New Edition of the Church Dogmatics at the Printers

So says the T and T Clark blog. For those so inclined the new “Study Edition” of Karl Barth’s 13 volume church dogmatics has a new type face, Greek and Latin translations. However, the biggest change is the format. According to T and T Clark, “The text is presented in a new reader friendly format. We hope that the breakdown of the Church Dogmatics into 31 shorter fascicles will make this edition easier to use than its predecessors.”

Anyone who has read the old editions would know that the dogmatics are presented in what has to be the worst font ever for reading; especially reading something as intricate as Barth. I will not be rushing out to buy the new edition, my old ones will suffice and if I had the money and desire I would by the Digital edition. Nevertheless, for a new generation of Barth readers this is a great resource. One just hopes that they become obsessed with the God to whom Barth points and not Barth himself as seems to be the current level of Barthian study! Surely that is what the Great Swiss theologian would have wanted!

U2 "No Line on the Horizon": A Review

I can still remember the night I tuned into the radio to hear U2’s new single from their forthcoming album Achtung Baby. Having fallen in love with the band’s “Rattle and Hum” album I really did not know what to expect. What blasted through the speakers in my bedroom that night was “The Fly” or, as U2 would later say, the sound of U2 cutting down the Joshua Tree.

It has been nearly 5 years since the last U2 album (excluding U218). This morning I picked up their new offering, “No Line on the Horizon”. I have been listening to the album on their website for a few days now and I have to say that at first I was more than a little disappointed! However, the album has begun to grow on me. This album needs time to discover its depth and beauty. My Short review is it wont make it into the U2 best albums list. Achtung Baby and Joshua Tree it will never be however, October and Zooropa it isn’t! It is a very deep and more mellow offering from the band. perhaps even easier to listen to than HTDAAB.

Initial Observations:
- The album has echoes of Unforgettable Fire which I must say is a very welcome surprise. Furthermore, it also has echoes of U2’s side project ‘Passengers’.

- It is a detour (as opposed to a depature) from their two most recent albums.

- It is experimental, but not to the point of alienating their fringe fans.

- It has enough God type references to keep Christians happy

- The album is far less ‘preachy’ than previous albums and there are far less Social justice themes which i think is a nice break.

- “No Line on the Horizon” has some very good songs: Magnificent, I’ll Go Crazy if I Don’t Go Crazy Tonight, & White as Snow are lyrical and musical genius. Then it has some songs that fall amazingly short of U2’s normal glory: Fez and Cedars of Lebanon disappoint.

Overall, I think this album will become better with age however, it may get lost amongst the great albums as “Unforgettable Fire” and “War” have. It will be interesting to see how the album goes on the popular charts and I wonder how the new tour will take shape. My impression is that the album lends itself to more intimate halls and indoor stadiums rather than big outdoor arenas.

As Molly would say, “Do your self a favour and go out and buy it”.

A Ministry Reflection: How do I keep the Line Sharp? Part 3

I have often been asked, and not always in a polite way, what do ministers do? What is the core function of the role of minister within any congregation? It has to be, at its core, to lead people in their worship of God and to help them understand what it means to live faithfully as God’s people. This is summed up best in Deuteronomy 6:4, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD alone” and 1 Corinthians 8:6, “yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” Out of this must flow the form and content of ministry. Taking into account a person’s particular gifts, background and personality, a faithful and vocationally authentic understanding can be developed and outworked.

Is Wright, Wrong (again)?

Probably not but I thought I would ask the question again. At the present time I am preaching through the Gospel according to Mark. At the end of the exegetical process I normally open Wright’s “For Everyone” commentary as a way of ‘lightening’ the theological load. One of the things I have noticed about the great Bishop is his penchant for using the word ‘echoes’ when referring to the New Testament’s story’s relationship to the Old. For instance, in the text this week, Mark 4:35-41 Wright ‘hears’ echoes of Jonah (and perhaps rightly so). However, it highlighted to me how often Wright does this. In the Jesus stories and the language of Paul, it seems that Wright often hears echoes of Israel’s story. I like the idea; however, I wonder if it is grounded in the author’s intent or is it the result of him knowing the whole of scripture? Essentially I am asking; is this good historical exegesis or simply an over interpretation? Is Wright correct, or Wrong?

Commentaries on the Gospels According to Matthew

I begin a class on the Gospel according to Matthew this semester and I need to purchase some books. Therefore, I seek your collective wisdom; if you could buy two commentaries on Matthew what ones would you purchase?

Quote of the day…

When asked, in response to his wife’s new job as Secretary of State, whether he could ever see himself as a house husband Bill Clinton responded with this piece of theological GOLD, “I have to go to work. I’m—I’m too much of a Calvinist. If I don’t work every day, I get nervous.”

*Thanks to Phil Gons of Logos Bible Software for the story.

A Ministry Reflection: How do I keep the Line Sharp? Part 2

I am currently in the midst of developing a role description with our church elders. This has lead me to pondered the idea that if as ministers we were asked to write a job description that did not include words, or their similes, such as; leadership, vision, mission, manage, or director, what then would the job description look like? Would it be possible in this day and age to find such a role description? However, what if our vocational descriptors resembled worship orientated words? What adjectives might describe our role? Instead of using words that describe ministry in messianic, managerial or visionary, terms; perhaps it would reflect the more biblical metaphors of priest, prophet and shepherd? Who knows, this may lead to a return of words such as holiness, repentance and grace in our preaching instead of the all to common purpose, success and destiny!

Witherington on NT Wright’s New Book

Not that he needs any more endorsements for his new book on Justification however, Ben Witherington has thrown his support behind the great Bishop’s new book (which I subtitled, “Why Piper is a WRONG!”)

Here is what Witherington has to say, “What Tom is stressing is that final justification when the Christian stands before the judgment seat of Christ, does indeed involve the review of our moral actions inspired and empowered by the Spirit as well as our immoral acts as well. This contrasts with initial justification which is by grace and through faith. In addition he argues that Paul does not suggest that Christ’s moral righteousness is imputed to the believer. Rather initial justification has to do with forensic or legal right standing with God, not the imputation of Christ’s moral righteousness to the believer. I think Tom is 100% correct in this assessment, and I also agree that the whole discussion needs to be read more closely in light of the early Jewish context, not the much later Reformed systematic context. See what you think.“

I am beginning to wonder if this book might have the same effect theologically that Barth’s commentary on Romans had on the theological world . Will Wright’s “Justification: God’s Plan. Paul’s Vision” hit the theological world like a bomb? That may be stretching it a bit far, however, to be sure it will arouse debate and perhaps give rise to more anti-Wright literature/views instead of rigorous debate on the subject!

Biblioblogging Oscar Winner

With the Australian actor Hugh Jackman set to host the Oscars later this week (lets see how he does before we continue to let him call Australia home), it is fitting that Jim West has included a catergory in the Biblioblogging Oscars for Australian’s! As fate would have it I have won the award along with Faith and Theology’s Ben Myers!

Here is my acceptance speech: “Thank you Jim. I would just like to thank yourself and Tilling for all you help. My co-winner Ben. Just to be mentioned in the same breathe as a theological giant is overwhelming. Steph for disliking Wright so much that it propels me to tell the world just how good he is . And, of course, Jesus Christ. Who may or may not have been a historical figure depending on your minimalist or maximalist tendencies!“

To view the entire list of worthy winnersCLICK HERE

Just to clarify; rumours of me trying to snog Chris Tilling in the foyer after the ceremony are unfounded and nothing more than the work of bitter minimalists! Chris had merely asked me to pray for the evil spirit of gluttony that had overcome him and we thought it appropriate to base our prayer on 1 Thessalonians 5:26. I had considered a Bentley special but Chris had devoured a rather large serving of fish and chips after receiving his reward and thoughts of “Get me bucket” still haunt me

Is Wright Wrong?

In preparation for my sermon this week I cam across this little quote from NT. He is the midst of critiquing Sanders view of 1st century Judaism and the meaning of Torah symbols in the gospels. Far be it from me to disagree with the great Bishop (If Jim West finds out he will have a field day), however, I am not sure I agree with Wright on this statement:

“Traditional form criticism of the gospels has grossly overplayed its hand by suggesting that the gospels reflect the life of the early church rather than that of Jesus.“

It is important, I feel, that we do not deconstruct the gospels to such a point that we lose the historical Jesus. However, we must not lose sight of the context into which the gospels were heard. Surely the writers of all four gospels had in mind the issues surrounding the fledgling churches when they wrote their accounts? Matthew and Luke form a more definitive historical account of Jesus’ life when compared with Mark and John. However, if one eye is on the historical life and ministry of Jesus then surely it must be agreed that the other eye is on the context of the early church? Wright continues:

“There are many matters of vital concern in the early church that remain unmentioned in the gospel – circumcision, for instance, or speaking in tongues – and many matters that loom large in the gospel narratives but do not seem to have been otherwise but that do not seem to have been otherwise prominent in the early church. Furthermore, we do not in fact know as much about later debates between the church and the Jews as some have claimed!”

I suspect that Wright is responding to the likes of the Jesus seminar and its attempts to remove the historical Jesus from the gospel stories and re-construct a Jesus of their own imagining. However, we must consider the possibility that the gospels may have two horizons: A narrative witness to the historical Jesus and, a narrative theology for the early church.

*Quotes taken from, NT Wright, The Challenge of Jesus, Inter-Varsity Press, 1999, p.56