This morning (31 May 09) one of our ministers talked about Colossians 2:13-23. The talk was on 'true spirituality' which reminded me of Francis Schaeffer's book of the same name.
The mention of Christ our head in Colossians 2:19, however lead my thoughts.
I thought about it with the other 'head' passages: 1 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 1:22; Ephesians 4:15; Ephesians 5:23.
Head here is, I think, not about 'rule' or 'authority' which is how it is from time to time seemingly regarded in conservative churches; particularly with respect to an 'order' or even a hierarchy in relationships between the sexes, that goes on to, in my view, distort the biblical teaching about husbands and wives, men and women in general, and overseers and churches (clergy and churches in the parlance of some, including some Anglicans). Taken to an extreme, this has implications for the relationships within the trinity too...dangerous and concerning ones which undo this particular theological line, I think.
But I doubt, therefore, that this is the point of the verses. Response to 'head' is a response that recognises unity, an organic unity brought by new birth into the church (in the references to Christ as head of the church). It is about harmony and support, not power. Power implies opposition and conflict, even coersion, and the need to overcome discord! and I don't think that this is present between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So how could it be conceived as being given such an orientation as between husbands and wives, men and women, and overseers and churches? Not, I think.
31 May 2009
28 May 2009
No Small Jesus?
In the sermon on 10 May 2009 (mothers' day, 10:15am service) there were some thought provoking matters raised. Check here for the sermon.
The sermon outline as provided is below.
Christ over all
Colossians 1:15-23
Introduction: Is Your Jesus Too Small?
1. Christ and the Creation (vs. 15-17)
- in him all things hold together.
2. Christ and the new creation (vs. 18-20)
Some comments:
This is a rivetting passage for many reasons, but I want to touch on a few related to its implications for Christ's being our creator (of course, given the topic of this blog).
The centrality of Christ is firstly opposed to the pluralism of today. The sermon made this point well, I thought. What it didn't explore was 'why pluralism'?
I think that underneath pluralism, in the West, at least (Eastern pluralism may be a different matter) lies a meta-religous position that is not scrutinised (see my Fundamentalism 2 blog). Modern Western pluralism would regard faith in Jesus as merely one of a number of religious choices all being of equal value; that is, none, outside the person and their span of influence. That is, as it touches on what is really real, of no value at all. The position, the 'meta-religious' position defaults to materialism. With reality being really no more than matter in various arrangements resulting from the outworking of the nature of matter itself, any beliefs that emerge from this matter that are not necessarily dependent on it are mere decoration; they have no more to do with what is true than the colour of carpet in a hospital has to do with the success of surgery.
The challenge for materialism is, of course, to doubt its own axioms.
The Christian stand against pluraism turns on Christ, and in this passage on Christ as creator.
And this takes us to the next thing.
Paul delineates Christ's place and work for us by reference to him as the image of God (the successful image, counter to the failed image of Adam and Eve, representing God the source (head) of life and love to the creation) preeminent in all creation, creator, firstborn from the dead with respect to the church and reconciler.
The interesting connection that I see is that between death and Christ, and that in terms of Christ as creator.
The contrast between the life giving Christ (John 1:4) and death and its ramifications could not be clearer. (1 Cor 15:21 and 26). It is too easy for us to think of death as a part of the creation, after all, it dogs us all and we cannot but not conceive of it; but it crushes life, it stands in opposition to God; is the antithesis of creation because it undoes creation: runs creation in reverse and produces not-life: and it therefore starkly denies Christ in whom is life.
But I think that death, in any form, cannot be part of creation. Indeed, its introduction is the result of undoing the relationship between man and God (Gen 2:17, 3:19 and with 1 Cor 15:21 with Romans 5:12) and results in breaking creation; it is in direct opposition to Christ.
Thus I find it problematic that some Christians can see death in the creation between its initiation and the fall, which is required if the life of Adam and the fall is pushed forward to a date after death is surmised to be in the creation (but not of it, which I think the Colossians passage indicates) thus having the creation including death being for Christ. The incongruousness of this is such as to deny the words of scripture and plant at its heart, in Christ, a (fatal?) contradiction.
But Christ repairs the creation, he overcomes death which is out of step with creation, confronting creation with its negation, and setting aside its power and destructive place, over us and the whole cosmos (Roms 8:22).
The sermon outline as provided is below.
Christ over all
Colossians 1:15-23
Introduction: Is Your Jesus Too Small?
1. Christ and the Creation (vs. 15-17)
- The image of God
- The firstborn over all creation
- Christ and all things
- in him all things hold together.
2. Christ and the new creation (vs. 18-20)
- The head of the "body"; the church
- The firstborn from among the dead
- To reconcile to himself all things.
- Before -- alienated and enemies
- Now -- reconciled through Jesus/ death, holy in God's sight
- How -- faith grounded in the hope held out in the gospel.
Some comments:
This is a rivetting passage for many reasons, but I want to touch on a few related to its implications for Christ's being our creator (of course, given the topic of this blog).
The centrality of Christ is firstly opposed to the pluralism of today. The sermon made this point well, I thought. What it didn't explore was 'why pluralism'?
I think that underneath pluralism, in the West, at least (Eastern pluralism may be a different matter) lies a meta-religous position that is not scrutinised (see my Fundamentalism 2 blog). Modern Western pluralism would regard faith in Jesus as merely one of a number of religious choices all being of equal value; that is, none, outside the person and their span of influence. That is, as it touches on what is really real, of no value at all. The position, the 'meta-religious' position defaults to materialism. With reality being really no more than matter in various arrangements resulting from the outworking of the nature of matter itself, any beliefs that emerge from this matter that are not necessarily dependent on it are mere decoration; they have no more to do with what is true than the colour of carpet in a hospital has to do with the success of surgery.
The challenge for materialism is, of course, to doubt its own axioms.
The Christian stand against pluraism turns on Christ, and in this passage on Christ as creator.
And this takes us to the next thing.
Paul delineates Christ's place and work for us by reference to him as the image of God (the successful image, counter to the failed image of Adam and Eve, representing God the source (head) of life and love to the creation) preeminent in all creation, creator, firstborn from the dead with respect to the church and reconciler.
The interesting connection that I see is that between death and Christ, and that in terms of Christ as creator.
The contrast between the life giving Christ (John 1:4) and death and its ramifications could not be clearer. (1 Cor 15:21 and 26). It is too easy for us to think of death as a part of the creation, after all, it dogs us all and we cannot but not conceive of it; but it crushes life, it stands in opposition to God; is the antithesis of creation because it undoes creation: runs creation in reverse and produces not-life: and it therefore starkly denies Christ in whom is life.
But I think that death, in any form, cannot be part of creation. Indeed, its introduction is the result of undoing the relationship between man and God (Gen 2:17, 3:19 and with 1 Cor 15:21 with Romans 5:12) and results in breaking creation; it is in direct opposition to Christ.
Thus I find it problematic that some Christians can see death in the creation between its initiation and the fall, which is required if the life of Adam and the fall is pushed forward to a date after death is surmised to be in the creation (but not of it, which I think the Colossians passage indicates) thus having the creation including death being for Christ. The incongruousness of this is such as to deny the words of scripture and plant at its heart, in Christ, a (fatal?) contradiction.
But Christ repairs the creation, he overcomes death which is out of step with creation, confronting creation with its negation, and setting aside its power and destructive place, over us and the whole cosmos (Roms 8:22).
25 May 2009
Dinosaur Bells
In my church news this week:
"Bell Ringing - 24 May
This afternoon, a peal will be attempted between 4pm and 7pm. If successful, the method, composed by a Sydney Ringer, will be called Muttaburrasaurus Delight Major; named for a a Cretaceous dinosaur fossil found at Muttaburra, North Queensland. This will be the first peal in the method in the world."
There seems to be a view in some quarters that dinosaurs present some sort of challenge to the Bible's reliability. See here, for instance.
Not so, of course, but intriguing that the conceptualisation of the history of the world that starts with the absence of God (in idealist rejection of the physical validity of the Bible) is given credibility. I refer to the uncommented mention of 'Cretaceous' in the quote. It is in a publication by a church that claims to accept the Bible as the authoritative word of God spoken into the material cosmos he created as the setting for his relationship with us!
"Bell Ringing - 24 May
This afternoon, a peal will be attempted between 4pm and 7pm. If successful, the method, composed by a Sydney Ringer, will be called Muttaburrasaurus Delight Major; named for a a Cretaceous dinosaur fossil found at Muttaburra, North Queensland. This will be the first peal in the method in the world."
There seems to be a view in some quarters that dinosaurs present some sort of challenge to the Bible's reliability. See here, for instance.
Not so, of course, but intriguing that the conceptualisation of the history of the world that starts with the absence of God (in idealist rejection of the physical validity of the Bible) is given credibility. I refer to the uncommented mention of 'Cretaceous' in the quote. It is in a publication by a church that claims to accept the Bible as the authoritative word of God spoken into the material cosmos he created as the setting for his relationship with us!
24 May 2009
Philosophy
A fascinating evening was had by all at our home group, where we are discussing Colossians. The discussion questions (well, not really discussion questions, more like comprehension questions, IMO, that tend to reduce rather than promote discussion) one touched on Colossians 2:8. Two people offered examples of philosophy that had taken people captive. I was not one of the two. The offered examples were the 'prosperity' gospel, so called and Darwinism!
I was gratified to hear that; there aren't that many Christians who are tuned into that as a philosphy that displaces Christ, conceptually, if not actually in all cases, and substitutes the worship of the creature for the creator.
I was gratified to hear that; there aren't that many Christians who are tuned into that as a philosphy that displaces Christ, conceptually, if not actually in all cases, and substitutes the worship of the creature for the creator.
22 May 2009
Shoe colour?
“Differences in beliefs about origins reflect a diversity of attitudes toward reality in general. For atheists the universe is governed by impersonal forces of attraction and repulsion. There exists neither supernatural planner nor supernatural implementer. Rather, forces of nature, chance and the passage of time bring about worlds such as ours, provided all necessary conditions for life exist.
In contrast [we as Christians] attribute everything in the universe to an original cause, the will and ability of the creator as described in the Bible. [This] world is filled with evidences (sic) of superb design and grand purposes.”
From Javor, G. “The Scientific Case for Creation” in Westacott and Ashton, The Big Argument, Strand Publishing, Sydney 2005.
…God is the one who sits on the throne and rules over His creation. This information makes a tremendous difference in the way that people view their place in the universe.
“You’ve likely also understood that the creation-evolution debate is more than just an argument over scientific “facts”. Evolution is a pervasive worldview with far-reaching tentacles into virtually every aspect of our culture. At its very basic level it claims there is no Creator and that all living things (including human beings) have come about through blind chance random processes over millions of years. Our brain and even our very thought processes have also evolved; we can, therefore, choose what is right and wrong in our own eyes…The demeaning of human life can be traced back to an evolutionary worldview.”
This quote is from a creation ministry newsletter a friend handed to me.
It doesn’t go far enough for me. The choice of views about origins leads not just to moral outcomes (and I am a little wary of anything that reduces Christian faith to mere moralising, when all our righteousness is as filthy rags, to quote Paul, but beliefs do tend to produce moral outcomes) but to two opposed views of the world. For the Christian, life, love and relationship, in short God, comes before the world. For the materialist, life, love and relationship, indeed, the very idea of belief, come from within the world and are a consequence of material. They are therefore on a par with choice of shoe colour in basic significance.
I don’t think that theistic evolution really grapples with the divergence, at a basic level, between the two different views it pretends that it can bridge. I also don’t think that modern evangelism has properly analysed western culture to make meaningful contact with it; rather, it avoids the structure of modern western ‘religious’ belief and pretends that it shares the very Christian world view that it in fact rejects out of hand.
Just after I'd written this I heard about the mistreatment of children in Irish RC run institutions: I wonder what their beliefs really were!!
In contrast [we as Christians] attribute everything in the universe to an original cause, the will and ability of the creator as described in the Bible. [This] world is filled with evidences (sic) of superb design and grand purposes.”
From Javor, G. “The Scientific Case for Creation” in Westacott and Ashton, The Big Argument, Strand Publishing, Sydney 2005.
…God is the one who sits on the throne and rules over His creation. This information makes a tremendous difference in the way that people view their place in the universe.
“You’ve likely also understood that the creation-evolution debate is more than just an argument over scientific “facts”. Evolution is a pervasive worldview with far-reaching tentacles into virtually every aspect of our culture. At its very basic level it claims there is no Creator and that all living things (including human beings) have come about through blind chance random processes over millions of years. Our brain and even our very thought processes have also evolved; we can, therefore, choose what is right and wrong in our own eyes…The demeaning of human life can be traced back to an evolutionary worldview.”
This quote is from a creation ministry newsletter a friend handed to me.
It doesn’t go far enough for me. The choice of views about origins leads not just to moral outcomes (and I am a little wary of anything that reduces Christian faith to mere moralising, when all our righteousness is as filthy rags, to quote Paul, but beliefs do tend to produce moral outcomes) but to two opposed views of the world. For the Christian, life, love and relationship, in short God, comes before the world. For the materialist, life, love and relationship, indeed, the very idea of belief, come from within the world and are a consequence of material. They are therefore on a par with choice of shoe colour in basic significance.
I don’t think that theistic evolution really grapples with the divergence, at a basic level, between the two different views it pretends that it can bridge. I also don’t think that modern evangelism has properly analysed western culture to make meaningful contact with it; rather, it avoids the structure of modern western ‘religious’ belief and pretends that it shares the very Christian world view that it in fact rejects out of hand.
Just after I'd written this I heard about the mistreatment of children in Irish RC run institutions: I wonder what their beliefs really were!!
18 May 2009
On Time
My previous post discussing the question of method, deals by implication with a related matter. That is, if there was no ‘method’, then there was no need for delay in the creation. Time is needed if there is method, but if there is no method then the supposed period required for the execution of the creation collapses. This brings us back to Augustine’s query as to why the creation took any time at all. However, it did, and in so doing shows us the orderly system of dependencies that exist in the creation.
This connects with Proverbs 3:19f telling us exactly how God did the creation:
The LORD by wisdom founded the earth;
By understanding he established the heavens;
By his knowledge the depths were broken up,
and clouds drop down the dew.
The relation between understanding and the time taken to do something is roughly that with an increase in understanding, there is a decrease in time required. For us, there are limits: some things will take a minimum amount of time, no matter how much understanding is brought to the task; some people have so little requisite understanding that there are some things they could not do, no matter how long they tried. Therefore, taking large amounts of time to do something is not a mark of the doer’s understanding of the task, but quite the reverse.
For God, the lower limit need not apply, as it is related to our finitude, so one could assume the shortest time God, with infinite understanding would take would be instantaneous.
There is certainly no requirement from God’s side to take any particular length of time at all. However, he worked with understanding, knowledge and wisdom maximally, that’s the ‘method’ if there was one, but not method as we would understand it, but the connection of his capability to its object by his will.
I also remarked some time ago that time is the 'existential removalist.' The passing of time breaks the relationships between entities (including causal relationships). It dissipates connection, memory, relevance, affection, and detail disappears; the past is blurred and the factors that played are forgotten, while conclusions are crowded by subsequent motives and interests; the past, the very deep past, becomes such a distant country that all things must be different now because we've all moved on.
The long time between creation and now is the pagan view that admits lack of knowledge, to put it in the best light, or sets out to prevent knowledge, to put it in its worst light, of our creation; because the biblical view is that the creation is the direct link between God and us, featuring immediacy (6 days! and not that long ago) and close relationship.
As an instance of the operation of 'great' time, this quote from a history documentary on India I saw on ABC2 on Sunday evening (29 March 2009):
Interposing vast periods of time between God's action and our coming into existence pushes God out of our historical-existential range; he ceases to have any realistic involvement with our lives: consistent with a deist view, facilitative of a pagan view, but alien to a Christian one.
Looking from the other direction, if God did take vast periods of time to bring about the creation, which is the both the conventional pagan view often adopted by Christian, unwittingly, perhaps, then his action (in understanding) is indistinguishable from action without understanding, but by the mute creation being the outcome of physical processes; that such processes are remote from God is indicated by their contemplation rarely resulting in repentance, but often resulting in the denial or rejection of God as loving person.
It would seem hardly likely then, that a ‘method’ (or time process) which deflected attention from God would come from the hand of God. Some may argue that this simply leaves room for faith. However, this is faith conceived as fairy tale (faith as response to denial), and not faith as response to knowledge coming from God’s account of the creation. Hebrews 11:3, again.
This connects with Proverbs 3:19f telling us exactly how God did the creation:
The LORD by wisdom founded the earth;
By understanding he established the heavens;
By his knowledge the depths were broken up,
and clouds drop down the dew.
The relation between understanding and the time taken to do something is roughly that with an increase in understanding, there is a decrease in time required. For us, there are limits: some things will take a minimum amount of time, no matter how much understanding is brought to the task; some people have so little requisite understanding that there are some things they could not do, no matter how long they tried. Therefore, taking large amounts of time to do something is not a mark of the doer’s understanding of the task, but quite the reverse.
For God, the lower limit need not apply, as it is related to our finitude, so one could assume the shortest time God, with infinite understanding would take would be instantaneous.
There is certainly no requirement from God’s side to take any particular length of time at all. However, he worked with understanding, knowledge and wisdom maximally, that’s the ‘method’ if there was one, but not method as we would understand it, but the connection of his capability to its object by his will.
I also remarked some time ago that time is the 'existential removalist.' The passing of time breaks the relationships between entities (including causal relationships). It dissipates connection, memory, relevance, affection, and detail disappears; the past is blurred and the factors that played are forgotten, while conclusions are crowded by subsequent motives and interests; the past, the very deep past, becomes such a distant country that all things must be different now because we've all moved on.
The long time between creation and now is the pagan view that admits lack of knowledge, to put it in the best light, or sets out to prevent knowledge, to put it in its worst light, of our creation; because the biblical view is that the creation is the direct link between God and us, featuring immediacy (6 days! and not that long ago) and close relationship.
As an instance of the operation of 'great' time, this quote from a history documentary on India I saw on ABC2 on Sunday evening (29 March 2009):
In the tale of life on earth the human story is brief. A few hundred generations cover humanities’ attempt to create order, beauty and happiness on the face of the earth.
The beginnings for most of us are lost in time, beyond memory. Only India has preserved the unbroken thread of the human story that binds us all. According to the oldest Indian myths the first humans came from a golden egg laid by the king of the gods in the churning of the cosmic ocean. Modern science works in a less poetic vein but no less thrilling to the imagination…
Interposing vast periods of time between God's action and our coming into existence pushes God out of our historical-existential range; he ceases to have any realistic involvement with our lives: consistent with a deist view, facilitative of a pagan view, but alien to a Christian one.
Looking from the other direction, if God did take vast periods of time to bring about the creation, which is the both the conventional pagan view often adopted by Christian, unwittingly, perhaps, then his action (in understanding) is indistinguishable from action without understanding, but by the mute creation being the outcome of physical processes; that such processes are remote from God is indicated by their contemplation rarely resulting in repentance, but often resulting in the denial or rejection of God as loving person.
It would seem hardly likely then, that a ‘method’ (or time process) which deflected attention from God would come from the hand of God. Some may argue that this simply leaves room for faith. However, this is faith conceived as fairy tale (faith as response to denial), and not faith as response to knowledge coming from God’s account of the creation. Hebrews 11:3, again.
15 May 2009
Big Questions
Another in the Sydney Morning Herald's 'Spectrum' magazine on 9 May 09: in its 'Big Questions' column (where people ask 'big questions' and various answers are published) a recent question about swearing on the Bible by atheists was asked.
The answer published was the legal answer; in brief, whether you swear on the Bible, irrespective of your belief, or make a declaration ('affirmation' in NSW) you have a legal obligation to tell the truth and can be punished if you have not.
But the question is bigger for Christians; at least, for this Christian.
I think of Matt 5:33-37 and 23:16ff when this comes up. The basic point of these passages is that you tell the truth and it doesn't need quasi magic actions to guarantee that you are telling the truth!
Putting one's hand on a Bible and swearing that you will tell the truth both treats the Bible like some sort of talisman or charm, and ignores its statements about itself; that it is communication about the relationship between God and his creation, not a way for his creatures to garner benefits in their own statements.
For this reason I don't make an oath in court; I've always taken the affirmation. I imagine that some Christians will fill with pride and solomnly make an oath on the Bible, thinking that this is somehow a witness to their faith and evidence of their godliness: quite the contrary, IMO. Non-believers using it similarly is simply ludicrous. Imagine putting your hand on a book that means nothing to you and saying that you will do what you are obliged to do!
I wonder if a cunning court clerk made a book full of blank pages and put a Bible cover on would the incidence of perjury increase?
Does this make me a fundamentalist (see previous blog)?
The answer published was the legal answer; in brief, whether you swear on the Bible, irrespective of your belief, or make a declaration ('affirmation' in NSW) you have a legal obligation to tell the truth and can be punished if you have not.
But the question is bigger for Christians; at least, for this Christian.
I think of Matt 5:33-37 and 23:16ff when this comes up. The basic point of these passages is that you tell the truth and it doesn't need quasi magic actions to guarantee that you are telling the truth!
Putting one's hand on a Bible and swearing that you will tell the truth both treats the Bible like some sort of talisman or charm, and ignores its statements about itself; that it is communication about the relationship between God and his creation, not a way for his creatures to garner benefits in their own statements.
For this reason I don't make an oath in court; I've always taken the affirmation. I imagine that some Christians will fill with pride and solomnly make an oath on the Bible, thinking that this is somehow a witness to their faith and evidence of their godliness: quite the contrary, IMO. Non-believers using it similarly is simply ludicrous. Imagine putting your hand on a book that means nothing to you and saying that you will do what you are obliged to do!
I wonder if a cunning court clerk made a book full of blank pages and put a Bible cover on would the incidence of perjury increase?
Does this make me a fundamentalist (see previous blog)?
12 May 2009
Fundamentalism #2
In a previous blog, continuing from Michael Jensen's 'Blogging Parson' I made some remarks about fundamentalism and orientating frameworks of belief.
In this very connection, a review in Spectrum (Sydney Morning Herald, 9 May 09) of ex-bishop, now 'theologian at large' Richard Holloway's book "Between the Monster and The Saint: Reflections on the Human Condition" (Spectrum's odd capitalisation aside) I think we can see where doubting basic revelation leads to a completely alternative world view. But what I suspect he didn't doubt was the materialist framing of his views; even if unconscious.
He has ended up with 'religion' as being nothing transcendental, but a mere cultural invention; that is, its belief system being an arbitrary (?) collection of mutterings that occur within a meta religious framework set by the predominant materialism of the day (in our case). So what he really really believes is that the scope of our being (our origin, destiny and relationships) is set by materialism.
Oddly, I would agree with him on 'religion' in general, but as he was an Anglican bishop, I guess he is referring to Christianity, or at least including it when he refers to religion. Now, I'd like to see his doubt exercised toward the materialism that he may be using to frame his position. Tough call. Atheists of whatever stripe seem to baulk at this depth of doubt.
If I can obtain permission I'll post a PDF of the review. If I can't I'll put up excerpts in discussion.
In this very connection, a review in Spectrum (Sydney Morning Herald, 9 May 09) of ex-bishop, now 'theologian at large' Richard Holloway's book "Between the Monster and The Saint: Reflections on the Human Condition" (Spectrum's odd capitalisation aside) I think we can see where doubting basic revelation leads to a completely alternative world view. But what I suspect he didn't doubt was the materialist framing of his views; even if unconscious.
He has ended up with 'religion' as being nothing transcendental, but a mere cultural invention; that is, its belief system being an arbitrary (?) collection of mutterings that occur within a meta religious framework set by the predominant materialism of the day (in our case). So what he really really believes is that the scope of our being (our origin, destiny and relationships) is set by materialism.
Oddly, I would agree with him on 'religion' in general, but as he was an Anglican bishop, I guess he is referring to Christianity, or at least including it when he refers to religion. Now, I'd like to see his doubt exercised toward the materialism that he may be using to frame his position. Tough call. Atheists of whatever stripe seem to baulk at this depth of doubt.
If I can obtain permission I'll post a PDF of the review. If I can't I'll put up excerpts in discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)