theological quote of the day

"I didn't grow up in the church, so I don't hate anybody."

~ Paul (emeritus professor of practical theology)

rest

It has happened again. Another friend who tends a blog of some sort has decided to step back for a season and be quiet. This occurs somewhat frequently among certain folks, and I am typically disappointed that I won't hear anything for a while (primarily because it seems like only the people that I admire take blogging breaks) . . . but then I remember the value of getting away from the electrical current we think we need to connect with the world.

A couple of times in my life I have taken a deliberate break from blogging. When I decided to end the life of my original blog I did not intend starting another. So a number of months went by without much thought given to the idea. And a while back (I do not recall the exact date) I stepped away from this blog for a couple of weeks away. Currently, I have discovered a more appropriate rhythm for blogging, which does not call for me to share my thoughts about everything at every moment during the day.

There are reasons for sabbaths, sabbaticals, rests, etc. . . And the same reasons why bloggers take time away are the same reasons why Christians need to take time away from anything in life - to rid those obstacles between ourselves and God. Mark 1:35 mentions Jesus' activity of getting away to a solitary place in order to pray and reflect and commune with his Father. I am continued to be surprised when I see the amount of leaders, teachers, and laypeople (and when I catch myself) thinking that we can go full-tilt into 24/7 Christianized activity without taking the time to reflect and pray. Often this is only accomplished by fasting from certain practices.

Psalm 46:10 includes God's words, "Be still and know that I am God; I will be exalted among the nations, I will be exalted in the earth." The two go together, especially within a theology of restoration - if it is God we are knowing through our stillness, then it will be God whom we exalt in our lives. The inverse seems to be the case, however anecdotal the evidence might appear, that when our hearts fail to be quiet before him then our lives exalt ourselves.

Rather than seeing this happen, I know of some who take a sabbath from their activities - no matter how holy and important they perceive themselves to be (or are told from others they are). So, Keep watch, dear Lord, with those who work, or watch or weep this night, and give your angels charge over those who sleep. Tend the sick, give rest to the weary, bless the dying, soothe the suffering, pity the afflicted, shield the joyous; and all for your love's sake. Amen.

4 lessons from the jim west thingy

Here's what I've learned over the course of my day, since having posted my final argument with Jim West. (It is the final argument, because I'm not going to waste time on further ones.)

1. Rhetoric doesn't matter, so long as you have a 'successful' blog. West stated in his reply to my statement:

Comes with the territory, I suppose, of being #1. Yes, hopper, #1. Say it with me- 4 months in a row (and coming up on 5), #1. When you break the 6 million mark let me know and I’ll add ya to the blogroll!

Hence, if you can garner a lot of readers you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want. I will make a note of it. At the end of the day I am wondering if this means that NT Wright is a better theologian that Jim West simply because he has more people read his books?!? Or, is Joel Osteen a more accurate exegete simply because he has more people attend his church than does Jim West? The reasoning simply does not follow. But that was his reply.

2. Challenges to arguments can be dismissed with simple ridicule. I do not have a readership as big as Jim West, and that's fine with me. I'm not trying to win the biblioblogger-of-the-month award, unless I find out it has a substantial cash prize. So, lowly :mic cannot challenge the biblio-statist Dr Jim West because . . . well, because. And rather than addressing the actual challenge, the dialogue resorts to fifth-grade response.

3. Publicly issuing a challenge of someone popular will always make you the bad guy. I'm not the first to discover this truth, and this isn't the first time I've learned this. But it is a good example in that those who have emailed me throughout the day and have sought to comment - on both our sites - have simply followed suit and assumed the worst in me because I said that Jim was out-of-line. Lest we forget that Jim made the initial unwarranted challenges against Craig by taking a work out-of-context and (again) assuming the worst in him, I simply wanted to help set the record straight because this sort of behavior should be considered out-of-bounds.

4. You may say whatever you want so long as it saves face for yourself. This is what I have seen throughout the day, and in the former days of reading Jim's blog. And other blogs as well. The rhetoric is ridiculous, but it is passed over because too frequently our need to win arguments is more important than our need to win souls. Remember, these discussions are quite public.

I have been emailed numerous times today regarding all sorts of issues at play here. One of them is the title of my post, and what a hypocrite I am. I expected this, and retained the title because I wanted to prove a point that I would be more maligned for this one word than for all of the garbage thrown around elsewhere.

Let me explain this way: I often hear people say that George W Bush was a lying, murderous traitor who wanted nothing more than to go to war. Then I finish the logic and ask, 'Then he wanted 9/11 to happen?' Most often I am met with challenges to THAT statement, i.e., 'Your comment was out-of-line.' It is an absurd proposition, but made even more absurd that some people make wild accusations and then cry foul when they are challenged on them.

5. Blogs are meant for personal enjoyment, but are used for personal aggrandizement. The latest charge is that I am a hypocrite because I moderate comments. I do not do so because I only want certain positions to come into play - in fact, I have only turned on comment moderation with the publication of the previous post because I knew the backlash that was coming via personal attacks and vicious statements. And I was right.

So now I know why people moderate, and that is completely understandable. But I also know that some comment moderation is in place for one single purpose: to make the blogger look good. This is the only reason why so many of my challenges to Jim West (which make no statements which are personal or ridiculous) never make it to his comments section. And that is the reason why today happened as it did - because he refused to dialogue about the issue, instead choosing to make himself look good at any cost.

Conclusion: This is what I've learned today. And I am requesting that you remove me from your blogrolls, because the cost of this community is more than I wish to spend. There is more fruitful work for me to be doing, and I will blog in obscurity - where I presently belong. Days like this remind me that online Christians indeed have much to learn about being a community, and perhaps that is one reason why the rest of the world sees no real inspiration within us who were supposed to be out from among them.

If you follow my blog, fine. If you find my blog, good. In the end I will not let this be about me, Jim West, some of the inane people who have viciously attacked me . . . but about God alone.

in response to jim west, loser

There has been some scuffle on Jim West's blog regarding Craig Blomberg and the exegesis bibliography which is supplied by Denver Seminary. I believe that most of that is cleared up, but not without more of Jim ranting and demeaning on something he doesn't fully understand (that's how it all got started). So, my ongoing question is answered a bit more today: Do you conduct biblical research in the same hapless, derogatory, and pessimistic manner that you rail against popular culture? Yes.

Craig's response to the situation is good, and captures the whole of Jim's blog well:

Thanks for the clarification, Carl, and thanks Jim for acknowledging it. Yes, this site did request and receive permission to use the Denver Journal recommendations as one of a whole number of bibliographies from which they got their items, and yes it is an evangelical site so they may well have reference all evangelical bibliographies for all I know. And yes, we well-know the ground-breaking role of Bultmann, and Taylor, and plenty of others, and yes we have tried to focus primarily on the most recent works.

It’s a bibliography designed for our students and our constituency and should be evaluated on that basis. Language like that of “absurdity” with respect to omissions doesn’t seem to me to be in keeping with the spirit of the Golden Rule, especially when it’s based on someone else’s reuse of a bibliography wrongly attributed to us.

You accused me of “getting testy” several months ago when you similarly misused information. I’m trying to write this response as even-handedly as possible but when others use inflammatory language to demean something they haven’t read carefully enough to understand either its purpose or origin, I think you can understand what might come across as a little bit testy. One even might wonder which is more absured [sic]. . . Are you interested in real scholarship, Jim, or just in demeaning those you disagree with?

Well stated. Many biblical studies folks know Craig and would find such criticism to be quite out-of-line, because of the level of scholarship which he has produced over the years. And his character is solidly committed to living out the truth of Scripture. Hence, reading this criticism of him and his work can easily be discarded for those who know him well. Maybe this could be avoided if some actual thinking occurred while not typing on a computer every ten minutes.

And since Jim has a history of moderating me out of his comments section (which he again did here), I will include what was intended as a response to his unapologetic apology.

Jim

Once again you were out of line and continue to be out of line in your response to the situation. Craig nails your personality and the tenor of this entire site when he asks: "Are you interested in real scholarship, Jim, or just in demeaning those you disagree with?"

I have stopped reading this drivel some time ago, only visiting now because I saw Blomberg's name. This is because he has proven himself to be a legitimate academic, a scholar of integrity, and a committed disciple. He models this, and I have mentioned numerous times to you that your words and behavior demonstrated here cannot reflect the same.

Sorry to say, but again you need to consider theological (and social, political, cultural) discussion without the name-calling and demeaning.

Michael C Thompson (the one whose comments you typically don't allow to be published)

__

I know that Jim comes across as a blogging-hero to many people, but frankly I cannot stand the level of his rhetoric. And I have completely turned away from anything he has to say. But when he steps into my range of vision - i.e., attacking my friend, Craig Blomberg - I am going to respond. Not because Craig needs me to, but because people who operate with such a level of uninformed idiocy needs to shut up.

ntw discusses justification

[N.B., I wonder what the Chariots-of-Fire theme in the music is all about!?!]

finding herem?

Hyung Dae Park, Finding Herem?: A Study of Luke-Acts in the Light of Herem (London: Continuum, 2007).

This study is a publication of Park's PhD thesis submitted through London School of Theology in 2005. It has been commended to me by the supervisor, Steve Walton, because of the superb work in OT background and Second Temple context which make up the first two chapters. And I must agree that this study is a lesson in intertextuality of which NT scholars should pay attention. It is a thorough presentation of the relevant material from the Jewish tradition which is then well integrated into the narrative of Luke-Acts.

Park moves through the concept of הרם (separation from common use or contact) as it is introduced to the community of Israel, and then is used and developed throughout their history. For the OT material, Park works through the material in straightforward canonical order. In regards to Second Temple literature and Luke-Acts, he works more thematically (themes which he has developed from the OT concepts): mandatory הרם, voluntary הרם, etc.

It is an interesting study which takes on many difficult passages within Luke-Acts, including the narrative of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5). Here Park identifies the concept of הרם as found in Joshua 7:16-26. This background is not the most identified background, but admittedly fills in more of the gaps-of-understanding than other proposals. And Park also gives a reading of Jesus as both mandatory and voluntary הרם (cf. 146-163). Further, he identifies the movement of הרם into the realm of redemptive - which he foreshadowed in the background material - to a more complete understanding of Luke's atonement theology (contra. Bultmann).

Ethically, there is an interesting point made by Park at the conclusion of his study: "The basic characteristic of voluntary הרם is giving without expecting any reciprocal advantage" (176). Here is an idea which stems directly from the Jesus tradition (esp. the Jesus Creed tradition). On the other side of this coin he refers to events in Acts, "In contrast, giving with the expectation of reciprocal advantage is described negatively in Luke-Acts" (176). That which is set aside for God's use should be kept for that purpose. A strong foundational ethic.

re:creation in daniel 7

Cf. James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered. Christianity in the Making, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 729f.

In the first volume of Dunn's exploration into the origins of Christianity he briefly covers the quite important Daniel 7, one of the primary texts behind Israel's restoration and messianic concepts. This chapter has been combed over many times before, not just by the kooks with end-times charts and television programs, but by biblical scholars who recognize the importance of this passage to understand more fully the gospel narratives. Dunn's assertion in this volume is that Daniel 7 is told with the creation narratives in mind: that the scene unfolding in apocalyptic narrative is based upon the Jewish telling of Genesis.

While I am a bit undecided on a few pieces of what this may or may not entail, there are some solid reasons why this is an attractive approach.

1. The doctrine of creation is bedrock in the traditions of Israel, and it would make sense that the story of creation would be overshadowing the narrative of restoration.

2. Apocalyptic typically uses the creation story as a way of pointing to the way creation ought to be - that it was made this way and will eventually return to that way. This also fits into the typical cyclical presentation of history which is also also found in apocalyptic.

3. The images themselves make a point which is doctrinally based upon the creation narrative. This is in some sense a combination of points 1 & 2 above, but is the necessary link to make Dunn's assertion plausible. That man and woman were to be over creation is paralleled in the apocalyptic language of Daniel 7 with the messianic figure rightly ruling over all of the nations.

The parallelism thus works, and there is good reason to see the overshadowing of creation in the restoration narrative of Israel. So I have little problem agreeing with Dunn that this is mostly "an adapted creation myth." But there might be some implications (which I will not take space for here) which I am still working out. But for now, I thought this was a significant piece for restoration theology which might be overlooked (as his footnotes for this section also hint). In the end, the restoration narrative is the retelling and re-achieving of the initial creation. This thread is, I believe, constant throughout Jewish restoration theology.

hope, change and rhetoric

The rhetoric of political discussion from self-designated Christians is increasingly difficult to identify from that of self-designated non-Christians. And this is a matter of tone, for the personal attacks and malevolent comments are often worse among those who are 'working for the kingdom' than those who are simply upset about the decisions being made. I continue to see examples of this, most often with Christians who dissent from the policies of George W Bush.

Because there have been six-eight years of direct attack on his administration, and with the help of many in the media, there are strong words reserved for him and those who worked with him. Let me be clear: It is not unChristian to disagree with any or all of the policies and decision made by any president. Those who claim this are simply wrong. But how we choose to disagree will make a stronger statement than any of the words we could throw into the arena of ideals. And the message which many dissenters are sending with their continued critique of people who aren't even in power anymore is that believers can be filled with as much hatred as anyone else . . . while proclaiming 'Love God; Love Others'.

So, many Christians simply need to shut their mouths.

Something we can learn from the polling data (which I rarely, if ever, reference) is that people are not looking for the one who can yell the loudest, critique the most, mudsling the dirtiest, or exhibit the most disdain. The candidate who won the last election ran on two simple words: hope and change. He did not need to define these terms because people were willing to accept a positive voice in the midst of politics-as-usual. This is how much the social climate is darkened. And now the polls indicate that while most Americans still like the concepts of hope and change, there is great unrest and disagreement with the individual policy decisions made by this President and Congress. It appears that we were so desperate for something that we were willing to buy something that looked appealing, but now cannot pay the bill.

So, if the concepts of hope and change are so powerful (especially when looking towards the future), why are there voices within the church that continue to voice dissension, discontent, and mean-spirited words directed to the past? And we often wonder why the church has become irrelevant. We don't need to condemn our former leaders to prison without the burden of proof and we don't need to condemn anyone to hell - the former is for the courts and the latter is reserved for God alone.

The church can make a tremendous impact because of the realization of true hope and lasting change which cannot be undone by the next administration, but which will last into eternity. Rather than allowing the anger of politics to darken the renewed heart. It is good to be involved and there is a time and place for the discussion of our policies and decisions, but only when they are responsible with the data, the individuals involved, and the life of the kingdom.

back 2 the blogger

Two things worth mention:

1. My blog template crashed, so I've been taking time to rebuild the site.

2. We are visiting family this week, so I will not be posting much.

declaration

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

continue

driving without headlights

"He chose to give you your life, don't despair of it."