From a recent issue of Christians for Biblical Equality e-newsletter:
Dr. Manfred T. Brauch, former president and professor of biblical theology at Eastern Baptist (now Palmer) Theological Seminary, has recently published Abusing Scripture: the Consequences of Misreading the Bible (InterVarsity Press, 2009). In the paragraphs below, he briefly introduces us to several abusive readings of biblical texts and of Scripture as a whole—dealt with extensively in the book—which contribute to what he calls “the heresy of gender inequality.”
In my previous column (based on my recently published book, Abusing Scripture), I argued that the “abuse of words” often does violence to the meaning and message of Scripture. I illustrated this by showing that the designation of the woman as man's “helper” (Gen. 2:20) does not show her as a subordinate person, but rather as a person of strength and vitality, whose creation rescues man from his aloneness. In this column, I want to place this insight into the larger literary and theological context of Genesis 1-3. For it is the abuse of this context in Scripture that continues to undergird a patriarchal understanding of the male-female order.
In Genesis 1:26-27, human beings, in male-female polarity, are created in the image of God. In that male-female polar complementarity they are, together, given the mandate to exercise responsible sovereignty within and over the rest of the created order. These affirmations are powerful theological convictions that stand radically against the cultural religious environment within which Israel's faith traditions were being shaped. For in that environment, women were largely held to have been created from inferior material.
This general male-female nature and structure of humanity, presented in Genesis 1, is now articulated in Genesis 2 in terms of its particularity in the man-woman relationship (Gen. 2:18-23) as the grounding for the covenant relationship of marriage (Gen. 2:24-25; cf. Mk. 10:5-9). Viewed from the theological perspective of Genesis 1:26-27, the reason why the animals cannot be man's “suitable helper” is because they are not created in the “image of God.” They are not the man's equal, cannot correspond to him “face to face” (“fit for him”), and cannot be his partners in exercising stewardship over the earth.
Further, the woman's creation from the man (Gen. 2:21-22), as “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2:23), signifies that she is made from the same essence and substance, a further confirmation of the Genesis 1:26-27 affirmation of their equality—both before God (as God's co-image bearers) and in relationship with each other.
These literary and theological connections—together with the meaning of “helper” as having redemptive, rather than subordinate connotations—make it impossible to interpret the Genesis 2 narrative of man and woman in terms of either essential or functional inequality. The concept of a creationally intended male-female hierarchy (superior-inferior, leader-follower, authority figure-assistant) is the result of the abusive reading of Scripture, and, as such, is contrary to the order of creation.
This literary and theological unity of Genesis 1-2 provides the overarching theological anthropology for our hearing of the male-female relationship that is a result of the fall in Genesis 3. The “rule of the man over the woman” (Gen. 3:16) must be seen as a dramatic departure from the order of creation. The Creator's good design and intent for the man-woman relationship has become twisted and distorted. The hierarchical over-under condition of the male-female relationship is bondage to sin. It is, therefore, not prescriptive (as God's intention for the man-woman relationship) but descriptive (the nature of that relationship when marred by sin). It is God's creation design, not its distortion by sin, that must function as the normative paradigm for this relationship.
Within the larger literary and theological context of the whole of Scripture, the human condition—in its distorted, cursed existence—is the object of God's redeeming and transforming work. This work culminated in Jesus Christ, whose sacrificial servanthood liberates humanity from its bondage to sin—including the cursedness of male-female hierarchy.
31 December 2009
27 December 2009
Sermons and thought
One of the aspects of sermonising that I have found frequently distressing is that sermons are often removed from the cultural and intellectual milleu in which I move (I know, that might be just that my particular pathways are byways of interest to no one else); now, I don't expect a sermon to become a journalistic comment on the affairs of the world, but I would like it to equip me to think in a godly or spiritual way in the world in which I live. Some connects, even if contrary ones, could be interesting. There are usually none (see my earlier comments on my experience at the cathedral).
Although I do remember one minister using a current opera as his point of departure to take us into the scriptures: was good, as I was quite interested in opera at that time.
Another thing I notice is that sermonisers seem to think that their hearers (a) don't think, or are (b) obsessed by the intellectually banal. I expect sermons to have some content that will appeal intellectually, and keep me in some touch with theological trends of the day...but rarely does this occur either.
It is as though the average semoniser is keen to keep his or her hearers away from the intellectual life of the church; but that's not all: it is also, it seems, to keep our thoughts away from anything of practical value.
I reflect on a time whcn my family was facing significant challenges, and the sermons we were hearing were so 'thin' and one-dimensionsal that they were irrelevant in practical terms to equip us to deal with the struggles we were facing. They didn't need to speak directly to our specifics, but they did need to lift us to God, to give us an eternal perspective, and to help us put our thoughts towards our Lord, and away from the details of our concerns, while recognising the struggles that life brings. There was none of that!
As a family, we felt sadly let down as we heard a bunch of 'teaching' on a gospel, I think it was, that seemed stuck at the lexical level, and failed to see the looming glory of the Spirit's presence amongst us.
That was the saddest neglect of opportunity I could contemplate. It came close to driving us from church attendance.
Although I do remember one minister using a current opera as his point of departure to take us into the scriptures: was good, as I was quite interested in opera at that time.
Another thing I notice is that sermonisers seem to think that their hearers (a) don't think, or are (b) obsessed by the intellectually banal. I expect sermons to have some content that will appeal intellectually, and keep me in some touch with theological trends of the day...but rarely does this occur either.
It is as though the average semoniser is keen to keep his or her hearers away from the intellectual life of the church; but that's not all: it is also, it seems, to keep our thoughts away from anything of practical value.
I reflect on a time whcn my family was facing significant challenges, and the sermons we were hearing were so 'thin' and one-dimensionsal that they were irrelevant in practical terms to equip us to deal with the struggles we were facing. They didn't need to speak directly to our specifics, but they did need to lift us to God, to give us an eternal perspective, and to help us put our thoughts towards our Lord, and away from the details of our concerns, while recognising the struggles that life brings. There was none of that!
As a family, we felt sadly let down as we heard a bunch of 'teaching' on a gospel, I think it was, that seemed stuck at the lexical level, and failed to see the looming glory of the Spirit's presence amongst us.
That was the saddest neglect of opportunity I could contemplate. It came close to driving us from church attendance.
24 December 2009
God and ethical questions
A friend, who is rather 'web shy' suggested I post this piece he wrote in comment on an article in recent Sun Herald newspaper.
Dear Leslie,
I wish to address some issues you raised in today’s “Can you be good without God?”.
Clearly, the most significant element in your article was your admission that secular people cannot “know such justifications [as, for example, the Golden Rule] for such ethical injunctions [such as ‘stealing is wrong’] are correct”. According to you it’s an entirely adequate “solution” to this intractable problem for secular ethical theory by claiming that “[u]ltimately, even the most rigorously logical ethical theories require some things be taken on faith.” This is profoundly unacceptable given that your apologetic provides no further warrant for the atheist meta-ethic, preferring to spend valuable column inches punching holes in a straw man opponent, oddly labelled as “believers”. I say oddly because it strikes me as somewhat disingenuous that you initially make a distinction between the two ethical camps on the basis that the “religious” group is faith-based, and thus implicitly is inferior, yet, in the end, this component, faith, is entirely what your own secular defence is constructed upon.
Of course, the assessment of the “religious” ethical theories as being inadequate may be entirely justified, as you allude, in as much as theirs have yet to take Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma seriously. I am the first to admit that many of my fellow Christians stand guilty for proclaiming that something is morally wrong solely because God says it is without as much as a skerrick of supplementary argument.
Nevertheless, as I stated, your article began with what seemed to be a rugged and worthy alternative to the “faith” ethic but, in the end, failed because it borrowed the putative brute fact of its adversary’s “you just have to believe”.
Which brings me to my other point: Why have you begged the question that stealing is wrong? Surely, given that the secular position is ultimately, as you concede, one of faith and not substance, then all things are up for grabs and thus I question that you have an epistemic right to claim that stealing is wrong. Isn’t it at all conceivable in an alternative atheist world that your a priori assumption that stealing is wrong could be restated by the equally justifiable ‘not stealing is wrong’. After all, even in this world I can claim to have met many, many people who believe that stealing from [insert any number of non-me persons or groups here, like, the rich, the poor, multinationals, Woolworths, your neighbour’s husband etc.] is a good thing.
23 December 2009
Learning by sermon?
So, if a sermon is an unlikely vehicle for learning, what is to be done?
I think that Erkel's article contains some helpful tips, but to encourage learning requires giving learners a structured experience that goes from context to detail...and back and forth between those levels.
Engagement is critical but the psychological coolness of a sermon, the level of arousal it stirs, or even requires (that is, none, actually) is not conducive to learning, to either transfer of information, building knowledge or transforming belief or behaviour.
For this there is the need to expose one's assumptions, thoughts and beliefs to scrutiny: one's own and others'. This suggests that discussion, dialogue of some form, putting up argument and counter arguments are all required.
The simple idea of pre-reading, using a study guide (and one that doesn't cause bare 'comprehension' level answers to be given), then having those concepts developed challenged in discussion, followed by consolidating reading or even writing up a journal of reflections would be of assistance.
For a biblical example of this, see Acts; where Paul reasoned daily in Tyrannus' hall. This was no one-way discourse, imposed on people, but didactic discussion, where people could test their understanding and its implications with the teacher. For some reason we don't do this in most church contexts. Although, I must say, that at the York St lunch time Bible talks, Justin does invite discussion, and 'tis a great thing.
Linking reading, hearing, reflecting (conversing) and acting are all parts of learning. Just listening is so attenuated as to only allow the very keen to gain anything, IMO.
I think that Erkel's article contains some helpful tips, but to encourage learning requires giving learners a structured experience that goes from context to detail...and back and forth between those levels.
Engagement is critical but the psychological coolness of a sermon, the level of arousal it stirs, or even requires (that is, none, actually) is not conducive to learning, to either transfer of information, building knowledge or transforming belief or behaviour.
For this there is the need to expose one's assumptions, thoughts and beliefs to scrutiny: one's own and others'. This suggests that discussion, dialogue of some form, putting up argument and counter arguments are all required.
The simple idea of pre-reading, using a study guide (and one that doesn't cause bare 'comprehension' level answers to be given), then having those concepts developed challenged in discussion, followed by consolidating reading or even writing up a journal of reflections would be of assistance.
For a biblical example of this, see Acts; where Paul reasoned daily in Tyrannus' hall. This was no one-way discourse, imposed on people, but didactic discussion, where people could test their understanding and its implications with the teacher. For some reason we don't do this in most church contexts. Although, I must say, that at the York St lunch time Bible talks, Justin does invite discussion, and 'tis a great thing.
Linking reading, hearing, reflecting (conversing) and acting are all parts of learning. Just listening is so attenuated as to only allow the very keen to gain anything, IMO.
21 December 2009
A visit to the Cathedral
Family and I went to St Andrew's Cathedral for a pre-Christmas service (20 December 2009), at the invitation of a friend.
For some reason, I had thought that the choir (one of the choirs?) would be singing, and so was looking forward to a feast of traditional Christmas choral festivities. Alas, that is to be on Christmas eve, so I experienced instead something called 'city church' which was not really church as I thought I knew it!
A few things stood out; some about the premises, some about the service, others about the sermon, and then there's the 'atmosphere'.
Sermon
I have heard Phillip Jensen give sermons in the past, and this one was consistent with my memories of his work.
However, I thought that I’d remembered his sermons to have more ‘content per unit time’ than I think this one did. That is, he took too long to address what he did; could have been shorter, or on the other hand, the sermon was relatively content free. It was about the prodigal son…about repentance…and drifted to a few other topics.
My distinct feeling though, was that the sermon was disconnected (ironic being as it is the year of being connected…“Connect 09” being the diocesan slogan for the year); it did attempt to touch on things that made reference to my life experience, but this was slender; over all it was a ‘theoretical’ sermon that didn’t touch anything that I could make sense of: of course, I could understand it as a work of English speaking; but it failed beyond that for me, a believer, and moreover an evangelical one! I wonder how it would have been received by a non-believer.
I certainly agree as to the importance of repentance as the motion of the will that opens us to God, but without showing any recognition of people’s life struggles, concerns or interests, it was more than cold, remote and uninviting. This nature was reinforced by Phillip referring to his “work with alcoholics”. I hope I’m not quibbling over words, but labelling people as such, instead of talking about “people who struggle with alcohol addiction” or “people who struggle with substance abuse”, for example, suggests a basic disinclination to meet and know people, as people with feelings, hopes and struggles. Instead it seems to regard people as occupants of a category, and let’s deal with the category, not the people. The references to ‘repentance’ were of this ilk, I thought.
By comparison, read how Jesus encountered people: it was in the midst of their lives, in relationship with them, and getting involved with their concerns and interests. He did not apply a de-personalised rhetoric, but engaged them to show them their relationship to the kingdom of God.
One good thing in the sermon was that Phillip talked about God as creator and that he created by speaking the creation into existence (see how far and wide the sermon ranged!).
With this I certainly agree, and I read it as consistent with the Bible in Genesis 1, etc.
God’s speaking the creation into being demonstrates his ‘god-ness’ in that he relies upon no secondary causes, or functional intermediaries (which must then be ‘givens’ and independently existent, as he doesn’t mention creating them) to bring about his will. Nothing stands between God and his creation, except, of course, Christ! His word also has immediate effect: in opposition to those who think that the Genesis 1 account is a kind of topical representation of naturalistic/evolutionary development, the account rather represents the creation as entirely responsive to God’s will and that will is totally effective. I can’t think how un-godlike it would be for God to speak, and a few billion years later, lo and behold, there it is! Nor is this consistent with Genesis 1 and the intimacy it shows between God and his creation, including us; time is the great killer of intimacy and given that we live in a Biblical framework, time interposed between God and us would kill that theological intimacy, as well, I would suggest; the consequence being that to so add to the Scripture undoes it and mis-represents both the creator and his relationship to his creation in a fundamental manner as to reject the capacity of words to convey reliable meaning.
Of course speaking and its effect must have time and space coordinates, as our time-space experience is indicated by the scriptures as being continuous with it: the genealogical links make this plain as does the setting of Genesis 1: this is not off in another ‘world-experience’ accessible only by mystic rejection of the real world, but in this world: locatable (at least in principle), dateable and existentially accessible to us: that is, the result of determined will, not caprice, chance or ‘fate’.
The Service
My general impression of the service was that it was 'mechanical'. This was also my recollection of services at a previous church that Phillip had served at. The Bible reading, the prayer, the break for tea or coffee mid-way through the service (who would get thirsty in 20 minutes? don't people have kettles at home?)...all struck me as mechanical, perfunctory, uninvolved. Most delivered in a flat manner. The music was the only difference: the musicians seemed to be into it, and one of them sang her own song, which was quite lovely.
The welcome to the service was like that to an RSL club, joyless and impersonal. There was no farewell to speak of, when it would have been good for someone to shake one's hand and wish one the best for the evening, if not Christmas.
I have no urge to return.
The welcome to the service was like that to an RSL club, joyless and impersonal. There was no farewell to speak of, when it would have been good for someone to shake one's hand and wish one the best for the evening, if not Christmas.
I have no urge to return.
The Building
My view had been that buildings were a convenience for the work of the gospel; but my experience here changed that.
The interior was disheveled, and looked un-cared-about. Reflecting on this, I thought that it demonstrated an attitude to people (because it is people who sit in, listen in, and see the inside of the building) that bordered on the contemptuous: "listen to what we say, agree with us, but we don't give a fig for your experience of sitting here, seeing the mess of disarranged choir stalls".
I think that a building whose interior invited the eye, indicated care for the experience of the people within it, would show the attitude 'we want you to be here, enjoy, feel comfortable and respected, so we might earn the right to be heard'. But none of that.
19 December 2009
Poll on Beliefs
In today's Sydney Morning Herald, there is a report on a survey of 'belief' in Australia: Our faith today.
The survey was interesting on a number of points. See below on 'evolution', for example.
However, as relevant as this is to the blog, I was more interested in the way the questions blended a its questions from a naturalist point of view, without being able to examine that point of view itself, which is, of course, a belief.
Typical of naturalism, beliefs, some of which are antithetical to Christian theisim, were lumped in there: belief in psychic powers, in astrology; a survey I recall reading of in Southern Cross years ago reported that lack of belief in God went hand in hand with beliefs in such aberant ideas, and not the other way! It historically has been a robust Christian thesim that has over historical time eliminated these remnants of paganism and replaced it with rational realism.
My only comment on the quote is to point out the common misunderstanding that Darwin's theory was of 'natural selection'. Not quite. His theory was that the easily observed phenomenon of natural selection, that was identified by the Christian, as we would say today 'creationist' biologist Edward Blyth, prior to Darwin was the driving force behind all known life deriving from a single original form of life, which somehow sprang into being. I don't think anyone minds 'natural selection' or even speciation, what is at issue is that all kinds of life derived from a basic kind. Noel Weeks also has an interesting article on this.
The survey was interesting on a number of points. See below on 'evolution', for example.
However, as relevant as this is to the blog, I was more interested in the way the questions blended a its questions from a naturalist point of view, without being able to examine that point of view itself, which is, of course, a belief.
Typical of naturalism, beliefs, some of which are antithetical to Christian theisim, were lumped in there: belief in psychic powers, in astrology; a survey I recall reading of in Southern Cross years ago reported that lack of belief in God went hand in hand with beliefs in such aberant ideas, and not the other way! It historically has been a robust Christian thesim that has over historical time eliminated these remnants of paganism and replaced it with rational realism.
EVOLUTION:
42 per cent
Creation is a slippery topic. Even scientifically committed Christians feel honour-bound sometimes to grant God a role in the origins of life. That was not Darwin's view. The Nielsen poll untangled this confusion by asking respondents to choose between Darwin, Genesis and Design – the notion that humans developed over millions of years in a process guided by God.
Most Australians believe God played a part in the process. That He created all life at a stroke about 10,000 years ago is believed by 23 per cent of us. That He guided a long process over time is believed by another 32 per cent. The beliefs of Australian Christians are even more dramatic, with 38 per cent supporting Genesis and another 47 per cent favouring the God of Design.
In the year in which the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth was celebrated around the world, only 12 per cent of Australian Christians believe his theory of natural selection. For all the talk of Darwin's preeminence in modern science, attitudes to evolution remain the litmus test of belief and disbelief in Australia. Christians offer the most meager support, while 89 per cent of those who deny God's existence back Darwin.
The figures for the US are more dramatic. Nielsen modelled its questions on a Gallup poll taken in America last year which revealed levels of hostility to Darwin in the general population that mimic the attitudes of committed Christians in Australia. Only 14 per cent of the US population preferred Darwin to God.
My only comment on the quote is to point out the common misunderstanding that Darwin's theory was of 'natural selection'. Not quite. His theory was that the easily observed phenomenon of natural selection, that was identified by the Christian, as we would say today 'creationist' biologist Edward Blyth, prior to Darwin was the driving force behind all known life deriving from a single original form of life, which somehow sprang into being. I don't think anyone minds 'natural selection' or even speciation, what is at issue is that all kinds of life derived from a basic kind. Noel Weeks also has an interesting article on this.
15 December 2009
Sermons and not learning
The great failure of the sermon as a vehicle for learning is that as a medium it is not conducive to the changes required for learning. On one level if learning is about skill or knowledge development, then there are approaches that have nothing to do with sermons. I refer to the work of Sweller at UNSW, as an example, and here.
If we want to use the sermon to transform people's attitudes, then it may or may not work. To bed down change, I think we need to reflect on the work of Stephen Brookfield, for instance.
But, what about for people new to Christian faith? Do sermons help them? Well, no. A more structured induction to the life of faith is needed. The early church approached this through a structured path into participation in the church, marked by such tools as the didache, or later, Augustine's enchiridion.
These days we do it differently. If one is lucky (blessed?) one will be able to spend time with a more experienced Christian reading the Bible together and praying and chatting, but this is usually short lived and fails to help a new Christian to the transformation of life and thought that flows out of conversion (and also this on thinking and this too on thoughts). Something better is needed, in my view to help the adult reorient her thought life, her assumptions about relationships and serving others, and taking up one's cross daily.
This thread started here.
If we want to use the sermon to transform people's attitudes, then it may or may not work. To bed down change, I think we need to reflect on the work of Stephen Brookfield, for instance.
But, what about for people new to Christian faith? Do sermons help them? Well, no. A more structured induction to the life of faith is needed. The early church approached this through a structured path into participation in the church, marked by such tools as the didache, or later, Augustine's enchiridion.
These days we do it differently. If one is lucky (blessed?) one will be able to spend time with a more experienced Christian reading the Bible together and praying and chatting, but this is usually short lived and fails to help a new Christian to the transformation of life and thought that flows out of conversion (and also this on thinking and this too on thoughts). Something better is needed, in my view to help the adult reorient her thought life, her assumptions about relationships and serving others, and taking up one's cross daily.
This thread started here.
12 December 2009
Sermons and teaching
Often Christians of an evangelical bent look for "good teaching" in the sermons they hear. Do I also look for this?
In one way, yes. But I don't want a lecture, or a training discourse. Rather I want the speaker to engage with the Bible, or a theme, with reference to the Bible that is consistent with the orthodox reading of the Bible, or even challenge it, if this reading itself can be challenged from the Bible, to promote a few things:
a godly life; to bear the fruit of the Spirit, be cncouraged to live to the beat of a different drummer; also to think differently about self and relationships, about action and plans; to think Christly about such things.
Then, as one whe strives in this way, to be encouraged, and 'lifted up'; to see heaven, if in a small way.
Of course, this should be, has to be embedded in a Biblical sermonising, and sometimes, and even often, through expository sermons, so that I am helped to think about what the Bible says in relation to living as a Christian. So with this line of prophetic speaking I expect to learn, but learning as changed experience, in some degree, learning for the new life I seek to live; not learning as an abstract reference to the Bible, but learning as an existential encounter with Christ in the pages of his word, learning that will change me.
The trouble is, a sermon can't do this. I think it can encourage and show some parts of the way, but in a small way. Thus, it is one component of the Christian experience, but we must harness it with others: prayer chiefly, prayerful conversation with each other, reflection on service to those around us.
This thread started here.
In one way, yes. But I don't want a lecture, or a training discourse. Rather I want the speaker to engage with the Bible, or a theme, with reference to the Bible that is consistent with the orthodox reading of the Bible, or even challenge it, if this reading itself can be challenged from the Bible, to promote a few things:
a godly life; to bear the fruit of the Spirit, be cncouraged to live to the beat of a different drummer; also to think differently about self and relationships, about action and plans; to think Christly about such things.
Then, as one whe strives in this way, to be encouraged, and 'lifted up'; to see heaven, if in a small way.
Of course, this should be, has to be embedded in a Biblical sermonising, and sometimes, and even often, through expository sermons, so that I am helped to think about what the Bible says in relation to living as a Christian. So with this line of prophetic speaking I expect to learn, but learning as changed experience, in some degree, learning for the new life I seek to live; not learning as an abstract reference to the Bible, but learning as an existential encounter with Christ in the pages of his word, learning that will change me.
The trouble is, a sermon can't do this. I think it can encourage and show some parts of the way, but in a small way. Thus, it is one component of the Christian experience, but we must harness it with others: prayer chiefly, prayerful conversation with each other, reflection on service to those around us.
This thread started here.
9 December 2009
Teaching "creationism"
The topic of religious eductation in public schools is one of some interest it seems. I noticed this blog on the topic of RE in the Sydney Morning Herald.
In part I quote:
I'm glad that the husband picked up the point of it, though. What caught me was that he considered a piece of standard Christian belief to be 'creationism' which is reserved in church circles, as far as I know, for people who believe that Genesis 1 provides a direct account of the sequence of events of creation. (Of course, most people do not consider "creationism" to have anything to do with the origin of the soul...its older usage).
A well informed 6 year old could of course have asked what his father knew, and I mean really KNEW about the origin of life. The only answer could be 'diddly squat'; because that's all anyone knows. The same answer stands for what is REALLY known about evolution.
He could also have challenged the metaphysical basis of the question; which would leave most fathers gasping, they, being average blokes, with poor grasp of the philosophical field of basic questions: see Alvin Plantinga for help on that one.
Alternatively, our perceptive child could have observed that no one lives as though the personal is an epiphenomenon of matter; we all live as though the personal, or the capacity to 'will' has basic significance (basic as in philosophically basic): and yet how odd this would be if it is mere accident.
Still, we can comfort ourselves with faint amusement that an intellectual tradition which is deeply structured by Christian faith, with a frame of reference for enquiry that has its roots in the medieval church with its reorientation to modernism by Martin Luther is the one in which questions of its roots can be asked.
In part I quote:
The lack of attention to the most influential component of CRE, the “Christian” part, has put us in a spot of bother. It started when the child came home and proudly announced that God made everything. He showed his atheist father a workbook with the following activity.Interesting views of the matter!
Fill in the blanks:
G_D created the sun
G_D created the sky
G_D created the earth
Meh. I thought it was pretty harmless. Perhaps even mildly amusing. God is up there with Santa for me. It’s nice to believe if that’s what floats your boat. If your faith brings you joy, and helps you lead a better life, go for it. If you are Christian and find it offensive that I have put God on the same level as Santa, I apologise.
...
My husband was not so nonchalant.
He flipped his lid and started ranting about brainwashing and how if this is the best Christianity can come up with to teach their religion, then it’s not saying much for the religion. Sharing basic values of the Christian philosophy was ok, but teaching six year olds creationism was where he drew the line. He challenged my six year old, asking for proof of God’s existence, even recommending some questions he could ask his CRE teacher next week.
I'm glad that the husband picked up the point of it, though. What caught me was that he considered a piece of standard Christian belief to be 'creationism' which is reserved in church circles, as far as I know, for people who believe that Genesis 1 provides a direct account of the sequence of events of creation. (Of course, most people do not consider "creationism" to have anything to do with the origin of the soul...its older usage).
A well informed 6 year old could of course have asked what his father knew, and I mean really KNEW about the origin of life. The only answer could be 'diddly squat'; because that's all anyone knows. The same answer stands for what is REALLY known about evolution.
He could also have challenged the metaphysical basis of the question; which would leave most fathers gasping, they, being average blokes, with poor grasp of the philosophical field of basic questions: see Alvin Plantinga for help on that one.
Alternatively, our perceptive child could have observed that no one lives as though the personal is an epiphenomenon of matter; we all live as though the personal, or the capacity to 'will' has basic significance (basic as in philosophically basic): and yet how odd this would be if it is mere accident.
Still, we can comfort ourselves with faint amusement that an intellectual tradition which is deeply structured by Christian faith, with a frame of reference for enquiry that has its roots in the medieval church with its reorientation to modernism by Martin Luther is the one in which questions of its roots can be asked.
8 December 2009
From NT to OT
I often attend a lunch time communion service; tis a wonderful thing. As part of the service we are blessed with a brief sermon, usually from an older, and in some cases, retired servant of the church. The blessing is not in their brevity, I might add, but in their content.
The other day, the president made a number of remarks that touched on the interests of this blog.
He told us that OT history was the basis of all that comes in the NT: the miracles in the latter being associated with faith in the creator; which creation, of course is set out in the OT, as part of its history!
He went on to say that God is established as the cause of creation in Genesis, and this is one of the parts of history that underlies faith. Our faith is not the airy faith of the one who rejects that God existentially intersects with our historical flow, but on the contrary the concrete faith of one who relies on God to do and be as he not only says, but showed that it was God that said it, in Christ, emmanuel.
Some further remarks were added as to the fact that science could not 'prove' that God created, but nor could it prove the opposite. I feared here that we were leaping out of the conrete biblical ontology into the idealism that lets us say that two contradictory things can be true at the same time in the same relations! I hope not. I hope he was just saying that it is not a matter of observation or deduction from the physical creation (but not denying there is some validity in that) but that it was a matter of that faith that is founded in the acts of God in history.
The other day, the president made a number of remarks that touched on the interests of this blog.
He told us that OT history was the basis of all that comes in the NT: the miracles in the latter being associated with faith in the creator; which creation, of course is set out in the OT, as part of its history!
He went on to say that God is established as the cause of creation in Genesis, and this is one of the parts of history that underlies faith. Our faith is not the airy faith of the one who rejects that God existentially intersects with our historical flow, but on the contrary the concrete faith of one who relies on God to do and be as he not only says, but showed that it was God that said it, in Christ, emmanuel.
Some further remarks were added as to the fact that science could not 'prove' that God created, but nor could it prove the opposite. I feared here that we were leaping out of the conrete biblical ontology into the idealism that lets us say that two contradictory things can be true at the same time in the same relations! I hope not. I hope he was just saying that it is not a matter of observation or deduction from the physical creation (but not denying there is some validity in that) but that it was a matter of that faith that is founded in the acts of God in history.
5 December 2009
A sermon hearer's hopes
Over at Justin's blog, he some time ago did a series on 7 things he's learned about preaching in 7 years. Nice blog idea!
As a sermon listener, I thought it would be a suitable exercise for late on Friday evening to set down some thoughts about 35 years of sermon listening (well, more actually, but let's not go into that!).
I liked Justin's seven, but I don't think I could distil my thoughts to seven points. Still, I'll try.
One thing I hope to bring to my observations is many years experience of public speaking, training, leading seminars, technical teaching (for a few years) and formal studies in adult education and training facilitation; maybe that'll provide a different perspective. At least I hope it may be of some benefit to...well, someone!
Firstly, I wonder, and have always wondered, what a sermon is to achieve. Is it meant to teach, transform attitudes, change behaviour, comfort, encourage, rebuke, build community, entertain, impress?
Some might say all of those things (except the final two!), but in practical terms, based on what I hear people discuss after sermons, it is the final two that count; at least subconsciously!
If the sermon is meant to do anything other than comfort or encourge, then it is misplaced. It is not the right vehicle to teach, transform, change behaviour...just the wrong medium entirely.
We have the tension also of the use of the idea 'preach'. Does one 'preach' a sermon, or is preaching in the NT restricted to proclamatory discourse, with discourse intending to transfer information, build knowledge or change lives being 'teaching' or 'prophesy'; and neither need to, or maybe can occur in the liturgical setting that is the sermon.
This leads me to think that the sermon is a liturgical gesture, almost part of a rite, rather than anything that is truly educational. A web search on 'sermon' lead me to an interesting critique of sermonising that is worth a look, I think.
But, also what Paul has to say about discourse in the church: that is, amongst the company of believers, also bears consideration.
In I Corinthians 14:1-5, he sketches the range of this discourse, and its function. It is multifarious, but I like the words he chooses: "But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation... one who prophesies edifies the church.
It would seem that these are significant components of discourse within the community of believers, yet sermons are emphasised as 'teaching' sessions, particularly in the evangelical tradition. But, as one who has been an educator, I might suggest that they are not such that learning is likely to occur; particularly if transformative learning is expected.
As a sermon listener, I thought it would be a suitable exercise for late on Friday evening to set down some thoughts about 35 years of sermon listening (well, more actually, but let's not go into that!).
I liked Justin's seven, but I don't think I could distil my thoughts to seven points. Still, I'll try.
One thing I hope to bring to my observations is many years experience of public speaking, training, leading seminars, technical teaching (for a few years) and formal studies in adult education and training facilitation; maybe that'll provide a different perspective. At least I hope it may be of some benefit to...well, someone!
Firstly, I wonder, and have always wondered, what a sermon is to achieve. Is it meant to teach, transform attitudes, change behaviour, comfort, encourage, rebuke, build community, entertain, impress?
Some might say all of those things (except the final two!), but in practical terms, based on what I hear people discuss after sermons, it is the final two that count; at least subconsciously!
If the sermon is meant to do anything other than comfort or encourge, then it is misplaced. It is not the right vehicle to teach, transform, change behaviour...just the wrong medium entirely.
We have the tension also of the use of the idea 'preach'. Does one 'preach' a sermon, or is preaching in the NT restricted to proclamatory discourse, with discourse intending to transfer information, build knowledge or change lives being 'teaching' or 'prophesy'; and neither need to, or maybe can occur in the liturgical setting that is the sermon.
This leads me to think that the sermon is a liturgical gesture, almost part of a rite, rather than anything that is truly educational. A web search on 'sermon' lead me to an interesting critique of sermonising that is worth a look, I think.
But, also what Paul has to say about discourse in the church: that is, amongst the company of believers, also bears consideration.
In I Corinthians 14:1-5, he sketches the range of this discourse, and its function. It is multifarious, but I like the words he chooses: "But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation... one who prophesies edifies the church.
It would seem that these are significant components of discourse within the community of believers, yet sermons are emphasised as 'teaching' sessions, particularly in the evangelical tradition. But, as one who has been an educator, I might suggest that they are not such that learning is likely to occur; particularly if transformative learning is expected.
3 December 2009
Rooted!
Our Bible talk today was in pleasantly different surroundings: in the cross aisle of the old church building. Justin pointed out with some amusement how we get excited over such young buildings here in Australia, when he'd just returned from London where St Helen's Bishopsgate had been there since the 14th C.
In talking about the gospel, Justin remarked that “the gospel is rooted in creation”, because here our connection with God is shown; in creation it is also shown that the only ‘given’ is God. This is not stated in the Bible as in any way allusive, mysterious or open to reinterpretation, the text is defiantly objective with respect to the parameters of our existence: time, space and event and it is these parameters used to delineate the creation acts.
To think that Genesis 1 does not show the real and actual connection of God with us, means that there is some other basis for the connection, but one that must no longer be direct or tangible, one that does not come from the text, but from somewhere else; thus, the realism that is inherent in the Genesis 1 description instantly dissipates, allowing all sorts of alternatives to gain ground as the creation and our connection with God ceases to be delineated in terms that are congruent with the world as we know it...so, some other terms, but ones which we cannot secure in our life-experience, world picture, or conceptual world-frame.
But, the underlying danger is that these inevitably speculative alternatives no longer must have God as the only given; they make other things potentially givens, and our generative allegiance wavers across a field of possibilities, rather than being anchored in God: is time also a given? What about ‘chance’ or ‘matter’, or ‘energy’ or the cosmos, or some principle of self directed change, or a ‘life-spirit’ that God merely co-opts and which must then exist independently of him?
It’s all up for grabs…because God is no longer the hub around which the creation across time and space revolves, and does Jesus then uphold it all?
30 November 2009
Theological Scrap Heap
I was reading a text on the topic of creation recently; its treatment hinged on the largely fatuous, to my view, 'framework hypothesis' which really fails to tell us anything about the content or import of Genesis and defers instead to its putative arrangement...to what end is never clear, but that it removes from theologians the need to deal with the direct grammatical meaning of the text. Hiving off into constructs defeats the text, it doesn't elucidate it, or connect it to us, which is all the Bible is about: connecting God to us (through Christ, of course). Thus, everything, including the creation account is about this, and nothing else; although it touches other things incidently.
So where do the texts end that are not properly encountered by theology...in the theological scrap heap, of course: I think of the genesian chrono-genealogies, for example, but also the Lukan genealogy (which is slightly different), the creation account in its fulness, including its presentation in a sequence of 6 active days and a day of rest. To say, for instance, that the days' sequence is simply to permit the framework hypothesis is the result of a faulty engagement with the text, in my view. See here for discussion of the framework hyp.
So where do the texts end that are not properly encountered by theology...in the theological scrap heap, of course: I think of the genesian chrono-genealogies, for example, but also the Lukan genealogy (which is slightly different), the creation account in its fulness, including its presentation in a sequence of 6 active days and a day of rest. To say, for instance, that the days' sequence is simply to permit the framework hypothesis is the result of a faulty engagement with the text, in my view. See here for discussion of the framework hyp.
23 November 2009
Which world story?
At church on 22 Nov 09, the sermon mentioned people who declined in their Christian profession. I mentioned one such friend to the speaker afterwards. He asked the reason.
Now, this hadn't occured to me before, but the fellow who had this experience only talked about it in terms of one thing: he didn't use this phrase, but it was about competing world stories, or world narratives. He was persuaded by the evolutionary world story and clearly stated that on this basis he rejected the biblical world story.
Now, this hadn't occured to me before, but the fellow who had this experience only talked about it in terms of one thing: he didn't use this phrase, but it was about competing world stories, or world narratives. He was persuaded by the evolutionary world story and clearly stated that on this basis he rejected the biblical world story.
21 November 2009
1 World Story, or 2?
At St. Philip's last Thursday (19 Nov 09) I unfortunately missed the talk. Here's the promo:
" It's the great assumed story of our culture - the fabulous advances of science have left God in retreat, occupying a smaller and smaller space, until eventually (if the 'New Atheists' have their way), he will disappear altogether. But is the story right? Are science and God competitors? This Forum offers an opportunity to step back and consider an alternative. "
(I note the word "challenge", perhaps I wanted to join discussion, or be interested, or even entertained, or maybe I wanted to give a challenge...see my previous post on this.)
One reason I'd have liked to attend was that Mr Katay was known while ministering to students at Sydney University, to espouse a mediating line that allowed the blend of, well, not science, but materialist dogma and Christian faith; I don't know that it worked then, but I would have been keen to hear what he said this time.
There's plenty on this topic, of course, a few items new (James Hannam's God's Philosophers, for example) , and some old (The Origin of Science, which includes links to Stanley Jaki's work), and of course, Peter Harrison's great work on the genesis of modern science in orthodox Christian belief (notable a short duration and recent creation!).
The preliminary position I would take is that the notion of a conflict between 'science' and Christian faith is at root mistaken, Science has arisen out of a world story that rests in the Bible. Where conflict arises is when science equivocates into materialism or naturalism, and the conflict then is a natural outcome of world views.
This type of science promotes a world story that eliminates the creator and has the creation making itself: entirely as a result of forces acting within the cosmos. The world story of Christian faith is to the contrary.
Much theology is, in my view, insufficiently critical of the materialist world story, and insufficiently reflective of the biblical world story and its ramifications for our way of thinking, or approach to the world around us and finally for christology and then soteriology. Previous posts will give sufficient for me to not repeat myself here.
A postscript 7 Dec 09
But why, is there no conflict between science and Christian faith? This is the question I didn't address. Materialism would have it that it disinterestedly looks at the world and draws its conclusions simply from what it sees, unadorned by 'theory' or metaphysics.
Wrong. Materialism has no more direct contact with the world than any other endeavour. It is as embedded in a metaphysic as any religion is; that is, it proceed on the basis of a set of axioms, a view of the world that it takes as truly basic which is beyond its assessment.
Oddly, I think that materialism trades on the investment of Christian faith. The Bible has introduced a metaphysic which, while it has been centuries in development, has taken us far further than Greek empiricism ever did, or could; Aristotle notwithstanding. There is a certain reliance that must be made on the nature and state of the world before its examination can proceed reliably. If you truly think the world is subject to randomness, then science will likely drift into mysticism. If you truly think that the world proceeded from the hand of God in an orderly and realist manner...modern science; as Harrison has shown (and Jaki too, for that matter).
Science is the examination of the world on the principle that the world is genuinely and reliably examinable, and that we can draw robust and valid conclusions; however, for all its complexity, it is at the philosophical level of mechanics: it tells what is (exageration for effect, sorry!).
The first scientific gesture, I like to think, is Adam naming the animals in the book of Genesis: he more than named, on my understanding of the Hebrew cultural implication of that act, he identified them; that is he assigned a level of understanding to them to govern relationships between him and them.
We'll be hearing today from Andrew Katay, another of Justin's good friends, and Senior Minister at Christ Church Inner West Anglican Community.
Here's a taste of what Andrew will be challenging us with today:
Here's a taste of what Andrew will be challenging us with today:
(I note the word "challenge", perhaps I wanted to join discussion, or be interested, or even entertained, or maybe I wanted to give a challenge...see my previous post on this.)
One reason I'd have liked to attend was that Mr Katay was known while ministering to students at Sydney University, to espouse a mediating line that allowed the blend of, well, not science, but materialist dogma and Christian faith; I don't know that it worked then, but I would have been keen to hear what he said this time.
There's plenty on this topic, of course, a few items new (James Hannam's God's Philosophers, for example) , and some old (The Origin of Science, which includes links to Stanley Jaki's work), and of course, Peter Harrison's great work on the genesis of modern science in orthodox Christian belief (notable a short duration and recent creation!).
The preliminary position I would take is that the notion of a conflict between 'science' and Christian faith is at root mistaken, Science has arisen out of a world story that rests in the Bible. Where conflict arises is when science equivocates into materialism or naturalism, and the conflict then is a natural outcome of world views.
This type of science promotes a world story that eliminates the creator and has the creation making itself: entirely as a result of forces acting within the cosmos. The world story of Christian faith is to the contrary.
Much theology is, in my view, insufficiently critical of the materialist world story, and insufficiently reflective of the biblical world story and its ramifications for our way of thinking, or approach to the world around us and finally for christology and then soteriology. Previous posts will give sufficient for me to not repeat myself here.
A postscript 7 Dec 09
But why, is there no conflict between science and Christian faith? This is the question I didn't address. Materialism would have it that it disinterestedly looks at the world and draws its conclusions simply from what it sees, unadorned by 'theory' or metaphysics.
Wrong. Materialism has no more direct contact with the world than any other endeavour. It is as embedded in a metaphysic as any religion is; that is, it proceed on the basis of a set of axioms, a view of the world that it takes as truly basic which is beyond its assessment.
Oddly, I think that materialism trades on the investment of Christian faith. The Bible has introduced a metaphysic which, while it has been centuries in development, has taken us far further than Greek empiricism ever did, or could; Aristotle notwithstanding. There is a certain reliance that must be made on the nature and state of the world before its examination can proceed reliably. If you truly think the world is subject to randomness, then science will likely drift into mysticism. If you truly think that the world proceeded from the hand of God in an orderly and realist manner...modern science; as Harrison has shown (and Jaki too, for that matter).
Science is the examination of the world on the principle that the world is genuinely and reliably examinable, and that we can draw robust and valid conclusions; however, for all its complexity, it is at the philosophical level of mechanics: it tells what is (exageration for effect, sorry!).
The first scientific gesture, I like to think, is Adam naming the animals in the book of Genesis: he more than named, on my understanding of the Hebrew cultural implication of that act, he identified them; that is he assigned a level of understanding to them to govern relationships between him and them.
17 November 2009
Father of lights
At church last Sunday (15 Nov 09) morning the sermon considered part of James 1.
I was particularly taken by James' phrase referring to God in verse 17: "father of lights".
Clearly harking back to Genesis 1, where God is shown as the creator of the lights of the sky. But the word 'father' suggests to me a directness in creation that notions of intermediate steps, or machinery between God's creation and its result do not permit.
Also Jesus telling us to address God as 'our father' in the Lord's Prayer makes similar suggestions; not only of directness, which is congruent with Genesis 2:7, but of a fatherly love and kindness which does not line up with the notion of God creating us by an interposing machinery...considering fatherlyness, this becomes quite a repugnant idea, given the Genesis data. It would also make it difficult to make sense of the useage 'father'; if father, then how so, if the linkage between us as creatures and God as creator was not amenable to any evidence of his direct involvement in our origin (thus if the evidence points to our existence independent of God's creation it is hard to see how 'creation' would square with the real world). Suggestions of an indirect involvement have no biblical substance, but are typically derived from a utilitarian alignment of the biblical creation with materialist dogma: atheistic at worst, deist at best.
I was particularly taken by James' phrase referring to God in verse 17: "father of lights".
Clearly harking back to Genesis 1, where God is shown as the creator of the lights of the sky. But the word 'father' suggests to me a directness in creation that notions of intermediate steps, or machinery between God's creation and its result do not permit.
Also Jesus telling us to address God as 'our father' in the Lord's Prayer makes similar suggestions; not only of directness, which is congruent with Genesis 2:7, but of a fatherly love and kindness which does not line up with the notion of God creating us by an interposing machinery...considering fatherlyness, this becomes quite a repugnant idea, given the Genesis data. It would also make it difficult to make sense of the useage 'father'; if father, then how so, if the linkage between us as creatures and God as creator was not amenable to any evidence of his direct involvement in our origin (thus if the evidence points to our existence independent of God's creation it is hard to see how 'creation' would square with the real world). Suggestions of an indirect involvement have no biblical substance, but are typically derived from a utilitarian alignment of the biblical creation with materialist dogma: atheistic at worst, deist at best.
15 November 2009
Not Christians, just Jesus!
This sign is being shown around on churches in Australia at the moment.
It suggests a number of things to me: the group of people called Christians has nothing to do with Jesus; if Christians are so unpleasant, as a result of their contact with Jesus, why would anyone want to risk following him?
It also suggests that the Christianity is ineffective in changing lives! How extraordinary; follow a person won't be able to deliver his mission to his followers!
The sign is a sad attempt to de-collectivise the Christian faith; its says that the outworking of Christian faith...the bride of Christ, is not worth being part of. Not good!
12 November 2009
Abu Ghraib at St Philip's
Today at St Philip's Bible talk, Michael Jensen, a lecturer at Moore College was the guest teacher.
His talk was on torture, and while I was unfortunately not able to stay until he had finished (he ran a little over time and I had to leave for another appointment), I did hear the meat of his talk, I think.
It was surprising that his opposition to torture derived from Christ as being the one who died for us, bodily. At one level his anthropology (theological) was right: we are embodied creatures, and the incarnation, Christ, does set a high significance on people; but the point of my surprise was that he didn't take us back to the creation account in Genesis where we learn that the physical body is important: made by the hand of God (formed from dust, directly, not indirectly or by an intermediary in deist fashion and given life by God Gen 2:7), made in his image (Gen 1:27).
In fact, on the point of 'intermediary' I think one of the thoughts to be brought to bear on the connection between God the father and us as his creation is that Christ is our mediator: can we extend the concept of mediator beyond salvation? I think that John 1:3 permits such an extension.
So, to interpose between the father and his creation anything but Christ is to reduce Christ; thus the loose set of linkages that disconnect the father and his creation, operating through such ideas as theistic-evolution, or long-gap creation (which is finally reduced to theistic-evolution at root) serve to add to the work of Christ in a crazy haphazard manner that in fact removes the connection: God moves further and further from us, and the direct linkages that the Holy Spirit is at pains to refer to at many points in the Bible. I think of the Lukan genealogy, for one; but would also refer to Hebrews 11:3, for instance. I would not be surprised if there are more passages that would serve this line of thinking.
It seems to me that Christ's incarnation is in the stream of God's having made us as embodied and spiritually enlivened: Christ, our creator then takes this on...that would be the reason for treating the person, embodied, as inviolate; to preserve and honour the dignity of god-imageness; this is the source of the significance that Michael saw, IMO.
That he appeared to avoid this pivotal point in our understanding of who we are before God, and the Bible's enunciation of it I think de-powered his talk and left us with a Christ, an incarnation, not grounded in the creation as the setting of and basic context of God entering his creation as a creature (in real terms, and not symbolic ones) but one with but symbolic power at best: that is, with less power than it actually has.
His talk was on torture, and while I was unfortunately not able to stay until he had finished (he ran a little over time and I had to leave for another appointment), I did hear the meat of his talk, I think.
It was surprising that his opposition to torture derived from Christ as being the one who died for us, bodily. At one level his anthropology (theological) was right: we are embodied creatures, and the incarnation, Christ, does set a high significance on people; but the point of my surprise was that he didn't take us back to the creation account in Genesis where we learn that the physical body is important: made by the hand of God (formed from dust, directly, not indirectly or by an intermediary in deist fashion and given life by God Gen 2:7), made in his image (Gen 1:27).
In fact, on the point of 'intermediary' I think one of the thoughts to be brought to bear on the connection between God the father and us as his creation is that Christ is our mediator: can we extend the concept of mediator beyond salvation? I think that John 1:3 permits such an extension.
So, to interpose between the father and his creation anything but Christ is to reduce Christ; thus the loose set of linkages that disconnect the father and his creation, operating through such ideas as theistic-evolution, or long-gap creation (which is finally reduced to theistic-evolution at root) serve to add to the work of Christ in a crazy haphazard manner that in fact removes the connection: God moves further and further from us, and the direct linkages that the Holy Spirit is at pains to refer to at many points in the Bible. I think of the Lukan genealogy, for one; but would also refer to Hebrews 11:3, for instance. I would not be surprised if there are more passages that would serve this line of thinking.
It seems to me that Christ's incarnation is in the stream of God's having made us as embodied and spiritually enlivened: Christ, our creator then takes this on...that would be the reason for treating the person, embodied, as inviolate; to preserve and honour the dignity of god-imageness; this is the source of the significance that Michael saw, IMO.
That he appeared to avoid this pivotal point in our understanding of who we are before God, and the Bible's enunciation of it I think de-powered his talk and left us with a Christ, an incarnation, not grounded in the creation as the setting of and basic context of God entering his creation as a creature (in real terms, and not symbolic ones) but one with but symbolic power at best: that is, with less power than it actually has.
10 November 2009
Plutarch on science and religion
Science & religion
Plutarch’s attitude to scientific theory seems liberal, but this is a false impression. Scientific explanation, for Plutarch, is not free and independent of his theological beliefs. The question he asks is not ‘Is this theory a true account of the facts?’ but ‘Is it true and also compatible with the supremacy of god and good in the universe?’ p. 92
Aemilius is perhaps typical of the attitudes Plutarch admires. When the moon was eclipsed before the battle of Pydna, Aemilius made generous sacrifices to the moon and Heracles (Aem. 17.10). He is clearly not regarded as superstitious; he knows about the theory of eclipses but offers sacrifices as the customary gesture of piety. p.93
And Plutarch says this in Pericles 6:
“He seems also to have learned from his [Anaxagoras’] teaching to rise above that superstitious terror which springs from an ignorant wonder at the common phenomena of the heavens. It affects those who know nothing of the causes of such things, who fear the gods to the point of madness and are easily confused through their lack of experience. A knowledge of natural cuases, on the other hand, banishes these fears and replaces morbid superstition with a piety which rests on a sure foundation supported by rational hopes....
In my opinion, however, there was nothing to prevent both the scientist and the prophet from being right, since the one correctly diagnosed the cause and the other the meaning of the prodigy [an animal with a skull deformity]...Those who say that to discover the cause of a phenomenon disposes of its meaning fail to notice that the same reasoning which explains away divine portents would also dispense with the artificial symbols created by mankind.”
Comment
And don't we hear this today?
Those who say that the 'story' (meaning its not true) of creation in Genesis can sit along side evolutionary dogma and both can be true and tells us important things, if they are Christians, are in fact lapsing into a pagan cosmological dichotomy: they are saying the world is not 'one' but 'two'; raising questions about their view of the work of God in creation and as to what is really real. Is 'evolution' really real, which tells us that our ontological frame is really material and material interactions, divorced from the life of God, or is it the world as structured in Genesis 1 that is really real, and our ontological frame is the personal...ultimately, love?
Plutarch’s attitude to scientific theory seems liberal, but this is a false impression. Scientific explanation, for Plutarch, is not free and independent of his theological beliefs. The question he asks is not ‘Is this theory a true account of the facts?’ but ‘Is it true and also compatible with the supremacy of god and good in the universe?’ p. 92
Aemilius is perhaps typical of the attitudes Plutarch admires. When the moon was eclipsed before the battle of Pydna, Aemilius made generous sacrifices to the moon and Heracles (Aem. 17.10). He is clearly not regarded as superstitious; he knows about the theory of eclipses but offers sacrifices as the customary gesture of piety. p.93
And Plutarch says this in Pericles 6:
“He seems also to have learned from his [Anaxagoras’] teaching to rise above that superstitious terror which springs from an ignorant wonder at the common phenomena of the heavens. It affects those who know nothing of the causes of such things, who fear the gods to the point of madness and are easily confused through their lack of experience. A knowledge of natural cuases, on the other hand, banishes these fears and replaces morbid superstition with a piety which rests on a sure foundation supported by rational hopes....
In my opinion, however, there was nothing to prevent both the scientist and the prophet from being right, since the one correctly diagnosed the cause and the other the meaning of the prodigy [an animal with a skull deformity]...Those who say that to discover the cause of a phenomenon disposes of its meaning fail to notice that the same reasoning which explains away divine portents would also dispense with the artificial symbols created by mankind.”
Comment
And don't we hear this today?
Those who say that the 'story' (meaning its not true) of creation in Genesis can sit along side evolutionary dogma and both can be true and tells us important things, if they are Christians, are in fact lapsing into a pagan cosmological dichotomy: they are saying the world is not 'one' but 'two'; raising questions about their view of the work of God in creation and as to what is really real. Is 'evolution' really real, which tells us that our ontological frame is really material and material interactions, divorced from the life of God, or is it the world as structured in Genesis 1 that is really real, and our ontological frame is the personal...ultimately, love?
8 November 2009
Children
Another thing that I liked at the church I attended on Sunday: seems like a good children's ministry.
There's a morning tea each term where parents get to meet teachers. The teachers also seem willing to engage with parents.
Contrast that to a church of previous experience where teachers and parents were like ships passing in the night. I recall dropping my son at his class and the teachers not even looking at me, let alone greet me. Similarly at pick up time. No cheery anything! I may as well have been a photograph! I insisted that my son farewell his teachers and say thank you, as did I. But they never sought my name or disclosed their own; one I attempted to engage in discussion about the program gave a very reticent response!
There's plenty of distance that children's ministry could go; first off would be more mature teachers. In some places the teachers are barely children themselves; partly because of the Anglican practice of having children's church at the same time as adults church, so its the youth from the evening service who often teach Sunday School (sorry, old term for it). I'd be happier with teachers who had some experience of children, such as being parents.
The idea of the morning tea is a good one. I'd also like to see a dinner, perhaps twice a year, including a talk from the Sunday School coordinator on their approach and what had been done through the year. If that was coordinated with local scripture teaching in schools, even better.
The word coordinator reminds me; I was impressed with this morning's church that every man and his dog was not a 'leader'. Most people doing jobs were 'coordinators'. Excellent. I think in a church community we have ministers, generally, teachers and helpers: coordinators! The idea of 'leader' is not a helpful one as it passivates others into followers, when we are all followers of Jesus the Christ.
There's a morning tea each term where parents get to meet teachers. The teachers also seem willing to engage with parents.
Contrast that to a church of previous experience where teachers and parents were like ships passing in the night. I recall dropping my son at his class and the teachers not even looking at me, let alone greet me. Similarly at pick up time. No cheery anything! I may as well have been a photograph! I insisted that my son farewell his teachers and say thank you, as did I. But they never sought my name or disclosed their own; one I attempted to engage in discussion about the program gave a very reticent response!
There's plenty of distance that children's ministry could go; first off would be more mature teachers. In some places the teachers are barely children themselves; partly because of the Anglican practice of having children's church at the same time as adults church, so its the youth from the evening service who often teach Sunday School (sorry, old term for it). I'd be happier with teachers who had some experience of children, such as being parents.
The idea of the morning tea is a good one. I'd also like to see a dinner, perhaps twice a year, including a talk from the Sunday School coordinator on their approach and what had been done through the year. If that was coordinated with local scripture teaching in schools, even better.
The word coordinator reminds me; I was impressed with this morning's church that every man and his dog was not a 'leader'. Most people doing jobs were 'coordinators'. Excellent. I think in a church community we have ministers, generally, teachers and helpers: coordinators! The idea of 'leader' is not a helpful one as it passivates others into followers, when we are all followers of Jesus the Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)