Why I struggle with Barth and Barthians.

For a long time I have struggled with Barth. I have wrestled with many questions and often find myself loving what is being said yet wondering why or how it is correct. At one stage I had considered a Master’s Thesis on an aspect of Barth’s theology. That is no longer the case. Not too long ago I picked up the index of Church Dogmatics and read through the section summaries. What I began to notice (and I could be wrong) is that Barth is first and foremost a ‘Practical’ theologian. That is, he writes from the viewpoint of the minister and the specific situations and events that continually confront the minister week in week out. It was this aspect of Barth that I cherished most. So many times I felt as though we journeyed together and that he had wrestled with the same aspects of ministry that I had. When I read Barth I often find myself reflecting on ministry in the light of Christ’s ongoing ministry of reconciliation in the world. To turn to Barth for historical or even literary exegesis is pointless. Barth doesn’t help me become a better exegete; he helps me be a better minister!

However, two things bug me about Barth: Firstly, when Barth makes an argument I often find myself agreeing with what he says or at least thinking about it deeply. Yet, I am left wondering how his argument has developed and from where did he form his conclusions? There seems to be a very shallow foundation of Biblical text to what is being said. What has lead him to this conclusion? Is it his own thoughts and reflections in the light of his ministry and academic experience, or, has it developed as part of his overall Biblical/Systematic theology? I suspect that it comes from a truly robust biblical theology not only grounded in one specific text but in the overall biblical narrative, however, I still wonder! Secondly, Barthians frustrate me to no end! Why do they become so obsessed with Barth and what he has written? One hopes that at some point they will 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! As someone once commented in regards to Barth and my questions; “if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, it’s probably a duck” Perhaps Barth is correct, I just wish it were clearer!

Considering a switch: Your opinions are sought

I am considering a switch to WordPress and I was wondering what you thought? Is it a good move? I can hear the dolcet tones of Whoopi Goldberg singing, “I will follow him, wherever he may go…” Is that true? I would appreciate some feedback. My concern is that I am a technological numpty! That is I have no idea about html code and the like. Is this needed for WordPress?

The Best Eugene Peterson Quote Ever!

“Pastors are abandoning their posts, left and right, and at an alarming rate. They are not leaving their churches and getting other jobs. Congregations still pay their salaries. Their names still appear on the church stationary and they continue to appear in pulpits on Sundays. But they are abandoning their posts, their calling. They have gone whoring after other Gods. What they do with their time under the guise of pastoral ministry hasn’t the remotest connection with what the church’s pastors have done for most of twenty centuries.” (Eugene Peterson, Working the Angles, 1987, p.1)

Peterson states strongly that he believes pastors have abandoned their true calling and have instead taken to religious shopkeeping. It is very easy to become obsessed with ideas, programs, and vision that merely seeks answers to a how the church might, as Peterson laments, “keep customers happy, how to lure them away from the competitors down the street, how to package the goods so the customers will lay out more money” (1987, p.2). A culture of consumer driven, success orientated religion is very appealing for any minister, especially myself! All pastors want a successful church that they can point to and say, “Look what I have built”. However, argues Peterson, “The Pastor’s responsibility is to keep the community attentive to God. It is this responsibility that is being abandoned in spades”.

I am being faithful to the one who called me? Am I faithful to the community to whom I am called. What does ministry look like in the light of Jesus Christ risen and ascended and empowered by the Holy Spirit? As Peterson might ask, how am I to be faithful to the holiness of the vocation into which I am ordained? I may not be a minimalist theologically but I am certainly one ecclesially !

Exegesis: A Pastoral Lament

Someone once told me that once you enter the field of Biblical Studies you can never return to the “myth” of the bible. The days of “The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it” are long gone! In recent months I have become more aware of how true this statement is. When it comes to my dealings with Holy Scripture I am continually confronted with questions of faith and the reality of God on one hand and the questions of history, form, and other criticisms of the text on the other. As someone who has engaged at an academic level with Scripture I find it a great challenge to hold onto a spirituality that sees scripture as a living word that encourages faith while examining the text crically. I stand with one foot in the academic word (as I study and interpret the text) and the other in the church (as one who seeks to help people hear the word of God). It seems to me that these two worlds are becoming increasingly distant! The tension is growing (for me at least). This is my lament: As the two worlds seemingly polarise what is the Minister to do? Do we give up and reduce the Bible to nice little stories or do we abandon faith for reason?

Their are exegetical conclusions that require a leap of faith; propositions and conclusions that cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt (such as resurrection) and therefore our conclusions may well be shaped by our Christian traditions. I know this may be viewed as a cop-out, however, there is an aspect to the text that requires of me (as a minister at least) to place some trust in God that he was working in the process and continues to be involved in that process of revelation today. These conclusions will be at odds with those in the academy whose concern is primarily scientific. That is not to say the dialogue should cease or respect dwindle. Surely the two can co-exist and inform one another?

Within the church it is true that biblical reductionism reigns. The text, this holy, ancient, collection of writings, has become another tool used by clergy to whip the people into shape or as a promise of a new kind of lifestyle that if followed will lead to abundant life here and now. Furthermore anyone who begins to the take the task of understanding scripture within its historical context is labelled a doubter and banished to exile forever!

Therefore I wrestle and ask: How do I return to the naivety I once had for Holy Scripture? How do I hold all of the historical, form, redaction, grammatical and theological tensions of the text before me without losing sight of the one to whom Scripture points? And finally, is there any place for the Minister in the wider world of Biblical Studies or, am I resigned to nice little sermons on Sunday?

I Finish with this wonderful quote from Childs. It seems to me that he may have been one who held the conviction that this text belonged firstly to the church and therefore it was imperative that the church engaged with this text at every level possible in order to hear the word of God, “Yet the author is also aware that serious theological understanding of the text is dependent on a rigorous and careful study of the whole range of problems within the Bible which includes text and source criticism, syntax and grammar, history and and geography…The author does not share the hermeneutical position of those who suggest that biblical exegesis is an objective, descriptive enterprise, controlled solely by scientific criticism, to which the theologian can at best add a few homiletical reflections for piety’s sake. In my judgement, the rigid separation between the descriptive and constructive elements of exegesis strikes at the roots of the theological task of understanding the bible.” (Childs, Exodus, SCM press, 1974, p.ix & xiii)

Interview with NT Wright

IVP have posted an interview with N.T. Wright about his new book Justification or what I like to call “The Wright/Piper Smack-down”! You can read the interview in full HERE.

I am in the midst of reading the book. It will take a while as I have so much other stuff to read at present so it is resigned to my “spare” time of which there is little! What I have read so far has impressed me. however, I would say is that the book is “grumpy”. If you have read chapter one you will understand what I mean. Nevertheless it is superbly crafted and Wright careful makes his way around the argument bit by bit obviously circling Piper before he makes his kill!

Is this the worst and most inappropriate worship song of all time?

The song comes from a revivalist by the name of Rodney Howard Brown. Brown makes Bentley look like a puppy dog and many years ago caused quite a furor here in Adelaide as a “holy pusher” a “money grabber, and general all round dilettante. I was reminded of this song recently at a church we visited. I was, in a previous life, subjected to this hymn many Sundays in a row. Below are the words and you can listen to the track (if you dare) HERE.

The Woman with the issue of Blood

Like the woman with the issue of blood
We press in, we press in
Like the blind man, waiting patiently
We press in, thru the crowd

Then suddenly a touch from heaven
Jesus came and rescued me
Then suddenly a touch from heaven
Jesus came and set me free

I am still shaking my head and wondering why someone would think it was okay to sing about this and name the song as it is! Tell me, is it the worst and most inappropriate worship song of all time? If not, tell what is!

Is Topical Preaching an Abomination?

…He says with a cheeky grin ☺. I actually wrote this piece some time ago however, this past weekend I visited another church and experienced the “abomination of desolation” that is topical preaching and was reminded of what I had previously written. It is true (if you hadn’t guessed yet) I am not a fan of topical preaching. Scriptures should form not only the foundation of our sermons but the entirety of what we say week in week out to the community of God’s people. As Goldingay argues, “I would not want to argue that all preaching must be text centred – though 95 percent of my own is. There is a place for topical preaching, though it may become a sin when indulged in too often” (1995, p.9). Having spent many years in a church that only preached topical messages I became Biblically illiterate and anaemic to the text itself. Scripture was thrown around so wastefully and casually that it almost seemed to lose its Holiness. it is what i would call Biblical reductionism I realise that this is not the case for everyone and many have stories of the boring ‘Bible’ only preachers who have driven many from the church with their endless genealogies. Nevertheless, the text must set the context of our proclamation.

The place of scripture and preaching within the community of God’s people raises for me more questions than any other topic and less answers than any other problem. I remember lamenting to a friend not too long ago that the only people who seem to defend preaching as the primary means by which we proclaim the gospel and teach about the Christian life are preachers themselves. Why is this so? We live in a society obsessed with a ‘practical’ approach to the Bible. People come to church expecting the preacher to provide them with answers and ‘practical’ approaches to the text in order that they might live a Biblical life. Where did we ever get the idea that every time we hear Holy Scripture we should receive a ‘practical’ answer?

Holy Scripture and the pulpit belong together like peas and carrots. As Goldingay so eloquently describes, “The Bible is entirely at home in the pulpit because its words were spoken and written to do something along the same lines. “It is the preaching book because it is the preaching book.” Biblical statue, wisdom, prophecy, and epistle overtly urge people toward more confident faith or questioning and more specific commitment away from disobedience or false trust. Biblical narrative, poetry, and psalmody have similar aims. They offer not merely historical information or aesthetic experience or cultic record but implicit invitation. One reason why works of various kinds were collected and eventually became “scriptures” was so that they might continue to effect something in the lives of people.” (1995, p.9). As preachers and teachers we must remain faithful to the task of understanding, dwelling in, and interpreting the Biblical narrative. As Matthias Grunewald’s Isenheim Altarpiece so wonderfully depicts; like John the Baptist we stand with a bible in one hand and our other hand points to the crucified Christ. Holy Scripture at every turn points us to the Word of God revealed in Jesus Christ. It is only as we faithfully teach and proclaim the text before us, and not our own ideas, that we faithfully proclaim the Word of God!

A Question

Is it me or are people “blogging” less than usual at the moment? I understand Tilling is in a PHD/Work induced Coma and Jim West of course bucks the trend however, it seems many of the blogs I frequent are pumping out less posts than usual! I guess we shall see when the May Biblioblog awards come out!

Mission in the Gospel of Matthew: Part 2 of 2

In the same way that the mission of Jesus has the threefold mission that is essentially eschatological in nature, ethical in practice and communal in its focus; so too the church in its mission reflects these aspects as a means of ‘bearing fruit’. As stated previously Powell understands the church’s participation in the ongoing mission of the God in the world as the ‘bearing of fruit’ spoken of by Jesus is chapter 7. Where Jesus had authority to forgive sins on earth the church does not. However, it does have the responsibility to ask how life might be lived in the light of forgiveness. For Powell this happens as response to the mission of Jesus. As the church responds to the eschatological rule of God that has come ‘near’, as it exhibits ethics of the kingdom, and as the church contribute to the “numerical increase of the eschatological community that embodies these ethics” (1995, p.16) it bears fruit worthy of repentance. There is much that could be said in response to Powell’s argument, of which, the final point has to be the most disturbing! Nowhere in Matthew is ‘increase’ of the community a concern for Jesus or the Matthean community. It would seem that Powell has perhaps imposed this aspect of mission onto his interpretation of the subject in Matthew.

According to Powell, the mission of the church is a reflection of the earthly ministry of Jesus. This cannot be denied as either a purpose of Matthew or, in our understanding of the text within the church today. The church cannot assume that its mission will be exactly as Jesus’ was; he came to forgive the sins of people, however, the church is called to reflect the eschatological reality in its ‘bearing of fruit. As Powell states, “The threefold meanings given to “Salvation from sins” and “fruit bearing” in Matthew’s gospels allow these concepts to be developed in such a way that the mission of Jesus and the mission of the church are similar” (1995, p.27). This is the strongest of Powell’s arguments in chapter one. The church hears its calling as it re-tells the Jesus story as understood by Matthew. It reaches out and touches the leper, it grants to those outside of the community the grace normally reserved for those within, and it obeys the commands of Jesus. In this it participates in the ‘bearing of Christ’s fruit in the world; from this we can surely learn and ourselves bear fruit worthy of our repentance!

Mission in the Gospel of Matthew: Part 1 of 2

I have just reviewed chapter one of Mark Allan Powell’s God With Us: A Pastoral Theology of Matthew’s Gospel on Mission. I have split the review into two parts. I cant say I am overly impressed with what he had to say, perhaps because it seems to be more about what Powell wants to say rather than what Matthew is trying to say. However, I do like what Powell has tried to do in his book. He has sought to listen to the whole text and allow it to form the community of God’s people. See what you think.

The two horizons of mission portrayed in Matthew’s gospel present us with an understanding of the mission of Jesus in the context of his ministry in its first century setting while at the same time the narrative is also to be understood as an invitation for the church to participate in the ongoing mission of God in its world. As Powell states, “We learn the divine purpose behind his coming and witness how this purpose is fulfilled in his life, ministry, death and resurrection. But intertwined with the story of Jesus’ mission is material that speaks of the mission to be conducted by Jesus’ followers in a place and time beyond the setting of Matthew’s story” (1995, p.1).

According to Powell, the subject of mission in Matthew’s gospel begins with the name of Jesus and its connection with the soteriological purpose proposed in verse 21, “To save people from their sins”. Powell goes so far as to argue that every time the name of Jesus is mentioned it serves as a reminder of the purpose of his mission to save people from their sins and offers a threefold argument of how Jesus in his own ministry undertakes to “save the people” from “their sins”:

Firstly, Jesus does this by “Announcing and effecting the eschatological rule of God so that sins may now be authoritatively forgiven”. This is primarily undertaken in the preaching ministry of Jesus and is, according to Powell, best summarised in 4:17, “Repent for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand”.

Secondly, by “Fulfilling the Law and the Prophets so that sins may be now avoided”. This aspect is, for Powell, the ‘ethical’ dimension of Jesus’ ministry and is summarised in his teaching of the disciples. It is in this sense that sin is not also forgiven authoritatively but also the experience of that forgiveness becomes for the Christian a reality in their daily life and, as Powell argues, the fulfilling of the Law and the Prophets is another “mark of the establishment of God’s reign” (1995, p.14).

Thirdly, Jesus calls “Sinners into a new community where the eschatological forgiveness and restraint of sins is a lived reality”; thus providing the base community in which the people of God are gathered and sent out into the ongoing mission of God, or what Powell calls a communal focus. Furthermore, he recognises for Matthew it is important that Jesus is in fact the one whom establishes this community yet he does so, “from sinners whom he calls because he is the Son of God who is uniquely qualified to reveal the Father to those whom he chooses” (1995, p.15).

This is a brief summary of how Powell understands the mission of Jesus as portrayed by Matthew. There is much more that Powell argues in each section; including a lengthy discussion on Satan as the ‘enemy’ of Jesus and the one whom has the most to lose in the establishment of God’s kingdom. Although there are some very Matthean aspects to Powell’s case it would also be fair to say that he imposes upon the Matthean text questions that may not be as important for Matthew as they are for Powell.