Otagosh

Evolving Truth

2012-01-14T22:47:00.001+13:00

A second quote from Elbert Hubbard (citing Renan).

Renan has said that truth is always rejected when it comes to a [person] for the first time, its evolution being as follows:
First we say the thing is rank heresy, and contrary to the Bible.
Second, we say the matter really amounts to nothing, anyway.
Third, we declare that we always believed it.

Pulling the Bible Inside Out?

2012-01-14T11:02:00.000+13:00

Tim Bulkeley posted some interesting thoughts on ways of reading the Bible recently, prompted by someone posing the old chestnut: If Noah lived before the law was revealed to Moses, how did he know how to distinguish “clean” and “unclean” animals? His response is well worth reading.

Tim suggests that there are two ways of reading the Bible; from the outside (as a scholar or critic must) and from the inside (as we do when we read a novel). Tim writes: "Each basic direction of reading offers several different options or styles. But the basic question facing a reader of any text [is] whether to read as critic or as reader. “Readers” must offer the text a willing suspension of disbelief."

But which is the 'right' choice when it comes to the Bible? When I read high-stakes non-fiction I read critically. If I'm relaxing with a space-opera Sci-Fi novel I joyfully enter the game. It's pretty much either/or. So which is the most appropriate strategy for reading the Bible, or are we supposed to somehow use both simultaneously, and how would that work?

Holy Writ too?

It's pretty clear that most evangelicals prefer a literal approach, which you'd think would be a matter of (using the terms Tim suggests) reading from the outside. After all, how many think of angels and demons in the same way as Klingons and Romulans? The problem, of course, is that we know demons don't cause epilepsy or blindness, regardless of what the healing stories in the Gospels might say. We know, despite sometimes trying to convince ourselves otherwise, that the Garden of Eden story is a myth. Big problem. Try explaining that to any clued-up twelve year-old. If however we reread the passage again as if the Bible is The Lord of the Rings (strangely enough, Tolkien was a part-time Bible translator), we've just ceased being evangelicals.

My best suggestion is that a reading 'from the inside' must be subsequent to one 'from the outside.' An 'outside reading' isn't just for the scholar or critic in an age where knowledge is being increasingly democratised. In other words, if I want to enter the story on its own terms - maybe the second chapter of Genesis - I need to have first honestly engaged (and acknowledged!) the issues around an 'outside reading.' If not, I either end up spouting dogmatic blather (as a fundamentalist does) or mystical blather (for those with more refined literary sensibilities). The trouble is, ignorance provides a higher octane rating for preachers and evangelists, who by and large are not fond of either qualifications or nuance.

But who, apart from a few ivory towered individuals, is going to bother with dubious distinctions and strategies like these anyway? Maybe somebody can help me out here by suggesting another category of literature that requires this stereoscopic (schizoid?) approach?

A Beautiful Old Age

2012-01-12T12:15:00.000+13:00

Elbert Hubbard was, in his time, a man of letters in the mold of Mark Twain. Unlike Samuel Clements however, Hubbard was a man of wealth, and there are those who believe his literary fame, forged at the turn of the last century, was more the result of well-oiled self promotion and ego than any substantial talent.

Be that as it may, Hubbard - an uncle by adoption to the loathsome L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology - remains hugely quotable, equally for his common-sense insights and aphorisms as his outrageous opinions. Here's the first in a series of quotes from the sage.

To have a beautiful old age, you must live a beautiful youth, for we ourselves are posterity, and every man is his own ancestor. I am to-day what I am because I was yesterday what I was.

Which echoes the old adage that the child is father to the man (or, to bring it up with the times, the child is parent to the adult.) The quote, which I think is rather nice, comes from his brief but horrendously un-PC essay The Disagreeable Girl, published in Love, Life & Work (1906).

The Perils of Prophecy

2012-01-11T22:49:00.001+13:00

Most readers of this blog will be more familiar with the prophecies of Daniel than those of Nostradamus, but either way, when you prognosticate the future you're bound to come a cropper.

Take the popular volume Millennium Prophecies by some joker named Stephen Skinner. What qualifications Skinner brought to the coffee-table I'm not sure, but the glossy illustrated text is probably never going to grace the reading list for any undergraduate courses. Our expert author banged out this masterpiece back in 1994 for the British publisher Carlton, giving it the subtitle Predictions for the Year 2000 from the World's Greatest Seers and Mystics. I flicked through it at a clearance bookstore and noticed that some bloke named Herbert Armstrong was mentioned, so parted with a dollar to check it out.

This guy makes a huge number of incredibly shonky statements, but what particularly struck me was the section on the 16th century nutcase Nostradamus. Here's a ripe quote:

A book detailing [Princess Diana's] miserable marriage and rejection by Prince Charles stoked the fires of speculation... These events may well be reflected in quatrain VI:74:

She who was cast out will return to reign,
Her enemies found among conspirators.
More than ever will her reign be triumphant.
At three and seventy death is very sure.

This suggests that in the end the popularity of the Princess will guarantee her a welcome return to the centre of monarchy, with her perhaps living until the age of 73.

Oops.

A dark and deceitful reformation

2012-01-04T20:47:00.000+13:00

(The link in this blog post has been corrected. It originally directed to one of Gary's own excellent posts, and not Dennis'.)

When a sect goes belly up, people are affected. The toll on lives can be incredible, particularly if the group has been "high demand." The tragedy of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) illustrates it well; a sect that self-mutilated itself in the process of what was euphemistically called 'reform'. Reform it was not, it was convulsive deconstruction fuelled by a small cadre of remarkably inept senior ministers from above, and from the get-go it expressed itself in a blinding contempt of those lower in the pecking order, the grass roots membership. To the everlasting shame of the broader Christian community, the 'reform' process was greeted with accolades and applause. They only saw what they wanted to see.

The irony is that there were many who had long advocated genuine reform, real reform, reform from below. That kind of reform is not arbitrarily imposed, it is negotiated. That kind of reform empowers, not disempowers, and it moves the centre of gravity away from those who sit high on the hierarchical hog, downwards toward the people who actually make up the church. That kind of reform finds - must find - its mandate among the people who sit in the pews.

Those who advocated that kind of reformation quickly found out that they were unwelcome. As the new leadership dug in, anyone not following the party line ('shut up and do what you're told') was labelled a troublemaker.

I thought I was 'over' all this, but then I read Dennis Diehl's latest contribution on Gary's blog. I wish those moronic evangelical enablers who clapped and hooted at the news that the WCG had been 'won over' would read it. I wish somebody would wave a printout under el presidente Joe Tkach's nose. Tkach, the unelected, unmandated 'president for life' of the downsized rump sect that inherited (and squandered) the assets. Joe who justifies his North Korean-style grip on power by the laughable expedient of calling it episcopal.

The crazy thing is that this whole thing was hardly rocket science. Anyone who has read Dr. Seuss' Yertle the Turtle could have done better. That Joe's throne now sits on top of a much, much smaller pile of turtles than his predecessors is beside the point.

Oh well, it's history, though tens of thousands of people still live with the effects. Just ask Dennis.

Staycation Reading

2012-01-01T21:05:00.000+13:00

Sci-Fi and theology are both wonderfully creative pursuits, so much so that it's sometimes hard to tell them apart. With the holidays here...

(Digression alert: holidays, not vacation. To have a vacation you need to follow the etymology and vacate your normal place of residence, pulling up stakes and going somewhere else for the duration. Many of us prefer a relaxed staycation, where you blob out in the comfort of home and hearth, only disappearing for day trips. And yes, staycation has recently entered the Oxford, Collins and Chambers dictionaries. Who said the world isn't progressing?)

(Digression alert 2: talking about things getting better, I really want to read Steven Pinker's latest book The Better Angels of Our Nature (UK subtitle: "The Decline of Violence in History and its Causes.") Despite what most baby boomers will tell you, the rising generations aren't really out of control and taking us all you-know-where in a hand-cart. But it's probably a bit on the worthy and earnest side for summer holiday reading. Once back at the chalk face though, a liberal dose of positivity about human nature could be exactly what's needed.) 

... there's the chance to rip into a few good books. Or eBooks if you prefer. For those who love space opera, Michael Cobley's Humanity's Fire series might be worth a try. I'm into the first one at the moment, Seeds of Earth. Given that Asimov will never pass this way again, it's not half bad.

Mark S. Smith's Memoirs of God is more biblical studies than theology, if you want to make that distinction, but it certainly has theological implications. This is - or should be - Old Testament Literacy 101, boiling down two earlier books meant for an academic audience into something that pulls it together for the non-specialist. The issue here is the Bible and history, and why the former isn't quite the latter. If you could boil down even just chapter one, then spike the holy water with it down at St. Columba's, then Steven Pinker would have even more reason to rejoice.

Whatever your literary preferences these holidays, happy reading.

Amazon links:

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined
Seeds of Earth (Humanity's Fire, Book 1)
Memoirs of God

Happy New Year

2012-01-01T11:32:00.000+13:00

We say it every year, and sometimes even rashly make resolutions. Truth to tell, 2012 will be as unpredictable and random as any year before it. Yet we live, as optimistic creatures, in hope. Surely that's the way it should be. Except of course for Calvinists and fundamentalist doomsdayers. Bah, humbug!

Apparently Liberty University, founded by Jerry Falwell, is providing unofficial endorsement for Newt Gingrich, the Republican hopeful. American politics puzzles me, but surely in any sane world, wouldn't Liberty's support mean tens of thousands of supporters immediately bolting from the Gingrich camp and signing up for Mitt Romney?

Meanwhile Samoans (citizens of Samoa, not nearby American Samoa) have proven once again what a very silly doctrine seventh-day sabbatarianism is. The Samoans have put yet anothing ding in the dateline, and Friday disappeared. This, of course, is problematic for Seventh-day Adventists, and presumably the few remaining devotees of Armstrongism in that part of the world. Do they worship on the new Saturday sabbath, or keep the seven-day cycle intact and so turn up for services on what is now Sunday, along with wicked Methodists and others? And if they do, will they share in the Mark of the Beast?

This is probably just as much a problem, technically speaking, for Calvinistic first-day sabbatarians who believe that only Sunday has upstairs endorsement because of an apparent Sunday resurrection. But they're probably all too busy spoiling other people's fun to notice.

The long, slow crucifixion of Christchurch

2011-12-23T15:30:00.000+13:00

Another series of earthquakes struck Christchurch today, just a couple of days out from Christmas. The strongest measured 6.0. A city only slowly recovering its composure is traumatised again. Thankfully there are no reports of collapsed buildings or loss of life, but the sense of unreality is still acute, even for those of us at the other end of the country.

The nightmare began back in September 2010. Before then the city was regarded as relatively safe from seismic activity, unlike Wellington which sits along known fault lines. There were no deaths then either, despite fairly massive damage. That all changed in February this year when a killer quake struck snuffing out over one hundred and eighty lives and levelling much of the city centre.

The aftershocks have continued ever since. They take their toll, simply by wearing people down. Today's events will be the straw that broke the camel's back for many more Cantabrians. You can only stay staunch so long.

Hearken unto Jim

2011-12-23T14:03:00.001+13:00

"Would to God that feckless dilettantes practicing theology and biblical studies were arrested the same way that imbeciles pretending to be medical doctors were. The world would be an authentically better place."

Jim West.

Amen and verily verily. Though I'd sooner make an example of televangelists and apologists rather than Ricky Gervais.

Courting Canon-fire

2011-12-21T19:34:00.002+13:00

The Journal: News of the Churches of God isn't much known for credible biblical commentary. The newspaper published in Big Sandy, Texas, loosely links together the increasingly diverse strands that emerged - yea, exploded - from the 'Big Bang' following the death of Herbert Armstrong. All too often the opinion pieces published in it are barely coherent and, frankly, ignorant. Ignorant of theology, ignorant of biblical studies and generally ignorant of the kind of world we're emerging in to. This largely reflects the demographic of knee-jerk, hyper-conservative, world-hating fundamentalism from which Armstrong's followers were recruited (or were recruited into.)

There's an important distinction to be made, though, between the often undeniably crazy essays and ads, reflecting little more than the bizarre obsessions of the individuals who submit them, and the excellent standard of news reporting that editor Dixon Cartwright brings together for each issue. Of course there are genuinely worthwhile religiously-oriented contributions that appear from time to time, but they tend to be buried under the avalanche of slack-jawed dilettantism that strings together nonsense parading as insight. Mercifully the restrained and accurate reporting on actual events within the movement is unsurpassed. For that reason alone I remain a dedicated reader.

The latest issue however is bound to attract a lot of comment, and perhaps a few cancelled subscriptions. Editor Cartwright, who usually stays well out of the doctrinal fray, has written a keynote article on the problem of the canon.

I think he's hit the nail directly on the head. Here we all are - or have been - idolizing the sixty-six book canon, barely aware that it is a product of early Catholicism, mediated through emerging Rabbinical Judaism (in the creation of the current Old Testament canon) and the Reformers. That's why, despite differing translation preferences, the various Churches of God share the same collection of documents with the Presbyterians, Methodists, the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Southern Baptists.

The early church however regarded the Septuagint (LXX) as scripture. Paul and other New Testament writers quote Greek renditions of the First Covenant, not Hebrew. Most modern Christians regard the LXX as inferior, with illegitimate apocryphal additions, but hey, if it was good enough for Paul...

And then there are those squawking cuckoos in the New Testament nest. Despite attributions to the contrary Paul didn't write 1 or 2 Timothy. He didn't write Titus. He probably didn't write Ephesians, Colossians or 2 Thessalonians either. Peter most certainly didn't write 2 Peter. And that's only to mention the most obvious frauds.

Dixon comes at this from his own angle, but he's asking some very pertinent questions.

"Although the Bible depicts God as Deity who loves and blesses us as His offspring, it also depicts Him as capricious, irritable and even tyrannical. Can God really be that way? ... There are ways to be a Bible-reading Christian that accept the canon for what it is: a list of recommended writings compiled and edited by humans for not only religious reasons but political reasons... The canon—which didn’t exist in its present form until A.D. 376—ultimately was conceived and built as a system of control."

I can't think of any other writer still within the COG tradition who has had the intestinal fortitude to address this issue without falling all over their apologetic shoe laces. Hopefully the full article will appear on the Journal website before too much longer.

Update: As you can read at the top of the comments section, Dixon has provided online access to the entire issue as a PDF file, including his article.

When archers string their bows

2011-12-21T12:00:00.000+13:00

Putting the mythology aside, and the crass commercialism, I love this time of year. It's the long summer break. The kids are out of school, as are their teachers, and those who can pack up the family car and head to the beach. Oh, alright, I realise that you Northern Hemisphere types are wrapping up against the cold and mega-dosing on Vitamin C, but that's half a world away from where I sit.

Of course there are those who seem to feel they have to work every hour God gives them. To them comes this sage advice from the ancient scrolls. No, not the Bible, Herodotus. And not Herodotus himself, but Pharaoh Amasis II of Egypt who, according to Herodotus, was advised thusly by his counsellors:

"Sire, you are not conducting yourself properly by pursuing worthless pastimes. You ought to be seated solemnly upon your stately throne, transacting affairs of state throughout the day; that way, the Egyptians would know that they were being governed by a competent man, and your reputation would improve. But as it is, you are not acting at all like a king."

To which the pharaoh replied: "When archers need to use their bows, they string them tightly, but when they have finished using them, they relax them. For if a bow remained tightly strung all the time, it would snap and be of no use when someone needed it. The same principle applies to the daily routine of a human being: if someone wants to work seriously all the time and not let himself ease off for his share of play, he will go insane without even knowing it, or at the least suffer a stroke. And it is because I recognize this maxim that I allot a share of my time to each aspect of life."

Wise pharaoh! Happy holidays.

Mere McGrath

2011-12-19T17:01:00.001+13:00

Apologetics is another name for self delusion. What can be sadder than to see an otherwise intelligent adult 'cooking the books' to suit their comfort zone? But what do we make of Alister McGrath's upcoming effort, to be released at the end of this month?

McGrath is no intellectual slouch. He has an impressive CV and a string of well-regarded publications to his name. And yet, here he comes, skipping down the apologetics aisle with an about-to-be-released book entitled Mere Apologetics (punning on C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity).

C. S. Lewis may have been a tad strange, but he was, at least by all reports, a decent and compassionate kind of bloke. This is not true of too many other apologists, whether ancient or modern. The publicity blurb mentions other "great and articulate defenders of the faith" throughout history, from Augustine and Aquinas to Jonathan Edwards, G. K. Chesterton, Francis Schaeffer... Talk about a rogue's gallery! Who in their right mind would count someone like Schaeffer among the 'great'? Certainly not his son who has lucidly portrayed his father's feet of clay, mired as they were in a near-fundamentalist form of bog-Calvinism, despite pretensions to the contrary. Augustine? Anyone who has read James O'Donnell's biography of the bishop of Hippo will likewise realise what a thoroughly toxic dead end his legacy has been down the centuries - craven hagiographies not withstanding.

Nor is the publicity made any more convincing when it carries an endorsement by Paul Copan, whose weak (and arguably misleading) attempts to rescue Yahweh from charges of genocide have been so thoroughly savaged by Thom Stark.

But back to the blurb. Mere Apologetics "seeks to equip readers to engage gracefully and intelligently with the challenges facing the faith today while drawing appropriately [selectively?] on the wisdom of the past. Rather than supplying the fine detail of every apologetic issue in order to win arguments [because he can't?], Mere Apologetics teaches a method that appeals not only to the mind but also to the heart and the imagination [intellectual pablum?]. This highly accessible, easy-to-read book is perfect for [those who just want easy reassurance?] pastors, teachers, students, and lay people who want to speak clearly and lovingly [with no intellectual rigour?] to the issues that confront people of faith today."

So these are the folk in the target market. Speak unto us smooth things Alister, prophesy porkies...

And yet, this may all be highly uncharitable. McGrath does have a reputation for honest, credible writing, despite an on-the-sleeve evangelical slant. Whatever the identified demographic above seems to be, the subtitle boldly proclaims "How to Help Seekers and Skeptics find Faith."

Skeptics? Really? Well if McGrath can pull that rabbit from his hat, we should all be impressed. That'll be the acid test, determining whether this is just another crooning lullaby to keep the peasants dosed and dozing ("there, there, never you mind your silly little head about those nasty questions") or something more. Against my better judgment, I'll be giving McGrath's new book a go, though I'm not getting my hopes up.

A Cheeky Bugg... Blogger

2011-12-09T19:30:00.001+13:00

After reading a blog entry by James McGrath today, I had an almost irresistible impulse to apply an expression widely used in Her Majesty's Dominions that may be less familiar to those who speak alternate versions of English: it involves calling someone "a cheeky bugger."

The term is famously associated in New Zealand with TV3 journalist and presenter John Campbell. When John calls someone "a cheeky bugger" it's almost an expression of warm regard!

But there are always the sallow-faced, thin-lipped Puritans among us. I've served time in those salt mines where even the expression "golly" is regarded as a breach of the Big Ten. Why? It's a euphemism, and it's likely to send the careless speaker straight to the Very Hot Place. Equally dastardly are terms like "gee whizz" (or "gee willikers") and "jeepers."

How can anyone who has ever been ten years old reach such a stupid conclusion? Heaven knows what they'd make of the expression "flip!"

I'm of a generation which grew up without exposure to the "F word". It was simply too horrible to utter in the presence of women and children, but in the church-attending working class home I was raised in there was "buggering" aplenty. I was well into my teenage years before it even dawned on me that it had a less than salubrious, and far more colourful dictionary derivation. But wait, the etymology goes deeper. The offensive element is a vicious secondary derivation, reflecting a thoroughly vile bit of religious and ethnic bigotry directed against non-Catholic ('heretical') Bulgarians. What greater defamation could there be than to take their very name and identity, and abuse it by cruel association. Bugger!

These days kids are exposed to some really objectionable vocabulary, and that "F word" has been almost mainstreamed. The word we're discussing has seven definitions in the Collins English Dictionary, only two of which are capable of causing offence, while the 'F word' is clearly an expletive however you use it. Stand up comedy illustrates the trend, wallowing in cheap shock value at the expense of the genuine delights of word play and the pleasures of a more subtle manipulation of "the Queen's English." I'm not arguing therefore for wholesale capitulation to "bad language", but good grief (another wicked euphemism!) Charlie Brown, let's keep things in perspective.

What puzzles me is that the people who most object to euphemisms and informal exclamations seem to almost always be tone deaf to the "weightier matters of the law." You don't often find them passionately defending civil liberties, or standing in solidarity with those shafted by monied interests. They find little or no relationship between justification and justice, and see little corporate, community relevance to ethical behaviour. I'm among those, for example, who find slick, sports celebrity-endorsed television ads for loan sharks extremely offensive, or some Ten Commandment-quoting idiot who nevertheless feels free to speak "in the name of the Lord" - truly taking it in vain. A word simply means what we intend it to mean, rather than being bound to distant etymologies almost nobody thinks about. There are no sacred, canonical dictionaries - not even the Oxford - which can provide anything more than usage. Words morph down the generations, sometimes into the very opposite of what they originally meant, as anyone familiar with King James English should know.

So, to get back to where we started, is it okay to call someone a cheeky bugger on a biblioblog? Obviously there's no insult intended - and about the same percentage of vulgarity as you'd find of active ingredients in a quack homeopathic remedy. But should delicate sensibilities be considered? Maybe. So perhaps it might be best to simply say, in this case, that a cheekier bit of bloggery would be hard to find...

Wind blown Pasadena

2011-12-05T20:44:00.001+13:00

Gary reports on his blog that the big winds have taken their toll on the former Ambassador College campus in Pasadena. Someone upstairs not happy, hmm?

Gary, who knows the Pasadena property better than most, also comments: "It was already run down and the windstorm took it's toll big time!" And he's uploaded the photos to prove it. Here are just two.

Well, considering what a blowhard Herb was, maybe there's a certain synchronicity...

Of Crucibles and Landfalls

2011-12-01T17:17:00.000+13:00

Darkover Landfall

November has seen an overindugence in classic Science Fiction on my part. I blame the Kindle. Who could resist, for example, revisiting MZB's Darkover for the first time in twenty years, now delivered in a crisp liquid ink format?

Books

The Crucible of Christianity. Jonathan Hill.
The Magic of Reality. Richard Dawkins.
A Wretched Man: A Novel of Paul the Apostle. Obie Holmann.
Re-Claiming the Bible for a Non-Religious World. John Shelby Spong.
Darkover Landfall. Marion Zimmer Bradley.
The Masks of Time. Robert Silverberg.
The Web of Worlds. Harry Harrison & Katherine MacLean
Non-Stop. Brian Aldiss.

Viewing

Super 8
Downton Abbey, series 2
Earth 2 (the 1990s sci-fi series)
Christianity: A History. Channel 4 series.

Not included, as it's a reference book, is the newly released Chambers Dictionary. The 12th edition was launched this year, and its a brilliant contrast to the often stodgy offerings from Collins and Oxford that dominate the market in Her Majesty's Dominions. This is the dictionary for word lovers and word game afficionados. Philip Pullman and Melvyn Bragg both recommend it - what more could one say?

Noah and the Preachers

2011-11-30T21:03:00.001+13:00

(Warning: intemperate rant follows.)

One of the leading Missouri Synod clergy-bloggers has posted the following lectionary gem for November 29 about the Old Noah the Ark Builder.

Noah, the son of Lamech (Gen 5:30), was instructed by God to build an ark, in which his family would find security from the destructive waters of a devastating flood that God warned would come. Noah built the ark, and the rains descended. The entire earth was flooded destroying “every living thing that was on the face of the ground, both man and beast” (7:23). After the flood waters subsided, the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. When Noah determined it was safe, and God confirmed it, he and his family and all the animals disembarked. Then Noah built an altar and offered a sacrifice of thanksgiving to God for having saved his family from destruction. A rainbow in the sky was declared by God to be a sign of His promise that never again would a similar flood destroy the entire earth (8;20). Noah is remembered and honored for his obedience, believing that God would do what He said He would.The world had become extremely corrupt, so God instructed Noah, the son of Lamech (Genesis 5:30) to build an ark to provide security for his family and selected living creatures from the waters of a devastating flood that God warned was coming (Genesis 6). Noah built the ark, and the flood came soon after its completion (Genesis 7). The entire earth was flooded, blotting out “every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. (7:23)”

What's wrong with this potted bio? Well, nowhere here is there any indication that the Noah story is anything other than a tall tale, an elaborate fiction, crafted in a pre-modern age to explain the origin of - among other things - rainbows. Nor is there any indication that this high-ranking clergyperson is aware that it's used goods from start to finish, a retelling of even more ancient Near Eastern tales, the best known variant being the Epic of Gilgamesh. How exactly do you get away with living in the twenty-first century, and still read this stuff as literal history?

But here's the weird thing. Whereas this guy, a dyed in the wool literalist, seems to believe what he writes - or cut 'n pastes - there are clergy of a more progressive stripe and more refined literary sensibilities who also wouldn't blush to write this same drivel. Among such enlightened types it's perfectly okay to parrot these claims (and yup, claims they are) as long as - nod, nod, wink, wink - those in the loop know that it's not what it seems. Shall we tell the dumb sheep? Not directly; gently does it, we wouldn't want to offend anyone. Let 'em live with their treasure trove of beddy bye stories undisturbed. Let's sing them a liturgical lullaby while sharing knowing adult glances with "our kind" of Christians.

It's a strategy for people - however progressive and metaphorically-minded they might be when in the privacy of their own studies - who have clearly mistaken deceitfulness for subtlety, patronising behaviour for sensitivity, duplicity for depth. If you truly love and honour the scriptures, you're not going to lie about them, not even via the time honoured method of conveniently omitting full disclosure lest the troublesome truth rise up and bite you back. To hide behind sophisticated 'theologising' is just contemptible. Some of these individuals could wrestle theological profundities out of the telephone directory!

Even the Missouri Synod blogger, who I'm sure knows all about "sins of omission", has more integrity than that.

Behold these walls

2011-11-30T06:00:00.001+13:00

Jerusalem's Western Wall may not be what everyone thought. Those pesky archaeologists have been digging up the dirt at "Herod's Temple", so to speak, or more specifically the coins in the dirt. Here's the report on Yahoo! and one bloggers take.

This is one of the planet's most revered sacred sites. So, if the latest findings are borne out, does it make a difference?

"[The coins] show that construction of the Western Wall had not even begun at the time of Herod's death. Instead, it was likely completed only generations later by one of his descendants."

Mile High Herb?

2011-11-26T12:23:00.001+13:00

I've been slowly working my way through Ben Mitchell's The Last Great Day. It's a novel, "based on a true story." Mitchell grew up as a PK (pastor's kid) in the Worldwide Church of God. Despite some tinkering with names (Armstrong morphs to Abraham etc.) it's recognizably the movement many of us once knew and loved - even if the verb has now changed to loathe.

Chapter 23 tells the tale of a trip on board the Apostle's Gulf Stream II. The time setting is shortly after the release of David Robinson's book Herbert Armstrong's Tangled Web, and rumours are spreading like wildfire. It's a time I remember particularly well, having acquired one of the few early copies - and a signed one at that - to reach the shores of New Zealand. In the story, Abraham (Armstrong) while visiting his Australian operation, has invited the none-too-bright minister Henry Conroy, along with his wife Elizabeth, for a joy ride over Perth in the GII. Henry is invited to sit in the cockpit with the pilot - a great privilege - leaving Elizabeth alone with the old goat.

What happen's next? The Apostle lays hands on the hapless Elizabeth.

"Why did you lock the cockpit door?" asked Elizabeth. "Isn't it dangerous? What if they need to tell us something or ask you about our destination?" Abraham sat next to Elizabeth, putting his hand on her knee.

"We are all going to the same place, my child." He skulled his Scotch, running his eyes over Elizabeth's legs as he did... Abraham looked in her eyes, with his ferocious and full of single-minded intent.

"There is no need to be alarmed, my child. In the coming Kingdom of God, all our fears and sins will be forgiven. We are what we are, as God made us, Elizabeth."

"And as God told us through Paul, wives should submit to their husbands only," said Elizabeth, holding the full glass of Scotch with both hands - some kind of pathetic barrier between them...

Abraham thrust his hand up Elizabeth's knee-length skirt, fingering at...

Well, you get the idea. Slimeball Abraham's ardour is doused when Elizabeth drops the glass, which breaks, and Henry rattles the locked door. The saddest line in the chapter is Elizabeth's, and appears toward the end.

In her mind she repeatedly asked herself the same question: How did I lead him on?

Now, okay, this is fiction. But there's a clear autobiographical and family history element in the text; Henry and Elizabeth are closely modelled on Ben's parents. So, one has to wonder whether the incident isn't as far fetched as it sounds. In many ways Herb Armstrong profited from his son's hugely profligate reputation, a barrier that deflected concerns away from himself. In the real world, at this time, there were indeed dark rumours about Herb's own moral choices, particularly when the Apostle was away on his boozy globetrotting sprees with Stan Rader and Osamu Gotoh. Those old enough to have followed the scandal at the time will remember stories about the 'flog log', the dildo in the Hermes pouch, the lusty junior members of the Japanese diet (Herb's 'Japanese sons') who 'partied hearty' on the GII, the stay-over at the Romanian sex clinic... and on it goes.

Maybe Mitchell has conflated Herb and Ted (Garner Ted Armstrong). After all, none of this would surprise us if it was Ted who was portrayed as trying his luck - the evidence about his 'mile high' behaviour is undeniable. But perhaps, like father like son... The man is no longer available to defend himself of course, but then when he was available to defend himself against the allegations in Robinson's book - and from his son - he said nothing. Not even when the allegations turned to incest.

It was Phillip Adams who may have provided the most apt epitaph for Armstrong, writing in the Weekend Australian Magazine in February 1986.

It must come as a great shock to both of them, but Herbert W. Armstrong andL. Ron Hubbard are dead. These god-like gurus, who dominated the lives ofcountless disciples, have carked it, snuffed it and kicked the bucket. And theworld is a better place for their passing.

Mitchell's book brings back none-too-pleasant memories. But then, those who ignore the past are most certainly condemned to repeat it.

(Outside Australia Mitchell's book is available from Amazon in a Kindle edition.)

Does Bart Ehrman's Mythic Book Exist?

2011-11-24T20:41:00.001+13:00

Bart Ehrman is writing a book on the Christ Myth theory - or, better said, theories. He's a skeptic. Not a skeptic about the Historical Jesus, but a skeptic about the mythicist position.

I've heard Ehrman rant about this on a couple of podcasts and, with no exaggeration, he went feral on both occasions.

So the chance to get his views in a coherent, non-confrontationalist form should prove interesting. Equally interesting is the publisher's strategy of launching the volume only as an e-book. HarperCollins, which is still producing hard-copy-only versions of some of its titles, is seemingly testing the e-waters. Here's the skinny:

For years Bart Ehrman has been routinely bombarded with one question: Did Jesus exist? As a leading Bible expert, fans and critics alike have sent letters, emails, posted blogs, and questioned Ehrman during interviews wanting his opinion about this nagging question that has become a conspiracy theorist cottage industry the world over. The idea that the character of Jesus was an invention of the early church -- and later a tool of control employed by the Roman Catholic Church -- is a widely held belief and Ehrman has decided it’s time to put the issue to rest. Yes, the historical Jesus of Nazareth did exist.

Known as a master explainer with deep knowledge of the field, Ehrman methodically demolishes both the scholarly and popular arguments against the existence of Jesus. Marshalling evidence from within the Bible and the wider historical record of the ancient world, Ehrman tackles the key issues that surround the popular mythologies associated with Jesus and the early Christian movement.

Those committed to the “non-existence” theory will need to read this formidable scholar’s counter argument while the more traditionally minded will enthusiastically support Ehrman’s definitive answer to the question. Perfect for the vigorous online debating community, this eBook original will be a must read for anyone interested in Jesus, the Bible, and the birth of Christianity.

To be released in March next year.

Church Shopping With Michele Bachmann

2011-11-24T20:34:00.001+13:00

Michele Bachmann wants to be President of the United States.

Well, Americans can choose whoever they like. This weekend Kiwis go to the polls to elect a new government of their own, and that's tribulation enough for me.

But Bachmann's latest flip flop on religious affiliation is just bizarre. It's all documented here.

The Big Ten

2011-11-20T22:35:00.001+13:00

The third in the Channel 4 series The Bible: A History screened tonight on SBS1. I missed the first fifteen minutes, tuning in just before this week's presenter, Ann Widdecombe, arrived at St Catherine's Monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai. Tonight's topic, the Ten Commandments. Widdecombe, a Tory MP and convert to Catholicism, reminds me a lot of one of those formidable childhood aunts that were common in the 1960s, committed to common decency to the core, and quite unable to imagine any society that wasn't wedded to mainline Christianity being able to avoid anarchy and rampant wickedness in low places.

Highlights? A brief chat with Henry Wansbrough, a testy face-off with Francesca Stavrakopoulou, an acid reference to 'trendy skeptics' immediately prior to a heated encounter with first Christopher Hitchens (a fellow fan of Marcion, much to my surprise), then Stephen Fry.

Low points? The naive treatment of the 'Books of Moses', which Widdecombe clearly prefers to think of as written by Moses himself, despite a ton of evidence to the contrary, and the whole world-denying mindset. Was there any advance here, I wondered, over the poisonous tract I read as a teenager called The Ten Commandments promoting the near-fascist fundamentalism of its author, Roderick Meredith?

Quote of the evening: "Perhaps we could do with a touch of Puritanism today."

Next week promises to be a bit of a contrast as Bettany Hughes sets out, flaming sword in hand, to discover "that far from being a 'sexist' book, [the Bible] is packed full of brave, heroic and ruthless women who still have a lot to say to the women of today."

Wright or Wrong?

2011-11-19T12:45:00.001+13:00

It's one of those key texts that everyone knows, the first verses of John: In the beginning was the Word.

But what does one make of N. T. Wright's new translation in The Kingdom New Testament, released last month?

The Word "was close beside God"? And yet "was God"? How does that work? To be "close beside" still implies distance (just not a lot) and separation.

The variation between "was with" and "was" doesn't seem quite so striking in other translations, but here it hits you - or at least it does me - full on.

The more common translations seem to slide the emphasis in verse 2 to the time frame: He was in the beginning with God (NAB). Wright's choice puts the stress on the second part: In the beginning, he was close to God.

Wright also translates this whole section as prose, whereas many would regard it as a hymn, better rendered in verse (and so less open to dogmatic speculation.)

You do have to wonder what the Johannine author was trying to communicate, though of course we're never likely to know. Strip away the anachronistic Trinitarian bias though, and I wonder if Hugh Schonfield didn't come close.

In the beginning was the Word.

And the Word was with God.

So the Word was divine.

It was in the beginning with God.

Hour of Vanity and Loss

2011-11-19T09:03:00.001+13:00

Even in the Antipodes we know about the Crystal Cathedral and the Hour of Power, courtesy of weekly telecasts on Prime and Shine. News that the good folk who have stood by Robert Schuller through thick and thin will now have to walk away from their extravagant facility brings back memories of the sell-down of another architectural masterpiece in Pasadena some years ago. Then the transfer was from a dying apocalyptic sect to a clap 'n stomp Pentecostalist cult. This time the beneficiary is the Roman Catholic Church. In three years time the Crystal Cathedral is to become, it seems, a real cathedral, complete with missals and incense to incense the 'marshmallow evangelicals' who currently attend there.

Monuments. Mad religious empire builders. The bigger they come, the harder they fall. And the 'little people', the grassroots followers, the people who sacrifice for a Great Cause - giving their time and talents, embracing the vision? Tough luck!

A few days ago we learned that another monument-making lemming drive is on the drawing boards - the subject of the last posting. You'd think we'd all learn from past lessons, but apparently not.

Vanity, vanity, as the Preacher of Ecclesiastes says. Too bad Schuller, Armstrong, Flurry, Pack and a thousand others didn't spend more time in that book.

Pack's Pipedream

2011-11-17T21:57:00.001+13:00

At an age when he should have long since retired gracefully, and donned sackcloth and ashes in an act of repentance for being an arrogant ass, David C. Pack is still living an Armstrongist wet-dream. The supreme leader of his very own high demand micro-sect, the Restored Church of God, the Packatollah has announced big plans to erect a glittering World Headquarters for himself in Wadsworth, Ohio. You'd think a man of his mediocre talent would settle for a nice set of business cards. Though he is apparently a highly driven character, Pack seems incapable of originality, so it's no surprise that his Great Erection is a blatant clone of the now defunct Worldwide Church of God HQ in Pasadena, complete with ersatz auditorium. Anything Gerry Flurry can copy, Pack can do too.

Mind you, it's all ostentatious intentions at the moment. Where will the moolah come from with such a modest tithe-base? Details, details. Construction is to begin in April next year, and the doors will open for gloating just twelve months later. Uh, okay.

Aging egomaniacs obviously have this thing about building monuments to themselves. But will the Packatollah even get that far? The PR blather indicates that it's a done deal, but the only certainty may be that the demands for special offerings will now flood out to the RCG's long-suffering membership.

Dig deep brethren.

(Thanks to Gary who, as usual, has the blog scoop on this latest story from the farthest fringe.)

Pseudolph has a Shinar

2011-11-15T20:43:00.001+13:00

From the Seer of Gibraltar, the Bard of the East, cometh this pre-Xmas offering in the spirit of Hislop's Two Babylons. Filled it is with cryptic references, and disturbing they be. In fact, I think a commentary might need to be written to explain such hidden depths as Old Dark Beer (the Pride of the South), the capitalised SIX-PACK (the Holy One of Edmond), and Koha (a word in te reo).

Yeah, okay, now we need a commentary to explain the explanations. Thus was it ever so Dunn.

Anyway, thankee koindly to the poet (lyricist, composer?) Appearing below is a somewhat redacted version of the original, one verse omitted, another two relocated under the influence of the Holy Spirit... something all biblical scholars know only adds to the sanctity of sacred psalmody, even if it makes a complete botch of it in the process. In compensation for such churlish butchery an equally cryptic picture has been chosen to accompany the text.

Pseudolph the Rude-Nosed Reindeer
Is coming along your way,
So leave him Old Dark Beer
On a thirsty Mythmas day.

High up on the ziggurat
A reddish light they mount
In honour of Pseudolph's nose
Whose lumens they cannot count.

They celebrate Semiramis
In the dead of Chaldea night,
Arrayed in their pyjamas
They look a sorry sight.

...

Mythmas is a Koha season,
A time for you to spend,
And so you need no reason
To give SIX-PACK a lend.

Or better still a freewill sum,
Given from the heart,
You needn't feel glum
As with that lot you part.

Pseudolph has a Shinar,
To his nose I do refer,
For nothing is seen finer
In the adobe houses of Ur.

Abraham's legacy

2011-11-13T22:37:00.001+13:00

The second episode of the Channel 4 series The Bible: A History screened tonight on SBS1. Hosted by Al-Jazeera's Rageh Omaar, it was less about Abraham, as claimed, as about the current parlous state of relations between the so-called 'children of Abraham' in Palestine.

The ruins of Abram's 'Ur of the Chaldees' provided one of the memorable images of the programme, sited next to an American military base in occupied Iraq. Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou provided the bare bones of a critical commentary.

All scholars agree that the biblical stories about Abraham were written several centuries after the period they seek to describe, and many scholars now pinpoint the time of composition to the period of the exile in the sixth century BC, when the Israelites were conquered by the Babylonians, and their elites and religious leaders were taken captive to Babylon in Mesopotamia.

It's worth remembering that Abraham is thought to have lived around 1850 BCE. So how much reliable historical information about him can the Bible convey, bearing in mind that it took another forty five generations or so before the stories we now have about Abraham were first written down? That's a question Omaar didn't broach.

click for larger image

According to those stories Abraham was willing to kill both his sons, Ishmael (by sending him along with his mother out into the desert to die) and Isaac (as a human sacrifice to Yahweh). This willingness was counted as a virtue! It's a single-minded fanaticism that resonates to this day with extremists on both sides of the Jewish Palestinian divide.

Next week that old bat, British Conservative MP Ann Widdecombe, sets out to sing the praises of the Ten Commandments. But, judging from the promo, she gets a well-deserved earful from Stephen Fry. That I'm looking forward to!

Re-claiming the Bible

2011-11-12T19:55:00.001+13:00

Fundamentalists are no fans of Jack Spong. No surprise there. But nor are many professionals in the field of biblical studies. It's an interesting phenomenon. Spong writes books that (grind teeth) make sense to ordinary, educated folk. He doesn't use too much jargon and - the unforgivable sin - he sells!

Here in New Zealand Lloyd Geering, undoubtedly the most honest theologian of note the country has ever produced, is treated with similar ambivalence. A prophet without honour in certain academic ghettos within easy driving distance of Dunedin's octagon.

But back to Spong. His latest book is out: Re-claiming the Bible for a Non-Religious World. It's a Bible 101 survey for those who are curious. It's not a dry textbook, and there's nothing particularly original in it for those who are well read in the field. But for laypeople, starved of real information in their churches (whether evangelical or mainstream) it could well be revelatory. "Why" asks Spong "is this scholarship not communicated to the Sunday worshipers of the world?"

It's a great question.

"Moses did not write the documents we call the 'books of Moses,' or the Torah (Genesis to Deuteronomy)! Indeed, Moses had been dead some three hundred years before the first word of the Torah was put into written form. David did not write the book of Psalms! Solomon did not write Proverbs! The gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, but by at least the second and, in the case of the Fourth Gospel (as the book of John is often called), perhaps even the third generation of believers. The book of Revelation does not predict the end of the world or convey any hidden messages about modern-day history! Why do we still allow ourselves to be tyrannized by this kind of uninformed biblical non-sense, regardless of the 'authority' claimed for that book by the mouths that still utter these claims?"

Beats me. But again, great questions.

"Religious leaders seem to believe that if they allow one crack in their carefully constructed religious or biblical defense system, then the whole thing will collapse in ruins. That is the stance of hysteria, not the stance of either faith or hope, though it masquerades as both."

The real scandal, I sometimes think, is that the seminaries and university theology faculties so often serve as enablers to this policy of avoidance. Many (most?) of those recruited into the hallowed halls of the enlightened clutch their knowledge to their own breasts, wallowing almost altruistically in their own doubts, content to themselves know in an almost gnostic fashion what the great unwashed must not.

I hope Re-claiming is widely read.

Especially in Dunedin.

Birds of a feather?

2011-11-12T14:18:00.001+13:00

The world has moved on from the days when 'biblical archaeologists', "Bible in one hand, spade in the other", went forth to prove that the Good Book told it just as it was. Oh but the temptation is still there, especially when American evangelists with deep pockets want to throw money at a cause they can profit from.

Which is why Gerry 'Six Pack' Flurry, 'Pastor Generalissimo' and self-proclaimed Prophet of the bizarre high-demand sect the Philadelphia Church of God is such a big fan of Eilat Mazar and other suitably cooperative figures in the Israeli archaeological establishment, sending students from his unaccredited college to dig the dirt for her in Israel.

And why she is praised by Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, and gets positive press from conservative evangelical magazine Christianity Today in a current feature.

But there's a chill wind blowing out of Petros, Tennessee. Jim West's comments on Mazar's work are a valuable corrective for anyone tempted to take the gushy PR at face value. Do check it out.

To redact a comment of Jim's: That Flurry is among Mazar’s supporters says everything that needs to be said.

Elmer Gantry, meet Ronnie Weinland

2011-11-11T18:10:00.001+13:00

A nod to Gary who has linked to a Cincinnati news source reporting the great tribulations of Ronnie Weinland who, along with his lovely wife Laura, are - in case you didn't know it - the Two Witnesses of the Book of Revelation.

Many are the afflictions of the righteous, and Ronnie, a entrepreneurial (tithe farming) disciple of the late Herb Armstrong, has had more than his fair share. You might find this hard to believe, but Ron - author of 2008: God's Final Witness - has had a teeny credibility problem after repeatedly getting his End Times predictions wrong. Harold Camping has company!

And now he faces five years of incarceration - being thrown in the slammer - for tax evasion. It seems God's special little bloke has an undeclared Swiss bank account. Here's the item.

COVINGTON – A Northern Kentucky man who prophesies about the end of the time through an Internet-based ministry was indicted by a federal grand jury Thursday on five counts of tax evasion.

Ronald Weinland, 62, of Union evaded $357,065 in taxes from 2004 through 2008, according to a federal indictment.

The minister understated his income, used church money for personal expenses and tried to hide the existence of a Swiss bank account, said a spokesman for Kerry B. Harvey, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Weinland also allegedly failed to report any interest made on that Swiss account as income.

Weinland, who couldn’t be reached Thursday evening for comment, faces up to five years in prison if found guilty. The date of his arraignment at the federal courthouse in Covington was not immediately available.

He is the minister for Church of God – Preparing for the Kingdom of God, according to the indictment. The church’s website lists a Cincinnati post office box and an AOL email address. There is no phone number listed for the church in the Boone County phone book.

The church’s website predicts the return of Jesus Christ on May 27, 2012. Weinland’s weekly audiocast can be heard on the website every Saturday afternoon. The website states Weinland speaks to his congregation from different locations across the nation via the audiocasts.

In addition to visiting various scattered congregations in the United States, Weinland and his wife, Laura, also travel to Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Europe, according to the website.

“He does this to warn and prepare people for what lies ahead in the traumatic events that will unfold over the few remaining years of this prophetic end-time,” the website states.

But not to worry, time is on ~~Witless~~ Witness Weinland's side. Here's a recent quote from the prophet (another nod to Gary, who follows these things far more closely than I do these days).

In two short months, the world will be thrust into the seventh and final phase of this end-time. This period will be marked by well over fifty percent of all Bible prophecy being fulfilled.

God first revealed to His two end-time witnesses [Ronnie and Laura], His final two prophets that His Son would return to this earth in a second-coming as King of kings on May 27, 2012. That revelation gave way to numerous other revelations concerning end-time prophetic events. But anyone who hears of this, in the world or in the Church that was scattered, considers this to be absurd, presumptuous, arrogant, and filled with self- aggrandizement.

Oh surely not! Not Ronnie! Absurd, presumptious, arrogant, filled with cr*p? Unimaginable! Nor that Ron is a lover of mammon and a tax cheat. It just ain't so! Just you wait, all you doubters, till May 27 next year, so there!

McGrath blasts the fringe

2011-11-08T23:27:00.000+13:00

Did Jesus really exist?

The clash between mythicists and historicists has all the drama of a WWF bout: current contenders include Mangler McGrath vs. Grappler Godfrey, step right up!

It may just be a case of weakened brain cells on my part, but I really don't see what the big issue is. The only question that ultimately counts to most folk is... did the Jesus of the New Testament narrative exist? That doesn't seem a particularly tough one to adjudicate on.

James McGrath has recently weighed in on the side of consensus historicism in The Christian Century. According to James the mythicist position, out on the fringe, is that Jesus "is not just a heavily mythologized historical figure, but pure or nearly pure fabrication from start to finish."

But how heavily is heavily? On the continuum from 0 through 100 where does 'heavily mythologized' cross over into 'nearly pure fabrication'? Exactly what historical content forms the essential kernel of the historical Jesus? Where should you put the stress: a heavily mythologized historical figure, or a heavily mythologized historical figure?

McGrath pulls out three fringe exemplars, D. M. Murdock (a.k.a. Acharya S.), those (unidentified) commentators who view "Jesus as a fictional creation based on Jewish scriptures", and Earl Doherty.

Personally, I don't give 'Acharya S.' the slightest credence. James' criticism is right on the money. Sorry lady, no cred., even discounting the stupid made-up pen name. But what about position two.

"Another strain of mythicism views Jesus as a fictional creation based on Jewish scriptures. Noting the common Christian belief that Jesus was predicted in the Jewish scriptures, they reverse the relation and say that Jesus was invented on the basis of those earlier texts. Historical scholars see things very differently, pointing out the differences between the content of the supposed Messianic prophecies and the life of Jesus—thereby creating difficulties for conservative Christian apologists and mythicists alike."

Again, my poor brain may just be inadequate, but the fact that early Christian writers pulled texts from the Hebrew scriptures to create flesh on a very bare biographical skeleton seems to be pretty indisputable. The issue is whether they created the skeleton as well. That the New Testament writers tore texts out of context, with complete disregard for our current standards of textual criticism, seems a complete no-brainer. Exegesis ain't what it used to be, thankfully. But how exactly does that create difficulties for the mythicist position? The birth narratives, the passion narratives, the miracle stories... which parts are immune from a little (or a lot) of Hebrew Bible oil pastel overlay? If we scraped away the pastel work would we find a beautiful original sketch underneath, some childish scribble, or just a blank canvas?

Less compelling (at least to me) is Doherty's argument that (again quoting James) "Jesus was initially understood as a purely celestial figure believed to have done battle with heavenly powers—and to have been crucified and buried somewhere other than on Earth." But, to give the man his due, he does make an interesting case, 'selectively critical' or not.

The whole question of historicity turns on a judgment about probability, and the hard data at hand is woeful. Is Jesus a fictive character in the same sense as Sherlock Holmes, cut from whole cloth? Not so elementary! Or is he a pastiche made up of characters both real and imagined that have been chucked in the Bible blender? Bultmann would presumably shrug his shoulders and find the whole discussion beside the point. Most of us would find it very much to the point. Think of Jesus and it's almost impossible to distance the name from the vivid oil pastel claims embedded in the Gospels. Jesus: virgin birth, tempted by the devil, water into wine, raiser of the dead, predictive prophet of the Little Apocalypse, multiplier of loaves and fishes, walker on water, crucified, dead, buried, raised, materialising through closed doors, ascended on clouds.

So which of James' joint descriptors - heavily mythologized and historical figure - carries the greatest weight of evidence?

Of course, I really have no idea who's right (though I'm reasonably convinced it isn't anyone called Acharya), but isn't there the feeling that 'whistling Dixie' is an essential strategy on both sides of the debate?

Did Jesus really exist? Maybe it depends on which Jesus are we talking about. Jesus may have been an apocalyptic prophet, or a Cynic sage, or whatever; but first we've got to get past the default Gospel portrait that is still the reigning paradigm in the churches, their preaching and their liturgy.

On the count of three let's all hold our breath...

Creation - steering between the absolutists

2011-11-06T23:20:00.002+13:00

Some time back Britain's Channel 4 screened a series called Christianity: A History. It seems they have brought most of the old team back to produce a sequel, The Bible: A History. The first episode screened tonight on Australia's SBS.

This initial programme featured Howard Jacobson, retreaded from the first series, investigating the profound significance of the Genesis creation story. I say 'profound', because that's the lens Jacobson, a secular Jew, views it through. His self-appointed task; to steer a path between fundamentalism and atheism, to confront the absolutists on both sides of the divide. We need, pleads Jacobson, a more sophisticated approach to embrace the enchantment of the creation story.

A string of talking heads are trotted out, as they usually are in this sort of doco, to illustrate the script. Britain's chief rabbi, Lord Sacks, is among them, along with A. C. Grayling, John Polkinghorne and Mary Midgley (among others). We learn that Genesis wasn't written by Moses (shock, horror!) but first surfaced in the wake of Israel's return from exile in the eighth century BCE. We sit in on a mock Sabbath celebration with Howard Jacobson's orthodox relatives for whom the creation account is far beyond the slings and arrows of outrageous reason, and sit through an interview with a English creationist pastor who claims science is on his side.

Jacobson is buying none of the literalism, but neither is he giving ground to the rationalism of thinkers like Richard Dawkins. The first chapters of Genesis have engendered beautiful literature and music. They are to be appreciated, like Shakespeare, on the level of poetry and the power of myth.

I'd agree. In fact I do agree. But. But isn't this also a particularly vapid bit of elitist waffle? Isn't its appeal limited to a small, privileged minority? A small minority already comfortably predisposed to such things? Would it have impressed the fishers of Galilee or the sometimes fanatical Christians of the second generation, many of whom were slaves and few of which were literate? What indeed does make Genesis qualitatively different, on this account, from Shakespeare or Gilgamesh, the Brothers Grimm or Homer? No surprise that intellectuals are the ones to embrace this nuanced approach to creation, but that it has little appeal in the real world.

Is this the best we can all agree on now? And if it is, hasn't Dawkins actually got a stronger case to make?

Dunno. Next week Rageh Omar (also back from series one) goes hunting for Abraham. I hope he has better luck than Howard.

(An interview with Howard Jacobson can be found on the Channel 4 website.)

Not bipolar, bippola!

2011-11-06T09:34:00.000+13:00

I've always been in awe of Jason Goroncy's monthly reading list. How could one not be impressed both in quantity and quality? Jason is a renaissance man, with wide tastes in film, fiction, theology and so much more.

But I confess that there's nothing, absolutely nothing, in his October selections that I've read, and a goodly number that I'd run a mile to avoid reading: Eberhard Jüngel, Stanley Hauerwas, Lesslie Newbigin and, wouldn't you know it, Karl Barth. Yes, I have sampled each and every one of these luminaries, but only out of unavoidable academic need, and in the way one must swallow foul medicine to achieve a greater good.

All of these blokes are, of course, Reformed thinkers, which goes a long way to explaining the aversion. This includes Jüngel, who is a Geneva wolf in Wittenberg clothing. I grant that, seeing Jason is teaching at a Presbyterian theological institution, this is understandable, if unfortunate.

My October list is much more plebeian, and briefer to boot. No Barth of course, but who needs him when there's a new Dr. Seuss!

Reading

Redirect: The Surprising New Science of Psychological Change. Timothy Wilson. [Brilliant!]
Planet Word, J. P. Davidson. [If you love language, this is a must read]
Turns of Phrase: Radical Theology from A - Z. Don Cupitt.
The End of Christianity. John Loftus (ed.) [A curate's egg, brilliant in parts]
From the Garden to the City. John Dyer. [Surprisingly engaging, despite the author's atrophied fundagelical mindset]
Rediscovering the Apostle Paul. Bernard Brandon Scott (ed.)
The Last Great Day. Benjamin Grant Mitchell.
Visions of Distant Shores. Andre Norton (anthology).
A Princess of Mars. Edgar Rice Burroughs. [Great fun, though the stereotypes now make it as much a humour as a sci-fi classic]
Bloody Horowitz. Anthony Horowitz. [An anthology from the British children's writer. For those around 12 years of age, and those 12 at heart).
The Bippolo Seed and Other Lost Stories. Dr. Seuss.

Watching

Fringe, season 3.
Torchwood: Miracle Day.
Letters and Numbers (SBS1) [I'm addicted!]

In Christ's Name

2011-11-05T09:06:00.000+13:00

This thing is going viral at the moment. The hilarious thing is that Pastor Shade (first name 'Burke') is himself a defrocked Presbyterian minister - who then jumped ship from one schismastic body to another. In fact, among those of the Reformed persuasion there seem to be as many schisms as you'll find almost anywhere - acronyms included!

Pastor 'BS'

Now, for those of you who are more familiar with the term 'disfellowship' than 'excommunicate', and have a similar letter tucked away somewhere (or perhaps framed!)... don't you feel so much more 'mainline' knowing that Presbyterian clergy, using almost identical language, can equal the jerk factor along with the very best that the fringe can offer?

Thanks to Bill for the heads up.

Reason vs. Ideology

2011-11-04T19:54:00.000+13:00

The words of the prophets are written, not just on the subway walls, but in the pages of the October 29 New Scientist. In a keynote piece Shaun Lawrence Otto laments the intellectual rot that underlies the anti-science discourse popularised by blowhards like Michele Bachman (a woman raised in the highly anti-intellectual tradition of Wisconsin Synod Lutheranism.) Why does the anti-science lobby have so much undeserved influence?

"Relieved [after WW2] of the burden of selling the value of their research to philanthropists, scientists turned inward and in many ways withdrew from public engagement. University tenure programmes were developed that rewarded research and publication but not public outreach. Scientists who did reach out to the public were often viewed poorly by their peers."

But his observations ring true in other fields as well. Replace the word 'scientists' with 'theologians' and behold, the ring of truth. Think of the snotty reception given to Karen Armstrong, Jack Spong, Bart Ehrman and other superb communicators by their disdainful critics cossetted within the academy.

"Withdrawing from the [public] conversation cedes these discussions to opponents, which is exactly what happened."

Think of creationism, prosperity gospel televangelists and a resurgent, world-hating fundamentalism.

"Postmodernism emerged, drawing on cultural anthropology and relativity to argue that there was no such thing as objective truth. Science was simply the cultural expression of western white men and had no greater claim to the truth than the 'truths' of women and minorities... Many positive things came out of postmodernism but the idea that there is no objective truth is just plain wrong... Without objective truth, all arguments become rhetorical. We are either paralysed in endless debate or we must resort to brute authority."

Again, Otto is talking about science and the challenge of pestiferous delusions - homeopathy springs to mind, though it isn't mentioned - that petulantly demand equal treatment. One of the last theology papers I took was laced with this nonsense. A Bible passage can mean many things, nobody needs to be wrong, we can take what we like from the text and, even if it's completely unrelated to the author's (or redactor's) intentions, that's perfectly okay, the historical-critical approach is so yesterday, blather, blather, blather. Back to Otto:

"A generation of journalists with a postmodern education decided that 'objective' reporting was simply getting varying views of the story, but not taking a position on which represented reality... This [gave] undue exposure to extreme views - a situation that has been compounded by the elimination of most science and investigative reporters from cash-strapped newsrooms."

Creationism has no more legitimate place debating science in the fields of biology and anthropology than any of the origin myths of indigenous cultures. The uninformed, undereducated, lazily anti-intellectual 'pastor' of a 'Bible Church' has no more credibility is expounding scripture than an enthusiastic plumber who has been reading too many copies of Watchtower in his down time, no matter how impressively he struts on stage.

"With every step away from reason and into ideology, the country moves toward a state of tyranny in which public policy comes to be based not on knowledge, but on the most loudly voiced opinions."

Add a 'verily, verily' for extra impact.

Animal Theology or Balaam's Ass?

2011-11-04T16:40:00.000+13:00

Can't you just hear the sainted worthies of times past rolling over in their graves?

Now, Holy Saint Francis Batperson!, there's something called "animal theology."

I suppose it could have been bouncing around for a while, but I confess to have only caught up with the fact.

Maybe someone could design a nice logo... one of those cute renditions of Noah's Ark? Or even better, Balaam's Ass?

Does animal theology include cockroaches and intestinal worms? There is the delightful story of 'Saint' Simeon Stylites the pillar-squatter who, having maggots feeding on his open sores, noticed one of the little fellows fall from his body. Gently the holy man picked it up, so the story goes, and replaced it with the words, "eat what God has given thee."

All very edifying - if you're a maggot. But how come no one is thinking about plant theology? Or are they?

Anyhoo... from Independent Catholic News:

Oxford animal theologian Professor Andrew Linzey has been awarded a top university honour for his pioneering work.

The University of Winchester is to recognise Professor Linzey with an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree in recognition of his work in animal theology in a graduation ceremony on 9 November.

Professor Linzey, who is Director of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, said: "I am delighted to accept this award on behalf of my colleagues at the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics, who are in the forefront of pioneering this subject internationally.”

“Animal ethics is now an emerging discipline with scores of university courses world-wide, and this is a tremendous boost to those working in this field.”

“Animal ethics explores the challenges that new thinking poses, both conceptually and practically, to traditional understandings of human-animal relations.”

Professor Elizabeth Stuart, Senior Pro-Vice-Chancellor commented: “At Winchester we value and celebrate those who champion the voiceless and challenge the dominant paradigms. We shall honour one of the animals’ most thoughtful and passionate champions, someone who I believe will be remembered as one of the most pioneering and influential theologians of his day.”

Professor Linzey was made an Honorary Professor of the University of Winchester in 2007, and in the same year his book Creatures of the Same God was the first to be published by Winchester University Press. He is also co-editor of the Journal of Animal Ethics published by the University of Illinois Press.

“Winchester has one of the most progressive departments of theology in the country, and I am delighted to be associated with it,” said Professor Linzey.

Okay, so I get the animal ethics thing. Yes, it's important. But "animal theology"? How does that work? Isn't the very term itself an oxymoron? What the heck have legitimate issues of animal rights and ethics got to do with some meddling theologian muddying the waters? Yeah, I know, I sound like one of those reactionary old cusses on Grumpy Old Men, but, well, isn't this due cause?

"Winchester has one of the most progressive departments of theology" in Britain? I wouldn't want to argue with that. But maybe also one of the most irrelevant... Is 'animal theology' publicly funded? Will Prof. Linzey's next book be titled, Of Maggots, Mice and Men?

Then again, maybe this is horribly misrespresenting 'animal theology'. Is there anyone who can provide some enlightenment on this 'progressive' branch of theology?

The Great Christian Beer Divide

2011-11-01T22:40:00.000+13:00

There are two types of Christian and, as any good Greek Orthodox communicant can tell you, they ain't Protestant and Catholic.

Simply put, brethren, there are the beer drinkers and the wowsers.

I grew up Lutheran, and the wowsers of my home city were appalled to discover that the gentle, compassionate "we preach Christ crucified" pastor at St. Matthew made wine in his garage. I remember it particularly as the 'scandal' was shared with me, somewhat breathlessly, by a teenage friend with Adventist connections who had made this horrific 'discovery'. Nothing like that in Steps to Christ! I found his consternation quite humorous.

As I morphed into a self-important, intolerant, Bible quoting twenty-something plonker, my allegience shifted to a fundamentalist sect about as far removed from Lutheran orthodoxy as you can get. But one feature remained constant, 'real Christians' could enjoy a beer. And behold, I could even proof text it with a semi-scholarly reference to that marvellous koine word oinos (as in "take a little oinos for thy stomach's sake.") Grape juice? Considering the use of the same term in Revelation, I think not.

Parenthetical qualifier: I've never been drunk in my life, and never failed a breath test. My personal limit is fairly low and as I'm one of those boring people who doesn't like to lose control, there isn't much temptation to excess. To be clear though, people who have a drinking problem should stop and seek help. In my fundamentalist years I became aware that drinking could indeed be a big problem for "Bible-believin'" folk, and especially morally compromised pastors under pressure (which was essentially the entire ordained ministry of that particular sect!) Just like people with religious delusions should swear off their red letter King James Bible, Eddie Long should stay well clear of teenage boys, and those of us a tad heavy on the scales should avoid buckets of KFC, so too with the demon drink. But for most of us that isn't a concern, and I guiltlessly relish a good dark brew with a pub meal and occasionally, in the company of more refined tastes, a glass of red wine.

I know the wowsers have a few choice proof texts of their own, but they've never impressed me. I once attended a men's function organised by the local Baptist church where the guest speaker gave his testimony. He had been a very bad boy before the Lord had come into his life. He had been to Japan on business and imbibed a little saki! Worse, he had moved his lawns on Sunday a couple of times before the light shone down from above. Depravity unparalleled! I couldn't quite work out what he was repenting for...

I mention this in light of a posting by John Petty (reacting to a posting by Timothy Dalrymple.) Why is it that the 'dry evangelicals' find a glass of beer - even a low alcohol brew - such an issue, wouldn't be caught dead with a lawnmower on Sunday, and yet seem so totally blind to the big issues that move out from morbid personal piety into the real world?

Petty concludes his piece thusly:

In taking mainliners to task, Dalrymple makes no reference to any particular Biblical teaching. It appears he believes that his evangelical childhood was, without question, Biblical. He seems to assume that the mores and customs he was taught growing up in an evangelical household pretty much are the Christian faith.

That being the case, it's not surprising that he thinks evangelicals understand the Bible better without seminary training than mainliners do with it:

For instance, students (like myself) who had attended Bible churches or belonged to evangelical fellowships knew the Bible on the first day of the year-long survey course as well as the rest of the students knew the Bible on the final day of that course.

Even allowing for rhetorical license, I doubt that very much.

And that about says it all.

By George!

2011-10-25T23:05:00.000+13:00

The Handbook of Denominations in the United States has gone through thirteen editions, the latest appearing just last year. Unlike so much fluff available on different religious traditions, the Handbook has always attempted to provide "just the facts, ma'am," an objective look at the incredibly diverse communities of faith that both flourish and feud in modern-day America.

I picked up a second hand copy of the 9th edition (1990) a couple of years ago, and found it intriguing. When I discovered that the 2010 edition was available on Kindle, it seemed a no-brainer to update.

You might not be too surprised to learn that the first entry I checked out was Grace Communion International. It's a very fair overview, and one I'd definitely recommend for impartiality and accuracy. So far so good.

The only GCI splinters that get a dedicated entry in the Handbook are the Philadelphia Church of God and the United Church of God. From what I can gather, only bodies with in excess of 5,000 members qualify for a listing, so that's tough luck for Pack and the other minor league wannabes, though I'm not sure why Rod Meredith's group didn't qualify.

But let me quote a bit from the UCG entry.

The United Church of God... was founded by several leaders in the Philadelphia Church of God in 1995 who objected to the leadership of George Flurry.

George Flurry? UCG is a PCG schism?

Well, whatayaknow! Live and learn!

The PCG entry just compounds the same errors. Both were clearly written by the same person who, it seems, didn't know much about the subject and wasn't too bothered to check the facts.

In reality, this seems incredibly sloppy research which has been further compromised by poor editing. Craig Atwood, the current editor, needs to pull his act together if the Handbook is to retain its hard earned credibility, certainly before the 14th edition hits the presses. The publisher, Abingdon, also needs to take a long, hard look at its internal processes. In short: not a good look.

But, on the humorous side of things, you'd have to reflect on the power of the old adage: Say what you like, just spell my name right. Or, in Gerry Flurry's case: If you can't spell my name right, at least choose a near approximation. Who knows, based on the influence of this esteemed volume, future generations of researchers into fringe American sects may be convinced that UCG fits under PCG on the family tree, and that the Flurry cult was founded by some otherwise unknown geezer named George.

Poor old Gerry.

A Klingon Christ?

2011-10-24T23:05:00.000+13:00

What means this Nicene Creed, P'tahk?

It's a question that has surely bothered many of us. How many sleepless nights have you spent worrying whether Jesus died to save all sentient species, or just the human population of planet Terra.

What about Klingons, Romulans and Vulcans? Is Mr. Spock able to enter the pearly gates? Has God incarnated himself separately in gigs on all possible worlds - a kind of universal road show?

Okay, so Spock and co. are fictional creations, but the multiverse is - it seems - a pretty big place, and ETs are likely to be out there somewhere, right?

It's nice to see a heavyweight theologian tackle the big question. Professor Christian Weidemann is on the case. May the Force be with him.

It makes a nice change from the usual stuff German theologians concern themselves with. Read about it yourself in Britain's Daily Mail.

Spanky's 83 minute Swansong?

2011-10-23T11:28:00.000+13:00

Gary over on his blog has recently pointed out that Roderick C. Meredith, "Presiding Evangelist" over the Living Church of God, has produced an in-house doco about... himself, to be aired at his church's annual Feast of Tabernacles celebration. Shades of Colonel Gaddafi?

To put this in context, Meredith is a schismatic senior minister from Herbert Armstrong's failed movement. He once boasted being number three in the divine chain of command ("the government of God"), but then formed his own sect and became number one.

The trouble was that his tame ministers knew his foibles only too well and tried to set up a more collaborative structure. Meredith went ballistic, blamed Satan for the attempt, screamed about disloyalty, abandoned his own newly created sect (the now defunct Global Church of God) and restarted. The result was the Living Church of God (LCG), and this time, you may be sure, there was no doubt about everyone knowing their proper place. Meredith constantly harps on about 'top-down church government'. Any concept of voting is anathema in his sect. Nevertheless Meredith portrays himself (with, you have to say, some pride) as a humble man - and it seems he has much to be humble about!

Gary asks some pertinent questions about the Meredith PR film.

I wonder if it talked about how Meredith claims he has never committed a major sin since baptism. Or how he made the membership and ministers' lives miserable when he was over the ministry. Did they include Meredith standing up in Tuscon [and publicly] bad mouthing Leona McNair [former wife of fellow evangelist Raymond McNair] causing him and the WCG to get sued? Did it include film of Rod screaming and throwing a fit in the Auditorium during the receivership [including a public shoving match with fellow evangelist Wayne Cole that was reported in the Los Angeles Times]? Did it include film of HWA removing him from office and banishing him from Pasadena for a year? Did they include film of him planning to form a splinter cult while the WCG was defending him in court for his loud mouth [over the McNair case]? Did they include film when he refused to reimburse hundreds of thousands of dollars that members loaned him to start Global Church of God after he jumped ship to form Living Church of God? Did they include film of Raymond and Eve McNair on their knees in front of him asking for forgiveness "with trembling lips?"

Well, having tied myself to a chair and viewed the whole 83 minutes, I can confirm all of Gary's doubts. Nor did they include the story of how, at a time the Armstrong movement shunned medical intervention, Rod was given special dispensation to undergo eye surgery because he was just too important not to. Others, of less exalted stature, simply died as a result of the 'healing doctrine'.

I get the feeling that this whole, long monologue of self-justification (introduced by Rod's brother-in-law and anointed heir Dick Ames) is more than just an embarrasing "auto-hagiography". Meredith, as he comes to the close, confirms Ames as his worthy successor, and warns against rival pretenders. The passing on of the torch may not be too far distant.

You'll need a great deal of patience to watch this entire film. If you're in to the history of Armstrongism you may enjoy the photographs that have been pulled out of the Meredith/Ames shoe boxes from long years past, but be prepared for long, rambling reminisces that retell history to show Rod in the best possible light. Garner Ted Armstrong gets three passing references, the receivership crisis one, Flurry one, and Stan Rader none. Joe Jr. is referred to only obliquely as "the bearded one."

Those with time on their hands, and an appreciation for unintended humour, can view the whole sheebang here:
Living Church of God: Sermon - Feast of Tabernacles 2011: Behind the Work

Bibliolatry backfire

2011-10-22T22:57:00.001+13:00

Long after breaking free from a particular high demand form of fundamentalism, many people still carry around the associated baggage of assumptions. One of the most toxic sets is about the Bible.

Some people are led straight back into another brand of straight-jacketed faith. Dr Pepper is simply substituted for Pepsi. That's the obvious danger.

But what about passionately rejecting the Bible, as if the fundamentalist position was the only way the Bible could be read meaningfully? When that particular ship goes down, so does any residual regard for the book it abused.

No, the Bible isn't an instruction manual, infallible, inerrant, or even uniformly ethical. It certainly isn't possible to read it literally as history, whether in Exodus or Acts. Yes, it's dangerous in the hands of idiots and televangelists. But, quite apart from those very real considerations, at minimum it's an indispensable link to our past, our culture and language. So little survives from the ancient world's literature, the links preserved in the Bible are precious.

But only precious if the fallibility and limitations of the texts are recognised. And how dopey is it to ignore the various conventions of genre that make up the Bible? We don't have much trouble acknowledging this with Homer or Herodotus, yet - and can't you just feel the vapours rising - Jonah, Genesis and Revelation can't possibly be treated with the same detachment, can they?

The problem is that nobody anchors their ethics on Homer, or seeks counsel from the Gilgamesh Epic before making a significant life-changing decision. The Bible is however a fund of stories which bears that burden, and read critically and honestly, can effectively confront us with a critique on life and values and perhaps even an encounter with the Ultimate. For Christians it's important that these are shared stories, part of a common fund that all can draw on, unlike something on the New York Times bestseller list or the latest episode of Downton Abbey. Sometimes the text rings true from the outset; think of many of the parables. At other times any sane reader couldn't help but recoil in horror as they enter into the text - texts, for example, that glorify Bronze Age tribalism and xenophobia, wrapped in the obscene language of divine authorisation. If you're going to read the Bible profitably, you've got to know the difference. Our response cannot and must not default to a prayerful, passive acceptance, but sometimes a screamed 'No!'

Where to begin? For those who are 'over' the Bible, perhaps their ship has already well and truly left port. If the path of personal liberation requires that, fair enough and godspeed. But for those still attached, maybe a first step is to retire their familiar fundamentalist Bible, the "faith enhancing" translation with the slavish marginalia. Substituting a HarperCollins Study Bible or New Oxford Annotated Bible wouldn't be bad places to begin. Anyone with a Life Application Study Bible is swimming in swill, and something like the ESV Study Bible is no better (and arguably worse). The King James Version can be appreciated for its literary aesthetics, but not much else. Obsequious notes and dishonest translation choices (e.g. virgin for young woman in Isaiah 7:14) are a sure indication that the reader is still soaking their head in those fundamentalist assumptions.

The Quintessential Concise

2011-10-19T15:26:00.000+13:00

If you write for a blog, even a scrappy little pretender like Otagosh, you need a decent dictionary. Spell checkers alone just don't cut it, as many of us have discovered to our cost when typing to instead of too. Nothing advertises the fact that you're an amateur (Jim West would say dilettante) as much as a glaring typo in the midst of a piece of serious writing.

I mention this because, as well as being the 400th anniversary of ye olde King James Version this year, its also the 100th anniversary of the quintessential decent dictionary, the Concise Oxford.

To mark the occasion, Oxford have released the twelfth edition of the Concise, along with a reprint of the 1911 first edition. While this may elicit a chorus of yawns from the back pews, I for one am thoroughly intrigued. Intrigued enough to spend good money acquiring copies of both. The former tome that sat next to the desk-top computer, the 2000 New Penguin English Dictionary, can now be retired to classroom use, and the battered, coffee-stained copy of the 1980s COD that I've been persevering with there can finally be put out of its misery.

The 1911 Concise is a fascinating study in how words change. It's not so much in the words that have been added to the language since 1911, but those that have dropped out completely. No longer may a blobber-lipped Boanerges create bobbery by counseling a beaverteen-coated benedick after services at the Beulah. The discretely worded definitions of certain less elevated terms, designed to cause minimum offence, are a period-piece in themselves also.

Equally intriguing is the fact that, chucked in free and gratis with a Kindle, is the full Oxford Dictionary of English (along with the New Oxford American Dictionary) from which the twelfth Concise is derived. Dictionaries are going to be with us forever, but a scant century after the Fowler brothers produced the first Concise, the momentum is gathering to move from dead trees to e-readers. The days of the door-stop dictionary are seemingly numbered.

Which is kind of sad.

While on the topic, look out for Stephen Fry's brilliant Planet Word, a BBC series telling "the story of language from the earliest grunts to Twitter and beyond." It'll take a while before it's screened in this part of Her Majesty's Dominions, but the book of the series is already out (in New Zealand, but not apparently in the US where you'll have to settle for the e-book version in the meantime.)

Link to 1911 Oxford Concise Dictionary on Amazon.
Link to Amazon's Kindle version of Planet Word.

Spare the Rod

2011-10-17T21:49:00.003+13:00

Samuel Martin draws attention to an IVP title, Corporal Punishment in the Bible by William J. Webb. This is the sort of book that needs to circulate wherever people attempt to apply biblical texts to everyday life. Let's face it, Christians still form a sizable rump of corporal punishment advocates and, seeking to justify it, appeal to the Bible.

Martin, son of former Ambassador College professor Ernest L. Martin, has long championed an alternative perspective. Those who still find corporal punishment acceptable include not just biblical literalists but, incredibly, Australian Presbyterians. Webb's book has the endorsement of a variety of leading figures within the evangelical fold including I. Howard Marshall (who wrote the foreward) and Darrell Bock. Jim West has posted a brief review online.

Webb challenges parents to "dare to read the Bible differently." All power to him.

Details on 'Corporal Punishment in the Bible' at Amazon

Before the Apocalypse

2011-10-16T15:16:00.001+13:00

Captain Ritchie McCaw contemplating a dish of Wallaby Stew

Today is the 16th, and I'll admit to being nervous. Tonight New Zealand's finest go forth to face the ancient foe on the sacred grounds of Eden Park. The fate of the world hangs in the balance.

Last night the gallant Welsh were put to the sword by the French. The French! Unbelievable. I've sworn off French Toast for the rest of the month!

Lest there be any misunderstanding, I'm talking about Rugby; real football. Not (shudder) Aussie Rules or that effete deviation common in the United States (the one with helmets and shoulder pads). And tonight New Zealand meets Australia in the second World Cup semi-final.

In the wake of Wales' tragic defeat, and the clock relentlessly ticking down to tonight's struggle between the forces of evil and the black-clad Sons of Light, it was a choice, this morning, between prayer and fasting, or retail therapy. I opted for the latter.

But I'm not sure it's worked.

And imagine - if such a ghastly thing can be imagined - if the Australians did, by some miracle (a demonic miracle) did beat the All Blacks and went on to play France in the finals...

I mean, who could you even consider cheering for?

Ben Mitchell story online

2011-10-14T20:42:00.000+13:00

A nod to Felix, who discovered the link to the Ben Mitchell story reported on here some time ago. Ben tells his story of life growing up in the dysfunctional Worldwide Church of God as a kid. The clip is from Australia's A Current Affair. It may not be online forever, so see it while you can.

I'm about 16 chapters into Ben's semi-autobiographical novel, The Last Great Day, at the moment, and will post some comments in a few days time.

Historical bottom lines

2011-10-13T18:02:00.000+13:00

Thomas Verenna passes on the question: What events recorded in scripture must be historical for you to affirm the truthfulness of Christianity?

The source of this puzzler is Brian LePort's blog. It's a great question. Can there even be a coherent theology without some kind of historical base, or does it just all turn to custard? Can the assertion that the moon is made of Swiss Cheese be factually inaccurate while still being deeply meaningful and revelatory?

Cutting edge philosopher/theologians like Don Cupitt long ago cut loose from the Grand Narrative. Perhaps that's why their perspective no longer looks distinctly Christian any more.

At the other end of the spectrum are the fundamentalists (Tom cites the United Church of God as his example!) who want you to believe absolutely everything. Somewhere in the middle, unctuously impaled on the fence, are the poster boys of ponderous prevarication (N. T. Wright anyone?)

Maybe we could break Brian's question down into some representative 'True or False' bite-size chunks.

Adam and Eve were literally the progenitors of humanity.
Satan is a fallen archangel in rebellion against God.
There was a worldwide flood that wiped all life off the face of the earth in the time of Noah.
God made the sun stand still so Joshua could wipe out his enemies thoroughly.
God commanded bloody genocide against the Canaanites in the Old Testament.
Daniel knew what was going to happen hundreds of years into the future.
Key events in Jesus' life were accurately predicted in Isaiah, Psalms etc.
Mary was a virgin when she fell pregnant.
Jesus turned water into wine.
Jesus rose from the dead in bodily form three days after the crucifixion.

Score ten for each which you feel are true (i.e. definitely historical), five for those you think might be historical but equally might not, and zero for those you think are patently false (i.e. pious inventions).

If you score 85-100, do you consider yourself a fundamentalist? If not, why not?

If you score 0, do you necessarily consider yourself a non-Christian? If not, why not?

Cult of Denial

2011-10-13T09:57:00.001+13:00

Some demented "pastor" joker recently called Mormonism a cult, and given that the next president of the US could well be a Latter-day Saint, the outrage has been swift. Even some evangelicals - evangelicals - have been crying foul.

Now I wouldn't describe the LDS church as a cult. Nor the SDAs, JWs, or a hundred other sects that defy in some way the brain-dead conventions of orthodoxy. The sad truth is that I kinda admire some, in a jaundiced, skeptical, raising-of-an-eyebrow fashion. And, yep, the use of the word 'cult', especially when used as a theological club, is extremely poor form.

But I still use it to describe high demand religious movements that micromanage the lives of adherents, especially intellectually, and impose punitive measures on those who don't conform to the letter of their legislation. It becomes even more problematic when those in charge have no line of accountability, ruling by fear and authority, without the slightest mandate.

Okay, we could use the term "high demand religious movement" instead, but let's face it, it doesn't even begin to convey the malice against the human spirit - evil even - that these groups can perpetrate. No, the LDS church isn't like that now, and hasn't been that way for a very long time, but can you say that about the FLDS sect?

It just doesn't cut it to merely call groups like these 'New Religious Movements', as if they're just promoting a new Tupperware product.

I am a former member of a high demand NRM. Was it a cult? Or more to the point, did it deserve the opprobrium of being labelled as a 'cult'? It depended on when you asked; NRMs tend to be unstable entities, evolving rapidly. There were times it scored low on the cult continuum (the late 1970s for example), despite the impassioned shrieks of the cult busters like Salem Kirban and his ilk. There were others when the groups' dynamic turned from mildly toxic to downright lethal. People actually died because of church doctrine and discipline. Groups like these aren't about what people believe in their heads - doctrinal purity is an illusion. They're about control, and they're about the people who are manipulated by those who are supposed to 'serve' as leaders.

'Cult' therefore remains in my vocabulary, though I think voters should be more concerned about Mitt Romney's policies rather than his faith commitment..

From Tech to Toaster

2011-10-13T00:49:00.001+13:00

I hate it when the Internet goes down. Specifically, when the ISP, in this case the usually dependable Slingshot, has a hernia and service drops out for what seems hours on end. Not that it happens often, it doesn't. But on those rare occasions when it does, boy do you know it!

Tonight was such a night. Not only did Firefox spit at me, the Kindle conked and my smart phone morphed from android to toaster.

Isn't it amazing just how dependant we've become on the technology. I can't imagine living without globe-girdling communication, and it's a creature of but yesterday.

Douglas Adams categorised "technology" under three headings.

There's the stuff that was already here when you were born, which we find completely normal and take for granted - toasters, telephones, cake mixers, TV and radios.

There's the technology that comes on the scene during your lifetime, but before you turn thirty. This is regarded as the cool stuff: video tapes, desktop computers, FM radio (you'll need to adapt the list to suit your own age group).

Anything after the brain cells atrophy at thirty is completely pointless and probably threatening. I mean, do we need to text shopping lists, and won't it stunt teenagers' brains and destroy their ability to spell and use punctuation? Think back to your parents' puzzlement at the innovations you loved.

And don't you just hate it when technology that still blows your mind is simply blasé to the kids?

I'm reminded of a conversation with a colleague a week or so back. She hit thirty some thirty years ago, and was complaining about being unable to pick up Maori Television for the free-to-air coverage of Rugby World Cup pool games. When I sensitively and solicitously suggested that she was almost definitely the last New Zealander standing who hadn't migrated from analogue across to either Sky or Freeview the dear lady was unimpressed, suggesting I had a fixation on 'boys toys'. Well, quite possibly... but what's her point?

As for tonight's outage outrage, Slingshot has picked up its pebbles and is back in action. Phew!

The Teflon Apostle

2011-10-12T23:40:00.000+13:00

Some of the hard questions we're unwilling to ask about Jesus, we may be prepared to ask about Paul, the man who, in those early years following the crucifixion, picked up the ball that the original disciples were fumbling with, and ran off with it.

Yet most of us don't. Paul's writings, in fact, are often used to “overrule” the sayings attributed to Jesus.

In New Zealand Jim Veitch is a well known figure in field of religious studies. A professor at Victoria University in Wellington and a member of the Jesus Seminar, he is an advocate for an unvarnished portrait of the apostle to the nations.

“In one sense the problem we have with Saint Paul is similar to that which we have with Jesus. Both are elusive figures of history who have become hidden in the folds of human piety and devotion, and encased in doctrine and belief...”

In the third chapter of Rediscovering the Apostle Paul Veitch calls for a quest for the historical Paul, over the objections of all those who have smoked one too many theological joints.

“The church is probably no more interested in a truly historical Paul than in an authentically historical Jesus. To discover the truth about either – let alone declare a no holds-barred, uncensored version of it – threatens and intimidates the church and its congregations.”

“Theologically, Pauline scholarship is at the center of the church's search for identity...”

Reason, perhaps for “the persistence in trying to resolve these matters theologically and not historically.”

Veitch briefly surveys the great and the good who have already passed this way; Baur (who “tried to penetrate behind the smokescreen of the sainthood of Paul to the real individual”), Schweitzer, Bultmann, W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders. What is needed now, Veitch writes, is “an open and honest search for the Paul of history.”

The theologically-minded will scream, pound their fists and pout at a suggestion like this. Either, like Veitch, you're hard-wired to want an objective vantage point on matters like these, or you're hard-wired to run off into the sacred wilderness where the imagination can take full flight, spawning demons and dogma, and where “the full armour of God” is coated in reality-repelling Teflon.

Paul: Profound or Confused

2011-10-09T15:23:00.000+13:00

Heikki Raisanen's contribution to Rediscovering the Apostle Paul is entitled "A Controversial Jew". Among the insights he brings to his subject is the apparent difficulty we have in making much coherent sense out of Paul's writings. What is his position on the observance of the Torah for Jews? Are Jews saved in the same manner as Gentiles, or is the Gentile gospel a special arrangement - a limited time offer, if you will - in view of the 'fact' that Jesus is returning awfully soon? "I think", writes Raisanen, "that Paul's relation to his Jewish heritage was ambiguous at best... Paul picked and chose what he would and would not observe from the Torah."

"Could it not be that there are conflicting tendencies in Paul's own mind?"

Well, no Heikki, just ask any of those nice systematic theologians that plague the Reformed tradition.

Why did the confusion arise anyway? Raisanen suggests the development of Christianity as a separate, detached faith from Judaism was marked by the need for ad hoc decisions from its inception: "As so often, practice probably preceded theory... new experiences seem to have triggered a bold reinterpretation of Jewish tradition... [Paul] is desperately trying to solve a problem which proves to be too difficult."

"Paul first became a missionary sponsored by the congregation of Antioch, the home-base of the Hellenists. But when his views grew more radical, the Antiochians broke with him, and he had to continue his work independently."

"Paul is struggling to make sense of a strong tension between his inherited values and his new convictions."

No wonder we have so much difficulty trying to put the pieces back together again today. Humpty Dumpty is, perhaps, beyond the systematising ministrations of the interpreters. Does God, for example, predestine hapless mortals to glory or destruction? Read some of Paul's arguments, and it certainly seems so. But read on and he seems to drop the whole idea. "Future generations of Christians would have been spared a great deal of anxiety and despair, if Paul had not tried it at all."

It's not as though we can just play one book off against another, claiming that Paul's "mature" view is the one to follow.

"... some scholars assume that Paul's theology underwent a substantial development between Galatians and Romans. But the thesis presented at the end of Romans 11 is also quite different from the thesis argued a couple of pages earlier in chapter 9."

Darn. Was Paul making it up on the hoof? Isn't it clear that, if not completely incoherent in places, the Apostle was at least embarrassingly inconsistent?

"Paul is found consistent only if the interpreter knows how to tell the coherent kernel from the unimportant husk."

And therein lies the trick. A fibre-free gospel? Just ask the All Bran brigade about the pitfalls of that strategy.

"Do not the attempts to find in Paul coherence at all costs betray a kind of docetism?"

Docetism, maybe. Or just plain dishonesty and special pleading?

Raisanen concludes with the plea that, instead of deferring to Paul as an authority, a know-it-all to whom (if we can only work out what he's actually saying) we must kow-tow, we should embrace him as a discussion partner. A somewhat befuddled discussion partner it seems.