B spot

Quotes re the Human Sexuality question

2005-08-29T16:00:00.000-04:00

"Christians today are probably less inclined than were Paul’s Greek converts to slip into forms of dualism that denigrate the physical body. (If anything, we may be subject to the opposite error of idolizing the body and supposing that only the present physical world matters.) Nonetheless, we may need to remind ourselves and our hearers that our bodily actions stand under the eschatological judgment of God and that we should therefore use our bodies in ways that point towards the wholeness for which we hope in the resurrection. If we could learn to think of our bodies as bodies with a future, we might be more careful about what we do with them now. This would have important implications not only for sexual morality but also for other issues such as health care and ecological responsibility."

Thats from the Commentary by Richard B. Hays. I think his point about wholeness is important in relation to this passage. Perhaps that is where I start with the 'principles' that the tutor is requesting. It is a principle that we need to view our bodies and actions holistically, we can't just do something physically and expect it to have no repercussions on us spiritually and emotionally. I also like Hayes comments about how this passage is in contrast to a common western view that we have 'rights'. Rights to do with our bodies what we want. This ultimately forgets that we are part of a greater cosmology and that Paul at least believes that because we are linked to Christ, our bodies are ultimately not our own.

Paul and "Human Sexuality"

2005-08-17T14:29:00.000-04:00

Here is what the tutor wants us to post about next:

What do you think Paul is saying about human sexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20? Try to form some key principles from this passage and share them on the online discussion forum. Please comment on how these biblical principles might instruct modern attitudes toward human sexuality.

And she wants us to write about this in 200 words. Ha! yeah right!

I think what I find difficult about this task is the request to 'formulate principles'. Firstly, I hate the thought of using this document - Paul's letter - to formulate specific principles. This may sound weird, but I really hate it when this collection of writing now called the bible is used as a detailed moral rule book, as in 'do this, don't do that'. People use this stuff so much just to beat other people over the head. As in, 'I have figured out what this actually means and if you don't stick to this you are somehow inferior and best, or going to hell at worst'.

I definately think we should formulate principles from Paul's writing, but just how detailed should we get? And what exactly is sexual imorality? And if we make detailed principles are they normative or contextual? So difficult!

Anyway, the only easy principle from this seems to be 'don't have sex with prostitutes!'.

Look a new post!

2005-08-12T09:27:00.000-04:00

I'm posting on here now because I noticed someone linking to my blog and its horribly out of date.

So here is the update on my study. I have just started a new course on First Corinthians. Its not really as exciting as the last couple but very necessary I think. I have avoided Paul's writing at all costs up to this point because I have struggled with his letters so much. Hence instead of just avoiding it for the whole post grad diploma, which I could easily have done, I have decided to confront him head on and grapple with the true wisdom of his words.

I guess I should start by talking about what things I struggle with in relation to Paul's writing.

1. He is soooo quoted in a bits and pieces sort of way by every different demoinational persuasion to back up their own goals.
2. It really looked/looks like he's pretty patriarchal. How you deal with that, and can you deal with that, is a whole different question, but still...pretty patriarchal.
3. I just don't really understand a lot of what he is saying. Its not story, and the letters seem all over the place.
4. Its not very exciting.
5. I just always thought reading about Jesus was much more important.
6. How come this one guy ended up to be so important and his words the words of God when he was just a person like anyone else.

So there you go. I totally believe in having integrity of opinion so you might as well just say what you think. I spend so much of my life having different opinions, or at least talking about my opinions in different ways to different people, so sometimes its just good to say what you really think. I think in the next post I'll start talking about some of what i'm learning and realizing about Paul.

Identity

2005-06-06T11:33:00.000-04:00

What role does the issue of identity have in Western Christianity?
I find this question really challenging because I have really struggled with this issue since living in the US. Christianity in the US is increasingly being defined, by the Evangelical Religious Right who are trying very hard to link being a Christian with being a Republican. There has, obviously, been a strong response from other Christians to this, particularly from Jim Wallis and Sojourners who produced the "God is not a Republican...or a Democrat" bumper sticker for the election last year. It is also making identity about particular moral issues, particularly abortion and anti-homosexuality. I think making Christianity about particular moral issues is doing major damage to the issue of identity for Western Christianity. I think that Christians in two thrids world countries are probably in a particularly stong position to point out the damage of such positions, particularly when Christianity becomes linked with Republican foreign policy.

I strongly agree that in Western countries it is much easier to compartmentalize faith into one area of life - job, sex, race and religion. I think that the reason is that we have that luxury. We know that we get our food because of our job so we don't need to pray for food, we know that we have rights as women to do any sort of work we choose, so we do not need to consider the challenges of sexual identity raised in the Bible. We have never been subjected to slavery so we don't even think of racial identity as being part of Christian idenity. I am sure that people in two thirds world countries are much more holistic about identity.

2005-06-06T07:19:00.000-04:00

How might this concept of ‘ubuntu’ affect and shape the African worldview so that it is different from a Western worldview?
I'm back writing on this blog because I have to make posts on the class site and I like to use this spot as practice...

I find this concept of 'ubuntu' which has been described as “I am because we are and because we are therefore I am” particularly interesting. I think it probably relates to similar concepts in many indigenous cultures which evolve because they are pratical concepts that ensure the survival of the community.

'Ubuntu' clearly challenges the Western individualistic mindset. Westeners are very focused on 'the path for my life' and 'the decisions I will make for my life' rather than 'how does the education I get effects my community' or 'if I work to get more, does someone else in the community get less?' I think the hardest thing for missionaries must be the idea that a community can be converted all at once, or that it could be a community decision to become Christian not an individual one. I also think it must be hard to deal with the idea that the ancestors are included in this idea of 'ubuntu', and even the earth and natural world around them.

The concepts of individualism and 'ubuntu' do not co-exist very well and Mibiti's writing points out the struggle for African communities living with their traditional understanding of life and introduced Western ideas, and the fact that even those essentially maintaining 'ubuntu' often work in societies that function on the basis of Western individualism.

Stories

2005-04-13T07:14:00.000-04:00

I have started developing my initial ideas about 2/3 world feminist theology. The first thing I have read in any depth has a wonderful piece about three things that are necessary to developing a more inclusive theology. 1. "it requires us to shift our attention from the Bible and tradition to peoples stories. 2. "we have to move from a passive reception of the traditions to an active construction of our own theology. " 3. "doing our own theology request moving away from a unified theological discourse to a plurality of voices and a genuine catholicity." - from 'Mothers and Daughters, Writers and Fighters" (unfortunately I left her name off my photocopy! - I will amend that later)

So far this is in line with my initial impressions...

Church discipline

2005-04-11T12:09:00.000-04:00

Last night I went to a meeting as a support person for a friend whose husband left her and their three kids. The husband for some reason has agreed to go through the church discipline process and the meeting last night was to decide if my friend had 'biblical grounds for divorce'. The elders did not tell her what 'biblical grounds' were before hand as they did not want to slant her testimony but it became fairly clear what they were looking for. I did not go in the actual meeting as I was not a witness but the process involved my friend's witnesses being interviewed and then the husband asking them questions.

The husband in this case is beligerant and smug and uses his quick wittedness as a weapon. He also learnt the 'Rules of Order' inside out. There is no question of adultery in this case, so it became obvious that the elders were looking for 'abuse', and whether the abuse was bad enough. While he has never been physically violent he has been belittling and intimidating and barely sees the children any more. What seemed to become evident is that the husband is using the process almost as a means of abuse. He will not let the matter rest, and they expect him to appeal, even though he has absolutly nothing to gain from the process. He left her and he has made it clear he does not want to restore the relationship in any way. He has told her though 'I don't believe you will divorce me unless they give you biblical grounds'. My friend knows otherwise.

The elders in the case are all men, per church edict. It is a Presbyterian Church of American church (as opposed to PCUSA) and women are not allowed to be decons, elders or pastors. The thing I kept thinking last night was whether the process would have been different if there were women elders there. I mentioned that to a couple of the witnesses who seemed to agree. They don't think it would have been as prolonged and difficult, or that my friend would have been made to wait until the end, to then get essentially cross examined by her husband. Presuming they had to elicit the information, were there not better ways to do it? It was treated like a legal matter and is it a legal matter? If women were involved in the process would a woman have been more likely to recognise that the husband was using the whole process as a form of abuse? When I think of my church in NZ, in Hamilton I see them dealing with this sort of thing in a more sensitive and appropriate manner. Still thinking about this, but I know that there must be better ways to deal with this sort of thing.

First impressions about 2/3 world feminist theology

2005-04-11T11:25:00.000-04:00

I have started researching my big essay on 2/3 world feminist theology. Here are a couple of first impressions:

A lot of narrative is used. Many of the books or excertps tie in the personal experience of the author and tell stories. This could be because 2/3 world feminist theology is about the stories of women who do not get heard.
A lot of the books are collaborative or collections of writing from all over the world. This could be because of the importance of not speaking for other people, as men in these cultures have previously done. Again it seems to be about giving voices to new ideas and disempowered women.

More on the Japanese Theology book

2005-04-06T09:13:00.000-04:00

Not much else to write about really as I am totally bogged down in my review of this book. Why didn't I pick a book that didn't take so much work to understand???!!!! Having said that I do feel quite rewarded for persisting as it really is just so different to anything I have read a lot of before. The relationship with Buddhism is the most interesting aspect of it, it has forced me to really understand not only some basic tenants of Buddhism, but actually really grasp some of the key ideas of the German theologians, particularly Barth and neo-orthodoxy.

Meontology is the ontology of 'nothing'. Japanese theologians have combined the influence of Barth and Tilich and their discussions that God does not exist as a reality, with the eastern idea of mu (nothing), with the philosophy of Japanese philosophers such as Nashida. This theology “insists that God as totaliter aliter (qualitatively opposite) cannot be other than meontolgoical." To a western reader with 29 years of personal images of God as father, mother, creator and ruler, this is extremely challenging. The writer highlights this challenge when he discusses Yohji Inoue, a Japanese theologian who became aware of the profound difference between Japanese and Western way of thinking. For him the foundation of the Western way of thinking is substance, while the foundation of Japanese thinking is “the field which envelopes substances."

Japanese Theology

2005-03-21T15:13:00.000-05:00

I have to do a review of a book called 'A History of Japenese Theology'. I picked that book because it looked like something completely different to anything I had ever read before. At first I thought the book was a bit boring. The author does more of a 'history of Japanese theolgians,' rather than theology. However the more I read the more I wonder whether his almost clinical style of writing is a cultural difference, particularly when he started discussing the relationship between Buddism and Christianity. I have really struggled to understand a lot of it, particularly the discussion about the I-Thou, subject-object stuff and the writing about the theory of nothing, which I understand is a Buddist thing. Clearly I am going to have to read other books to understand this book in this respect. Maybe I just need a crash course in Buddism. I think it is particularly important though, as according to this author it is in this area that Japanese theologians are developing a distinctly Japanese theology.

More feminist theology stuff

2005-03-15T19:53:00.000-05:00

Ok, seeing as people have actually been reading this, I better update it. I blog when I'm doing course work as is obvious, so if I'm not reading anything related I don't blog so much.

Anyway, yes, the feminist theology stuff is very interesting. My only criticism is that it can get a bit 'ivory tower' and academic. I have been reading a lot more two-thirds world/non western feminist theology and I think that many of those writers and theologians do not have that issue. It is inevitable because if violence against women is a huge issue in your culture you are going to be less concerned about responding to the latest critique of atonement theory or something like that. Anyway, I have decided to do my essay for this course on two-thirds world/non-western feminist theology (4-5000 words). My library access is through Pat Robertson's Regent University and you wouldn't think he would have much about that sort of thing, but their library is actually pretty impressive. My husband calls it 'the library that God built' with all his money.

Feminist Theology

2005-03-01T16:43:00.000-05:00

"It seems to me that many stayers‑on are feminists as much because of their Christian faith as despite it: 'Their experience as disciples of Jesus makes them aware that what is being done to them in the name of God is contrary to the will of Christ for his followers.’[xi] From this perspective Christian feminists are pioneers in church renewal and, in their own minds at least, in the uncomfortable but not unprecedented position of being Christians who challenge the churches in the name of Christ."

('stayers on' refers to feminists who have remained within Christianity)

From TURNING THE SYMBOLS by Janet Martin Soskice

Pacific Theology

2005-02-28T15:46:00.000-05:00

"The first is mutual dependence on people. We know that our security lies in people. Our survival depends on others' mercy, not on our achievements.Living for others and dependence on others are elements of the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. Jesus of Nazareth, the incarnate Gospel, was dependent on people for his physical survival. Yet he was also a man for others, on whom others depended for their survival.

Secondly, our survival depends on the sustainability of our seas, lands, rivers, forests, air, and so forth. Our dependence on people who depend on God's creation teaches us to see and practise God's love for the whole world. God the Creator, in His eternal spirit, created us and crowned us to be stewards of His creation for the sake of our survival on this planet earth. Our close and intimate relationship with the environment helps us to discern how the Community‑God wants us to be close to Him."

Leslie Boseto - From GOD AS COMMUNITY - GOD IN MELANESIAN THEOLOGY

Models of Contextual Theology

2005-02-28T12:03:00.000-05:00

The questions raised in a tutorial discussion board:

• Which model do you feel most comfortable with?
I think I am most comfortable with the praxis model of doing theology because it seems to emphasis the 'doing' of theology rather than just studying it. It seems more interractive. It places people at the center of the theology without leaving them stagnant within their context. It seeks to move them forward towards a greater goal, guided through and with scripture. I'm also drawn to the idea that scripture while it sits in an unopened bible is incomplete, that scripture needs to be taken in, digested and worked out in daily life, to truly see the word of God.

• Which model, do you think, upholds the Bible?

I think they all do and conversly there are probably time when they all do not. The translation model may exegesically have the best understanding of scripture from when it was written, but if the essential meaning of that scripture is lost because of failure to truly consider the reader/listener's context, then has it truly upheld the bible? The same way, if a particular passage of scripture is discussed in the same way for 200 years then the true meaning may have been lost as culture has changed, in which case the praxis model may uphold the Bible best. In another way, an individual's meditation on a passage of scripture may reveal a new understanding for that person or community that may truly uphold the bible, in which case the trancendental model may uphold the Bible best.

Stuff

2005-02-25T15:24:00.000-05:00

I came home from home group last night feeling frustrated and even a little sad. I feel as if all the stuff I have been reading and thinking about to do with the two thirds world theology is being choked down within me. There is simply no one to talk to about what I'm reading and thinking about and processing.

I sat and listened to people talk and pray last night. I heard them talk a lot about 'help us to put our trust in you, Lord and not in [our self image/our money/our possessions]' and 'Lord help me not to give in to the god of comfort'. Only, in light of everything I have read over the past two or three weeks, all this seemed to be is a justification to hang on to those very comforts. "Lord if I try and not make too much of all these wonderful things I have, will you let me keep them?"

I thought a lot about what a 1970's James Cone would have thought if he were sitting listening to the group of rich white people pray like that. I think he would have been quite outraged. I'm not sure I would completely agree with him, but it made me look at the group in a whole different light.

My problem is that I am part of that group, I pray like they do, I want the things they do. I feel so strangled because I have no way of processing this stuff in a positive environment. Several people in my life who are close to me, would never even deal with these issues. Perhaps they would say 'if your lifestyle does not fit with your spirituality, surely your spirituality isn't that important or that hard to change'.

I am not saying that I do not see issues with some of the things I have been reading about. A lot of it seeks liberation from poverty and political oppression. However, what happens when you are liberated?? Is that when we put down the book of liberation theology and pick up some traditional western theology?

To be continued...

Black Theology cont.

2005-02-23T14:38:00.000-05:00

Black theology seems to have an urgency and a passion that African Theology does not. It seems more absolute and yet the absolutes seem to produce an urgency of response to critical issues, not just of racisim any more but of poverty and oppression.

Some of this I find offensive and yet it seems to almost be a 'good' offensiveness as it is provoking and engaging and challenging. It seeks a response, and will not let the responder be neutral.

Offensive but important?

2005-02-23T10:24:00.000-05:00

"What need have we for a white Jesus when we are not white but black? If Jesus Christ is white and not black, he is an oppressor, and we must kill him. The appearance of black theology means that the black community is now ready to do something about the white Jesus, so that he cannot get in the way of our revolution. ...

To understand the historical Jesus without seeing his identification with the poor as decisive is to misunderstand him and thus distort his historical person. "

James Cone

Quote...

2005-02-22T15:24:00.000-05:00

The choice became simple---faith could either be an opiate that caused escape from reality or a challenge that caused engagement with reality. These theological developments in Peter's thinking inevitably began to orient him towards his context. A new conversion was in the making---a conversion to context---and it was to be a conversion as powerful, meaningful, and transformatory as his conversion to Christ.
- Tony Balcomb “Emerging Voices in Global Christian Theology” (ed) W.A. (Zondervan 1994)

South Africa:
Terrifying Stories of Faith from the
Political Boiling Pot of the World

Black Theology

2005-02-22T14:08:00.000-05:00

theology of oppression...theology that arises from the ashes...theology that gives oppressed not merely hope, but new personal identity...theology that re-theologizes the beliefs of the oppressors...

African Theology

2005-02-20T12:03:00.000-05:00

Iam therefore we are, we are therefore I am...community...history of the church through African Traditional Religion and ancestors, preparing the way for Christianity...common/unique history...search for a local Christian identity...theology that must deal with great poverty and great issues such as AIDS.

Liberation Theology

2005-02-16T13:44:00.000-05:00

Some initial thoughts about Latin American Liberation Theology:

theology with a purpose...theology that admits its bias and proclaims its bias...does not shy away from controversy...theology that requires doing...not a theology of the elite...

Hi, I'm back

2005-02-09T13:46:00.000-05:00

Just starting my next BCNZ course 'Two Thirds World Theology', so I thought I'd revive the blog to use it to record thoughts as I go, which was quite helpful for the last course.

This course looks at contextual theology with an emphasis on theologies from Africa, Latin American, Asia and the Pacific.

Here is the first interesting quote I have read from the very first article:

"The domestic tasks of Third World theology are going to be so basic, so vital, that there will be little time for the barren, sterile, time-wasting by-paths into which so much Western theology and theological research has gone in recent years." Andrew Walls "The Gosepl as Prisoner and Liberator of Culture".

Isn't this a fantastic development? I have found so much of these theology courses seem to give language to things I thought but could not explain. This seems to articulate more of what I have been thinking about how some of the liberal Jesus Seminar and Bishop Spong stuff just seems so irrelevant. I think this is why I think that!

Genesis and Evolution

2004-09-29T16:07:00.000-04:00

Hi, I'm going to post here a post I made on the BCNZ board with my thoughts about evolution etc. So it refers to other posters there but you get the general idea.

"Firstly Paul I think you have raised some very interesting discussion issues and your interaction with the details of the first few chapters of Genesis raised a lot of issues that I have not considered much, particularly, as Andy said, the issue of when death became involved in the whole equation.

I guess I need to say right up front that I don’t really read the Genesis creation story literally, I read it essentially metaphorically. I know that there are issues with this perspective (and as to why I think like that I guess is a whole different discussion), however, if we read the Genesis creation story metaphorically that should not, and must not reduce its centrality, importance, or the message that God is teaching us through it. It is still the story of our origins. I would also therefore accept the assumption, like Paul that both the biological evolution and the Genesis account are correct and conversely as Andy suggested, that neither gives a complete picture.

I have found it very interesting to read the creation myths from other cultures and particularly to see how creation myths shape the cultures for which they are a part. While there is a limit to how you can compare the Genesis story with other creation myths, clearly the Genesis creation story has been hugely important in shaping the Christian, and I would argue Western, world view.

Andy’s point “assuming some form of evolution, at which point did we begin to reflect the image of God”, is an issue I hadn’t really thought about. If we are still evolving do we evolve away from the image of God?

I attended a ‘Science and Theology’ conference at Bible College a few years ago, just out of interest, before I was doing any Diploma level courses. They had some really interesting scientists there who clearly saw no conflict between biological evolution and creation. In fact, they saw ways in which various parts of evolution actually made it seem more likely there was a creator behind life, such as the way DNA works. They talked a lot about ‘creative evolution’. The other thing that my VERY amateur reading in this area (I’m a lawyer not a scientist remember) has made me wonder about is whether biologists will soon come up with a new theory in relation to evolution, or whether science in this area will undergo another major shift as it has done periodically in the past. This has made me as skeptical of hard and fast scientific views, as hard and fast theological views. But that is probably the humanities student in me speaking..."

Incarnation and encounter

2004-09-17T11:06:00.000-04:00

Just to add to the last post, after reading a whole lot of that atonement stuff yesterday I keep coming back to those two things as being the most important...incarnation and encounter...

Atonement stuff

2004-09-17T10:57:00.000-04:00

Ok, so I'm getting pretty bogged down with all the atonement stuff...I think at least i'm starting to get my head around all the theories now, substituion, penal substitution, moral theory, sacrifice, christus victor...etc...the internet is a great thing for instantly providing material from other people who have neatly summarized stuff.

Ok so now I understand a lot of the theories, I have no idea what i actually think about them. They all seem very mechanistic and to have taken all the mystery out of things...it really has bought me back to the 'why did Jesus die' question. Like way back to your basic assumptions about christianity. At the moment I don't think I really like any of the theories, but as they all say, there are criticisms and issues with all of them. I think mostly I have problems because I don't 'like' aspects. Are they true, is that what happened? That some how seems irrelevant to the argument. You really do have to go back to basic assumptions...do you believe Jesus lived roughly how its recorded in the gospels? do you believe he was some how the son of god? do you believe that he was executed for whatever reason? do you believe that he rose again? If so, so what? I don't know whether i'm ready to totally commit to answers to any of these questions. I have answers that I think are 'probably' true...is that enough? Its very strange really...

Eleven Minutes by Paulo Coelho

2004-09-13T11:36:00.000-04:00

Finished a fantastic book on the weekend. The book was basically about desire, passion and human sexuality. The plot revolved around a Brazilian girl who ends up working in Geneva as a prostitute. She meets this painter who has been around the block a few times and so sex is sort of out of the picture for both of them. So the story is about both of them, particularly Maria, rediscovering what passion is and what true desire is. The book ends wonderfully too and left me feeling passionate and desirable.

The book has reminded me why I love Coelho's work so much. I didn't enjoy the Devil and Miss Prym so much but this book, together with 'By the River Pedra Where We Wept' and 'Veronica Decides to Die' were all brilliant books.

All of these books stir in me a renewed sense of passion about seeking meaning in life. These books speak of greater truth, in narrative form which inspires me so much.

Stuff

2004-09-09T11:21:00.000-04:00

I referred a couple of people to my blog so I thought I'd better update it. Handed in my Theological Method paper yesterday. Just a review and didn't take much time in comparison to other assignments I've had to do for these courses. The problem with reviews though is that you are never really quite sure that you haven't missed something really really obvious in the reading. Hopefully there are no glaring absences...

I guess I need to get into the next assignment now, to review a movie with a Christ figure and discuss the portrayal.

C. S. Lewis Quote

2004-09-04T13:28:00.000-04:00

Paraphrased by Philip Yancey - "We must not go to nature to construct theology; she will fail us every time. Rather we go to nature once we have our theology and let her fill the words - awe, glory, beauty, terror - with meaning."

Atonement as Restorative Justice

2004-08-20T10:23:00.000-04:00

I finished reading Chris Marshall's exert on the atonement as restorative justice rather then retributive justice.

Several things I liked:

1. Has less of a cold legal transaction feel that straight penal substitution has

2. Suggests that substitution means not replacement but representation - ie not Jesus replacing humans but being a representative of, or on behalf of, so that humanity is still in the equation not left to the side in some sense

Norman Krauss explains, "he accepts solidarity with us in our
responsibility for sin in the sense that he assumed the reresponsibility
to correct the intrinsic consequences, namely, alienation and death."

3. Clarification of the aspect of sacrifice not as something punished instead of us, but cleansed instead of us

John Goldingay explains, "Sacrifice does not involve penal substitution in
the sense that one entity bears another's punishment. By laying hands on the
offering, the offerers identify with it and pass on to it not their guilt
but their stain. The offering is then not vicariously punished but
vicariously cleansed."

4. The central issue of tipping the idea of retributive justice on its head - no 'eye for an eye' idea

"The logic of the cross actually confounds the principle of retributive
justice, for salvation is achieved not by the offender compensating for his
crimes by suffering, but by the victim, the one offended against, suffering
vicariously on behalf of the offended."
As well as forgiving and cleansing sinners, God has intervened to remedy the environment of sin and evil that causes offending in the first place, defeating the malignant powers that enslaved the human race. Thus, God's justice is vindicated not through prosecution and punishment but through forgiveness, restitution, and liberation - restorative justice par excellence.

Is Evangelical Christology too high?

2004-08-16T10:27:00.000-04:00

Respond to the criticism made of evangelical that we get our theology from the epistles and not the gospels, and hence our Christology is too high.

Ok thats the tutors question.

My response:

I apologize in advance if my thoughts are a little jumbled on this topic as I feel like I go through a process of self discovery every time I read the next section of these courses and it takes me a while to figure out what I really think.

I'm torn about this question as last semester I did the Intro to New Testament A (focusing on the gospels) have also been doing a bible study in my home group on the first few chapters of the gospel of John. It seems to me that if you read John your Christology will end up as high as if you take it all from the epistles. So I guess my comments are similar to Terry's in that regard. Also, many of the scripture passages used by very early theologians to support the divinity of Christ were from the words of the Gospel of John and evangelicals still give considerable weight to the conclusions of these early councils.

I was very interested in Mike Riddel's article about the issue. I confess to being a big fan of Riddel so perhaps that gave me a bias in his favour but since reading that article I have been thinking a lot about his comments about the effect of the empty cross and lack of physical symbols in the protestant church. I've decided I don't want to replace the empty cross with a crucifix as for me the empty cross is too important as a physical reminder of the resurrection. However, I take his point that perhaps the over eagerness of the protestant church to ensure it doesn't create idols has left us without such tangible reminders of the humanity of Christ.

I was interested to read Terry's comment

"As I was growing up I noticed in my own reading of the Bible that I had a strong tendency to read the epistles more often than the gospels."

I think that my experience has been the opposite. I think I've always wanted to go straight to the words of Jesus and I confess, I have struggled more with the writing of Paul and become more confused with that than the seemingly ambiguous words of Christ. For this reason I felt a particular sense of renewed interest when going through the readings about the early confession and hymn fragments used in Paul's writings. How exciting to realize that Christians so soon after the resurrection were proclaiming Jesus as Christ and Lord. The readings renewed my sense of the unbroken connection between believers in the 21st Century and those who witnessed the resurrection. I realize that this is jumping ahead a bit but it has very much helped me consider how a position of high Christology might be reached.

I think that having now thought considerably about both Riddel's comments, and my excitement about the discussion of the early confessions found particularly in Paul's writing, my conclusion is that a balanced Christology cannot be formed without taking into account both the aspects of humanity and divinity found in the gospels, as well as the aspects of humanity and divinity expressed in the Epistles.

Quote about Socialism

2004-08-13T11:26:00.000-04:00

This quote is taken from a speach by Chris Trotter in NZ at the St Aiden's lectures my dad ran. I'm not sure I entirely agree with it but its a pretty interesting comment...

The enduring success of the Scandinavian welfare states is attributed by a growing number of sociologists to the relative homogeneity of their
populations. It is only when “sameness” in theory is matched by “sameness” in reality, they say, that the redistributive impulse makes sense. A society made up of a single ethnic group, which operates according to the norms of a single culture, and where there are no great extremes of wealth or poverty, has a much better chance of preserving its egalitarian traditions and the institutions based upon them, than a society comprised of a multitude of different races and cultures, but
dominated - both economically and politically - by a single ethnic group.

The "God-ness" of Jesus

2004-08-10T15:08:00.000-04:00

Read an interesting article by Ben Witherington about the Christology of the earliest Jewish Christians. Kinda made me feel quite good in a way. His analysis is very thorough and his argument is that "Its seems clear from analyzing the relevant Aramaic phrases in the new Testament that very early on Jewish Christians were worshipping not only God as 'abba' but also Jesus as the Lord, and praying for his return. They were also confessing "Jesus is Lord," by which they seem to have meant that he is the risen Lord and their Lord or Master since the resurrection."

The material he pulls from is what is considered the earliest writings in the New Testament canon which are 1. Prayers and confessions within Paul's writings (taken from earlier sources), 2. Hymns used in that early period and the Q material in the gospels.

It seems reassuring to me to see that these ideas of the divinity of Jesus were there right from the very beginning post resurrection. This was not some latter 'reading in' to the story.

Jesus' Self Knowledge

2004-08-09T11:43:00.000-04:00

Another reading about the issue of Jesus' humanity deals with the issue of whether Jesus knew he was God. Elizabeth Johnson argues that he both did and he didn't. She suggests that in some intuitive sense she describes as the 'transcendental pole of self-awareness' he did. Just as we individually have an indescribable sense of who we are, so did Jesus. However she also suggests that in some ways Jesus did not know he was God and she calls this the objective knowledge. Just as we know objective details about who we are and our place in the world, so did Jesus. Johnson describes how as we get older and have various experiences we grow in understanding of our transcendental selves and that as Jesus grew and had various experiences his objective knowledge became more aware of the intuitive knowledge of his divine nature. She suggests that comments such as Jesus made on the cross 'Father why have you forsaken me' are examples of the remaining parts of his objective knowledge that did not fully comprehend what his intuitive knowledge knew and would not fully know until the resurrection.

This is a very very interesting theory and certainly does a good job of providing an explanation of 'knowing and yet not knowing' of Jesus' self awareness.

The Quest for the Historical Jesus

2004-08-06T16:04:00.000-04:00

I've just finished reading an excerpt from N. T. Wright's 'Who Was Jesus' in which he reviews the three phases and the relevant theologians described as part of the quest for the historical Jesus. Having finished the article I feel like I've been watching the Jesus figure being grabbed and pushed and pulled and poked and prodded. Its as if each new theorist is saying 'he's mine, he's mine', 'he looks like this like this like this' and all that is left at the end is a bruised and battered body. My gut reaction is to wonder how some of these writers can maintain any sense of the holiness of Jesus at all at the end of their "examination". It is by its nature, so very modern. Each attempts to say 'if I just think a bit harder, and research some more, then we'll really know about Jesus'. Which to me just seems like rubbish because no matter what they do or how hard they study, they are never going to get over the 'dirty great ditch' of 2000 years of history.

Having said all that, I thought Mr. Wright's conclusions were fairly good. He suggests that all this to-ing and fro-ing has left us with several questions that are worthy of continuing study.
1. What was Jesus' relationship with he Judaism of his day?
2. What were Jesus' actual aims? Iie, what was he wanting people to do if they were to respond to him appropriately?
3. Why did Jesus die?
4. Why did the early church begin?
5. Why are the gospels what they are?

Another interesting quote

2004-08-05T17:15:00.000-04:00

"Archbishop William Temple, as a young man, once asked his father why the philosophers did not apparently rule the world. The answer was 'of course they do, silly - two hundred years after they die' - quoted from N. T. Wright - Who Was Jesus

So true, and yet something you completely don't see until you really start to look at the writing of some of the people 200 years ago :-)

Ideas

2004-08-05T14:06:00.000-04:00

Couldn't think what to name this post. Finished reading through all the material for the Theological Method course yesterday. I just keep thinking about how you go through life sort of subconsciously thinking that what you think and believe must just be how its always been and the more you read, about any subject, the more you realize how much you don't know. As they say the more you know the more you know you don't know.

I was reading through all the most recent theological movements from like the last 250 years modernism, neo-orthodoxy, liberalism, post liberalism, feminism, post modernism, evangelicalism. I'm one of those people who as I read each bit I think yeah I agree with that bit, don't agree with that bit, then move on to the next one and think the same thing about the next one. So anyway, I end up liking bits of all of them. I guess that is how most people formulate their theology. I think I like the central ideas of a lot of the movements, but not the extremes they are taken to. Like Feminism. I completely agree with the need to re-think theology though a feminine lens, however do I think that means you throw the whole Christ thing out as some super male conspiracy? No.

I have realised that out of the people doing both courses, there are only about 3 women out of maybe 20. I wonder why that is, I'm sure the other courses weren't that way. I think its noticeable in the posts too. I guess if any of them read this they'll probably disagree, but that's what I think. Most of the posts are big analytical rants. I think that is the thing that I have been really liking about the 'Ladies Lounge' posts on the Ooze. Women sometimes are more civil and less analytical.

Theology and Culture

2004-08-02T15:01:00.000-04:00

I just finished reading through the 'Culture' section of the Theological Method course. They had like five different positions different people have about the interraction between culture and religion. One was completely against, one was completely for, and three others were a bit of both. Im still not sure where I stand. I think I like the 'transforming culture' position of the other three. I certainly never see 'culture' as the big evil. I love MTV, I love my tv programmes, I love movies I love best seller books. However, I definately do not think like Thomas Jefferson, that our culture has reached the pinnacle of greatness. So how you mix the two positions is indeed an interesting questions...

Quote from Blue Like Jazz

2004-07-29T14:47:00.000-04:00

In his book Orthodoxy, G. K. Chesterton says chess players go crazy, not poets. I think he is right. You'd go crazy trying to explain penguins. Its best just to watch them and be entertained. I don't think you can explain how Christian faith works either. It is a mystery. And I love this about Christian spirituality. It cannot be explained, and yet it is beautiful and true. It is something you feel, and it comes from the soul. - Donald Miller

Sources of Theology

2004-07-28T15:37:00.000-04:00

I've been reading all the stuff about sources of theology being Scripture, Reason, Tradition and Experience. interesting to see one student have a rant on the importance of scripture over experience in relation to the Moltman article. I'm not sure it was completely on topic, but interesting to see, and definitely a very evangelical perspective. Me, I think I'm still thinking about it all. Scripture is obviously important and reason I think is overrated. Tradition probably more important then I first thought and then experience...experience is a difficult one because I think there is a fine balance between never devaluing someone's experience and realizing that experience is of course completely subjective.

Article by Moltmann "Wrestling with God"

2004-07-23T14:50:00.000-04:00

Moltman's article describes his coming to faith as a German prisoner of war camp in England following World War II.

Moltmann's article was very moving and involving, so much so that I had to reread the article with the theological method course content in mind. On my first reading I got very drawn into his sense of struggle to make sense of his world and the tumultuous events that had forced him to rethink much of what he had thought of as certain. On reflection and after my second reading I see that as being a big part of what theology is, that is, putting God into the context of our struggle to make sense of the world, and the way in which we deal with the major elements of life such as pain, grace, and love.

I think the article was a wonderful way to start the course because it puts "theology" into a very personal and real context, and it illustrates how our context helps to create the basis of our personal theology. I found myself thinking of the big life issues that I have "wrestled" with (albeit not within the confines of a post world war two prison camp) and how those events shaped the way in which I thought of God.

Natural Theology

2004-07-23T09:24:00.000-04:00

I've been reading up about the arguments for and against Natural theology this morning. Initially it made me think about a couple of incidents where I remember standing on Waikawau Beach as a teenager with a couple of friends and being amazed at the beauty and voicing the adage 'how can you not believe in God when you look at this'. I think this has to be seen in light of a background of being raised with Christianity though. If I had none of that background, would I still reference that scene to a creator? So hard to know and impossible to divorce the background from the sentiment. But perhaps this speaks more to the conclusion that knowing the existence of God, the universe speak to his nature. I dunno though, some weird things happen in nature. I think there will always have to be the combination of natural theology and revelation though, I guess is my only conclusion.

I'm still thinking about Calvin's 'sensius devine' or whatever it is called too, which is the idea that we have something built into us that senses the devine. I think I have even argued for this in the past, without obviously knowing all the theological background (interesting how this happens). I'm just not sure though. I think so much as to do with what you are brought up with or come in contact with in your life that influences you, that I can't say that someone brought up say in an animist society or something would have the same sense. I think that you could have the sense that there was something greater then yourself in existence, but I'm not sure that you could go much further than that.

No Theology Tonight

2004-07-21T21:44:00.000-04:00

Feeling a little sad and homesick. I hope I can get the plane tickets sorted for January and everything works out. Kevin reckons I've been doing really well with the old homesick thing. I really only get bad when i'm tired and/or feeling sick. It dosn't help when you pick up the phone and your mum answers either...Is it ok to self indulge in that feeling ever? I dunno. I'm sure I can be forgiven for the odd burst of tears...

Read a few different blogs...kinda interesting to see how people use them. Some really serious, some kind of messages to family and friends.

Science and Theology Part 2

2004-07-20T10:31:00.000-04:00

Ok, so Kevin says that Science and Theology could be completely unrelated and never overlap because if you are a scientist you believe that the universe is ruled by natural laws. If you are a theologian of any sort you believe that God, or the supreme being can intervene and mess up those natural laws. He says that even if you are say a deist and just believe that God started it all and set it all in motion and then didn't mess with it after that, you still believe that God messed with the natural laws in some way originally, and potentially, even if you think its unlikely, God could do it again. Obviously there are scientists who are theists so there must be some reconciliation. Could not God use natural laws to intervene? Worthy of more thought...

Science and Theology

2004-07-19T16:43:00.000-04:00

Ok, this is the first of probably a couple of posts about this topic. I always saw the interaction between these two things as sort of like a venn diagram (if thats what they are called) where science and theology both had their own spheres, with a small area of overlap to do with issues like creation etc. However, one of the articles for the Theological Method paper on this topic points out that both disciplines are in the business of "world-building" as he puts it. That is establishing context and creating and transforming meaning.

In the past I think I considered that Science dealt more with the 'how' of life and theology with the 'why'. However, the more that I think about it, and especially reading "Earth, a History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson at the same time, the more I keep seeing overlaps. Science more and more is delving into the area of ethics and ethics invariably involve the way we construct our worlds and meaning and therefore theology. But more then this, much of what Science is considering about the origins of life and the universe deal with purpose and chance and that too is tied in with "world-building".

A parable

2004-07-16T15:09:00.000-04:00

This is from the Theology course I'm doing:

On the banks of the Rhine, a beautiful castle had been standing for centuries. In the cellar of the castle, an intricate network of webbing had been constructed by mysterious spiders who lived there. One day a strong wind sprang up and destroyed the web. Frantically the spiders worked to repair the damage. They thought it was their webbing that was holding up the castle--Morris Kline, The Loss of Certainty.

One of the questions posed in this section of the course is whether you have ever seen pastors trying to 'hold up the castle' with their words.

This is a challenging thought. It led me to think more about how so many people feel such an invested interest in what other people believe in. Divorce this for a moment from the whole idea of truth. I was talking to Kevin a bit about this last night. That sometimes I find it is difficult to discern what I actually believe, from what I think other people think and worry that I should believe. Do I believe something because it is true to myself, or do I believe it because if I don't someone else's castle may fall down? Kevin is the best at challenging me on this. I think I need to learn this principle, that if I change my mind about something, or even stop believing in something, the castle doesn't fall down, it doesn't actually matter. It only matters that I am true to myself.

A Quote for Reflection

2004-07-15T22:11:00.000-04:00

Theology for me is a suffering from God and a passion for God’s kingdom. For me this is a messianic passion, because it is possessed and moved by the presence of the crucified Christ. For me theology springs from divine passion--it is the open wound of God in one’s own life.

Jurgen Moltmann

The wisdom of teeth

2004-07-15T11:20:00.000-04:00

Ok I learnt the first lesson of blogging today. "Publish" dosn't mean save.

So yes, my big rant about my wisdom teeth, shall never be seen by the wider world. So perhaps I am less wise without them.

Here is a bullet point summery

* Dentist said I had to have them out, that sucked, I cried
* Went to the oral surgeon, he said I had to have them out, that sucked, but I didn't cry
* Scheduled it for July 9, worried about it up till then, but was ok
* Went in to have them out, got into the dentist room, had a full on panic attack. Fun times.
* Teeth out, anesthetic not so bad.
* Friday afternoon, Saturday, sleeping and pain, painkillers
* Sunday, more pain, more painkillers, less sleeping
* Monday, Tuesday horrid horrid pain, no sleeping, even at night much.
* Wednesday, getting a bit better. Horray
* Thursday, am i on the homeward stretch?

So there you go. I shall save. Then publish.

2004-07-14T14:36:00.000-04:00

This is a koru, a new fern. It symbolizes new life.

Lets see how this goes

2004-07-14T13:56:00.000-04:00

Ok. Just looking at commenting on someone elses blog and magically created my own. How about that! Maybe i'll actually write stuff...I wonder...