principles of research

1. If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.

2. 82.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

3. A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.

(They ought to be handing over my degree any day now)

risky business coaches

θηρίον

[N.B., I had initially considered titling this post 'Becoming Hal Lindsey.' Though I often engage in self-deprecating humor, I try hard not to insult my own intelligence.]

Revelation 12-13 introduces a trio of beasts, grotesquely portrayed, and in clear parody of the Trinity. The reason for this portrayal is that John writes in apocalyptic, which has many specific features. One particular aim of this genre is to provide a caricature and exposure of things which appear to be impressive and powerful. Often this was aimed at the ruling government and sometimes to the religious leadership.

What the apocalyptic narrative is doing throughout this work is establishing two diametrically opposed entities at play in the universe - the way of God and the way of the (fallen) world. Thus, there are two primary classifications in John's perspective: the people of the kingdom and the people of the earth. I am of the opinion that the latter especially becomes semi-technical language for those who reject the kingdom of God and thus work against the Lord and his anointed.

On this, those who are devoted to the ways of the world are characterized in 12-13 as being enamored with the grotesque trio - especially the second: The Beast out of the Sea. In the trinitarian mimic this beast is a parody of Jesus as Messiah. Thus this figure appears to be invincible and impressive, having charisma and offering of salvation and security. The two great questions which are given in the text come from the people regarding the Beast: "Who is like the beast? Who can make war against it?" (13:4). A focus on uniqueness and superiority.

So why does John portray this figure as a beast which is able to draw such admiration? Because he wishes to expose the power and authority for what it really is - a lame attempt at subverting the power of God and replace the true Messiah. I remain unconvinced that John's words are meant for a specific time and place or person, and that they are thus timely for every day and age in which power corrupts and the ways of the world stand contrary to the will of God. What happens in the narrative of Revelation is that people are given the opportunity for true and genuine freedom, but instead they willingly give away their liberty to the promise of security which, in reality, is a grotesque beast.

I bring this up (and thus run the risk of being labelled a Hal Lindsey [may it never be!]) to draw our culture's attention to the encroachment of governments overstepping their boundaries (both in America and elsewhere in the world), all in the promise of salvation and security - mostly by stealing language which used to be reserved for one Messiah alone. And it is sad that they have also convinced believers and Christian leaders to dedicate these very words to entities which are not Jesus.

I am not making the claim that the current President (or anyone else in the current government) is the antichrist. I do not believe this to be the case. But I am convinced that the stripping of humanity, from the least of those among us to the unborn to those who have lost most of what they've worked hard for, is more in line with the ways of the world than the ways of our God. This is a cheap shell of hope and a pathetic excuse for change. I affirm that I am making a political statement, but only because I am convinced that true freedom and liberty involves the whole individual being set to live out the inalienable rights endowed by the Creator.

Jesus, the final days

Craig Evans and N. T. Wright, Jesus, the Final Days: What Really Happened (Louisville: WJK, 2009).

This morning I read this short book which is comprised of three lectures given at the Symposium for Church and Academy lecture series at Crichton College (Memphis, TN). The three lectures aim to discuss the historicity of Jesus' death and resurrection - two on the former by Craig Evans, one on the latter by The Bishop himself (I mean, who else are you going to get to talk about the resurrection at this point?).

Three lectures, three chapters - 1. The Shout of Death; 2. The Silence of Burial; 3. The Surprise of the Resurrection.

Admittedly, there isn't much here that you cannot readily find in other books (both for Evans and especially Wright). But there is much to be said for having this type of data assembled together in a concise overview aimed toward a wider readership than is considered typical.

1. The first chapter focusses on Jesus' death, quickly dismissing flimsy claims that Jesus did not actually die and emphasizing the reasons for the death of Jesus. Here Evans provides solid overview and foundation of the many converging factors of why Jesus was executed. Admittedly, many Christians do not understand the complexity of history on this point, and I was glad to see Evans go right at the nonsense of Jesus being crucified because he was more popular than the Pharisees, et. al. Further, the chapter investigates the question of whether or not Jesus anticipated his own death and how this anticipation shaped his preceding ministry. From this Evans then discusses the trial of Jesus, the mockery and the actual crucifixion itself - all without becoming lost in the physical suffering of Jesus but remaining forthright so as to maintain historical credibility.

2. Knowing that these lectures are not designed to be entirely apologetic, I must confess that I was unsure how a full essay on the burial of Jesus was going to be possible. But Evans engages the material well, not only interacting with the charges against the tomb account as given in the Gospels but by exploring the traditions of burial in the first century Jewish world. Again, there is a wealth of information neatly gathered and succinctly presented regarding the intricacies of tradition and culture which are largely unknown among Christians who recite the Easter story year after year. Not only does this help with the defense of our faith, but grasping the context of the burial accounts also bolsters modern faith. I probably consider this the best essay of the three.

3. The third chapter is basically a condensed version of N. T. Wright's fuller treatments - a short essay of summation. I agree with the notes on p. 75 that those who desire a fuller treatment will find such in his seminal works, The Resurrection of the Son of God and Surprised by Hope. One cannot say much more than that, for this material is being widely discussed and a few comments here would be terribly lacking. But (again) understanding how this book is designed, one would consider this essay as a solid introduction to the material for a wide readership. And The Bishop is certainly capable of that.

In the end, I highly recommend this book as both an introduction for the uninitiated on this topic, and a timely seasonal review and reflection for those more familiar. (I might also add that those who have studied this material at some length may just find perspectives or data which is somewhat new to them, as I have not seen this particular gathering of material presented in such a manner very often. Worth considering.)

special olympics

Apparently, I do not find the humor of Special Olympics in the same way as the President; neither do others, but I defer to a more positive message . . .

christians and the economy

Craig Blomberg's recent blog post presents a Christian's view of the economy. I would encourage you to read it, as well as his fuller treatment on the biblical perspective on possessions: Neither Poverty Nor Riches (Downers Grove: IVP, 2001) - an outstanding resource!

Because this is such a big issue right now, I thought that I'd add some of my own thoughts to the subject. One question which interests me in Blomberg's post is whether or not following a biblical worldview of money could be considered un-American. If you listen to the majority of pundits (and, sadly, commentators on comedy channels), then simply hearing the principles of save and spend wisely while living within your means would probably cause you to think of how that would slow down economic growth and hinder stock market performance. But this is precisely what the Bible tells us we should do. And the last I checked, the main standard for Christian living was The Bible and not economic data or stimulus packages. (I freely admit, however, that I am a bit old-skool-orthodoxy on this point.)

On this, here is Blomberg's take:

"If it is inevitable that living in our means, spending only that which we have, and saving frugally while continuing to give generously ruins the recovery, then so be it. It is biblical stewardship. Worshiping at the shrines of materialism and instant gratification played a large role in getting us into the economic mess we are in, so it can scarcely be the answer to getting us out!"

So not does the assertion that we must spend our way out of a recession run headstrong against common sense, it appears that it is also at odds with the biblical message concerning money and possessions. And perhaps our thoughts and actions regarding our resources should be considered in light of how much we can accomplish for the sake of the kingdom with that which we have been given. It seems that the many blessings which have been given to modern Western Christianity have been used more to heap blessings upon ourselves than spread the work of the gospel. Now the fruit of those decisions is coming into season, first with the increasing shallowness of our spirituality and now with the dissolution of our blessing.

[. . . and this is not to say that God is arbitrary, but that our choices matter.]

An Introduction to Early Judaism

James C. VanderKam, An Introduction to Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001).

Though I do not wish to offer a full review of the book at this time, I wanted to give my 1.5 cents worth of recommendation for this particular volume. James VanderKam has proven himself one of the foremost authorities on the Dead Sea Scrolls and the vast literature of Second Temple Judaism - two areas which typically overwhelm the average research student and biblical scholar.

Here in this accessible volume (easy to follow, 234 pages), VanderKam provides a succinct overview of the sea of literature and lays the foundation to eliminate the enormous task of getting a hold of the literature from the Second Temple period. It is helpful (especially trying to cut through for the specific task of research) to have a resource which provides a simple and straightforward explanation of the whos, whats and wheres of documents which are filled with people, places and symbols quite foreign to most everything else you learn in church and typical coursework for New Testament studies.

But it remains difficult to overestimate the importance of this literature, as it provides the closest and clearest information of how Judaism interpreted their own Scriptures at the time when the Christian movement emerged. This book is a wonderful introduction and would be a great addition to an introduction or survey course.

real change

One for the church to realize as well . . .

"All great change in America begins at the dinner table."

~Ronald Reagan

. . . and the decline of western civilization3

Today, the third in an ongoing series of the critical decline of our own culture from within. In the quest to highlight some of the most devastating blows to our way of life, there is this special category. [N.B., if anyone has suggestions, do share]

"Glitter Gel Pens and the Decline of Western Civilization"

Technically, this particular entry needs to be expanded to include a variety of pens, as it would be quite difficult (say, impossible) to categorize the plethora of writing devices which fall into this category. So not only will I be discussing glitter pens and gel pens but any kind of overly froo-froo writing utensils which are plaguing our way of life. My experience and qualification for this is more nuanced than some - I teach (and therefore grade) undergraduate, many of whom use these specific types of instruments for written communication. So not only am I observant to the world around me, I am also particularly peeved by having to read through this stuff.

I understand the 'coolness-factor' which accompanies these pens (at least in the mind of the user). And I think Chris Tilling uses them for most of his official correspondence at St Melitus, HOWEVER!!! . . . the emergence of glitter gel pens is clearly beyond the point of excess when it is used for official documents (checks, contracts, registrations) instead of the more personal note-passing for which it was designed. The more we embrace this way of writing, the more we lose our ability to seriously communicate - which the grammatical state of email, IM and texting shows is among the greatest concerns for ourselves and our posterity.

Recognizing that I have a considerable amount of control in my academic bubble (I could just reject those items completed with said devices), there needs to be more people willing to publicly declare and decry the absurdity of these little pens when they encounter them. I know that we cannot fail the bank tellers, the legal assistants, the greasy mechanics, or the bartenders who want us to sign our names with these humiliating devices. But we can mention how stupid glitter gel pens are, and perhaps accidentally drop them into a nearby toilet. Regardless of your particular situation, I ask that you stand up and stand together for the sake of who we are.

the audacity of imminent catastrophe

It seems that the need to capitalize on a good crisis goes beyond our current White House, as the marketable church is jumping into the current fray of political chaos. (And just when I thought that I'd have nothing to blog about this week, along comes this bit of providence.) David Wilkerson, who has done some fine work in the roughed up areas of NYC (reaching out to the gang culture and such) is now proclaiming imminent catastrophe on our society as judgment from God.

According to the article Wilkerson stated, "God is judging the raging sins of America and the nations. He is destroying the secular foundations." So it appears that he has been reading Romans 1 and agrees with the Pauline premise that the wrath of God is coming in his imminent righteousness. This is not - in and of itself - a breakthrough statement of prophecy. Neither is his conclusion: Wilkerson is urging everyone to stockpile a 30-day supply of food and other necessities to deal with the coming catastrophe. It seems that some churches need an ongoing social cause or imminent catastrophe like Jim West needs a public figure to muckrake in order to make their faith work.

Quite disappointing for Wilkerson is that he is using the gospel message to highlight imminent catastrophe, which can only bring about an atmosphere of fear and dread regarding the future. Yet, a properly understood kingdom message does not allow judgment to be the final word (not to mention, simple catastrophe). When the words in Scripture are used to the end stockpiling and bomb-sheltering, then we have missed the point. Especially in the current state of our world where so many politicians and pastors, news reporters and bloggers are announcing the doom and gloom - each with their hope of being the savior - it would do well for the church to remind the world that legitimate hope has already broken in.

ethics of stem cells

Today we wake up with a new political and scientific reality before us: the use of public funds to support embryonic stem cell research. This is disappointing news to say the least, but an expected move by this administration. Further, I remain unsurprised by the reality that unethical people will act unethically - this is simple in-step harmonization to that tune.

What are the facts of this situation and what are the real factors in the decision-making? First, the facts remain that embryonic stem cells have produced absolutely nothing in regards to medical or scientific advancement. There is no promise of a legitimate breakthrough, only the possible promise of a future breakthrough at some point in time. Meanwhile it is the cord blood which accompanies every birth which is far richer in these cells, and it is from adult cells which any shred of medical advancement is being found. The fact that the science on this matter is so clear, yet so ignored and unreported should lead us to consider alternative reasons for the push toward embryonic stem cell research.

The real issue, then, is ethics.

As a whole, we as a people want nothing more than the freedom to do whatever we want to do with as little responsibility for our actions as possible. This - in my estimation - is why socially liberal positions appeal to so many people, for they often promise the greatest benefit with the least risk and responsibility (though they very seldom are able to deliver on even the most minor guarantee).

The appeal is to 'science' as an ideal. But science cannot be the reason in and of itself. Without ethics and morality, science is nothing more than a random firing into the wind of personal desire and intuition. When we remove the parameters of principle from the academic exercise then we are stripping the endeavor of its truth and beauty. That is to say, without a moral law to guide us we are aimlessly wandering through - is this not the same concept of Torah? Are we not built with specific boundaries and parameters in mind? I think of the Mosaic covenant as summed in Deuteronomy 30: that there is life and death, blessing and curse - and that we have the pleading of Moses echoing over us, "Now choose life, that you and your children may live!" This is not simple bumper-sticker cultural theology (though it may have been reduced to such in many circles); this is the appeal to seek out a greater moral, intellectual and spiritual truth as the foundation of being truly human.

The irony is that in order for science to seek 'treatment' for the plagues of humanity via this particular course, it must dehumanize the human embryo to a mass of tissue. And in order to accomplish this it must strip us of our humanity (de-humanizing ourselves in order to de-humanize others), all with the rubric of making us more fully human. This is certainly the blind leading the blind, the broken trying to fix the broken with no objective standard of non-broken.

So it is no shock that this course of events should look so bleak and fruitless. Aside from having no medical support for the premise of physical salvation, it robs us of the inherent characteristics of our humanity and steals away our only hope for salvation - a hope that is from outside of ourselves. Yes, it is way bigger than throwing around money; it is the condition of the human heart in a culture bent on its own self-gratification and aggrandizement.

can the church be causeless?

At the intersection of thought where socio-cultural ideology meets biblical theology there stands the church. So it is no surprise that when one spends time examining both, there arise interesting questions and odd perspectives on things (for me, probably more interesting from my vantage point; odd from that of others). Nevertheless, in the cultural debate that has been going on for the past few weeks and months I have become willing to examine both society and church with similar lenses and increasing rigor.

The result has been a strong criticism of the social gospel movement, which is flourishing in many aspects of the emerging crowds - though I am not naive enough to equate the two (hence, I am not inherently critiquing one by examining the other). What my observations lend is a connectivity between theology and culture, which still finds many people at a loss to connect as though we could simply segment the two aspects of our world. Yet is remains that theology matters, and will continue to shape every aspect of our interaction with culture - including socio-political dialogue. Within the current state of debate in our culture is the tendency of left-wing folks to work within the parameters of a crisis, a situation or a problem which needs to be fixed. It would be difficult to deny that much of what is happening from liberal camps happens according to this approach. By comparison, much of what the conservatives are talking about is the return to philosophy and principle on which to build social agenda. (At this point I am not concerned with which one of these is true in deed along with word, nor which one is particularly true or effective.)

But what then of the church? The more I interact with the social issues from the church's perspective, and see what others have to say on the matter, the more I see a strong connection between theological thought and socio-political discourse. This can be found in everyone, even those people who deny that their national perspective and political votes have nothing to do with their perspective on the kingdom of God. (More confusing on this point is the denial of the separation of thought in the midst of working to secure a separation of thought.) With all of this in mind I came to the inevitable question, What about the church?

Is it possible for the church to exist without crisis? And for the moment let us work on the question from above the foundational standpoint of 'the world is inherently broken' as our standing crisis. Yes, we all agree that the world is broken - hence, Christianity. But beyond this, is the church founded on moral and philosophical ideals which in turn shape our agenda or is the church an outworking of faith into specific causes which change and arise? One could easily argue that both are present, and that both may be categorized as a response mode. But it would sound counter-intuitive for the church to operate out of a defense mode, since the kingdom of God is built on the ideals of offensive movement.

I believe that it would be quite difficult to remove either aspect from the ongoing work of the church (and do not wish to do so), but think that there still is the need to uncover what truly drives the community of faith. With which of these are we building our churches? It seems that every time the church rallies around a particular social agenda, the fire of the movement inevitably dies along with the need's solution or the inability to foster continued caring over an extended period. In other words, as the cause dies so does the church movement.

So, from my humble perspective, I would believe that while the church does indeed have causes and situations and needs to which it must respond, there needs to be more caution in equating the socio-political arm of the church with its heart. I know that such things are indeed happening in the pew and on the street as the victory of the gospel is cast in terms of victory of a candidate, party or policy. (And N.B., while this was big among the religious right of the fading generation it has become just as big among many emerging perspectives - have eyes to see.) The true mark of the kingdom isn't our ability to fix social problems, it is found rather in changed hearts and transformed lives. While our tendency is to focus our efforts around concepts derived from Jesus' work in social contexts, we must also keep in mind that he was too radical a person to settle for political power or governmental change. And we should be too.

conversational research

Many of you are aware that I am currently in a research program(me) with London School of Theology with Professor Max Turner. While I am experiencing my share of frustrations, things are starting to clear some and might be looking up a bit. (How is that for guarded optimism? No, I've not suffered any setbacks yet . . .)

Being a traditional American student, these last couple of years have been my first exposure to the format and style of the British system of research, specifically the nature of biblical studies and theology as a discipline. What I have discovered, with much delight, is that the British system seems to be much, much more conversational in its approach when compared to the work being conducted on our side of the pond. I had the blessing to experience a particularly good M.A. program with Craig Blomberg (Denver Seminary), but found that much of the atmosphere among other students was adversarial rather than accommodating. In other words, it seems that everyone constantly had something to prove - to the faculty, to other students, to themselves - which inevitably gave them a huge chip on their shoulders.

Now there were those of us who chose not to associate with such behavior, but I confess that I entered into my doctoral studies with the fear that this is the way such things go. Perhaps around universities (and seminaries!) in the United States this goes on much more . . . and also within conferences such as SBL, but not so much in the ongoing discussion happening around the tables of British schools. There seems to be more of a discussion-oriented atmosphere of mutual corroboration rather than a top down dictation. And perhaps this is coloring the face of biblical studies across the board?

There have been some significant exceptions among the American scholars, and I am grateful to be getting to know a few of them. But the guise of research is, for the most part, identifiable and distinct in this regard - who has time for you as a student and who walks around waiting for you to impress them? If I charted out my encounters here I think you could anticipate the results. Hopefully the movement of conversation will extend back to the American biblical research culture.