Rejected Application

                    YOUTH PASTOR
                    APPLICATION FORM

First name: Yehoshua

Surname:   Benyoseph

D.O.B:      circa 5 BC (so they tell me)

Please state any previous Experience: 
  I began working with furniture,

  and after many years of carpentry, I became

  a rabbi. Preached to many people on numerous

  occasions - however, this often led to a plot

  to kill me...

  I was a big influence on the few young men whom

  I discipled. In fact, nearly all of them were 

  killed for their association with me.

Do you have any relevant skills for youthwork? 
  Can work wonders. Great patience and love,
  but will say it "as it is". Good sense of 
  humour, like telling stories. Good at party
  tricks with water.

Self disclosure: have you ever been convicted of a crime? And what was the punishment?
  Yes. Blasphemy. Capital Punishment.

Do you agree with our church doctrine and praxis?
  I know your deeds, your hard work and your
  perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate
  wicked men, that you have tested those who
  claim to be apostles but are not, and have
  found them false. You have persevered and
  have endured hardships for my name, and have
  not grown weary.
  Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken
  your first love. Remember the height from which
  you have fallen! Repent and do the things you
  did at first. If you do not repent, I will come
  to you and remove your lampstand from its place.

Please include 2 references with your application.

---

Reference:

Dear Conservative Evangelical Church,

 

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of creation, the eternal.

It was by Him that everything was created: the heavens, the earth, all things

within and upon them, all things seen and unseen, thrones and dominions, spiritual powers and authorities. 

Every detail was crafted through His design, by His own hands, and for His purposes.

He has always been! It is His hand that holds everything together. He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the first of those to be reborn from the dead, so that in every aspect, at every view, in everything - He is first.

Yours, 

Paulos

---

Reference:

Dear Conservative Evangelical Church,

 

This is a dangerous man, who has caused more harm than good. His suitability for church work is questionable. On numerous occasions he has been seen to mix with very undesirable people: prostitutes, criminals, unsavoury unemployed, corrupt politicians - the list goes on. He makes troubling statements about what constitutes right living, and has encouraged his previous followers to give up on life as we know it, in pursuit of the "Kingdom of God".

There are many who have willingly given up their lives in following this man. It has been said that he often drinks alcohol, and attends far too many parties.

If you are wanting to grow your church, again, I would dissuade you from employing Yehoshua. Each time he managed to dupe a good number of people into his group, he would almost always lose them with harsh, inappropriate words.

The man is a dangerous radical, who cavorts with vagabonds, and encourages unrealistic behaviour from those who listen to him.

My advice is to stay well clear.

Yours, 

Conservative Reason.

---

Atheism defined!

I have to admit, this quote found from Atheist Tool Box did make me chuckle slightly:

"Unlike Religion, Atheists do not have to agree on all issues and share similar agendas. Atheists can be conservative or liberal, capitalist or communist, republican or democrat, black or white, male or female. Some Atheists are completely neutral in regards to religion and it's place in society, whilst other Atheists do have certain agendas. Some of the more common Atheistic agendas include the separation of church and state and the teaching of evolution in our school systems. It must be said however that these are individual groups within the Atheist community and in no way represent the Atheist community as a whole."

As far as I am aware, Christians do not agree on all issues. We have conservative Christians, and liberal Christians, capitalist Christians, communist Christians, Republicans, Democrats... there have even been some black and white Christians... I'm sure I've met both male and female Christians also...

I also have to giggle at this quote,

"It must be said however that these are individual groups within the Atheist community and in no way represent the Atheist community as a whole."

- well, that never applies to Christian groups...

It really annoys me that such things as this exist. And they exist on all sides of the arguement. When Christians act as if Atheists are, in some way, worse than they are it makes me cringe. Well, they're Atheists! Surely they are just... um... wrong! - Well, no actually. Similarly, when certain atheists (not representing the Atheist community as a whole, of course) make statements like the above, it also makes me cringe.

I doubt it will happen, but I long for some decent, respectful dialogue. While there are extremists and "anonymous extremists" (i.e. people who are unaware they are extremists) on every side of the debate, respectful dialogue seems unlikely. While so many Christians still use very dodgy (and often downright terrible) science to "prove" their agenda, and while so many Atheists see the religious as silly and unable to offer anything to a debate that has already (in their minds) been sealed - the future looks bleak.

I still live with hope that both groups will one day learn to not vilify the other, see them first as fellow human beings, and enter into what could be a very enlightening debate.

I am aware that my sarcasm is probably not helping my cause here, but the quote was so bizarre I couldn't just let it pass. I apologise.

Introduction to Biblical Language 101

As I'm currently lecturing undergraduate Biblical Hebrew, the following thought came to mind in a recent lecture: 'I am not actually teaching Biblical Language, but Ancient Language.' The fact that the bible was originally (kind of) written in this language is almost coincidental. What I mean is, the original writers of the bible generally used words, phrases, ideas and imagery that already existed, in order to speak of God, His nature, activity, thought process and identity. Against that, today we have what I would actually call Biblical Language - i.e. Language that is derived from the Bible.

Take, for example, the words we use to describe God:

Lord

I can think of very few instances where we use the word "Lord" in today's culture. Our understanding of the word is extremely limited. We would refer to the "House of Lords", or maybe our understanding of "Lord" comes from buying a 1cm² plot of land in some estate in Scotland, to receive a certificate saying we are a Lord (or a Lady, of course). There is a parent at my wife's school who insists on using this title on any correspondence he writes. Having attained it via the above method, most people think it is slightly humorous; certainly not noble in any way.

Certainly in Christian domains, the word Lord has it's primary meaning as "God" - whereas in Hebrew (and Greek) the word meant first "master" or even "father" (figuratively). This is in a culture which understood and employed a slave/master society.^a People would have seen that there was something in the role of the Lords they saw that reflected something about the identity of God. In fact, though not a perfect model, seeing God as someone with the authority to do and say what he pleases, to give whatever to whomever he pleases, is lost in our current use of the word "Lord" with regards to God. A Lord simply isn't that in today's Western Post-modern world. Yet we hang on to these words because "they're in the Bible", forgetting that they were not originally "religious" terms. They were words that helped people understand who God is, because it gave them an example. In a day where Lord is primarily "God" - what is our example? Whence do we find our analogy for the person of God? The answer is, we don't. Calling God "Lord" is as useful as calling God "Bread Guardian" - which is where we get our word Lord from!^b


Okay, perhaps there is slightly more reason to call God Lord than Bread Guardian but my point is that perhaps it is time to rethink our labels for God?

King

This brings me to another word we use for God - King. It has been a long time since England had a King, at least not in my lifetime. In a similar vein to the previous argument, I would say that we don't know enough about kings to successfully ascribe the label to God. Our experience of kings in our culture is either of a relatively useless monarchy (who are more often than not famous for all the wrong reasons!) or a tyrant, unwilling to allow a democracy. Is this a good example of what God is like? Set this against the role of "the king" in biblical times. The king was a man (usually) respected above anyone else. He had sovereign authority and power like no-one else, and he lead his people and ensured their safety (if he was a good king!). All of these things are what we are taught about God, but they are so far removed from our experience. We are told that God is Sovereign - but we never really see sovereignty in action. We are told that, as King, God is exalted high and reigns, rules and looks after his people - but where do we see this in our lives? Anywhere?

The problem is a difficult one to solve. Labelling God "our Prime Minister" or "our President" just doesn't quite seem right either. Though we understand the role of such people better than say, a king, God's role is quite different to theirs, so they remain unhelpful! God is not elected. God is not a leader who must make laws and policies to appease his voters... There are not other "parties" who can challenge the leadership of God... it just doesn't quite work. The CEO is a slightly better role comparison, but there are so many negative connotations to CEO, that I'd rather stay with King!!! This is not an easy problem to solve.

Forward Steps?

There was recently a new translation of the Bible produced called The Voice. One of the ideas behind this new version was that it would seek to ditch "jargony" words. However, I feel they have not been anywhere near as thorough with their pruning of such words. We need to realise that words like "King", "Lord", are all "Christiany" words today. This article could continue into a book-length rant, but rest assured, I won't let it. Suffice it to say, I believe we have a problem to solve.

---

^a It is worth noting that the "slave trade" of the A.N.E. was quite different to the more recent slave trade perpetrated by the White West.
^b "Lord" comes from Olde English word hlaford which derives from an earlier word hlafweard from hlaf "bread" + weard "guardian".

Love will find a way?

Love

On the recent Delirious? DVD (My Soul Sings) of live tracks, there is a version of their top 20 song "Love Will Find a Way". The song portrays a blend of emotions, moving from utter repugnance at the attitude most of us have toward poverty, to the overwhelming sense of hope that love brings - that, little by little, love is breaking through people's indifference. In fact, it is breaking people. Bringing people face to face with the problems in this world, yet encouraging them that they can make a difference.

Chaos

However, the world is still in a terrible mess. The chaos we find ourselves in is seemingly cataclysmic: MPs claim for multiple properties, while millions sleep on the streets. People are dying from obesity, while millions die of starvation. World leaders pay billions to send probes to Mars (to send back more pictures of nothing), while a beggar is £5 short of eating today. Of course, what the world needs is another picture of a desert on a planet which is 266 million miles away...

In the creation poem of Genesis, there is an odd Hebrew phrase - תהו ובהו (tohu vavohu) - usually translated formless and void. However, it can give the impression of very chaotic - where תהו means chaos and ובהו means empty. If there is one thing that typifies the world today, surely it must be "tohu vavohu". We are in chaos. We are "empty". The emptiness is filled with material things that pull our attention from the real problems we can help to solve. After all, another private jet for [unnamed evangelist] is what the poor really need. Furthermore, if I contribute to that, I am giving to the Lord, aren't I?

Shat-nav

Pondering the Delirious lyric, I wonder what "way" love will find. Will it lead us into a river, like an early 21st century Sat-Nav? Will it spend most of the journey "searching for a satellite"? I have spent a lot of time reading great books, and hearing great songs that inspire me to make a difference - yet here I am, sat at my computer having done very little; still reading. Still hearing. When will we wake up? Love, show us the way. Press into our faces the issues that we have the resources to solve. Do not let us drown you out with worry over maintaining our riches, or affording the best cut of meat.

The Bible says that God is love. So I have confidence in the Delirious? lyrics that "love" will find a way. He always does.

Love Will Find a Way

The Promise I Made...

...started to fade.

Girls Aloud, The Promise, 2008.

Introduction

This is the first of a few blogs I intend to write concerning the modern understanding of certain words and phrases, and the theological and philosophical consequences.

Giving Birth to Promises

So, back to Girls Aloud. Their recent song, The Promise in which the singer(s) states that the "the promise I made started to fade" is one of their most successful tracks, earning them a UK Singles Chart number 1, and their only BRIT award™ to date for Best British Single of 2008. It is at this point that I feel I must ensure you that I am not a Girls Aloud fanatic. Honestly. All of this information is provided courtesy of wikipedia (I'm such a good researcher... ahem...).

So, what's my point? Well, could it be that this song gives an insight into how people view a promise in contemporary society? Listening to the way people speak, I think it does. The notion that a promise can "fade" (or at least start to!) is interesting. I'm not sure it is right though. It seems as though people seem to think that a promise is something that one brings into being, and it exists as a thing in its own right.

For example, if I promise something, I am unleashing this thing, this promise, into the world to see how it will do. If it does well, if it survives then that is great. If however, it doesn't do so well, one day it will eventually run out of breath and die - the promise is mourned, and we all move on with our lives, not necessarily unaffected, but move on we do.

Further to this, if a promise is a thing in its own right, if it somehow exists independently of the one who "made" it, then should what the promise stand for suddenly be in opposition to the best wishes of its creator, it will be destroyed in the pursuit of happiness and comfort. After all, of the two of us (i.e. me and the promise) I am more important.

This, of course, is a very strange way to view a promise - because "promises" don't actually exist. You can't cage one, study one, reason with one, trade them (though people may try!) - essentially a "promise" has to be, at most, two things: Firstly, it an English word. Secondly, it is what the English word describes. What it describes is a commitment on behalf of the one who has "made" the promise to do (or not do) something in the future. So you see, a promise cannot exist independently of anyone because it isn't a real thing to exist! A promise is a commitment to something, once that commitment is no longer there, neither is the "promise" - and if there was no commitment in the first place, then the "promise" was a mere figment.

Perhaps this misunderstanding has arisen because the language that we use concerning promises. We speak of "making" a promise, as if a promise is something that can be created. The truth is when someone "makes" a promise, they are not really making anything at all. A promise is simply a verbal indication that one is committing to something (either action or restraint).

Theological and Philosophical Consequences

I have to ask, then, what impact does this skewed view of a promise have on theology and the way we think of life in general. I think it has HUGE consequences. When a couple decide to marry and "promise" before God and to each other that they will remain together, and fight against all difficulties to this end; if this promise is understood as anything but a commitment to this course of action, it is in grave danger of failing. Of course, marriages break down for all kinds of legitimate reasons - however, if from the very outset there is a grave misunderstanding of what a promise is, and the implications it has on the people "making" it, the success of the marriage is based completely on chance. This is not what God intended.

Furthermore, understanding the promise of God for eternal salvation as a commitment on God's behalf to that end, it becomes far more secure. Also, how many times do we "promise to do [x, y or z] for you, Lord" in a time of emotional encounter with God? Do we really mean what we are saying? Rather, do we even understand what we are saying?! "Lord, I am absolutely committing to do [x, y, or z] for You" - that seems quite different to the sappy "promises" many of us make to our God - where we simply wait to see how it all plays out..

We make our promises "willy-nilly" these days, because we have forgotten what a promise really is. I am sure we would make far fewer if we realised what it really meant.

---

Of course, feel free to completely disagree with me. I promise I won't it against you. :)

A Bible Commentary...

Admittedly, this is slightly irreverent... but it's still quite funny!

Theology Detached

"I don't just know about you with concepts and words, but have experienced you, lived you, suffered you."
        Karl Rahner

Internal Affairs

In my attempt to keep up with current trends in popular theology I have become embroiled in the Emergent conversation/debate/journey/community (I use those words synonymously to mean "buzz-word"). I actually think I am more 'Emergent' than I would readily admit - which is a paradoxical statement to include on something published on the world wide web (perhaps I am more readily willing to admit it than I thought).

Either way, certain spheres of the Emergent discussion (there's another one...buzzz) appear to have become something of an inward looking dialectic where the primary focus is on argument, or discussion, or questioning over what is right, wrong or 'both/and'. The unfortunate reply (or comment) to clever blogs is often something like, "wow, that's really good. That will get my mind thinking today" and rarely,

"wow, that's really good. I must change".

The Emerging Movement started off so well: challenging beliefs in the hope that it would bring about a change in the lives of those who were willing to listen - though this is still the aim of some, I am concerned it is not for many. One of the big problems I see in Evangelicalism is that it has tried to take the monopoly on truth, regardless of reality (more on this later). Now I see a similar thing happening in the Emerging debate. Though previously admitting that I am more emergent than I let on, I certainly do not agree with enough emergent thought to label myself with it. Yet I do believe that the questions asked in the emergent movement are essential questions - which I suppose derive from a preceding question of "What do we do with all this liberal stuff?" (adding "without just saying it's from the devil"). The focus was on exploring faith; then it became about defending a movement; now too many are engaging in a clique, completely separating themselves from conservative orthodoxy - when it is conservative orthodoxy that needs to participate most. To be challenged, and to bring challenges.

Real Orthodoxy

It cannot have escaped the attention that words such as "unorthodox" and "heretic" are currently popular argot in emerging circles. To the conservative these words are very uncomfortable - which is why they are used so often, most likely! - and it is interesting to ponder why this is so. Many people are completely unaware that our current evangelical orthodoxy is the product of hundreds and hundreds of years of debate, reform, renewal, war, hatred, sacrifice, heresy, apologetic, love, revolution, research and controversy, among other things! In fact, there is not even agreement on what is absolutely orthodox among the most conservative evangelical denominations - with some opting for more Calvinist theology, and others preferring Armenian theology. Though I shall quickly swerve to avoid that debate...

If one is to declare a leaning of theology, it must be insisted that this theology is built on truth (of some sort!). Now, as I mentioned, I believe that Evangelicalism has attempted to claim the monopoly on truth, regardless of reality. What I mean by this is that there is a tendency to say, "well 'this' is what the bible says, so we must believe 'that'." - even if what we see/experience is completely different. The controversy here is highlighted by what is really meant, vis: "well this is what [I say that] the bible says, so we must believe that". Of course, conversely there are those who would begin with experience and say, "well 'this' is what is happening, so 'that' cannot be true", meaning "well 'this' is what is happening [to me, now], so 'that' cannot be true [for anyone, ever]."

Allow me to offer a question: Can truth exist outside of reality? If we say that something is true, but it never actually exists - then is it really true? The problem with the bible is that one can make it say almost anything (though that is really a problem with humankind!). There are plenty of verses which, when taken out of context, or even in context but misinterpreted, can be used to support many contradictory points of view. If truth is considered truth "for its own sake" and not grounded in reality, then discussion of differing views remains philosophical - and usually results in a faction where one group believes 'this' because it is "right for them" and the other believes 'that' because it is "right for them". Truth is separated from reality.

There is, included in this, the debate over whether Scripture is Ipsissima Verba (the very words) or Ipsissima Vox (the very voice) of God. Again, allow me to make our journey uncomfortable by swerving around that issue also! Perhaps that is for another time.

So, truth without regard for reality is not really truth at all. It is no wonder that postmodernity has rejected the metanarrative - the metanarrative existed somewhere up in the ether! Truth is relative when it is not grounded in reality - as is theology. Theology that is completely detached is not grounded in God, but in man's philosophy; it is protected only by man's thought. However, I would add that reality which exists with no regard for truth is just as dangerous. Theology that is merely a reflection of what man, so far, understands and knows is also not grounded in God, but in man's ability to experience - which is not only limited, but is different depending on the person. There are times where experience (or rather, one's interpretation of existence) is misleading and gives a false indication of what is true. In these cases, it is important to learn what is true in reality not in immediate experience.

Reattaching Theology

Thus, we are left with a Hermeneutical ordeal. How can immediate experience and actually reality be identified? Indeed, the task is impossible in many instances. However, if truth in reality is to be achieved then attention to both elements of absolute truth and elements of subjective experience must be given. If a person's faith is built on a whole set of doctrine and one aspect of that doctrine is proved wrong, then that person risks losing the whole of their faith. Likewise, if another person's faith is built on the sum of their experiences so far and they encounter something that appears to contradict that faith, that person risks losing the whole of it. I suggest a better way: let faith (and indeed mission, service, and all that comes with faith) be built on loving God and loving each other. If this is the case, then no-one need be worried about admitting they were wrong, because they still love God and one another. So, it turns out that Jonah was a parable after all - accept it and move on. Or, it turns out Jonah is an historical account, and new evidence now points to such - accept it and move on. People will believe different things. But rather than vilify those who don't fit into our particular "doctrine cast", let's celebrate that we have Jesus in common! Faith is so important, but it is dead without deeds - so, I would say, is theology that is detached.

I hope that one day we will be brave enough, and sensible enough to admit that we may not have everything completely correct. Then we have a choice: accept it and move on; or detach our theology and defend our position. I pray we choose wisely.

Better In Koine

This video is for anyone who has ever studied Greek at Bible College (or equivalent!) It's a classic (and purposefully cheesy before people start telling me "I suck"... :-) ) It's the best thing since Baby Got Book!



Enjoy!

Behold the Liberator!

This is my attempt to review the recent translation of the New Testament (and soon the Old too) called simply the "Voice". The initial idea for this translation was proposed by Chris Seay, a prominent Emergent theologian - but don't allow that to cloud your perceptions just yet.

When I first heard of this translation I was extremely excited as it seemed to promise something I had been looking for; i.e. a translation of the bible that attempted to replace some Christian "jargon" words, produce a literary work that reflected the different literary styles of the original authors (as opposed to 99% of bible translations where every book sounds the same - apart from the content), and to make this new translation suitable for reading aloud in large sections (as this is what happened with the original scrolls of the New Testament).


For just over £6 from amazon, I joyfully bought myself a copy - it was delayed in arriving... twice... but eventually the thud on the floor mat inside the front door heralded its arrival. As with any new translation, I flicked straight to the "controversial passages" to see what they had made of them... not overly impressed.

Anyway, perhaps the more popular verses would be better (John 3:16 and the like), not bad; not great - but perhaps I am being a little over pro-traditional. So, down to reading Luke (seemed a good place to start)...

For me, there were too many times where I thought, "Oh, that's a bit naughty" (referring to the translation of the Greek - not the sauciness of Luke... of course.) Also, I think they have replaced the wrong words. Or at least replaced them with the wrong words. "Christ" is rendered as "Liberating King" throughout the New Testament. This seems a little clumsy to me. However, the problem is exacerbated when the shortened term "The Liberator" is used. No matter how hard I try, I cannot get connotations of the Terminator out of my mind - which isn't always helpful when reading Luke, I have found.

There are far worse crimes of which this translation is guilty however. The author of the extremetheology.com blog puts the translation through a fairly crushing critique; however, I don't agree with absolutely everything he says. He certainly has a not-so-secret hatred of anything Emergent - which doesn't help the objectivity of his review! Still, much of his exegetical argument stands.

Having said all of that, the Voice is actually very enjoyable to read! I found I read through Luke with great joy! The language of the text really does paint a very vivid picture in your mind and the person of Jesus (the Liberator... [chuckle]) is given real character (which is ironic after my terminator comment, I suppose!). Like The Message before it, I would have serious issues with accepting the Voice as a useful translation of the Greek biblical texts - however, having access to one (even if it is just to read casually) is probably not a bad idea.

So, behold the Liberator!