What is it about the Gospel texts that I find so amazing?

The Bible contains four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Each gives an account of the life and teaching of Jesus. There are many questions that we can and should ask about these literary texts. Indeed, over the past two thousand years, many people have explored questions and engaged in debates about authorship, historicity, divine revelation, moral authority, textual reliability, and the (im)possibility of miracles. 

In this post, I want to put aside these questions for now, and just focus on the Gospels as texts and public information. In a sense I am taking an empirical scientific perspective, viewing the texts as like scientific data, that is publically available. Everyone has access to this data. There is really little room for debate about what the data is. The debate is about how to analyse and how to interpret the data. 

Over decades I have read and re-read the Gospels and read what a range of people, both Christian and non-Christian say about them. Here I want to state some of the things that I think are truly amazing about these texts.

There is an incredible literary depth. Each Gospel interweaves different stories about Jesus, his teaching, and quotations and allusions to the Jewish scriptures (Old Testament). After two thousand years, they are still considered some of the best literature ever produced and still attract intricate and subtle analysis from literary scholars. In this regard, they are in a different league to any other literature unlike any other literature from two thousand years ago, including Christian literature.

I find the most amazing thing to be the teachings of Jesus. They are radical, counter-cultural (then and now), comforting, and challenging. Jesus' teaching provides an insightful description of reality: money, power, pride, evil, human nature, human dignity, relationships, forgiveness, competing values, and self-righteousness. Although sometimes abstract and difficult to interpret, Jesus' teaching provides a very down-to-earth and practical guide for daily living. Jesus' life also illustrates what this "good life" should look like.

I delight in the creativity and profundity of the paradoxes presented. The first will be last. The last will be first. The humble will be exalted. Become great by being a servant. Save your life and you will lose it. Lose your life and you will find it. The Kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus is an upside-down kingdom, in stark contrast to the kingdoms of this world where money, power, privilege, and social status are exalted and determine who rules.

Jesus' upside-down kingdom is illustrated and embodied in his embrace of the marginalised: tax collectors, prostitutes, the poor, widows, orphans, Samaritans, cripples, and "sinners." This makes the empathetic part of my soul sing. There is hope. And, it challenges me as a child of privilege, to follow Jesus' example.

                                      Christ on the Cross by Rembrandt

The centrepiece and climax of the Gospel narratives are the Cross: the death of Jesus by crucifixion. He is publically humiliated and executed as a criminal and social outcast. There are many dimensions to what the Cross represents: an embrace of suffering, identification with the weak, and atonement for sin, ... It is the ultimate embodiment of the upside-down kingdom as it is about power through weakness, and wisdom through foolishness. For the time and place of Roman-occupied Palestine, the Cross is about as counter-cultural as possible. Jesus' death defines a model for how he wants his followers to live.

In the midst of a messed-up world, both then and now, the Gospels present me hope, through the resurrection of Jesus and the promise of a forthcoming just judgement. Evil will be punished. Those who have suffered unjustly will experience deliverance.

I have not encountered any other literature, from any age, or of any genre that compares to the richness and inspiration I find in the Gospels.

The impact of the Gospel narratives is amazing. The early church went from being a small rag-tag band of followers to a cultural force that ultimately transcended and outlasted the mighty Roman empire. This incredible influence has been well-documented by authors such as Tom Holland and Rodney Stark.

The Gospels exhibit an amazing universality in particularity. They were written in ancient Greek at a particular time, in a particular place, and in a particular religious, political, cultural, and economic context. Despite their particularity the relevance and impact of the Gospels are enduring, transcending time, space, language, context, and culture. They are "translatable" in every sense of the word. They are accessible to all, being both profound and simple.

These amazing things raise many questions for me. Why do the Gospels have such an impact on me and on others? What is it about them that makes them so unique? Why are the Gospels so superior to other literature, both past and present? Why do they resonate? inspire? comfort? transform people? 

Taken together all the features I have noted provide hints of transcendence. Perhaps the Gospels are something more than great literature and words on a page. Could they be a living word? And who was the person Jesus described in the Gospels? Was he something more than the creation of some great literary minds, or more than an extraordinary man? Could it be that the Gospels describe what actually did happen? Could Jesus' teaching actually be true?

J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis were two of the most creative literary minds of the twentieth century. They considered the Gospels to be the greatest story ever told. Here are some of Tolkien's reflections.

Of course I do not mean that the Gospels tell what is only a fairy-story; but I do mean very strongly that they do tell a fairy-story: the greatest. Man the story-teller would have to be redeemed in a manner consonant with his nature: by a moving story. But since the author of it is the supreme Artist and the Author of Reality, this one was also made . . . to be true on the Primary Plane. (Letters, 100–101)

 ‘this story is supreme; and it is true. Art has been verified. God is the Lord, of angels, and of men—and of elves. Legend and History have met and fused’ (‘On Fairy-stories’, 63).

Signals of transcendence from human experience

Peter Berger was an influential sociologist. In his book, A Rumor of Angels: Modern Society and the Rediscovery of the Supernatural, Berger considers five aspects of everyday human existence that he considers are "signals of transcendence". These experiences are accessible to all and are within the domain of natural reality, but appear to point beyond that reality. [Berger wrote the book in 1969 and revised it in 1990].

Berger describes his arguments as "inductive faith" which "moves from human experience to statements about God". In contrast, "deductive faith begins with certain assumptions (notably assumptions about divine revelation) that cannot be tested by experience." (p.64-5). Deductive faith provides an interpretation of experience.

The five signals of transcendence are below.

1. An argument from ordering. Humans have the propensity to believe that the world is ordered in a trustworthy way, even when things appear chaotic. An example is a mother comforting a scared child, telling them that things will be okay. The mother is not lying to the child because "the reassurance, transcending the immediately present two individuals and their situation, implies a statement about reality as such." (p. 62)

2.  An argument from play. In all contexts, even the most "serious" ones, humans have the capacity to play. While playing adults can become like children, suspending the time structure of the ordinary life of adults. Berger quotes C.S. Lewis famous sermon, Learning in Wartime:

"Human life has always been lived on the edge of a precipice. [It is part of our nature to create, reason, and laugh in the midst of pending disaster] to propound mathematical theorems in beleaguered cities, conduct metaphysical arguments in condemned cells, make jokes on scaffold, discuss the last new poem while advancing to the walls of Quebec,..."

3. An argument from hope. have an "unconquerable propensity to hope for the future." We hope even in the face of death.

Man's "no!" to death - be it in the frantic fear of his own annihilation, moral outrage at the death of a loved other - or in death-defying acts of courage and self-sacrifice - appears to be an intrinsic constituent of his being. There seems to be a death-refusing hope at the very core of our humanitas. While empirical reason indicates that this hope is an illusion, there is something in us that however shamefacedly in an age of triumphant rationality, goes on saying "no!" and even says "no!" to the ever so plausible explanations of empirical reason. (p.72)

4. An argument from damnation. Humans have an innate morality and justice. Even people who would identify as moral relativists, sometimes exhibit a conviction that some things are just plain wrong and must be condemned and be punished.

The transcendent element manifests itself in two steps. First, our condemnation is absolute and certain, it does not permit modification or doubt, and is made in the conviction that it applies to all times and all men... We give the condemnation the status of a necessary and universal truth, [but it] cannot be empirically demonstrated to be either necessary or universal. We are, then, faced with quite a simple alternative: Either we deny that there is here anything that can be called truth... or we must look beyond the realm of our natural experience for a validation of our certainty.  Second, the condemnation does not seem to exhaust it's intrinsic intention in terms of this world alone. Deeds that cry out to heaven also cry out for hell. This is the point that was brought out very clearly in the debate over Aldolf Eichmann's execution.

5. An argument from humor.  Humans have not only the capacity to laugh, but also to use humour to cope with tragedy and to undermine the delusions of the powerful.

By laughing at the imprisonment of the human spirit, humor implies that this imprisonment is not final but will be overcome, and by this implication provides yet another signal of transcendence - in this instance in the form of an intimation of redemption... 

Humor mocks the "serious" business of this world and the mighty who carry it out... The one to be finally pitied is the one who has an illusion. And power is the final illusion, while laughter reveals the final truth... Power is ultimately an illusion because it cannot transcend the limits of the empirical world. Laughter can - and does everytime it relativizes the seemingly rock-like necessities of this world.

We can debate whether these are convincing arguments for the existence of transcendence. On the other hand, I think these arguments are creative and a refreshing alternative to the classical arguments for the existence of God.

I thank Vinoth Ramachandra for making me aware of Berger's ideas through a recent blogpost. 

When does humanity make my heart sing?

What is so wonderful about being human? Sometimes humanity does inspire awe and wonder in me.

Babies burp, puke, poo in their pants, and sometimes cry inconsolably. Yet, they are so cute and adorable. I love their little fingers and toes, with miniature nails. They explore their environment with great curiosity. Babies occasionally flash winsome smiles to the joy of those watching them. And there is the miracle of the way they grow spontaneously and mature into small children. Those cute little fingers grow to full size.

Small children have their own sense of awe, wonder, curiosity, and joy. They can be a source of inspiration and envy to staid adults like myself. Simple things delight: throwing flower petals in the air, blowing bubbles, digging in the garden, holding a hand, or cuddling a pet.

To often I struggle to see adults as cute and adorable or a source of delight, awe, and wonder. They have an incredible ability to heartlessly inflect pain on others. But sometimes adults do make my heart sing and I clamour for more. I am moved deeply by acts of service, tenderness, compassion, courage, reconciliation, forgiveness, generosity, and self-sacrifice. A poor person shares what little food they have with their neighbour. A child stands up to a bully in the playground.  A mother comforts a sick child. A highly-paid CEO leaves his position and suburban house so he can work and live in a marginalised poor community.

Relationships can be beautiful and lead to awe and wonder. Even introverts such as myself hunger for relationships and community. There is nothing quite like the connections associated with vulnerability, camaraderie, and laughter. Even those of us blessed with a stable and rich family life, desire more.

                                    Luncheon of the Boating Party (1881) by Pierre-Auguste Renoir. 

I am in awe of human creativity expressed in art, music, literature, business, science, engineering, and academic disciplines. Wow! Why can humans create such amazing things?

Humans have much of the same biology as animals: DNA, proteins, cells, organs, brains, ... Yet humans are unique in the animal kingdom. Their level of consciousness, reflection, communication, creativity, and culture is simply on a different scale from anything seen in primates. On the one hand, apes can do some fascinating things with similarities to human behaviour. However, apes do not write science textbooks, build telescopes, or create great literature.

Humans all have the same biology. But no human has exactly the same DNA as another. Consequently, each human has a unique personality, unique physical characteristics and abilities. Humans also share many common abilities and aspirations. There is unity in diversity. I delight in the diversity, even though sometimes I do wish everyone was just like me! In particular, it would be nice if everyone had the same values and perspectives as me. On the other hand, I can begrudgingly admit the world would be an even bigger mess if it was full of introverted Western theoretical physicists.

To understand the wonder and tragedy what a human is and how they behave, I find different perspectives helpful. Humans can be considered at different scales, from genetic to social. Thus, one can bring to bear perspectives from biology, sociology, psychology, philosophy, and theology. I also have awe and wonder at humans and what we can understand about humans, again reflecting something wonderful about human capabilities.

My sense of wonder provides hints of transcendence: there is something beyond all that we observe, touch, measure, and rationalise.

There is much to celebrate and enjoy about humanity. But, sober observation acknowledges the reality of human depravity. We hurt ourselves, others, and nature. Sometimes brutally and in ways that we consider worthy of condemnation. This leads me to an ambivalence about humanity. Awe and wonder at the beauty of humanity must be held in tension with revulsion and contempt for human vulgarity. This is a paradox.

The dialectic of the human condition is captured in the narrative of the Genesis narrative, and the associated theological concepts of creation and fall. On the one hand, each person is made in the image of God, of intrinsic value, and mandated to enjoy, care for, and steward the creation. On the other hand, this image is marred. Humans are fallen, prone to violence, and alien to themselves, others, and nature.

My sense of awe and wonder at nature

 On most mornings I go for a walk with my dog, Priya in the parkland near my house. Originally this daily ritual had pragmatic motivations: exercising both me and the dog, clearing my head for the day ahead, and promoting good mental health. Over time this activity has been enriched by my observation and contemplation of the natural world. I see flowers, trees, a creek, birds, and water dragons. Two beautiful rainbow lorikeets emerge from their nest inside the trunk of a gum tree and fly off chirping. A large water dragon looks like a miniature dinosaur as it lumbers out of my path and plunges into the safety of the creek. Priya and I clamber down the banks of the creek and hop over it where it narrows and make our way through a grove of majestic bamboo trees that creak in the wind. I notice how the different trees near the creek produce an impressionist image of a range of shades of green. I am delighted to see how some of these trees have produced beautiful yellow flowers. I catch a glimpse of a kookaburra standing still contemplating its environment before it sleekly flies off in a straight line with a slightly undulating height, so unlike the random flight path of swallows.

And then there is Priya. Sometimes she walks faithfully by my side. Other times she passionately sprints in random directions, just for the sheer pleasure of it. She smells practically everything. She experiences a whole reality that I am oblivious to. These walks can be a source of joy, awe, and wonder. Nature is amazing.

If you did not grow up in Australia, you may think that some of our wildlife is weird, cute, and fascinating: kangaroos, wallabies, koalas, echidnas, wombats, and platypi. Even though they are very familiar to me, seeing a kangaroo hop along is still a delight. Until this year I had never seen a platypus in the wild. When I finally saw one from a viewing platform in a National Park I stood mesmerised as I watched this cute little creature swim and dive, while searching for food on the bottom of the creek. My heart sang. But, why?

While at university I began taking bushwalking trips in wilderness areas with friends. The trips lasted for three to fourteen days, camping and carrying all our supplies.  Within a few hours' drive of Canberra, there is a multitude of national parks, each with distinct landscapes and ecosystems. They range from stone-covered river beds at the bottom of deep canyons to alpine areas covered in fields of wildflowers. Why did I find it so enthralling? I encountered beauty. I had a sense of wonder how there was something here that stood outside the rapidly changing world of the city. Human history and personal achievements really did not matter in the wilderness. Looking over a grand vista there was a sense of our own smallness and insignificance. I had an insatiable desire for more and developed a mentality that bushwalking was my default method of relaxing and the only way I could recover from mental and emotional exhaustion.

What is it about our experiences of nature that are so special and significant? What is the origin of the awe and wonder? What produces feelings of resonance, joy, and delight? There is mystery. 

To me, speaking somewhat scientifically, the sound of a bubbling brook is "white noise" and not that different from the sound produced by a highway full of cars. But, the effect on me of the creek and the highway is very different. Walking beside a bubbling brook is delightful, calming, energising, and peaceful. Walking beside the road is stressful, tiring, and just plain yucky. Why the difference?

The mystery in my encounters with nature hints at something greater than me, something that may complete me, and something that might place my life in a grander story.

There are two things to make sense of here, nature and my response to it. How do we describe and interpret nature? How do we interpret our experience of it? There are a range of perspectives we can bring to bear. On nature, there are the perspectives of biology and ecology, ranging from genetics to how climate change affects individual species. At what scale we look at the phenomena is a matter of what questions we are asking. Our personal response to nature can be viewed through a kaleidoscope of perspectives: biological, psychological, sociological, experiential, aesthetic, and religious. The representation and communication of our experiences can be expressed in art, music, poetry, and literature. All of these may provide a window into the reality of the natural world and our relation to it.

Here, I want to explore hints of transcendence. There is something going on that is beyond DNA, physical appearances, ecology, biological evolution, and the social conditioning of aesthetics. 

Through the ages, human encounters with nature have produced rich and diverse perspectives. In reaction to the rise of scientific descriptions of natural phenomena: from Newtonian mechanics to Darwinian evolution, the eighteenth century, saw the rise of romanticism, which valued the intense emotional experience of individuals' encounters with nature.

Negative sentiments concerning natural philosophy (science) is captured in the poem, Lamia written by John Keats in 1819. 

Do not all charms fly
At the mere touch of cold philosophy?
There was an awful rainbow once in heaven:
We know her woof, her texture; she is given
In the dull catalogue of common things.
Philosophy will clip an Angel's wings,
Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,
Empty the haunted air, and gnomed mine—

Unweave a rainbow, as it erewhile made

This negative sentiment about science is countered by Richard Dawkins in his 1998 book, Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder. He contends that science reveals rather than conceals the true beauty of the natural world. A softer perspective is that of Ursula Goodenough, author of The Sacred Depths of Nature, and an advocate of religious naturalism.

For me, my experience of awe and wonder hints at transcendence. But this is not my only feeling. There is also a sense of violation and lament as I see natural beauty being defiled and destroyed. Last week, the creek I walk by each day was flooded by sewage and became black. It was so polluted that dead fish appeared on the banks. The creek smelled so bad I changed my walking route for a few days to avoid the stench. There are countless other violations that grieve me: ancient forests being felled, wilderness areas flooded, wildlife losing their home, and fields of alpine wildflowers killed by late snow dumps resulting from climate change. To me, this sense of violation has a transcendent dimension. It hints that there is intrinsic value in nature and that there is a morality associated with how humans interact with it.

What is awe and wonder?

 At times when I contemplate nature, science, humanity, and Biblical texts I have a sense of awe and wonder. What do I mean by that? I know it when I feel it but it is hard to describe in words.

Members of my family have been reading Phosphorescence: On awe, wonder, and things that sustain you when the world goes dark, by Julia Baird. In this memoir, she intersperses descriptions of her own experiences of awe and wonder, her struggle with cancer, scientific studies on the value of encounters with nature, her struggles with churches, her own faith, and what all this may mean for a fulfilling life. She includes quotations from famous people that I found helpful in considering how might define and characterise awe and wonder. 

Awe makes us stop and stare. Awe humbles us, gives us perspective, and makes us aware that the world is unfathomably larger than ourselves.

Wonder makes us stop and ask questions about the world.

Here are quotes from Einstein, Adam Smith, and Rachel Carson.

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead; his eyes are closed.

Albert Einstein

Adam Smith was a moral philosopher and the founder of modern economics. He said that wonder occurs

“when something quite new and singular is presented… [and] memory cannot, from all its stores, cast up any image that nearly resembles this strange appearance.”

This wonder can be felt physically, characterised by

‘that staring, and sometimes that rolling of the eyes, that suspension of the breath, and that swelling of the heart’.

Adam Smith, A History of Astronomy

“Those who dwell, as scientists or laymen, among the beauties or mysteries of the earth are never alone or weary of life… Their thoughts can find paths that lead to inner contentment and to renewed excitement in living. Those who contemplate the beauty of the earth find reserves of strength that will endure as long as life lasts.” 

Rachel Carson, The Sense of Wonder

To me this is a hint of transcendence. There is something going on and behind this which goes beyond material reality and what we can quantify, control, and describe.

A brilliant presentation of the power of Elijah

At church, the current sermon series is on 1 Kings and we recently came to where the prophet Elijah enters the scene. This led me to return to a favourite piece of music, Elijah, which was first performed in 1846.

Elijah is a compelling figure in the Bible. He is a prophet who faithfully seeks to follow the God of the covenant, YHWH in the midst of a declining Israel (Northern Kingdom) characterised by injustice, violence, and idolatry.  The people suffer from drought and food insecurity. Elijah does a great miracle to defeat the prophets of Baal. Intimidated by death threats from Queen Jezebel he runs away, and is exhausted, both physically and spiritually. But Elijah is cared for by an angel and has his faith and courage renewed.

Felix Mendelssohn took the story of Elijah and composed an oratorio [a composition for orchestra, choir, and soloists] that some considered to be one of the greatest expressions of that musical genre.

The text [libretto] written by Julius Schubring is brilliant and creative, composed only of interspersal of the text of Kings and other passages from the Bible, as can be seen on Wikipedia. The accompanying musical score emotionally empowers the text. This is all brought out in a beautiful and detailed commentary on the oratorio that was written by John Maclay for a performance at Grace Church in New York. 

Lessons from the ants for the Christian church

6 

 Go to the ant, you sluggard;  consider its ways and be wise!

It has no commander, no overseer or ruler,

yet it stores its provisions in summer and gathers its food at harvest.

    Proverbs 6:6-8

Ant colonies are amazing. It is incredible what they can achieve. I love the video below. It highlights how complex structures and functions emerge in an ant colony even though there is no individual directing the whole operation. The colony can achieve much more than individual ants acting independently of one another.

Ant colonies are fascinating from a scientific point of view, particularly as they are a model for the concept of emergence. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Here, I explore how scientific observations about ant colonies might inspire followers of Jesus as they reflect on the church, its mission, its corporate character, being the body of Christ, and the living presence of God in the world.

Humans do not rule the world. Ants do! They have colonised every continent. There are more than ten thousand trillion ants on the planet. Their total body mass is comparable to that of the eight billion humans on earth. There are more than sixteen thousand different species of ant. Their survival, expansion, and impressive achievements are not the result of heroic gifted individuals, charismatic leaders, benevolent dictators, advanced technology, or great intelligence.

Rather the global success of ants results from cooperative action and individual self-sacrifice. It is not just a matter of strength in numbers. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Observations by entomologists and mathematical models show that it is through the synergy of cooperation that a colony produces new structures, functions, and achievements. These are qualitatively different from what is possible for a small number of ants. Each ant has a job to do. They just get on with it, cooperating with others in their immediate neighbourhood, and acting for the greater common good. 

Individual ants have limited abilities. Each ant has a specialist task. A colony is composed of several distinct classes of workers (castes): soldiers, excavators, foragers, garbage collectors, and gardeners. 

Ants are simple small animals. They have poor hearing and sight. They have limited ability to communicate. They use a few signals based on touch, but mostly communicate by producing trails of distinct chemicals (pheromones).  

Discoveries about ant colonies are leading biologists to rethink individuality and its role in the survival of a community. Individual ants do not seem to have "selfish genes". That is, they do not act in a manner oriented towards preserving their individual genetic lineage. Ants have a sacrificial existence. They appear to have no self-interest. They do not compete with one another. They have unwavering loyalty to their queen and to the preservation of the colony that she has given birth to. Some biologists refer to the colony as a superorganism.

No analogy is perfect. All models are wrong, but some are useful. Nevertheless, I think it is worth asking what lessons Christians might draw from the science of ant colonies? The author of proverbs would affirm such contemplation. The properties and workings of the created order may reflect important truths about how God wants his people to live.

A Biblical metaphor for the church is that of the Body of Christ. The body has many members. Each of these members has a special function and contribution to make. These members are to work together for the good of the whole body. There are many different gifts and abilities. No gift or individual is to be valued or elevated more than another. The weak are indispensable.

Humans are a lot smarter and stronger than ants! We have vastly more capabilities than ants. But, just like ants, individual Christians are not exceptional. They are finite and have limited abilities and strength. Paul pointed out to the Corinthian church their own severe limitations.

Not many [of you] were wise from a human perspective, not many powerful, not many of noble birth. Instead, God has chosen what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen what is weak in the world to shame the strong.  (1 Corinthians 1:26-27)

Christians are to have an undying loyalty to their King, Jesus. Followers of Jesus are to live sacrificially. Jesus said

“If anyone wants to follow after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life because of me will save it." (Luke 9:23,24)

Paul exhorted the church in Rome to live sacrificially, considering themselves as one body made of many parts, and to exercise the gifts God had given each of them. 

in view of the mercies of God, I urge you to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God; this is your true worship. ...I tell everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he should think... Now as we have many parts in one body, and all the parts do not have the same function, in the same way we who are many are one body in Christ and individually members of one another. (Romans 12:1-8) 

Paul continues identifying specific gifts: prophecy, service, teaching, exhortation, giving, leading, and showing mercy. Each member of the body should use that gift. Paul expressed similar ideas to the church in Ephesus.

[God] gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, to build up the body of Christ, ...let us grow in every way into him who is the head—Christ. From him the whole body, fitted and knit together by every supporting ligament, promotes the growth of the body for building itself up in love by the proper working of each individual part. (Ephesians 4:11-16)

Paul told the Philippians that it would bring him great joy if they had the same attitude as Christ,

thinking the same way, having the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility consider others as more important than yourselves. Everyone should look not to his own interests, but rather to the interests of others. (Philippians 2:2-4)

Both the behaviour of ants and these Biblical exhortations are in stark contrast to the ways and values of the modern capitalist world. It worships the individual, promotes the rights of the individual, and motivates individuals with money, punishments, and the promise of celebrity.

Christians and the organisations that they start have a limited life span. People die. Even excellent institutions do not last forever, particularly in terms of having enduring relevance and impact. The goal of members of the Body of Christ is that during each of our lifetimes we should use our limited abilities and work together so that the community of our King endures forever. Ant colonies illustrate how with collective action and self-sacrifice much more can be achieved than through small numbers of independent individuals. Christians need to consider the ways of the ants. They can give us wisdom.  This may lead us together to achieve "far more than we can ask or imagine."

Four dimensions to making sense of science, life, and God

Reality and our experience of it are rich and complex. How do we make sense of it? How do we find meaning in life, God, and science? Where do we start? 

To explore such questions I find it helpful to consider four different dimensions: experience, tradition, reason, and transcendence. I have drawn inspiration from the Wesley quadrilateral in theology, but stress that I consider a broader application and perspective.

This quadrilateral is both descriptive and prescriptive. I believe it provides a good description of the different dimensions that people do use to make sense of things, whether science, theology, or ethics, even if they are not explicitly aware of what they are doing. People place different values and emphasis on each of the four dimensions, but they may all be present in their discussions. I also think the quadrilateral is also prescriptive.  For a broad range of topics, considering these four different dimensions is a good way to proceed, particularly when explicitly stating how one employs and prioritises each of the different dimensions. 

In this post, I briefly explain what I mean by each of the four dimensions and the strengths and weaknesses of each. The four dimensions are complementary. A strength of each dimension is that it can compensate for the weaknesses of some of the other dimensions. On the other hand, the four dimensions are not independent of one another.

Experience

In some sense, as individuals, this is all each of us has. We each have a unique personal history: family, education, employment, travel, church, and personal relationships. Associated with our history are experiences of joy, pain, confusion, insight, success, failure, and disappointment. Experience includes books we have read, movies we have seen, and music we have listened to. These experiences shape us: who we are, what we believe, and what we value. The influence of experience plays out at every level: individual, family, community, institution, and nation. Experience is not determinative but it is influential, perhaps more than we might like to acknowledge. Experience influences the relative priority we place on reason, tradition, transcendence, and experience!

A philosophical perspective that puts the highest priority on elements of experience is empiricism. We should only believe to be real what we can experience through sensation (sight, touch, hearing, smell) and measurement.

Experience is central to modern science. Theories are tested by experiments and independent observations (experiments) by different groups have to agree. Experience is validated by others having the same experience. 

In contrast to empiricism, romanticism was a movement in the eighteenth century that put a different emphasis on experience, valuing intense emotions, individualism, nature, intuition, inspiration, and subjectivity.

Strengths. Experience can help us engage with reality, tempering fantasy and wishful thinking. Experience can expose us to a diverse range of perspectives, including the life experience of others. In some sense, this engagement with others enables us to go beyond the limitations of our own individual experiences, abilities, personalities, and perspectives.

Weaknesses. Our own experience is finite and limited, particularly relative to all of humanity and all of history. Our experience is subjective and may not be accurate. For example, two individuals may observe the same event but have contradictory perspectives on what actually happened. Optical illusions, such as that shown below, show that even simple observations can be wrong. Experiences do not stand alone or speak for themselves but need to be interpreted. Any interpretation will involve reason, tradition, and likely transcendence.

In the picture above is the vertical line longer, shorter, or the same length in the left or right panel?

Reason

Reason is an intellectual activity. It means thinking and writing down arguments about what we think is true and why we think it is true. The essential form of a rational argument has two components. First, a set of assumptions (axioms) that are considered "reasonable" (e.g., because they are based on observations or a principle that every "reasonable" person can agree on) are stated. Then one investigates the conclusions that follow from these assumptions, using rules of logic. Reason is central to science, and plays the greatest role in the natural sciences through theories that can be formulated mathematically.

A philosophical perspective that puts the highest priority on reason is rationalism. Truth can only be found by rational argument. This was the way that ancient Greeks did science. They discounted the need to do experiments, deeming that common sense observations about nature were adequate.

Strengths. Careful reasoning can expose inconsistencies in arguments or lead to conclusions that we might not expect. Clearly stating assumptions can clarify the basis of a "rational" truth claim. Mathematics in the natural sciences has been incredibly powerful and successful. Theories such as classical mechanics, relativity, quantum theory, and electromagnetism, are based on just a few assumptions and mathematical equations. Yet, using rules of mathematical logic one can describe diverse phenomena quantitatively and make specific predictions about the outcome of experiments.

Weaknesses.  Reason is only useful and reliable if the validity of the assumptions made in an argument has a strong justification. Assumptions that may be "reasonable" or "self-evident" to one individual may not be to another. The ancient Greeks were wrong about science, believing things about nature that they thought were "common sense", but turned out to be false. In some sense, at some point in the development of an argument, it is necessary to just take some assumptions on "faith." Reason is sometimes claimed to be pre-eminent in contexts that are debatable. For issues that are predominantly emotional, relational, or artistic, reason may be of marginal relevance or unhelpful. 

Tradition

Tradition is all about the past. There are traditions that relate to many different spheres of life, including culture, religion, science, philosophy, morality, and government. A tradition is a framework, inherited from the past, that claims authority about what is true and the way that things should be done. In the context of moral philosophy, Alasdair MacIntyre, states "A tradition is an argument extended through time in which certain fundamental agreements are defined and redefined" by internal and external debates. He claimed, "no way of conducting rational enquiry from a standpoint independent of the particularities of any transition has been discovered and that there is good reason to believe that there is no such way". In different words, reason cannot be separated from tradition.

Traditions are embodied in institutions, such as universities, governments, and religious denominations. Education in a particular subject involves learning a particular tradition.

Culture is an example of tradition. Culture is "the way we do things around here." Culture consists of the ideas, knowledge, beliefs, values, skills, and attitudes, that shape the behaviour of a community.

Strengths. Subjects such as philosophy, theology, and science have developed over centuries. Traditions within them are the accumulation of the knowledge, wisdom and insight gained from all hard work. It is efficient to make use of a tradition. In fact, it is unrealistic to jettison all tradition and claim that in the present one can simply start from scratch and ignore the past. Traditions provide stability, predictability, and a community with shared values, assumptions, and ways of doing things. Traditions can temper some of the foolishness associated with new fashions.

Weaknesses. Traditions can be resistant to the positive change that can come through new ideas, discoveries, and new methods. Traditions can be resistant to adapting to new and different contexts. Traditions tend to leave authority and power with an older generation, who may have a vested interest in things not changing. This is how tradition may stifle the creativity and energy of youth. Max Planck, the founder of quantum physics, stated

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it ...

Science proceeds one funeral at a time! 

Transcendence

The transcendentals are truth, beauty, and goodness. Transcendence is that which goes beyond the categories of being. In the metaphysics of Immanuel Kant, the transcendent is that which lies beyond our ability to know. In theology, transcendence refers to aspects of God that are independent of the physical universe. Here, I use transcendence to mean that which is beyond reason, experiment, or the content of a tradition. I would include experiences that aim to access truth and aspects of reality through intuition, the subconscious, or mysticism.  Some might claim that transcendence has no role in science, and even goes against the whole spirit of science. However, there are many stories of scientists who made important discoveries that had their origin in dreams, visions, perceptions of beauty, and "flashes of insight." 

Peter Berger argued that there are five aspects of human experience that are inexplicable apart from a transcendent reality. His "signals of transcendence" are the "human propensity to believe that the world is ordered in a trustworthy manner, the capacity to play, the capacity to hope in the face of death, the conviction that some things are just wrong and must be condemned, and the capacity to laugh."

Strengths. Transcendence provides a way to describe the ineffable elements of reality and knowledge that induce mystery, awe, wonder, and paradox. It provides room and a vocabulary for that which goes beyond reason, experiment, and tradition. It allows for the possibility of something more than the material.

Weaknesses. Transcendence and its domain of relevance are hard to define and to constrain. Invoking it may be an escape from the hard work needed to engage seriously with reason, experiment, and tradition. It may be invoked in order to engage in fantasies.

In conclusion, the four dimensions of experience, reason, tradition, and transcendence provide a helpful framework to describe and understand how different people grapple with reality. Although they complement one another they are also inter-related.

Following Jesus is costly

 In my theology reading group this month we are discussing, The Cost of Discipleship, by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I now realise that I am reading the book the "wrong" way. It is not like a "typical" theology book that can be read over a couple of weeks and digested. Although there is much profound theology the book is more suited as a "devotional" book that should only be read in short segments and returned to often.

I find the book profoundly challenging. In some ways, the message is simple: if you want to be a disciple of Jesus that means you have to take the followings of Jesus seriously and obey them! The middle third of the book is an exposition of The Sermon on the Mount. As much as we may want to it is very hard to perform the hermeneutical gymnastics needed to wheedle out of Jesus' commands. Love your enemies, forgive your enemies, do not love money, hating someone is akin to murder, a lustful thought is akin to adultery, do not draw attention to yourself, fast and pray, deny yourself and its desires, ... the list goes on and on... Later, I give some choice quotes. 

First, I want to discuss something about the book I find increases its significance and power. Bonhoeffer identified as a Lutheran and embraced Luther's theology, including sola fide (justification by faith alone) and sola gratia (salvation by grace alone, not by good works). Ephesians 2:8-9 is a central text to this theology. However, in Chapter One, Bonhoeffer contrasts "cheap grace" and "costly grace."

Cheap grace means grace sold on the market like cheapjacks' wares... Grace is represented as the Church's inexhaustible treasury, from which she showers blessings with generous hands, without asking questions or fixing limits. Grace without price; grace without cost! ...What would grace be if it were not cheap?...

Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.

Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will go and sell all that he has. It is the pearl of great price to buy which the merchant will sell all his goods. It is the kingly rule of Christ, for whose sake a man will pluck out the eye which causes him to stumble; it is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows him.

Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son: "ye were bought at a price," and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us. Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon his Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered him up for us. Costly grace is the Incarnation of God.

In Chapter 2, "The Call to Discipleship", begins with Jesus calling Levi, the tax collector, to follow him. Bonhoeffer then claims

the following two propositions hold good and are equally true: only he who believes is obedient, and only he who is obedient believes. 

This is illustrated by the interactions of Jesus with two men who avoided obedience by asking Jesus about moral dilemmas: The rich young ruler  (Matthew 19) and the Pharisee whose question, "Who is my neighbour?" led to Jesus telling the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10).

Heinrich Hofmann, "Christ and the Rich Young Ruler", 1889 

[Aside: it is ironic that this painting was purchased by John D Rockefeller Jr, and donated to Riverside Church, New York.]

In Chapter 3, "Single-minded obedience," Bonhoeffer states some of the hermeneutic that he uses.

the whole Word of the Scriptures summons us to follow Jesus. We must not do violence to the Scriptures by interpreting them in terms of an abstract principle, even if that principle be a doctrine of grace. Otherwise we shall end up in legalism.

We must therefore maintain that the paradoxical interpretation of the commandments does always includes the literal interpretation... 

 Here are some the reflections on the Sermon on the Mount that this leads to. First, on the danger of materialism.

Earthly goods are given to be used, not to be collected. In the wilderness God gave Israel the manna every day, and they had no need to worry about food and drink... Where our treasure is, there is our trust, our security, our consolation and our God. Hoarding is idolatry.

On loving your enemies. 

Christian love draws no distinction between one enemy and another, except that the more bitter our enemy's hatred, the greater his need of love. Be his enmity political or religious, he has nothing to expect from a follower of Jesus but unqualified love. In such love there is not inner discord between the private person and official capacity. In both we are disciples of Christ, or we are not Christians at all. 

Disciples of Jesus are to be distinctly different from other people. This is a narrow way that few will choose.

To be called to a life of extraordinary quality, to live up to it, and yet to be unconscious of it is indeed a narrow way. To confess and testify to the truth as it is in Jesus, and at the same time to love the enemies of that truth, his enemies and ours, and to love them with the infinite love of Jesus Christ, is indeed a narrow way.

Jesus told his disciples "when you fast ...". It was a given that they would fast. Ascetism is an important part of discipleship. 

If there is no element of asceticism in our lives, if we give free rein to the desires of the flesh (taking care of course to keep within the limits of what seems permissible to the world), we shall find it hard to train for the service of Christ. When the flesh is satisfied it is hard to pray with cheerfulness or to devote oneself to a life of service which calls for much self-renunciation.

I found the book very challenging, particularly as it cuts to matters of the heart: what do I love? what do I value? what are my motives? what are my private thoughts? 

Who is my neighbour? Surely, not "them"!

What would it be like to not have a home? To have no country. To be wanted by no country. To be constantly on the move, searching for safety, for food, for water, for stability, ... Or to be trapped in a detention centre for "illegal immigrants" with no hope of ever escaping? Or to be living in a tent in a camp for hundreds of thousands of refugees. Unfortunately, this is reality, day-to-day life, for more than eighty million people. Tragically, this number is growing and unlikely to decrease.

In 2018, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) forecast that 1.4 million refugees would need resettlement in 2019. Yet, only 107,800 were accepted. Only, three countries in the world accepted more than 10,000.

Refugees, internally displaced people, and asylum seekers present a moral and political challenge to our time. They are vulnerable and suffering. Yet, rather than receiving empathy or practical help from wealthy Western nations, refugees too often are demonised as threats to the security, prosperity, and culture of Western nations. I am ashamed of how Australia has "led" the way in this regard, particularly with policies of detaining asylum seekers in offshore detention camps.

At the theology reading group this month we discussed Refuge Reimagined: Biblical Kinship in Global Politics, by Mark Glanville and Luke Glanville.

One of the many strengths of the book is the complementary expertise of the authors, two brothers. Mark is an Old Testament scholar who is also actively involved in helping settle refugees in Vancouver. (This is through the organisation Kinbrace that emerged through Grandview Baptist church and is also discussed in Tim Dickau's book that we recently read). Luke is a scholar of international relations and provides a global political perspective on displaced peoples. As a result, the book has depth in both theology and in political science, which is unfortunately rare in Christian books about political issues. The arguments are laced with references to the academic literature on Old Testament scholarship and on global politics, but the book is still easy to read.

There is a beautiful section on how to interpret the Old Testament ethically today, using a jazz metaphor (page 49). (Both authors are accomplished jazz musicians). Jazz is a rich tradition, but each performance is unique. Performers respond to the local context, creating something new, but rooted in tradition. Similarly, the Old Testament represented and shaped a rich tradition in the communal life of ancient Israel. The translation and application of this tradition to modern life in churches and secular nations is not straightforward but can be rich and beautiful. Ethics for today should respect and draw from that tradition, but adapt creatively.

In the first half of the book, Mark argues persuasively how the concept of "festive kinship" is central to the Old Testament, particularly in Deuteronomy. Kinship is not defined by bloodline or ethnicity, but rather by a community characterised by obedience to God's commands. In particular, this community enfolds the resident alien. 

A natural question is how this concept of kinship fits with the Old Testament narratives that describe how Israel is commanded by God to "devote to destruction" the Canaanites? (pages 55-59). The texts actually show that Canaanites can be Israelites (e.g., Rahab the prostitute who acknowledged the works of YHWH and in faith protected the spies) and Israelites can be Canaanites (e.g., Achan who stole devoted things from Jericho). Being Israelite (Canaanite) is not defined by bloodline but rather by obedience (disobedience) to YHWH.

Jesus further expands kinship to include those on the margins: Samaritans, prostitutes, "sinners", tax collectors, ...  He shares meals with them. In fact, in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus spends more time eating than teaching! (page 78). Some do repent but this is not a pre-requisite for joining the meal (page 79).  Jesus' community is defined by its centre rather than by its boundaries (page 94). This contrasts with the Pharisees and many churches today that define themselves by who is in and who is out and by what they are against rather than what they are for.

Jesus proclaims "forgiveness of sins". There are several different Greek words that are translated into English as "forgiveness". Some actually mean "release" in the sense of release from oppression (pages 85, 86, 101).

The Deuteronomy feasting texts are characterised by a four-part movement: lament-gift-thanksgiving-inclusive justice. The purpose is to "forge and inclusive and celebrative community in light of the generosity of God." (p. 107).

"The festal call to thanksgiving with inclusive celebration highlights the importance of the distinctive life of a missional congregation." Howard Peskett and Vinoth Ramachandra note, "Mission is not primarily about going. Nor is mission primarily about doing anything. Mission is about being. It is about being a distinctive kind of people, a countercultural ... community among the nations."  (p. 110).

Careful consideration is given to a number of commonly stated fears and claims that opponents express about the impact that Western nations accepting more refugees will have on security, economics, and culture. (pp. 168-178).

The scale of the problem is daunting. There are about 45 million internally displaced people, and more than 26 million refugees. Most refugees are in poor countries such as Uganda, Bangladesh, and Lebanon. Yet, somehow these countries care for them as best they can. For example, in Lebanon schools are running double shifts as there are as many Syrian children as Lebanese needing and education! This makes a mockery of the greed and xenophobia of wealthy Western nations who are unwilling to bear the cost, risk, and inconvenience of caring for tens of thousands of refugees.

That's enough for now... 

This is a wonderful and challenging book that I pray will stimulate some significant action, particularly among Western churches.

John Dickson also has an excellent podcast episode in which he interviews the authors and a refugee. The associated webpage also has links to relevant materials.

On the subject of refugees and the value of small individual acts of kindness, Malcolm Gladwell has a powerful podcast episode.

Initiatives to alleviate poverty that empower

 Robin and I are giving a talk this evening at The Village Academy on "When Helping Hurts.." based on the book by the same name.

Here are the slides.

Fact Collecting by Robin McKenzie

Fact Collecting

Child of the enlightenment 

Going from one extreme to the next 

Throw the baby out with the bathwater 

Purging that which can’t be replicated in the lab

Makes no sense of love or intuition 

One must know, only the facts

Overthink, analyse, scrutinise 

Analysis paralysis 

But true wisdom is knowing what can’t be known 

Embrace the mystery 

Accept the contradictions, shades of grey

It doesn’t have to make logical sense.

You don’t have to be able to understand 

Forget fighting the slippery thin edge of the wedge

What are we so afraid of?

The prompting of the spirit?

Feelings that can’t be calibrated? 

Our forefathers rejoiced in their new understanding 

Why the sun sat

Where lightning came from 

How to kill a germ

Would they be aghast to see the baby disappear with the water?

Our denial of things immaterial?

Is fact collecting always preeminent?

Surpassing the value of spiritual engagement?

Do facts alone lead to sanctification? 

Ah, The fear of the thin edge of the wedge

      

Engineering principles undergird  bridges

But just as important is the soul 

A corrupt heart leads to use of shoddy material

And bridges falling down.

Who is man that he assumes he is capable of knowing everything?

That knowledge is the answer to all predicaments?

As God said to Job “ Why do you confuse the issue?

Why do you talk without knowing what you’re talking about? 

Pull yourself together.  Up on your feet!  Stand tall. 

I have some questions for you and I want some straight answers… 

Tell me since you know so much!” 

Why did Christianity go from a marginal sect to a dominant force in the Roman Empire?

For many years Rodney Stark was a Professor of Sociology at the University of Washington. He wrote an introductory college sociology text that has been through ten editions. 

A fascinating book he published in 1996 is The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries 

In the preface, Stark states his approach to trying to answer the question that is raised by the book title.

What I am primarily trying to contribute to studies of the early church is better social science—better theories and more formal methods of analysis, including quantification wherever possible and appropriate. Thus in this book I shall try to introduce historians and biblical scholars to real social science, including formal rational choice theory, theories of the firm, the role of social networks and interpersonal attachments in conversion, dynamic population models, social epidemiology, and models of religious economies.

Stark then considers how the role of women, caring for the sick in epidemics, social networks, martyrs, urban chaos, crises, and other factors all lead to the exponential growth of the church over three centuries.

                          Domenico di Bartolo, Care of The Sick

In the final chapter Stark states 

as I conclude this study, I find it necessary to confront what appears to me to be the ultimate factor in the rise of Christianity. Let me state my thesis: 

Central doctrines of Christianity prompted and sustained attractive, liberating, and effective social relations and organizations. 

I believe that it was the religion's particular doctrines that permitted Christianity to be among the most sweeping and successful revitalization movements in history. And it was the way these doctrines took on actual flesh, the way they directed organizational actions and individual behavior, that led to the rise of Christianity. 

Contrasting ways that Asians and Westerner's think about theology

 In the theology reading group over two months we discussed Asian Christian Theology: Evangelical Perspectives, published by Langham. It is an edited volume with 16 different authors and is divided into two equal parts, covering doctrinal themes and contemporary concerns. Asia is defined in geographic terms and the authors come from more than ten different countries, including Hong Kong, Israel, and Sri Lanka. Although their contexts are very diverse there are some common features, such as gross economic inequality, Christians being a religious minority, societies are largely religious, globalisation, and limited religious and political freedoms.

Previously, I have written some about the challenges of contextual theology.

According to the Ph.D. program in contextual theology at the Asian Theological Seminary in Manila.

Contextual theology does not mean elevating the local to the detriment of the global. It simply challenges other local theologies that have been elevated to classical status. Thus, contextual theology, while oriented towards a particular society or culture or cultural sub-group, is still in conversation with other theologies in a global discourse since it recognizes that the church is both local and universal. This implies that issues tackled in research will be rooted in the local context but will have global resonance or implications.

The first part of the book aims to give some Asian perspectives on the following doctrinal themes: revelation, scripture, the Trinity, Christology, creation, the Holy Spirit, ecclesiology, and eschatology. I felt that these chapters were a little disappointing as they seemed too "Western" to me. Perhaps this is because almost all the authors did Ph.D.'s in the West!

I felt the second part of the book was better and here focus on just a few chapters.

On page 248 there is a fascinating footnote about Asian modes of thinking. 

In his book, Mangoes or Bananas: The Quest for an Authentic Christian Theology, Hwa Yung suggests that Easterners have a relational approach in contrast to the rational approach of Westerners. Melba Maggay suggests that Asians focus on synthesis and seek to harmonise contradictions. In contrast, Westerners have a "mental habit of logical negation and either-or-thinking."

In all Asian countries, except the Philippines, Christianity is a minority religion. This means that daily life for Christians in Asia involves interactions with people from different religions. Ivan Satyovatra and Kang-San Tan each present chapters on this topic.

The discussion of any topic, not just in theology, is framed and even determined by what questions one asks and what framework is used to answer those questions. With regard to non-Christian religions, questions commonly posed are "Can a non-Christian be saved?" and "Is the Christian God present in non-Christian religions?" Furthermore, addressing this topic, one should be clear about how a particular "religion" is defined and evaluated. Is it in terms of beliefs, practices, texts, or culture? And who gets to define these things: local practitioners, Western academics, or religious authorities?

There is a common typology used to classify the perspective of Christian writers on other religions: exclusivist, inclusivist, or pluralist. Tan reviews three main criticisms of this typology (p. 280-1). First, it oversimplifies the diversity of religions and the diversity within them. Second, it restricts the diversity of possible Christian responses. "Third, the focus of the typology has been mostly on doctrinal comparison between religious systems rather than on people and relationships between faith practitioners. In particular, the typology does not allow a sufficient role for the process of encounter between people from different religions." In different words, it represents a false trichotomy. I find this last criticism fascinating because it reflects an Asian inclination to focus on relationships rather than rationality, as noted in the comments from Yung and Maggay that I mentioned above.

Tan then proposes an alternative typology that is built around Hans Frei's Five Types of Theology, as recounted by David Ford in Theology: A Very Short Introduction. Although I think this is an interesting discussion and it surpasses the three-fold typology, I did not find it more illuminating.

In chapter 11, "Jesus and Other Faiths," Ivan Satyavratra first gives a detailed critique of the pluralist position. He concludes that its most serious weakness is "the huge logical inconsistency inherent in its attempt to deny the right of other worldviews to make any privileged claims, even as pluralism itself employs tradition-specific criteria in evaluating religious beliefs." It "makes exclusive truth claims about the nature of reality just like any other religious belief system." (page 229).

He then presents an alternative proposal in his own context, a "fulfillment" approach. Jesus is the ultimate fulfilment of other religions, in some ways similar to how Jesus was the fulfilment of Judaism. Paul's addresses to Gentile audiences that are recorded in Acts 14 and 17 reflect a similar perspective as Paul argues Jesus is the fulfillment of the god found in the local religion. There is then a nice overview of Indians with Hindu backgrounds who have embraced this approach over the last two hundred years. A similar approach has been advocated by John Mbiti with respect to African traditional religions.

The battle for succession: from King David's sons to 21st-century American evangelicalism

 At church we have just started a sermon and study series on the book of 1 Kings in the Old Testament. To get the big picture of a book of the Bible I find it helpful to watch (several times) a short video produced by The Bible Project and to print out the associated poster.

1 Kings begins with intrigue and scheming as there is a battle between two of David's sons, Adonijah and Solomon, and their associated entourages, to receive the blessing of their ailing father to be King. The Bible gives a "warts and all" description of these flawed humans who often act in morally dubious ways, while claiming they are doing what YHWH wants. The ends justify the means. Naked selfish ambition will go to extreme ends to gain and maintain power. It is all about money, sex, and power. This is not just ancient Israel, but also the world we live in today. 

The endless scheming and drama resonate with the popular TV series, Succession, which I have not watched. But, it is not just in the modern pagan world of global corporations that one sees such dramas. I thought of a recent article in Vanity Fair. The article features two sons who succeeded their fathers to lead large Christian organisations in the USA, and now draw annual salaries of about $1 M per year.

INSIDE JERRY FALWELL JR.’S UNLIKELY RISE AND PRECIPITOUS FALL AT LIBERTY UNIVERSITY

Jerry Falwell Jr. was the Trump-anointing dark prince of the Christian right. Then a sex scandal rocked his marriage and ended his lucrative stewardship of the evangelical education empire founded by his father. In a series of exclusive interviews, Falwell—accompanied by his wife, Becki—describes the events that led to his ouster, their fallout, and why he’s finally ready to admit he never had much use for his father’s church anyway.

The article contains the following anecdote.

Jerry also suspected that Franklin Graham, son of the late Billy Graham, used the scandal to expand the Graham family’s influence over Liberty. Franklin Graham’s son Will was named vice chairman of Liberty’s board... Jerry said Franklin Graham had also once told him that he wanted to start a Billy Graham University, but it didn’t get off the ground. In September 2020, Jerry and Franklin got into an argument over who should get credit for Liberty’s success. “I said, ‘My dad built the foundation, but I built the house. And Franklin got furious. He said, ‘You didn’t build it!’ You should have heard the jealousy in Franklin’s voice,” Jerry recalled. According to Jerry, Franklin Graham told him his future in the Christian world is over. “He said, ‘You’ll never be anything in evangelical circles again.’ ” Graham, through a spokesperson, declined to comment.

Money, sex, and power. Just like in 1 Kings. Jesus, God's anointed eternal King is so different. So should his servants be.