brian walsh: targum of Romans 12:1-2

The Romans 1:1-17 targum wasn’t enough…

…I had to post this one as well…

Again, I advise reading these two simple verses in an easy-to-read translation before reading the targum…

In case it’s not obvious, Walsh is anything but a typical ‘republican-style’ Christian…

If this doesn’t stir your heart, check your pulse… Continue reading “brian walsh: targum of Romans 12:1-2”

brian walsh: targum of Romans 1:1-17

Read Romans 1:1-17 (in a good, easy to read translation like NIV or CEV), and then check out Brian J. Walsh’s ‘targum’ (an interpretive ‘modernisation’ of a given passage) of it… (Copied from here)

I just love this stuff…
Continue reading “brian walsh: targum of Romans 1:1-17”

the god that became jesus

jesus god?Before Jesus, the Jewish ideas of God were certainly stable, no doubt (creator, redeemer, etc.), but –importantly– they weren’t so fixed that there was no breathing room. At any rate, after Jesus, the New Testament writers could not write about God without mentioning Jesus in the same breath. Any complete picture of God, Tom Wright says, would now have to have Jesus right in the middle of it…

The theological question, ‘Is/was Jesus God?’ is, of course, not a simple one, and Wright wisely answers the question with a very necessary clarifier – ‘That depends on which God you mean.’ Continue reading “the god that became jesus”

embodied souls

soulBody?

…soul?

…or both?

Some hold to the idea that there is no ‘self’ or ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’, so to speak, but rather than we are complex biological organisms with complex biological functions; including complex mental processes which have caused some to imagine that we have a ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’.

At the same time, there are those who hold to the idea that ‘they’ are primarily not their body, but rather their ‘soul‘ or ‘spirit’ or ‘self’. This spiritual entity is said to be the essence of who ‘you’ are, and is often said to be ‘immortal’ or ‘eternal’.

Varying views on this topic are not new. In the ancient world, the two main views we know of were either that humans were endowed with an immortal soul, or that they… well… were not so endowed. Continue reading “embodied souls”

god, multiverses and science

multiverseThe idea that there are other universes than our own (perhaps an infinite number) is quite common today. It is often used to explain how our universe was able to produce and sustain such rich biodiversity that we see on Earth. The idea being that given an infinite number of chances, our ordered and balanced universe is simply eventual. Sometimes, even, this talk is used as evidence that ‘science’ shows (even ‘proves’!) that our universe, after all, is not the result of the action of any kind of Creator.

Continue reading “god, multiverses and science”

the ‘science’ of intelligent design

I must thrive on controversy or something. I’ve got posts on speaking in ‘tongues‘, sexual ethics and now –if those weren’t enough– I’m posting on the evolution/creation debate… Sigh… Where to begin!!??

Where I’ve come from
Since I like honesty, I’ll start with a very short (and therefore un-detailed) review of how I’ve thought in the past, and where I’m at now…
Continue reading “the ‘science’ of intelligent design”

three paths

Being followers of Jesus means, of course, that we follow Him on His way, His path…

So what does the ‘way’ or ‘path’ of Jesus look like?

I want to describe three ‘paths’ that Jesus faced, which I also think life presents us with. Of course, I’m not suggesting that we will always have exactly 3 choices for every decision, but I think all of the choices we encounter in life can be boiled down into three ‘directions’, three ‘ways’, three ‘paths’…

Continue reading “three paths”

trusting the bible?

The other night, I went to a lecture by John Shelby Spong, an Anglican Bishop and popular author.

The title of Spong’s lecture was this: ‘The Bible is not the solution – it’s the problem.’

Wow.

In one point I agreed with, he criticised those that pick their most favourite verses here and there from the Bible; but then he did precisely that in his lecture – except the verses he picked here and there were his least favourite…

I would like to suggest what I see as a spectrum concerning views of the Bible. At one end, you have Spong’s view on scripture, and at the other end you have various teachers of what I like to call ‘biblianity’. It may not be a perfect analogy, because I think the issue is more complex and multi-faceted than a simple spectrum can show, but it may be helpful.

What I’m talking about here, has to do with what I think are false choices being presented everywhere you look. The obvious example being the false choice between worshiping the Bible (hailing it as pure, un-defiled and able to do your laundry) on one hand, and on the other hand treating it as a ‘sinful’ thing, perhaps useful for gleaning a few nice sentiments or putting under a short leg of a table.

I don’t want to use the phrase, ‘middle ground’, as that conjures up images of compromise, but there is certainly a third option other than those two.

Directly or indirectly, we’re talking about the Bible’s trustworthiness. Can we trust the Bible? Spong would not hesitate to say, ‘Not at all.’ Most Christians would say, ‘Yes.’ Now, I agree with the latter, but I want to comment on what this ‘trusting the Bible’ might look like…

The problem is the vagueness of the question – ‘Can we trust the Bible?’ A better question is, ‘What can we trust the Bible for?’ To forgive my sins? As a flotation device? I certainly trust the Bible, but what do we mean by this?

-I don’t trust the Bible to cook my food.
-I do trust the Bible to tell how to eat responsibly.
-I don’t trust the Bible to teach me how to play guitar.
-I do trust the Bible to tell that music is a gift from God.
-I don’t trust the Bible to explain dark matter in the universe.
-I do trust the Bible to tell that the heavens declare His glory.
-I don’t trust the Bible to explain micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
-I do trust the Bible to tell that God is the creator of all things.
-I don’t trust the Bible to make my website look cool.
-I do trust the Bible to say when to turn off the computer and sit face-to-face with others.
-I don’t trust the Bible to fix my car.
-I do trust the Bible to tell us walking might often be a better option for many reasons.
-I don’t trust the Bible to contain secret codes that the Bible itself says nothing at all about.
-I do trust the Bible to tell us about life.
-I don’t trust the Bible to be a spooky magic trick kind of book.
-I do trust the Bible to be a down-to-earth real kind of book.
-I don’t trust the Bible to provide convenient proof-texts to randomly affix to life.
-I do trust the Bible to provide wisdom and orientation to all of life.

The Bible that Spong hates is the same Bible of biblianity. It is a Bible that was handed down on a cloud, leather-bound and ready for quoting-battles. Ready to be chopped up into bits and stuck ‘on billboards and backs of cars’ (from the lyrics of Derek Webb). Ready to be defended by ‘deep-sea-fishing’ (term from Hank Hannegraaf) code-finding methods. Ready to be worshipped.

I don’t love that Bible of biblianity. I love the actual Bible. I can trust it. Not to answer any silly question I wish to ask of it, but to answer the most important questions.

science, faith and the process of Q&A

Science has produced some very interesting theories about reality…

I ask that those partial to the field of science hear me out before crucifying me, but I think there is a reality that we must all put up with, whether we are holders of Ph D’s in physics or at the level of simple observation – namely the reality that science (like essentially every other field) is limited by our level of observation.

For example, as is commonly known, we know of many ancient suggestions about reality that have long-since been proven to be… well… silly. The sky has been thought to be a solid ‘dome’, with the stars being seen to be holes in the dome. The earth was, of course, thought to be flat, or perhaps a square-ish thing held up by four elephants. Advanced scientific opinion suggested that the earth was the centre of the universe, with the sun and other planets revolving around it.

More perspective had led us to better suggestions of reality. This is, after all, a foundational principle of the scientific method. I’m very much a fan of science, myself, so I hardly mean to devalue the great field of science, but simply want to demonstrate the (for lack of a better term) ‘fallibility’ of science.

Telescopes and Microscopes

As our telescopes and microscopes have gotten stronger, we’ve been able to have precisely what we’ve needed to arrive at progressively better theories of reality. But it’s an interesting consideration that, for example, as our microscopes have taken us further and further into the detail of our universe, to the atomic level and beyond, more and more questions have arisen! I think it would be fair to say that perhaps some old questions have been cleared up, and new questions have arisen about such things as the nature of matter itself (see, for example, theories such as that of ‘quantum physics’)!

Also, as our telescopes have grown stronger and taken us further and further away from our seemingly small solar system, you could say that the same result has occurred; some questions answered – other ones emerge (dark matter, black holes, habitable planetary probability, etc.). Considering how off we’ve been in the past, I often wonder how off we are now, and what embarrassing dogmatic theories we may hold now that may be either confirmed, challenged or de-bunked by later observation.

Almost There, Just Begun or a Bit of Both?

I’m a bit of a skeptic at heart, you could say. I just want to know why. The way I sometimes hear people talk about different theories of reality often makes me suspicious. Theories (including both evolutionary ones and ‘intelligent design’ ones) are often defended with statements like, “…well, no theory can really be proven, but science has all but proven this one.” Is this really the case?

Now, I’m not suggesting that scientific observation doesn’t get us any closer to ‘proving’ anything, but I have a question about how close we really and truly are to proving such theories as the origin of the universe or life itself.

The “we’ve-basically-solved-it” way of speaking reflects this diagram, in which ‘science’ has thoroughly dealt with the major, large questions of reality, leaving us with only a few minor, small questions left…

In this model, theories (again both evolutionary or ‘intelligent design’ ones) are said to basically have it all explained, save (perhaps) a few minor details. I want to suggest that our pursuit of better theories of reality may not work like that at all. Again, I am not denying that scientific advancements are indeed advancements, I suggest a truer model may well be the reverse of the one shown above. I don’t think we’ve leaped the big hurdles or explained the big questions at all.

In the same way as history gets foggier the further back you look, with science, the further you look (whether through a telescope of a microscope) into things, the harder the questions get. Actually, the fogginess of history spills into science as well. The things we are perhaps the most scientifically unsure of are the things that happened at the ‘beginning’ of it all; whether that be along the lines of string theory, big-bang theory, intelligent design theory or whatever. The more foundational the question, the harder the answer. This model would look like this…

This model is able to appreciate the genuine advancements of science, while at the same time not presuming that the only questions left are ‘small’ ones.

Science has taken us a long way, and no doubt will take us many great and needed places. But as it continues to take us places, let us both appreciate the work it has done and at the same time be aware of how truly difficult the big questions are.

on ‘spiritual gifts’

I recently went to a Benny Hinn ‘Holy Spirit Miracle Crusade’. (Yes, me.) I could, of course, share many thoughts about that, but I simply wanted to mention a flyer I received while waiting in the crowd/throng/line/queue/mob to get in… It was an advert for a local church. It had these words/phrases on it: ‘signs & wonders’, ‘healing’, ‘anointed’, ‘miracles’, ‘fire’, ‘deliverance’… and my personal favourite… ‘the gifts.’

Now, that’s a bit of an extreme example, perhaps, compared with other views of ‘spirituality’, but I think it may reflect what happens when popular ideas/assumptions about ‘spirituality’ are taken to their eventual end point. Before addressing a few of the Scriptures which are relevant to the topic of ‘spiritual gifts‘, I want to point out a key difference between the ways of thinking in our world and the world of the New Testament.

You see, we live after a period in history known as the ‘Enlightenment‘, from which much of the world has inherited (among other things) a view of the world in which the ‘natural’ is sharply contrasted against the ‘super-natural’.

In this view, things like grass growing, rain falling/evaporating, babies being born, working, eating, sleeping – in other words normal life – are quite simply natural. In the case of ‘supernatural’ things, these consist of things such as ‘miracles’, ‘divine intervention’, ‘providence’, etc. As the definition of ‘supernatural’ suggests, the world is bound by ‘natural laws’, so therefore a ‘supernatural’ agent/force/event has to break those ‘natural laws’. This shows up in all kinds of ways, which I won’t go into here to keep this short.

In contrast to todays popular post-Enlightenment view of the world, the 1st century Jewish view of the world (though there are, of course, differences about this and that) was not divided this way. The Jewish God was Lord over all the earth and heaven. Nothing happened or was done apart from His permission, providence and power.

This God was a God who was not detached or distant from creation (like the deist version of ‘god’), but rather, is passionately interested and personally present in it (however, not to the degree that creation itself is itself god’, as in pantheistic worldviews). This God was not simply present when ‘big’ or ‘miraculous’ things ‘happened’, but was always present in His world; and in the case of ‘miracles’ or ‘big’ things, they were times at which God was present powerfully (and with purpose, I suggest; not simply pulling ‘god-stunts’).

This, I think, is how miracles are to be understood. Some, in their adverse reaction to what happens in some more ‘lively’ church contexts have suggested that ‘miracles ceased’ once the Bible was finished and/or when the last Apostle died. There is no warrant for such a view. No, not even 1 Cor. 13:10…

At any rate, we should be aware of how various views of the world affect our reading of Scripture (by the way, there is not one person who doesn’t have any views/experiences/traditions/etc. that affect his/her reading of the Scriptures…) not least when we approach the topic of so-called ‘spiritual gifts’.

One tendency in Christian circles is to start with an assumption that something is true, and then read that assumption into various Scriptural passages. We may, as a result, feel as though we have much more biblical support for a position than we actually do have. In my view, there are only 3 passages that could even possibly be about ‘gifts’, according to the popular understanding: Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4.

Sadly, the ‘gifts’ in these passages are often ‘lumped’ together in order to arrive at ‘Paul’s doctrine of gifts’ or something… as if he was at all interested in ‘building’ a systematic outline of ‘things’ God may or may not choose to ‘give’ you, and thought it best to provide this outline in 3 separate letters and in obscure fashion. Even more sadly, many a weekend-conference has been developed to ‘help’ people ‘discover’ what ‘gifts’ they have and which ones they don’t. (I need to say here that my thoughts here are following on from that of Mark Strom.)

These 3 passages have their own contexts, and ought not be ‘lumped’ together sloppily. The Romans 12 passage instructs on how each ‘gift’ is to be handled, which is (in context) to be in service of others! The 1 Corinthians 12 passage is (again, in context) seeking to undercut pride in the Corinthian community (the implications of Paul putting ‘miracles’ and ‘helps’ in the same ‘list’ is simply brilliant!), and again, the things listed here are not for the individual, but for the growth and edification of the community. The Ephesians 4 passage (within the context of unity, growth and maturity), is describing, not individual ‘gifts’, but roles within the body of Christ (again, these roles are for the service of others – to produce unity, growth and maturity).

Not only is each and every ‘gift’ featured in all these passages (have a look for yourself!) intended for service of others (not so you can have a nice, comfortable, individual private prayer experience or whatever…), I also have yet to see anything in Scripture that demands the common sharp distinction between ‘natural abilities’ (which you ‘get at birth’) and ‘spiritual gifts’ (which you ‘get at conversion’). To show how I see things, let me use the ‘mind’ as an example.

You don’t get a mind at conversion. What happens is this: the mind God gave you (and everyone!) at birth gets renewed by the Spirit of Christ. The mind that was formerly hostile to Christ now bows in allegiance. (Baptism may be a good metaphor, in that the mind (in a sense) ‘dies’ and ‘rises anew’.)

This, I suggest, is precisely what happens with our so-called ‘natural abilities’ (which, in a sense, are not ‘natural’ at all!). Everything about us (bodies, minds, abilities, etc.) is God-given. The spiritual person sees themselves this way. Our whole, interconnected selves are spiritually tempered renewed and reborn by the Spirit of Christ – not so we can ‘enjoy our gift’ or be ‘spiritually fulfilled’, but to form us (heart, soul, mind and strength) into the likeness of Christ.