The abstract versus the concrete

In both good science and good theology there is continual struggle to find an appropriate balance between  the concrete and the abstract. For example consider the following tensions and contrasts in theology:

systematic theology vs. Biblical studies

Christology vs. the Gospel narratives

John's Gospel vs. the Synoptic Gospels

Romans vs. the Gospel of Mark

ethical principles vs. explicit commands

Greek thought vs. Hebrew thought

I welcome concrete thoughts on some abstract principles one might use to find a balance!

Living with a lie

I quite enjoyed the movie The Debt (2007 Israeli version) which gives a fictional account of three Israeli secret agents who live for 30 years as national heroes based on a lie. They claim to have killed a Nazi war criminal who they had actually mistakenly let escape from them.

It is good tense enthralling drama. But the nagging and effective question that haunts the viewer is: is my ambition and fear of failure and exposure so great I could live with such a lie? and would go to such lengths to preserve it?

Finding and following an authentic Jesus

Do we need to "find" the "historical" Jesus before we can "follow" him?

I particularly like the paragraph below from Stanley Hauerwas:

Jesus and Social Embodiment of the Peaceable Kingdom (1983).

In a strange way, reading Hauerwas also resonates with reading Radical by David Platt. This morning my son and I read the first chapter and I was struck by the following:

We are molding Jesus into our own image. He is beginning to look a lot like us because, after all, that is whom we are most comfortable with. And the danger now is that when we gather together in our church buildings to sing and lift up our hands in worship, we may not actually be worshiping the Jesus of the Bible. Instead we may be worshiping ourselves.

Exploring theological ethics

I previously posted about a theological reading group I am in which started with Miroslav Wolf's Exclusion and Embrace. We have since read Creation Regained by Wolters. This year we are beginning with a range of separate readings. This fortnight it is some essays by Stanley Hauerwas, arguably one of the most influential living writers on theological ethics. I have not read him before and am enjoying him. The first article is How "Christian ethics" came to be.

Hauerwas has been heavily influenced by Karl Barth and it is interesting to read a short article he wrote for First Things which introduces Barth's Dogmatics in Outline and recommends an annual reading!

Another fascinating article is No, this war would not be moral, published in Time magazine in 2003. It concerns US President Bush's claim that the war against Iraq was justified because Saddam Hussein was 'evil'.

Wise or foolish?

1 Corinthians 1-2 is an important passage which discusses and contrasts the "wisdom of men" to the "wisdom of God" that is found in Christ. I feel that this passage is sometimes mis-interpreted and mis-applied to justify an anti-intellectualism and to argue against a positive role for apologetics.

Here are a few selections from the passage:

¹⁷ For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
¹⁸ For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God... 
²⁰ Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? ²¹ For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom..
²⁵ For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
...you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 

What is the context of the passage? What is the main point of the passage?

The context is the Corinthian church is divided about which leader to follow. Who is the best speaker? Who is the wisest? Who does the best baptisms? Paul is saying these are the wrong criteria for choosing a leader and the church should not be divided.

The main focus of the passage is on salvation, not on the role of the intellect in general. Salvation is found only by acknowledging our weakness and foolishness and casting ourselves upon Christ. We have nothing to boast about. Intellectual prowess does not help someone get saved. The world may scorn our humility as foolish and intellectually unsophisticated (or self demeaning).

For a Christian who has been saved in this "foolish" manner the passage does not imply they should scorn the intellectual riches of the secular world pertaining to matters other than salvation.

The passage does not mean that we should not use to our brains to reason and think about the riches of the Gospel.

Fleeing war and childhood infatuations

The 2003 French movie Bon Voyage is worth watching. It is set in the context of the Nazi takeover (and French capitulation) of Paris. The connected lives of some who flee Paris for Bordeaux are chronicled. I found the main character, a conniving superficial starlet, unendearing. But I guess that is some of the point!

What is it like to be a scientist?

There is a nice insightful article What I wish my pastor knew .. about the life of a scientist by Andy Crouch. It is based on the authors insights that come from being married to a physicist. I think the article may be useful and challenging to anyone who wants a more accurate picture about what science is and is not, not just to pastors. Here are few choice extracts:

The honest, and humbling, truth is that there is likely more intellectual humility in the average physics laboratory than in the average theology classroom... 

Scientists may or may not believe in the words of Genesis 3, but they know the burdens of work — even and especially delightful work — very well... 

... a community of people that work side by side, motivated by delight and wonder, characterized by intellectual humility and a willingness to admit they have been wrong and change direction, who together help one another bear the frustrations of work in a fallen world . . . does this sound like something the church ought to celebrate? Or perhaps even emulate? 

As with so many professional callings, I have found that science makes such demands on its practitioners that those who succeed in it tend to be either strikingly mature and wise persons, or sadly foolish and stunted — with relatively few in the middle. The stakes in a scientific vocation are high.

This article is part of an excellent series: What I wish my Pastor knew about science...

I thank Luke Glanville for bringing the article to my attention.