Created out of water

I'm rather enjoying my break this summer, but I did want to share one thought on a NT understanding of creation.

A while ago I noted that (I think) most OT scholars think Genesis 1 – together with the other known myths in Akkadian literature – reflects a belief that creation was not there understood as creation ex nihilo, but rather as the command of order on chaos. This view reflects a more popular reading of Genesis 1:1 as 'In the beginning when God created' or 'in the beginning of God's creation, the earth being ...'. 'The narrative', as OT scholar John Goldingay argues, 'indeed presupposes the existence of matter, of raw material for God to use' (Old Testament Theology. Volume 1: Israel's Gospel [Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 2003], 80).

Rather interestingly, though many jump to passages in Paul to defend creation ex nihilo in the NT (which I suspect only suggest the seeds for a later ex nihilo doctrine), such as Romans 4:17, have you ever meditated on 2 Peter 3:5?

'They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water'

Richard Bauckham comments in his Word commentary:

'According to the creation account in Gen 1, and in accordance with general Near Eastern myth, the world—sky and earth—merged out of a primeval ocean (Gen 1:2, 6–7, 9; cf. Ps 33:7; 136:6; Prov 8:27–29; Sir 39:17; Herm. Vis. 1:3:4). The world exists because the waters of chaos, which are now above the firmament, beneath the earth and surrounding the earth, are held back and can no longer engulf the world. The phrase ἐξ ὕδατος ("out of water") expresses this mythological concept of the world's emergence out of the watery chaos, rather than the more "scientific" notion, taught by Thales of Miletus, that water is the basic element out of which everything else is made (cf. Clem. Hom. 11:24:1)' (Bauckham, R. J., Jude, 2 Peter, p.297).

I find it particularly interesting that the context of 2 Peter 3 links this to God's faithfulness to his promises, which once again links God's faithfulness to his covenant to the whole of creation. But in terms of creation, what are we to make of the (later) doctrine of ex nihilo in light of such biblical themes. One can either:

1. Reject ex nihilo as a doctrine in light of scripture, which would, for example, perhaps help deal with the knotty problem of theodicy. 'God did not created chaos', it could be argued, his creation power was its limiting.
   
2. Argue that ex nihilo is an entirely new doctrinal development, yet can be embraced as a correct doctrine on the basis of the Spirit's guidance of the church
   
3. Maintain that ex nihilo, while a later development, is consistent with seeds of truth already to be found in the NT and Apocrypha. This the doctrine reflects a legitimate and further nuanced development of the understanding of creation (ex nihilo only being clearly formulated, so maintain I think the majority, in the 2^nd century AD). Perhaps the church's developing formulations of Trinitarian faith is an inadequate potential comparison.
   

Darwin and God

I'll deliver a lecture at our (rather large!) church week away at the end of the month, celebrating Darwin's 200^th birthday. During my research I've used some useful introductory books on Darwin, such as Jonathan Howard's contribution to the Very Short Introduction Series, and Jonathan Miller's Introducing Darwin.

Both were helpful, but when they turned to matters of religion they tended to be disastrously naive and inaccurate. For example, Howard writes that it has become 'hard, perhaps impossible for the orthodox Christian to come to terms with Darwin' (106)! Let's give him a bit of slack; he is a Geneticist after all, not a theologian, but this is nevertheless an absurd claim! Some key Christians, both in the UK and in USA, were the first to promote Darwin's theories in the 19^th century, while some 'secular' scientists opposed it! As for the whole creationism debate, Darwinism poses a problem only for a very culturally specific and dubious reading of Genesis. Where it does get trickier is in the magnification of the theodicy problem, which did not appear on Howard's radar. Darwinism is actually exciting, for traditional Christian dogma, in the way it helps the Church rethink some of its anthropological and philosophical assumptions, and regain a closer approximation to the more relational biblical intuitions.

Nick Spencer's little book, Darwin and God thus comes as a real breath of fresh air, and deals with the nature and development of Darwin's religious beliefs. Thanks to my kind American friend, David Vinson, for the copy! My colleagues recently interviewed Nick for our college podcast here, which makes for interesting listening.

Quick notice

David Bentley Hart's Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies.

One word:

WOW

One of the most important books I have ever read. Utterly brilliant. Prophetic. Extremely lucid. Violently convincing.

And it is one of the most devastating critiques of anything, anywhere, never mind just the particular squabble it addresses. Daniel Dennett, for example, is absolutely shredded. My jaw was left on the flaw. But it is so much more than a simple critique of the silly New Atheist High Priests.

Please get this book. Seriously.

I stand rebuked

Innocently as you can imagine, white as the driven snow, pure as ... well, you get the idea.

But that's me, folks. Plain, old, simple holy.

Not all, however, seem to appreciate my generally elevated levels of sanctification, even though it shines in such wise forms as this post: A Biblical Guide to Dating.

Nevertheless, an 'Anonymous' (surprise, surprise) felt the need to chastise my winsome words in the comments:

"This is not funny. And the message of Yahweh Elohim and his Son, Yahshua the Messiah should not be taken lightly. Have your fun now, but I tell you the truth: it won't last long. You will regret ever putting your foolish advice on the web. Let me ask you this: If you have a daughter and she believes in the Word, would you want some perverted man to be misusing her belief for his own twisted sexual interests? Is that how you would want your daughter to be treated? Is that how you would want your mother or sister to be treated? Grow up, men. The world needs men who can lead nations and conquer kingdoms, not treacherous and deceptive men. We need honorable, valiant men in this world. We need leaders. Are you going to waste your life setting foolish traps for women? Is that what you call purpose? Arise, men of God. Arise to your position in the true Kingdom of Yahweh. Arise to honor. Arise to Truth. Arise to purpose. It is time"

OK, I cleaned up some of his grammar, but you get the idea: I've apparently pooped the holy pants, soiled the sanctity nappy.

So .... *takes a deep breath* ... I guess I had better say an apology:

"I am very sorry, Anonymous ... that you have no sense of humour".

I'll be the guy giving you a smarting wedgie in the in the New Jerusalem.

The New Church of England Logo

Wright’s badges

I do like Wright's approach to Paul. I especially like how he manages to plausibly explain the (narrative) structure which gives Paul's arguments fresh coherence. In this respect I think his commentary on Romans is an example of Wright at his lucid, most insightful best. That said, I find myself intuitively suspicious of the 'faith as a badge' proposal. And I get the feeling that if I pull that thread loose, quite a bit besides will potentially unravel. In a nutshell, it strikes me as an insufficiently relational understanding of faith (I have wondered if Wright's claim perhaps, in part, depends on an implicit pre-Heideggerian metaphysics of representation – but this is an underdeveloped thought).

Any of you ever had suspicious thoughts about the 'faith as a badge' business? Or do you think it makes sense, especially in light of the Dunn-Wright take on 'works of law'?

Facebook’s What’s on Your Mind?

Had a closer look at Facebook today. I uploaded a few pictures ages ago, but there is so much more to Facebook than that (not breaking news for many of you, I am sure). I actually keyed into 'What's on Your Mind?' today. For those of you who are technical numpties, you simply type in a sentence which follows your name – and your friends can read it and comment. Bit like Twittering, perhaps? A couple of the comments below makes a repeat run worthwhile!

* Chris Tilling is enjoying a new publication on Heilsuniversalismus/Apokatastasis/Universalism, namely Jens Adam's Paulus und die Versöhung aller, and he is flippin loving it - even if some if the German (especially relating to Christine Janovski) is a bit tricky and hence disheartening

* Chris Tilling thinks the USA should be invaded and recaptured for her Majesty, the Queen

Alastair Howard at 19:36 on 19 June

I think we should make more of Independence Day over here, but for different reasons to the yanks...

* Chris Tilling has changed his mind about the aforementioned invasion

* Chris Tilling is wondering whether squirrels squeak if lobbed over a fence with a 9-iron

Rick Brannan at 18:30 on 19 June

I think it would have more to do with the 9 iron than the fence. Presumably if the 9 iron whacked 'em into the fence instead of over it, they'd squeak (9 iron) and then splat (fence)

Alastair Roberts at 20:17 on 19 June

There is only one way to find out. Let us know what you discover.

* Chris Tilling is wondering what it would happen if he was mistaken for a huge leg at Battersea Dog's Home.

(I'm not sure this last one makes any sense beyond my own twisted mind)

Spock-like logic

I've recently been reading up on the history and nature of logic, with attention on Aristotle, Frege, Russell etc . So, my inner genius just came up with the following syllogism:

1. The effect of violence on a person can be good for that person's soul
   
2. Things that are good for one's soul are always good
   
3. Therefore, violence is always good.
   

I thank you.

An introduction to a short ‘commentary’ on Romans

Here is a first draft – and it is already about 200 words too long! Your thoughts are, as always, appreciated.

In 1545, Martin Luther, the famous initiator of the Protestant Reformation, sat with pen in hand and mused upon his 'conversion' experience. Though 'a monk without reproach', he described his state as 'a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience'. But upon reading a text in Romans 1 he started to understand the righteousness of God not as a threat but as 'the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith'. Thus it was through a text in Romans that he felt he had 'entered paradise itself through open gates'. John Calvin likewise said that 'if we have gained a true understanding of this Epistle, we have an open door to all the most profound treasures of Scripture'.

Open 'doors' and 'gates' ... yet many find that Romans rather slams these doors shut, a matter all the more tangible these days given the contemporary debate in Pauline studies concerning the language of 'justification', 'law', 'righteousness' and 'the faith of Christ'. To help open doors for contemporary travellers into these Himalayas of Pauline theology, it will prove most useful to keep in mind two issues: i) the situation Paul addressed and ii) the place of Christ's life, death and resurrection in the story of Israel. This is important as Paul may well have been attempting to answer a different (even if overlapping) set of problems to those generated by Luther's 'extremely disturbed conscience'.

The situation: for reasons which are not necessary to examine here, Romans was likely written into a context of tension between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Indeed, it is likely that some Gentile Christians felt superior to Jewish believers, people who had probably only recently returned to the Roman Church after a temporary exile from Rome because of an Edict by Emperor Claudius.

The story: the bumpy narrative of the Old Testament (OT) Scriptures is as follows: it runs from creation, fall, God's redemptive solution for fallen creation in the covenant with Abraham, through Egypt, the exodus, conquest of the land, the judges and the monarchy, the inheritance of the curse of the law and the Assyrian and Babylonian exiles, and finally a partial, yet incomplete, restoration. So ends the OT. Yet the OT Prophets had spoken of a time when God's redemptive plans, through Abraham's family, would be fulfilled, a time when God would make a new covenant, pour out his Spirit, raise up a messianic leader, reunite the 12 scattered tribes, establish his people in the land, glorify his own name etc (see, for example, Isaiah 40:1-5, 10-11; 43:5-11; 49:5-13; 52:1-10; 56:3-8; 61:1-4; Jeremiah 16:14-16; 29:14; 31:8-11; 32:37-42; Ezekiel 11:17-20; 28:25-26; 34:1-3, 5, 10-24; 36:19-28; 37:12-28; 39:25-29; Zechariah 8). The centuries leading up to the New Testament period did not see the fulfilment of the prophetic promises; Israel rather experienced the (often brutal) rule of one foreign empire after another. So many asked when would God act to fulfil his promises. When would God be faithful to his covenant with Abraham, and what was God to do if his own covenant people continued in the sin which led them into exile in the first place?

This story awaiting an ending was summed up, in some OT texts (see Psalm 33:4; Isaiah 40-55; Jeremiah 32:41; Lamentations 3:23 etc.), with the phrase 'God's righteousness', which thus brings us to the heart of Romans. God's righteousness was the hope of Israel as it awaited the fulfilment of God's promises. Yet, as we shall see, God's righteousness judgment, in the sense of impartial justice (e.g. 2 Chronicles 19:7; Proverbs 24:23; Acts 10:34; Galatians 2:6), was also the reason they went into exile in the first place (cf. Isaiah 50:1; Jeremiah 15:13-14; Daniel 9:15-16). This tension in God's righteousness generated difficult questions, exactly the sort Paul sought to address in Romans – albeit with a special Christian twist: the righteousness of God is revealed in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

Let us then begin the journey into the letter itself and, as Karl Barth once described his experience of reading Romans, proceed with 'a joyful sense of discovery'.

I don’t usually get involved with this sort of thing, but ...

Prominent Young Earth Creationist, Ken Ham, writes on June 9^th on his well-known webpage:

"In this newsletter and in my lectures over the years, I have insisted that Christians who compromise by accepting the idea of an earth supposedly millions of years old (or who are indifferent to whether or not that is even a problem) have greatly contributed to the decline of the church and its influence"

Creationists like this usually mean well and I actually became a Christian listening to a Ken Ham tape! Yes, I've now become an unapologetic Christian evolutionist, but that is another story. But this kind of argument does need a short, sharp 'no'. It is the brand of creationism represented here that is a danger to Christian witness, because it moves the historic Christian faith into the realm of completely implausible quasi-'scientific' subculture, in to a place mocked by a completely (and justifiably) unimpressed scientific community. And Ham's reading of Genesis is not 'the truth', with others 'compromising'. He not only fails to understand Genesis at a literal level (especially Genesis 1:1), he does not know how to read this biblical text i.e. not as scientific statement but as theological imagination meant to evoke worship. Genre is very important, folks.

No, I think true prophetic insight will suggest that, among other things, it is the church's lack of unity and our lack of love for our neighbours that has led to its decline in influence. Ham's proposal is to live in a strange dream world, and if ever Christians need to smell the coffee and live in the real world, now is the time.

Oh, yea, and despite what he says: dinosaurs didn't live at the same time as humans. Besides, once we make that kind of thing central to the Gospel, we have lost the plot.

Finally Wright gets to meet Tilling

He must have been honoured to stand next to me.

On being persecuted

First, Ben points out my recent drive-by-baptism fiasco where I was unfortunately caught by a camera. Second, Jim West continues to post lies on my good name, all under the rubric 'Where in the world in Chris Tilling now?'. And third, Scott Bailey, who really should know better, has posted a slur about me in a swimsuit – really a though worthy of a nosebleed if ever there was one.

I, of course, officially deny everything. That I am writing this from prison, with a very angry (and wet) freshly baptised 'believer' being restrained by four policemen from beating me, and that my swimsuit is starting to feel uncomfortable, is besides the point.

'Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you' (Matthew 5:12). Amen. Scott, Ben, Jim, your persecutory actions only prove I am righteous.

The Hermeneutics of Doctrine

My sincere thanks to Eerdmans for a review copy of Anthony C. Thiselton, The Hermeneutics of Doctrine (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2007). What a delight it was to receive that in the post, I can tell you!

I consider Anthony C. Thiselton an academic role model. His commentary on 1 Corinthians is the best of its kind, his work on hermeneutics is jaw droppingly well researched, and he now shows how well read he is on theological questions. Essentially, Thiselton asks whether 'a more significant interaction between hermeneutics and doctrine [may] play some part in rescuing doctrine from its marginalised function and abstraction from life, and deliver it from its supposed status as mere theory' (xvi).

His new book, The Hermeneutics of Doctrine, provides all manner of important and original insights seeking to answer this question. The first section explores reasons to pursue the hermeneutics of doctrine, while part two answers possible objections to the project. Part three (the main part of the book) then examines a variety of major doctrinal themes, including anthropology, sin, the atonement, Christology, the Trinity and much more besides.

The book is simply superb, a real delight to read. And you know, when reading Thiselton, you will learn plenty for the time spent studying! So many points could be noted as demonstration of this, but for reasons of time I will limit myself to one: It seems to me that his hermeneutical critique of Bultmann in chapter 17 blows apart the justly famous German's claim that Easter is 'nothing other than the rise of faith in the risen one'. Yet he manages this critique at the same time as positively drawing from Bultmann's legitimate insight that to claim 'Jesus is Lord', for example, is a self-involving assertion involving existential language. The whole argument is penetrating, balanced, lucid and learned.

Here is Craig G. Bartholomew's essay, "Three Horizons: Hermeneutics from the Other End―An Evaluation of Anthony Thiselton's Hermeneutic Proposals," European Journal of Theology 5.2 (1996): 121-135. And here is Scot McKnight's glowing review. That's three witnesses, so: Buy it, study it, re-read it and enjoy it!

Tom Wright’s visit tomorrow

It is International Week at Holy Trinity Brompton, with over 1500 delegates from literally all over the world – plus almost (or is it now over) 100 bishops (or equivalent) from a huge number of denominations, including Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Pentecostal, Anglican, Salvation Army, Evangelical Free and many many more besides. It was moving to stand and worship together with so many Christians from such a wide variety of traditions today.

As part of International Week Tom Wright will speak tomorrow night at HTB. The title of his talk: 'Jesus and Tomorrow's World'.

Rather looking forward to that!

A dubbed Jesus movie scene

Does that sound like your Jesus?!

Snuggie Parody

Thanks to our friend Stephie for pointing this one out:

Well, I thought it was funny! I especially liked the reaction to the "free flashlight"!

Quote of the day, or a public display of ignorance

At the end of an essay by Alain Badiou, 'The Transcendental' (in Badiou: Theoretical Writings), he writes that:

'[T]he equation ("The conjunction of the maximum and a degree is equal to this degree") is phenomenologically unimpeachable. But if this is indeed the case, the fact that the reverse of the supreme measurement of the maximum transcendental degree – is also the inapparent is itself a matter of course' (225-6)

Which leads to the punch line of the whole essay:

'It is thereby guaranteed that, in any transcendental whatsoever, the reverse of the maximum is the minimum' (226).

At which point, forehead wrinkled in depressed frustration, I put the book down and think 'what the hell does all of that verbal vomit mean?'. The 'reverse of the maximum is the minimum'? And that took a whole essay to figure?

The reverse of forwards is backwards, folks!

OK chumpy, here is good equation: 'the opposite of *&%llocks is something that makes sense, at least certainly after it has been slowly read more than four times' – surely also as 'phenomenologically unimpeachable' as it gets.

Please help me out, here! Anybody know of any 'obviously-utter-idiot-New-Testament-twit-and-out-of-his-domain' introductory books on Badiou?

Congratulations to Richard Bauckham

Phil Groom informed me this morning that Richard Bauckham has won the 2009 Michael Ramsey prize, for his brilliant book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.

Our warmest congrats to Richard, who, besides getting this honour, also pockets a prize of £15,000!

It was tough competition too: David Brown, God & Grace of Body: Sacrament in Ordinary; Richard Burridge, Imitating Jesus; Sebastian Moore, The Contagion of Jesus; and Anthony Thiselton, The Hermeneutics of Doctrine.

Žižek book free online

Free is always an nice word when put next to 'book'.

Here you can have a read of How to Read Lacan (London: Granta Books, 2006). And anyone who has tried to get their head around Žižek will know how important Lacan is to his work. I'm hoping this will help me think through this talk of the 'grand Autre', 'objet petit a' and so on. Otherwise, reading Žižek it is possible to feel like you have stumbled into a conversation that started long before you arrived – and for a New Testament specialist that can be a real problem!

Two keys to unlock Romans

I’m presently writing a short commentary on Romans – the whole thing is just over 10,000 words! In my introduction, which cannot exceed more than 600 words, I have decided to highlight two key features which, in my view, are necessary to grasp what Romans is about. The first is not too controversial and involves the tension between Jew and Gentile in light of the return of Jews to Rome after the Edict of Claudius which temporarily expelled them. A lot in Romans, especially chapters 14 and 15, fits this situation perfectly and frames much of Paul’s concerns in the rest of the letter. The second is more controversial but equally important. To understand Romans one needs to understand the story of Israel in terms of the life, death and resurrection (here Kirk's thesis, is most helpful) of Jesus Christ – and vice verse. For example, the flow of thought in Romans 3 – from the question about God’s faithfulness and the problem of the unfaithfulness of the people of God, to the declaration in 3:21 that ‘now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets’ – can only be understood in terms of that story and Christ’s role in it.

Anyway, I thought I would share those two thoughts, especially given the need to educate all of you seething masses of dilettantes...