Mike's musings

The hot weather continues!

(backposting) Barbecue's still great. The girls are still enjoying themselves, and we're still enjoying them.

Trying to find a good Symbian Bible app for my phone (a Samsung i8910 S60v5), but am failing somewhat.

Labels: bible, weather

Interesting reading(s)

The readings for Morning Prayer today were interesting: very thought-provoking, in fact. They were Deuteronomy 8.1-10 and Matthew 6.25-34. The first tells the Israelites that God didn't forsake them while they were in the wilderness for 40 years: they didn't go hungry, and there clothes didn't wear out. What's more, he's going to give them a land of milk and honey: "a land where you may eat bread without scarcity, where you will lack nothing". The second is the famous "consider the lilies of the field" passage, telling people not to worry about what they'll drink, eat and wear: God will provide. "So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring worries of its own. Today’s trouble is enough for today."

Although there have been mendicant orders through the ages who have gone out with nothing, and relied on others to support them, most people do accept that at least some planning is sensible, and particularly so, it would seem, in a recession. But the message seems to be that we shouldn't get hung up on worry, and that God _will_ provide. This is a hard thing to hear, particularly as God often doesn't seem to provide - at least what we want. And is it easier for those of us with jobs, and houses, and families and educations to accept this message? Or is it harder if you're always expecting your next meal, rather than being in a position where you've always known that that you can't expect it? So, today was one of those days when the Daily Office really spoke to me, and I honestly don't know what to make of it. Other than to realise that I don't understand, and I need to think and pray.

Labels: bible, money, prayer

The Book of Job

As I've mentioned in previous posts, an atheist friend and I are having a fascinating conversation about faith, which I hope to blog in time. I'm not ready to do that yet, but she asked me a particular question in a side-thread, and I think it's interesting enough to post here, as well as being separate from the main thread. It's an interesting question to be answering, and any comments on how I did it are very welcome!

The question

OK - one of the only times god actually talks to a human? These events are few and far between..........and what does he say?

Actually, rewind a bit. The whole book resembles Trading Places, god and the devil in a nice gentlemens' club - "And where have you been?" says god, "Oh down on earth, doing stuff" says satan, or as the James version has it:
And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

I am sure I am not the only one who reads the subtext "unlike you!".

Then Job gets given a hard time, for no reason?

Then at the end they finally have a chat. And god just goes on and on about what he has done. Not terribly inspiring?

What's your take on it?

I am genuinely interested.

The answer

Done some reading to remind myself: never did much on the Book of Job. Anyway, it's part of what's known as the Wisdom literature in the Bible, along with several other books, of which the best known are probably Proverbs and Ecclesiastes (best known for the song "Turn, turn, turn", which quotes it). There's wisdom literature known from other cultures of the period and area, but the Bible (oddly enough!) is the best known of the set.

The first point to note is that there's a particular type of writing used for Wisdom literature (or, to be more accurate, various types: various forms, to use the standard terminology). Think socratic dialogue, Greek drama, Elizabethan sonnets or experiment write-up: there are standard ways of putting these things together, and the interventions of the "3 friends" is one of those.

In fact, I'm quite chuffed with my choice of socratic dialogue as an example, because I don't think that many people think that the original Socratic dialogues actually record real conversations by Socrates. The same goes for the Wisdom literature: it was a way of putting information across to the next generation(s), through a recognisable story in a recognisable structure.

Now, I'm not saying that there aren't people whose experience of communication with God isn't that He/She speaks directly to them, though it's not mine.

So, I guess that part of the wisdom that's being imparted is that Satan is all around us, ready to trip us up, but that if we continue resolute and trust in God, we will be rewarded in time.

Part of the problem is that critical reading of the Bible, though not rare, is not what gets the press externally. It's the fundamentalists, who pretend that they read the Bible "as is" (you can't: you always bring preconceptions to all texts) who get the press, so that's who many atheists think they're up against (and who R. Dawkins, Esq. tends to engage with, to the exasperation of many of the rest of us).

I hope this doesn't sound like I've ducked or side-stepped the question. It's also worth pointing out that there are many books (and parts of books) in the Bible, about which there is great academic disagreement. For instance, it seems unlikely that the story of the woman caught in adultery, told in John's gospel (the "let whoever is without sin cast the first stone" story), was in the original text, but it seems to have been added very early on in the history of the text, and to be consonant with the values of the community using it, so it tends to be an accepted part of the Canon. Oh, and don't let anyone fool you into even thinking that we (Christians) all agree on what the Bible should look like in terms of which books are in it, let alone on translation. It's all sort of fun. Really: I love this stuff!

Labels: apologetics, bible, theology

Christmas tree

It was nearly dark by the time Jo and I went to the (2nd) Christmas tree place, but we bought one and got it home. I put it up and didn't lose my right thumb. Did hurt though, and bled lots. The line "Oh, so you actually did hurt yourself," from Moo was _meant_ in good faith, I'm sure...

Sally asked about my PhD plans. They're not really plans yet, but I'm missing doing some academic work, and I have some thoughts that I'd like to be following up. They're on authority within Anglicanism: historical, present and future. How we form it, understand it, and negotiate it, and the sources: Bible, tradition, revelation, culture, etc.. I want to start doing some reading, so that's what I'm going to do.

Labels: bible, Christmas, PhD

The slide

As I put on my Facebook status this morning, Jo made a representation of Jesus on the cross using wooden blocks this morning. Then she added a slide for him. Which I think is nice. Bibically difficult to defend, but a kind thought, and adds a whole new slant to Luke 23:35 ("... He saved others; let him save himself...").

Labels: bible, Jo

Unexpected break

After a day filled with work calls, a children's party, a dog walk and a frankly disastrous attempt at potato waffles (not by me...), I was planning to attend a meeting in SecondLife, but it's cancelled (I guess), as the grid is down, and no logons are enabled.

A chance to read Ecclesiastes again, which I promised my spiritual director I'd do before our next meeting (which is next week). A chance to put my feet up which is all the more welcome for being unexpected. And I _do_ like Ecclesiastes.

Labels: bible, relaxation, work

LOLCat bible

Actually, I approve, I think: here.

Labels: bible, cats

Spiritual direction

Work continues busy, but I also had a session of spiritual direction. I've recently changed spiritual directors - not because we didn't get on, but due to problems with clashes of commitments - and I'm getting a lot from my new one, who's called Rosemary. We've agreed that I'll re-read Ecclesiastes, and also try to get hold of another book, which we were struggling to identify!

One of the things that came out of the meeting was a great deal of thought on my side about the extent to which I'm beginning to understand the prophetic nature of my ministry. More about this in the future, I think, but I do feel a call to stand up and be counted - as a liberal. Which is kind of rare.

Labels: bible, ministry, spirituality

Heroes

(backposting) It just keeps getting better, doesn't it? We couldn't face staying up till 2220 (!), so only watched the one episode tonight, recording the other: no spoilers, please. My mate Mark Brown has joined Facebook, so welcome along if you're reading this.

I grabbed a few minutes when I would otherwise have been having a cup of tea yesterday morning, and joined Jo, Miri and Mel (who's also just joined Facebook) at toddler group. It's lovely to see Jo running around, and I'm completely unfazed (sp?) by being the only bloke there. Seems that I get some looks, but I don't care. I noticed yesterday (as I have in similar situations before) that I immediately get lots of attention from other children. This can sometimes be quite disturbing, depending on how they relate to you, but on this occasion it all seemed happy and healthy enough.

Started using the Vulgate for some of my readings for evensong since coming back from the latest ERMC weekend. I'd forgotten how lovely it is, and it appears that I've not got too rusty.

Jo's started recognising "J for Jojo" all over the place, "squiggly snake S's", and the letter "O". She knows that when two "o's" are next to each other as friends, they tend to make an "ooooo" sound, and she goes around finding examples and telling us all about it.

Labels: bible, facebook, Jo, miri, television

Paul conflicted

Just had a really, really weird thought. As regular readers of this blog will know, I've read, enjoyed and been very challenged by some of Marcella Althaus-Reid's work. And, under the influences of the past week's work on postmodernity, I'm sure, I suddenly thought: "what if we try reading Paul as the voice of a woman forced to travel, preach and teach under a man's identity?". Hmmm. Makes the pseudo-Pauline stuff particularly interesting, I suspect.

Really need to think hard about this, but I feel that it's probably a worthwhile thought experiment, if only because it will force me to rethink my view of Paul and his (her...?) identity as revealed through the Epistles. Thoughts welcome.

Labels: bible, gender

Sunday, the day of rest

(backposting) Not if you're on an ERMC summer school, it's not! A Methodist communion - wow, all those little cups of non-wine! - at 0730 (ow!), then breakfast, then more discussion on films. After that, another Ian and Richard double-act, this time discussing post-Christendom. Have to admit that I had a bit of a dose through some of this, as the historical stuff wasn't new to me.

Free time in the afternoon - again, laughable, because there was more choir rehearsal. Much, much better, the Tye, and ready for performing at this evening's worship.

In the afternoon, a session on literature, which focused rather oddly on A Short History of Tractors in Ukrainian, which I'm afraid I hadn't got round to reading (I wasn't alone). Lots of education on post-structuralist and deconstructionist theory, which should be a good underpinning for the rest of the week.

At one point, one of the students, who's firmly from a more evangelical tradition than me, said, "As a Christian theologian, we accept the authority of the Bible...", and I took it up with him later on. I absolutely can't make a blanket statement like that. I have to look at any such acceptance, _particularly_ of the Bible, critically, and when it comes down to it, I find that it's my faith that is the bedrock of my Christianity, shored up by the Bible, and not really the other way round. This isn't a new thing for me, and it's an issue that I grapple with, but it's one that I'm very happy that I _do_ grapple with. It's one of the concerns I used to have about how many scientists at university took to evangelical Christianity: when they're so used to probing and questioning in their own lines of work, how can they be so uncritical in just accepting the Bible (and a rather narrow set of interpretations thereof)? An _uncritical_ sola scriptura just doesn't hold it for me.

The Tye went well, despite a missed alto entry, which we salvaged quickly, and no-one was the wiser. I was very pleased, and lots of people said how much they'd enjoyed it: both choir and congregation.

Labels: bible, ERMC, music, worship

Shocking, shocking result

Thanks to Sally for this one. I wonder how Ted would do...?

Labels: bible