Bits and Pieces of Interest #2

1/ I've recently been watching comedian 'Jon Reep' on YouTube. He's funny and pretty clean about his jokes. Another guy has been 'Jeremy Hotz' who has an interesting way of being funny. If anyone hasn't seen 'Pablo Francisco' then check him out too, he does a wicked 'movie preview guy' impersonation.

2/ So I eat alot of kiwifruit - happily without the side affects that more 'older' people get. It has recently been announced a 'super fruit.'

"ZESPRI™ Kiwifruit is full of nutrients, with high levels of vitamins C and E, anti-oxidants and fibre. It is considered to be one of the new 'superfruits' because of its added benefits to the body over and above basic nutrition."

Read the rest of the article here.

3/ I'm thinking about changing to KiwiBank, and apparently this guy needs a funny bone transplant.

4/ Here is a bunch of info on driving over the next week. Includes stats and other stuff like on average 14 people die in car crashes over the next week.

5/ For all those spiritually experiential driven people there is a peace Labrynth setup in Latimer Square in Christchurch for the next wee while.

6/ Some top spots for road trips.

/7 and finally, Turitea wants a new windfarm. She is a pretty on-to-it lady and so far I respect her.

A funny blog I read.

Titles I would purchase.

Funny Picture #1

This is a funny as photo I think I found on GetFrank.co.nz. It pretty much speaks for itself but the funny part is the white guy crashing the serious gangsta type photo.

The Recession...

So the recession continues for NZ. BNZ has just announced that they are closing their branch in Dunedin, leaving some more people unemployed. While some can shift to another branch, not all will find jobs. This is their third closure of a branch this year in the south island. I hope this isn't indicative of other banks as well.
Along with this tertiary providers are gearing up with packages to assist the recently unemployed, encouraging them to retrain. Within the same article I read this:

"According to BERL research commissioned by ITP New Zealand, there will be 46,500 to 76,400 more people unemployed or out of the labour force by March 2011. Unemployment will peak in March 2010 and people with lower skills are likely to make up 75% of the increase."

Which sorta came as a surprise to me, I was under the impression we were leveling out. Seeing this makes me hope the government is making plans to lower these stats. Sorta sad really, cause what choice do we have but to ride out this recession brought on by a few too many greedy people.

A Phenomenon of God

Different objects, and even the same object, can draw different meanings. Take for instance the flower of a plant. Many people (commonly our female counter-parts) take pleasure in the flower of a rose. Why? I guess usually because of the smell, colour, shape, and the cultural significance of the rose. A red rose from a boyfriend to a girlfriend can signify love and romance. However, a red rose is also often used at the funeral of a person in loving memory of them. The variation also streches across cultures. One persons flower of beauty is another persons weed. Some look at a flower with delight, another with disgust. Meaning seems to come from humanity - not the rose. So how do we interpret God? Or, how does God manifest himself to people (I have in mind un-believers here)? Is one persons observation of the manifestation of God beauty, while to another it is disgust? One would assume (and I think NZ people do believe this) that God manifests himself in a favourable way that would bring a person into a full [believing] relationship with him. So is every manifestation of God a good one? Or, how do we know that what we observe is actually God and not a human interpretation placing God in the event? It doesn't take a long look into contemporary protestantism to notice the many denominations and doctrines. How can one manifestation of God be contrary to another? For example, those who believe that the Gifts of the Spirit ended in the first century vs. those who believe it's in full swing today. I think there are two sides to this. I think there is the, what I will temporarily dub, 'the external' manifestation of God - where God is actually active in an event. And then there is (also temporarily dubbed) 'the internal' operation of God. That he is working in the interpretations of a person as they observe the external manifestation of God, or as they place God in an event. The external requires the internal observation, whether the observer believes the external manifestation is God or not, God is still working in the interpretation. Whereas the internal does not need the external, as observers can place God in an event, regardless of God's actual manifestation.

In regards to the seemingly contrary nature of God and the Church (i.e. Spiritual Gifts, Calvinism vs. Armenianism vs. Open Theism vs. Process Theism), I think it is to be remembered that there is a mystery to God. As humans we are unable to speak adequately of God, and therefore must not assign our beliefs to one logical way of thinking about God. It would seem that God isn't overly concerned with fitting into the logic of humans - hence Jesus as flying in the face of this - and would rather leave us in mystery as we observe and try to take part in the unfolding plans of God.

As a side note I think that external manifestations are more what people look for. They are defintely a more conscious awareness of God. This is opposed to the internal which is a more unconcious operation of God, though, I guess, we can be aware of the conviction/discernment of the Spirit in some circumstances without any external manifestation.

Telecom

It's not often I think of Telecom with good thoughts. The money hungry giant's internet is over priced, cellphones are nothing great, service unreliable and their help desk has operators that are hard to understand. Not a gleaming example of a company putting the customers first. But I was happy to read this article where they have donated just over 3 tonnes of food to the Salvation Army's food bank! This is great as it comes at a time where the Sallies were struggling to find food for the 'underpriveleged' people. Kudos for that one Telecom!

NZ Education Report

I was interested to see that the amount of people studying at level 4 and above has increased over the last year. I had heard that this was a trend in recessions, people get laid off so why not do a bit of study for either fun or re-training. 51% of NZers apparently have a tertiary qualification, but I was surprised that only 18% hold Bachelors or higher qualification!

Since NZ doesn't have alot of natural resources to trade with, nor alot of land to build lots of cities and sweat-shops to keep up with larger economies, perhaps NZ could become one big agricultural think tank. Where if you want to get educated in the world, you come to NZ! But that's about a million years away, and am sure there are much better plans out there.

Read the Article Here.

The Good Cardinal

Just read that Avery Dulles died yesterday morning. I read some of his stuff for church theology and really enjoyed it. Hope he lives well in the next life and I'm sure heaps of people will miss him.

Full Article.

Monopoly - the devils game.

I went through a phase a few months ago where I wanted to play monopoly. I couldn't find anyone else who would want to play so ended up getting it out of my system by downloading it on cellphone. Since then I've come to realise that it is in fact the devils game. It represents everything that Christians are supposed to be against; power, cheating, monopolizing, getting rich at others expense that often contributes to poverty, acquire land by any means, high rent, backstabbing and a player can even buy their way out of prison. So my monopoly fever has died, now I just need to find another one.

Philip

The Tension

There has been a tension within the churches over history as they swing between Unity and Purity. The reformation and consequent denominations (i.e. Anabaptists) are examples of a move to purity. From what I've seen we are currently swinging in the side of unity. Leading protestants and catholics are looking at finding unity between the two as well as lots of other inter-faith talk that's going on. There seems to be more free churches (those that call themselves non-denominational) who, at least theologically, state that they are part of the same big family - church. Most young people I meet are happy going to any denomination.

More recently I have been thinking about a tension between Grace and Holiness. I'm not exactly sure where the churches currently swing on this; perhaps they are at the bottom of the pendulum swinging left to grace? An example of a church swinging the way of holiness would be a church who see's themself as seperate from the world. Church membership requires various hurdles and hoops, and there is a clear definition of who is saved and who isn't - usually done through confessions etc. But then there seems to be this post-modern push of the church towards grace. Perhaps the Emerging Church represents an aspect of this as they focus on reaching culture in whatever form that may be required. The belief that there is no set of proper ways, but that God will accept all types of worship, theologies, beliefs and people. However, this is still something I'm workin out.

$43.5 million

Someone brought a block of land in the Auckland CBD yesterday for $43.5 million dollars! And we're supposed to be in a recession, if that was cheap I'd not like to see what it would sell for other days. Imagine what could be done with that much money....$40,000 could be given to Briar and I for instance and we could live off it for a year :P. Imagine how many people could be picked off the streets and be supplied with needs like proper nutrition, clothing, hygiene, shelter etc. Or how many family homes could do with some basic fix ups to improve warmth, leaks and other stuff in their houses. If only there was another $43.5 million to go around...

Urban Word for the Day: academic bulemia

Academic Bulemia:
When someones memorizes copious amounts of info leading up to something like an exam. Once they have spewed all the answers out onto the paper they pretty much forget straight away what they memorized. This is academic bulemia.

Or as the site put it:

The process of learning or memorizing by rote, subsequently followed by the regurgitation of that knowledge onto an exam answer sheet. Just as with the serious eating disorder, this form of bulemia results in no real retention of substance. This term is frequently applied to describe a common practice of young medical students. "I can't remember anything that I learned last night. It's like I grabbed the answer sheet, puked out all the answers and forgot everything immediately. I'd say that's academic bulemia."

See article here.

Bits and Pieces of Interest

The following is just a few things I've watched over the last few days.

I wonder if anything deconstructs humanities hypocrisies better than robots. I watched this video of a young robot learning and making judgment calls. You can check it out here.

This is an interesting way of killing off invasive fire ants with brain eating flies.

This is a photographer who almost dies when a car hit the wall next to him but brushes it off. "Take it like a man."

Mario Kart love song.

And finally, one of my favourite people - Bruce Lee - as he lights a cigarette with his nun chucks!

Hope you guys enjoy them!

A Relationship of 3: Faith, Theology, & Philosophy

As I continue marching towards the end of this book, Graven Ideologies by Bruce Benson (I've had to stop and start due to exams and stuff) I reached some stuff on Martin Heidegger, faith, theology and philosophy. I'm just gonna write an excerpt below:

"Faith is the lived experience of the Christian believer, mediated by revelation and Christian history. Theology is "the science that faith motivates and justifies" (Heidegger, Pathmarks, 1998). Thus the task of theology is to understand the experience of faith. Faith is the content and theology merely supplies the form. Now, "if faith would totally oppose a conceptual interpretation, then theology would be a thoroughly inappropriate means of grasping its object, faith" (Heidegger, Pathmarks, 1998). Yet Heidegger clearly thinks that faith does not oppose (and should not oppose) the attempt of theology to make sense of faith. For faith needs the "formation" supplied by theology." pg 184.

So then what of philosophy? How does that come into the mix? Benson writes that he see's at least two roles that Heidegger outlines. Firstly, it helps us understand the experience of faith. There are some things that remain particular to Christian faith - i.e. guilt. He believes that philosophy can explain a more general human experience of guilt (as opposed to the particular) that does not replace the faith experience, but creates a larger experiential context and broader understanding.

Secondly, theology is not a philosophy-free zone. Heidegger points out that theology is founded in faith, but it also use what he calls "free operations of reason" which by Benson's read lends itself towards philosophy (perhaps more specifically, metaphysics). But this "free operations of reason" is not some disembodied logic that seeks to disemble theology, but corrective reasoning that clarifies theology.

So all up faith experience is the content, theology is the form that is founded in faith and draws from reason, philosophy supplies this reason and is able to provide a corrective by being able to observe the more general human experience rather than just the particular faith experience.

Does God Have A Head?

As Briar and I were flying over NZ last night I was looking down on the land and wondering if this is what it is like for God to be looking down on us. At least by my experience most people - including myself - tend to think of God as 'out there somewhere,' even though at the same time we try to think of him around us. So does he have a head up above the clouds looking down on us? Or is he an invisible Spirit around us in the world? Or is it the Holy Spirit that is around us in spirit form while God and Jesus both have heads up in the skies talking somewhere? Or are head's anthropomorphisms and God really is best described as a spirit that is both here and there, while Jesus remains in human form? Or has Jesus rid himself of his body and taken on Spirit form and resides around us too? Does the difference between the Trinity come down to function then as all three are Spirits? What does it mean for humans to have a body then if Jesus got rid of his?

I guess what I think is that God does not necessarily have a head (although he may do - I've never seen him, except I know Jesus was a human). So I describe him as something like a Spirit, but I do this understanding that the description of Spirit probably doesn't do justice to what God actually is (which I am guessing is something we aren't able to comprehend). I think Jesus remains in his human form, and that when the second coming happens and everything is wrapped up we will remain in a renewed human form. This is opposed to the idea that we become spirits in heaven or leave this body behind and move into eternity. God and Jesus are somewhere, I dunno where, and the Holy Spirit is what is in us and around us. The Holy Spirit connects us and the world to Jesus, and Jesus connects us to God. Yet weirdly we have to remember that they are at the same time all one. So I dunno how to reconcile a God in which we describe as one third human, and two thirds Spirit, but I'm sure God has that sussed and one day, when he reveals himself to us, we'll understand.

A Chat with a Hare Krishna

I ended up having a good yarn with a Hare Krishna today while taking a DVD back to the store. She was quite intelligent in the sense that she could explain some underlying philosophies and beliefs behind much of the religion. It got me thinking though as I walked home. If faith is the overflow of reason then it always seems to come down to what a person wants to believe. I am a strong Christian, she was a strong Hare Krishna. She could argue relatively consistently how her religion operates, I could talk the same about mine. How can we determine the difference? Well I believe that God is active in the world, I could talk about the Spirit and things I've seen. She could also come see them with me. A traditional Christian would say that the power of God is the defining difference. But this does not seem so, without God directly convicted her of his reality, then she will continue interpreting the work of the Holy Spirit as the work of Krishna or some other being. So what can I do about this? Nothing except allow God to do his stuff through me, I can't convince nor save her. God has to do that, until she finds God revealed to her then she will continue to interpret the world from her own worldview.

Philip

P.S. Briar and I are going south for my sisters birthday so posts will be a little irregular over the weekend - if there are any at all.

Positive Theology

Positive theology (by my understanding) is 'how to speak about God' - which seems to be a good question in itself. While negative theology is talking about what God is not, we reach a place where we talk about what God is. For example, God is sovereign over all things or God is limited by the bounds of time. This seems the more traditional and common approach to talk about God. The bible is read, and a statement about God is made. "God parted the Red Sea and therefore controls the natural elements."

However it also seems that too much positive talk also risks the creation of idols rather than recognizing God. God is not an object waiting to be defined, he is a subject in which we are to try understand. I think the key is to not hold too strongly to a definition of God, but allow fluidity and remain open to change. As humans I feel that we are unable to adequately talk about God, but find ourselves in a position where we are forced to. Positive Theology will never capture everything that God is because it is always limited to human language. Thus we must remain fluid and aware of the inadequacy of any sort of speech about God. The positive and negative should be used to temper each other.

Roger Oakland vs. Emerging Church

Steve Taylor was on Radio Rhema this morning responding to this guy Roger Oakland who is cruising round NZ having a go at the Emerging Church (EC). I didn't hear what Steve said - I was making Briar pancakes :) - but I did go have a look at some of Oakland's stuff on YouTube.

I think there are better critiques of the movement than what he has to say. He seems to take a slanted view on the movement. I get the sense that he has it in his head that the emerging movement is trying to integrate the demonic with Christianity. He criticizes the EC for focusing on experience over scripture. He even refers to Hinduism and other Eastern Religions and suggests that the EC is following their lead in trying to read God through experience. This seems contrary to stuff I've read - sure the post-modern society prefers experiential activity - like the Labyrinths - but there are plenty of EC's that still look at scripture as well as experience. While people like Brian McLaren are leaders in the EC I wouldn't take them as normative for the whole movement. But you guys should go give him a listen at YouTube and see what you think. Like I said, there are better critiques.

Our Christmas Tree

This is our Christmas tree we finally managed to dress up today. Not bad for $50 all up! Briar managed to show me how to take this shot with no other lights on except the Christmas tree lights :).
Hope your Christmas' are going well.

"Christmas is not a day, it's a state of mind." - Flava Radio Station

Philip

Canaan-o-cide & Morality

This post is partially inspired by a post I wrote on another blog and part from a conversation I had with Briar the other day. It seems hard to deal with texts like Joshua 5 & 6 - i.e. is genocide ok? Recently I was listening to a lecture on morality and the lecturer talked about the possibility of viewing morality in 3 categories:

1) Autonomous: equality, rights, freedom.
2) Community: interdependance, duty, status, hierarchy.
3) Divinity: purity, sin, sanctity.

Apparently Autonomous Morality is what Western philosophers call morality. It is highly rational (Kantian morality is an example of this), e.g. is it ok for two adults who aren't married to sleep together? Autonomous morality would say yes, [Christian] Divinity Morality would say no, Community Morality would ask 'what does our culture and traditions say about this?' The West mostly operates from an autonomous morality, with a mix of the other two. But what does this have to do with genocide in the Old Testament?

I think it's more of a hermeneutical awareness. It has to be noticed that the Israelites didn't work from a rational autonomous morality like the West does. They were Community and Divinity; more concerned about maintaining the commands of the Holy Yahweh [God] than rationalising everything out. I guess I want to note two things here; 1) the Canaan-o-cide is a fulfillment of prophecy made many years before, it was going to come to pass anyway. It is said their inequities had come to fruition and this would have definitely influenced the Israelites if they lived side-by-side.
2) I'm not sure how else they were going to take the land, perhaps the inhabitants would pack up and move off? A natural disaster wipe them out first ready for the Israelites to walk in?

What ever the case God commanded the genocide, and [textually] the Israelites had no quelms executing the order. Which brings me to an interesting thought - how much was God accommodating the development of Israelite e.g. philosophically, psychologically, emotionally, spiritually etc. We are riding on the back of thousands of years of development and experience. We can learn in 3 years at Uni what initially took people their lifetimes. As we are still developing so were the Israelites, they hadn’t moved through an ‘enlightenment’ period which emphasized rationality. My guess is that they still thought in what we would call ‘primitive’ thinking, their conclusions perhaps not making a lot of rational sense e.g. the stoning of a family over stolen goods [Achan]. If you get what I mean here, I wonder how much God accommodated them at their stage of development. He operated in a way that made sense to them, but this way of operating is not indicative of all of God, nor revealing all he is nor how he actually operates if we could somehow manage full comprehension of God. My suspicion is that he continues to operate now in a way that makes some sense to us – which is different as we operate differently to the Israelites. For the sake of this post I might continue this line of thought in another post.

Machen on McLaren: A New Kind of Liberal?

Here is an interesting (while slightly lengthy) article on McLaren. He looks at a number of McLaren's beliefs; like 'living like Jesus is more important than believing in him.' But I'll let you guys read it.

Check it out here.

Philip

Negative Theology

Negative theology, by my understanding, is not speaking about God in a bad way. Rather, it is about how to not speak about him. We define God by saying what he is not. For example; God is not fickle, God is not hateful of all humans, God is not tempted by sin. I think that this is useful to keep in mind as a balance to the more traditional positive theology which will be a post coming soon.

However, to focus too much on 'how to not speak of God' is to create an idol rather than recognize God. One - perhaps influenced by the likes of Nietzsche - can take it too far and say that we can actually say nothing about God. This could be motivated by ideas such as; we cannot truly know 'God' or that any talk about God is just speculation - or both of these. It could also come from the idea that any human definition of God would put humans above God, rather than below. Even by saying what God is not, we are implying what he is, and therefore defining him.

Advent

Well Sunday was the first Advent Sunday for this year. Many people have blogged about it and I'm sure many churches par-took in it. Apparently it is supposed to signify the expectant waiting and preparation of the birth of Jesus - the Messiah. This is not just significant of the four weeks leading up to his actual birth, but the Hebrew Messianic expectation that is found throughout the prophets.
However I find myself pretty apathetic about celebrating advent. While I do celebrate the birth of Jesus I'm not overly fussed with tradition. But this is just one man's view and there are alot of people who do enjoy the advent lead up to Christmas!

Philip

Couple of Funny Items

I found a couple things I thought I'd share.
1) Bringing back the extinct. They reckon they can create a mammoth from an elephants egg for a mere $10 million. If I had that much to spare I would consider it, imagine being the first person in thousands of years to have a pet mammoth to ride.

2) Deep sea oil divers found this large squid trawling the ocean sea bed. It has long as tentacles, pretty cool to see something like this as actual video footage!

3) And what I got a big laugh from, a perfectly executed flower-in-the-hairdryer prank. Just watch it yourself!

Cheers

Philip

The Sleepy Bear...

A mate Dean posted this on Facebook and I thought I'd re-post it here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5c0X4MW_zE

Cheers

Philip

Prince Caspian

Briar and I finally watched Prince Caspian last night. Despite what others have said I think it was alot better than the first. Mainly because the four of them could actually fight and contributed to the war. Edmund (if that's how it is spelt) was the man throughout, I think he is definitely developing his ninja skills.
When the Prince and Peter were arguing and about to fight I had to comment to Briar; Peter is the conservative - he wants the Narnians to rule and the Talmarines to bugger off. The Prince is the liberal - being a Talmarine himself he supports a Talmarine presence in the country. Both of them fought so much over their ideals they left little room for Aslan. We just needed a Karl Barth in there who could bring the liberal and the conservative together with a primary focus on Aslan.

Cheers

Philip

We Call Him Skinny...

We call him skinny; but that's only cause the other turtle he lives with is fatty.

"Wat chya lookin at..."

I think he burnt his nose on the heater.

Bird vs. Straw

"It's a showdown between Bird and Straw..."

Actually he was just checking me out through the window and my camera focused on the straw. He always comes by at night and cleans out our bark garden of any bugs hiding in there. He(or her?) leaves the bark over our lawn.

What is Classical Theism?

I recently did a post on Open Theism, so here is Classical Theism (or Orthodoxy). Once again this is my understanding of it and feel free to correct or question it. This view has been the dominate view since the beginning of the church and perhaps before then. Some people track its roots back to Plato and other Greek philosophers. They came up with a bunch of propositions that they thought would be needed in order for God to be truly 'God'. This is also affirmed throughout church history as well; for example Calvinism and even Arminianism to a point affirms many of these.

- God is eternal.
- God is absolute.
- God is all knowing.
- God is all powerful.
- God is perfect.
- God is the cause of the universe, but he himself remains uncaused.
- God is unaffected by other beings.

God doesn't need us, but we need him. He is outside of time, and as such knows everything past, present and future. He is unchanging, thus prayer is not so much us appealing for him to change his mind or intervene in a situation - because he has already determined what will happen - so much as prayer is about changing us; prayer helps us understand what God is doing. He has the ability to do whatever he likes, whenever he likes because he has complete sovereignty over everything.

When this is put side by side with Open Theism it is easy to see the differences and tensions between them. I find myself more on this side of the fence as opposed to Open Theism, but I like dancing with people from all sorts of walks and am trying to constantly challenge classical theism. This way of understanding God can seem quite sterile and distant.

Cheers

Philip

The Emergent Hitler....

If anyone follows the Emergent Village, or anyone like Tony Jones or Scot McKnight then this video might be amusing. To anyone sensitive about Hitler and WW2, perhaps don't watch.

View Video

Jimmy

Thomas Spurgeon

Hey I just found this while reading some stuff on Wikipedia. Thomas Spurgeon, the son of the famous Charles Spurgeon, was a pastor/preacher at the Auckland Baptist Tabernacle. Talk about a small world.

Philip

The Supremacy of Christ and ....... [fill the blank]

A little while ago I was reading a book by John Piper and Justin Taylor The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World and posted on it. Well I've just come across the audio files of the conference that the book was based on. I haven't listened to them, but I'm sure they're good. It's good solid reformist theology type talk (if you like that stuff) as they look at Christ in our postmodern world.

Click here to follow through to them.

Philip

What is Open Theism?

Here I will try and give an honest but brief glimpse at open theism.  Also note that this is my understanding, so if I leave stuff out or get it wrong feel free to comment and correct me.

Open Theism
- God changes.
- God experiences the pain and pleasure of other beings.
- God exists in the 'now'.  That is, he is not timeless.  He does not exist infinitely in the past, present, and future for all eternity.  He only exists in the now and the past.
- Humans are complete free agents.

Largely this views seems to be a reaction to Greek philosophical understandings. The Christian synthesis of Greek philosophy taught that God was unchangeable, unaffected by other beings, outside of time, all knowing, and as a result humans are not complete free agents.  I guess that open theism came from some people who were looking at this and thinking 'what if God's not like this?'  Thus open theism explored the four points listed above and came up with the four most foundational aspects of God:

1) He is living
2) He is personal
3) He is good
4) He is loving

Thus God is a relational God.  This may seem like nothing, but this is the basic understanding of God that is read when reading scripture.  For example, at Mt Sinai Moses appealed to God and God changed his mind (Exodus 32 & 33).  This is opposed to the traditional understanding that God already knew what was going to happen and Moses was just appealing out of necessity of what had already be predetermined.  Thus God did not change his mind, he did not benefit from it, and remained unaffected.  The only people it did affect and benefit were the Israelites and Moses.
   So what we have is a relational understanding of God who exists within the constraints of time.  He exists in the present, ever calculating the future with extreme intelligence that is unlike anything we know of.  As a result humans are complete free agents.  Our actions affect the course of history and God.  Because of the relationality of God he is affected by the pain and pleasures of humans.  There becomes a sense of risk involved in the actions of God as humans are able to refuse to do what is asked.  For example; there was the risk that Jonah would not go to Nineveh.  But God is influencing the world as he is moving it towards the second coming of Christ.
  I guess one of the biggest things about it is that it cuts into God's sovereignty. He cannot do what ever he likes, whenever he like.  He does not have supreme power over all things throughout all time.  He is not outside of time where he is in the past, present, and future at the same time.  Instead he is a relational God who is here now with us.  He is affected by those he loves supremely, and this love he pours out into the world.  He does not know the future, but he lives in a more dynamic relationship with his creations.

I hope this has been helpful.  This is a view that I appreciate, however don't fully imbrace.  I think perhaps that what is said in Open Theism is stuff worth listening to.

For furthur reading:
http://www.opentheism.info
There is also this article written by Jonathan Erdman who did a Master's thesis on Open Theism.

Stay Gold

Philip

Rome and the T.V.

As I was driving to Blockhouse Bay last night I was thinking about the media and violence.  How long has the T.V. been around for? 1961 I think it was created, and then it would have been a few years before it was common in everyones house.  Now it is a given part of the furniture, like it comes with the wall.  I can't help but think about the naivete and stupidness of 'tough people' in films set in the 70's, 60's or earlier.  I mean, how tough were those T-Birds from Grease!  Compared to the senseless gang activity today they haven't got much of a show.  While it was definetely present back then, it feels like violence is always round the corner now.  I remember getting told off by some Islander mates one night after work for walking home in the dark.  So what's the difference between then and now?  Is there a difference? I think the media has had a large part to play in the perpetuation of action and violence. The T.V. is like the modern day Colloseum. Back in the day of the Greeks they ran the Colloseum.  At first watching two men kill each other was fun, but then the crowd got bored so the organizers had to up the ante.  Next thing you know they are chucking in Lions, Tigers, big armoured men, Chariots and anything else they can throw into the mix.  Consider the T.V. today, there used to be stuff like Get Smart, Cheers, Dad's Army, Freddy Kruger, Jason X, and IT.  The last three were frightening horrors back in the day.  Many young people today would find the first three boring and laugh throughout the last three.  Now the T.V. peeps are having the same problem the Colloseum organizers did back in the day, the crowd is getting bored with the same old, so up the ante.  Hence the large reception of the Saw movies!  A movie of a sadistic twisted genius and his disciples who conjure up ingenius killing contraptions.  Once the crowd get bored of this, what next?

These are just a few thoughts.  I watch movies alot, but perhaps the media is having a bigger impact than I'd care to admit.

Philip

258 Questions and Answers: Theology

Found this page by Michael Patton that has a large range of questions and answers to do with theology.  The few answers I have clicked on have come up with a guy talking to a bunch of people in a lecture type setting.  Easy to understand and helpful.

Check it out here.

Jimmy

A Lazy Day In The Tank

World Peace?

I've been thinking about a few things involving how so many people are wanting world peace.  While it is definitely a goal to strive for I also feel that 'world peace' is perhaps epitomized too much.  Genesis 11:1-9 (story of Babel) is what I have in mind here.  This was a bunch of people who all came together to build a tower in self-glorification.  We all know what happened, God managed to see the minuscule idol of the humans and scattered humanity across the earth and confused all their speech - thus the birth of multiple languages.  So in a sense, these guys had achieved world peace with each other, but they were missing something - relationship with God. 
   However, through Christ all believers are united again as one people sharing the same language - the gospel (see Acts 2).  Together as the church it could be said that we represent the unity of all people under the one God following Jesus' second coming.  So what does this mean for 'world peace' in the sense that it is thrown round today?  For believers (and I should say even for non-believers) it is something to strive for, but under the right pretenses.  Jesus taught that we are to live in peace with each other, if this were to occur on a world wide scale there would definitely be 'world peace.'  So peace flowing through a relationship with Christ as we love God and our neighbour is what we should strive for.  Peace without relationship with God is still not enough as evidenced in Genesis 11.  It is by this I mean that 'world peace' is being epitomized.  If it were the epitome, then it would be enough, but it's not - Christ first.

Jimmy

Urban Word for the Day: Clapathy

Definition: When an audience grows weary of clapping, either at a ceremony or musical performance.

"That graduation ceremony was so long, I got clapathetic!"
"I was clapping at the beginning of the song, but I quit when I got clapathy."

Reminds me of some pentecostal churches where they clap for ages after every song.

Link to Dictionary Here

NZ is almost number 1 in Gender Equality

Found this article this morning.  Out of 130 countries we hold to fifth place for the close gap between male and female.  I often wondered how we ranked against other western nations in term of women's rights - now we know.

"New Zealand has closed the entire gap in educational attainment which measures the literacy rate and enrolment of males and females in primary, secondary and tertiary education. It has closed over 97 per cent of the gap in health and survival measured by sex ratio at birth and healthy life expectancy. It has improved from 58 per cent of the gap, closing to more than 77 per cent in economic participation and opportunity which is measured by labour force participation; wage equality for similar work; income levels and numbers of managers, professional and technical workers and law and policy makers."

Australia has moved backwards to 21, the States has moved forward from 31 to 27. The only ones ahead of us are Norway, Finland, Sweden and Iceland.

Read the article here

Movies and Toys

Spent a good part of today at Big Boys Toys. Most of it was great, I will post photo's up in next day or so.

A couple of mates and I went and saw May Payne the other day. Was a rather dark movie, I think 95% was set at night, and every outside scene was snowing. Overall I enjoyed it. Afterwards we were talking about some theological themes weaved throughout the movie. I have to admit it was hard to place anything christian, like redemption, in the film because of it's darkness and focus on evil (not that I'm a great film analyst or anything). But one thing did come to mind. It was that if Max Payne was the Christ-like, redemptive figure in the movie he went out against the illusions of the world and Satan. He goes up against this guy Jack Lupino (a crazy, amped up, power hungry, delusional, killing machine) and Lupino dies. Not by Max's doing, but by BB who I will come to next. Lupino represents the illusions of the world, for example power, wealth, possessions, selfishness, all fed by this guy who we call Satan. Through Max's encounter with Lupino, Max reveals the illusion for the shallowness that it is. That it is in fact thin, volatile, and the power that it esteems is, in the end, all in vain.

In this movie BB is Satan, the one feeding Lupino, the illusions, drugs to keep him going on the streets. When Lupino fails to serve him anymore BB shoots him. Max Payne discovers that BB is the cause for all the current grief and loss in his life. This loss is what drives Max's. Perhaps much like a similar loss of relationship drives the redemption plan behind God. Max confronts BB after pushing through many trials and hardships, get's shot multiple times by him, but in the end shots BB. Here he overcomes BB, or Satan. Thus bringing an end to the grief over the loss in his life. However, Max differs to Christ, in that Christ can restore the loss. Max cannot restore his dead family. Christ is about love and restoration, Max was about revenge.

These are just my thoughts, let me know if you guys have any of your own!

Stay Gold

Philip

Levinas and the Transcendance of God

It's exam time and I'm mainly studying except for when I'm counselling. However, I am trying to at least read a few pages a day of books I would usually otherwise read. I read this passage today by Bruce Benson talking about Levinas's view of the relationship between human's and the metaphysical 'other.' In this passage 'other' can be taken to be God.

"Attempts at mastery of the other are often manifested by way of cognition. Here we come to a complication in Levinas, one difficult to resolve. On the one hand, to recognize the other as truly other is to recognize the other as a subject rather than merely an object of my cognition. On the other hand, in an important sense I do not "recognize" the other at all, according to Levinas. The other is not merely some phenomenom that submits to consciousness and cognition. I want to control the other by defining the other as I wish, but the other simply refuses that control and continually disrupts it. The other comes to me in a direct and unmediated way - not mediated by my categories. Thus the other is truly transcendent." pg 116. Graven Ideologies by Bruce Benson.

I like the bit about the 'other' coming to us unmediated by our categories. However I do wonder whether God does sometimes in order to reach us, to try and define God is to at the same time lose him.

Cheers

Jimmy

Theology of George W. Bush

Well I read a chapter on 'George W. Bush's Theology of Empire' by Jim Wallis in Bruce Benson's Evangelicals and Empire. While I exist in New Zealand it was at least slightly interesting as the States have quite an influence on the world. It has been a hard call - a call in which I have avoided to make - as to whether the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan were honestly a call of God or not. Caputo has written about 'just wars' and stuff, but I have found Wallis' perspective of Bush to be interesting. Bush is quoted saying:

"If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us." pg 27

However since then the two wars have come into being, as well as the war on terrorism. Not to mention the numerous tactical strikes that pass by in the news and their ever lasting presence in foreign lands. I'm not trying to be an authority on what Bush should have done, but the actions of the States gone past don't really sound like a 'humble nation, strong and welcomed.' In fact I feel that the States have come under alot more criticism.
Perhaps the more interesting point Wallis points out is the National Idealism within North America. As a part of his speech at a conference in 2001 Bush said:

"This ideal of America is the hope of all mankind...That hope still lights our way. And the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness has not overcome it."

Sounds good, but it comes from the Gospel of John. In the Gospel the light shining in the darkness is the Word of God, and the light is the light of Christ - not America. There is a large difference between a nation, and Christ (or the gospel). Perhaps Freidrich Neitzsche - if he were still around - would have a field day on their idolatrous use of their Nation as a representative of Christ. What comes to mind recently when thinking about this was when we were watching the news and seeing avid Republican supporters speaking out against Barack Obama merely because he is deemed less patriotic than his rival McCain (I think one comment was around the fact Obama doesn't salute the flag enough, as if that's what it takes to lead a country or even true).
I hope and pray that people don't react to Bush's use of theology in the wars overseas (and other areas of his administration) by ditching theology all together, but by responding to it with good theology.

Take Care All

Jimmy

More Election Results....Bill and Ben

Was just reading through some news and came across this. The Bill and Ben party actually received 11,000 votes!  Which is about 10,000 more than I thought they would receive.  Quoted as saying:

"Honesty is the best policy, and honestly we don't have any policies."

I hope that either people stop voting for them and/or they start doing something a little more productive.  I find this quite amusing and on some levels their relaxed 'party-like' attitude is a fresh breath in the serious stale air of parliament.  On other levels I don't think I'd want them making decisions for the country.

Read the article here and watch the video here.

A New Government

Well the election results are in and National are the new governing party.  I don't mind old John Keys, but I'm not sure about Bill English.  I have to say I'm happy with the first article I read this morning over Keys' plans to build a united broad based coalition.  He only needs Act to take parliament, but he has chosen to talk with Peter Dunne from United Future and the Maori Party and suggested they that have a role in the new government.  I think it would be cool to have someone like Pita Sharples in cabinet.  By this I am happy.
  
Also it seems that Winston Peters (New Zealand First) is no longer in parliament! I wonder how this come-back-kid will come-back. [Read Article Here].  He lost his electorate (Tauranga) to the young Simon Bridges.

I hope that everyone will support the new government, and that the new government will serve us well.

Stay Gold

Philip

The Nature of Deconstruction (Part 3)

Well the book What Would Jesus Deconstruct? by John Caputo has been a good read. He plays off the popular phrase "What Would Jesus Do?" by stating the ambiguity generated in such a statement/question.

One of the many things I've taken away from the book is another tool to add to my hermeneutical repertoire - deconstruction. When reading about Jesus in the Gospel's it is good to keep in mind what it is the Jesus is deconstructing and responding to - for example, the religious hypocrisy of the Pharisee's. What is it about what the Pharisee's are saying or doing that he is deconstructing and responding to?

I have been asked a couple of time's something along the lines of 'Isn't that what liberals do?' I guess in a simplistic understanding it is - only because questioning tradition (and everything else) is in the nature of deconstruction. However I do not consider it to be aligned at any particular point across the spectrum from Conservative to Liberal. Think of it along the lines of 'critical analysis,' it questions 'why we do things the way we do', or 'why the way things are the way they are.' I would like to think this is something all people do rather than taking things for granted. I don't think it descends order into chaos, rather if done in the Spirit of love and justice, it has the ability to improve, move forward, and brings 'ways of doing things' into alignment with beliefs and values. I suggest that in order to change, we first deconstruct, and then construct. I thought to finish off I'd include Caputo's second to last paragraph of the book:

"But what, then, is the Kingdom of God? Where is it found? It is found every time an offense is forgiven, every time a stranger is made welcome, every time an enemy is embraced, every time the least among us is lifted up, every time the law is made to serve justice, every time a prophetic voice is raised against injustice, every time the law and the prophets are summed up by love." pg 138.




It's how I like to think I'm doing theology.
Photo from Lomography.com

Another Update

This is a mere update in the scheme of things. I'm thinking about changing the layout again, but that all depends on what else is available. Having only one side-bar is proving limiting. I've also added Twitter for family and anyone else interested in what goes on from time to time during our days. The Blogroll has been updated, I've put a couple more on that aren't as emerging(ent) related.

Jimmy

Church Services for Men

A couple of mates were telling me about an article in the paper out west Auckland that talked about making church more suited for males - 'magnetizing males' or something. I haven't read it but it got me thinking bout a couple of things. Firstly, we could get rid of the flowers and replace them with chains and grease. We would also have a squad of church motor bikes for community team building and evangelizing. I think it would also need to be on a lifestyle block with a couple of paddocks out the back for us to worship God in - let our creativity fly - one for paintballing and the other for diggers. We could also install flamethrowers on the edges of the stage so that when the singing hits a crescendo they fire. And finally, throughout the service - I got in mind sermons in particular here - we have some bbq's off to the side that have sausages, eggs, steak, and onions cooking and being served with Watties Tomato Sauce throughout the service. I think this would be a solid start to creating a more 'manly' service!

God Bless

Philip

Destiny City? Not to be confused with City of God.

Well I have to say I'm a little disappointed with Bishop Tamaki now. He has pulled a few stunts in the past, I disagree with them on a few points but I've never really had a problem with Destiny church. Alot of people I've talked to don't really like Destiny, and it doesn't help they had so much media attention either. But now I have to say that 'Destiny City' is a step way too far.

Plans for the city include a 5000-seat church, maraes, medical centres and schools - eliminating the need for residents to ever leave.

"Every child of every member of this church will never go to a state school again," Mr Tamaki said.

Honestly I think this is going against what Jesus did on earth. He sat with sinners, talked with women both Jew, Samarian and Gentile. Not to mention he became human in the first place, he entered into our chaotic human world of deceit, violence, corruption, and un-holiness to reach us all. I mean why go through the process of being human to save us? Cause he loves us! He came and spent time with the underdogs, he did not pull away and create a Holy huddle. A crisis within the Church at the moment across the West is it's seperation from culture, Destiny City represents such a movement away from the world. By not engaging the world how are we to spread the Kingdom of God and show people the path to Christ?

Here's an article by Stuff NZ on Destiny City where the above quotes came from.

This is an interesting blog that I think in some form represents what non-believers think of this move. Their talk about creating their own religion, 'biontology,' was a funny read.

Caputo, Deconstruction and Hospitality (Part 2)

This is another observation as I continue reading What Would Jesus Deconstruct? by John Caputo. This post isn't intended to be motivational, but self-evaluative.

I thought John Caputo had some interesting thoughts around hospitality. They have more fully realized that of which I want to be doing more of. Hospitality, Caputo outlines, is simple enough to understand; welcoming the other into our own house. But the ones we really invite over are generally those in whom we enjoy the company of. Perhaps we even expect some future reciprocity. Caputo identifies this as the 'inhospitality in our hospitality.' To be true to the word 'hospitality' would be to welcome any other into our house. I'll let Caputo speak for himself:

"Should [hospitality] not be extended beyond our neighbours to strangers? Beyond friends to our enemies? Beyond the invited to the uninvited? In fact, is not the very act of invitation foreign to the idea of hospitality...isasmuch as "inviting" is a selection process whereby one puts in place in advance a set of prior conditions under which the hospitality will be exercised?...Derrida insists on distinguishing between invititation and visitation: hospitality by invitation is always conditional, a compromised and programmed operation, as opposed to hospitality to the univited other - who pays us an unexpected visit - which is unconditional and unprogrammed." pg 76

I guess one of my hopes is that our place is like a sanctuary, not only to me and my wife, but for others aswell. I find this hard to bring into reality however as I regard our home as a sacred space. It is hard to give up sacred space (and in a sense sacred time) for those in whom you find the company hard. I imagine it gets even harder when kids are in the picture. How many people should we be open to? Is being hospitable also being like a drop-in-zone for the needy? I can imagine this puts serious strain on a family. What sort of boundaries are needed? But I get the point Caputo is making, hospitality is much more than invitation. Perhaps it is translatable to availability, to those that usually go uninvited - like in-laws, unlikable people, troubled adolescents, the putrid smelling homeless - as well as the invited. I think hospitality can be achieved away from the home, by going mountain biking with the troubled adolescent, a drink at a cafe with the in-laws, movie with someone unlikable, or a couple new pieces of clothing and a feed for the homeless. I guess that's the force behind "Love your enemy" and "Love your neighbor as you love yourself." I really feel for the homeless and wish closing the disparate gap between the rich and poor was so much closer. I have often wondered what Jesus meant by saying that he is found in the poor and weak. Caputo finishes his section on hospitality by saying:

"We constantly pray and call for Jesus to come, but the question is...do we really want him to come, or is his true appearance always really uninviting? Is not Jesus showing up the last thing we really want to have - dressed in rags and laying claim to us in all his neediness, as one of the least among us?...Christianity would be well advised to consider itself under the permanent promise/threat of just such a visitation - quite uninvited - by Jesus, who may at any time show up at the doors of our churches, requiring of us an accounting of what we have made of his memory or asking for a cup of cold water - or perhaps an increase in the minimum wage and basic health insurance." pg 78.




Lomography.com

Piha

Well we spent a few hours down at the Piha market this mornin. Was a little disappointed over the size, but there we definitely some interesting stalls there. Maori stuff, stall with cheap second hand tools, trinkets, complex puzzles, food, cool clothin and other stuff. They even had the local Native Indians singing the whole morning.

This is one of the Native Indians trying to sell one of their albums to a passerby.

There was three of four of them with heaps of different instruments. It was quite cool to listen to.

This is a shot down one of the alleys (?). Was quite a busy place. Any how I enjoyed it, I came out with a new wrist thing, puzzle and an Indian bird whistler :).

Hope all are well.

Cheers

Jimmy

Wonder Cream

I came across this cream a little while back and have had to use it again in the last couple of days. It is quite honestly a cream that does about ten different things. It is a wonder I never heard about it til a few months ago. You can use it for soap, moisturizing, help clean minor cuts, rashes, shaving cream, skin agitations. In fact here's a weirdish use, for those of you who suffer from constant nose bleeds (especially during hot nights) you can put a little bit on the inside of your noses and it stops the skin breaking by keeping it moist. For me I have a skin reaction on my shin and it's healing it up good.

On a more theoretical note (I couldn't help but put one in) here is a question. (I'm working from the assumption that vegans don't eat fish here, at least that's what I've been informed).

From a vegan point of view is Jesus eating fish deconstructible?


Well I'm hitting the hay. Off to Piha markets tomorrow morning!

Stay Golden

Philip a.k.a Jimmy

Caputo, Barth and the Church (Part 1)

Well I've almost finished reading a book on Karl Barth, a theologian from last century, and started reading Jack (John) Caputo's, a contemporary philosopher, book What Would Jesus Deconstruct? I have found it interesting the correlation between the two, even though they come from different perspectives. I guess I'll start with Barth and allow the point of this blog to develop.
'In this way Barth [is] giving expression to the idea that Reformed theology is reforming theology. This committment, which arises from the Reformed concern for the ongoing reformation of the faith and practice of the church according to the Word of God in the context of everchanging circumstances and situations, is captured in the saying "The reformed church is always reforming according to the Word of God."...Reformed theology is always reforming according to the Word of God in order to bear witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the context of an ever-changing world characterized be a variety of cultural settings.'

It seems that for Barth God was God, and as such was free to come and go as pleased (he is not suggesting a fickle God). Barth reacted to a God imprisoned within a mere human understanding. As the Word of Scripture is revelation from God himself the church is to continually be reformed by it throughout time. But whatever is understood, must be understood through the revelation of Jesus Christ. I guess what I'm trying to develop here is the notion of Reformed theology as reforming theology.
Introducing....Caputo:

'...the existence of the church is provisional - like a long-term substitute teacher - praying for the kingdom, whose coming Jesus announced and which everyone was expecting woud come sometime soon. But this coming was deferred, and the church occupies the space of the 'deferral,' of the distance or 'difference,' between two comings...in the meantime the church is supposed to do the best it can to bring that kingdom about in itself, here on earth, in a process of incessant self-renewal or auto-deconstruction, while not setting itself up as a bunch of kings and princes. That is why the church is 'deconstructible,' but the kingdom of God, if there is such a thing, is not. The church is a provisional construction, and whatever is constructed is deconstructible.' pg 35.

Here Caputo is calling for a right to deconstruct the church and reveal what lies beneath. As a provisional construction (the church) we are here to present the gospel and by participation in the Spirit enlargen the kingdom of God. And this is where I pick up on Barth. By deconstructing the church, and by subjecting ourselves to the reforming nature of the Word of God and Jesus Christ, we continue to move forward with the culture we are unavoidably a part of. We move forward with the rest of the world, and move forward with our own situations and circumstances and continue to show people the path to Christ. I suggest this as something to consider for anyone who has not considered this yet.

Thus I find myself at the end of the blog, I hope someone somewhere enjoyed this.

Stay Golden

Jimmy

Truth, Christ and the Postmodern World

Well I read Voddie Baucham Jr's paper on Truth and the Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World found in the book The Supremacy Of Christ in a Postmodern World (edited by John Piper and Justin Taylor) last night. Through the questions 1) Who am I? 2) Why am I here? 3) What is wrong with the world? and 4) How can what is wrong be made right? he juxtaposes Christian theism with postmodern secular humanism.
Baucham Jr based his Christian theistic answers from Colossians 1:12 - 21. He works consistently from a reformant styled theology and was a good read in that respect. For example 'Who am I? The crown and glory of the creation of God. What is wrong with the world? What is wrong is me.'
In regards to the postmodern worldview he makes some interesting points against the consumer styled society. For example;

'What if we saw our studies as stewardship? What if we raised our children not to go and do something just because it would make us proud but instead raised them so that they would discover the way that God has put them together?...What if we continually taught them to focus on the supremacy of Christ in truth and how he relates to our very purpose for existing?'

However, while making these points it seems his view on postmodernsim is pessimistic and possibly simplistic. He arrives at the conclusion that the postmodern worldview leaves humanity

'empty and hopeless; man is left worthless, and you are left to pursue your own satisfaction and never find it.'

However despite this feeling I enjoyed his analysis of postmodernism more than the Christian theistic break down.
In the end he arrives the anticipated place where Jesus is supreme and the basis for Christian truth. From him we derive our meaning, purpose and a directive. I didn't find much new in the Christian breakdown, but I enjoyed his analysis of the postmodern worldview, despite the pessismistic feeling.

Name Change

Hey

Well we (Briar and I) decided on a name change finally.  Same Stuff Different Day was just a temp name inspired by the movie Dreamcatcher.  It is Kiwi's lowdown cause 1) we're Kiwi's 2) this is where we update on what we're getting up to (this is opposed to updating Facebook status every five minutes which sometimes seems a bit silly) 3) Kiwi-land (New Zealand) is pretty geographically low in the world.  In fact I think we should set Stewart Island up for attractive flights and cruises to the antarctic - which may include glass bottom boats to watch the underwater antarctican wildlife. 4) Also it seems that alot of theological discussion and influence comes from other areas of the world e.g. Germany, Switzerland,England, France, America.  I'm not saying there is none from the NZ, but that most of my reading around current ideas come from offshore people.  If only I had $500,000 to study overseas....

On other news, (as I'm relatively new to the blog scene I am discovering alot of stuff still) I have found a good blog by C Michael Patton on 'Will The Real Emerger Please Stand-Up?' Warning, it is quite lengthy, but it is quite informative on topic of emerging church.  It explains a (the?) relationship between fundamentalism, orthodoxy, evangelicism, emerging and emergent.  Perhaps the most useful for me was how he distinguished the difference between emerging and emergent.  There are other blogs on there bout emerging church, but I haven't had enough time to read them yet. I'm sure they're good.

Chairs

Jimmy

The Temple

Hey peeps

Thought I'd post something and show that I havn't forgotten bout the blog.  Been real busy with assignments.  Got 5 due in next week which I'm workin hard to finish off.  Briars got a big one due in next week as well.  Generally we're doing well though.
Hey it's also our friend Luzettes birthday tomorrow as well.  She does some interesting stuff for Scripture Union so if you want go leave her a strangers 'happy birthday' comment on her blog.

This site has a bit of interesting imagery and info on the temple during Jesus' life on earth. Check it out here if your interested.

Catch you guys laters

Chairs

Jimmy

Want to be Secret Service Administrator?

Well I have found an MI6 SIS (Secret Intelligence Service) site that tests your aptitude as a SIS administrator. It had five sections - communication, numeracy, attention to detail, prioritizing and finally data ordering. If you think you've got what it takes well check it out here.

On similar news it was interesting to see that MI6 is using facebook to find new recruits. I'll leave you the link and let you guys check it out.

Cheers

Jimmy

Ever Wondered What Were The Best Commentaries?

For any of those studying to the Bible and are left to wonder which commentaries are the ones you want to read, and which ones need to be left on the shelf. Well I have come across this very useful site: Best Commentaries. I'm not an expert on the series nor do I know a lot of the authors, but I have found this helpful. It lists the commentaries by author, series or book. If your browsing 'by book' it will put them in a rating system so the perceived best one is at the top and descending from there. It will also show you up and coming commentaries. I was happy to see Tim Meadowcroft in the top 13 for Daniel (he was thirteenth, but above many other peeps, including Calvin and Alan Harman), a guy who lectures where I'm currently studying. Anyways, thought I'd share this with the world.

Cheers

Jimmy

Road Rage

Found two bits of interesting news. First being a high speed cop chase that exceeded 85mph (136km/h). After 27 traffic violations the cops stopped him by using the PIT maneuver. The car lost control and hit a pole, the driver was barely hurt. While not fast in relation to other cop chases, it turns out the guy was an 11 year old kid. Check it out here.

The second were some crazy women who kept running out in front of motorway traffic. They ran out once, one got hit but it musn't have been serious cause the police were talking to them soon after. During their chat with the officer one of them bolted across the road again and the other one followed. One got nailed and the other one just kept running into traffic, even crossing the centre barrier into more traffic. She even punched over a policewoman. It took a number of people to detain her (like 8 or 11 or something). Crazy, I want to know more about what was going on for them. Whether they were mentally unstable, wanting to committ suicide together, high on drugs, depressed, traumatised or just straight crazy. Anyhow, check it out for yourself here.

Hope all your days are going well! Peace.

Jimmy

Reading the Bible

Well I have just had a listen to some guy talking about hermeneutics. You can check him out here if you want: Blue Letter Bible . I have also put up a post in the forum about it and some of my thoughts.

I’m about half way through a book on the emergent church. I will put up a blog about it in the near future.

Stay Golden

Jimmy

Click here for the forum post

Update

Well I have put up some of the article type things I wrote on this blog in the forum over on my other site. Feel free to have a comment - even a critical one..

Stay Gold

Jimbo

http://jimmynz.informe.com/portal.html

The Church

I'm currently working on an assignment which is looking at understanding the church by understanding the Holy Spirit. It doesn't take long to realise that it is not possible to only understand the church by understanding the Spirit, but also by understanding Christ. The church is the body of Christ, but the Spirit is the life of the church. It is what unifies us and brings Christ into the church and us to Christ. But what is the church? The church is the gathering of believers, not a building or even structure of people. If there is only one person in the world that believes in the reconcilatory work of Jesus, is that church? It seems to suggest not as one person is not a gathering. Church is understood then as two things; 1) it is a fellowship of believers and 2) it is a product of the gospel. The scriptures proclaim the good news, that is, the redemptive work of God and Jesus in bringing reconciliation to the world. As a result of people partaking in this reconciliation by believing in the work of Jesus a church is created. Thus the church is not authoritative of the scriptures, but the scriptures are authoritative of the church. But the scriptures have to point to Jesus and are thus subordinate to him. God as his work in Jesus that is the good news is the pinnacle of this structure that lands church at the bottom. One has to believe in the work of Jesus before they truly believe in the divinity of the scriptures, and thus the church as a gathering of people unified by the Spirit brought together for their same belief that Jesus brought reconciliation.

So how is church supposed to function then? A proclamation of the good news from the scriptures is needed as that is what the church came out of. But what else? Is it necessary to turn up on a Sunday, sit in a pew and have a preacher talk to the people about the 'right' way of doing things. Sing songs and then at the end maybe make a couple friends and go home again? We talk about sending people out into missions, but what about the whole church as sent on missions? Is it required of us to sit in the pews quietly and take in what the preacher says or can we have a discussion about it instead? This comes out of my own personal experiences. I feel that if my faith was a muscle, then all church services are doing on Sunday morning are trying to relax and pacify the muscle while it is being trained how to flex by the preacher. What I hope for is a place where everyones faith muscles are free to flex themselves, where they can own what they do, and we can grow in our own ways, not the preachers ways.

Some thoughts,

Jimmy.

P.S. I'm looking at building a forum over time as a place to discuss this. There are already plenty of places to do this, but I thought I'd give it a go as well.
http://jimmynz.informe.com/forum/theology-f9/ecclesiology-t9.html

Reading the Bible

I've been reading around hermeneutics recently trying to get a feel of
where it is all going. I don't know who reads this (if anyone), but I was wondering how
we all read the bible? A survey was recently done in New Zealand
around reading the bible. 11% of Christians in NZ read the bible
daily and 13% read it weekly (http://biblesociety.org.nz/global-news/
bible-unread-bestseller/). This is pretty dismal. Is it our faith,
our worldview or the way we read the bible or something else that has
produced these results? How should we read the bible? I believe that
the bible offers the reader a possibility. A different way of doing
life. When I read Isaiah 40 - 55 (the Servant Songs) I see a way of
living that Christ fulfills and the church is to live like this until
Jesus' return. This is a textual reading where I develop 'who' the
character is in relation to 'what' and 'why'. Take Hezekiah for
example, his first 8 days in office he re-opens and re-furnishes the
temple of Yahweh. This shows 'who' he is as a person, same as the
Servant as mentioned previously in Isaiah. But this presents other
problems, do we read the OT in an attempt to discover what the author
is trying to portray? what about the authors context? or do we read it
as how the audience would perceive what has been recorded? Should we
read it as literary text and move from the author? Or does meaning
only come from the reader? Apply all these questions when trying to
interpret the Servant Songs in Isaiah and a never ending problem is
produced.
Where I am at is that the text is only given meaning when the
reader actually reads the text. There is a relationship between the
text and reader, the text is given meaning and is changed during
reading. In the same way the text changes the world of the reader.
And the reader cannot interpret the text without formulating some way
of interpreting what the author is trying to say in the text, or the
world in which the textual content is set. Instead of approaching the
text objectively, we need to own our presuppositions and be honest
with ourselves and the text. Perhaps instead of scrutinizing over the
text, the author and it's origins, perhaps we should read the text and
it's content. As the content develops a story is played out, like a
picture being painted. Upon observing this picture both reader and
text is changed. But let's not throw out the baby with the bath water
because this has the potential to become a highly liberal reading,
e.g. God is not love, but hate. So we are required to intelligently
inquire into the text, it's context, background, author as to grasp a
more grounded understanding of the text. This is to prevent a liberal
reading of it, but not make bible reading so specialized that people
give up before they start.

Just some thoughts. Feel free to give feedback, even critical
feedback is good.

Jimmy.

Google's Chrome

Hey customers

Well thought I'd leave something useless. You'll find time wasting games at Kongregate.com.  Much better than miniclips.com.  I started using Google Chrome the other day, it's not too bad. Quite buggy though and not all that appealing.  Get sick of the blue real fast, however it is simple and does what ya want (most of the time).  Most of the time it crashes with Adobe Shockwave or Flash (in light of this don't use Chrome to access Kongregate or Miniclips).  When it does freeze i've found right clicking the window thing on the bar on the bottom will bring it back to life.

Just got handed another assignment, this time on Maori worldview.  Was a bit annoyin, so I skipped class and wrote the assignment. Will hand it in today.

Happy day

Philip.

More Southern Photo's

Hey Babe I added some more photo's today for you to geez at if you want. There should be a slide show on the right you can click on to view them.

Cheers

P-Diddy

Gone South

Hey Babe

Here are a couple of photo's. It's freezing down here, my fingers were blue and numb doing this! Was rather heavy as well. Lookin forward to talking to you later.




Take Care!

P-Diddy

Relationships in Genesis

This is a combination of many readings put together in preparation for my exam. There are many references missing as I don't have time to go into that much detail simply for exam prep. I certainly did not read the bible and come up with this on my own, but thought it might be of interest!

Male Female Relationship in
Genesis 1 to 11.
___________________________

For many centuries the world has be dominantly a patriarchal society. The bible itself can be read to support this, and has in fact been doing this for generations. The hierarchical system goes God, Man, Women and then birds, fish and beasts. Only in the last century or so has a feminist movement been able to push equality back into the picture landing women right next to men on the hierarchical chart. However, this has not come easily.

Equality is now argued by most contemporary scholars. In chapter 1:26-31 we see the creation of human beings as made in the image of God. A detailed creational account of human beings is not witnessed until chapter 2 but it must be noted that here 'human beings' mean both Adam and Eve. Their gender differences are put aside and a function is assigned them to be God's administrators on earth. They both received God's blessing and his divine command to be fruitful, to multiply and subdue the earth and have dominion over all creatures.

The gender differences come more to the fore in chapter 2. We have Adam naming the animals and finding no suitable helper. Thus God intervenes, and like a father passing off his bride (Von Rad, Genesis,82) he creates Eve. But what does 'helper' mean in relation to Adam (or man)? Following is a couple of interpretations as outlined by David Clines [What does Eve do to help... 1989] as he focuses on the interpretation of Gen 2:18. In his article he tries to take an egalitarian stand-point and reflects on other feminist works.

1) The word ‘helper’ in Hebrew can be taken as a relational term, like how Yahweh helped out Israel throughout it's history (c.f. Gen 49:25; Ex 18:4; Deut 33:26; Ps 121:1-2; Hos 13:9). It is a beneficial term that does not reveal the position of a person within the relationship, but describes mutual equality. However, there are those that push this a bit far, for example, Trible [c.f. Clines, 28] would take this further and suggest that while a relational term it brings with it notions of superiority.

2)There is also the suggestion that seeing the two Hebrew words together 'ezer' (helper) and 'neged' (lit. like what is in front of him, TNIV translated 'suitable for him') connotes in itself equality.

Clines concludes that his understanding brings him closer to 1. He can not help but notice that any ‘helper’ will find themselves in a place of inferiority. As the helped, one can accept or decline the 'helpers' assistance, they can even regulate how much the 'helper' can actually help them. Thus rather than a status, he interprets 'helper' to be a relational term that connotes equality between man and woman. Clines would not suggest that ‘helper’ brings superiority, even if by technical status the ‘helper’ is as in the case of Yahweh. Adam and Eve are created differently as to make up for each others deficits but also as equals; Eve the bearer of children and Adam the worker of the ground.

So what does it mean then for man to rule women as seen in 3:16? It could mean any one of the following:

1) The women has fallen under the curse of greatly increased child birth pains, but shall be ruled by a desire for a husband on a sexual level anyway

2) That women shall now willingly desire a husband on a psychological and emotional level. This is different to 1 in that it is not limited to a sexual desire, but companionship, intimacy and support.

3) That women shall now desire what it is that their husband desires.

Through etymological studies Sandra Foh shows that an interpretation of this on a sexual level is highly inaccurate. It is also pointed out that a woman willing to seek a husband for support, intimacy and companionship is not living what should be a punishment. Lastly, experience shows that women do not all necessarily desire the same things as their husband. Also, a woman who is willingly submissive to their husbands desires seems incongruent with the context of Paul’s teachings on being submissive to their husbands; if women were already submissive what would be the need for Paul to write on it? It is evident that a submissive feature is not prevalent in all women.

Instead, Foh argues that before sin entered humanity, male ruled female. They loved and cherished each other, but post-sin the rule became tyrannical, and females began to rival their male counterparts for rulership which was not a part of the original created order. What started as love and cherish became to rule and dominate (Kidner, Genesis). What occurs as a result of the fall is not to be interpreted as curses. Rather they are to be understood as consequences for eating of the tree of good and evil. Foh draws a parallel between 3:16 and 4:7 showing that as a result of sin's entry into the world man must now try more actively to rule his wife as Cain had to be more active in his rulership of sin. However, man's rule of his wife must be congruent with Paul’s teaching, this is to be loving and gentle, not abusive and oppressive.