When I was a School Chaplain, way back in the day, I found this series of lectures on Youth Ministry just about the most stimulating thing going. I didn't always agree, but this was such a change from the usual shallow, technique-driven stuff that is around about youth ministry. Here is actual theology.
A particular highlight was this one, by Kenda Creasy Dean:
'Holding on to our Kisses: A Hormonal Theology of Adolescence'
but you can check out lectures from Miroslav Volf and Jurgen Moltmann among others.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Billy Graham in Australia 1959
My relatives went forward at the crusades in Sydney in the same visit to Australia.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Locke's tolerance - its limits
'Promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon the atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all.'
John Locke, Letter on Toleration
The father of modern liberal politics shows his true colours...
John Locke, Letter on Toleration
The father of modern liberal politics shows his true colours...
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Anne Lamott
I have been reading two wonderful books by Anne Lamott:
Bird by Bird - a terrific book about writing;
and her spirutual memoir
Traveling Mercies.
I won't review them or anything: but they are books to change your life by.
Bird by Bird - a terrific book about writing;
and her spirutual memoir
Traveling Mercies.
I won't review them or anything: but they are books to change your life by.
Keller - the Gospel in all its forms
H/T to Stephen:
an interesting article by Tim Keller from New York, on how he preaches the gospel.
He sums up:
Today there are many who doubt that there is just one gospel. That gives them the warrant to ignore the gospel of atonement and justification. There are others who don't like to admit that there are different forms to that one gospel. That smacks too much of "contextualization," a term they dislike. They cling to a single presentation that is often one-dimensional. Neither of these approaches is as true to the biblical material, nor as effective in actual ministry, as that which understands that the Bible presents one gospel in several forms.
an interesting article by Tim Keller from New York, on how he preaches the gospel.
He sums up:
Today there are many who doubt that there is just one gospel. That gives them the warrant to ignore the gospel of atonement and justification. There are others who don't like to admit that there are different forms to that one gospel. That smacks too much of "contextualization," a term they dislike. They cling to a single presentation that is often one-dimensional. Neither of these approaches is as true to the biblical material, nor as effective in actual ministry, as that which understands that the Bible presents one gospel in several forms.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Friday, May 23, 2008
Churchman article
This Summer's Churchman has hit the shelves of theological colleges and pastor's studies everywhere and it includes the first in my series of three articles entitled The Christian Revolution. This issue contains 1. Liberty.
Lee Gatiss has an interesting article on Richard Baxter, too. And Tony Wright concludes his two-parter on Death, the Dead and the Underworld in Biblical Theology.
Lee Gatiss has an interesting article on Richard Baxter, too. And Tony Wright concludes his two-parter on Death, the Dead and the Underworld in Biblical Theology.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Frightening Children?
Jason cites a very interesting quote from CS Lewis about frightening children...
Personally, I find children terrifying.
[it's a joke]
Personally, I find children terrifying.
[it's a joke]
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
In Praise of Teachers Meme
Back in September last year, I wrote a post in praise of teachers.
In it, I listed ten of my favourite teachers selected from the whole spread of my educational career (20+ years and still going...). I gave a brief explanation in each case.
Now, I am not much one for memes - but could this one work? I need your help.
Here goes:
List FIVE of your favourite teachers, and tell us what made them great. Then tag some people whose blogs you read...
I tag:
In it, I listed ten of my favourite teachers selected from the whole spread of my educational career (20+ years and still going...). I gave a brief explanation in each case.
Now, I am not much one for memes - but could this one work? I need your help.
Here goes:
List FIVE of your favourite teachers, and tell us what made them great. Then tag some people whose blogs you read...
I tag:
Monday, May 19, 2008
Why Christians are not people of principle
I read a terrific book by Stanley Fish once, called The Trouble with Principle.
That was a while ago; but for some reason I was thinking about it again this morning. Principled people - and there are Christians among them, granted - are some of the most dangerous people there are. That is: everything in moral reasoning becomes ordered to a set of ideals (or even a single ideal). That means, in practice that anything is justifiable in the name of these ideals or principles. You can invade Iraq and torture prisoners in the name of freedom, for example. In the name of fairer and better government with more integrity you can knife your political opponents in the back. Do evil, that good may result. It is (so the calculation runs) a lesser evil than the evil that may result if the ultimate good is not defended.
There is, naturally, a deal of suspicion of these kind of principles, too. What alternative is there to them is the problem - to be unprincipled?
But Christian discipleship is not the following of a set of principles. It is discipleship: it is following a master, imitation of an example (while at the same time being spiritually united to this master). It isn't a set of truths (though it is TRUE, and it trades in TRUTH, for sure) from which all else must be deduced in some process of ethical calculation. Even 'love' can't be held as a mere principle: it must be worked out in the light of the example of love given to us and worked in us.
Away then with principles!
That was a while ago; but for some reason I was thinking about it again this morning. Principled people - and there are Christians among them, granted - are some of the most dangerous people there are. That is: everything in moral reasoning becomes ordered to a set of ideals (or even a single ideal). That means, in practice that anything is justifiable in the name of these ideals or principles. You can invade Iraq and torture prisoners in the name of freedom, for example. In the name of fairer and better government with more integrity you can knife your political opponents in the back. Do evil, that good may result. It is (so the calculation runs) a lesser evil than the evil that may result if the ultimate good is not defended.
There is, naturally, a deal of suspicion of these kind of principles, too. What alternative is there to them is the problem - to be unprincipled?
But Christian discipleship is not the following of a set of principles. It is discipleship: it is following a master, imitation of an example (while at the same time being spiritually united to this master). It isn't a set of truths (though it is TRUE, and it trades in TRUTH, for sure) from which all else must be deduced in some process of ethical calculation. Even 'love' can't be held as a mere principle: it must be worked out in the light of the example of love given to us and worked in us.
Away then with principles!
Songs of Sydney - 6
Sydney, nights are warm, daytime telly, blue-rinse dawn..
At least, you won't have time to be bored...
At least, you won't have time to be bored...
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Songs of Sydney - 8
King St - well, now, this is the King St of my youth... Coles New World is now the Dendy cinema.
On King St, I'm a king...
On King St, I'm a king...
Friday, May 16, 2008
Endnote trouble shooting
Does anyone know what you do in Endnote when you want to cite a work by a Pope?
It always comes out as II, John Paul...
It always comes out as II, John Paul...
Songs of Sydney - 1
Ah, Sydney: I can already smell the dog pee evaporating from your footpaths, and the rage of the drivers of a million cars on a February afternoon, and the dust blowing in from the drought...
Thursday, May 15, 2008
The Short Abstract
Ok, we are down to the nitty gritty now, and I need help refining and clarifying this abstract. Remember, be CONSTRUCTIVELY critical and help protect my oh-so-fragile ego...
This thesis asks: what kind of self is the Christian, as it is discovered in Christian martyrdom? It will be argued that Christian martyrdom provides a coherent and compelling narration of the self in terms of the narrative of the life and death of Jesus Christ: a narrative that orients the self in hope towards the good and turns the self towards recognition of and sacrificial service of other selves. It is established (following Balthasar) that martyrdom is the external representation in the lives of some of the inner reality of all Christian disciples. A number of modern secular accounts of selfhood and identity recognize the importance of martyrdom as a key point in the conflict of the meaning of human identity. However, as is shown from the work of Salman Rushdie and Charles Taylor, these accounts do not successfully describe the self as it is revealed in Christian martyrdom. Rushdie even questions the authenticity of a religiously-construed self. The thesis then (chapters 3-6) offers a description and an analysis of self-identity as it is informed by martyrdom, in conversation with T.S. Eliot’s play Murder in the Cathedral. Christian discipleship is not the path of establishing oneself through security, pursuing the good made possible through collaboration with earthly power, making oneself an identity through action according to some ideal, or even seeking earthly or heavenly renown. Christian selfhood is (rather) narrated against the experience of peirasmo,j (temptation/testing) and with reference to providentia dei. Both themes are explained Christologically (chapter 7). Martyrdom is not a witness to the innocence of the martyr, but rather to her vindication by the divine judge on account of Jesus Christ. Finally, it is argued that the Christian self is offered to others as an act of suffering persuasion.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Augustine, our contemporary
Augustine, in giving voice to Roman hedonism, could be speaking of modern liberal Westerners:
"But the worshippers and admirers of these gods delight in imitating their scandalous iniquities, and are nowise concerned that the republic be less depraved and licentious. Only let it remain undefeated, they say, only let it flourish and abound in resources; let it be glorious by its victories, or still better, secure in peace; and what matters it to us? This is our concern, that every man be able to increase his wealth so as to supply his daily prodigalities, and so that the powerful may subject the weak for their own purposes. Let the poor court the rich for a living, and that under their protection they may enjoy a sluggish tranquillity; and let the rich abuse the poor as their dependants, to minister to their pride. Let the people applaud not those who protect their interests, but those who provide them with pleasure. Let no severe duty be commanded, no impurity forbidden. Let kings estimate their prosperity, not by the righteousness, but by the servility of their subjects. Let the provinces stand loyal to the kings, not as moral guides, but as lords of their possessions and purveyors of their pleasures; not with a hearty reverence, but a crooked and servile fear. Let the laws take cognizance rather of the injury done to another man's property, than of that done to one's own person. If a man be a nuisance to his neighbor, or injure his property, family, or person, let him be actionable; but in his own affairs let everyone with impunity do what he will in company with his own family, and with those who willingly join him. Let there be a plentiful supply of public prostitutes for every one who wishes to use them, but specially for those who are too poor to keep one for their private use. Let there be erected houses of the largest and most ornate description: in these let there be provided the most sumptuous banquets, where every one who pleases may, by day or night, play, drink, vomit, dissipate. Let there be everywhere heard the rustling of dancers, the loud, immodest laughter of the theatre; let a succession of the most cruel and the most voluptuous pleasures maintain a perpetual excitement. If such happiness is distasteful to any, let him be branded as a public enemy; and if any attempt to modify or put an end to it let him be silenced, banished, put an end to. Let these be reckoned the true gods, who procure for the people this condition of things, and preserve it when once possessed. Let them be worshipped as they wish; let them demand whatever games they please, from or with their own worshippers; only let them secure that such felicity be not imperilled by foe, plague, or disaster of any kind."
He even has a role for the religious!
City of God, II.20
"But the worshippers and admirers of these gods delight in imitating their scandalous iniquities, and are nowise concerned that the republic be less depraved and licentious. Only let it remain undefeated, they say, only let it flourish and abound in resources; let it be glorious by its victories, or still better, secure in peace; and what matters it to us? This is our concern, that every man be able to increase his wealth so as to supply his daily prodigalities, and so that the powerful may subject the weak for their own purposes. Let the poor court the rich for a living, and that under their protection they may enjoy a sluggish tranquillity; and let the rich abuse the poor as their dependants, to minister to their pride. Let the people applaud not those who protect their interests, but those who provide them with pleasure. Let no severe duty be commanded, no impurity forbidden. Let kings estimate their prosperity, not by the righteousness, but by the servility of their subjects. Let the provinces stand loyal to the kings, not as moral guides, but as lords of their possessions and purveyors of their pleasures; not with a hearty reverence, but a crooked and servile fear. Let the laws take cognizance rather of the injury done to another man's property, than of that done to one's own person. If a man be a nuisance to his neighbor, or injure his property, family, or person, let him be actionable; but in his own affairs let everyone with impunity do what he will in company with his own family, and with those who willingly join him. Let there be a plentiful supply of public prostitutes for every one who wishes to use them, but specially for those who are too poor to keep one for their private use. Let there be erected houses of the largest and most ornate description: in these let there be provided the most sumptuous banquets, where every one who pleases may, by day or night, play, drink, vomit, dissipate. Let there be everywhere heard the rustling of dancers, the loud, immodest laughter of the theatre; let a succession of the most cruel and the most voluptuous pleasures maintain a perpetual excitement. If such happiness is distasteful to any, let him be branded as a public enemy; and if any attempt to modify or put an end to it let him be silenced, banished, put an end to. Let these be reckoned the true gods, who procure for the people this condition of things, and preserve it when once possessed. Let them be worshipped as they wish; let them demand whatever games they please, from or with their own worshippers; only let them secure that such felicity be not imperilled by foe, plague, or disaster of any kind."
He even has a role for the religious!
City of God, II.20
Iris Murdoch
Just a note this morning:
I have been reading the excellent novels of Iris Murdoch. They are shot through with her post-God attempt to find a moral ideal, a conception of the Good that will be tenable in the contemporary world. The themes? Well, love, sex, God and death of course! What else is worth talking about? It reminds me that the best moral thinking these days is done by novelists. The narrative form is such an advantage.
I have read thus far:
The Bell
Bruno's Dream
A Severed Head (read it ages ago)
The Time of the Angels
and I am reading
The Black Prince.
Next: Henry and Cato
and then -
The Sea, The Sea.
I have been reading the excellent novels of Iris Murdoch. They are shot through with her post-God attempt to find a moral ideal, a conception of the Good that will be tenable in the contemporary world. The themes? Well, love, sex, God and death of course! What else is worth talking about? It reminds me that the best moral thinking these days is done by novelists. The narrative form is such an advantage.
I have read thus far:
The Bell
Bruno's Dream
A Severed Head (read it ages ago)
The Time of the Angels
and I am reading
The Black Prince.
Next: Henry and Cato
and then -
The Sea, The Sea.
Friday, May 09, 2008
Sin in the Life of the Believer - 3
But ... don’t forget that Paul is stern with the sinful believer, too. In 1 Corinthians 6 he reminds the Corinthians that the Kingdom of God does not belong to the rampant sinner. Ephesians 5:5 is equally strong: “For of this you can be sure; no immoral, impure or greedy person…has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” The message for the sinful Christian is not, “well, we all sin sometimes, but “stop it and repent!”
Hebrews is even stronger. On the one hand, the author enthusiastically explains how the Christian has absolutely free access into the presence of God himself through the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. There is every reason to be confident of our salvation. But, he is also uncompromising about sin. “If we deliberately go on sinning” writes the author, “no sacrifice for sins is left!” To the Christian who said “I sin all the time”, he would say “Don’t!” 1 John backs him up: “I am writing this so you will not sin” he says, “but if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father.”
Not bad advice, actually. Christians (well, I, at least) do love to wallow in guilt. But maybe that’s not good enough. If I am to think more biblically I might instead remember who I am on account of Christ. And I might have courage to tackle my sin (with the Spirit’s help) and kill it off. It has no place in my life, after all.
However, I still live in a warzone, for the time being. I still live life in the weak flesh, I still live under the effects of sin, I still live (for now) on the wrong side of eternity. In Romans 8, Paul tackles exactly this state of affairs. (Before you read it, cross out “sinful nature” in the NIV and replace it with “flesh”.) The Christian continues to live in a sinful environment – even in a weak and sinful body – but is now controlled by the Spirit. The Christian experiences first hand the rot of the sinful era: but also yearns with the Spirit for the future redemption of the body. Most reassuringly of all for the overwhelmed believer, there is no condemnation for those in Christ. If God is for us, who can be against us? We are more than conquerors…
Sin in our lives is a contradiction of our very identity: an absurdity, given our destiny. It isn’t who we are any more.
Hebrews is even stronger. On the one hand, the author enthusiastically explains how the Christian has absolutely free access into the presence of God himself through the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. There is every reason to be confident of our salvation. But, he is also uncompromising about sin. “If we deliberately go on sinning” writes the author, “no sacrifice for sins is left!” To the Christian who said “I sin all the time”, he would say “Don’t!” 1 John backs him up: “I am writing this so you will not sin” he says, “but if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father.”
Not bad advice, actually. Christians (well, I, at least) do love to wallow in guilt. But maybe that’s not good enough. If I am to think more biblically I might instead remember who I am on account of Christ. And I might have courage to tackle my sin (with the Spirit’s help) and kill it off. It has no place in my life, after all.
However, I still live in a warzone, for the time being. I still live life in the weak flesh, I still live under the effects of sin, I still live (for now) on the wrong side of eternity. In Romans 8, Paul tackles exactly this state of affairs. (Before you read it, cross out “sinful nature” in the NIV and replace it with “flesh”.) The Christian continues to live in a sinful environment – even in a weak and sinful body – but is now controlled by the Spirit. The Christian experiences first hand the rot of the sinful era: but also yearns with the Spirit for the future redemption of the body. Most reassuringly of all for the overwhelmed believer, there is no condemnation for those in Christ. If God is for us, who can be against us? We are more than conquerors…
Sin in our lives is a contradiction of our very identity: an absurdity, given our destiny. It isn’t who we are any more.
Some Perspective
A poster on Ruth Gledhill's blog shared this:
"This is to let you know the sad news that David Mohamed Ali, a Somali Christian evangelist and a long-standing member of St Matthew's, was shot dead last week by two Islamist terrorists in Badoia, Somalia, because of his Christian faith. He had been sent to Badoia by Ethiopian and Somali borderpolice, for reasons that are not clear.
David was an intelligent and gifted evangelist who thought deeply about hisf aith. For a while he ran a website for Christian Somalis. I had recentlygiven him a reference to do a Degree in Theology at ETC (EvangelicalTheological College), Addis Ababa. He was single man, aged about 35, who was based in Addis Ababa but travelled widely sharing his faith.
We thank God for his life and courageous witness, and pray for his mother,sister and other members of his family. We also pray for the Somali Christian community, that they may be comforted and strengthened at thistime when Christians are under great pressure in Somalia.
David's death comes just two weeks after four Christian teachers (2 British Somalis and 2 Kenyans) were killed in Beledwayne, Somalia."
[Ruth has been running an excellent series on persecution - really different stuff for a major newspaper. ]
"This is to let you know the sad news that David Mohamed Ali, a Somali Christian evangelist and a long-standing member of St Matthew's, was shot dead last week by two Islamist terrorists in Badoia, Somalia, because of his Christian faith. He had been sent to Badoia by Ethiopian and Somali borderpolice, for reasons that are not clear.
David was an intelligent and gifted evangelist who thought deeply about hisf aith. For a while he ran a website for Christian Somalis. I had recentlygiven him a reference to do a Degree in Theology at ETC (EvangelicalTheological College), Addis Ababa. He was single man, aged about 35, who was based in Addis Ababa but travelled widely sharing his faith.
We thank God for his life and courageous witness, and pray for his mother,sister and other members of his family. We also pray for the Somali Christian community, that they may be comforted and strengthened at thistime when Christians are under great pressure in Somalia.
David's death comes just two weeks after four Christian teachers (2 British Somalis and 2 Kenyans) were killed in Beledwayne, Somalia."
[Ruth has been running an excellent series on persecution - really different stuff for a major newspaper. ]
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Sin in the Life of the Believer - 2
So, what to do then?
One favourite strategy of Christians down the centuries has been to take a minimal definition of sin. “Lowering the bar” in other words. You define sin using a set of rules or behaviours, and then you design your life so to avoid transgressing. Live in a nice tree-lined suburb. Talk to nice people about nice things. Work hard, never offend anyone. Keep away from attractive members of the opposite sex. Go to church, pay your taxes, recycle. Do not count as sin the more alarming topography of your inner world. Thank God that you are not like other people. Neat, huh?
There are two problems with minimalism. Firstly, Jesus seems to have a maximal definition of sin. His Sermon on the Mount convicts me on the basis of my intentions as well as my deeds; and it also urges me to take radical action against sin. True righteousness is not a matter of merely avoiding sin. It is active.
Secondly, if I am to pursue the path of love commanded by Jesus, I will risk sin in my interactions with other people. Other people are so hard to love, but you can’t be loving without them! No wonder the monastics used isolation in their quest for purity.
But how does the Bible address sin in the life of the believer? It is good to remember the robust conscience of the New Testament writers on the one hand; and the severe warnings they give against sin on the other. Paul does not write to “the sinners in Corinth” but to the “church of God…to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy”. He calls the church the “temple of the Holy Spirit”, and “the body of Christ”. His strategy for handling sin in the life of the believer is to remind Christians of their radical change in status. “ Your life is hid with Christ”; “ You are dead to sin, alive to Christ”; “ you are all sons of God”; “now you are light in the Lord”; “you are not your own…you were brought at a price”; “you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified”; “we…have the firstfruits of the spirit”. The Christian is a home for the Holy Spirit and lives by that Spirit.
Do we doubt the power of God’s Spirit to change us?
One favourite strategy of Christians down the centuries has been to take a minimal definition of sin. “Lowering the bar” in other words. You define sin using a set of rules or behaviours, and then you design your life so to avoid transgressing. Live in a nice tree-lined suburb. Talk to nice people about nice things. Work hard, never offend anyone. Keep away from attractive members of the opposite sex. Go to church, pay your taxes, recycle. Do not count as sin the more alarming topography of your inner world. Thank God that you are not like other people. Neat, huh?
There are two problems with minimalism. Firstly, Jesus seems to have a maximal definition of sin. His Sermon on the Mount convicts me on the basis of my intentions as well as my deeds; and it also urges me to take radical action against sin. True righteousness is not a matter of merely avoiding sin. It is active.
Secondly, if I am to pursue the path of love commanded by Jesus, I will risk sin in my interactions with other people. Other people are so hard to love, but you can’t be loving without them! No wonder the monastics used isolation in their quest for purity.
But how does the Bible address sin in the life of the believer? It is good to remember the robust conscience of the New Testament writers on the one hand; and the severe warnings they give against sin on the other. Paul does not write to “the sinners in Corinth” but to the “church of God…to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy”. He calls the church the “temple of the Holy Spirit”, and “the body of Christ”. His strategy for handling sin in the life of the believer is to remind Christians of their radical change in status. “ Your life is hid with Christ”; “ You are dead to sin, alive to Christ”; “ you are all sons of God”; “now you are light in the Lord”; “you are not your own…you were brought at a price”; “you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified”; “we…have the firstfruits of the spirit”. The Christian is a home for the Holy Spirit and lives by that Spirit.
Do we doubt the power of God’s Spirit to change us?
An Evangelical Manifesto
H/T to Craig for this: a group of prominent Evangelical leaders in the US have released this statement, entitled 'An Evangelical Manifesto'. It is not brief - 7,000+ words - but, by golly, it is fascinating. It is an attempt to grab back Evangelical identity from its political uses in the US, and to distinguish Evangelicalism from fundamentalism. Here's a bit to chew on:
...the Evangelical message, "good news" by definition, is overwhelmingly positive, and always positive before it is negative. There is an enormous theological and cultural importance to the power of No, especially in a day when Everything is permitted and It is forbidden to forbid. Just as Jesus did, Evangelicals sometimes have to make strong judgments about what is false, unjust, and evil. But first and foremost we Evangelicals are for Someone and for something rather than against anyone or anything. The Gospel of Jesus is the Good News of welcome, forgiveness, grace, and liberation from law and legalism. It is a colossal Yes to life and human aspirations, and an emphatic No only to what contradicts our true destiny as human beings made in the image of God.
There's much more, too. It needs thinking about and digesting.
Notable names amongst the signatories include Miroslav Volf, Kevin Vanhoozer, Darrell Bock, Leighton Ford, Walter Kaiser and Alvin Plantinga.
...the Evangelical message, "good news" by definition, is overwhelmingly positive, and always positive before it is negative. There is an enormous theological and cultural importance to the power of No, especially in a day when Everything is permitted and It is forbidden to forbid. Just as Jesus did, Evangelicals sometimes have to make strong judgments about what is false, unjust, and evil. But first and foremost we Evangelicals are for Someone and for something rather than against anyone or anything. The Gospel of Jesus is the Good News of welcome, forgiveness, grace, and liberation from law and legalism. It is a colossal Yes to life and human aspirations, and an emphatic No only to what contradicts our true destiny as human beings made in the image of God.
There's much more, too. It needs thinking about and digesting.
Notable names amongst the signatories include Miroslav Volf, Kevin Vanhoozer, Darrell Bock, Leighton Ford, Walter Kaiser and Alvin Plantinga.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Sin in the Life of the Believer - 1
Sin is a remarkably persistent feature of the Christian life.At least, it is of mine.
Despite of all the thousands of sermons, the stirring songs, despite all the evenings spent in bible study groups, the private prayer and bible study, the encouraging words of other Christians, the evident work of God in and around me, the conventions and conferences – I still look into my heart and find there envy, lust, anger, pettiness, selfish ambition, meanness and greed. Quite a collection, isn’t it? And I have become used to seeing them there, and resigned to it. They do not shock me at all. “After all”, I tell myself, “we will always sin this side of Jesus’ return.”
But in the life of a Christian, sin is an absurdity. In the unbeliever, sin is a symptom of rebellion against God’s authority. But the Christian has submitted to God’s authority, and received new life and has a life hid with Christ in God, and faces no condemnation. The Christian is no longer a slave to sin. Yet, sin still rides on the Christian like a stowaway. We live within a world-wide-web of evil; and despite the call to be different to it, we still log on. We still suffer the effects of sin; and we still transmit them.
Even more than suffering, the absurdity of sin leads to spiritual despair. “ I know it’s wrong and I know Christianity is true” said the high school student in my office. “But I just can’t handle life as a hypocrite and I don’t think I can give up going to parties and drinking too much. Life with a conscience is too hard.” The presence of those creeps in my own heart causes me to despair ever of overcoming them and so I give way to their power. They make everything so complicated. I feel like a drowning man.
So, what to do then?
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Ambrose on Justice
A great discovery for me has been the writing of Ambrose of Milan. It is striking how contemporary he is in charting a course between submission to the state and subversion of it. Here he is writing about justice in The Duties of Clergy (which I think he grasps in a beautifully biblical way):
The foundation, then, of justice is faith, for the hearts of the juts are precoccupied with faith; and the person who justly accuses himself constructs his justice upon good faith, for his justice is apparent when he confesses the truth. So the Lord says through Isaiah, "Behold I am laying in Zion for a foundation a stone." This refers to Christ as the foundation of the church. For the faith of all believers is simply Christ; and the Church is, as it were, the form that justice takes, the common right of all. Her prayer is the prayer of the community' her works are the works of the community; her trials are the trials of the community. A just man, in sum, worthy of Christ, is someone who accepts that he is not his own. And that is why Paul insisted that Christ must be the foundation; because faith is the foundation of our works of justice, it is on him that they should be constructed.
The foundation, then, of justice is faith, for the hearts of the juts are precoccupied with faith; and the person who justly accuses himself constructs his justice upon good faith, for his justice is apparent when he confesses the truth. So the Lord says through Isaiah, "Behold I am laying in Zion for a foundation a stone." This refers to Christ as the foundation of the church. For the faith of all believers is simply Christ; and the Church is, as it were, the form that justice takes, the common right of all. Her prayer is the prayer of the community' her works are the works of the community; her trials are the trials of the community. A just man, in sum, worthy of Christ, is someone who accepts that he is not his own. And that is why Paul insisted that Christ must be the foundation; because faith is the foundation of our works of justice, it is on him that they should be constructed.
1 Samuel 13-31 - 6
So the damage of Saul has taken a lifetime to undo, even though he appeared doomed from the start of his reign. Kingship has not yet proved a solution for Israel for their complaint. While Saul is not portrayed as greedy in the way Samuel feared kings would be, he is vain, lazy, rash, moody and willful. Sometimes he is just plain stupid. The narrative portrays him as to blame for his own downfall; but at the same time, there is nothing he can do to change the outcome, it seems. The hand of Yhwh is guiding events as always. In one sense, too, Saul takes the wrap for the folly of Israel in demanding a king. The wickedness of Israel in pleading for a king has had devastating effects. She has learnt a terrible lesson; the new true king had better take note, and Israel with him. Otherwise the terrible consequence of disobedience – that God would stop communicating with them – would be meted out on them too.
Was he doomed from the very start? D.M.Gunn is a scholar who thinks so, and points to the deliberate contrast between God’s instruction to Samuel to “appoint for them a king” in 1 Sam 8:22 and his later announcement that he had provided for himself a king from the sons of Jesse in 16:1. By this reading, Saul is a king who cannot succeed because he was never truly acknowledged by God as his choice in the first place. The rejection of Saul is God’s response to the people’s rejection of him. This perhaps explains why Saul is condemned for apparently trivial offences – when later we see David doing worse and surviving as king. But as the rejection sayings in 15:23, 26 insist, it is Saul’s repudiation of Yhwh that has provoked Yhwh’s repudiation of Saul.
On the other hand, there is no question but that David is the right man. He is a model of trust in Yhwh and loyalty to his anointed, although of course ironically it is he who is the true anointed. He refuses to take matters into his own hands and assassinate Saul (and Nabal); but rather trusts in the promise and intention of Yhwh who will manage events without David’s intervention. That said, he is also portrayed as decisive, charismatic and effective: brutal when necessary but also just. He is not greedy for spoil as Samuel had feared a king would be. Are there perhaps some shadows emerging in David’s character? The incident with Abigail innocently shows his weakness for a pretty feminine face. Certainly as a military figure he involved in killing on a large scale. He appears to sail close to the wind with his pragmatism when he makes friends with King Achish, and was apparently only providentially spared from warring with Israel.
Was he doomed from the very start? D.M.Gunn is a scholar who thinks so, and points to the deliberate contrast between God’s instruction to Samuel to “appoint for them a king” in 1 Sam 8:22 and his later announcement that he had provided for himself a king from the sons of Jesse in 16:1. By this reading, Saul is a king who cannot succeed because he was never truly acknowledged by God as his choice in the first place. The rejection of Saul is God’s response to the people’s rejection of him. This perhaps explains why Saul is condemned for apparently trivial offences – when later we see David doing worse and surviving as king. But as the rejection sayings in 15:23, 26 insist, it is Saul’s repudiation of Yhwh that has provoked Yhwh’s repudiation of Saul.
On the other hand, there is no question but that David is the right man. He is a model of trust in Yhwh and loyalty to his anointed, although of course ironically it is he who is the true anointed. He refuses to take matters into his own hands and assassinate Saul (and Nabal); but rather trusts in the promise and intention of Yhwh who will manage events without David’s intervention. That said, he is also portrayed as decisive, charismatic and effective: brutal when necessary but also just. He is not greedy for spoil as Samuel had feared a king would be. Are there perhaps some shadows emerging in David’s character? The incident with Abigail innocently shows his weakness for a pretty feminine face. Certainly as a military figure he involved in killing on a large scale. He appears to sail close to the wind with his pragmatism when he makes friends with King Achish, and was apparently only providentially spared from warring with Israel.
Monday, May 05, 2008
The joy of being CROSS
I was thinking just this morning how much of my internet browsing involves finding reasons to get cross. There are websites that make cross; blogs that make me cross; discussion forums that make me very cross; and so on. For example, I always read Mike Carlton of the Sydney Morning Herald not because I agree with him EVER, but because he makes me so jolly cross. And it is amazing how much emotional energy I can waste on this. Believe me, I have lost sleep over internet discussions. Real sleep! There are really valuable online debates that you can observe and participate in, but sometimes it isn't worth it all.
I am saying this not merely as a personal confession (perish the thought) but because I think I am not the only one! Being cross is a strangely addictive feeling. It gives one a sense of high dudgeon and moral outrage and self-righteousness. It gives one a sense of purpose in a strange way. By which I mean: we actually enjoy our crossness. Love it. It is a form of entertainment.
But how pathetic is it, really?
I am saying this not merely as a personal confession (perish the thought) but because I think I am not the only one! Being cross is a strangely addictive feeling. It gives one a sense of high dudgeon and moral outrage and self-righteousness. It gives one a sense of purpose in a strange way. By which I mean: we actually enjoy our crossness. Love it. It is a form of entertainment.
But how pathetic is it, really?
1 Samuel 13-31 - 5
However the story is interrupted at this point by the terrible narrative of the witch or medium of Endor. Saul enlists the help of a medium to raise the ghost of a rather grumpy Samuel. As appropriate to Torah, Saul had expelled all the witches and wizards from the land, but now he has need of one and so goes contrary to his own principles. Once again, Saul is seen to have the desire to consult Yhwh but on his terms and using inappropriate means. His consulting the spirit of Samuel is a desperate act, as he himself says. God no longer replies to him by prophets or by dreams. Samuel’s answer is doom –laden – a prophecy of the death of Saul and his sons at the hands of the Philistines.
The stage is set for the collapse of the house of Saul at the hand of the Philistines and David. However, David is prevented from making the blunder he has so far avoided ie fighting against the anointed of Yhwh. He is spared the ignominy of warring with God’s people. The other Philistine kings reject Achish’s trusted mercenary (who ironically has been lying to him all along). Thus by the providential hand of Yhwh David takes no active part in Saul’s downfall and is also kept a free force able to fight for Israel when the Philistines defeat the armies of Saul and Jonathan.
The Ziklag incident (ch.30) delays the end further. We see in this episode David the great warrior, taking command of his potentially murderous group in the aftermath of a devastating raid by the Amalekites; and organizing successfully to take his revenge. David is a man of decisive action and military ability; but he also takes great care to distribute the spoils of victory in a just way. Here is perhaps a king who will not take, take, take: but one who will give. In vs 26 David’s language starts to assume the tone of one who fights the fights of Yhwh: he speaks there of “the spoils of the enemies of the Yhwh”, as he hands over the loot to the elders of Judah.
The final scene of 1 Samuel is the defeat of Saul and the deaths of Saul and Jonathan. The pathos is maintained by Jonathan’s death: we the readers are not to feel too triumphant here. The demise of this flawed king comes at the cost of defeat for Israel. Ironically, it is Saul himself who lifts up his hand against Yhwh’s anointed – perhaps this too is a false step, proving Saul a blunderer to the last. The bodies of Saul and his sons are shamed by the Philistines in the same way David had dismembered the fallen Goliath. The territories of Israel beyond the Jordan are occupied by the Philistines; and so the reign of David begins with a military complication that needs resolving.
The stage is set for the collapse of the house of Saul at the hand of the Philistines and David. However, David is prevented from making the blunder he has so far avoided ie fighting against the anointed of Yhwh. He is spared the ignominy of warring with God’s people. The other Philistine kings reject Achish’s trusted mercenary (who ironically has been lying to him all along). Thus by the providential hand of Yhwh David takes no active part in Saul’s downfall and is also kept a free force able to fight for Israel when the Philistines defeat the armies of Saul and Jonathan.
The Ziklag incident (ch.30) delays the end further. We see in this episode David the great warrior, taking command of his potentially murderous group in the aftermath of a devastating raid by the Amalekites; and organizing successfully to take his revenge. David is a man of decisive action and military ability; but he also takes great care to distribute the spoils of victory in a just way. Here is perhaps a king who will not take, take, take: but one who will give. In vs 26 David’s language starts to assume the tone of one who fights the fights of Yhwh: he speaks there of “the spoils of the enemies of the Yhwh”, as he hands over the loot to the elders of Judah.
The final scene of 1 Samuel is the defeat of Saul and the deaths of Saul and Jonathan. The pathos is maintained by Jonathan’s death: we the readers are not to feel too triumphant here. The demise of this flawed king comes at the cost of defeat for Israel. Ironically, it is Saul himself who lifts up his hand against Yhwh’s anointed – perhaps this too is a false step, proving Saul a blunderer to the last. The bodies of Saul and his sons are shamed by the Philistines in the same way David had dismembered the fallen Goliath. The territories of Israel beyond the Jordan are occupied by the Philistines; and so the reign of David begins with a military complication that needs resolving.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
1 Samuel 13-31 - 4
Interestingly, David’s deviation from religious practice in the Abinadab episode is not classed as disobedience in the way that Saul’s religious deviations were. Why?
The incident of Nabal and Abigail illustrates contrasting responses to Yhwh’s anointed. Abigail’s resourcefulness and her beauty win her a husband and David and his men win provisions. This is an interesting variation on a stock rape and pillage by a maraudering band. David does not have to steal Abigail from her stupid husband. Rather he is struck down by Yhwh. Abigail’s speech to David captures in a nut-shell the presentation of David in this story, 25:30ff: “and when the Lord has done to my lord according to al the good that he has spoken concerning you, and has appointed you prince over Israel, my lord shall have no cause of grief, or pangs of conscience, for having shed blood without cause or for my lord taking vengeance himself.” The long-term benefit of a clear conscience outweighs the rash moment of anger, even when it is provoked. Nabal’s death at the Lord’s hand without David’s intervention foreshadows the death of Saul to come.
David’s alliance with the King of Gath shows the level of desperation he has reached, as he explains in 27:1. This wins David peace from Saul, but obviously puts him in an invidious position: living outside Israel and in league with her enemies. By being more than a little loose with the truth, David is able to convince Achish that he is making raids on Israelite territories, when in fact he and his men were attacking the Canaanite tribes. It seems in 28:1-2 that David will even fight against Israel, such is the trust he has won. What will happen? Will David prove to be a mercenary of questionable loyalty, happy to kill the men of Israel?
to be continued
The incident of Nabal and Abigail illustrates contrasting responses to Yhwh’s anointed. Abigail’s resourcefulness and her beauty win her a husband and David and his men win provisions. This is an interesting variation on a stock rape and pillage by a maraudering band. David does not have to steal Abigail from her stupid husband. Rather he is struck down by Yhwh. Abigail’s speech to David captures in a nut-shell the presentation of David in this story, 25:30ff: “and when the Lord has done to my lord according to al the good that he has spoken concerning you, and has appointed you prince over Israel, my lord shall have no cause of grief, or pangs of conscience, for having shed blood without cause or for my lord taking vengeance himself.” The long-term benefit of a clear conscience outweighs the rash moment of anger, even when it is provoked. Nabal’s death at the Lord’s hand without David’s intervention foreshadows the death of Saul to come.
David’s alliance with the King of Gath shows the level of desperation he has reached, as he explains in 27:1. This wins David peace from Saul, but obviously puts him in an invidious position: living outside Israel and in league with her enemies. By being more than a little loose with the truth, David is able to convince Achish that he is making raids on Israelite territories, when in fact he and his men were attacking the Canaanite tribes. It seems in 28:1-2 that David will even fight against Israel, such is the trust he has won. What will happen? Will David prove to be a mercenary of questionable loyalty, happy to kill the men of Israel?
to be continued
Saturday, May 03, 2008
1 Samuel 13-31 - 3
At the end of the story Saul appears to have forgotten the name of his court harpist: it may be that we do not have a strict chronological series of events presented here. At this point the close relationship between Jonathan and David begins. This is the tragic romance of the book: Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as his own soul. Of course we reading from our cultural perspective find the closeness of their relationship quite confronting and more than a little homoerotic. David’s relationships with the women in his life do not seem as deep or affectionate. However, we must be careful not to project our own cultural expectations back on to the text at this point. The affection between the two young men, as we readers know, complicates matters extraordinarily. Jonathan is the heir apparent. It is he who stands to lose most from the rise of David and the fall of Saul. Yet he is a model of faithful friendship, protecting David from Saul’s rages in chapter 20, and providing for his escape by the symbol of the arrow. We readers know that Jonathan is a major obstacle to the rise of this second king in Israel; which heightens the tragedy for us as we realize that these close friends must eventually be separated. What the bond between the two men ensures for us is that this civil war between David and Saul is not a struggle to be continued by their descendents. Even the man who stood to lose most saw in David the true destiny of Israel according to Yhwh’s choice.
Saul’s envy of David grows with David’s success and fame. The women of Israel sing “Saul has slain his thousands, but David has slain his tens of thousands.” Even in the process of arranging marriage to Michal, David excels himself by returning with twice the number of Philistine foreskins as a comically grisly present for his king. In 18:28 Saul comes to the fatal realization: Yhwh is with David, and even Saul’s daughter loves him. Saul thus veers between anger and fear, with murderous consequences. From then on, David becomes a man on the run, hunted by Saul and operating as a freedom fighter on the boundaries of Israel. He never quite pursues out and out war with Saul; but he does make a tentative alliance with the Philistines, especially King Achish. In 24 and 26 we are told of incidents where David had the chance to kill Saul and yet held back, both taunting Saul with his power over him and assuring him of his respect for Yhwh’s anointed. This technique of the repetition of similar stories in the same narrative is commonly used in biblical literature: and yet critics of the old school have viewed this as sloppy editing or the presence of two traditions or versions of the same incident. However, as Robert Alter shows in his book The Art of Biblical Narrative, the repetition of two very similar scenes is a literary device the authors of scripture deploy quite deliberately.
To be continued
Saul’s envy of David grows with David’s success and fame. The women of Israel sing “Saul has slain his thousands, but David has slain his tens of thousands.” Even in the process of arranging marriage to Michal, David excels himself by returning with twice the number of Philistine foreskins as a comically grisly present for his king. In 18:28 Saul comes to the fatal realization: Yhwh is with David, and even Saul’s daughter loves him. Saul thus veers between anger and fear, with murderous consequences. From then on, David becomes a man on the run, hunted by Saul and operating as a freedom fighter on the boundaries of Israel. He never quite pursues out and out war with Saul; but he does make a tentative alliance with the Philistines, especially King Achish. In 24 and 26 we are told of incidents where David had the chance to kill Saul and yet held back, both taunting Saul with his power over him and assuring him of his respect for Yhwh’s anointed. This technique of the repetition of similar stories in the same narrative is commonly used in biblical literature: and yet critics of the old school have viewed this as sloppy editing or the presence of two traditions or versions of the same incident. However, as Robert Alter shows in his book The Art of Biblical Narrative, the repetition of two very similar scenes is a literary device the authors of scripture deploy quite deliberately.
To be continued
Black Watch
In a comment on a previous discussion, Drew alerted me to a very recent play, Black Watch. The play follows in the tradition of Journey's End, and The Long and the Short and the Tall, stage plays which described the horrors of war. Black Watch, based partly on interviews with real soldiers, does it for the current Iraq war.
Towards the end, one of the officers offers a monologue including this comment:
We in the West have failed to understand the logic of suicide terrorism. The choice to become a religious martyr is the outcome of a struggle to establish an identity in adolescence. The possibility of death, once accepted, presents an alternative idea of the self as a religious warrior. They're looking for glory, and they seem to be finding it in martyrdom. Glory, however, is something which my boys are very unlikely to emerge with. The controversy around this war means there'll be no victory parade for us... (p. 58)
I am interested that this text connects some of the themes of my study. Interestingly, the play is about the struggle for identity and an idea of self in the young soldiers on the Western side...Of course, I think Christian martyrdom evades this characterisation. This comment is revealing as to the extent that martyrdom is understood as a flashpoint... it's the possibility of death. In the West, it isn't accepted that this could present an alternative and valid idea of the self...
Towards the end, one of the officers offers a monologue including this comment:
We in the West have failed to understand the logic of suicide terrorism. The choice to become a religious martyr is the outcome of a struggle to establish an identity in adolescence. The possibility of death, once accepted, presents an alternative idea of the self as a religious warrior. They're looking for glory, and they seem to be finding it in martyrdom. Glory, however, is something which my boys are very unlikely to emerge with. The controversy around this war means there'll be no victory parade for us... (p. 58)
I am interested that this text connects some of the themes of my study. Interestingly, the play is about the struggle for identity and an idea of self in the young soldiers on the Western side...Of course, I think Christian martyrdom evades this characterisation. This comment is revealing as to the extent that martyrdom is understood as a flashpoint... it's the possibility of death. In the West, it isn't accepted that this could present an alternative and valid idea of the self...
Friday, May 02, 2008
1 Samuel 13-31 - 2
The stage is obviously set for the entry of David, the man truly after God’s own heart.Once again, the narrator comes at this important moment from several angles: his anointing by Samuel in Bethlehem, his ability as a musician and the slaying of Goliath. As we meet the shepherd boy we are told he “ruddy, and had beautiful eyes and was handsome”: he has the charismatic looks of a potential hero. That he is the least of the sons of Jesse is emphasized in 16:1-13: once again the Lord has chosen contrary to human expectation. He is anointed in this private way by Samuel, so that now in Israel there are two anointed kings, a situation that obviously needs resolution.
The David and Goliath story, which the narrator tells in detail, introduces David as a warrior in Israel. Like the boy Samuel, the boy David is able to teach his elders something about trust for Yhwh. David’s speech in 17:45ff is a paradigm for holy war. The battle is Yhwh’s: it is he who determines the victor, regardless of the disparity in power or weaponry from a human point of view. It is Hannah’s song fully illustrated once again: the theme is the same! The humble overthrows the mighty. Though his anointing is still secret and David does not appear to act out of a consciousness of being the anointed one, he has by his character displayed the attitude expected of God’s king in battle – not intimidated by enemies but rather trusting completely in the power of Yhwh. His weapon is his faith.
John Milbank doesn't like computers...
'Computers ... in so far as they impose the reign of information, are the enemies of truth and democracy. Our gaze at their screens is the constitution through watching and receiving of inherently violent transactions which in the end, when we step through their looking-glass, always involve real physical violence.
On line, therefore, we are clubbing each other to death, but invisibly, very very gradually and at a huge remove. When this process does appear, then we finally see what we collectively do, but assume that it has nothing to do with us, individually. But just as breathing is the most massive combustion, so also this slowed-down and distributed violence is actually increased violence, like a torture that is all the more torture through being long drawn-out.'
from Being Reconciled p. 37
Think about that when you next play Scrabbulous....
On line, therefore, we are clubbing each other to death, but invisibly, very very gradually and at a huge remove. When this process does appear, then we finally see what we collectively do, but assume that it has nothing to do with us, individually. But just as breathing is the most massive combustion, so also this slowed-down and distributed violence is actually increased violence, like a torture that is all the more torture through being long drawn-out.'
from Being Reconciled p. 37
Think about that when you next play Scrabbulous....
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Augustine and Calvin: do heavenly rewards spoil everything?
For Augustine love of God absorbs and reorders all other types of love; so that the one who desires the Heavenly City is driven by the vision of the holy God for which there are many benefits of course: though these are not the point. For him:
The earthly [city] lifts up its head in its own glory, the Heavenly City says to its God: ‘My glory; you lift up my head’ (Psalm 3:3). (Augustine, Concerning the City of God against the Pagans, XIV.xxxviii. )
God himself is the glory of the Eternal City; it is in the longing for and submitting to God that glory and honour are returned to the Christian. Under this way of conceiving it, the true martyr does not pursue the golden crown or the higher position in heaven; rather she testifies merely to her love of God, and seeks his honour – and in doing so, basks in his radiance.
It still might be possible, however, to see in 'the love of God' the operation of an system of exchange. Calvin, at pains to show that he agrees with Augustine, at the same time clarifies and even extends his thought by means of the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith. He interprets the promises of heavenly rewards a promise that comes after the 'free covenant of his mercy' - sealed not by meritorious works but indeed by grace through faith. The assurance given to believers that theie tribulations are not in vain is given in addition to the strength to endure. Without the free bestowal of grace upon the ungodly in Christ, there is no 'crown of righteousness' (2 Tim 4:8). As Calvin writes:
...the righteousness of good works depends upon the fact that God by pardon approves them. III.xviii.5
The emphasis lies on the self-consistency of God rather than on the rendering of a due payment.
For the purposes of the present discussion this is significant because of the motivation implied: the language of heavenly reward is not used in order to motivate a self-interested desire for heavenly reward: such a thing is impossible, in fact. Rather, heavenly rewards remind us of faithfulness of God to his promises.
The earthly [city] lifts up its head in its own glory, the Heavenly City says to its God: ‘My glory; you lift up my head’ (Psalm 3:3). (Augustine, Concerning the City of God against the Pagans, XIV.xxxviii. )
God himself is the glory of the Eternal City; it is in the longing for and submitting to God that glory and honour are returned to the Christian. Under this way of conceiving it, the true martyr does not pursue the golden crown or the higher position in heaven; rather she testifies merely to her love of God, and seeks his honour – and in doing so, basks in his radiance.
It still might be possible, however, to see in 'the love of God' the operation of an system of exchange. Calvin, at pains to show that he agrees with Augustine, at the same time clarifies and even extends his thought by means of the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith. He interprets the promises of heavenly rewards a promise that comes after the 'free covenant of his mercy' - sealed not by meritorious works but indeed by grace through faith. The assurance given to believers that theie tribulations are not in vain is given in addition to the strength to endure. Without the free bestowal of grace upon the ungodly in Christ, there is no 'crown of righteousness' (2 Tim 4:8). As Calvin writes:
...the righteousness of good works depends upon the fact that God by pardon approves them. III.xviii.5
The emphasis lies on the self-consistency of God rather than on the rendering of a due payment.
For the purposes of the present discussion this is significant because of the motivation implied: the language of heavenly reward is not used in order to motivate a self-interested desire for heavenly reward: such a thing is impossible, in fact. Rather, heavenly rewards remind us of faithfulness of God to his promises.
1 Sam 13-31: an interaction - 1
The second half of 1 Samuel narrates the enmeshed tales of the fall of the house of Saul and the simultaneous rise of the house of David. But both houses are enmeshed in ways that ensure that the tragedy of the fall of Saul is fully felt by the readers. David is linked to the family of Saul by marriage to Michal and by his deep friendship with Jonathan. But it is also David’s insistence that the Lord’s anointed be protected at all costs – even when he is the mortal enemy seeking to hunt him out and kill him – that serves to prevent the reader from too readily casting Saul as a despised villain. This in fact heightens the tragedy, prolonging the civil war and means that Saul has to bring about his own destruction. Of course, the secret to the whole narrative is that it is Yhwh who is sovereign over Israel and the life of her king.
Monarchy gets off to an inauspicious start in 1 Sam 13-15. From the very beginning of his rule it is clear that Saul is doomed. By 13:13 Samuel is declaring the whole thing off: using language that pre-empts the covenant in 2 Sam 7, he tells Saul that his kingdom will not continue. The air of inevitability hangs over his decline and fall from here on. The effect of this is tragic: we know the outcome of this phase of the story must end in his demise. The question for the reader is “how?”
His crimes do not appear that severe: merely filling in for a late prophet in the matter of sacrifice at the behest of the people. The dialogue between Samuel and Saul reveals a little more. In 13:11 Saul’s words suggest he felt that he was losing his grip on the people, and was responding in order to maintain his popularity. In 13:13 Samuel views the sin as disobedience of a direct command of God; and then implies that by contrast with the man the Lord is about to appoint that Saul is definitely not a man after his own heart.
Just as his anointing was a complex story told from several angles, so the reason for his decline is given to us over several episodes. We are given the story of his rash oath, of which Jonathan fell victim – a story which hearkens back to the story of Jephthah’s daughter in Judges, but with a different outcome illustrating perhaps a man of insufficient integrity; and of his sparing the Amalekite king Agag contrary to the clear command of God. By these incidents, Saul is proven to be rash and far too easily prey to the will of the people. The rejecting of Saul is more fully ratified by Samuel’s curses in 15:10-35; and symbolized terribly in the tearing of Samuel’s cloak. Saul makes a pitiful grasp for power, but it will be no use. In 16:14ff we find him tormented by an evil spirit; and he becomes prone to depressive episodes and murderous rages.
To be continued...
Monarchy gets off to an inauspicious start in 1 Sam 13-15. From the very beginning of his rule it is clear that Saul is doomed. By 13:13 Samuel is declaring the whole thing off: using language that pre-empts the covenant in 2 Sam 7, he tells Saul that his kingdom will not continue. The air of inevitability hangs over his decline and fall from here on. The effect of this is tragic: we know the outcome of this phase of the story must end in his demise. The question for the reader is “how?”
His crimes do not appear that severe: merely filling in for a late prophet in the matter of sacrifice at the behest of the people. The dialogue between Samuel and Saul reveals a little more. In 13:11 Saul’s words suggest he felt that he was losing his grip on the people, and was responding in order to maintain his popularity. In 13:13 Samuel views the sin as disobedience of a direct command of God; and then implies that by contrast with the man the Lord is about to appoint that Saul is definitely not a man after his own heart.
Just as his anointing was a complex story told from several angles, so the reason for his decline is given to us over several episodes. We are given the story of his rash oath, of which Jonathan fell victim – a story which hearkens back to the story of Jephthah’s daughter in Judges, but with a different outcome illustrating perhaps a man of insufficient integrity; and of his sparing the Amalekite king Agag contrary to the clear command of God. By these incidents, Saul is proven to be rash and far too easily prey to the will of the people. The rejecting of Saul is more fully ratified by Samuel’s curses in 15:10-35; and symbolized terribly in the tearing of Samuel’s cloak. Saul makes a pitiful grasp for power, but it will be no use. In 16:14ff we find him tormented by an evil spirit; and he becomes prone to depressive episodes and murderous rages.
To be continued...
The Anglican Thirty-Nine
But, as one closes down...
I have started a new site for the purposes of writing about and commenting on the Thirty-Nine Articles. Some of the material at first may be familiar to long-time readers of this blog. Hopefully, more progress will be made on the idea this time!
I have started a new site for the purposes of writing about and commenting on the Thirty-Nine Articles. Some of the material at first may be familiar to long-time readers of this blog. Hopefully, more progress will be made on the idea this time!
Closing down Youbook blog
The YOU project is with the publishers, and I am excited about a possible release later this year. Karen did amazing editing work. So, the blog that helped get it going is closing down. Thanks everybody!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)