The privilege of Simon & Garfunkel

Christchurch is where it's at...

My sister & brother-in-law have a lovely house on a lovely section and Canterbury really does have lovely weather. I have a lovely new niece, Tara Margaret. She's beautiful.

My mother, who always teaches me what love and service is, has just turned 50. Her family (parents, children, and two grandchildren) have gathered around to honour her. It's lovely to be with them.

My sister, who is made in the image of her mother, is a God-fearing woman who teaches her children what YHWH is like. She, too, gives herself completely to the task of nurture, and makes me wonder at the love she shows. 15-month old Tai, her son and my nephew, is a delightful & obedient boy who is completely privileged to have the parents he does. The world is shaped on the knees of its mothers.

Tai thinks I'm the bee's knees, and that's lovely too. It's lovely to be with my grandparents, father and brother.

I am still working on learning Flash, and it's nice that I don't have to stop working while being here. But I'm not on a fast connection & email becomes a bit of a problem, so I'm not really in 'office mode'.

There's a chance I'll see some old friends before I leave on the 31st, and if so that will be lovely.

It's all good under God. We are unaccountably blessed.

?

Does anybody know (I mean actually, not just speculatively) about any distinction made in Reformed theology between man being made IN the image of God and man being made AS the image of God?

And (introduce speculation) does anybody have any idea as to what such a distinction MIGHT be?

Cheers

In respect of women

Ask yourself: Will this satisfy
a woman satisfied to bear a child?
Will this disturb the sleep
of a woman near to giving birth?

An extract from Manifesto: The Mad Farmer Liberation Front, by Wendell Berry (via Matt B.)

A small triumph:

Last year I failed miserably to learn object-oriented programming in Java. A week ago I set it as a goal to achieve, but in Flash. I need to do this in order to develop a product for my company.

After all, it is fairly silly being the co-founder of an IT company and not being able to program a line of code. And I am happy to announce that I have just whiteboarded my first object-oriented data interaction. Yeah.

Silliman says in part,

"Hell is other people, the man said, but very very few people. Certain people. The ones we call at 4 a.m., the ones we write letters to in our head, the ones where all our conversations are catalogued, the ones we've known so long and so well they're part of the reason we are who we are."

So true, that. A very few people shape us. In a novel I'm reading at the moment (Shogun, James Clavell), a powerful fuedal lord says that a good enemy can be better than a friend in terms of helpfulness; in another novel by the same author (King Rat), the narration talks about dwelling within pain, so as to dominate and bear it. These seemingly random thoughts come together in my head to say that

to be aware of what is influencing you and why is to have the power to change it, or to use it as you will

Somehow, I suspect something of Anthony Robbins got thrown in that subversive meltingpot that is my subconscious, too. I listened to some of him day before yesterday.

The same reader comments, regarding the 10 commandments below:

I'm still a patch uncerty about 2 and 3. I can see where you are coming from (and the points are true and sensible) but i cannot see how they bear out in the words of the commandments themselves, seems fairly cut and dry to me.

Again, the question is a good one, I think.

The answer is in the way we read the words. Words import a background understanding - their surface meaning "to us" depends on what we import. The Isrealite background meant that they read the words in a way significantly different to us, who have 2000 years' background in a Greek philosophy of "God-ness" and 500 years of anti-Catholic concern against "images". Put them together, and you have our modern reading which says "don't try and represent my God-ness with your images". We read the words as a denial that anything creaturely can properly represent God-ness. This seems completely 'natural' to us.

But I think the Hebrew background suggests another meaning: a history of man created in God's image, to whom the creation would bow, makes the words mean "don't try and represent YHWH with another image, to which you will bow." Put positively, "you be my images".

The difference between these meanings is substantial. The first is a philosophical concern about how the essence of divinity can be represented by anything creaturely; the second is a concern to ensure that Israel actually does her job. The first gets us into endless, non-productive arguments and fractured an entire Christian community; the second tells us that the results of the first are very, very wrong. In other words, it actually applies to our lives, and not just to our philosophical intellects, self-immunised from any challenge to their fruit because they defend 'the truth'.

I think there is too much in the Christian tradition - especially in the tradition of the Reformation - that has become philosophised. We're constantly encouraged not to think that theology is dry and boring. But there's a reason we think it is - it actually is. So, the sooner we can recover the proper meanings in the story, we'll discover a rich and vibrant challange like "don't you dare replace yourselves as My image!". Maybe only then can we pull ourselves out of this never-ending defense of intellectualised 'truth', stop the insane fracturing of the church, and actually recover what it really means to be the people of God. And maybe THEN people would be attracted to the king instead of being repelled what his followers are like.

A reader asks,

"Also, is not false worship also being half hearted (in praying, praising, doing good, etc.)"

I thought this was a very good question, and the answer is worth expanding and broadcasting :)

Answer: It depends. Diverting the issue of 'worship' into 'what happens in a sunday service', into "prayer and praise" is part of the problem I'm trying to address. All too often prayer and praise is thought of as "worship", and the rest forgotten - which is why we have so many arguments about liturgy etc. We somehow think it's more important. But "worship" should be characterised as "doing honour to God".

The fact that we periodically perform a formal ritual to express ceremonial honour to God doesn't turn everything else into not-worship. Rather, the ritual should shape and inform the rest of life (and so it's very important: it is, truly, symbolic worship. Which is why the breaking of bread together in worship is so important - around one table we become one family, children and all). But the rest of life is where the real content of worship is found - where we 'live out' the ceremony. So, failing to "do good" is certainly something that is false worship.

In an age of electronic transfers, instant communications, and computer-based recording, I find it highly offensive that the medical clinic at which I was a patient charges $5 to fax a presecription to the chemist.

I don't care what else is said, THAT is a deliberate rip-off for people who can't go and pick the damn thing up.

To add insult to injury, the chemist then charges $2 to process a faxed 'script. All this on top of the $13 that the doctor charges to write it.

So that's $18 to get a piece of paper to "allow" me to order drugs I know I need and that I didn't need any consultation over. When was the last time you paid someone $18 to get your shopping list? So, the outcome here is effectively a form of legalised bribery: nothing will happen unless you grease the only supply system that's allowed to exist.

GRRRRRR

false worship = false representation of God

false worship = hitting your wife (Christ loved his bride enough to die for her)
false worship = oppresion (YHWH is just)
false worship = slander, rage, malice and gossip (YHWH is love)
false worship = factions and divisions (YHWH reunites, making one body out of many)
false worship = divorce (YHWH is longsuffering and loves forever)
false worship = adultery (YHWH is faithful)
fasle worship = cruelty to animals and destruction of the creation (YHWH is a healer, restoring and rebuilding)
false worship = excluding children from Lord's Supper ("Suffer the little children to come unto me, for to such as these belongs the kingdom of heaven")

"Who are these who trample my courts?"

false worship does not equal hymns or drums or pictures of Christ

The Ten Commandments to Israel

1. I'm your God
2. You're my images
3. Be my images properly
4. Give yourselves and your animals periodic rest
5. Treat your parents with due respect
6. Don't kill wrongly (uphold living)
7. Don't unite with someone who's not your own flesh (be faithful to covenants)
8. Don't take what isn't yours (work hard)
9. Don't tell lies about another (be honest about another's goodness)
10. Don't plot against the wealth of another (preserve prosperity)

Weariness

After working for close to 36 hours straight, on two seperate occasions I fall asleep in my chair and some pillick in the office takes these...








And while I'm at it...

when I had (some) hair

Tool, Lateralus, The Patient

A groan of tedium escapes me, startling the fearful.
Is this a test?
It has to be. otherwise I can’t go on.
Draining patience. drain vitality.
This paranoid, paralyzed vampire act’s a little old.

But I’m still right here, giving blood and keeping faith. and I’m still right
Here.
But I’m still right here, giving blood and keeping faith. and I’m still right
Here.

I’m gonna wait it out

If there were no rewards to reap,
No loving embrace to see me through this tedious path I’ve chosen here,
I certainly would’ve walked away by now.

I’m gonna wait it out

If there were no desire to heal
The damaged and broken met along this tedious path I’ve chosen here,
I certainly would’ve walked away by now.

I still may. and I still may.
Be patient.

I must keep reminding myself of this...

If there were no rewards to reap,
No loving embrace to see me through this tedious path I’ve chosen here,
I certainly would’ve walked away by now.
And I still may. and I still may. and I still may.

I’m gonna wait it out.
I’m gonna wait it out.
Gonna wait it out.
Gonna wait it out.

I never used to appreciate Dilbert but...well, this is pure genius:

Note to self:

daniel silliman (http://www.danielsilliman.blogspot.com) @ 03/01/2004 18:44:

aaron,

See http://www.sillimandoc.blogspot.com/2003_04_01_sillimandoc_archive.html#93498317 and http://www.danielsilliman.blogspot.com/2003_11_09_danielsilliman_archive.html#106863115535715854 (#l) for what I've said about Van Til.

To wander, perchance to dance.

Mark Blumsky said yesterday that he'd interview 207 companies for Creative HQ. He's let 16 in. that we are one of them made me feel proud.

OK, some interaction with commenters:

Dan: Questions of truth depend on what you mean by it. Philosophically, I don't think 'truth' means 'a form of words backed up by the facts' - justified propositions. For a start, I don't think that there are such things as 'facts', at least insofar as they appear gloriously naked, 'objectively' isolated from the perceptions generated by our language and our 'form-of-life'.

In the biblical narrative, I think that 'truth' is an idea like 'reliable', 'trustworthy'. And it's got to do, primarily, with God's promises and character. Truth is a deeply personal thing in scripture. YHWH is said to be true, not because his existence can be proved, but because his promises and character are steadfast and faithful. As images of God, our interest should be in becoming rocks of steadfast faithfulness, in terms of the way our words & character bring others to live rich, full and peaceful lives - that is, the shalom of God.

Creeds and confessions, especially when influenced by systematic theology, tend to treat the biblical narrative as a jumble of theological facts which have been carefuly sifted and rearranged into some sort of logical order. This very often occurs in response to some particular philosophical questions, or at the least is done in the context of prevailing philosophical obsessions. The logical order is then considered the 'reality', the Truth, behind the jumbled narrative, and is used to guide any reading of the narrative. Thus, the concerns of the system are read back into the text, which then receives its 'clarification'.

But this Truth is radically depersonalised, and exists without people and beyond people. It is no longer the narrative spoken by attested spokesmen and carried forward by the Spirit as a story embodied in a living community. Insofar as it is held to be "the truth of God's Word" (meaning, 'the correct interpretation of Scripture'), it is no longer an expression of the trustworthiness of God, worked out in living reality. It's merely a series of objectively isolated, gloriously naked theological 'facts'. What results is a perversion of the truth, and of God's word (see below & my response to Ruth for more about truth and word). Consequently, systematic theology and the theological description of Truth that it produces tends to be very de-motivating - dry, abstract, boring. People tell and live within stories, not the maths equations that systematic theology makes of scripture. But systematic Truth is very good for beating people with, very good for arguing over, and very good as a glorious (and pious-sounding) cause - "Truth!" - over which to impale the unity of the church, relationships, and peace. That's why this conception of Truth has produced such ugly, useless churches.

In short, it's very bad for establishing God's truth - his reliability.

Al, as you can see, I'm right with you. I agree completely.

Ruth, as above, two good examples of a shonky reading of the text, driven by systematics, are the motifs of God's word and 'truth' itself. The former is almost always read as meaning 'the 66 books of the Canon', when actually it means 'the expectations generated by God within and through the covenant'. The latter is often read, wrongly, as 'justified propositions about God', such as 'God exists', 'God is Trinity', etc. See Rom 3:18-32 for an excellent instance of an often misread use of 'truth'. Paul's real concern when he uses the phrase 'truth of God' here is the reliability of God, his faithfulness, which he asserts against the testimony made by covenant apostates (Paul is probably thinking primarily of the Jews, here) who imply by their unfaithfulness that God can't be trusted. His argument begins in 1:16, and continues (with development into an explanation of how God's word is fulfilled, and thus how God is proved faithful) until at least chapter 5. But his actual thought and the foundation of his argument in 1-18:32 is invariably buried beneath a 'total depravity' view of the passage, which speaks of the 'truth of God' as metaphysical facts that all people are meant to know, deep down somewhere, but suppress in unrighteousness. This butchers the passage completely. But the total depravity view is a primary building-block of Reformed systematics, and so is imposed on the passage, which then becomes a major 'proof-text'.

Alan, I trust I've now said enough to show that I do know a wee bit more than any short rant will demonstrate. But I agree with you - slogans such as the ones I threw around will not satisfy a sceptic who knows enough to recognise them as slogans. Thanks for your comments.

Someone in a debate that I happened across asks:

"...does [NT] Wright here or elsewhere unambiguously affirm that the penalty paid by Christ is the perfect, complete atoning sacrifice as payment of the penalty of the law, such that at the point of faith the believer is forever united to Christ, forever saved and forgiven, never again, in any way, to be subject to God’s wrath, all apart from any future moral or sacramental work? Can or does Wright unequivocally affirm a distinctly Reformed view of the sufficiency and efficiency of Christ’s penal substitutionary sacrifice?"

If that's how being Reformed requires me to use the words 'faith', 'believer', and the phrase 'forever united to Christ', then I'm renouncing a Reformed identity. 'Cause that may be Reformed systematic theology, but it ain't biblical usage. And I will NOT be held to ransom by the arrogance of a bankrupt tradition which thinks its own polemical usage trumps original meaning. For, at that point, anything's possible. The prophets and apostles are made whores to 21st century sectarian agendas.

Sometimes I detest what's become of the modern church - or at least, stupid protestants. Up with alternative movements, I say.

Some people, reading what I post to a messageboard called WrightSaid, are encouraging me to publish my stuff in a more accessible forum. They think it's helpful. (WrightSaid can only by read by members, although membership is open.) I'm thinking of doing that here, or of applying the company software to the task.

If I post here, I have the feeling maybe 5% of you might read 5% of it. Which won't bother me (it's you who'll miss out, ahehehe), but this blog doesn't cater to divisions of subject-matter well. And my typical post doesn't reflect the 3-second sound-byte generation well - in other words, it actually makes an argument. I posted one yesterday that was 2,500 words - but even Matt, whose length of reading focus is only just longer than his period of wakefulness after a beer, said he liked it ;).

Peter Leithart's shiny new blog is the shizz, in respect of organization. So maybe I will, after all, have to use our half-developed software.

Ok, so I had a Dilbert strip here, but read that I wasn't allowed. So here's the link. Enjoy.

Extroverted (E) 70% Introverted (I) 30% Imaginative (N) 58.82% Realistic (S) 41.18% Emotional (F) 60% Intellectual (T) 40% Organized (J) 57.58% Easygoing (P) 42.42% Your type is: ENFJ You are a Persuader, possible professions include - entertainer, recruiter, artist, newscaster, writer/journalist, recreation director, librarian, facilitator, politician, psychologist, housing director, career counselor, sales trainer, travel agent, program designer, corporate/team trainer, child welfare worker, social worker (elderly services), interpreter/translator, occupational therapist, executive

Take Free Career Inventory Personality Test