Ricky Gervais on Genesis 1-3: Are you avin a Laugh?

Ricky Gervais, the boss (“David Brent”) in and also co-writer of the fantastic BBC series The Office, keeps me “havin a laugh” and entertained. Besides The Office, he also co-wrote and starred in another great BBC comedy series, Extras. I highly recommend both.

Months back a friend made me aware of some Youtube videos wherein Gervais works through, if you will, Genesis 1-3, offering reflections. I watch these on a monthly basis, sometimes weekly depending upon my mood.

Beyond being ridiculously funny, these videos also highlight various perennial issues and questions people in our culture(s) have with some traditional Christian positions related to and stemming from Genesis 1-3. So, watch these, “have a laugh,” and enjoy an entertaining encounter with some typical questions people have about various of our more traditional approaches to Genesis 1-3, creation, beginnings, etc…

 

Peter Enns on His Mentor Harvie Conn

(Dr. Peter Enns has posted a personal reflection about his growing realization of the significance of his teacher Harvie Conn, the namesake of this blog. He plans to follow up on the home page (the “blog” portion of the site) with a series of quotations from Conn’s most important book, Eternal Word & Changing Worlds.

About that book, Enns says

There are numerous literary high-water marks in the WTS tradition, and EWCW is one of them. In my opinion it is the single most penetrating and insightful theological work the WTS tradition has ever produced. One of the things that distinguishes this book from any other written by a WTS professor is the book’s missional (or as Harvie called it in the lingo of the day, “missiological”) focus, and how missional concerns should and in fact invariably do affect our theological constructs and how, as a result, we need to rethink the task of theological education.

 

You probably didn’t see this one coming . . .

This isn’t a political blog, but Art’s 8-19-08 post got us thinking about how Christians might work through their faith in deciding how to vote.  Yesterday, the choice before us suddenly got more interesting.   

I surely didn’t see Gov. Sarah Palin coming, although my high school aged son, who has been intently interested in the VP selection process for months, had her as one of his top three picks for McCain.  He had put her on my radar screen, but all that accomplished was to leave me impressed with the depth of his research.  Who knew? 

Gov. Palin’s CV is packed with broad experience  - chief executive; business person; whistle-blower; energy expert; tax cutter; mother of soldier, daughters, and special needs baby; outdoorsman; former union member and wife of union member; total commitment to life . . . the number of competing constituencies to whom she might appeal is staggering. 

I found her speaking style to be both bold and warm.  Although she is low key about her faith, Gov. Palin used the phrase “servant’s heart” in her Dayton speech, and it felt authentic. 

Not everyone is thrilled with Gov. Palin, of course.  She’s perceived as too unknown and too light to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.  Her experience has been ridiculed as having played out in too small an arena.  The pro-choicers are unhappy.  The patriarchal men are unhappy.  Some die-hard Clinton supporters are outraged that McCain seems to think that any woman will do to attract their vote. 

I don’t automatically cast my vote for Christians, and I won’t automatically cast my vote for a woman.  But I have to say that I have experienced the kind of reaction that so many African Americans have shared since Obama became the Democratic candidate.  There is something viscerally right about finally seeing someone who’s, as I said to a friend in the grocery store yesterday, “one of us,” in the last leg of the race.

Over to you.  How do you receive McCain’s selection?  Do her credentials bring elements of social justice to the Republican ticket?  Does the Vice Presidential candidate make a difference?

 

Do “Texts” Control Their Own Interpretation?

I greatly enjoy studying how we understand things—whether texts, another person in conversation, etc. I thought I would share some thoughts about such understanding-theory (hermeneutics, if you will), specifically focused on texts and meaning. Does a text control its own interpretation?

 

Let the Church Help…

Before going to bed I wanted to share this with everyone. Try not to laugh too hard…

 

 

Considering Ancient Contexts: Ancient Near Eastern Views of “Creation”

Reading Jon Levenson’s Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence several years ago radically impacted the way I read much of the Hebrew Bible. Parts of the Bible came alive in new and exciting ways, especially as I saw things charged with a new significance. Parts of the Hebrew Bible and topics within it became connected for me in new enrichingly deep ways. Challenging new ways for viewing God’s ultimate work in Christ opened up for me.

 

What did Levenson’s work do for me years back? Among other things, he introduced me to some of the dynamics and functions of ancient Near Eastern mythic-cosmic views of reality and how thought about temples, kings, creation, and “salvation,” all function interconnectedly in such views of reality…

 

Living out the Gospel as the Church: Some Favorite and Challenging Quotes from Harvie Conn

For a while now I have desired to start posting more on some of Harvie Conn’s writings. Sadly most of my books and articles by Harvie are in a box five hours away from me, until September. Today, however, my copy of Harvie’s Evangelism: Doing Justice and Preaching Grace was returned to me by a deacon who had borrowed it and I thought, for now, I would post several of my favorite passages/quotes from the book.

 

This book had a radical and profound impact on me when I read it about five years ago. In the near future I plan to work through it in some fashion on this blog. But, for now, a few of my favorite quotes from the book. These provide some excellent snapshots of Conn’s heart and what he desired to see our Reformed churches live out.

 

For too long evangelical white Christian communities in the United States have had a “come” structure, a parochialism that identifies with saints. One cannot be a missionary church and continue insisting that the world must come to the church on the church’s terms. It must become a “go” structure. And it can do that only when its concerns are directed outside itself toward the poor, the abused, and the oppressed. The church must recapture its identity as the only organization in the world that exists for the sake of its nonmembers (23).

 

The gospel that ignores the sinned-against may work among the middle class, but it cannot possibly work among the overwhelming majority in Asia or the United States—publican peasants and workers. It conveys too much superiority, condescension, yes even pity, to be credible. What is missing is compassion. Compassion becomes possible when we perceive people as the sinned-against, as well as the sinning (47).

 

Let people know that by giving their allegiance to Christ they will be embarking on a great campaign to banish war and poverty and injustice, to set up a life where love and service and justice have taken the place of selfishness and power. Let people know that the church that sends out this manifesto plans to be an advance copy of the new world order it preaches (56).

 

“Covenant” in the Garden: Some of the Earliest Explicit References–How Does Studying the Ways Ancient People Approached God and Our Bible Help Us Now?

The Covenant of Works (COW) functions in the deep structures of much classic Reformed Theology. Though different articulations with varying nuances exist, essentially the doctrine is that God made a covenant with Adam whereby he promised ultimate life to him (and to his seed, those he represented) should he keep the covenant for the duration of some “probationary” period. Usually a concept of “merit” in some form functions here: Adam would thus merit eternal life by keeping the covenant; often understand as, among other things, keeping the moral law—another Reformed category. Sadly, Adam failed. But, Christ came as the second Adam and kept the covenant (moral law? Law?) perfectly. Thus Christ perfectly fulfilled the demands of the COW (his “Active Obedience” in much Reformed thought), meriting eternal life for himself and thus for those he represents. It is important to note that the doctrine of the COW for many Reformed folk involves not simply the notion of an arrangement (even covenant) between God and Adam, but understanding it terms of certain concepts of merit, the works-principle, (often) Reformed understandings of the Law, etc.

 

One of the (numerous!) nagging issues for many about the COW is that nowhere in Genesis 1-3 is the word covenant used for God’s relationship with Adam. Nor is it used anywhere else in the (Protestant) Bible, though some passages are disputed. I should note this is but one of many concerns among some who question the notion of the COW.

 

For the sake of interest and another reason I will discuss below, I thought I would post two of the earliest passages from the ancient Mediterranean that seem to use the word “covenant” with respect to God and Adam/man in the beginning. The winners are…

 

Ancient Mediterranean Discourse on Women

Below I have quoted various writings from the ancient Mediterranean on women in relation to specific questions and issues. I have not included references to the sources/authors from which the quotes come—I will provide them later. For now I thought it would be interesting to reflect on the snapshots of the varied ancient Mediterranean discourse on women, specifically how components of the varied patriarchal consciousness connect with views of women as inherently deficient.

 

There are many many more passages from which I could draw. Below is simply a minor sampling…

 

 [on womankind] “…is inclined to be secretive and crafty, because of its weakness…You see, leaving women to do what they like is not just to lose half the battle (as it may seem); a woman’s natural potential for virtue is inferior to a man’s, so she’s proportionately a greater danger, perhaps even twice as great…”

 

“How can one reach agreement with a woman?” “By recognizing,” he replied, “that the female sex is bold, positively active for something which it desires, easily liable to change its mind because of poor reasoning powers, and of naturally weak constitution. It is necessary to have dealings with them in a sound way, avoiding provocation which may lead to a quarrel. Life prospers when the helmsman knows the goal to which he must make the passage…”

 

Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel…

 

Daniel Kirk’s Upcoming Book on Romans: The Fruit of Westminster Theological Seminary and Richard Gaffin

I thought I would make a short post on this. Many of the contributors of this blog, and certainly some of its readers, know Daniel Kirk. Daniel is a MDiv graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary (2000). He subsequently completed a PhD in New Testament from Duke University’s Department of Religion, studying under Richard Hays, E.P. Sanders, and Joel Marcus, among others. He wrote a fascinating dissertation on Resurrection in Romans, how Paul re-understood and re-told the significance of Israel in the light of Christ. His advisor was none other than Richard Hays, whose writings certainly molded my thought on Paul and the communal significance of Paul for the church more than anyone else’s writings. Daniel commences his job as a professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary this coming Fall.

 

During and since his time at Duke Daniel has written a fair amount concerning Paul and the significance of recent scholarship on Paul for the contemporary church.