Knowledge and wonder #1

The trans-continental journey aboard a train of thought often begins with a nagging idea in the back of one's mind. Wouldn't an eternal heaven become boring after the first few millienna?

If all the things that one might know is a finite set, then surely at some point I shall know them all. Even allowing for the possibility that in my glorified body there are some things that I may still be too dense to understand, the set of things that I may ever know will still at some point become known by me. Where's the fun in that?

Until, I began to wonder if my current experience of learning about God will hold true in heaven too.

When I was a child, I used to think I knew a lot about God. But then I started to go to Unichurch. After a few years there I thought I knew most things there were to know about God, then I went to bible college. Then I thought I knew most things you should know about God, then I started having to rely on Him in full-time ministry.

So, I considered the idea that my experience would continue into eternity. That as quickly as my knowledge of God might grow, my understanding of how much more there was to know about him would increase at an even greater rate.

At the moment, the only way that I can understand enjoyment in heaven is to consider the idea that my wonder would increase more quickly than my knowledge.

How do you think of heaven? There are plenty of bits and pieces in my mind to do with knowledge and wonder that haven't quite fallen together yet, so I'd love to hear your crumbs of wisdom.

A Christmas prayer

Merry Christmas everyone! :)

Thought I'd share a snippet of the prayer I'll be praying this morning at church.

Who else has a god like you? What other god would subject himself to the indignity, the mess, the limitedness, the pain and the shame of living amongst our fallen world as a human creature? 

Which other god can say to us of our experiences: "I know. I understand."?   

Which other God has walked our path for us, and qualified us so that we have no need to work our way up to God but are already in his presence? 

None. God, that's why there is no one like you. You are amazing from so many angles. We look forward to seeing you in the flesh in heaven, to be ruled by someone who is just that good.

I do my little turn on the catwalk...

When I first saw it, I was unsure what to think of Christian Fashion Week.  Was it a monstrous artefact of Western cultural Christianity having embraced materialism to its hilt?  Perhaps a delightful celebration of the glory of God in creation?  Or perhaps an industry-based para-church ministry?

I'm very much interested in finding an appropriate theological framework for aesthetics, so my interest was mildly piqued by the possibility of a genuinely Christian event focussed on all things sartorial.  So, I did all I could do being a male under 6 foot and with a waist rounder than 34 inches: I checked the internet.

Here's a selection of what I found.  What do you think of it?

Description of the main event:

"The runway is set for the very first Christian Fashion Week ® Fashion Show, giving designers the forum to showcase their most creative attempts to cater to the Christian fashion community. The night is filled with fashion, music, lights, flashing cameras, and industry VIPs."

From the event's vision statement:

"Christian Fashion Week ® is a mission to stand for dignity on behalf of our communities, families, and fashion consumers."

Finally, we come to the designers.  And in a statement that summed up the subtext of the rest, the final designer on the page stated their reasons for participation:

"I want to reach other markets in the Fashion Industry."

Christianity as a new market.  Quite understandable for the designers involved, but it's hard to see the organisers as anything but coming from the same place.  Especially when I saw the casting call.

Uck.

Moving in some very true spaces, and running from some

Blog posts like this one seem to tear me up a bit.  They probably shouldn't.  After writing this post I'm sure I'll have integrated my thinking and feeling on this in a way that'll enable me to even perhaps enjoy this kind of writing.  But I'm not there yet.  We're only at the start of the post.

The thing is, I think that there is a sense in which these piece is so truly true.  The lady who writes this has found some genuine wisdom.  She's engaging in the realities of human experience in a truly deep way that rejects caricatures that we'll often find in either lazy exegesis of texts, in our church cultures or in fundamentalist dogma.

I was witness a while ago to a conversation where two gentlemen were arguing/discussing the nature of the human will and limited atonement and salvation, etc.  (All the joyful kind of stuff, you know)  And one of them said to the other, "But you're sovereign!".  To which the other responded with a detailed questioning of doctrine moving towards a biblical proof of the sovereignty of God.

But what I was thinking in my head and heart when the first guy spoke was,

"Yes.  You're right.  There is a sense in which you are so, so right and it really matters that we recognise our own sovereignty.  And yet, there is now way the other guy is going to hear what you're saying as true.  And I completely understand that too."

The more I go on, the more I open up and am malleable to new patterns of thinking.  And at the same time the more deeply rooted I become in the gospel of the Lord Jesus and His rule by His powerful word.

Yet, so far, I'm still a shade uncomfortable when other people who are on that same journey are a klick or two to one or the other side of where I am.  And I wonder what that means.

I'm sure it means lots of things about my sin, insecurities and prejudices.  Surely, it must.  But I think it also means some things about my convictions about the gospel, and its supreme importance.  Even if the way I experience that is utterly different now.

P.S.  I'm not trying to say anything negative at all about Deborah B. Edgar.  The title of the post isn't about her blog post.  That's just where the train of thought/emotion started.

Lies #6 - The first conundrum

Ok, so I'm procrastinating. Sue me.

 Nathan put forward a juicy difficulty for my position on lies in a comment. It runs:

 "[God] also seems to either commend or participate in the deception of Israel's enemies, assuming the prophet in 1 Kings 22 is telling the truth, for example..." 

Let me quickly break the passage down for you.  Roughly summarised:

Ahab, king of Israel, consults his 400 non-Yhwh prophets to see if he should attack some cities.  They say yes, you'll win.  He gets advice to go a prophet of Yhwh, Micaiah (Mick to his mates).  Ahab hates Mick because he's always prophesying that Ahab's going to cop it, but he asks him anyway.   

Mick says, "Sure, go for it!"

Ahab says, "Yeah right, since when do you ever prophesy anything good for me?" 

Mick says, "Yeah, just joking.  You're going to get so smoten if you do.  Also, I saw a vision where God told a spirit to tell all your dodgy prophets that you'd win, just so you'd go for it." 

Then he tells everyone, "Mark my words, if he comes back alive from this battle, I'm not Yhwh's prophet."

Knowing the truth now, Ahab decides to have a crack anyway, but in disguise and with a stunt double.  Short story shorter, the stunt double makes it out alive but Ahab cops an arrow to somewhere more vital than his knee.

Now, there's lots to say about this passage about truth and lies.  And lots of it, I think, mitigates the uncomfortableness of what God does in the sense that through this incident truth massively wins.

Despite this, the fact remains.  God sent a spirit to deceive.  God made Ahab believe something untrue.  The thing that I think is most important to note is that God does so in judgement.  Much, in fact, as God killed Ahab in judgement.

You see, what I'm getting at is that God's denial of the truth to someone, and even his giving them over to their delusions, (and given the nature of the prophets Ahab consulted this was definitely a product of Ahab's delusions) is destructive judgement.  It was an act predicated upon his righteous decision as judge to finally destroy this wicked king after years and years of grace.  In this case of deception, the only case of this exact nature I'm aware of in Scripture, it is synonymous with the bringing of death.

Now, Ahab actually knew what Yhwh had said before he went to battle.  And Yhwh arranged that.  So it's not as if God doesn't actually tell him what's in store if he fails to take heed.  In fact, he makes sure the false information comes from the mouths of false prophets.  The word from Yhwh's prophet came perfectly true.

But in reference to our current question of ethics, of what is right for humanity to do, the passage raises question marks.  Is lying always wrong?

I would suggest that lying is in a similar category to killing.  It almost never the right thing to do.  I think that the kind and degree of reasoning that we ought apply before deceiving is of a similar order to that which we ought to apply before taking life.  Partly because that's what lies end up doing.  They destroy life.

God's purpose for this reality is life and thriving for people, and it is our duty to uphold this.

Yet, God reserves the right to destroy the destroyer.  It's the kind of thing that God is free to utilise in judgement, but not so humanity.  Not in the same way.

Gospel vid

I'll be trying to get a chance to do a review of this soon.  What do you reckon?
321 from Jeremy Poyner on Vimeo.

Lies #5 - Lies make life less fun

I think something that people tend to overlook is that lying isn't in the liar's best interests. Why?

Lies destroy community and relationships

In describing the reasons for the corruption in Israel, God has a fair bit to say about the destruction that deception has caused in that community.

"They make ready their tongue like a bow, to shoot lies; it is not by truth that they triumph in the land. They go from one sin to another; they do not acknowledge me," declares the LORD. "Beware of your friends; do not trust your brothers. For every brother is a deceiver, and every friend a slanderer.  Friend deceives friend, and no one speaks the truth. They have taught their tongues to lie; they weary themselves with sinning. (Jer 9:3-5 NIV)

David, Israel's greatest pre-Jesus king, agreed with God re the destructiveness of lies.

Destructive forces are at work in the city; threats and lies never leave its streets. (Psa 55:11 NIV)

And called out to God for rescue from the liars in his nation.

Help, LORD, for the godly are no more; the faithful have vanished from among men. 2 Everyone lies to his neighbour; their flattering lips speak with deception. (Psa 12:1-2 NIV)

While his wise son suggested they're not wise for leaders:

If a ruler listens to lies, all his officials become wicked. (Pro 29:12 NIV)

High maintenance

Lies are a real pain, because once you've told one then you've got to keep the act up.  You can't just tell it once; you've got to keep all the lies you've ever told in your head so you don't end up contradicting yourself and getting caught out.  I'd especially avoid them if you've got anxiety issues and don't want more to worry about.

(Tangentially related proverb that makes my case seem more biblical)

A fortune made by a lying tongue is a fleeting vapour and a deadly snare. (Pro 21:6 NIV)

At the centre of dysfunctional relationships

Samson and Delilah's relationship seems abusive and self-seeking on both their parts.  Seriously, read the story and imagine sleeping with someone who'd treated you like either Samson or Delilah had treated the other.  Messed up.  Lies were a staple part of their relational diet.

Delilah then said to Samson, "Until now, you have been making a fool of me and lying to me. (Jdg 16:13 NIV)

Even with God

Most seriously, deception destroys our relationship with God.  Repentance relies on bringing the truth to light.  It is not possible without it.  The heart that refuses to admit sin, to self and/or to God, lives in darkness.  Whereas the heart that comes to grips with the reality of its own state and calls it like it is with God finds amazing joy and freedom.

Only those who come clean experience full joy and freedom in God's forgiveness.  If you keep a part of yourself back, thinking to 'work on it' so that you need not rely utterly on God in every way, then you will be a slave to that improvement.

We write this to make our joy complete. This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. (1 John 1:4-7 NIV)

I just reckon that lies are a poor investment if you want to have a really free, fun life.

Lies #4 - Why the truth matters pt2.

Nathan, forever my valued interlocutor, asked in an earlier comment in this series whether I could point to a place in Scripture where God commands his people not to lie.  I think the answer to that is 'yes'.

Let's look at a few examples.

The LORD detests lying lips, but he delights in men who are truthful. (Pro 12:22 NIV)

You could suggest that this is wisdom literature, not law, and so carries the weight of what is good rather than what is necessary.  So let's go to some law.

Do not lie. Do not deceive one another. (Lev 19:11 NIV) 

Seems fairly clear.  But you could suggest that this is the OT and perhaps there's more 'freedom' in the New Testament on these sorts of issues where wisdom suggests that bending the truth may perhaps bring a better outcome.  So let's go to the NT.

Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. (Col 3:9-10 NIV)

Now one could further again argue that perhaps there is an escape clause here in that the command seems to apply only to discussion within the Christian community.  So Christians could technically lie, but only to non-Christians?  Yet, lying in general seems to be a sin that God suggests leaves its exponents culpable:

But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulphur. This is the second death." (Rev 21:8 NIV) 

Now, I'm generally not one who likes to build my case based on one-verse prooftexts, but having been challenged to do so I don't think that the Scriptural evidence points away from my central thesis.  Even if you're building your ethics from a very flat view of the 'divine command' approach, you're really going to struggle to think that it's godly to engage in any sort of deception without very serious prayer and reflection on why these commands might not apply in that particular case.

Distancing ourselves

I personally find the idea of distancing myself from the culture out of which extremist Christian groups such as Westboro Baptist have emerged as quite enticing.  The kinds of arguments that emerge from those kinds of extreme (and even milder) groups who claim Christianity are many of the reasons my friends would claim as their reason for rejecting Christianity.

I thought this piece from The Onion was quite a cool idea, if not quite implemented as funnily as I'd have hoped from such a promising idea.  Its concept has Almighty God holding a press conference in which he distances himself from the Christian right in the US, and several of their intolerant policies.

I'd like nothing better than to have my totally legit and logically airtight reasons for my faith totally distanced from the lame arguments that my friends ridicule (read into that as much bravado and/or tongue-in-cheek humility as you see fit).  And I often do so when talking to said friends.

Further, some of my friends have been hurt by a 'ask no questions, just submit to these rules' type of Christianity that seems to find greater traction within that culture.  I'd like to distance what I think is a right expression of following Christ from that perspective also.

And yet, I'm not sure that I want to distance myself from the Christian right in the way 'God' does in this article.  In fact, I'm not sure if I can.

Doesn't that sound scandalous?  I think it is.  But it's the scandal of grace.

Not because I'm supposed to show them grace or anything noble like that, but because I am equally in need of grace.  I have no moral advantage over the worst of the Westboro lot that would give me any sort of 'in' with God.  I have in common with them the need to be rescued from my perverse views and foul actions.  And for many people who are part of that culture I also share with them a connection as we are both connected to Christ, sinners made righteous in Him.

Ultimately, to distance myself from the Christian right, while very tempting, is to distance myself from the God of grace who embraces foul people.

In the cross, God didn't distance himself from foul people.  He came near to them.  And when he did, we were so foul that we killed him. And Jesus knew we would.  And yet he says of foul people who killed him:

"And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself."  (John 12:32)

Now, this post could contain many caveats about how we practically deal with such massive differences, the calling out of false shepherds, discussion of genuineness of conversion based on evidence of the fruit of the Spirit, etc.  But we can discuss those in the crumbs, cos this crumb is about God not distancing himself from me, when the moral gap between me and God makes the moral gap between me and Westboro look pretty darn insignificant.

Lies #3 - Why the truth matters pt1.

In my next few posts in this series I'm going to work a few different angles on bits of Scripture that show how important truth is.  So hopefully there'll be a few of these, in quickish succession, but they should each be reasonably short.

The first angle I'm going to work from is that that the ethics of creatures proceed from their Creator.

So, who is our Creator?

God is not a man,a that he should lie... (Num 23:19 NIV)

He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie (1Sa 15:29 NIV) 

God, who does not lie... (Tit 1:2 NIV) 

...him who is holy and true... (Rev 3:7 NIV)

Just and true are your ways, King of the ages. (Rev 15:3 NIV)

... is called Faithful and True. (Rev 19:11 NIV) 

But do we need to try and be like God in this respect?  Or is truth an 'incommunicable' attribute of God?  One that He possesses, but we're not commanded to emulate?  Well, Colossians specifically combines the command not to lie with the destiny of the believer to be like his/her Creator:

Do not lie to each other,a since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. (Col 3:9-10 NIV) 

This is not only our future, but also the expectation of the character of our lives now:

Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks.  24 God is spirit,a and his worshippers must worship in spirit and in truth." (Joh 4:23-24 NIV)

 And this in anticipation of our future.  As John sees in Revelation:

Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads. ... No lie was found in their mouths; they are blameless. (Rev 14:1-5 NIV) 

So while we may not necessarily act truthfully instinctively, honesty is the direction the Christian must be pointed towards because it's what conforming to the image of his/her Creator looks like.

Our ethics flow from the nature of our Creator.

Lies #2 - What is a lie?

In the discussion with Nathan that followed my first post in this series, he suggested that offering a working definition of a "lie" may be  a helpful next post in this series.  And as Nathan is a genuine authority on blogging, here we are.

Defining something like 'lying' is difficult.  Well, that's a lie.  But it is difficult to define well.

This is in large part due to the complexity of human interactions and the variety of contexts and cultures within which they occur.  So let me start with a negative description.

Is not telling the truth lying?

I don't think that withholding the truth is inherently a lie. This is because not all truth is appropriate for all people to know at all times. The intimacy that is shared by lovers is not something that one shares with all and sundry. In fact to do that would destroy that intimacy that is made so special by its exclusive nature.

Similarly, I don't think there's any moral imperative to be a pedant.  It is perfectly legitimate (particularly in a counselling setting) to simply nod your head and say "right" when someone shares with you their perception of events, even when you 'know' that they're wrong or deluded. Doing this acknowledges that this is their perception of events. It doesn't validate it as true. It communicates acceptance of the person and their experience of an event. Choosing not to contradict a person is not lying.

So what is a lie?

I reckon a decent description of a lie is intentionally representing a false statement as true.

Does that work for persuasive communication?

This is some fairly grey territory.  What if, by making statements that are individually true, I represent a situation or product in such a way that isn't a full or fair reflection in all aspects?

What has happened here is that we're shifting the scope of evaluation from single propositions to entire pieces of communication.  Here, I don't think the label of 'lie' is the most helpful descriptive category.  It's not a label the generally makes sense when applied to, say, a newspaper article as a whole.

I think here we need to ask: "Is the piece of communication faithful to the truth as believed by the author at the time?"  Some points with respect to this:

• As discussed above it doesn't need to disclose all facts, but in these cases a more general grading of faithfulness to truth is more appropriate than the binary term "lie". 
• To be "faithful", the premises in a piece of communication ought to truly support the message (which may be explicit or implicit) of that piece of communication.

Ok, so that's some definitional/descriptional stuff.  It's not meant to be arguing for anything, just laying things down as I'm using them so what I write makes more sense.

Do you like these descriptions?  No?  Help me out a bit and let me know what you'd add/change in your crumbs.

Ethics of the truth #1: Lies

I hate lies.  Even though I do sometimes tell them, sadly.  This series is my attempt to propose some thoughts that I hope will be some light on the truth about lies.  I'll really need your thoughts to round this discussion out, though, so please comment here or on FB.

This first post is about the double-reason that particularly gets my goat.

The first reason I hate lies is because we so readily resort to them.  Stuck in an awkward situation?  Got asked if someone's bum looks big in a pair of pants?  Will get found out if you admit the truth?  Or if you admit that you've not been telling the truth previously?

We so readily resort to lies in all sorts of situations.  The thing is, I reckon it's just laziness.  We're too lazy to work out what love looks like in truth, and we too readily assume that the only way out is lying.  It's just laziness.  And it makes me angry.  Because lies hurt people.

That's the second part of this double-reason.  Lies kill.  The devil is a liar, and has been so from the beginning, and his mission is to kill and destroy.  Lies kill people.

I'm speaking quite strongly here, I know.  It's because I feel this strongly.  Please don't let that stop you from feeling able to comment or even to disagree.  This is a chat I'd love to have.

Stay tuned for more.

Kutz

Help with my position

Working with a couple of mates on a statement re the environment.

What's your position on the environment?  What do you think a biblical position is?  What's your key paradigm?  Your key text?

I'd love your thoughts.  Feel free to post either here or on FB.

The wisdom of the ages

Greetings, once again.  This time, a crumb I picked up from a friend's trail.

Went to Murwillumbah Pressy on Sunday, and was greatly blessed by Chris Lindsay's exposition of Proverbs 8 and 9.  So good.

I was going to write a beautifully eloquent summation of all the excellent things he had to say.  But I'm not sure I have time.  And perhaps just listening to the talk yourself would be more edifying anyways.

So I'll just mention a couple of things.  Literally.

• The wisdom offered by Lady Wisdom is something that pre-dates the creation of the world.  It, in fact, undergirds the creation.  If you're looking for transcendent wisdom or ancient and deep truth, Lady Wisdom offers something deeper than the most ancient sage or sect.

• Though so often we choose Lady Folly over Lady Wisdom, the logos, the reason, the logic, the unifying principle, the word of God has come to be Wisdom for us.  So that in Him we are truly wise and all else is made to look foolish.

Much more theological gold in there that'll make you want to read the rest of Proverbs.  Go get it.

IntraText #6 - Genesis 39 part II

Ok, so you're up on Genesis 39 read in the context of Genesis 3?  Schweet.

Joseph's story is converse to Eve's in a couple more ways: in terms of (1) what he had and (2) what he didn't grasp at.

(1) Joseph felt like he had everything as Potipher's overseer, so at first it doesn't look like he's rewarded for his wisdom.  He goes to prison.  Yet the author is so keen to make sure we don't mistake this for curse from God that sticks in three verses of caveats right away:

But athe LORD was with Joseph and showed him steadfast love band gave him favor in the sight of the keeper of the prison. And the keeper of the prison put Joseph in charge of all the prisoners who were in the prison. Whatever was done there, he was the one who did it. The keeper of the prison paid no attention to anything that was in Joseph's charge, because the LORD was with him. And whatever he did, the LORD made it succeed. (Gen 39:21-23 ESV)

As if he couldn't wait until the next chapter when we'd get to find this out for ourselves.

In fact, as a result of his trust in God's goodness, looking at the everything given rather than the one thing withheld, Joseph goes from 2nd in charge of Potipher's household, to 2nd in charge of the whole flipping Egyptian nation.  Eve distrusted that God was good, looking at the thing supposedly withheld, and in grasping for it she lost it.  (I suspect that there's some interesting work to be done here with respect to seeing God's new methodology to bring blessing somehow in and through curse and negative things, but that's a whole different trajectory in Genesis.)

(2) Also, as a result of his right dealing with women, Joseph ends up with a woman.

And Pharaoh ... gave him in marriage Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera priest of On. (Gen 41:45 ESV)

Now I'm not sure if Potiphar and Potiphera are related.  But even if they're not, surely we're told this to make us connect the two characters in some way.  So as a part of the blessing for refusing to fornicate with Potipher's wife, Joseph ends up with Potiphera's daughter as his wife.

Eve had grasped at the fake, believing God to be stingy, and lost the real thing.

But Joseph refused to obey the tempter offering the fake, and so he gained the truly good thing that the fake thing looked so much like.


Amazingly crafted, these narratives, aren't they?  I think the point that all this literary art is driving at is God's positive disposition towards humanity despite human sinfulness.  God just seems determined to bless us, despite our self-destructive and world destructive and anti-God tendencies.  Determined to bring about life, even when the curse of death has been brought down upon us.

He's pretty awesome.

Instances of Gen 3 - #5 - Genesis 39

One part of what I've been doing as I've been working through Genesis has been to see whether Genesis 3 (with my particular reading of it) could be acting as a type-scene against which many of the subsequent events of Genesis can be set.

I think Genesis 39 is also such a scene. Let's look for some parallels.  (Not because parallels are cool in and of themselves, but because they point to the author trying to see one scene in the light of another, which enables us to better understand what the author is trying to do.)

Firstly, both scenes involve a woman desiring something forbidden to her. Secondly, they both involved a man who has been given absolutely everything, and has been forbidden only one thing.*  Third, that man is responsible to rule and care for all those things.  Fourth, we get Yhwh's blessing and increasing that sphere of influence.

Here's one which may be a long bow, but let me know what you think.  Have a look at verses 6 & 7.

So he left all that he had in Joseph's charge, and because of him he had no concern about anything but the food he ate. Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance. And after a time his master's wife cast her eyes on Joseph and said, "Lie with me." (Gen 39:7 ESV)(Gen 39:6 ESV)

Why did he mention food and eating?  Completely irrelevant detail!  Just coincidence that this story juxtaposes something that's desirable to the eye with food and eating?  ^raised eyebrow^

Sixth, Joseph does not 'listen to her', the act of Adam that Yhwh cites as the reason the ground is cursed.

Convinced?  No?  That's ok.  But indulge me a moment.

If I'm right to read ch39 in the light of ch3, then a very interesting thing happens to the main point.  Have a look at how Joseph resists the temptation to sin. (I'm assuming it's not just that Potiphar's wife is fugly)

But he refused and said to his master's wife, "Behold, because of me my master has no concern about anything in the house, and he has put everything that he has in my charge.

He is not greater in this house than I am, nor has he kept back anything from me except yourself, because you are his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?" (Gen 39:8-9 ESV)

What was Joseph's weapon of choice against the temptation to take?  To remind himself of what he'd been given.  Joseph's weapon, was thankfulness.  Gratitude.

Which, if you'll recall, is the opposite of Gen 3 where the serpent turns the generosity of Yhwh in giving all things into the stinginess of God in withholding the one.

When faced with the choice to sin or not to sin, to take that which God has said not to take, thankfulness is a great weapon.  And I mean this in two ways.

Firstly, it reminds you of the fullness you already have.  How could you sin against the one who has given you everything?  Literally!  Is that other thing you want worth so much?
Secondly, it recalls the goodness, the generosity, of the giver.  The one who is reminded of just how much he/she has been given by God trusts that God will continue to do the right thing by them: both in giving, and in withholding.


To be continued...


* Yes, that conjunction is definitely meant to be 'and' and not 'but'.  The serpent would have used 'but', but.

Not a blog post on Genesis 25

Well, I did promise that I was going to post on Esau despising and selling his birthright to Jacob in Genesis 25, but I think that there's more in that chapter for Doug's 'beastial' de-humanised humanity idea than the angle I've been running with. So, I'll leave it for him.

A naked preacher?

My lovely friend Anna posted a vulnerable, self-aware and in-process piece on theological writing just the other day.  It made my soul smile.

It echoed the thoughts of Billy Coffee's one-time lecturer on the subject of writing, who said of writers:

“Don’t simply tell me that faith saves you, tell me how it almost failed you, too. Don’t tell me about love, speak of your passion. Don’t tell me you’re hurt, let me see your heart breaking. I don’t want to see your talent on the page, I want to see your blood. Dare to be naked before your readers. Because that is writing, and everything else is worthless crap.”

And for writing, I agree.  Writers who genuinely say something say what they mean.  Which is what they deeply and utterly believe.  And so are naked before those who would laugh, mock and critique that.

Thus, genuine writers:

“People write because they must. Because there is a story inside them that is meant to be shared with the world. But having that story inside you doesn’t make you a writer. How you tell that story does. And you tell it through honesty.”

A question for me, then, is to what extent preaching is 'writing' in this sense?  For we do not tell our own story, though that story is equally "inside us and meant to be shared with the world".

On the side of the naked preacher, I would say that if the person doesn't preach, but only the text is preached, then the duty of plunging the sword of the spirit into oneself before plunging it, with your own blood still afresh on it, into your hearers has been neglected.

On the other hand, when does the preacher's nudity become a distraction from the preacher's work of exposing the naked word of God, in all its glory and implications, to the congregation?  For even if we have a story to tell in Christ, a sermon is not a testimony.  It is the story of Another,

Of course, the answer is not a blank yes or no. (sorry if that's what you were going to say.  Let me introduce you to Graeme Goldsworthy if you were.)  But I suspect the answer lies somewhere in the field of "in what sense ought the preacher be naked, and in what sense ought no-one be looking at the preacher to have noticed?"

Your thoughts?  I'd value them dearly.

Grasping in Genesis #4

I've been blogging through Genesis since finishing my project, and it's been fascinating seeing some themes emerge so strongly.  Particularly, seeing that Gen 3 isn't the only place where find a character grasping at something God's already given or promised them.

So, we're up to chapter 27, and the theme reappears.  But first, some background:

Isaac prayed to Yhwh on behalf of his wife, because she was barren. Yhwh answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant. The babies jostled each other within her, and she said, "Why is this happening to me?" So she went to inquire of Yhwh. Yhwh said to her, "Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from within you will be separated; one people will be stronger than the other, and the older[Esau] will serve the younger[Jacob]."

 Rebekah came to love her younger son, Jacob.  Isaac came to love the older son (and the meat he hunted), Esau.  Now Rebekah is in a fantastic position here, because she's had a direct word from Yhwh that her favoured son will end up on top.  He'll rule over Esau, so there's no reason for her to fear losing contact with her son.  She already has, in promise form, what she's come to desire.  And so when she hears Isaac promising this same thing to Esau instead of Jacob, she fails to trust God's word and decides to take matters into her own hands.

"Go to the flock and bring me two good young goats, so that I may prepare from them delicious food for your father, such as he loves. And you shall bring it to your father to eat, so that he may bless you before he dies."

The context gives us a whole bunch of clues that we should be thinking of Genesis 3.  Firstly, the great desire for food is once again present.  (as it is at the end of chapter 25, to which we'll return; it's heaps interesting)  Second, the repetition of competing voices which ask to be obeyed ("heard").  Third, the dichotomy of blessing and cursing, as Rebekah (willingly) brings curse on herself.  Fourth, the sending away of Jacob out of the presence of Isaaac for fear of death, as Adam and Eve were from the presence of Yhwh (the phrase is repeated so you don't miss it).  Fifthly, the repetition of the covering with animal skins.

And lastly, of course, the very thing she wanted, and had, she ended up losing.  She sends her son away for fear he might die.  In effect, she loses both her sons. (cf. 27:45)

There are a few more connections, of varying strength.

Of course, as striking as the similarities of the scenes are the distinctions between them.  This is the art of Hebrew narrative, as expectations are set up and then twisted, added to or totally subverted.  A subtlety often foreign to the characteristically one-dimensional storytelling of Hollywood.

Ultimately, what happened?

Rebekah saw what she wanted.  She already possessed a promise from Yhwh that she would have that thing.  She took action designed to get it.  And, though God subverts the previous paradigm by keeping his promise to bless Jacob, Rebekah herself loses that which she grasped for.

 Thus Isaac sent Jacob away. (Gen 28:5 ESV)

And she never saw her son again.

Hard yakka

It requires far more courage, energy and sometimes unusual circumstances to face yourself than is commonly admitted.

Genesis intratextuality

I started out a set of observations from my reading through Genesis here and here.  The idea is essentially this:

There's a pattern emerging through Genesis where certain characters grasp at something that they already have, whether in actuality or by promise of Yhwh.  The result of the grasping tends to be the loss or spoiling of that which they have grasped for.  The prevailing theme is faith, or lack of faith, that Yhwh has given them that good thing.

For Eve, that was the knowledge of good and evil. Though she possessed it, she was tricked into thinking God had been stingy and so she grasped for it, and lost it, in the eating of the fruit of the tree.


For Sarah, it was having a son.  Though Abraham had received the promise of a son, she grasped at it by giving Hagar to Abraham, and ended up causing Isaac and his descendants the problem of their relationship with Hagar's son, Ishmael.

Now we come to Genesis 22 and the great test of Abraham's faith.  Will he give his only son back to God?  The one through whom God's blessings were promised to flow?  Or will he grasp at him, attempting to keep that which God has said he must give up?

It seems utterly impossible for Abraham to believe that Yhwh will provide for him an heir through Isaac.  The very act that Yhwh asks of him inherently destroys any hope of this.  Yet in a complete reversal of our previous scenes, Abraham trusts Yhwh in the impossible situation.  He freely gives up that which Yhwh had given him and in whom the rest of Yhwh's promises will stand or fall.  He entrusts himself to Yhwh's goodness in spite of all human logic.  (It thus makes sense that Hebrews 11:19 ascribes to him a divine wisdom that affronts all human experience and common sense.)

This scene is the ultimate example of trust in the providence of Yhwh, against all his human experience of possibility.  It is also the polar opposite of the actions of Eve and Sarah in grasping at that of which Yhwh had already assured them.  It is an anti-type-scene in every conceivable way.

The author sets Abraham's insane trust in the providence of Yhwh against the grasping of Eve and Sarah, whose lack of trust had varying degrees of "understandability".

There is so much pastoral application in these chapters that is really huge for our generation.  No time for it here, but perhaps I'll rant about it in another post.  This series is about establishing a pattern of scenes in Genesis, which in turn may enhance the case for my project's slant on Genesis 3.

Next stop, Genesis 27, where the scene reverts to type...

Intertextuality #2: the fun part

I posited here an argument for a strong thematic connection between Genesis 3 and Genesis 16.  While that's fun in itself, it was the possibilities that this connection unearthed that began to pique my interest.

I have suggested in some detail here that Genesis 3 is perhaps best understood as Eve grasping for something that she already possessed.  If this is right, then might that pattern also be repeated later in Genesis?

Indeed, it's worth asking why women are the focus in so much of the, if you'll excuse the pun, patriarchal narratives.

Genesis 16 is a case in point.  In what sense could Sarai be described as having grasped at that which she already had?

Well, if we understand Yhwh's promise that Abram would have countless descendants in its most natural sense (ie, that he would bear them through his wife), then in effect Sarai had already received the child she was grasping for: by promise.  The thematic links are strengthened somewhat in perceiving that lack of trust in God's word is a key operative in both cases.

Eve failed to trust that God had been good to her in what he had spoken to her.  Could we perhaps suggest that Sarai did the same?

The journey through Genesis should be interesting.  I'm holding out some hope that these intertextual links will provide some support for my reading of Genesis 3.



NB.  Feminists, don't get too agitated too quickly about where I'm going with this.  We'll get to Tamar who provides some narrative counter-balance and nuance.

Is there an 'inter' in this texuality?

I'm reading through the Bible cover to cover at the moment (much closer to one cover than the other) and am noticing some interesting things upon reading Genesis afresh.  For example, Genesis 16 seems to follow a familiar pattern.

Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. She had a female Egyptian servant whose name was Hagar. 2 And Sarai said to Abram, "Behold now, the LORD has prevented me from bearing children. Go in to my servant; it may be that I shall obtain children by her." And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai.
 3 So, after Abram ahad lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her servant, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife. 4 And he went in to Hagar, and she conceived. And when she saw that she had conceived, she looked with contempt on her mistress.
 5 And Sarai said to Abram, "May the wrong done to me be on you! I gave my servant to your embrace, and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked on me with contempt. May athe LORD judge between you and me!"
 6 But Abram said to Sarai, "Behold, your servant is in your power; do to her as you please." Then Sarai dealt harshly with her, and she fled from her. (Gen 16:1-6 ESV)

Seeing anything yet?

The driving tension involves a husband, a wife and Yhwh.  The tension is brought to a head as the wife becomes convinced that Yhwh is stingy and has short-changed her.  This is stated in a way that contains a certain amount of factual truth, while misrepresenting the character of Yhwh's actions.
The wife perceives a means by which she may gain that which Yhwh has allegedly withheld from her.  This course of action seems good to her, despite seeming obviously flawed to the reader.  And so the wife takes, and gives to her husband.  The husband, passively and without a reported word, listens to his wife and receives that which is offered.

Then the negative consequences become all too apparent to the man and wife.  Each party shifts responsibility for the situation to the other.  The final result, is that someone becomes an exile.

Sound familiar?  If there isn't significant reference to patterns set up in Genesis 3 I'll eat my exegetical hat.  Which is easy.  Because it's imaginary.  Unless you buy me a real one.

Implications for exegesis?  Probably lots, I'd have to think about it.  Or get you guys to tell me.  It really casts the Genesis 16 event in terms of the nature of Adam and Eve's sin.  It proceeds again from a wrong view of God and ends in a failure to trust his predictive word.

Now something that is also interesting to me is the fact that there are, perhaps, particular resonances with Genesis 3 when read as I have in my project.  I'll post on that soon, God willing.

Public link to my project

Does what it says on the tin.

Title: Why do we still believe the snake?
Subtitle: What happened when Adam and Eve ate.

Link: PDF

I'd love your thoughts, and feelings...

I'm putting together some thoughts on emotion at present.  Currently looking for feedback on a definitional-type statement that I've spent some time working on.

"Emotions function to alert us to, and allow us to experience, the significance of some aspect of reality that we perceive."

Would love thoughts and wisdom from friends.

Post-project reflection

Well, it's been an interesting time.

Firstly, Linden was right. It did take longer than I thought to finish the last stages of my project. But then, I already knew that too, if I'd bothered to really ask myself about it.

Secondly, I'm still constantly doubting my premise. It's just that every time I go back and think it through I'm re-convinced that it's right. The experience of re-doubting so many times is fairly harrowing and soul-winnowing. I think it's actually because I'm quite afraid of being wrong on this. I'm not sure why I'm like this.

Thirdly, I'm excited about getting the idea from my thesis out there, for more people to hear it and believe it. I think that so many of us have somewhat impoverished views on the gospel and, more broadly, salvation history because we've only got one model through which we can view it. Only one lens. But the Bible has so many images, illustrations, metaphors that it seems strange that we try to boil the meta-narrative down to one inadequate model.

Well, strictly speaking, that's not true. I'm actually entirely positive about such attempts. The problem that I have is that we seem to think that one is adequate to give us a big picture of salvation history that is theologically rich and reflects the richness of Scripture. I hope to continually gain more and more angles on the nature of the gospel (and thus interpretive frameworks through which to view salvation history) as I read Scripture and put different pieces of the puzzle together.

Fourthly, because I've blabbed so much about this project to so many people, it feels now like it's actually quite a public thing. As if people are interested in it. As if it's got some sort of public profile. And that's weird. I'm finding it uncomfortable. It probably doesn't really have any public profile, but it's been enough to get me thinking about the idea that it does. I feel strange about the idea of my work being public. But that's the subject for my next post...