the road less travelled

last post... probably

noreply@blogger.com (robert) — Fri, 29 May 2009 20:46:00 +0000

This will probably be my last post for a while. I'm not really doing much anything interesting, except enjoying the Liverpool summer. When I do return to blogging, I will drop an email to those who might be interested.

But til then, here is the reflection I wrote down as an imaginary response that I would give if they ask me at church to briefly tell people about my time in New York.

"It may very well be that many of you are interested in the sheer secular delights that New York offered and I was able to enjoy; and indeed they are many and varied. I was able to take in every form of entertainment, from Henry V off Broadway, to $5 improv nights, from free flute recitals at Manhattan School of Music, to local jazz cats at Cleopatra’s needle, to the most incredible rock I have ever witnessed, courtesy of the Smashing Pumpkins. I ventured often up into Harlem, ordering snacks and drinks and bantering with shopkeepers in Spanish, I spotted movie stars in Greenwich village, and walked past dejected –and recently unemployed- members of the Lehman Brothers’ law firm on the morning it crashed. All this and more, in the city of New York, the centre of the world.

Others of you will be directly interested in my studies, even if, after having explained it, some of it still remains stubbornly opaque. For you, I suggest we leave those discussions to another night, a night where we can warm some bread, pour a glass of wine, and recline on the sofa, allowing our bodies to rest complacent while our minds perform daring feats of intellectual gymnastics – and suffer the inevitable crashes and falls that accompany such an endeavour.

But most will want to know –have I changed? To which I reply that change per se isn’t desirable. But I know what you mean. You mean, why go all that way, and do all that study if it didn’t do anything for you, if it didn’t affect, benefit… change you somehow?

I will, to this question, reply in the positive –yes, I did learn ‘stuff’ and yes it did change me. But there are many ways in which learning can lead to change. For example, one may learn how to repair a flat tyre, and this new piece of knowledge brings about a change by making one into the kind of person that can repair tyres. This is not the kind of change I experienced.

I learnt many things this year. I read major theologians from the earliest patristic periods, through to medieval authors, to giants of the Reformation. I learnt the content of their thought, but I also learned how they came to their conclusions. Even more, by looking at the long line of development from one generation’s thought to another, I learnt how the history of Christian thinking progressed and what influenced each of the major writers. Studying that history parallels in some ways learning the history of a conflict between friends. Perhaps you once heard a story about a friend that put them in a bad light, and you thought ‘Gee, I didn’t realise so and so was like that’. But then perhaps months later you heard a further detail from someone else that put the original story in context, and made your friend’s action suddenly seem appropriate. In learning the history of a dispute, you might change – from being a person that jumps to a conclusion, to being a person who becomes more cautious, more thoughtful, more patient. And this is the kind of change I have undergone. In studying the history of Christian thought, in studying the details, and the contexts, and the reasons why people said what they did, I am now less likely to jump to a conclusion about them… or, about God they were trying thereby to explain…. And I’m now more likely to seek further information. I’m more likely to wait, to ponder, to…seek. For as the greatest theologians have always described it, the life of the Christian mind is one of fides quarens intellectum, faith seeking understanding. And where does one seek? Where else can one go, but to him who has the words of eternal life? Thus, the kind of seeking that theological study inspires is one which does its seeking in the place of prayer, at the feet of the one who left heaven and entered earth to be a light in the darkness."

political theology

noreply@blogger.com (robert) — Tue, 19 May 2009 05:14:00 +0000

Firstly, I'm not sure what Rebs was talking about... I always make sense, don't I??

Secondly, here's the concluding paragraph from my essay explaining the political theology of Moltmann and Metz.

"There is then, its seems, a ‘trinitarian’ shape to praxis as it functions as a criterion of truth in a fundamental theology ordered to politics. Firstly, with respect to the Father as creator and source, praxis acknowledges the doctrine of the goodness of creation; it is so committed to the well-being of the created order, both natural and social, that the practical effectiveness of social arrangements takes on the role of a criterion – if this arrangement is damaging to creation and society, it cannot be from God because God is committed to the well-being of creation. Secondly, with respect to the Son and his redemptive role, the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth functions to undermine the secular ‘closure’ of history to the genuinely novel, and rather orients our attention to the novum creatio that we expect from God, in hope. This hope is not stimulated by the disquiet of our hearts, but by the divine promises which call us from complacency and into action. Thus, praxis functions to critique our behaviour, and call into question whether our action witnesses to the truth of the resurrection of Jesus, which has broken all bounds and revealed “the mission and call of God, which demand impossibilities of man.” Thirdly, by looking at the life of Jesus, we note the work of the Spirit which gave him birth, empowered, and raised Jesus from the dead. This work of the Spirit removes the docetic appearance of inimitability from Jesus. Rather, the presence of the Spirit in the church, just as it was in Jesus, means that we are enlisted in the redemptive work that Christ has begun; in the carrying out of that work, our own salvation and theosis arrives. Finally, the shape of the trinitarian community of Father, Son, and Spirit demands that those who claim to be empowered by that trinitarian life reflect it in a praxis of community, of solidarity. Metz and Soelle advocate an ecclesiology that views the church as being instrumental in extending the ‘kingdom of God’. What generates the activity of the church is the gap between the ‘already’ and the ‘not yet’, between the change that the arrival of the kingdom has achieved, and what remains to be done. Soelle writes that “being a disciple of Jesus… is a response to the message that the kingdom of God has come near, and from the beginning it was made in society.” The tasks that remain to be accomplished are social tasks, and therefore the response is a social one. This is why, despite the wicked moments in the history of the church, institution per se should not be abandoned, for “institutions are again acquiring a whole new meaning… as the desired bearer of critically responsible action.” In conclusion then, from both the economic roles of the trinitarian persons, and the imminent communal life of the persons together, it can be seen how praxis, or action in the world, is a fundamental category for generating and explaining Christian truth in our time."

on the atonement

noreply@blogger.com (robert) — Sat, 16 May 2009 18:56:00 +0000

Here's the concluding chapter to my Calvin paper. It was my last paper and I'm all finished... and it feels good!

"Let me here restate the aspects of Calvin’s thought covered so far. It was seen that it was from his abundant and free love that God created the world, and that it is the same love which maintains the world against its sin and death. That sin is ubiquitous, totally corrupting both the whole individual, and the whole number of human individuals ever, for which we are obliged to make restitution to God, and failing that, deserve punishment. Because of our corrupt nature we require a mediator, whom God has provided in the person of his Son, sent into the created order. He took on human flesh as Jesus of Nazareth, and in his death the weakness of flesh and the sin of humanity was killed with him. Further, the obedience by which he lived his life sufficed as satisfaction to the Father, such that the guilt of sin was actually expiated, and redemption was achieved. It was not merely the incarnation that actualised this redemption, but the work of the Spirit brings it about in the individual by imparting the gift of faith that joins the believer to Christ and enables them to partake of his benefits. In all this, nothing of the work is man’s but it is all God’s, and so the achieving of salvation is outside the will or action of humans. It being the decision of God, salvation is only for those whom God has elected to save, and impossible for those whom God has elected to death and punishment.
What then of the scope of the atonement? It is certainly clear that for Calvin, the work of “the Spirit, strictly speaking, seals forgiveness of sins in the elect alone.” This is because the Spirit only works within and according to the eternal decree of the Father, and thus regenerates only those elected to salvation. It is clear then that the decree of the Father, and the regenerating work of the Spirit, are solely for those elected to life. But what of the work of the Son? Is his work limited to only the elect? Several features of Calvin’s thought do point to the conclusion that Christ’s work was only done on behalf of the elect. Firstly, Calvin writes regarding Christ’s kingly office that he only “fulfils the combined duties of king and pastor for the godly who submit willingly and obediently.” If one makes the reasonable assumption that there cannot be a variety of scope between the work of the different offices, then one must say that the priestly office has the same scope as the kingly, which Calvin here says extends only to the godly who submit willingly. But by reference to ‘willingly’ Calvin may be making reference to the varied degrees of sanctification visible in God’s people, meaning that Christ’s lordship is seen as fulfilled in so far as individuals obey. There are other indicators regarding the work of salvation being exclusively on behalf of the elect, as when he writes that “God regenerates only the elect…[and] firmly seals the gift of his adoption in them.” The problem here is that regeneration and sealing are works of the Spirit, which we have already seen are works limited to the elect, as Calvin says here. The real question is whether the atonement that the Spirit is sealing was itself limited to the elect, or not. We come closer to the issue of atonement when Calvin says that “the Lord freely justifies his own” , justification being predicated on satisfaction, and here we have a hint that this extends only to ‘his own’. Further, Calvin writes that God truly carries out his work with regard to “his own people” in order that “the sway of sin is abolished in them.” This seems to be confirmed in one of his more succinct statements, that “we know, moreover, that he benefits only those whose ‘Head’ he is.” This is perhaps the closest Calvin comes to saying that the atonement is limited, in so far as he speaks of the limiting of Christ’s ‘benefits’ which includes atonement, rather than the limiting of regeneration or some such, which is the work of the Spirit. From this it seems that there is warrant within Calvin’s own writings to suspect that the atonement is limited to the elect, and one may draw some further conclusions from the ‘fit’ that the idea has within his system.
In particular, two other ideas seem to be the basic correlates that demand a limited atonement, those being, namely, the efficacy of his death, and the damnation of some. It can be represented in a syllogistic form as follows:
i) All are guilty
ii) Christ’s death effectively atones for sin
iii) Some are damned
iv) Some were not atoned for
From the conclusion that some are not atoned for, it seems reasonable to point out then, that Christ only atoned for the elect. The reply might be made that the reason some are damned is that God’s election and the Spirit’s application are selective, but that the atonement is universal, and therefore they are not saved because they lack the Spirit’s work of faith. However, it must be pointed out that for Calvin, the Spirit plays an important role that is doing two jobs. Firstly, it is ensuring that even the work of faith is not a form of human cooperation, but that every moment of salvation belongs to the work of God. Secondly and more importantly, it functions to qualify the apparently universalistic implications of a soteriology grounded only in the incarnation, of which Christ’s death is a part. If human nature per se is by Christ taken up into the divine life, then anyone who has a human nature participates in that life. This universalistic tendency is clearly in conflict with Calvin’s doctrine of the reprobation of some, and so he distinguishes the work of salvation done by the Son and that done by the Spirit, in order to qualify the extent of the benefits derived via incarnation, but without losing the efficacy of Christ’s death and atoning work. Furthermore, the logic of atonement here seems to require its limitation. If it is genuinely effective, and if satisfaction is truly made for sin, then how can the Father require any more from anyone? If Christ’s atoning work was universal, then the Father was universally appeased and there could be no wrath whatsoever left. But if God punishes anyone in hell, then God is unjust, for he has punished twice for the same sin: he punished Christ once for someone’s sin, and then punished the man himself. If that is the case, then Christ’s substitutionary work seems not at all to have absorbed God’s wrath, but this is just what Calvin cannot admit. And so it seems that in the theology of John Calvin, to hold to both the efficacy of Christ’s atoning death and the punishment of those elected to reprobation, requires that in strict coherence with the saving decree of God, Christ’s death was limited to only atoning for the elect."

my life

noreply@blogger.com (robert) — Thu, 07 May 2009 03:12:00 +0000

See the post below for an excerpt from the paper I've been working on all week.

While all that has been going on, I’ve still found time for a few more ‘new york’ moments. I got to be in the crowd for a tv show called The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and they basically take news stories from the previous couple of days and re-present them in humorous ways…. And it’s seriously funny! They had this warm-up guy come out, and do a bit of a stand up routine, making fun of people in the crowd to get us laughing and loosen us up, so that when Jon came out we would laugh at his jokes and the laughter would be picked up by the audience microphones and make viewers think he’s really funny. The irony, was that the warm-up dude was actually way funnier than Jon Stewart…. go figure. The only drawback was that we had to wait in line for almost 2 hours, and then when we finally got in, it took 22 mins to record, and we were out again. There’s a strange feeling that comes over one, when you’ve paid this price of time and physical pain to stand and wait… and then it’s all over so quickly! I felt cheated indeed.

Then the other night I had a pretty cool moment. Anyone remember John and Tammy Faye Bakker? They were really big televangelists, and he got put in prison for money swindling, and she died of cancer. Well, anyway, their life was pretty tough and totally alienated their son Jay Bakker. But through it all he has scraped through and now leads a small church in Brooklyn that meets in a bar, and he came to Union the other night to speak, and his mate came along and led worship with some sweet blues piano and ‘dirty gospel’ songs. It was a really interesting night, hearing his story, and what he’s up to now. Very refreshing.

Well, that’s it from me.. I’m typing this up at my regular coffee shop, and I’ve just finished about 10 pages on one of my essays. Its 7pm so I’m gonna walk home for some fresh air, cook myself pasta for dinner, and then head back out to the library and finish some more reading!! Woohoo!

gregory of nyssa

noreply@blogger.com (robert) — Thu, 07 May 2009 03:06:00 +0000

I've just handed in one of my major end of term papers. Here's the conclusion for your perusal.

"Supposing that the opponents in mind are the pneumatomachians, Gregory’s affirmation of the homoousia of the Spirit with the Father and Son had drawn the charge that his view entailed the opinion that there were ‘three gods’. In the fourth chapter, this paper explained Gregory’s first move against the charge, whereby he explains how according to the rules of grammar there could never be three ‘gods’ since natures are singular. But Gregory shows the truth of the point through a discussion of the error in saying there are three men, which is common habit. The effect of this however, is to trivialise his argument, for one may simply reply that though the semantic point is true, there are still three human individuals, and so why not three divine individuals? The fifth chapter then details Gregory’s response to the claim that there are three divine individuals by showing how the defining attributes or particularities of human persons are not present in the divine persons. Whereas human persons are differentiated by their having their own principles of movement, action and will, the trinitarian persons do not have these separately, but rather there is one power, goodness, will etc which is effected by all three persons of the trinity. In this way Gregory retains the divine unity by showing the disanalogy between divine persons and human persons, even though both kinds of persons are multiple hypostases sharing one nature respectively.
Such a strong emphasis on unity is in danger of confusing the persons, because if they are the same in every respect then there is no differentiation, and the persons are a fiction. Rather, chapter seven details how Gregory points to cause as the one criterion which establishes the peculiar attribute which differentiates the persons. The Father is the cause, the Son is caused directly by the Father, and the Spirit is caused by the Father through the mediation of the Son. The ‘process’ of causation and mediation is not to be understood as a temporal succession, for Gregory affirms that it happens ‘without delay’ and emphasises that “between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit there is no interstice into which the mind might step as into a void.” The generation of the Son and procession of the Spirit are eternal, and the causal distinction only goes to how the divine being subsists, and not to what it is. The whole being of Godhead thus remains eternal, uncreated, perfect in goodness and power, unchangeable, and ineffable. It is only the “idea of cause [that] differentiates the Persons of the Holy Trinity” and this distinction only penetrates to the mode of being, not the nature of being. This nature remains “unchangeable and undivided, for these reasons we properly declare the Godhead to be one, and God to be one, and employ in the singular all other names which express Divine attributes” – thereby Gregory shows Ablabius why we do not say there are ‘three gods’."

more john mayer magic

noreply@blogger.com (robert) — Fri, 01 May 2009 18:09:00 +0000

.
ok, posts concerning events in my life will soon follow... promise. in the meantime, watch this.

on suffering and theological hope

noreply@blogger.com (robert) — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:44:00 +0000

here's a selection from an essay I recently submitted on Johann Metz's political theology.

"For Metz, the memory of human suffering cannot be reduced to “a social history of oppression,” for the writing of that history often serves as little “more than a screen against which we project our present interests.” Selective accounts of past suffering merely serve as instruments by which the present order justifies its conduct. In this moment of justification, genuinely novel anticipations of hope for the hopeless are excluded by the trajectory of emancipation drawn in the self-interested struggle. Thus, a broad memoria passionis serves to raise suspicion about society’s plausibility structures, by exposing the way in which their historical self-accounting transforms them into “obfuscation structures.” When memory keeps the absolute meaninglessness of suffering in our minds, it “gives the lie to this whole affirmative… teleology” and calls into question of “the banality of what we take to be ‘realism’.” In the process of secularization in which humanity takes over from God as being the subject of history, the responsibility and the guilt of all history seems to “fall back onto human beings themselves.” In order to avoid this, emancipation is written merely as an abstract history of success, which finally exculpates itself by turning “one’s fellow human beings into enemies.” In this zero-sum process there is no liberation from guilt, or genuine redemption, but only the temporary redistribution of power. The memory of suffering keeps the ubiquity of guilt in mind, and therefore the hope of a redemption that is not anticipated by a linear ideological history. One problem is the limitation that arises from considering “human suffering in its concreteness…[as] the starting point for proclaiming the new form of life.” Are there not goods of human flourishing that find no negative expression in suffering, such that a consideration or memory of suffering could never discover the antithetical moment that allows the positive moment to be anticipated or emerge? Perhaps at this point, an aesthetic claim is needed to complement Metz’s political fundamental claims."

gregory of nyssa - on 'not three gods'

noreply@blogger.com (robert) — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:38:00 +0000

"As we have to a certain extent shown by our statement that the word "Godhead" is not significant of nature but of operation, perhaps one might reasonably allege as a cause why, in the case of men, those who share with one another in the same pursuits are enumerated and spoken of in the plural, while on the other hand the Deity is spoken of in the singular as one God and one Godhead, even though the Three Persons are not separated from the significance expressed by the term "Godhead,"— one might allege, I say, the fact that men, even if several are engaged in the same form of action, work separately each by himself at the task he has undertaken, having no participation in his individual action with others who are engaged in the same occupation. For instance, supposing the case of several rhetoricians, their pursuit, being one, has the same name in the numerous cases: but each of those who follow it works by himself, this one pleading on his own account, and that on his own account. Thus, since among men the action of each in the same pursuits is discriminated, they are properly called many, since each of them is separated from the others within his ownenvironment, according to the special character of his operation. But in the case of the Divine nature we do not similarly learn that the Father does anything by Himself in which the Son does not work conjointly, or again that the Son has any special operation apart from the Holy Spirit; but every operation which extends from God to the Creation, and is named according to our variable conceptions of it, has its origin from the Father, and proceeds through the Son, and is perfected in the Holy Spirit. For this reason the name derived from the operation is not divided with regard to the number of those who fulfil it, because theaction of each concerning anything is not separate and peculiar, but whatever comes to pass, in reference either to the acts of His providence for us, or to the government and constitution of the universe, comes to pass by the action of the Three, yet what does come to pass is not three things."

from the rooftop

noreply@blogger.com (robert) — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 22:57:00 +0000

click on the photo for full-size

on christ

noreply@blogger.com (robert) — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 03:16:00 +0000

Today I gave in to my vice for impulse-buying books, and treated myself to a copy of one of the most interesting books that will come out this year, called The Monstrosity of Christ.

It is co-authored by Slavoj Zizek and John Milbank. Actually, it's not so much co-authored by them, as they both have essays in which they attack the other. Here's the product description:

"In this corner, philosopher Slavoj Žižek, who represents the critical-materialist stance against religion's illusions; in the other corner, "radical orthodox" theologian John Milbank, an influential and provocative thinker who argues that theology is the only foundation upon which knowledge, politics, and ethics can stand. In The Monstrosity of Christ, Žižek and Milbank go head to head for three rounds, employing an impressive arsenal of moves to advance their positions and press their respective advantages. By the closing bell, they have proven themselves worthy adversaries--and have also shown that faith and reason are not simply and intractably opposed.

Žižek has long been interested in the emancipatory potential offered by Christian theology. And Milbank, seeing global capitalism as the new century's greatest ethical challenge, has pushed his own ontology in more political and materialist directions. Their debate in The Monstrosity of Christ concerns nothing less than the future of religion, secularity, and political hope in light of a monsterful event—God becoming human. For the first time since Žižek's turn toward theology, we have a true debate between an atheist and a theologian about the very meaning of theology, Christ, the Church, the Holy Ghost, universality, and the foundations of logic. The result goes far beyond the popularized atheist/theist point/counterpoint of recent books by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and others.

Žižek begins, and Milbank answers, countering dialectics with "paradox." The debate centers on the nature of and relation between paradox and parallax, between analogy and dialectics, between transcendent glory and liberation."

I may post some reflections, but don't count on it - you know what I'm like. And if you're wondering what on earth this book has to do with anything like the real Christianity lived by people who go to church - you're right, it doesn't. But it does have an affect on the broader issues of politics and religion, and will be a book that 'trickles' down, being debated in the academy, taught in the seminaries, preached in the pulpit, and finally lived by the people - but not in any form recognisable in the book.

on donne

noreply@blogger.com (robert) — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:07:00 +0000

In the Church of England, today, 31st of March, is the day on which John Donne (1631) is commemorated. In his honour, then, I post here one of his most 'aweful' poems - in that best sense of awful, as that which inspires and fills with awe.

Holy Sonnets, XIV

Batter my heart, three-person'd God ; for you
As yet but knock ; breathe, shine, and seek to mend ;
That I may rise, and stand, o'erthrow me, and bend
Your force, to break, blow, burn, and make me new.
I, like an usurp'd town, to another due,
Labour to admit you, but O, to no end.
Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captived, and proves weak or untrue.
Yet dearly I love you, and would be loved fain,
But am betroth'd unto your enemy ;
Divorce me, untie, or break that knot again,
Take me to you, imprison me, for I,
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.

on bliss

noreply@blogger.com (robert) — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:05:00 +0000

this is blissful.

on theology and prayer

noreply@blogger.com (robert) — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 00:07:00 +0000

There is a perennial misunderstanding about the relation between theology and spirituality that mistakenly believes that theology (or theoria) comes first, and tells you what you need to know in order to practice your spirituality (praxis). This may be the order of logic but not the order of discovery. In real life, spirituality often precedes theology - it was only in following and obeying Jesus that the disciples began to discover who he was, and their fullest understanding of Jesus only comes after the resurrection, after the mysterious encounter on the road to Emmaus and the meal that followed it.

Something similar is said by almost all the early theologians of the Church, and in summarising the writing of Maximus the Confessor (a Byzantine theologian from the 6th century) Andrew Louth writes: "the contrast between Maximus in his major treatises and in his condensed summaries is not at all that between 'theology' and 'spirituality', for as we shall see, even in the densest of his theological treatises, Maximus' concern for the life of prayer and engagement with God is still uppermost. The purpose of theology is to safeguard against misunderstandings that frustrate a Christian life of prayer."
Andrew Louth, Maximus the Confessor, London: Routledge, 1996. p. viii

should i give up practicing?

noreply@blogger.com (robert) — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:04:00 +0000

I'm on spring break this week, so there's not much news - I'm just getting started on my 20-page papers that are due at the end of semester.

I saw this clip on youtube today. Makes me wonder why I try!

The Road Not Taken

noreply@blogger.com (robert) — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 17:26:00 +0000

I thought I would post the full poem that inspired the title and tag-line for this blog.

"Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference."

- Robert Frost

on historical-critical method

noreply@blogger.com (robert) — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:13:00 +0000

The first three words every biblical studies scholar learns are "We don't know." Try reading any commentary. Author? We don't know. Date of composition? We don't know. Provenance? We don't know. Logos in John's prologue referring to Greek concept of logos, or a translation of the Hebrew 'wisdom' in Sirach? We don't know. This is because knowledge deals with the realm of (near) certainties, but biblical scholars work in probability. Paul the author of Ephesians? Maybe, maybe not. There's evidence both ways, and so it becomes a question of probability, of balancing the evidence to see if the weight falls one way or the other.

Considering how little biblical scholars claim can be known, it's quite remarkable how they then proceed to reconstruct the text history with precise divisions between sources and where the redactor made changes. Read any commentary on the community background to the Johannine corpus and you'll be amazed at the imagination of biblical scholars who make startling jumps from tiny scraps of evidence.

This particular form of study is often referred to as the 'historical-critical' method, and the fantastical claims made has duly been parodied in this brilliant article. It's basically a satirical piece, applying the historical-critical method to Winnie the Pooh to show just how ridiculous claims about the 'assured results of higher criticism' often are. You can read the full article here for a bit of fun; here's a quote to give you a taste:

"Doublets also occur. We may mention brieþy the two accounts of meetings with a Heffalump (W 5; H 3). and two accounts of the building of a house.(H 1; 9), variously connected with Eeyore and with Owl. An excellent example of the redactor's method in intertwining his sources may be seen in the account of Pooh's being stuck in the entrance to Rabbit's house (W 2. 24). When Pooh realizes he is stuck, according to the Þrst source:

'Oh, help!', said Pooh. 'I'd better go back.'

But according to the second source:

'Oh, bother!', said Pooh. 'I shall have to go on.'

The redactor has simply set down these two contradictory statements side by side, and then has attempted to harmonize them by his own conþation:

'I can't do either!', said Pooh. 'Oh, help and bother!'

The clearest criterion, however, for the analysis of the sources is the attitude taken to Pooh, who is clearly no 'non-descript individual'./6/ The whole P-corpus may indeed be divided into sources favourable to Pooh, and sources hostile to Pooh.
The dominant impression gained by the modern reader of the books is that Pooh is a Bear of Very Small Brain. The following descriptions occur:

Bear of Little Brain (W 9.121)
Bear of Very Little Brain (W 9.130; H 1.174; etc.)
Bear with a Pleasing Manner but a Positively Startling Lack of Brain (H 10.161)
He hasn't much brain, and may do something silly (W 9.127)
Silly old bear.(W 2.25, 26, 29; 3.37; 8.101)
Silly Old Pooh (W 10.142)
His spelling is Wobbly (W 6.73)

He is also depicted as getting into scrapes, difÞculties, and problems through his stupidity (passim).
It is of the greatest importance, however, to notice that this representation of Pooh actually comes from only one circle of tradition, which we may designate the D (or Dopey) source. A very different impression is given by other sources favourable to Pooh. Here he is the hero, deliverer (e.g. Þnder of Eeyore's tail, W 4), poet in many different genres (e.g. W 7.90), discoverer of the North Pole (W 8), and possibly also of the East Pole (W 9.122), though the tradition is somewhat uncertain at this point, inventor of the Floating Bear and the Brain of Pooh (W 9.129-30), culture-hero building the Þrst house (H 1.27) and inventing Pooh-sticks (H 6). His epithets in these narratives include:

Brave and Clever Bear (W 9.129)
Astute and Helpful Bear (H 8.139)
The best bear in all the world (W 10.143)
Sir Pooh de Bear (H 10.173)

And he has bestowed on him a lengthy list of honoriÞc titles (FOP, RC, PD, EC and TF, W 9.130).
We may discern, nonetheless, in the above catalogue, two portrayals of Pooh that are not entirely compatible with one another. According to some tales he is the man of genius and invention (e.g. inventor of the Brain of Pooh), but in others he Þgures rather as the reþective intellectual (e.g. author of wisdom poetry). Thus we may well suspect that we are dealing here with two sources, both perhaps deriving from one original Grundlage, but which we may distinguish and denominate the J (or Genius)/7/ source, and the E (or Egghead) source."

on ghetto blasters

noreply@blogger.com (robert) — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 22:08:00 +0000

Today I saw something I never thought I would see. I had just woken up, was pottering about in my room, (muttering with dismay at the eve-growing pile of laundry - isn't it just supposed to disappear and magically re-appear in my dresser, clean, fresh and ironed??) and I heard some memory-evoking 80s music drifting up to my window from the street below. It was Whiteney Houston's I wanna dance with somebody. Click on the link now and listen to it in the background so you can get the full experience. I started to shift my weight from side to side, slowing introducing ever more complex and exagerrated movements, until I was the literal embodiment of 80s frizzy-hair-pink-stockings-Fame dance style. I peered out the window to discover unto myself the provenace of this heavenly ditty, and saw on the far side of the road an old black man, hunched over, head adorned with a (probably purloined) yellow workman's hard hat, with nothing less than an old school ghetto blaster nestled on his left shoulder, speakers pointing into his ears. He was obviously a Whitney fan too, and I felt a communion between us as we, each in our own way, shuffled to the vibrancy of that now defunct plastic music.

on the secret life of guitar gods

noreply@blogger.com (robert) — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:42:00 +0000

Here's a blog that guitarists may want to follow. John Mayer is blogging through the recording of his fourth album and it looks like it's going to be really interesting. He's already posted one video of him practicing and thinking about new ideas for riffs and melodies. Partly inspiring, it's also partly depressing, as you watch how he rips on his guitar with ease in a way I never could, and then complains that he's a bit rusty cause he hasn't played for a while. Here's the video.

on doughnuts and wrong numbers

noreply@blogger.com (robert) — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:14:00 +0000

On Monday nights I take a class on Thomas Aquinas at Fordham University, so I travel north up into the Bronx, and it's a brisk, chilly (at least during winter) walk for 15 mins from the train station to the campus. On the walk home last night I fancied I would treat myself at Dunkin Doughnuts and get myself a boston kreme. Spelt with a K.
The girl asked me 'anything else?'
I said 'no thank you'
She said 'it's on the house'
I said 'really?'
She said 'yeah, it's better in your stomach than in the trash!'
I thought 'perhaps not..this is dunkin doughnuts after all'
But never one to look a gift horse in the mouth, I happily responded by requesting 4 more of the doughnuts.
Upon reaching the train station and beginning to eat the first one, I realised why they were giving them away, and thought that even for four, the $1 I paid had been one dollar too much.

On a diffferent note, I was at the coffee shop with Nate yesterday - surprise, surprise - and we were discussing the social mores regarding people putting their number on facebook and at what point you're entitled to use that number to call them. This prompted Nate to remember when I put my first US cell phone number on there. He rang me, and got a lady who said it was a wrong number. So he wrote back on my wall that I had put the number up incorrectly. So I rang Nate with my phone, and it indeed showed the number on his screen exactly the same as I had entered it on facebook.

Basically, the number that Virgin had assigned me was already in use, and I could make outgoing calls in which people would see my number, but when they called that number back, it would never come to me, only to this other lady. And boy, did people try and call me.

Understandably, this woman began to be very upset at all the calls she was receiving. (She should have been happy I suppose..my friends are rather nice!) When I rang Virgin, they said that since it was a new phone, maybe it was just taking time for the processing of the account to be finalised, and to try again in a day or two. Which we did, and when Nate rang the woman again, the husband jumped on the phone and blew up: "Listen buddy, I don't know what kind of game you're playing, but you KNOW this is not your friend's number, so stop harassing my wife! Hey man, I've got your number and I can find out where you live, and if you ever ring my wife again, I'm gonna come and find you, and you don't wanna know what I'll do!" Hmm, I almost felt partly responsilble for Nate's apparently imminent demise. We felt much joy in recalling this incident.

on lucky clothing

noreply@blogger.com (robert) — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:13:00 +0000

Played our third basketball game last night. And lost again. I wore the same underwear and shorts in all three games (without washing in between of course), losing two and winning one, so I think it's fair to deduce from these statistics that this clothing arrangement is not lucky. It maybe be however, that the luck emanating from them was not directed toward my and my teams sporting success, but my safety. I'm lucky enough not to have been injured. But perhaps that's due to something else emanating from them other than luck, i.e. an odour. You must be close to someone to foul them, after all.

on reading calvin

noreply@blogger.com (robert) — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 20:45:00 +0000

While reading the Calvin material I began thinking about how it might be rather easy for one to develop anithetical feelings toward him, and I was reminded how Barth tried to show his deep appreciation for Schleiermacher, even though he profoundly disagreed with him. And so as I was reading an essay by John Webster on Barth's historical lectures at Gottingen, I cames across this passage which I thought would be pertinent to keep in mind as I read Calvin, or any other theologian from history: (The quotes and page numbers are from Barth's "Protestant Theology")

" 'We hear the voices of the ancients in order to give an answer by our own attitude and decision. But we do that for or against ourselves, not for or against them" (p8). The root of this deferential and patient attitude towards our forebears is, very simply, that 'we are with them in the Church' (p 10) ...There is therefore a unity to the history of theology which the historian may not breach by consigning part of that history to the rubbuish heap: 'over and above the differences, a unity can be seen, a unity of perplexity and disquiet, but also a unity of richness and hope, which in the end binds us to the theologians of the past' (p13). And this means, further, that the historian of the Church must never allow confession of the Church's unity to be eclipsed by hostile judgement. 'Credo unam sanctam catholicam et apostolicam ecclesiam [trans. I believe in one, holy, catholic, apostolic church] is the reason for this, and if I am to pay attention to a theologian from the past, whether he is called Schleiermacher or Ritschl or anyone else, then I must be deadly serious about this credo' (p14). In the end, therefore, the historian can only remember that 'I and my theological work are only in the Church on the ground of forgiveness' (p14); that recognition is the ground of charity in historical judgement."

Or, to put it more succintly, we all make mistakes so let's have some grace for Christians of an earlier age who phrased things in ways we might not today!

(N.B. don't take this to mean that I have profound disagreements with Calvin)

what year is it?

noreply@blogger.com (robert) — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:42:00 +0000

It seems the Roman Catholic church has been quietly reintroducing forms of penance long thought abandoned - in particular, indulgences. Websites and church bulletins for various parishes in New York have been offering them, though people often don't even know what they are! This has been reported in a New York Times article here.

Here's a quote, for those not au fait with indugences.

"According to church teaching, even after sinners are absolved in the confessional and say their Our Fathers or Hail Marys as penance, they still face punishment after death, in Purgatory, before they can enter heaven. In exchange for certain prayers, devotions or pilgrimages in special years, a Catholic can receive an indulgence, which reduces or erases that punishment instantly, with no formal ceremony or sacrament.

There are partial indulgences, which reduce purgatorial time by a certain number of days or years, and plenary indulgences, which eliminate all of it, until another sin is committed. You can get one for yourself, or for someone who is dead. You cannot buy one — the church outlawed the sale of indulgences in 1567 — but charitable contributions, combined with other acts, can help you earn one. There is a limit of one plenary indulgence per sinner per day."

I feel like I'm back in the Middle Ages. Next thing you know, they'll be reforming the Knights Templar. (though conspiracy theorists will tell you they are alive and well as an underground secret society!)

where's joaquin?

noreply@blogger.com (robert) — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:03:00 +0000

Some would have the mistaken impression that all I do is watch youtube videos all day. It's just that alot of my reading for class at the moment is background information before I get into the meat of Calvin, Auquinas, Agustine, et. al. Posts, analysis, and quotations of them - all that will come in good time. For now, some of the pleasurable moments of my day come from the latest youtube shenanigans, including this 10 min clip of Joaquin Phoenix's latest appearance on the David Letterman show...joaquin like you've never seen him before.

what really happened

noreply@blogger.com (robert) — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:30:00 +0000

more pain

noreply@blogger.com (robert) — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 05:22:00 +0000

Ok, so the basketball practice was fun, but I was VERY rusty. In fact I think I only hit one jump shot from maybe 8 or 9 that I took during the pratice game, and I also missed several lay-ups. So I committed myself to some serious practice sessions, going back to the basics, taking lots of free-throws and trying to get my eye back in.

On Sunday nights the gym is open for recreational use from 5.30pm til midnight, so I thought it would be quiet from 11pm on. When I got there it was kinda busy, but they were just starting a full-court game and needed 1 extra player...good timing! So I had a good 45 minute run out. Only problem is that I'm still breaking my running shoes in.

This is what happens when you play with new shoes.

Pete - sorry for ruining the birthday socks. I'm sure you understand!