MetaCatholic

Well done to John Hobbins (all of them) for a massive three-parter Carnival, where John apologises for not including everything! He does, mind you, have a lot to say between the links, but it’s all very entertaining. And it’s so on time!

OTOH this makes those of us who are lined up for future carnivals distinctly queasy at the thought. Outclassed before we’ve started. I’m down for 34 in October, and good luck to Michael Halcomb on following this next month!

Catching up on the blogs after a couple of days at a conference, there are a few posts that have caught my eye.

Michael Bird has a questioning post about Pauline equality and inclusion in Gal 3:28. If this was indeed a simple “neither … nor” (οὐκ … οὐδὲ) then I think the case for a new identity that embraces the old one would be stronger. The problem is of course the last in the sequence “not male and female” (οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ). Given the Genesis echo, and in the light of what Paul says elsewhere about new creation, I think it is hard to avoid a transforming and transcending of identity, if not a negating.

The possibility of a fight between James Crossley and Jim West over the study of reception history of the Bible as the future of biblical studies. One question it seems to me James doesn’t address, but which might in some ways be the most interesting is how the study of the reception of biblical texts might / could / should be influenced by the ways in which the one doing the study receives the texts. But I disagree with Jim that “Historical Theology” is simply reception history. They’re related, not coterminous, even in Protestantism.

Probably for Anglicans only, and then again only for those of somewhat obsessive-compulsive anorak tendencies comes this listing of bishops’ blogs for the Lambeth Conference (HT Targuman)

I’m baffled by the way in which the subordination of women seems to be becoming a renewed tenet of some forms of evangelical orthodoxy as ideas from the Us culture wars cross the pond. See this post by Dave Warnock. In the name of taking a “biblical” position on women, the frankly appalling Mark Driscoll (see this post) is very clear that family must come before church. As Jesus said. Not.

The Times’ Faith Central tells you something you probably didn’t know about John Lennon, not least his religious confusion. The interview begins about 23 minutes in. This link will not be live long.

Since asking for submissions I have discovered that Tyler forgot he had asked me to do the July Carnival, and has lined up Jim Getz. Send your submissions to him instead. Originally he’d asked me to do the June one then decided he wanted to do it himself. I think it highly likely it might have appeared by now had I been doing it, so colour me mildly pissed off all round.

Just before he dropped off the face of the earth (hopefully not because of any serious problems relocating his mother) Tyler asked me if I would do the next Biblical Studies Carnival. This should be Carnival 31, although I don’t know what the non-appearance (so far) of 30 will do to that numbering.

My own view is that June has been a slow and meagre month for posting on the Bible, so I’d be grateful if those who read a wider variety of blogs could actually offer some submissions. Please let me have your suggestions (remember they must be related to the critical study of Scripture) of good blog entries posted during the month of June.

Please ignore the normal carnival address and send them to doug dot chaplin at gmail dot com.

Time for a quick round as May hits the mid-point (where is this year going?). Here are just a small sample of the things catching my eye in one way or another.

Duane Smith comments on a letter by Einstein, in which the twentieth century’s most iconic brainbox says “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses” Duane’s post is worth a read, not least in the context of those who try to make more than they should of Einstein’s famous dismissal of quantum theory: “God does not play dice with the universe”. Of course, some will no doubt misuse both of these quotations in exactly the way Duane argues we should not. One modern trend he and I would alike deplore is the substitution of celebrity endorsement for rational argument.

I’ve been fascinated, although I’m no Hebraist, by the discussion on creation as Hobbins and Heard weigh into a bloke I’d never heard of, John Walton. Walton’s arguments look awfully like special pleading to me, and I find it hard to believe he is in no way motivated by the desire to get a fundamentalist view of the Bible off the hook of modern science.

Mark Goodacre kicked off a bit of a stir on orality, and has revisited the topic here and here (although this permalink may not be working properly).  April deConick has joined in twice, and Loren Rosson has also commented. See also Judy Redman’s comments. I offer a couple of tangential notes. First, while I’m broadly in sympathy with Mark’s point, I think the difference between the way we experience orality and the way they did back then is akin to the differences between postmodern and premodern approaches to, say, narrative truth. We have lost our innocence. Secondly, I wonder how much the existence for Jews and Christians of holy writings impacts orality. Would it have been possible to develop a doctrine of holy scripture in a literary culture? I suspect not. But what does the principled reverence given to forms of writing say about the conception of orality? Thirdly, I note the irony that orality is growing in post-modernity, while one of the deconstructive foundations put in place by Derrida is the turn away from privileging speech. We are, I think, deeply ambivalent about our assessment of orality.

I know it will confirm all David Ker’s prejudices, but Justin Lewis-Anthony has uncovered a marvellous quotation from David Hockney. Also on the humour front, Michael Kruse has a whole range of answers to the question why the chicken crossed the road.

On the uncomfortable humour front, Jon Birch makes a telling point.

Too much to read, to much to comment on. Here are a handful of posts that have caught my eye.

Let’s start off with a controversial one. I’d been wondering where Stephen (aka Q) had got to. Now he explains. (And it’s god to know he’s well if apparently disillusioned by the lack of agreement among Christians.) I have suggested to him (which suggestion he does not accept) that his explanation – an embrace of postmodernism – means his blog ought to be renamed “Diving headfirst into Babel”. I am not so ready to give up on the idea that some perspectives may be more true and more Christian than others. Stephen thinks postmodernism simply describes “what is”. I think that’s just his point of view; besides, postmodernism can’t actually talk about “what is”, only about “what is narrated in my tradition”.

There are, as Pentecost approaches, various posts about speaking in tongues and other gifts. (A special award for making me laugh to Chris Tilling.) It seems to me that evidence from other cultures and religions, to say the least, would point to a natural phenomenon of dissociative speech, that, like other natural phenomena, may be used to glorify God. It is the use of tongues, rather than the phenomenon, that can lead to it being regarded as a gift of the Spirit.

John Hobbins upsets Jim West when he calls St Paul a Zionist. Having described himself as a fundamentalist, Calvinistic, inerrantist in the past, describing St Paul as a Zionist is probably just John’s latest effort at a humpty-dumpty-ish recasting of Christian vocabulary. Terms mean what he says they mean. What might be more useful than anachronistic labelling would be to take into account is the way in which St Paul seems to replace the promise of the land with his vision of a heritage of new creation.

Finally, Loren Rosson (who rather suspiciously rates each Dr Who episode exactly in line with his predictions) has an intriguing post about whether the ark of the covenant inflicted the Philistines with impotence. Well, I suppose it’s in line with making Jacob limp.

Jim West has done a terrific job in getting the new Biblical Studies Carnival up and running almost before the month has started. It is an excellent and wide-ranging survey, with lots of tasty links to follow–up. It is really impressive that Jim can read so widely among books, conference notices, discussion lists and blogs, and still be entirely wrong about such basics as the synoptic problem. One of the most noticeable things about Jim’s survey is the way he holds back his own opinions, and restrains himself is it’s clarity of forceful opinion, entertainingly expressed. I like a man who’s not afraid to be wrong in public. (Possibly the only thing he has in common with the Bishop of Durham.)

No, seriously, Jim, thank you for an excellent and ultra-punctual resource. There’s a lot here to browse I hadn’t seen.

A quick round-up of posts I think you might enjoy.

Chris Heard continues his useful service of unmasking the idiocies of Expelled, and Tim Ricchuiti criticises some Christian reporting on the film. One of the most important features of posts like these is the implicit collusion between campaigning atheists and creationists to establish in the public mind the idea that Christianity and Science are opposed. This collusion is far too influential in the media, and the voice of Christian reason needs to shout down the rabid rants of the believing and disbelieving fundamentalists alike. (What do I mean by a disbelieving fundamentalist? I mean an atheist who very particularly doesn’t believe in God because he or she doesn’t believe in the fundamentalist God, and has mistaken that for the real one.)

Mark Goodacre (belatedly) continues his review of the new Doctor Who. He doesn’t seem at all bovvered that Donna sometimes sounds like another of Catherine Tate’s characters. I’m still making up my mind. I hope he keeps this constructive and interesting blog review going. I’m sure his next post will be very Ood.

There’s quite a good but still challenging / provocative post on learning biblical languages from Eric Sowell on learning Greek and Hebrew. It’s rather more substantial than the latest edition of Jim’s regular rant on the topic. I would simply make two observations. (a) There seem to be a great many people out there who know some or more Greek and Hebrew, and then confidently tell their flock what the text really says. They very often don’t have a clue, it seems to me. (b) Most of the mainstream translations are made by teams of people who really, really know the original languages. Yes, those translations will inevitably fail to capture every nuance; they do, however stand as good or better a chance of accuracy in the main-line of thought as someone working on their own. Knowing a language and being able to use a dictionary seem to get confused with each other when people enter a pulpit.

Some people say they haven’t got time to write because they’re blogging. Others say they don’t blog because they’re writing something productive. These statements are now officially disproved.

Finally, in the face of what seems to me somewhat excessive coverage of the papal visit to the US, I rather loved the flying pontiff story on the ever enjoyable Newsbiscuit.

Having been away, I find there are too many blogs to catch up with. These are some of the things I would have interacted with more if I had been around.

There’s always a constant low background buzz about creation and evolution. It’s been bursting out all over lately. I was particularly struck by Chris Tilling’s conversion story, and its follow-up. The story about the film “Expelled” seems to me to be (currently) mainly of local interest to Americans, but Chris Heard has a really interesting post on it here. I think these neatly illustrate and criticize the bizarre logic (CT), and the deceitful propaganda (CH) of the creationist movement. I remain truly baffled that it not only persists, but seems to be gaining ground. I am uncertain where to apportion blame for this. Competing (and probably complementary) explanations include biblical illiteracy and bad theology, scientific ignorance, or a bizarre mix of individualism and egalitarianism that says my ignorance is as valid as the next person’s expert knowledge. When this latter component is combined with an increasing distrust of “them”, it is particularly corrosive. (As far as I can see “them” is variously the Marxist bogeyman of the military-industrial complex, and a conservative bogeyman of liberal elitist scientists acting as the new reds under the bed.) There is an irony in this drivel originating in the most scientifically advanced country on earth.

Tim really seems to dislike PowerPoint, and he’s found an ally. I both sympathise and completely disagree. First the sympathy. The other day I was sitting through a presentation given by some local government officers. I gave up trying to read one slide because the words were so small. Instead I started to count them. I’d got past 200 when the slide changed! The problem is not with PowerPoint, but with its users. (Though I wish it were as easy to implement a taste, style and accessibility checker as to implement a spell-checker). In fact, good and appropriate visuals only enhance communication, and thinking through the demands of a visual presentation can work to clarify the presenter’s mind, and clear a lot of unnecessary verbiage out of a talk. It seems to me that those are desirable goals.

Right, rant mode on now. This is provoked by Dave Walker, Lingamish and Peter Kirk. <RANT>The word “worship” does not mean “singing a particular sort of often repetitive modern song in a long series accompanied by modern instruments”. A “worship leader” is not someone who directs music. A “worship group” is not a group of musicians. In each case the first term may include the latter as part of what it is. This is a sloppy way of speaking that ought to be banished. FORTHWITH. AND IMMEDIATELY. Worship is far more inclusive than that, and the only “worship group” the New Testament and historic Christianity know is called a congregation, or church.

Peter actually wrote:

three quarters of an hour of worship sounds like heaven to me if it’s done well (e.g. by Matt Redman)

NO. Worship is only done well if it’s done by you. A skilled presider, minister, musician or other can facilitate it being done well by you and the congregation, but worship is not a spectator sport. </RANT> Now I know (I hope) that the aforementioned three would all agree with that. But please, guys, make your language about worship reflect that rather important point.

Congratulations to Chris who has done a great job on his real round-up of the last month.