malcolm chamberlain

This is quite incredible - a very arty interpretation of the Biblical story...



hat tip... Matt Stone

Labels: art, Bible, theology

Last night I was in a group in which we were invited to meditate for some time on Matthew's account of the baptism of Jesus (Mt 3:13-17), trying to imagine ourselves in the scene and reflect on given questions (such as... what do you see and hear? What are you thinking? How would you respond to Jesus coming over to you after this event and asking what you want?...)

For me this was a fascinating experience (maybe I was just in the right mood for it last night!) which highlighted something quite profound. In imagining myself into the scene, I tried to shake off my received and understood Christian tradition and theology (which is of course impossible) to attempt to imagine what it would have been like then. Apart from initially wondering whether I'd have even stuck around long enough to witness Jesus' baptism at all, as my cynicism would have probably got the better of me when I saw that 'weird religious nut' (John the Baptist) preaching and dunking, I realised that I was left with more questions by this event than answers. For example... who is this man? why does he seem so extraordinary (the dove and voice from heaven thing for a start) when he's gone through a 'sinner's baptism' like the rest? what is he going to do next?...

As I thought a bit more about these questions, three things in particular struck me...

1. Jesus was not afraid of being misunderstood by people. He voluntarily went through John's baptism which was a baptism for the forgiveness of sins. So in this act he was seemingly communicating "I'm just like the rest of you with the same need of forgiveness" even though the 'signs' that followed suggested that he was anything but 'like the rest of us'! My guess is that very few, if any, of the people leaving that scene would have 'got it' and Jesus didn't seem to bother about this. In fact, have any of us 2000 years on fully 'got it' so to speak?
2. This event is not alone in this in the gospels. It seems that many, if not all, of the key events concerning Jesus would have actually generated far more questions in the minds of the onlookers than given them answers; far more scope to misunderstand than to correctly understand.
   
3. On the one hand I could begin to answer my own questions from what I have grown to understand about Jesus, his mission, etc. I know who Jesus is... Son of God, God Incarnate, the Christ... but on the other hand I don't know who Jesus is at all. I've only grasped the minutest details about who he is. Likewise with my questions about why he was baptised in this way... on the one hand I know the theology but on the other hand I'm not sure I've even started to grasp the significance of this event.

All of this brings me on to my 'thought for the day' (and since you don't get these very often you'd better make it last for far more than a day!)...

Our knowledge is always counter-balanced by our lack of knowledge. On the one hand we know but on the other we really don't know. Maybe that's where we've so often gone wrong in mission; we've been very happy to shout from the rooftops about what we (think we) know, but very reluctant to acknowledge our lack of knowledge. And I don't know about anyone else, but my own experience is that the closer I walk with God the more I am aware of my lack of knowledge. So I'm ready to shout about my lack of knowledge too; more than that, I'm ready to celebrate my lack of knowledge, because it's here that I find room for wonder, awe and an encounter with the unfathomable God.

Labels: Bible, mission, musings, theology

Interesting post 'here' from Pete Rollins about the Biblical hermenuetics and epistemology...

"even if it were possible to get a God’s-eye view it would be most unwelcome. For perhaps what is more important when reading the bible is the debate, the multiple play of interpretations, the challenges it holds and the power it possesses to transform our lives. In other words, perhaps the truth of the bible is not some propositional affair which can be handed down from above like a magisterial dictate. Just maybe the truth which the bible contains is not some mere objective epistemological system which can be affirmed or denied by the mind any more than the source of religious truth is able to be objectified via an epistemological system."

Read the full post and enjoy more of Pete's Rabbinic parables!

Labels: Bible, theology

For fear of looking like a Tom Wright groupie (see 'here' also), I love this...

"The Gnostic conspiracy theory says that orthodoxy hushed up the really exciting thing and promoted this boring sterile thing with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And of course there's a great lie underneath that. In the second and third centuries, the people being thrown to the lions and burned at the stake and sawed in two were not the ones reading Thomas and Judas and the Gospel of Philip and the Gospel of Mary. They were the ones reading Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Because the empire is perfectly happy with Gnosticism. Gnosticism poses no threat to the empire. Whereas Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John do. It's the church's shame that in the last 200 years, the church has muzzled Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and turned them into instruments of a controlling, sterile orthodoxy. But the texts themselves are explosive." (bold highlight mine)

It's taken from a Christianity Today interview with Tom Wright, in which he talks about his latest book Simply Christian, and how to present the Gospel in a post-modern world.

hat tip... Brother Maynard

Labels: Bible, mission, theology

On Sunday I'm a 'guest preacher' at a Baptist church in Liverpool (slightly scary!) and have been asked to preach on John 2:1-11, the event of Jesus turning water into wine at a wedding in Cana. As I've been thinking about this passage and preparing for the sermon, a new take (for me at least) on the interpretation of the miracle has crossed my mind! It may not be revolutionary to some, but I thought I'd share it here in an extract from the sermon (as it currently stands!). I guess regular readers of this blog will not be surprised by this interpretation - it's all part of the 'God at Large' discussion...

Much has been written by theologians and biblical commentators about the significance of the water jars and wine; the point being that the new wine of the messianic kingdom made the prior Jewish religious ritualism obsolete and seem empty by comparison. A new thing was happening and Jesus was its source and its focus. In John 10:10 we get that famous saying of Jesus, "I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full", and here right at the beginning of John's gospel Jesus is demonstrating this new found freedom and abundant life, being at home in a party with freely flowing alcohol. This sign is itself a foretaste of the abundance of the heavenly banquet, the direct opposite of the rules-obsessed religion of the Pharisees.

That's the generally accepted interpretation of this miracle, and its one that I am persuaded by. However, I want to add another dimension - one that I think is often overlooked. When we strip back this deep symbolic theology and look at the wedding couple, what do you think they made of this event when they became aware of it? I think they would simply have felt blessed - helped by this man Jesus and spared a whole lot of embarrassment and shame. We don't know if they had acknowledged Jesus for who he is - it was so early in his ministry that it's highly unlikely that they had. But there he was, in the midst of their wedding celebration active in giving them, and anyone else who was open to receive, a taste of the kingdom of God. They didn't have to go looking for him; it didn't take a good Christian disciple to bring him to them; he was there of his own initiative involved in their lives.

And that's pretty much par the course for the rest of Jesus' ministry - he was to be found amongst people and in situations that the most religious people in his society would not have expected him to be. God was active outside of the boxes that religion had placed him in. Throughout his short public life, Jesus was plagued by the religious elite accusing him of hanging out with drunkards and being too comfortable in the presence of sinners. Why did he get this reputation? Because he was hanging out with drunkards and spending time with sinners!! He even gained a reputation of being a drunkard himself; such was the company he willingly kept.

I wonder if we, the church today, are in danger of falling back into the trap of boxing God up again. Are there places that we don't expect God to be or ways we don't expect him to act? Would we expect to find God in a club, for instance, or in a mosque or in a brothel? Can we expect to find signs of the kingdom in those places, as God takes it upon himself to be involved in people's lives at his own initiative? Or, does God hold back until people are in more 'Christian' environments?

Of course, it's pretty obvious what I think the answer is to those rhetorical questions - God is at large!

Labels: Bible, mission, theology

Here's a great quote from the Franciscan Priest Richard Rohr, writing in the latest issue of Third Way magazine...

"Jesus is asked 183 questions directly in the four Gospels. He only answered three of them forthrightly. The others he either ignored, kept silent about, asked a question in return, changed the subject, told a story or gave an audio/visual aid to make his point, told them it was the wrong question, revealed their insincerity or hypocrisy, made the exactly opposite point, or redirected the question elsewhere!

Check it out for yourself. He himself asks 307 questions, which would seem to set a pattern for imitation. Considering this, it is really rather amazing that the church became an official answering machine and a very self assured program for 'sin management'.

Many, if not most, of Jesus' teaching would never pass contemporary orthodoxy tests in either the Roman Office or the Southern Baptist Convention. Most of his statements are so open to misinterpretation that should he teach today, he would probably be called a 'relativist' in almost all areas except one: his insistence upon the goodness and reliability of God. That was his only consistent absolute."

Third Way, Summer 2006, Vol 29 No 6, page 27
Thanks to Ben for directing me to the article.

Labels: Bible, theology

Why oh why are there so many people intent on destroying the emerging church (EC) with polemic attacks and demonising accusations? If you aren't aware of some of these, you might want to take a look at three of the more recent examples (but have a strong cup of coffee first!)...

• Sydney Anglicans accusing Graceway (Auckland, NZ) of 'shaking Christian orthodoxy' (see it also from Steve Taylor's perspective).
• Chuck Smith's paper, in which he accuses the EC of belittling sin and undermining belief in the uniqueness of Jesus (Andrew Jones has some good comments on this 'here')
• J Jacob Prasch's frankly laughable-if-it-wasn't-so-offensive email to Andrew Jones

I've never really been able to get my head around the reason why it is that those who shout the loudest about 'salvation by grace alone' often seem to have so little grace when it comes to attacking the people they don't see eye to eye with or understand. It's seems a little ironic and even undermining of such a gospel of grace (I hope I'm not falling into the same trap).

So thank God for Walter Henegar's article, in which he feels able to voice his concerns without having to demonise the emerging church and those involved in it. Henegar is a Reformed scholar who has actually made the attempt to understand the emerging church and its missiology, rather than simply shoot off against it. As a result, his critique comes as a challenging dialogue, rather than as an offensive polemic. He's not necessarily a signed-up fan of EC (if such a thing exists!), but he does affirm many aspects, and not just in a tokenistic kind of way. His overall tone is one of humble concern which is well reflected in his conclusion, calling for dialogue and mutual learning to the benefit of all. (Hat-tip to Andrew Jones for pointing the article out!)

While my own writing is not up to the standard of Henegar, and so I'll leave other responses to the more articulate readers of this blog (and others), I did want to pick up on one thing that he said and question the foundational assumption of his comment (hopefully in a tone like his)...


I agree wholeheartedly with Henegar that the Christian faith is 'word-centered' (SIC), but the Word at the centre is surely Jesus, the person - the Word who "became flesh and made his dwelling among us." (John 1:14) In my understanding, the greatest distinguishing feature between Christianity and the other major world religions is that our source of salvation is not a book that sits in heaven which we have a closely-guarded copy of, and it's not to be found in simply following a set of rules and regulations or even propositional beliefs. Our source of salvation is Jesus, and him alone - the living breathing enfleshed incarnation of God: THE Word.

So, if the use of candles or icons or incense or meditiation stations (which, incidentally, are often very heavy on biblical content) helps a person connect with the Word, Jesus, then how can these things be negative or lead to a decline in biblical proclamation?

Surely the task of the Church is, and always has been, to journey in relationship with Jesus as his disciples and invite others into that same journey. The teaching, the proclamation, the doctrine, the propositions, may all help us (or hinder us) in this journey of discipleship, but they are not the Word at the centre of Christian faith - Jesus is.

Labels: Bible, debates, emerging church, theology