A Short Introduction to the History of Lent

In preparation for the beginning of Lent this Wednesday, I thought it would be a good idea to reflect on the history of the observance of the forty days before Easter in the Christian calendar. Here is quick introduction from Christianity Today

 

 

Why read “A Secular Age”?

I am currently trying to get a group together to read Charles Taylor’s “A Secular Age.” I thought it might be a helpful exercise to sort of the write out some of my reasons for wanting to explore and generate some conversation about this book. I have to admit that I am  drawn to this book partially because Kavin Rowe recommends it.  One rule that I have is that I will read anything Kavin Rowe recommends. In fact, I first encountered Charles Taylor’s work a class on Jesus and the Gospels that was taught by Rowe. We read some chapters from Modern Social Imaginaries and the introduction to A Secular Age in order to discuss the ways in which people view world that informs how they approach the question of Jesus’ identity. The introduction was fascinating to me because it illuminate habits of my own thinking and actions that made things like prayer difficult in my own life.

I am really interested in how Taylor describes the ways in which we see the world and act in the world that we take for granted. That is – the ways of life that we have that are not a result of conscious reflection, but are simply “givens” of our current historical and cultural situation. Taylor argues that secularism is somewhat of a “given” in North America. By this he means that belief in God is one of many possible ways of view in the world. He goes further to say that in the modern condition is one in which, “unbelieving construals seem at first blush the only plausible ones.”  He contrasts this with the western European context about 500 years ago in which atheism was almost unimaginable. Taylor  asks the question: How did we get here?

In the popular imagination the answer is simply the progress of knowledge of natural world like Darwinian evolution. Taylor finds this answer superficial. He wants to go deeper into the way that human beings view the good, themselves, their dependence or autonomy to the world around them. So the definition of secularism that Taylor is concerned with in his book is not decline in church attendance or lack of religious influence in the public square. Rather it is almost a sensibility of being in the modern world that is shared by both believers and unbelievers. My hope is that Taylor will help us understand better our own “situatedness”that affects how we (the we is to be taken in the broadest sense) talk about Religion, transcendence,  and ethics and how Christians think about things like prayer, church authority, and the sacraments.

Man Before God Dogmatics 2.1-25.1

When I read Barth, I sometimes feel like his writing is like that preacher’s sermon that is powerful and inspiring, but says so much and is all over the place that one will have a really hard time figuring out what the unifying theme is or how he got to his points. For Barth the unifying theme is always Jesus, but when I read the Dogmatics I never know what to expect.

In 2.1 Barth continues his extended essay on how we can know God because God reveals himself in Jesus. In the first thirty pages of this volume, he discusses man’s situation before God with respect to how man can know God. Those looking for some sort of approach to Christian apologetics would be disappointed because Barth does not believe that their is some sort of neutral position that people can stand from in order to have an objective discussion about who God is. Therefore, (as has been noted) Barth’s discussion is circular. As Barth sets this up, I could not help but think of Alisdair MacIntyre.  Barth states that knowledge of God cannot be discussed in the abstract. That is, knowledge of God cannot be found from some standpoint outside of the particular way that God has revealed himself in his word. Barth’s point is a Christian affirmation of MacIntyre’s critique of the “Encyclopedist” version of Moral Inquiry. There is no clean slate sort of background that is not itself informed by a particular narrative of the world. The God in the abstract that Barth was concerned about was the god who was “the world soul” or the “Supreme Value.” Barth knew that these were conceptions of God that were supposedly informed by  some universal natural knowledge or pure rational thought. Rather these conceptions of God fit within particular ways of viewing the world. The technical name Barth gives these conception of God is “idol.” Barth is confirmed on this point because god developed from the abstract very well could be a god that upholds National Socialism.

But, Barth is quick to point out that knowledge of God, in that it is indirect, is not necessarily always guaranteed to be reality with God’s people at all times. I thought his discussion on the continual need for renewal during the history of Israel was interesting. The scriptural narrative bears witness to both God’s continual patience with his people and God’s people’s propensity to get God wrong. That continual need for renewal is now fulfilled with the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. For Barth, God has provided access to Himself by revealing Himself to man. The need for renewal is transformed because God is continually reconciling himself to his people. Barth closes this section with the phrase, “God Never Ceases to make continual new beginnings with man.” (25)

So, what does this mean in the section titled “Man Before God.” It means that because Christ is our knowledge of God, it is not something we can arrive at ourselves. Confidence in knowing God is something that can be arrived at only by seeing the truth in our dependence on God’s self revelation. This dependence on God is made concrete in the act of Prayer. It is necessary for the Christian to pray for the fulfillment of the knowledge of God, “that God will give himself to be known.”

Videos on Everybook of the Bible

The University of Nottingham’s theology department has made a website of introductory videos for every book of the Bible. The videos give a brief introduction to the critical issues and themes of the Biblical book. It also includes some theological reflections  from scholars such as: Anthony Thistleton, Conor Cunningham, and John and Alison Milbank.

Its a nice resource especially for people like me who never attend a New or Old Testament  intro class in seminary. Check it out here.

Joel Green to edit the NICNT

I sometimes get asked what I think is the best bible commentary series. I really don’t have an answer because it depends on what you are looking for and the quality of the author of a particular volume. Some great series like Anchor Bible and ICC have some of the best commentaries you can get on a particular book of the New Testament (Marcus’ Mark in the AB or I. Howard Marshall’s Pastoral Epistles in the ICC), but have volumes that really need to be updated.  One of the best series though is Eerdmans’ New International Commentary on the New Testament. Its New Testament volumes include some important works: Fee’s First Corinthians, Moo’s Romans (even though I think chaps 2-3 are a nightmare), and France’s Matthew. I think the NICNT  does a great job of combining scholarly rigor that takes a balanced critical approach, and it is actually useful for the general reader.

According the Scot McKnight’s blog, Eerdmans has announced that Joel Green is taking Gordon Fee’s place as the editor of the series. Green teaches at Fuller Theological Seminary and wrote the series’ commentary on the Gospel of Luke which I used in seminary.  With Green as the new editor the NICNT series should continue to be one of the best commentary series for studying the New Testament.

David Bentley Hart on the Infinite and Peace

Just started David Bentley Hart’s The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth. He concludes the first part of his introduction with this:

“I shall argue that it is possible to see vast portions of Western philosophy, from antiquity to the present, as moving within the confines of two ontologies – two narratives of being – which are really only two poles of a single ontological vision, whereas the church’s story of being – arising from Scripture and its own understanding of what has been revealed in Christ – is simply alien to the world this vision descries. And nowhere does this difference appear more starkly delineated than in the understanding of the infinite that becomes possible (indeed necessary) within Christian thought; the Christian infinite belongs to an ontology of or final and ultimate peace, and as a consequence allows a construal of beauty and of peace inconceivable in terms of the ontology that Christian thought encountered first in various schools of pagan metaphysics, and encounters, and encounters again in the thought of Nietzsche and his heirs.” 

….this is going to be good.

Hitchens and the Collect for Purity

Chris Hitchens is by far my favorite contemporary atheist. I think this is because he has the best wit of the current crop of “despisers of religion.” I also appreciate his rants against the evils perpetrated by religious institutions. Even though, as David Bentley Hart has argued, the conclusions he draws from the these observations are nothing but non-sequiturs. One statement he has made has always struck me as particularly interesting and worth reflection. I have heard him suggest that he not only has no reason to believe in God, but that he is glad that this is the case. His answer that atheism is good news is incredibly insightful to the human condition. He states:

            The main reason for this is that it (theism) is a totalitarian belief. It is the wish to be a slave. That there be an unalterable, unchallengeable, tyrannical authority; who can convict you of a thought crime while you are asleep. He can subject you, who must indeed subject you, to a total surveillance around the clock every waking assuming minute of your life…and after death this is where the real fun begins. A celestial North Korea. Who wants this to be true? Who but a slave desire such a ghastly fate?

Hitchens finds the idea of an all powerful God, who knows and judges, our innermost being repulsive. For Hitchens, it is better that we have our privacy. On the surface, Hitchens’ reasoning is ridiculous. He views a reality without any chance of final justice for the poor, cosmic purpose, the restoration of our own inner demons, and ultimately the final meaningless end of everything and everyone we ever loved is a better reality than one in which there is a divine creator who truly knows us.

One could fault Hitchens for desiring his own personal privacy over the redemption of cosmos as Esau traded his birthright for a bowl of soup. I know, however, that Hitches is simply expressing honestly a disposition that all of us often share with him. If we are honest, there is a part of us that is resistant to the idea that our whole self belongs to God and that we live our lives exposed to our creator. This desire for privacy, however, is not freedom but rather one cause for our loneliness. Mark Galli pointed out in a talk this weekend that our need for space keeps can keep us from forming the intimate relationships that we need.

Of course, there is always a risk involved with being exposed. The God we trust in is not the impersonal tyrant that Hitchens describes, but is revealed in the self giving love of Jesus Christ who exposed himself to the hard wood of the cross and suffered to reconcile humanity to God.  God’s revelation in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ means that the reality that God knows all our thoughts is good news. God truly knows us: our discontentment, pain, struggles, irritation with others, part of ourselves we are so ashamed about that no one else knows about, parts of ourselves we do not even recognize ourselves and responds in grace and love. I am reminded of this statement by Hitchens when we pray the collect for purity every week in church.

            Almighty God, to you all hearts are open and all desires known and from you no secrets are hid. Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that we may perfectly love you and worthily magnify your Holy name. 

The hope expressed by the prayer is that love of God, who knows us more intimately than we know ourselves, is a transformative love that enables us to grow in love for God and our neighbor.