axiomatic that small details--the parsing of a particular little party zipple, the translation of an obscure or difficult verse--should not be allowed to control doctrine. It is the clear and consistent portions that control, and the more difficult passages are subordinated to them. Most scholars who are fluent in the languages follow this principle; most of their theological conclusions will be based on other than some of the more minute details of Greek and Hebrew. For the most part, original language exercises in particular and, um, biblical studies in general are concerned primarily with the finer details, whereas systematic theology takes a bigger picture approach. (Again, flame away if you must, but this theologian is going to roll his eyes at you if you suggest the correct position on doctrine X is such-and-such because the verb in verse such-and-such is an aorist rather than a continuous tense or vice versa.) Actually, most people in the pews of typical theologically conservative churches would benefit more from going through a decent introductory theology course rather than trying to mess around with Greek or Hebrew.

But that's just my 2 cents or slightly less than a rupee, and of course I'm biased.

So, in summation, Greek and Hebrew are absolutely wonderful to learn (have I thrown in enough weasel words yet?) BUT if you are not able to learn them, don't despair, and don't allow smug language gnostics to make you feel that you are forever barred from their special circle of initiates or from studying the Bible confidently. The Word of God that comes to us through Scripture is not bound, and the Holy Spirit does not need an interpreter to lead us into truth.

If You Can Read This You Are A...

2007-11-06T21:46:00.000+05:30

I guess it's a good thing the lolcat pictures have dropped off page.

New to the Blog Roll: Chris Tilling's Chrisendom

2007-11-06T17:33:00.000+05:30

Linky.

And with that I add another name to my list of potential members for my Sinister Cabal of Evil Barthians.

I'm Psychic!

2007-11-06T13:08:00.000+05:30

This morning I had a premonition that we would have a power cut.

A few hours later, we lost it for 60 minutes.

Hopefully that was all there will be today.

(Yes, I know it's lame, but in order to come up with good stuff, I need time. To get free time, and I need to finish my work. To finish my work, I need electricity.)

Arminian Perspectives's New Look

2007-11-04T12:09:00.000+05:30

Kangeroodort has done a redesign, and the new look is absolutely hilarious. Go ahead and take a peek.

(I'm very easily amused.)

Coming Attractions

2007-11-04T12:03:00.000+05:30

I'm busy busy busy right now, behind on my work, but there are some things rattling around in my head that will likely come out as posts when I find some time:

More on Moral Consistency and the Gospel Message
Messing with My Liberal White Guilt
My Little Barth Project
A post on gnosticism that's likely to make people angry

And, if you're extra super-duper good,

Sean's Theory of Toad Consolidation

Till then, all the best, and eat something tasty for me.

Moral Consistency and the Gospel Message

2007-11-01T10:06:00.000+05:30

Or, why I don't believe God causes all things or is all-determining.

The essence of the Gospel, and really Christian theology as a whole, is beautifully summarized in John 3.16:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

Really, little else is required in theology. In teaching systematics, I find I bring up this verse in nearly every class. All of our proclamation needs to align with its basic truths.

However, Christian preaching of the Gospel throughout the ages has not always aligned with it morally. At this point I am thinking of Calvinism, but moral inconsistency is not limited to that system; it is just the most obvious there. If God determines everything, then we are immediately confronted with the problem of evil: why does a loving, all-powerful God allow or cause bad things to happen? Discussions of this in the blogosphere came recently due to the Minneapolis bridge collapse (John Piper, Gregory Boyd).

Christianity classically responds by turning to human sinfulness. While depravity is the one empirically demonstrable Christian doctrine and enormous amounts of evil are the direct result of sin, it does not and cannot be used to completely answer the question satisfactorily. I find very distasteful the teaching, "God is completely holy and good, and you deserve only death because of your sin. That anything good happens at all is because of his gracious kindness." While I agree entirely with the second sentence, I revolt at the idea that human beings are so worthless that torment and death are all they truly deserve--even granting their sinfulness. The overall sentiment reminds me of the dysfunctional excuses abused women and children give to protect their abusers. "I must have done something wrong to deserve it."

Yes, there problems with this analogy (as there are with all analogies) that can be picked apart, but the God of John 3.16 is not an abusive Father or husband. Yet, so many Christians after their blessed union with Christ act like trapped battered wives and, even worse, market God as such in their proclamation. "Why did God allow this to happen?" we are asked. "Just be grateful he doesn't give it to you as well," is not a good response. Yes, in the great reckoning we must stare in the face the evil of our own individual sinfulness, but such utter self-loathing is not healthy.

I do not claim to have a complete answer to the problem of evil, but we should be able to do better than this. All evil can be the responsibility of neither God nor sinful human beings. There must be other causes as well. This belief causes complications with regard to God's omniscience and omnipotence, but better there than with the simple confession that "God is love."

(To be continued.)

Happy Reformation Day

2007-10-31T20:48:00.000+05:30

Today is Reformation Day. I should post something about that.

Four hundred and ninety years ago, Martin Luther posted his 95 theses on the Wittenberg door.

He was mostly right but overreacted a little.

The really big whoopty doo will be ten years from now.

Till then, read this joke.

That is all. Sorry. You get what you pay for.

Why I'm Not at Work Yet

2007-10-31T10:23:00.000+05:30

1. My dosas were late.

2. We had a visit by our accreditors yesterday. It went well, but I was with them for basically 12 hours. I should take the whole day off, but I need to do a few things this morning as well as take a short class.

Spiders in the Bible

2007-10-31T10:18:00.000+05:30

I was just think how there aren't any. Audaciously ignoring the original languages, a quick search on Bible gateways reveals one hit in the KJV and two in the ESV. For an animal that has great metaphoric potentialities, it's somewhat surprising that it's not used much.

It's probably for the best.

Kilts

2007-10-31T09:53:00.001+05:30

Please. Make. It. Stop.

You know who you are. Don't be so precious.

/Reaches for the eye bleach.

Wildlife Sightings

2007-10-31T08:16:00.000+05:30

(Note: This is actually from a couple days ago, but I couldn't get it to post until now.)

As you may have noticed, I like to post when I see an interesting critter. The last few days I have seen three. First, today, I saw one of my favorite birds, the kingfisher:

Shortly thereafter, I saw a falcon. I'm not sure what time, not a peregrine. It was mostly white.

Finally, two days ago I saw (too late) a snake in front of our house. Unfortunately, it met the fate most snakes in urban areas meet--it was immediately killed by scared humans. I identified it as a checkered keelback (a big one, close to a meter) and showed the assembled crowd the picture in the book with the caption "harmless," but I doubt it will make a difference the next time one is sighted. There are non-venomous snakes here that resemble the dangerous ones, but this wasn't one of them.

The Great Ben Witherington on Covenants

2007-10-29T18:11:00.000+05:30

I've been wanting to write on the relationship, from the perspective of systematic theology, between the Old and New Testaments for some time. I still intend to do that. The nice thing about the internet, though, is that all sorts of people are out there writing on all sorts of things. Recently Ben Witherington has taken up this topic from the perspective of biblical studies. Go ahead and give it a click.

What Should I Preach Tomorrow?

2007-10-27T22:03:00.000+05:30

I'm on rotation to preach at Sunday evening chapel, and I don't know what to preach yet. I know, it's late. In homiletics class they said you should take 20 hours to prepare a sermon. I don't think I've ever taken 20 hours to prepare anything except my M.Th. dissertation. That obviously took a lot longer, but I don't recall a single thing in my M.Div. or lower studies taking that long. (In my defense, I type really fast. It's the secret of my success.)

Anyway. With the new baby and all and other factors that have kept me out of the rotation, I'm somewhat out of practice. I do occasionally preach from the Lectionary reading, and the random Bible verse generator is also fun. I have a couple ideas floating around in my head, and I'm sure that when I pray some more tomorrow (Yeah, I'll probably finish my outline around 5:30 p.m. for the 7:00 service. Sue me.) it will all get firmed up, but does anyone have any ideas? Anyone? Anyone?

And with this post, I'm now inaugurating a "babbling" tag, but no, I'm not going to go back and retag my past ramblings.

Have a good one!

Disciplining Lazy Authors & Publishers

2007-10-25T10:13:00.000+05:30

Academic authors and publishers should be spanked for the following offenses:

Absent or inadequate indices. No excuse in this age of computers.
Only having an author index in a book over 300 pages.
No bibliography or list of works cited! Don't make me have to backtrack through all the footnotes to get the details on a work. Double-spanking for that one.
Writing a separate book in the endnotes or footnotes. You know, like when the footnotes on a page contain full paragraphs and take up more space than the actual text. If it's that important, work it into the text or at least throw it into an appendix. If it's not, drop it.
Using endnotes period.
Thinking that since you have published so many books already, normal citation rules don't apply to you anymore. (I won't drop the name, but I do have one prolific author in mind.) Punishment for that one: redoing your freshman year in college, complete with staying in a dorm.

More to be added later.

Logic and Moral Thinking in a World Gone Mad

2007-10-24T23:41:00.000+05:30

Last one for the night. Very funny but not for children or those prone to the vapors:

Manuela: Jose, you are a very handsome man. I wish to make love to you.

Jose: Si, Manuela. I can feel your desire. You too are a very beautiful woman and I wish to make love to you as well.

Manuela: Jose, just for your informacion, you will be my ninth partner this year. Also, for further consideration, you may wish to know that I never even knew the name of my last three lovers.

Jose: Ay. Thank you Manuela for sharing this critical information. I too have been with many partners of which I have little recollection. This, however, does not dampen my desire for you....

Read the sadly hilarious rest over at the Creative Minority Report.

(Hat Tip to Mark Shea.)

The Snack after the Theology

2007-10-23T17:51:00.000+05:30

Two nice crispy dosas (not just for breakfast anymore) with sesame chutney. Exquisite.

For some reason I felt compelled to wash it down with a junky chocolate bar.

These day's I'm using food as a substitute for sleep.

Thank God for the Gifts

2007-10-23T17:44:00.000+05:30

I believe in spiritual gifts, all the spiritual gifts of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I believe in the flashy gifts and the not-so-flashy gifts, the controversial gifts and the ignored gifts, the miraculous gifts and the revelatory gifts and the gifts of service. And I thank God for all of them. Never should we disdain anything he gives us.

I am thankful that the gifts are expressions of God's grace for the edification of the body of Christ and not talents or achievements that result from human exertion. We do use our spiritual gifts (they are not monergistic or passive), but they are his and not ours.

No gifts, no ministry; know your gifts, and you know your ministry. I am thankful that my primary work (teaching) is also my gift. Why? Because I'm dead tired: two in diapers. These days, between the two of us, my wife and I have almost one whole brain. I'm losing papers the moment I am given them. I cannot multi-task anymore. I'm falling asleep in meetings when there's only one other person in the meeting.

But in the classroom, I'm doing all right. I have energy. I can stand up and talking fluently for an hour or two. I don't lose the path of sentences I have laid out in my head. I can merge two old outlines on the fly for a new class I'm teaching. I think the new people who are not used to my accent are understanding all right. They're laughing at my jokes.

This is not a boast because I know I'm not the one behind it. It's nothing but grace, albeit grace God expects me to do something with. When the class is over, the exhaustion returns, and my IQ drops again to the level of a cabbage. It makes me aware all the more how much I need him, and it's a comfort to realize even in my pathetic present state, he's very much with me.

Thank you, gracious Spirit and Friend.

The Problem with Blogging

2007-10-22T17:34:00.000+05:30

Coming up with good, substantive posts takes entirely too much time, especially when you have other things you should be writing and particularly when you are exploring something controversial and realize every word will get parsed to death in the search for offense.

I've got a few interesting thoughts half done, sitting in my draft box, for which I don't know that I'll ever find the time to finish. Sorry.

J.K. Rowling's Big Revelation

2007-10-21T09:07:00.001+05:30

All I can say is that the internet is going to be insufferable for the next few days at least.

Fun with the Fathers: Irenaeus

2007-10-15T18:24:00.000+05:30

Sorry for the lack of theological posts of late. I'm finding it very difficult to type with a baby on my lap, which means most times.

It's also difficult to read a paper book in that position, so I am trying to make the most of things and fill out some of the corners of my education by reading some of the early church fathers. The Christian Classics Ethereal Library, one of best resources sites on the internet, has Schaff's complete edition among many other important older works. I bought their CD a few years ago so I have them offline as well. Right now I'm working through Irenaeus's Against Heresies. Dating from the late second century, this is one of the most important early Christian theological works.

I've gone through the first volume, which describes the belief systems of some of the gnostic groups. Anyone who's attracted to the idea that the gnostics were the true followers of Jesus whose real teachings were suppressed by those stuffy old men in the catholic church should give Irenaeus a read. Even if he's exaggerating the worst parts of the gnostics' beliefs fivefold, I have to say this is weird, wacky stuff.

Father Irenaeus has made me laugh out loud on several occasions; he even gets some subtle potty humor in at one point. Some of the humor needs quite a lot of setup, but this little bit stands fairly well on its own. At this point he's describing and mocking the elaborate hierarchy of divine beings the gnostics have decreed exist. (For those of you thinking TLDR, I've bolded the funny part.):

Iu, Iu! Pheu, Pheu!-for well may we utter these tragic exclamations at such a pitch of audacity in the coining of names as he has displayed without a blush, in devising a nomenclature for his system of falsehood. For when he declares: There is a certain Proarche before all things, surpassing all thought, whom I call Monotes; and again, with this Monotes there co-exists a power which I also call Henotes,-it is most manifest that he confesses the things which have been said to be his own invention, and that he himself has given names to his scheme of things, which had never been previously suggested by any other. It is manifest also, that he himself is the one who has had sufficient audacity to coin these names; so that, unless he had appeared in the world, the truth would still have been destitute of a name. But, in that case, nothing hinders any other, in dealing with the same subject, to affix names after such a fashion as the following: There is a certain Proarche, royal, surpassing all thought, a power existing before every other substance, and extended into space in every direction. But along with it there exists a power which I term a Gourd; and along with this Gourd there exists a power which again I term Utter-Emptiness. This Gourd and Emptiness, since they are one, produced (and yet did not simply produce, so as to be apart from themselves) a fruit, everywhere visible, eatable, and delicious, which fruit-language calls a Cucumber. Along with this Cucumber exists a power of the same essence, which again I call a Melon. These powers, the Gourd, Utter-Emptiness, the Cucumber, and the Melon, brought forth the remaining multitude of the delirious melons of Valentinus. For if it is fitting that that language which is used respecting the universe be transformed to the primary Tetrad, and if any one may assign names at his pleasure, who shall prevent us from adopting these names, as being much more credible [than the others], as well as in general use, and understood by all?

I like his exclamation of disgust and dismissal: "Iu, Iu! Pheu, Pheu!" I'm going to having to try to work that into a conversation sometime soon.

Encounters with Nature!

2007-10-14T21:05:00.000+05:30

It always happens this way. While out walking the dog tonight, we came across a turtle trying to cross the road! It was fairly big, about eight inches long, and weighed a couple kilos. I know because I picked it up one-handed and stuck it on the other side of the road as I didn't want to come out in the morning and see turtle bits strewn all over the place. That wasn't easy to do while restraining a crazy Royal Labrador with my other hand, but we managed. Hopefully he will have the sense to get some place safe.

Psychic Bookworm Quiz

2007-10-14T10:27:00.000+05:30

My results:

What Kind of Reader Are You? Your Result: Obsessive-Compulsive Bookworm You're probably in the final stages of a Ph.D. or otherwise finding a way to make your living out of reading. You are one of the literati. Other people's grammatical mistakes make you insane.
Dedicated Reader
Literate Good Citizen
Book Snob
Fad Reader
Non-Reader
What Kind of Reader Are You? Create Your Own Quiz

I only wish it were the final stages, though.

Questia: Anyone Use It?

2007-10-11T17:36:00.000+05:30

Or seen a thorough review? I stumbled across this while looking for information on a book. It's a subscription service ($100/year) that allows online access to the complete text of thousands of books. Not all are theology, of course, and some are PD resources you can find elsewhere, but they do seem to have some good stuff like Dunn's Parting of the Ways, Pannenberg's Jesus, and Aulen's Faith of the Christian Church.

I have access to a lot of books at our college's library and a ton of online stuff like JSTOR through my Uni, but this might be worthwhile when I get to crunch time on my thesis.

Any thoughts? Is there anything else like this out there?

My Favorite Theology Joke

2007-10-11T08:17:00.000+05:30

This is a Cath-Prot joke. Usually people have to think for a moment before they break out in side-splitting laughter:

One day up in heaven, Jesus and Peter went for a walk outside the Pearly Gates. As evening drew near, Jesus went back, but Peter decided to keep walking for a while.

After dark, Peter returned to the Gates and knocked. The angel asked, "Who is it?"

Peter replied, "It's me, Peter. Let me in!"

"Huh?"

"Just do it."

Finally, the puzzled angel asked, "But Peter, you have the keys!"

Chagrined, Peter replied, "I know, but that rascal Luther changed the locks!"

That one was from my friend the Bishop. I really miss him.

The Main Reason I'm Not Writing Much Lately...

2007-10-08T15:15:00.000+05:30

Two in diapers.

'Nuff said.

Aqui es un fotoblog muy interesante.

2007-10-06T18:33:00.000+05:30

I've posted this before, but I find this collection of unusual photos very interesting. The link goes to the main English page. Much of the site is in Spanish, but it's easy enough to navigate.

Ubuntu: Sharing the Joy

2007-10-04T18:15:00.000+05:30

Two months ago I installed Ubuntu Linux on my home desktop computer. The main motivation behind this was speed; with all the increasing security software required, Windows XP has become unbearable to use on my five-year-old P4 with 256MB. (My attempts to acquire more RAM have been utterly unsuccessful.) So, I thought I would give Linux a whirl. (Hey, as old as my system is, there are few games I can run anyway.)

At this point, I am using Ubuntu almost exclusively. After some initial troubles getting it set up, it has become a breeze to use. I like how it can immediately on request download new applications. So far I have done the following:

Downloaded photos from my digital camera without loading drivers.
Edited photos in GIMP.
Played music.
Played VCD's and DVD's. (My edition of Ubuntu has some problems there, but on the plus side it does not honor Satan's scheme of region encoding.)
Made party invitations on Scribus DTP software.
Printed said invitations on an HP Laserjet without loading a 5-terabyte HP printer driver. (Seriously, what is it with them?)
Done tons and tons of internet stuff.
Worked with PDF's.
Installed virus software for scanning flash drives from the office.
Made quite a few documents in Open Office including examination question papers.

And quite a bit of other stuff I've forgotten. I'm also trying to migrate my finances to GnuCash. It's a little problematic, but I'm determined to do it as Intuit is even more evil than MicroSoft. (Yes, it's true.)

Of course, Nota Bene's Lingua Workstation and Logos Bible Software still don't work, but I only have to fire them up when I'm doing serious academic stuff. Hopefully they'll come out with Linux versions eventually.

Did I mention Ubuntu is free? Really, unless one uses a lot of specialized apps or games, I don't see the need to give MicroSoft a penny ever again.

Say Something Nice about Translations: NKJV

2007-10-04T16:51:00.000+05:30

Although I don't use it much anymore, I had a very long and close relationship with the New King James Version. I wore out and lost several copies. O.k., I'll confess. For quite some time I believed in the superiority of the "Majority Text" of the New Testament, and that limited my version choices greatly. I blame it on exposure to some wrong teaching very early in my Christian life combined with my reaction against the aggressively marketed popular alternative, the NIV, which has serious defects and about which I'm going to have difficulty saying something nice. Anyway, eventually I got over it.

The NKJV represents the best update of the old KJV that still uses the Received Text for the NT. Obsolete words have been replaced, thees and thous dropped, and modern punctuation added. Those are the major changes; otherwise, it is very faithful to its predecessor. It preserves most of the literary beauty of the KJV but is easier to read and understand.

Why use the NKJV? For serious study, there are better choices. Most print editions of the NKJV, however, have one feature I've not seen in other translations: the New Testament has a critical apparatus! Well, a very simplified one. Like I said above, it uses the old, not so good Received Text. In the footnotes, however, it shows the significant variants--not as many as in a Greek NT but more than other English versions do. Alternate readings in the Byzantine "Majority" Text are noted by an "M," while "NU" is used to indicate the readings in the Nestle-Aland and UBS critical editions. With the NKJV, one can do a little bit of amateur textual criticism even if one does not know Greek--just take a look at Revelation and see all the problems Erasmus had with both M and NU agreeing against his hastily cobbled edition. For those do know Greek, it still can be used as a quick reference, say in last-minute sermon preparation, to see if there are any significant issues with the text. The mini-apparatus is a unique feature of this version and a good reason for it to be included in everyone's collection of translations.

Say Something Nice about Versions: KJV

2007-10-04T09:01:00.000+05:30

If you look around on the internets, it doesn't take long to realize there are a lot of strong opinions out there about (English)* Bible versions. I used to be a little bit obsessed (just a little) about them too, but I outgrew that stage a few years ago. Still, I'm interested in the subject and do like to collect different translations. I have over 20 different English versions; I thought I'd write some about the important ones here.

I'm rather fond of the old KJV. While both its flaws and its merits are frequently exaggerated, its importance for both the Christian church and the English language are difficult to overestimate. It's certainly been the most successful translation; after 400 years, it's still going strong. It set the precedent for vernacular translations and what it means to put the Bible in the hands of the people. It is literal yet poetic; many people find the KJV easier to memorize because of the meter of the verses.

It does have a few significant problems. The biggest is the quality of the manuscripts behind it, especially the Greek New Testament; Revelation is particularly bad. Since its day, many new and better texts that are closer to the autographs have been discovered; this has been the biggest advance in modern translation work.

There are, of course, some translation mistakes in the KJV. Moreover, some English words it uses have changed in meaning since its original publication; there have been a few updates through the ages to fix some of these. The KJV also lacks paragraphs and modern punctuation, most notably quotations marks. This, I have observed, contributes the most to the difficulty some have in reading it.

The thees and thous and "hasts" are a feature, not a bug. One unique problem with modern English is that it fails to make a distinction between the second person singular and plural "you"; this I feel contributes to the strong emphasis on the individual in Western society. Elizabethan English was different. Thee and thou refer to the second person singular, while you and ye are for the plural. So, if you keep this in mind, when reading the KJV you can pick out the distinction between the two that's made in the original but not always conveyed successfully in modern translations. Be aware, though, that these words are not special language for addressing God and convey no particular degree of reverence.

Many people wonder why the Gideons and other groups use the KJV in their literature distributions. Very simple: the KJV is in the public domain, and no royalties have to be paid to reproduce it.

I prefer and recommend other versions for serious study, but there's nothing wrong with using the KJV in devotions if you like it, understand it, and are aware of its limitations. Just don't start thinking you are extra holy if you start praying with thees and thous. ;)

--------------------
*Most Indian languages only have one version of the Bible. This has both benefits and drawbacks.

Time for Judgment and for Torment

2007-10-02T15:55:00.000+05:30

There is no rest for the wicked, no holiday for me.

When my students complain about assignments and exams, I retort, "You think writing them is bad? I have to read and grade them!" It's definitely the worst part of the job. I love lecturing and interacting with students, but grading can be a real torment.

I can procrastinate no longer; to the papers I must now turn. Pray for my soul's purgation in this testing.

Or, for a few snarky laughs, go here. The problem issues with Indian bible college students are entirely different, but at times I wouldn't mind trading.

Happy Gandhi Jayanti

2007-10-02T07:57:00.000+05:30

Today in India we celebrate the birth of the father of our nation, Mohandas K. Gandhi* (Oct. 2, 1869-Jan. 30, 1948), also known as the Mahatma or "great soul." Even if they don't know much about India, everyone knows about Gandhiji**; he led India to independence from the British through non-violent resistance. (Obligatory Wiki link.)

Although he was not a Christian (of that there is no historical doubt), Gandhiji greatly admired Jesus and was inspired by his teachings, especially the Sermon on the Mount. Unlike many, he took Jesus' words literally with great results. In turn, his own tactics and teachings were inspirational to other freedom movements, especially in the U.S. and South Africa.

Besides his birthday being a national holiday in India, the U.N. has also declared this date "the International Day of Non-Violence."

--------------------
*To (certain) English-only friends: "Ghandi" is not an acceptable alternative spelling to "Gandhi." Yes, it's true that there is some flexibility in transliterating Indian languages, but no, this is not one of those cases. I have not once seen this spelling in India. Please stop it, and above all stop arguing that it is correct.

**The Hindi suffix "-ji" is added to names to express both endearment and respect.

On Comment Moderation

2007-09-28T18:06:00.000+05:30

Welcome! Thank you for visiting Theology & Snack. The purpose of this blog is to discuss theology, food, and other fun topics. Most posts are "theological snacks," fun, bite-sized hors d'oeurves to get you thinking; they're certainly not full meals nor meant to give anyone indigestion.

Please feel free to comment on any post that interests you. I have comment moderation enabled for several reasons. First are the usual problems with the internet. Thankfully, I've not had much yet. Spam does get tossed, however, even if it is "Jesus" spam.

Second are my security and privacy concerns. Please don't post my real name and exact location if you know it.

Additionally, I seek to avoid acrimonious debate. Feel free to speak your mind, but please realize that with a blog post one can't always take the time necessary to tweak every word so precisely that no offense is caused when none is intended. I do truly try to live my life by the two great commandments Jesus gave us. At the same time, as a theologian part of my job is to criticize doctrine. I love everyone, even Calvinists and Catholics, even if I disagree with your theology. ;) Please keep that in mind. Heated comments that seriously distort what I have actually said, e.g.:

Me: The sky is blue.
Anonymous Commenter: Why are you so hateful?!

are likely to get tossed or at most posted then ignored. There are many places on the internet where one can go for heated debate where every single word typed is parsed for sinister hidden meanings. This is not one of them.

After all, theology should be fun!

P.S. If need be, I can be mailed at the username "theologyandsnack" on Google's email service.

Friday Theology Quote 8

2007-09-28T17:33:00.000+05:30

It's been a while since I've put one of these up, so here's a double. Babies willing, this weekend I hope to read N.T. Wright's The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wards to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture (2005). If it's N.T. Wright, it has to be good. I've only just started, but I like this quote from the preface (xi):

I have tried, in particular, to face head on the question of how we can speak of the Bible being in some sense "authoritative" when the Bible itself declares that all authority belongs to the one true God, and that this is now embodied in Jesus himself. The risen Jesus, at the end of Matthew's gospel, does not say, "All authority in heaven and on earth is given to the books you are all going to write," but "All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me." This ought to tell us, precisely if we are taking the Bible itself as seriously as we should, that we need to think carefully what it might mean to think that the authority of Jesus is somehow exercised through the Bible.

I look forward to seeing where Bishop Wright goes from here. His thought expressed here resonates with my neo-orthodox perspective and recalls to mind some thoughts of Emil Brunner's:

Actually, this is the point at issue: that the real norm is the revelation, Jesus Christ Himself, who Himself witnesses to us through the Holy Spirit, who, however, in addition to this His self-revelation, makes use of the witness of the Apostles…. The absolute authority is Jesus Christ Himself, whom we only possess through the record and the teaching of the Apostles; but He, whom we only have through them, stands above them. Their witness is valid, absolutely binding, in so far as it really witnesses to Him Himself….
A legalistic, immutable authority, such as the human desire for security would so gladly possess–and indeed is offered in an orthodox doctrine of the Scriptures as an axiomatic authority, or in the Catholic doctrine of the infallible doctrinal authority of the Pope–is thus denied to us. The word of Scripture is not the final court of appeal, since Jesus Christ Himself alone is this ultimate authority; but even while we examine the doctrine of Scripture, we remain within the Scriptures not, it is true, as an authority, but as the source of all that truth which possesses absolute authority.

Dogmatics, vol. 1, p. 47 (1950).

I agree wholeheartedly with both of these quotes. Hopefully this sheds some light on recent discussions.

Unconditional Election and the Whole Counsel of Scripture

2007-09-25T12:07:00.000+05:30

At some point in the future, I intend to address the TULIP of Calvinism more systematically. In my morning Bible reading, however, I was struck by the following.

As noted earlier, Arminianism is not primarily about human freedom but the defense of God's goodness. One of our major sticking points with Calvinism is the doctrine of unconditional election and its dark corollary of double predestination. Simply put, it teaches that God unconditionally, without any basis other than his sovereign choice, elects some people to salvation. The rest are reprobated or appointed to damnation. No one can do anything to escape his or her destiny; it is immutably fixed before the creation of the world. This is a difficult doctrine to accept. Calvin himself called it "horrible" but believed the Bible taught it. Arminians reject it as contradicting God's nature of love.

Calvinists firmly offer up Romans 9 as a decisive proof of this belief:

Romans 9:11-24 (NRSV)
11 Even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose of election might continue, 12 not by works but by his call) she was told, “The elder shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau.” 14 What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. 17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “I have raised you up for the very purpose of showing my power in you, so that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses. 19 You will say to me then, “Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God? Will what is molded say to the one who molds it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one object for special use and another for ordinary use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath that are made for destruction; 23 and what if he has done so in order to make known the riches of his glory for the objects of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 including us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

Although this passage seems to strongly support the Calvinist position, Arminians counter that this concerns primarily Israel and is referring to the election of groups; hence, it is a misuse to apply it so strictly to the election or reprobation of individuals. Additionally, it must be read in context, and the following chapter, Rom. 10, strongly supports the Arminian "whosoever will" position.

This morning I read Jeremiah 18 in my New Oxford Annotated Bible; its notes connected the passage to Rom. 9.20-24. I think this is highly significant:

Jeremiah 18:1-11 (NRSV)
1 The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: 2 “Come, go down to the potter’s house, and there I will let you hear my words.” 3 So I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was working at his wheel. 4 The vessel he was making of clay was spoiled in the potter’s hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as seemed good to him. 5 Then the word of the Lord came to me: 6 Can I not do with you, O house of Israel, just as this potter has done? says the Lord. Just like the clay in the potter’s hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. 7 At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, 8 but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it. 9 And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, 10 but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it. 11 Now, therefore, say to the people of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: Thus says the Lord: Look, I am a potter shaping evil against you and devising a plan against you. Turn now, all of you from your evil way, and amend your ways and your doings.

Several things are highly significant here. First, I think it is obvious this passage was in Paul's mind when he wrote Rom. 9. Second, it supports interpreting Rom. 9 as primarily referencing groups and nations. Third, God responds to human repentance. Destiny is not immutably fixed; his offer of reprieve is genuine.

As the NOAB comments, "God does not deal capriciously with [his people]."

The Resurgence of Calvinism: Whence the Converts?

2007-09-25T10:12:00.000+05:30

This is more a question than a debate. I think it is generally agreed that right now we are seeing a strong revival of interest in Calvinism. My question is this: from where (theologically) are the converts to Calvinism coming? Has anyone done any sort of serious study of this?

I have a few guesses. First, I highly doubt that many are from traditional, established Arminian-Wesleyan backgrounds. The differences are too great.

My main suspicion is that the greatest source is from dispensationalism. It is close to Calvinism in many ways (high view of Scripture, cessationism, general conservatism), yet Calvinism is a more logical, more coherent system with a longer and richer history. Many dispensationalists might find it attractive if they give it a fair chance. Actually, I predict that one of the major theological trends in conservative protestantism in the 21st century will be the disintegration of mainstream (that is, not ultra-fundamentalist) dispensationalism. Calvinism will probably gain the most from this.

The other major source, I would guess, would be from independent evangelical and charismatic types without any real grounding in any theological system. Many of these are looking for more spiritual and theological depth than is found in some of our "it's all about you" churches. Some see Calvinism as providing that depth; others are attracted to other traditions such as Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism. This is a revolving door, however, and probably not as significant a source as dispensationalism.

I could be wrong. What do you think? I'm interested in opinions, particularly "converts" to Calvinism. Though I disagree with your theological system, I respect and am interested in what you think.

Coffee Culture

2007-09-23T09:04:00.000+05:30

Last night I had to drop some friends at the train station. While waiting for the train, I heard the familiar sound of milk being steamed. To my great surprise and delight, there was a cappuccino machine there! Right between platforms 4 and 5, here in Podunkville, not the capital. It looked like an old, sturdy, indigenously made machine, not a flimsy import. I've never seen one like it before. If it hadn't been the middle of the night I would've tried a cup.

This is a good sign. Perhaps people are starting to realize that those evil, foreign abominations of Nescafe and Bru are merely masquerading as real coffee and returning to their tasty filter coffee heritage.

Acceptance of the Gift: An Analogy

2007-09-22T18:44:00.000+05:30

I'm trying to stay irenic here, y'all, but I'm encountering a frequent rhetorical straw man among Calvinists (my words in summary):

Calvinists believe that God alone is responsible for their salvation.
Arminians believe that ultimately they save themselves by being the deciding factor. (Thus, Arminians can "boast" about their salvation.)

Let me offer an analogy: You are on the verge of bankruptcy. Your creditors are about to take all you own and cast you into debtors' prison. A rich benefactress, hearing of your plight, hand delivers you a check for a million dollars, more than covering all your debts. You accept the check, endorse it, and stick it in the bank.

Ultimately, are you the source of your freedom and wealth? Do you have something to boast about because you endorsed and deposited the check?

Would any reasonable person answer "Yes" to these questions?

Like all theological analogies, this one is imperfect. Arminians contend that believers cooperate even less than this in salvation. Please stop saying that we believe we save ourselves. This line of argument, which I'm seeing a lot lately, is very pathetic and unfair. Moreover, I am distinctly unimpressed by the theological acumen of anyone who is impressed by it.

Grace, Salvation, and Heretics, or, A Whole 'Nother Other Gospel

2007-09-22T17:28:00.000+05:30

I am very uncomfortable and very disturbed with how quickly some Christians accuse others of preaching "another Gospel." In online debates as well as books, some people relish quoting Gal. 1:6-9. Not a small number of Calvinists accuse Arminians of this; the vitriol between some dispensationalists and some Calvinists is just as bad if not worse. It happens a lot in debates between the free gracers* and the lordship salvationists and of course between protestant and Roman Catholic apologists. (Let's not even get started on TV preachers.) There really isn't any safe position you can take without someone calling you a de facto heretic.

This leads to a question I have thought about for a long time, but for which I do not have a final answer:

How bad can a person's theology be and that person still be saved?

More colloquially, if things are right in your heart with Jesus, how right does the theology in your head and in your mouth have to be? Granted, some Christian beliefs are essential for salvation. Among these are the physical resurrection (Rom. 10:9-10) and incarnation (1 John 4:2-3) of Jesus. Beyond that, there are few New Testament doctrinal tests. The doctrine of the Trinity is not fully developed and stated, though it is strongly implied. Despite what some of our Calvinist friends would insist, belief in monergism certainly isn't in this category either (see: James 2:24).

Biblical salvation is actually quite simple: "Whosoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" (Acts 2:21, Rom. 10:13). So my tentative answer to the question is, "Pretty bad." I think Roman Catholics** and Calvinists and free gracers and Arminians can all be saved if they have called on the Lord. According to Paul, the Gospel is Christ Jesus dying and rising for our sins (1 Cor. 15:1-8), not any of these groups' pet issues. Certainly, we need to be cautious of accusing someone of preaching a different Gospel if they hold that basic understanding. I disagree with formal Calvinism on many points, but I'd never say that your average Calvinist preaches a different Gospel or is not saved.

Let me expand it further. I think people can get saved in spite of their bad theology. The question comes up, "What about the oneness pentecostals?" They deny the Trinity, speak in tongues, and basically consign to hell anyone who doesn't. That's definitely a different Gospel. Yet, they affirm the lordship and deity of Christ. It's bad theology, it's heretical, it's schismatic, yet I believe many oneness pentecostals are saved. (But still, come out!)

How about Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons? Here I'd proceed much more cautiously. There are serious problems in these groups' beliefs, much worse, in my opinion, than with the oneness pentecostals. No, these are not Christian denominations, and I don't embrace the followers of these groups as brothers. But I do not rule out the possibility that someone could accidentally get saved in these groups as well. I know one family of nominal catholics that started thinking about their faith because of some JW's and eventually got well grounded in an Assemblies of God church. It could also be possible for someone who simply loves Jesus and doesn't know any better to get stuck in one of these groups and still be regenerate. (But most definitely, come out!)

We could turn the question inward and step on some toes that usually feel safe. I've read statements in some fundamentalist-type refereed journals that come dangerously close to docetism. Some conservative Christians stress the divinity of Christ so strongly that they practically deny his humanity, thus falling under the condemnation of 1 John 4. We can pick on groups that deny the Trinity, but what percentage of self-described born-again Christians have a defective understanding of it? Surely it's high.

We need to be careful here. Preach the Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ. Teach good theology. In all things, show love.

--------------------
*This strident position among free gracers is particularly puzzling to me. These are the people say that all you have to do is believe once (i.e., just say the prayer) and you are saved forever, even if you do not progress or stand firm in the faith. Some say you don't even have to repent to be saved. It puzzles me, then, why they accuse others who don't "get the message right" of being heretics and leading people astray. After all, what you believe isn't important for salvation, right?

** I could take further issue with Rome but shan't at this point.

Life Is Crazy!

2007-09-21T19:24:00.000+05:30

I'm pleased as punch at the new traffic I have been getting lately. Though I have a few things rattling around in my head I'd like to post, my life is really crazy right now. Rarely do I have an extended period of time where I can type without having a kid on my lap. Hopefully, I will be able to get something up this weekend or early next week, so please check back again soon.

Evening Things Out: New Blogs on the Roll

2007-09-18T18:47:00.000+05:30

To add a little more Arminian flavor to the roll, I have added Nick N.'s Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth and Arminian Perspectives.

A caution I share with my students each year: don't think too much about all this predestination and free will stuff or you will go mad. (I offer to give them the names and addresses of people who have.) I feel myself approaching that tipping point, so it may be a while before I post on these subjects again. (Or, maybe not. It's not fixed.)

The Reading Room

2007-09-17T18:39:00.000+05:30

Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities
Roger E. Olson, 2006. 250 pages.

Let's face facts: Calvinists own protestant theology. My students ask, "Which theology books at the library are Calvinist?" I respond, "It'll be easier to show you the ones that aren't." Calvinists write theology. Arminians, not so much.

Unfortunately, much of the theology that is written does not fairly represent its dissenters, and Arminianism is probably the least understood and most frequently misrepresented major theological system. Olson strives in this vital book to rectify that problem. Did you know that Arminianism isn't primarily about free human will, and that Arminians believe in total depravity and predestination? The heart of Arminian theology, which Olson discusses in the Chap. 4, the best in the book, is the goodness of God. My summary take on what Arminianism is all about (my words, not his):

In order to protect God's character and avoid ascribing the origin of evil and sin to him, Arminians affirm limited human freedom.

And basically, that's it. If one can step outside of the 400 year-old frame of "Arminius? Heretic!", one cannot help but see that basic Arminianism, before the application of layers of denominational distinctives such as methodism and Pentecostalism, as simply a moderate, slight modification of basic reformed thought. Except for the above mentioned point and its ramifications, there are few differences between the two. Certainly classical Arminianism is far closer to Calvinism than it is to Roman Catholicism. After reading this book, one can only perceive the oft heard claim that it threatens to "roll back the Reformation" as nothing more than an insane hyperbole.

In terms of his goals, Olson achieves them admirably. He shows via quotes from primary sources over the centuries how each of the ten common myths about Arminianism is false. It is sad but true that Arminianism is frequently misrepresented by its opponents, and many contemporary Calvinists do not study it any more directly than by reading some of the reformed polemics of the 1800's. Hopefully Olson's book will spur such people to look closer and see just how much they have in common with their Arminian brothers, most of whom really aren't heretics.

That said, the book could have been better. I found the constant going through sources and extracting quotes tedious; I could tell Olson was on autopilot for much of it. (In fairness, he warns that cover-to-cover may not be the best way to read it.) Also, I think more could have been done to defend and define classic Arminan beliefs from Scrpture; a stronger biblical case should have been made especially for the difficult Arminian doctrines of foreknowledge and prevenient grace. People looking for strong exegetical work concerning these problems will have to go elsewhere. The rejection of some Arminian theologians as inauthentic, liberal "Arminians of the head" seems a little convenient but still fair; after all, there are some wacky theologians on the other side who can hardly be considered representative of genuine Calvinism.

All in all, this is a great work that definitely should be read by both Calvinists and Arminians to find out what classical Arminianism really teaches. But we must still wait for the definitive work of Arminian systematic theology.

Germ Warfare, or, The Monsoonal Cold

2007-09-15T20:36:00.000+05:30

Life is good and God is great, but boy, has this been a trying week. In addition to my wife's delivery of our son (C-section), most of our household has also been down with a cold and fever. My time of suffering was Tuesday, and while I shall refrain from whining too much, it was bad. Really bad. A deceptive, "Ha! You think I'm just the sniffles, but I'm something much more sinister"-type cold. I've not been this sick in years. Between having a cold and taking care of the kids, I am beyond exhausted.

Given our state, I'd prefer not to have visitors. O.k., neighbors who want to stop by for five minutes are all right; the cousin who announces he's on his way and staying for the night (and of course, needs to be fed) is not. I know; this is how the culture works. People might call to inform you they are coming but certainly not to ask if it is a good time or not. So what if you've only had a few hours of sleep and are looking forward to another long night. We have to see the new baby, and you have to feed us, too, and we're not leaving until after 10 p.m., of course. I'm glad people are excited, really, but next week would have been so much better...

Did I mention we all have very nasty, very contagious colds? I did mention it to my guests, but they just laughed it off. No, really, we should just fold our hands and say, "Namaste," but they really want to shake hands. No, I don't think it's a good idea to kiss my daughter... Oh, it's too late.

This is not at all a charitable, sanctified Christian thought, but I'm not the least bit bothered that they're going to be in misery after a few days.

Ugh. Lost Post.

2007-09-14T07:04:00.000+05:30

I had just nearly completed a fairly lengthy and (IMO) good theological post. Somehow I managed to lose most of it. Won't have the time to redo it, so, oh well.

Where We Were Six Years Ago

2007-09-11T21:27:00.000+05:30

On the roof of our house in the 'burbs of the Metro. (No, not that Metro; the one we lived in in India.)

The whole city (state?) had a major power breakdown. I can't remember how long--eight hours? In the early hours of the evening, not having anything else to do, my wife and I went up to the roof to pray and sing. We worshiped and prayed in the Spirit for hours. After it got dark, we went down to our bedroom sit-out. Our neighbor shouted over to us, "The U.S. has been attacked." Shocked, we went down to our car to listen to the hourly news update on AIR (there were no other stations at that time.) When the power came back, we watched the news on our neighbor's TV, then I stayed up for hours on the internet.

The theological point here? This was one time I was very grateful for the gift of Pentecost. Rom. 8:26-27 says that the Spirit helps us to pray when we don't know how to pray as we ought. We firmly believe that He used the circumstances, making us pray at a time when normally wouldn't, and that He directed our language to pray in the manner that was most needed at the time. Such a thought gives me hope that even though evil is great, God is ever close to us and all His creation, and that He will work all things out for good.

My Son Is Born.

2007-09-09T14:40:00.000+05:30

My son was born this morning.

My dear poor wife had a cold and suffered a lot.

My mother-in-law, a.k.a. SuperNurse, has been terrific.

The doctor and her team have also been great.

God is ever faithful and so much more gracious than we deserve.

Month of Destiny

2007-09-01T08:33:00.000+05:30

Eek! This is a big month. I'm not ready.

-The New Baby is coming! We're not ready. Prayers would be much appreciated.

-I need to get the first part of my thesis sent off before the above mentioned event takes place. I was panicking about this a week ago, but the last few days have been good. I hope to send it by Wednesday or Friday at the latest after my wife gets a chance for a quick proofing.

With all of this, I don't know how much I'll be blogging. I want to a series on Calvinism both because of this last post and because I'm up to my eyeballs with it due to my thesis. Maybe when I get writer's block I'll try to do a quick theological snack.

Blessings to all!

Wonders Never Cease: Accuracy in Media

2007-08-31T20:51:00.000+05:30

A news article that accurately portrays religion, Christianity, and missions on Yahoo! It's not from the AP or Reuters, natch, but the Christian Science Monitor*:

With Taliban's release of Korean Christian hostages, caution for missionaries

The article was inspired by a news event, but it communicates accurate information about the changing approach to missions in the world today. Things aren't like they were back in the 19th century.**
-------------
*That's o.k., because while "Christian Science" has nothing to do with either Christianity or Science, the Christian Science Monitor has nothing to do with Christian Science.
**In other words, if you don't judge me for not living like Hudson Taylor, I won't judge you for not living like Laura Ingalls.