Frantically preparing for Sri Lanka - hence the lack of blogging recently. We're also doing a series on 1 Timothy at church, preparing for which is enabling me to finish lectures on the later period of Paul's life.
This Sunday we're doing 1 Timothy 2 and tackling head-on what this means for women in ministry.
It is fascinating to see how scholars on both sides construct their arguments - either that Paul's prohibition is temporary and linked to the false teaching in Ephesus or that Paul's prohibition is permanent and based on creation principles laid down in Genesis 1-3. I favour the former view for reasons that seem all-too obvious to me (but I would say that, wouldn't I?)
One key bone of contention is whether 1 Timothy 2 has to be read and interpreted in the light of other NT texts that are deemed to be more normative - for example Galatians 3:28 - or whether 1 Timothy 2 is itself normative for understanding other apparently more permissive cases.
I have always worked on the principle that we must somehow account for Paul's practice - hints and examples of which are layered through the whole Pauline corpus and can be read only to mean that Paul's team of co-workers (those who preached, led and supported his work) contained both men and women operating equally. One has only to look at Romans 16, Philippians 4:2f, 1 Corinthians 11. Add to this 2 Timothy 2:2 where Paul clearly means faithful people entrusted with the teaching to pass on to others, the fact that Timothy himself was taught by his mother and grandmother (2 Timothy 1:5f) and that Priscilla seems to take the lead in training up Apollos in Acts 18:24-28 (by virtue of the fact that she's named first - unusual in first century texts about husbands and wives).
So my view is that Paul's prohibition in 1 Timothy 2 is temporary and called for because women (possibly wives - the words could mean either) were unduly influenced by a heresy that appears to have been derived from the female cults all over Ephesus which, when mixed with esoteric Jewish readings of Genesis 1-3, led to a teaching that suggested Eve was Adam's mother as well as his wife and which taught the women of the city to trust Diana, the goddess who was mid-wife at her twin brother, Apollo's, birth when they were in labour. No wonder Paul said what he did.
His aim throughout 1 Timothy is that people learn the true Christian message, are mentored in the faith by those further along in the Christian life than they are, before they assume a role as teachers, mentors and leaders in the Ephesian house churches. This applied as much to men as women but Paul needed to highlight the particular problem of women because of their role in spreading the false teaching. This seems to be the implication of 2 Timothy 2:2
The clincher for this, it seems to me, is the reference to young widows going from house-to-house (1 Timothy 5:13) and talking of things they shouldn't be talking of - ie spreading false teaching. The word rendered 'gossip' doesn't mean tittle-tattle but rather nonsense or foolishness - a word close in meaning to the way Paul describes the false teaching in 1:6f; 4:7; 6:3f. They are idle purveyors of false teaching, as Gordon Fee puts it in his excellent commentary. And possibly that false teaching centred in their talk on how to approach giving birth - do we hang on to ancient superstitions or allow our new faith in Jesus to sweep them away?
And this is before you get the unusual Greek vocabulary of the passage - notably the word 'authentein' (meaning authority but used elsewhere with the sense of illegitimate or usurping authority, even murder in some Greek plays!) and the present tense of the verb 'permit' which suggests a temporary rather than permanent state of affairs. One excellent study of the passage by Richard and Catherine Clark Kroeger suggests that the primal deity of Ephesus was a female god called Authentia - does that have a bearing on Paul's choice of words?
One of the problems of this whole discussion, of course, is whether we believe there is an enduring creation ordinance that means women are permanently subordinate to men - at home, in church and in the world. If you believe that, then taking the English of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 at face value is the obvious thing to do. If you don't, then you need to look behind the English and ask searching question about what Paul could possibly mean in the light of his usual practice and the particular circumstances in Ephesus.
No prizes for guessing which view I take on that question! As with a number of these things, the debate over this text would be better if people recognised that their interpretations were driven by their underlying view of the world as well as by their understanding of a set of a words in a particular context. It is this that makes New Testament studies so important and such fun.
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Friday, June 09, 2006
Rediscovering treasure
I've been busy this week sorting my thoughts for Sri Lanka. I now have 26 lectures outlined; all I have to do is write them - that's next week's task!
In the meantime we're kicking off a series in 1 Timothy on Sunday evening which (by coincidence) raises fascinating issues of Pauline chronology which I will be covering in lecture 20 - just when did he write the pastorals (if he indeed did write them and they weren't composed after his death by those who continued to carry the torch for him - Luke, for instance)?
In the course of my reading, I turned to John Robinson's Redating the New Testament. This was the first work of serious academic theology I ever read. It was recommended to me by my then rector, Hugh Sylvester, back in 1978/79. It had an enormous impact on me. I remember feeling that two aspects of my life - my Christian faith and my love of history - were brought together by a writer of immense skill and historical imagination.
Reading Robinson's words again reminds me just what a good and sadly neglected book this is. His arguments are still compelling, 30 years after the book first appeared. It strikes me that scholars of all hues have found its thesis too difficult to integrate into their view of NT history and so it has been sidelined and ignored. Very few works seem to engage with it at all
It deserves better. His case that the whole New Testament was written prior to 70AD is certainly controversial but it's made with such gracious and clear-headed logic that it needs to be reckoned with in a way that most NT scholars shy away from.
When we know so little for certain about the history of the period from 33 (the resurrection) to the fall of Jerusalem in 70, it seems reckless to be so dogmatic about what can and can't have happened in those 37 years. It seems equally cavalier to dismiss as entirely untrustworthy the only narrative source we have, claiming to come from and cover those years (namely Acts - Paul Barnett in his recent book The Birth of Christianity - the first Twenty Years makes a good case for taking Acts seriously alongside Paul's letters as a source of reliable information)
And it seems overly dogmatic (as Robinson points out) to assert that Paul couldn't have written certain letters that bear his name on purely linguistic grounds. We have such a small corpus of writing from him that saying what is characteristically Pauline and what isn't, is tricky. We also don't know enough about his writing practices - how much did he dictate and how much leave to his secretaries to fashion his ideas into words for particular audiences? It's possible that because the pastorals are more personal, they are more not less reflective of Paul's normal turn of phrase.
Anyway, if you're looking for a good academic theology tome to take to the beach along with Dan brown this summer, I strongly recommend Robinson's Redating the New Testament.
In the meantime we're kicking off a series in 1 Timothy on Sunday evening which (by coincidence) raises fascinating issues of Pauline chronology which I will be covering in lecture 20 - just when did he write the pastorals (if he indeed did write them and they weren't composed after his death by those who continued to carry the torch for him - Luke, for instance)?
In the course of my reading, I turned to John Robinson's Redating the New Testament. This was the first work of serious academic theology I ever read. It was recommended to me by my then rector, Hugh Sylvester, back in 1978/79. It had an enormous impact on me. I remember feeling that two aspects of my life - my Christian faith and my love of history - were brought together by a writer of immense skill and historical imagination.
Reading Robinson's words again reminds me just what a good and sadly neglected book this is. His arguments are still compelling, 30 years after the book first appeared. It strikes me that scholars of all hues have found its thesis too difficult to integrate into their view of NT history and so it has been sidelined and ignored. Very few works seem to engage with it at all
It deserves better. His case that the whole New Testament was written prior to 70AD is certainly controversial but it's made with such gracious and clear-headed logic that it needs to be reckoned with in a way that most NT scholars shy away from.
When we know so little for certain about the history of the period from 33 (the resurrection) to the fall of Jerusalem in 70, it seems reckless to be so dogmatic about what can and can't have happened in those 37 years. It seems equally cavalier to dismiss as entirely untrustworthy the only narrative source we have, claiming to come from and cover those years (namely Acts - Paul Barnett in his recent book The Birth of Christianity - the first Twenty Years makes a good case for taking Acts seriously alongside Paul's letters as a source of reliable information)
And it seems overly dogmatic (as Robinson points out) to assert that Paul couldn't have written certain letters that bear his name on purely linguistic grounds. We have such a small corpus of writing from him that saying what is characteristically Pauline and what isn't, is tricky. We also don't know enough about his writing practices - how much did he dictate and how much leave to his secretaries to fashion his ideas into words for particular audiences? It's possible that because the pastorals are more personal, they are more not less reflective of Paul's normal turn of phrase.
Anyway, if you're looking for a good academic theology tome to take to the beach along with Dan brown this summer, I strongly recommend Robinson's Redating the New Testament.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Speaking and listening
It's Pentecost. We celebrate this as the birthday of the church, the coming of the Holy Spirit and rightly so.
Yet at its heart, the Acts 2 account is about God speaking to the world. The commotion of the early verses drew a crowd which is the focus for most of the chapter, the audience for Peter's explanation of what's going on and what it means.
God propelled his people out of their comfort zone - at some stage the disciples left the upper room where they felt safe and ended up in the temple where the opponents to Jesus had their base - so that people from all over the world could hear God's story in their own language (with Galilean accents!)
I wonder what would happen if God visited us in our churches in such a way that we had to take our singing and speaking out of our buildings and into the street - not because it appeared to be a good strategy and we'd got the PA organised, sought permission from the council to hold an open-air meeting, but simply because our buildings couldn't contain us in our excitement at encountering God.
Well, Joel did say 'you old men will dream dreams...'
Yet at its heart, the Acts 2 account is about God speaking to the world. The commotion of the early verses drew a crowd which is the focus for most of the chapter, the audience for Peter's explanation of what's going on and what it means.
God propelled his people out of their comfort zone - at some stage the disciples left the upper room where they felt safe and ended up in the temple where the opponents to Jesus had their base - so that people from all over the world could hear God's story in their own language (with Galilean accents!)
I wonder what would happen if God visited us in our churches in such a way that we had to take our singing and speaking out of our buildings and into the street - not because it appeared to be a good strategy and we'd got the PA organised, sought permission from the council to hold an open-air meeting, but simply because our buildings couldn't contain us in our excitement at encountering God.
Well, Joel did say 'you old men will dream dreams...'
Friday, June 02, 2006
Ending the week with a rush
I've finished going through my Galatians manuscript - most of my editor's comments improved things, though I ignored/disputed one or two - and my notes on Ecclesiastes are posted on the church website (www.bromleybaptist.com - just click on the sermon notes tab and it's there under the title Qoheleth - wit and wisdom among the people of God)
And I've prepared for Sunday (pretty much)
All this clears the decks for street pastoring tonight and street pastor training tomorrow.
Isn't life a blast!
And I've prepared for Sunday (pretty much)
All this clears the decks for street pastoring tonight and street pastor training tomorrow.
Isn't life a blast!
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Writer's pride
I was right about my editor's red-biro-marked copy of my Galatians manuscript. It's very depressing for two reasons. One is he's made a lot of suggestions and the other is that he has tiny, spidery handwriting that I find hard to decipher!
Many of his suggestions are making the text clearer and easier to read. But some are subtly changing the sense of things. I find myself bristling with a sort of writerly angst that changing a word or phrase is going to materially and substantially alter the meaning of what I've written.
So I have been very gingerly working through the suggestions made and questions raised, weighing each one carefully and then accepting most of them - editing usually improves things in my experience.
But seeing so much of one's writing crossed out, reworded or, even worse, underlined with a comment 'not clear what this means' inserted in the margin is a sobering sight for a writer. I'd chosen the words so carefully (mostly), thought what I was saying was crystal clear - as well as brimful of insight and wisdom - and feel my hackles rising as I consider so many changes.
Ah the writer's pride... Get over it!
I'm a third of the way through, so I should have it finished next week - given that I've got to fit it in with preparation for Sri Lanka - though because I'm using Galatians as the basis for one day, editing the book is good preparation in itself - reminding me what I think of Paul's most wonderful and passionate piece of writing.
Many of his suggestions are making the text clearer and easier to read. But some are subtly changing the sense of things. I find myself bristling with a sort of writerly angst that changing a word or phrase is going to materially and substantially alter the meaning of what I've written.
So I have been very gingerly working through the suggestions made and questions raised, weighing each one carefully and then accepting most of them - editing usually improves things in my experience.
But seeing so much of one's writing crossed out, reworded or, even worse, underlined with a comment 'not clear what this means' inserted in the margin is a sobering sight for a writer. I'd chosen the words so carefully (mostly), thought what I was saying was crystal clear - as well as brimful of insight and wisdom - and feel my hackles rising as I consider so many changes.
Ah the writer's pride... Get over it!
I'm a third of the way through, so I should have it finished next week - given that I've got to fit it in with preparation for Sri Lanka - though because I'm using Galatians as the basis for one day, editing the book is good preparation in itself - reminding me what I think of Paul's most wonderful and passionate piece of writing.
passing on the news...
'Neighbour...I've got so much to tell you in so little time'
Editors were wonderful. It's the best gig I've been to this year. The playing was tight. Tom Smith's voice was angelic. And the lights were out of this world. It ws a flawless performance of passion and energy. If they are not a serious contender for biggest British band of 2006 then there's no justice.
The line's from Someone Says on the Back Room - a song of aggressive longing, fractured relationships and loss of community. 'If no one can help you/then how can I?'
My notes on Ecclesiastes are almost finished and I've just got back my Galatians manuscript with my editor's red biro all over it - it looks rather depressing but I'm sure he's been kind!
We had a very productive breakfast meeting yesterday thinking about a foyer in Bromley. I thought foyer's were yesterday's coming thing, but the good people at Broomleigh and Oasis made a powerful case for having one as a landmark project that puts the needs of homeless young people at the centre of our attention.
I hope something comes of it
Editors were wonderful. It's the best gig I've been to this year. The playing was tight. Tom Smith's voice was angelic. And the lights were out of this world. It ws a flawless performance of passion and energy. If they are not a serious contender for biggest British band of 2006 then there's no justice.
The line's from Someone Says on the Back Room - a song of aggressive longing, fractured relationships and loss of community. 'If no one can help you/then how can I?'
My notes on Ecclesiastes are almost finished and I've just got back my Galatians manuscript with my editor's red biro all over it - it looks rather depressing but I'm sure he's been kind!
We had a very productive breakfast meeting yesterday thinking about a foyer in Bromley. I thought foyer's were yesterday's coming thing, but the good people at Broomleigh and Oasis made a powerful case for having one as a landmark project that puts the needs of homeless young people at the centre of our attention.
I hope something comes of it
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Catching up
Off to see Editors at Brixton Academy this evening. They are one of the cream of last year's break-through bands - sharp riffs, intelligent lyrics, plangent guitars; wonderful.
I used them a dialogue partner in my thinking about Ecclesiastes. In their song All Sparks, they have the line 'you burn like a bouncing cigarette on the road/all sparks will burn out in the end' which I think perfectly captures Qoheleth's view that life is short but wonderfully beautiful. It also has great advice for people sharing their faith 'you're answering questions/that have not yet been asked...'
The Ecclesiastes series finished last Sunday and I think went pretty well (all things considered). Good conversations resulted and hopefully people will make use of the study guide which will be posted on the website at the end of the week.
I'm now focusing on getting ready to lecture in Sri Lanka. I think it's all taking shape. I have a month to create notes flexible enough to take account of every eventuality (at least the ones I can think of)
In my chill time earlier, I watched the first episode of Stephen Poliakoff's Shooting the Past - part of the box set that was a birthday gift earlier in the year. It's TV at its best. The story concerns a picture library about to be closed by an American multi-national. So it's really a meditation on the power of photographs. One of the strengths of the programme is that Poliakoff uses the pictures and his musical score to move the story on rather than conventional moving images and dialogue. It's truly mesmerising.
Pentecost on Sunday - a reminder that God speaks to us in fresh ways and often doesn't use words himself.
I used them a dialogue partner in my thinking about Ecclesiastes. In their song All Sparks, they have the line 'you burn like a bouncing cigarette on the road/all sparks will burn out in the end' which I think perfectly captures Qoheleth's view that life is short but wonderfully beautiful. It also has great advice for people sharing their faith 'you're answering questions/that have not yet been asked...'
The Ecclesiastes series finished last Sunday and I think went pretty well (all things considered). Good conversations resulted and hopefully people will make use of the study guide which will be posted on the website at the end of the week.
I'm now focusing on getting ready to lecture in Sri Lanka. I think it's all taking shape. I have a month to create notes flexible enough to take account of every eventuality (at least the ones I can think of)
In my chill time earlier, I watched the first episode of Stephen Poliakoff's Shooting the Past - part of the box set that was a birthday gift earlier in the year. It's TV at its best. The story concerns a picture library about to be closed by an American multi-national. So it's really a meditation on the power of photographs. One of the strengths of the programme is that Poliakoff uses the pictures and his musical score to move the story on rather than conventional moving images and dialogue. It's truly mesmerising.
Pentecost on Sunday - a reminder that God speaks to us in fresh ways and often doesn't use words himself.
Monday, May 22, 2006
Decoding Da Vinci revisited
So on the afternoon after the evening before, did we decode Da Vinci?
We certainly had fun - many teams competing in our prize quiz. We had a good few texts raising interesting issues and asking sensible questions. And lots of people wanted to join in.
Concerns focused on two main areas. Firstly, the history - especially the Gnostic gospels and formation of the Christian canon. I've never been asked after a service to recommend quite so many history books!
Secondly, why the book is so popular. This is harder to answer but I suspect has something to do with Dan Brown capturing a mood. There have been lots of academic tomes questioning Christian origins - you have only to think Hugh Schonfield's The Passover Plot or john Allegro's book on scared mushrooms (I forget the title) or Barbara Tiering's Jesus the Man and a host of others. These came, caused a mild flutter and disappeared into the libraries only to emerge in footnotes in learned dissertations.
Brown's book landed in altogether different times. Institutions are no longer to be trusted so their version of events is automatically suspected. He capitalised on the success of the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail and a host of other books bedecking the mysteries and mind, body and spirit sections of our bookshops. Our culture is looking for new myths from the cult of celebrity and big brother to the sacred feminine. The Da Vinci Code is just one more
Maybe it's just good marketing.
What I want to know, though, is why messers Baigent, Leigh, Lincoln, Brown and Teabing make no mention of the writings of the Apostle Paul in their reconstruction of Christian origins. While dating the gospels is tricky, dating Paul's letters - especially Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians and 1 & 2 Thessalonians - isn't. They all come from the fifties and sixties of the first century and they all affirm three things about Jesus - his humanity, his divinity and his resurrection from the dead.
So there you have it, 275 years before Constantine and the Council of Nicea, Paul told us that Jesus was God's Son, human and divine, raised from death for the salvation and re-creation of the world and that joining his Kingdom made us part of God's solution to human folly.
What we think about Jesus appears to matter a great deal after all, Sir Leigh...
We certainly had fun - many teams competing in our prize quiz. We had a good few texts raising interesting issues and asking sensible questions. And lots of people wanted to join in.
Concerns focused on two main areas. Firstly, the history - especially the Gnostic gospels and formation of the Christian canon. I've never been asked after a service to recommend quite so many history books!
Secondly, why the book is so popular. This is harder to answer but I suspect has something to do with Dan Brown capturing a mood. There have been lots of academic tomes questioning Christian origins - you have only to think Hugh Schonfield's The Passover Plot or john Allegro's book on scared mushrooms (I forget the title) or Barbara Tiering's Jesus the Man and a host of others. These came, caused a mild flutter and disappeared into the libraries only to emerge in footnotes in learned dissertations.
Brown's book landed in altogether different times. Institutions are no longer to be trusted so their version of events is automatically suspected. He capitalised on the success of the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail and a host of other books bedecking the mysteries and mind, body and spirit sections of our bookshops. Our culture is looking for new myths from the cult of celebrity and big brother to the sacred feminine. The Da Vinci Code is just one more
Maybe it's just good marketing.
What I want to know, though, is why messers Baigent, Leigh, Lincoln, Brown and Teabing make no mention of the writings of the Apostle Paul in their reconstruction of Christian origins. While dating the gospels is tricky, dating Paul's letters - especially Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians and 1 & 2 Thessalonians - isn't. They all come from the fifties and sixties of the first century and they all affirm three things about Jesus - his humanity, his divinity and his resurrection from the dead.
So there you have it, 275 years before Constantine and the Council of Nicea, Paul told us that Jesus was God's Son, human and divine, raised from death for the salvation and re-creation of the world and that joining his Kingdom made us part of God's solution to human folly.
What we think about Jesus appears to matter a great deal after all, Sir Leigh...
Sunday, May 21, 2006
Decoding Da Vinci
Today we're devoting our cafe church to the Da Vinci Code phenomenon, so last night a group of us went to see the film.
I guess it's true to say that I had low expectations - and they weren't disappointed. The cast struggled with a leaden script and director Ron Howard's decision to play it absolutely straight rather than camping it up a bit. So the cardinals behaved like board members of dull multinational and all the policemen were plods who couldn't see what has happening in front of their eyes.
It all meant that Hanks and Tautou as the two leads spent the entire movie running, driving or catching their breath with a look of complete bafflement on their faces. I'm not sure if they were baffled by what was happening to them or why they were being asked to serve up such clunking dialogue.
Needless to say interest in the book and film has focused on what it alleges about Christian origins and in particular the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene and the suppression of any reference to that relationship by the Emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicea.
It's a theory so full of holes that one barely knows where to begin in refuting it. Many more intelligent Christians have done the job very well. The best things I've read are the two Grove booklets by Steve Hollingshurst and Tom Wright (available as ebooks from www.grovebooks.co.uk) and Robin Griffith-Jones The Da Vinci Code and the Secrets of the Temple. Griffith-Jones is master of the Temple Church in London, one of the locations of the book and film.
The book's power is undoubtedly rooted in our culture's taste for conspiracy, coupled with its distrust of institutions and their 'official' stories and explanations. The more the church defends its position, the more the conspiracy theorists argue 'they would say that wouldn't they; it's evidence that they've got something to hide.'
It's the laughable treatment of the history of the early church that really irks me, the suggestion that it was a powerful, all-conquering institution able to suppress documents and movements it disapproved of. The Roman church really wasn't in this position until the high Middle Ages - say from the 12th century.
The suggestion, for instance, that the council of Nicea settled the date of Easter is rot. It was an issue still being debated between various parts of the church in the early 7th century, at the synod of Whitby for example. It still wasn't really settled when the schism between the Western and Eastern Church happened in the 10th century which is why Orthodox countries celebrate Easter at a different date from Western Christians.
It's a small point, I know. But it's indicative of a slipshod handling of history by Dan Brown and his sources - especially Baigent, Liegh and Lincoln in their hugely entertaining and in places hysterically funny The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail.
It struck me that the film - for obvious reasons - simplified the 'history' to the point of making it a strident and harsh-sounding propaganda for an anti-Jesus movement. Leigh Teabing, as played by Ian Mckellen, is a deeply unsympathetic character, motivated by a settled hatred for the stories of orthodox Christianity and prepared to do anything to bring down the church that preserves that story. He was more subtle and complex than that in the book - not that any of Brown's characters have much depth or complexity.
Comments are always welcome. I'll tell you how cafe church went tomorrow.
I guess it's true to say that I had low expectations - and they weren't disappointed. The cast struggled with a leaden script and director Ron Howard's decision to play it absolutely straight rather than camping it up a bit. So the cardinals behaved like board members of dull multinational and all the policemen were plods who couldn't see what has happening in front of their eyes.
It all meant that Hanks and Tautou as the two leads spent the entire movie running, driving or catching their breath with a look of complete bafflement on their faces. I'm not sure if they were baffled by what was happening to them or why they were being asked to serve up such clunking dialogue.
Needless to say interest in the book and film has focused on what it alleges about Christian origins and in particular the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene and the suppression of any reference to that relationship by the Emperor Constantine and the Council of Nicea.
It's a theory so full of holes that one barely knows where to begin in refuting it. Many more intelligent Christians have done the job very well. The best things I've read are the two Grove booklets by Steve Hollingshurst and Tom Wright (available as ebooks from www.grovebooks.co.uk) and Robin Griffith-Jones The Da Vinci Code and the Secrets of the Temple. Griffith-Jones is master of the Temple Church in London, one of the locations of the book and film.
The book's power is undoubtedly rooted in our culture's taste for conspiracy, coupled with its distrust of institutions and their 'official' stories and explanations. The more the church defends its position, the more the conspiracy theorists argue 'they would say that wouldn't they; it's evidence that they've got something to hide.'
It's the laughable treatment of the history of the early church that really irks me, the suggestion that it was a powerful, all-conquering institution able to suppress documents and movements it disapproved of. The Roman church really wasn't in this position until the high Middle Ages - say from the 12th century.
The suggestion, for instance, that the council of Nicea settled the date of Easter is rot. It was an issue still being debated between various parts of the church in the early 7th century, at the synod of Whitby for example. It still wasn't really settled when the schism between the Western and Eastern Church happened in the 10th century which is why Orthodox countries celebrate Easter at a different date from Western Christians.
It's a small point, I know. But it's indicative of a slipshod handling of history by Dan Brown and his sources - especially Baigent, Liegh and Lincoln in their hugely entertaining and in places hysterically funny The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail.
It struck me that the film - for obvious reasons - simplified the 'history' to the point of making it a strident and harsh-sounding propaganda for an anti-Jesus movement. Leigh Teabing, as played by Ian Mckellen, is a deeply unsympathetic character, motivated by a settled hatred for the stories of orthodox Christianity and prepared to do anything to bring down the church that preserves that story. He was more subtle and complex than that in the book - not that any of Brown's characters have much depth or complexity.
Comments are always welcome. I'll tell you how cafe church went tomorrow.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
In a glass darkly
Having managed to baffle a few people on Sunday evening with my second stab at Ecclesiastes, I thought I'd attempt clarification (probably a mistake!).
We were thinking about the nature of Qoheleth's faith (using U2's Zooropa as a dialogue partner). In particular, I drew attention to the writers understanding of God as maker and giver. And that this is the context in which we live and within with Qoheleth is trying to understand his life in this messy world.
So, the first response we make to this is fear (used six times of God in the short book). Fear is a key OT word of response to God that has something to do with faith and worship in the context of being held accountable by God for how we've lived. So, it's the perfect verb for Qoheleth - with his emphasis on death and judgment - to use to describe our relationship with God.
We see fear especially in 5:1-6 in relation to worship and what we do in the temple. Here Qoheleth is close to Isaiah and Amos in their denunciation of facile worship as a cover for unjust living (Isa 1:10-17; Am 5:21-24). And we see it in 3:11-14 where Qoheleth stares unnervingly at the mystery at the heart of the world - namely that God has put a longing in our hearts that our life in the world doesn't seem able to satisfy.
The way we live in the light of this is to enjoy our lives and acknowledge our creator (3:12-13; 5:18-19). Which brought us to 5:20 - a verse of tantalising ambiguity.
Is Qoheleth saying that some people are so full of living that they don't have time to reflect and so do nothing about the 'eternity' tugging at their hearts? This would certainly seem to fit with the recent report by Bob Mayo et al suggesting that young people are too busy getting on with life to have time to pause to think about their spiritual lives. Mayo describes teens and twenties inhabiting a 'happy midi-narrative' that suggests life is fine, the world is basically benevolent, all you see is all there is, so get and enjoy it. Ecclesiastes 5:20 suggests that God keeps these people busy with the here and now and so prevents them from thinking about the there and then.
Or is Qoheleth saying that people who receive everything in life as a gift from God don't restlessly reflect on the world, they just get on with living, grateful for all God gives them. In particular they don't exploit people to gain material advantage or political honour (in the way described in 5:8-17).
Or - and this is what threw some on sunday evening - is Qoheleth saying both these things and that how we hear this text is determined precisely by our answer to the question 'whose world is this?'
If we believe it's our world, that we make it, we decide what's right and wrong in it, then the first reading of the verse will tend to be true of us. If we believe it's God's world and that everything we have comes from his gracious hand and that we will be content to enjoy what he gives and not hanker for more, then the second reading of the verse will tend to be true of us.
Maybe, I'm reading too much into this, but I found this really helpful and have been continuing to so this week as I've continued to reflect on it and listen to Zooropa (and Editors The Back Room which I'm thinking would also be a good dialogue partner for Qoheleth).
We were thinking about the nature of Qoheleth's faith (using U2's Zooropa as a dialogue partner). In particular, I drew attention to the writers understanding of God as maker and giver. And that this is the context in which we live and within with Qoheleth is trying to understand his life in this messy world.
So, the first response we make to this is fear (used six times of God in the short book). Fear is a key OT word of response to God that has something to do with faith and worship in the context of being held accountable by God for how we've lived. So, it's the perfect verb for Qoheleth - with his emphasis on death and judgment - to use to describe our relationship with God.
We see fear especially in 5:1-6 in relation to worship and what we do in the temple. Here Qoheleth is close to Isaiah and Amos in their denunciation of facile worship as a cover for unjust living (Isa 1:10-17; Am 5:21-24). And we see it in 3:11-14 where Qoheleth stares unnervingly at the mystery at the heart of the world - namely that God has put a longing in our hearts that our life in the world doesn't seem able to satisfy.
The way we live in the light of this is to enjoy our lives and acknowledge our creator (3:12-13; 5:18-19). Which brought us to 5:20 - a verse of tantalising ambiguity.
Is Qoheleth saying that some people are so full of living that they don't have time to reflect and so do nothing about the 'eternity' tugging at their hearts? This would certainly seem to fit with the recent report by Bob Mayo et al suggesting that young people are too busy getting on with life to have time to pause to think about their spiritual lives. Mayo describes teens and twenties inhabiting a 'happy midi-narrative' that suggests life is fine, the world is basically benevolent, all you see is all there is, so get and enjoy it. Ecclesiastes 5:20 suggests that God keeps these people busy with the here and now and so prevents them from thinking about the there and then.
Or is Qoheleth saying that people who receive everything in life as a gift from God don't restlessly reflect on the world, they just get on with living, grateful for all God gives them. In particular they don't exploit people to gain material advantage or political honour (in the way described in 5:8-17).
Or - and this is what threw some on sunday evening - is Qoheleth saying both these things and that how we hear this text is determined precisely by our answer to the question 'whose world is this?'
If we believe it's our world, that we make it, we decide what's right and wrong in it, then the first reading of the verse will tend to be true of us. If we believe it's God's world and that everything we have comes from his gracious hand and that we will be content to enjoy what he gives and not hanker for more, then the second reading of the verse will tend to be true of us.
Maybe, I'm reading too much into this, but I found this really helpful and have been continuing to so this week as I've continued to reflect on it and listen to Zooropa (and Editors The Back Room which I'm thinking would also be a good dialogue partner for Qoheleth).
Rocking with Hard Fi and Billy Bragg
Linda and I went to see the very excellent Hard Fi at Brixton Academy yesterday - the fourth of a five night stand by the band. They played most of the album plus a couple of new songs and a Big Audio Dynamite cover. They were loud and energetic, but still managed to hold the tunes - mostly.
Their stage presence was augmented by TV screens making good use of the CCTV image they've made their own and beaming an anti-war message to po-going fans.
The evening was made even better by the presence of Billy Bragg. The old red wedge rocker's back catalogue is appearing all digitally remastered, so he served up a 30 minute run-through his greatest hits. The songs stand up really well. He's not lost any of his old passion. He's even updated one or two songs - especially the wonderful Looking for the Great Leap Forward. It was stirring stuff.
He returned during Hard Fi's encore to do a spirited version of the Who's Won't Get Fooled Again - which I assume was aimed equally at the Blair Government and the British National Party.
One of the fascinating things about the evening was the emphasis on the old rock against racism themes (it was at a RAR gig that I first heard Bragg). The rise of the BNP is galvanising a section of the indie rock community to put its talents at the disposal of a campaign against racism. More power to 'em. Bragg said that it worked in the late 70s/early 80s and it can work again as cultures come together around shared love of music and common hatred of racism. We'll see...
Their stage presence was augmented by TV screens making good use of the CCTV image they've made their own and beaming an anti-war message to po-going fans.
The evening was made even better by the presence of Billy Bragg. The old red wedge rocker's back catalogue is appearing all digitally remastered, so he served up a 30 minute run-through his greatest hits. The songs stand up really well. He's not lost any of his old passion. He's even updated one or two songs - especially the wonderful Looking for the Great Leap Forward. It was stirring stuff.
He returned during Hard Fi's encore to do a spirited version of the Who's Won't Get Fooled Again - which I assume was aimed equally at the Blair Government and the British National Party.
One of the fascinating things about the evening was the emphasis on the old rock against racism themes (it was at a RAR gig that I first heard Bragg). The rise of the BNP is galvanising a section of the indie rock community to put its talents at the disposal of a campaign against racism. More power to 'em. Bragg said that it worked in the late 70s/early 80s and it can work again as cultures come together around shared love of music and common hatred of racism. We'll see...
Monday, May 15, 2006
A canon within a canon?
We're having a challenging time reading Ecclesiastes in our evening services at the moment. I know it's challenging when one of my members told me after last night's episode that she'd not got any of it!
It's certainly the case that ecclesiastes is a demanding read. That's why Christians don't read it much and churches don't teach it.
It raises an issue that scholars wrestle with, namely are some biblical texts more important and authoritative than others? Is there a canon within the canon? OT critics in particular argue over this one. Walter Brueggemann in his seminal Theology of the Old Testament talks in terms of Israel's core testimony and it's countertestimony and, just for good measure, Israel's unsolicited testimony. He doesn't use the language of canon within canon but this could be the outcome of his intriguing and suggestive division.
Ordinary church members do it by default. There are some parts of scripture they read and some they don't. And so their faith is based not on the whole counsel of God but on those parts they find convivial or at least comprehensible.
Ecclesiastes is a case in point. It's a difficult book, a demanding read - not just because the language and structure are tricky (though they are) but because it appears to be a challenge to orthodox understandings of God and the life of faith. But maybe that's precisely why it's in the canon.
Ecclesiastes was written late - maybe 350BC - and yet was included in the canon probably by the time of Jesus or soon after. It is one of the five books attached to the five Jewish festivals - ecclesiastes is read at the fabulously joyous feast of tabernacles.
It's inclusion and use indicates that it touches on something vital about faith, something believers need to take into account as they give shape to their faith in a world of contradictions and trouble. The danger of canons within canons is that it enables us to marginalise inspired texts - they are not quite as much the word of God as other texts that we take more seriously - and so our faith is distorted by default.
The challenge is to integrate this troublesome voice into our understanding of our faith. Otherwise we risk suggesting that Ecclesiastes is not as inspired as Deuteronomy or Romans, something evangelicals can't be comfortable with. But we also risk missing the insight and inspiration that Ecclesiastes brings to our faith and witness in the world. If we need help with this, U2's Zooropa album - opening with the title track exploring who makes the world we live in and ending with Johnny Cash singing the Wanderer, a song based on Ecclesiastes - is an excellent dialogue partner.
It's certainly the case that ecclesiastes is a demanding read. That's why Christians don't read it much and churches don't teach it.
It raises an issue that scholars wrestle with, namely are some biblical texts more important and authoritative than others? Is there a canon within the canon? OT critics in particular argue over this one. Walter Brueggemann in his seminal Theology of the Old Testament talks in terms of Israel's core testimony and it's countertestimony and, just for good measure, Israel's unsolicited testimony. He doesn't use the language of canon within canon but this could be the outcome of his intriguing and suggestive division.
Ordinary church members do it by default. There are some parts of scripture they read and some they don't. And so their faith is based not on the whole counsel of God but on those parts they find convivial or at least comprehensible.
Ecclesiastes is a case in point. It's a difficult book, a demanding read - not just because the language and structure are tricky (though they are) but because it appears to be a challenge to orthodox understandings of God and the life of faith. But maybe that's precisely why it's in the canon.
Ecclesiastes was written late - maybe 350BC - and yet was included in the canon probably by the time of Jesus or soon after. It is one of the five books attached to the five Jewish festivals - ecclesiastes is read at the fabulously joyous feast of tabernacles.
It's inclusion and use indicates that it touches on something vital about faith, something believers need to take into account as they give shape to their faith in a world of contradictions and trouble. The danger of canons within canons is that it enables us to marginalise inspired texts - they are not quite as much the word of God as other texts that we take more seriously - and so our faith is distorted by default.
The challenge is to integrate this troublesome voice into our understanding of our faith. Otherwise we risk suggesting that Ecclesiastes is not as inspired as Deuteronomy or Romans, something evangelicals can't be comfortable with. But we also risk missing the insight and inspiration that Ecclesiastes brings to our faith and witness in the world. If we need help with this, U2's Zooropa album - opening with the title track exploring who makes the world we live in and ending with Johnny Cash singing the Wanderer, a song based on Ecclesiastes - is an excellent dialogue partner.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Penetrating life's absurdities
Qoheleth, the enigmatic writer of Ecclesiastes, would have a word for it. Apparently, Britain's young people prefer car boot sales to church. Now I could understand it if the research suggested they preferred trendy coffee shops or clothes shops, watching DVDs or chatting on MSN Messenger... But car boot sales?
Truly, I need to follow the advice of Ecclesiastes 2:3 (in the message version) - and it'll probably take a couple of bottles of decent vintage to help me get to the bottom of it.
According to this latest CofE findings, as reported in today's London Times, clubbing is not a spiritual experience, Buffy the vampire Slayer doesn't make teenagers think about alternative realities and September 11 doesn't seem to have led to any kind of religious musings.
The research was carried in part by Bob Mayo an excellent analyst of trends whose book Ambiguous Evangelism trailed some of these findings.
My immediate response was two-fold. First, I'm really pleased I'm not a youth worker! Though our church is in the throes of recruiting a minister for youth and young adults and it seems to me that he or she will have his/her work cut out if this research is true.
Second, I wonder how to square the findings with conversations I've had with young and youngish people over the past two weekends - in pubs in Brighton and outside pubs in Bromley. That experience suggests that young people - 18-35s - seem pretty clued up on the Christian Faith (and one or two other religions), happy to talk about it when confronted by obvious representatives of the churches (I was wearing a Street Pastors' uniform in Bromley and a Baptist Assembly lanyard in Brighton) and not hostile even if they did not believe.
Of course, I'd need to get hold of the report and read it from cover to cover to make sure that the lovely Ruth Gledhill of the Times is not leading me up the garden path. But then I'd need to get stuck into some serious thinking about what this means for our ministry as a church and individuals.
Oh, the Ecclesiates text says: ' With the help of a bottle of wine and all the wisdom I could muster, I tried my level best to penetrate the absurdity of life. I wanted to get a handle on anything useful we mortals might do during the years we spend on this earth.'
I suggest we all get down to Majestic and then get our thinking caps on (that's thinking with a 'th' at the beginning....)
Truly, I need to follow the advice of Ecclesiastes 2:3 (in the message version) - and it'll probably take a couple of bottles of decent vintage to help me get to the bottom of it.
According to this latest CofE findings, as reported in today's London Times, clubbing is not a spiritual experience, Buffy the vampire Slayer doesn't make teenagers think about alternative realities and September 11 doesn't seem to have led to any kind of religious musings.
The research was carried in part by Bob Mayo an excellent analyst of trends whose book Ambiguous Evangelism trailed some of these findings.
My immediate response was two-fold. First, I'm really pleased I'm not a youth worker! Though our church is in the throes of recruiting a minister for youth and young adults and it seems to me that he or she will have his/her work cut out if this research is true.
Second, I wonder how to square the findings with conversations I've had with young and youngish people over the past two weekends - in pubs in Brighton and outside pubs in Bromley. That experience suggests that young people - 18-35s - seem pretty clued up on the Christian Faith (and one or two other religions), happy to talk about it when confronted by obvious representatives of the churches (I was wearing a Street Pastors' uniform in Bromley and a Baptist Assembly lanyard in Brighton) and not hostile even if they did not believe.
Of course, I'd need to get hold of the report and read it from cover to cover to make sure that the lovely Ruth Gledhill of the Times is not leading me up the garden path. But then I'd need to get stuck into some serious thinking about what this means for our ministry as a church and individuals.
Oh, the Ecclesiates text says: ' With the help of a bottle of wine and all the wisdom I could muster, I tried my level best to penetrate the absurdity of life. I wanted to get a handle on anything useful we mortals might do during the years we spend on this earth.'
I suggest we all get down to Majestic and then get our thinking caps on (that's thinking with a 'th' at the beginning....)
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Life after prism
The Baptist Assembly went really well - possibly the best for a long time. Richard Foster was awesome on the last night. Kate Coleman - our new president - was truly inspirational on the home mission evening. It was good to catch up with people and see Brighton clubland close-up.
I was there to lead Prism - the first alternative strand at the assembly. And all things considered it went well. Good numbers, good atmosphere, people joining in and fantastic music. Both Krystaal, our house band on Saturday and Sunday, and Gareth Davies-Jones, who graced our programme on Friday evening, were brilliant.
If you've not checked out Gareth Davies-Jones you really should. He's made two albums of intelligent, beautifully-played folk (with a funky-ish feel). You can hear samples and order product at www.headingwestmusic.com
And what can you say about Krystaal? Three brothers from the Congo, forced to flee following the university masacre in the dying days of the Mbutu regime, reunited in Canada through the commitment and support of Baptist Christians, they are a tight, funky outfit producing music that exudes life, hope and joy. Check out their album Keep on Standing. Another CD is imminent.
I'm now picking up the pieces back home, seeing what's happened and what the week holds. I'll be reflecting further on Prism later in the week. If you were there post a comment - I'd be really interested to know what you thought (good or bad)
I was there to lead Prism - the first alternative strand at the assembly. And all things considered it went well. Good numbers, good atmosphere, people joining in and fantastic music. Both Krystaal, our house band on Saturday and Sunday, and Gareth Davies-Jones, who graced our programme on Friday evening, were brilliant.
If you've not checked out Gareth Davies-Jones you really should. He's made two albums of intelligent, beautifully-played folk (with a funky-ish feel). You can hear samples and order product at www.headingwestmusic.com
And what can you say about Krystaal? Three brothers from the Congo, forced to flee following the university masacre in the dying days of the Mbutu regime, reunited in Canada through the commitment and support of Baptist Christians, they are a tight, funky outfit producing music that exudes life, hope and joy. Check out their album Keep on Standing. Another CD is imminent.
I'm now picking up the pieces back home, seeing what's happened and what the week holds. I'll be reflecting further on Prism later in the week. If you were there post a comment - I'd be really interested to know what you thought (good or bad)
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Assembling in Brighton
First thing in the morning, I'm off to the Baptist Assembly in Brighton to be involved in Prism - which I think I'm looking forward to (I stocked up with a ton of art material and other stuff today to make the event go with a bang).
In the slack times I've got Robert Johnstone's Useless Beauty (his study of Ecclesiastes interpreted through the movies). I'm looking forward to reading this because all his stuff is good. Next Sunday we're starting a series on Ecclesiastes - just three Sunday evenings - called our baffling world. I think I'll be using lots of movie references so I'll be interested to see what films Johnstone finds throwing light on this enigmatic text.
I'll be listening to Imogen Heap, Eels, the Secret Machines and editors in the car on the way down. Should put me in the right mood!
I'll let you know how it went next week.
In the slack times I've got Robert Johnstone's Useless Beauty (his study of Ecclesiastes interpreted through the movies). I'm looking forward to reading this because all his stuff is good. Next Sunday we're starting a series on Ecclesiastes - just three Sunday evenings - called our baffling world. I think I'll be using lots of movie references so I'll be interested to see what films Johnstone finds throwing light on this enigmatic text.
I'll be listening to Imogen Heap, Eels, the Secret Machines and editors in the car on the way down. Should put me in the right mood!
I'll let you know how it went next week.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Responsible mission
I've been discovering what a wonderful mission text John 10 is. We all know that John 10:10 is a great summary of the good news about Jesus. But the whole chapter is actually a brilliant exposition of what it means to live responsibly in the world as God intended us to.
We think of it as talking about Jesus being the gate and the good shepherd - which, of course, it is. But in claiming that he was the way in which people entered God's salvation and was the model leader who embodied God's style of leadership, he was laying claim to the whole of life and not just people's religion - which is, of course, why the political and religious leaders of his day opposed him.
And as John makes clear, after the resurrection, Jesus sent his people to do as he did (John 20:21). So our mission is about exercising responsibility for the planet God is redeeming. This is why mission is holistic, concerned with clean water, work and welfare as well as the forgiveness of sins. Indeed if all we offer is a spiritual experience, we are offering less than the gospel of Jesus. For he came that people might know life in all its fullness and that is surely as much about health, work, independence, good government and freedom (just ask the people of Nepal if they're experiencing life in all its fullness at the moment) as it is about going to heaven when we die.
I thought these arguments were won and that all we needed to do was garner resources to ensure that God's people could do the mission he's called us to. But I was wrong. Just the other day I had a long conversation with an intelligent young person about the nature of mission who argued that it was only and solely about people's personal relationship with God and that social action was not really part of it - unless it gave opportunity to speak about their sin and need for forgiveness.
I think we all need to read John 10 a little more carefully...
We think of it as talking about Jesus being the gate and the good shepherd - which, of course, it is. But in claiming that he was the way in which people entered God's salvation and was the model leader who embodied God's style of leadership, he was laying claim to the whole of life and not just people's religion - which is, of course, why the political and religious leaders of his day opposed him.
And as John makes clear, after the resurrection, Jesus sent his people to do as he did (John 20:21). So our mission is about exercising responsibility for the planet God is redeeming. This is why mission is holistic, concerned with clean water, work and welfare as well as the forgiveness of sins. Indeed if all we offer is a spiritual experience, we are offering less than the gospel of Jesus. For he came that people might know life in all its fullness and that is surely as much about health, work, independence, good government and freedom (just ask the people of Nepal if they're experiencing life in all its fullness at the moment) as it is about going to heaven when we die.
I thought these arguments were won and that all we needed to do was garner resources to ensure that God's people could do the mission he's called us to. But I was wrong. Just the other day I had a long conversation with an intelligent young person about the nature of mission who argued that it was only and solely about people's personal relationship with God and that social action was not really part of it - unless it gave opportunity to speak about their sin and need for forgiveness.
I think we all need to read John 10 a little more carefully...
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Cafe culture
It's our anniversary cafe church on Sunday evening - we've been doing them a whole year. We started with a BMS Sunday focusing on Africa and this anniversary one is focusing on feet - standing on holy ground, going into the world with the good news (Exodus and Isaiah).
Our format has changed over the year, moving from looking at moral issues to a more liquid worship model, offering fresh ways of encountering God. From May, we aim to do another series of issue-based cafe services looking at conspiracy theories (the da vinci code, the gospel of judas, etc), gossip and the media, U2 and God. These will be aimed at people on the edge of faith, wondering what the Christian faith means in today's culture.
cafe services have been enormous fun but they are very labour intensive. I couldn't do them without my administrative assistant, who not only shops for a variety of bizarre items, but also gets props ready and increasingly has an input into how we'll deliver the theme. I also have a couple of others who offer creative input and help delivering the evening.
But these kind of events take a lot of putting together - so if you're pondering doing it, get a good team around you.
Our format has changed over the year, moving from looking at moral issues to a more liquid worship model, offering fresh ways of encountering God. From May, we aim to do another series of issue-based cafe services looking at conspiracy theories (the da vinci code, the gospel of judas, etc), gossip and the media, U2 and God. These will be aimed at people on the edge of faith, wondering what the Christian faith means in today's culture.
cafe services have been enormous fun but they are very labour intensive. I couldn't do them without my administrative assistant, who not only shops for a variety of bizarre items, but also gets props ready and increasingly has an input into how we'll deliver the theme. I also have a couple of others who offer creative input and help delivering the evening.
But these kind of events take a lot of putting together - so if you're pondering doing it, get a good team around you.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Back from a busy time at Spring Harvest. On the whole it was a good experience. A few good new songs - in a sea of increasing blandness, I fear - some good teaching/exhortation and some great fellowship (that's what I go for, really!)
I might be writing something for next year's Spring Harvest - watch this space.
Now I'm back for a weekend - BMS Sunday so it'll be great - and then off to the Baptist assembly where I'm involved with the new alternative strand called Prism.
I might be writing something for next year's Spring Harvest - watch this space.
Now I'm back for a weekend - BMS Sunday so it'll be great - and then off to the Baptist assembly where I'm involved with the new alternative strand called Prism.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Off to Spring Harvest
Finishing off preparing for Spring Harvest ahead of going away first thing in the morning to Skegness. So no blogging for a few days.
Have a great Easter everyone.
Have a great Easter everyone.
Isn't Jesus interesting...?
I'm reading Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan's The Last Week, an account of the final seven days of Jesus' life by two of the Jesus Seminar's superstars. It's brilliant and infuriating in equal measure, but well worth reading.
There's been no shortage of Jesus sories in the news over the past few days, such as the publication of the Gospel of Judas and James Tabor's new book on the Jesus Dynasty. I've not read the latter - though the book blurb and extracts that are online (get at them through Mark Goodacre's weblog at www.ntgateway.com).
The gospel of Judas tells us nothing about the events of the first Easter but gives us a fascinating insight into second century gnostic thinking.
All this comes in the wake of Dan Brown winning his high court action against the authors of Holy Blood and Holy Grail (or was that the other way round) and therefore keeping the Da Vinci Code hype going (and the tills churning).
Some Christians see this as a concerted attack on orthodox Christianity - and there might be some truth in this. Certainly the Jesus Seminar and the Westar Institute that set it up aims to raise questions about orthodox Christianity and show that traditional understandings of Jesus and Christian origins are plain wrong.
But this is also a great opportunity for Christians to talk about the historical origins of our faith and the credibilty of the records on which our faith is based.
For all the beauty of their writing, it seems to me that Borg and Crossan go out of their way to trash Christian doctrines that they disagree with but which the historical material they are dealing with (Mark's gospel) seems to uphold. In order to achieve this, they have to make theological judgments about which bits of Mark are accurate. Those judgments strike me as being extremely arbitary which makes me wonder if their assertions about other history are equally tendentious.
There's been no shortage of Jesus sories in the news over the past few days, such as the publication of the Gospel of Judas and James Tabor's new book on the Jesus Dynasty. I've not read the latter - though the book blurb and extracts that are online (get at them through Mark Goodacre's weblog at www.ntgateway.com).
The gospel of Judas tells us nothing about the events of the first Easter but gives us a fascinating insight into second century gnostic thinking.
All this comes in the wake of Dan Brown winning his high court action against the authors of Holy Blood and Holy Grail (or was that the other way round) and therefore keeping the Da Vinci Code hype going (and the tills churning).
Some Christians see this as a concerted attack on orthodox Christianity - and there might be some truth in this. Certainly the Jesus Seminar and the Westar Institute that set it up aims to raise questions about orthodox Christianity and show that traditional understandings of Jesus and Christian origins are plain wrong.
But this is also a great opportunity for Christians to talk about the historical origins of our faith and the credibilty of the records on which our faith is based.
For all the beauty of their writing, it seems to me that Borg and Crossan go out of their way to trash Christian doctrines that they disagree with but which the historical material they are dealing with (Mark's gospel) seems to uphold. In order to achieve this, they have to make theological judgments about which bits of Mark are accurate. Those judgments strike me as being extremely arbitary which makes me wonder if their assertions about other history are equally tendentious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
