soli deo gloria

A new thought that I've been having about preaching and what's going on in that process: sheet music as an analogy for the interaction between Scripture and preacher.

The analogy has two parts.

The text of Scripture is analogous to the notes on the musical score. They're the content. The right notes. They're already there, and anyone (who can read) can read them.

Preaching, in this analogy, is like the dynamic markers on the sheet. The time signature, the little marks (<) denoting a crescendo, the style and tempo headings (allegro, presto, con motto), the coda sign. They don't tell you what to play, but how to play it. (When is something repeated? Is this bit quiet in order to be solemn, or should I be playing these notes with joy? Where is the grand finale that I'll never forget?) They help you understand the movement of the piece, the effect it intends to have on its hearers and itself provides much of that impact.

A part of the value of this analogy, for me, is that it mirrors the reality that it is the Word of God that changes hearts. Preaching convinces, cajoles and/or exhorts the hearer to be moved by the text, much as dynamics grip, sooth and/or assault the senses in order bring the hearer into the experience of the music.

One of my ideals for preaching is that its purpose is to be an exposition. It ought to expose the truth of the text to the hearts of the congregation, in all its colour, strength, rebuke, gentleness, beauty, healing, grace and power. Put another way, perhaps more speculatively, just as dynamics allow the listener to hear the significance of each note, a sermon gets across the significance of each part of God's Word to the hearts of His people.

/end creative flow

Most stylish referee ever

Heaps old, but I've met a few people lately who've not seen it. Camp as a row of tents.

Traps for young players

Just been thinking about myself.

Tip #1: Don't twist the way in which you serve your girl into a means of making yourself feel ok about yourself. Measure your service by whether it makes your girl feel important, not by whether it makes you feel important.

Saul vs David

A paragraph from my assignment to chew on:

I would suggest that in the same way as Eli was judged for not giving God what was due him, so the people are also judged in being given Saul as their king. It is worth noting that despite Saul having already been chosen by Yhwh and pointed out to Samuel, Samuel nevertheless goes through a process of drawing lots in order to determine who will be king. McCarter perceptively notes that Samuel introduces this process as divine judgement. This aura of judgement is further enhanced by its similarity to the judgement scene in Joshua 7, when Achan’s family was taken in an identical process of lots. The inter-textual reference is confirmed later when Saul himself follows in Achan’s sin and disobeys God’s commands with respect to the devoted things (kherem). Thus we are invited to see the appointment of Saul as a judgement on the people for their rejection of Yhwh.

A poke-history of Australian politics

All you Gen Yers who're into politics should love this. Even if you won't admit to it.

A quick thought

Is reading/hearing/using a description of a reality and assuming that description to be the totality of that reality one of the biggest problems in people's thinking?

I reckon there's a chance of that.

Inspired by glancing at this post on Driscoll's blog, actually. :s Will post thoughts as to why later on.

They were like us: part deux

Here's another angle on Doug Green's take on Genesis 3:22.

I've never really been too settled on the identification of the 'we' in Genesis 2 and 3. Who are they? Who are the 'us' that God makes us like? Who is the 'us' that Adam and Eve either became like or were once like?

Many people in my circles (Australian evangelicals) have taught in sermons that 'knowing good and evil' is the concept of usurping God's role. It means to determine good and evil, something that is not our place to do. This is because they take the more traditional translation that Adam and Eve 'have become like us' as opposed to Green's 'were like us'.

One exegetical consequence of this is that the identity of the 'us' is more limited. In 3:22, the 'us' are the 'knowers' of good and evil. If the phrase 'knowing good and evil' is understood to mean determining good and evil, then the 'us' can only include the divine. 'Us' cannot mean the heavenly court. (and, by the way, if you take Doug's take on 3:22, there's no exegetical problem with taking 'us' as the heavenly court anymore)

Thus, you're left with some kind of plurality within Yhwh being mentioned within the first couple of chapters of the Bible. A proto-trinitarian statement. It seems to me that God is not referred to in this way throughout the rest of the Old Testament, despite certain ambiguities later on in Zechariah, Malachi, etc. I personally would find it very strange were it to be the case here.

I can't see any evidence internal to Gen 2-3 that favours a 'determining good and evil' interpretation of that phrase. Can any of you? Things I've missed?

Becoming domestic-like

Some wonderful friends of ours, K and B, loaned us a book 'Spotless: Room-by-room solutions to domestic disasters'. After getting some pollen on my suit jacket a few weeks back, I've decided that this week I'm going to use this little recipe to see if I can get it out. Here's the excerpt:

Problem: Pollen stain on carpet/fabrics.

What to use: Kerosene, cotton balls, methylated spirits, paper towell; plastic bag.

How to apply: If the stain has set, damp it with kerosene applied with a cotton ball. Then damp the stain with methylated spirits applied with a cotton ball. Dry with a paper towel before repeating. Do this until the colour is removed. Some pollens will be easy to remove, others will need several attempts.

A few seconds in my brain

[stream of consciousness]

Realisation that I feel uncomfortable at times.

Analysis to discover what is common to these particular episodes that make me feel awkward.

Recognition that the triggers are generally things in popular culture that are unethical or unacceptable to my one of my (post?)modern, Western, white, male or Christian sensibilities.

Fear registers! Recognition that I don't like being controlled by those reactions!!

Question. Why?

Hmmm...

Thought: Am I scared of getting old and the requisite loss of coolness that goes along with it? Becoming a Christian bigot?

Thought: Am I not an open-minded enough Christian to simply expect to be exposed to sin and be able to ignore it while enjoying the good of culture?

Thought: Am I becoming a critically minded, disconnected from fun, fundy?

Mental searching of Scriptures: Micah 3:2.

Perhaps the reactions are ok then?

Nagging thought that I'm missing something.

Stupid thing still won't go.

Recognition of a second fear! I think I'm scared that if I have this natural revulsion I'll not be able to engage with people where they're at!

How can I connect with and be a servant to those whom I alienate by my negative reactions?

Recognition that I'm just a bit scared of offending people.

Recognition that it's ok to be myself and have my own reactions.

It's love not lack of offense that will genuinely connect with people.

Thoughts about the pressure of my young adult social circle to not be typical white, middle class and to have experienced the down and out and 'gritty real life'.

Recollection of the feeling that I fulfilled the stereotype that they were decrying.

Will stop now, in Hebrew class.

[/end stream of consciousness]

What's the difference?

Let's play a game of 'spot the difference'. Here's our two subjects: Saul and David.



Ok, perhaps we can have a slightly less wussy David:



Those 17th century painters sure have a lot to answer for.

Baroque art aside, why did God accept David and reject Saul as king of Israel? Such is the question for my current Old Testament essay.

Any thoughts from you godly, brainy droppers of grains of truth out there?

I'll post what's been jumping around in my head in a couple of days.

Soooooooo tempting

Reckon I'd make a good Family First candidate? I wasn't far away from clicking the submit button. I'm wondering what questions they'd ask me to ascertain my suitability. Any suggestions?

Kutz4senate. It's got a ring to it.

Or maybe I should do their web maintenance for them:

They were like us

It was suggested by Doug Green that a possible alternate translation to Genesis 3:22 was perhaps more correct than the traditional one. Traditionally, it reads something like:

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever-- ESV

However, the Hebrew verb rendered there as 'has become' allows for a certain degree of ambiguity in terms of tense. It is simply Hebrew perfect tense of the verb 'to be'. Given the ambiguities of Hebrew, the verse could thus be read as:

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man was like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--

On this reading, the original state of humanity is 'knowing good and evil' and it is only upon the eating of the fruit that their minds were 'scrambled' and that they could no longer distinguish the good from evil.

So, is there any possible way that this could be a good translation? Well, from my admittedly limited Hebrew knowledge, I'd say these two examples make it possible.

Firstly, in the immediate context, you have the same word being used in what appears to be a past tense.

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field (Gen 3:1 ESV)"

And yet, this isn't so satisfying because you could argue that it's a past-tense of narration, where the language is describing something that was true at the time of the events being described. So what we really need is an example where it occurs in direct speech, as it does in Gen 3:22, and is still rendered as a past state of being. Interestingly, there's one even in Genesis:

They said, "We see plainly that the LORD has been with you." (Gen 26:28 ESV)

The same verb, translated as a state of being that was true prior to the actual speaking of the words.

If Doug's thoughts are right, then the irony of the situation is that the serpent who deceived Eve in telling her that she would become 'like God, knowing good and evil' has in a sense deceived a lot of translators over a lot of years. :P As Doug pointed out, pehaps Eve's response should have been,

"But I'm already like God. I'm in His image. And I know good and evil, God told us what that is."

More thoughts to come...

Now the basic design is in place...

Does anyone have any suggestions for a good blog font?

I've got a decent eye for design, but not a great deal of experience in fonts. Do any of the resident font nazis want to give an ignoramus a hand?

Any further comments on the new design? Thanks for the tip re the comments link Nath, I'm working on a solution.

My new tattoos

Are pretty awesome. I've got one on each arm.

They were designed by Ben. Check 'em out at at Simone's blog.

In further news, I've also turned into an ocker Australian Biker named 'Bash'. My handlebar 'tash is sweet.

Cool Chatter...

Nathan helpfully drew my attention here to the anti-cool phenomenon. This round of anti-cool attack seems to be particularly in response to Blue Like Jazz, a collection of reflections by Donald Miller. No doubt the reaction is partly due to the by-line: "Nonreligious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality".

In other blog news, Al discusses 'the cool' here, firmly placing himself behind the book.

However, this 3-point post from Mikey just nails it. So nails it.

Maybe I should actually read this book...

Nah, I'm off to read some Clifford Simak.

Much respect

A big-up to Andrew Richo who did an impromptu re-tailoring of his sermon tonight in the space of ~8 minutes. Watching his face as 45 teenage girls from Clayfield College walked through the doors was pretty funny, to be honest. I don't think I've ever seen that obvious a reaction on Andrew's face. Ever. Hilarious.

And yet, he managed to turn one and half chapters of a heavy Romans talk on sin into a semi-evangelistic Bible talk pointing the girls to Jesus as the only solution to our universal problem. Well played sir! God graciously answered our prayer for wisdom and clarity.

Pray that he also brings conviction and salvation to those of the girls who don't know Jesus yet.

Reserved for possible future use

You never know when it might be useful to link someone to this.

Edit: Oh, and nearly forgot this.

Who does the church belong to?

Again and again I've heard Bruce Winter say,

“Don't you dare talk about your church.' It is not your church. It's not the elders' church. It is Jesus' church.”

He wants to make sure that young ministers (literal translation = servants!) don't start to slowly over time get the wrong idea about what church is. Church is the body of Christ, of which He is the head. (Ephesians 4:15-16) She is his bride, whom he bought for the princely sum of his blood. (Ephesians 1:7, 5:25-32) Even our individual bodies are not our own, but are rooms for Holy Spirit to live in and are owned by God. (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

So, even my theology was perfect in theory, what's my actual manner of thinking about my church?

I don't always think of my head pastor as Jesus. I don't always preciously value each person as God's possession, for whom Jesus died and in whom Holy Spirit lives. I don't always recognise that my decisions and service aren't the final word, but what the sovereign Lord chooses to do through it is.

Are you like me sometimes?

The Best of Splendour: Religion

It seems that the church of booty is the popular religion at Splendour in the Grass. It's very much a Christus Victor view of things, isn't it?

Known unconvictions

There are many things that I've heard before. Particularly the kinds of things that preachers say. Even the kinds of things that theological lecturers say. And, dare I say it, things that principals of theological colleges say.

Am I the only one who switches off when I hear something that I've heard before?

I think in the context of theological education there's a problem with my attitude. I'm pretty sure that there's a reason that Bruce keeps banging on about the same things and it's not because he's getting old and has forgotten that he's just said the same thing 5 minutes ago.

What ends up happening is that by the time I get really frustrated enough with Bruce for repeating the same things so many times over, I actually start to think about it. And I can tell that he's not repeating it so that I know it. It's because he wants me to be convicted by it. So convinced, that it will shape my life and ministry in ways that will keep me faithful and protect God's people.

In the times that I get to that point, it's a little easier to listen. Even with a fuzzy head.

The Spiritual Meth-od

Feelings of uncleanness? Freaking out about your sinful heart? Need some accountability in your life?

You need John and Charles Wesley's Holy Club!

Seriously. That's what they called their accountability group. Bet they didn't cop any flak for that one.

And really, 'methodist'? Surely they could come up with a better name than that! They even had two hymn writers on staff! Even just one Simone would come up with something far snappier than that.

And their hymn didn't even come close in the poll...

The Best of Splendour: Passion Pit

I now have the pleasure of introducing you to something beautiful. Please welcome, Passion Pit.

I was wondering what kind of band it would be that would get the gig before Mumford & Sons and the Pixies at Splendour. Having been locked out of Florence and the Machine because the Woodford amphitheatre was dangerously full (that would have to mean well over 12,000 people, I reckon), there was little doubt that this was a prize spot on the bill. Would it be a rubbish fill-in band whose record company paid up big to get them the exposure? Would it be a rave to get energy up? An 'Xican idol' winner?

Not knowing what to expect I began looking around for a bit of space on which to sit. The man two blades of grass over from me looked on with amusement. "Don't worry about finding a place to sit.", he said. "You won't be sitting down for long."

And he was so right.

Moments into the first layers of synths and keys mixed in with smart drum beats, I was standing up, and moving as only a white man can. I've never been more at home with a man singing in that register! (Including the time Dan Saunders and I shocked our pastor by singing 'Take Your Mama Out' on Singstar in the correct register. Some lyrics he wasn't quite prepared for.)

It was pop. Nearly pure pop. But it was also complex, subtle and had some freakin' energy! It's hard to capture a feeling of fresh excitement. Being made happy by someone's music whom you'd not known of moments before. An anxious afternoon transformed into joyful jumping is no mean feat when an intense Russian male is involved.

And yet, it was so.

Hats off.

For your listening pleasure, can I suggest, Passion Pit? Live, if you can possibly arrange it.

Sorry for the temporary ugliness

Sorry, just playing around with blog templates. Don't mind me.

I'm glad that...

God only reveals to me as much of my own sin as I'm able to cope with at the time.

:)

Connections in Romans

An interesting one is that between 1:18-32 and Romans 12:1-2.

The first passage traces the consequences of suppressing the truth about God and swapping him out of your God slot and swapping in some dodgy replacement component instead (aka, idolatry). The consequences of sin get worse as the argument progresses. The last bit of the process finishes with God giving people over to a messed up mind. At this stage a person is not only sinning, but doesn't even recognise it as sin any more.

In contrast, Romans 12:1-2 talks about the renewing of minds. It's something that comes along with God's mercy. It seems God not only forgives sin but also undoes some of the damage it's done to us.

An point for discussion though: How can Paul command you to have something done to you? He commands you to 'be transformed'. It's in the passive, so what's Paul getting at?

Thoughts?