E-Prayers?

Given the amount of communication we do through email these days, I’ve found myself quite regularly in situations where I will get an email from someone, requesting prayer on this or that issue. I’ve found myself on various occasions immediately emailing back with the “I will pray” kind of response. In such cases, I usually spend a moment just after I hit “send” and pray for the request, realizing that it is possible I will forget after that, especially if the request is regarding someone I only know casually or even don’t know at all. 

But I’ve also found myself more regularly responding with a prayer actually written right into the email. (The reason I’m writing about this right now is because I JUST did this for a request that came through.) But as I again hit “send,” I wondered, What happened there? Was this “really” a prayer? 

From a personal perspective, I’ve found that writing a prayer into an email really makes me think about what I’m praying. I’m just a bit nervous when (just like I did a few moments ago) I find myself “editing” the prayer! It was actually as I finished off the final edits of this admittedly very brief prayer and sent it off into the internet ether, that I wondered what I had just done.  

It may seem like a trivial question, but what did I just do? Is the “e-prayer” a legitimate prayer? The answer might be obviously, “Of course it’s [not] a prayer!” I’m just wondering if it is all that obvious though. I guess I’m asking, Is there any kind of biblical or theological precedent for the “e-prayer”? Is this a good practice or not? etc.

What do you think?

Hegel on Exegesis and the Biblical commentary

An important reminder to me as I engage in my own commentary work. This is from Hegel’s Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion:

[S]o-called [pure] thinking turned against [the doctrinal content of the Church's teaching] in the name of “Enlightenment.” It left the doctrinal system in place and also left the Bible as foundation, but arrived at its own divergent views and sought to interpret the word of God in a different way. This took place in the guise of exegesis. Because exegesis draws upon reason for counsel, what happened is that a so-called rational theology came into being, opposed to the doctrinal system in the form established by the church. In part, this was the church’s own doing, in part it was the doing of [the thinking] to which the church is opposed. In this rational theology it is exegesis that plays the primary role. Here exegesis takes over the written word, interprets it, and professes only to make the understanding of the word effective and to remain faithful to it.

But where interpretation is not mere explanation of the words but discussion of the content and the elucidation of the sense, it must introduce its own thoughts into the word that forms the basis [of the faith]. There can only be mere interpretation of words when all that happens is that one word is replaced by another with the same scope. [DG: i.e., 'translation'].  If interpretation is elucidation, then other categories of thought are bound up with it. A development of the word is a progression to further thoughts. One seemingly abides by the sense, but in fact, new thoughts are developed. Bible commentaries do not so much acquaint us with the content of scripture as with the mode of thought in their age. [Underline added]

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion. Edited by Peter C. Hodgson. Vol. 1, “Introduction and The Concept of Religion.” Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 1984, pp. 122-3.

Requesting Input on 1 John

I’ve only outlined in my mind a few basic things about the next two points I want to discuss about the canonical context of 1 John, but I’d like your input/thoughts on this before I move on. Think of this as a bit of “collaborative theological exegesis.”

I think that part of canonical context includes 1) identifying 1 John’s  ”canonical catholicity” (i.e., how 1 John coheres with and “fits” in the canon, especially in light of the other books of the NT; and 2) identifying its unique “canonical contribution.” What I mean by canonical contribution is the unique things that 1 John to brings to the canon (let’s think specifically the NT canon here). What is it that 1 John teaches or reveals that we wouldn’t otherwise know? Or to put it negatively, what are some things we wouldn’t know if 1 John hadn’t “made it” to the canon?

I’ll prime the pump here and make the specific suggestion that 1 John makes a unique contribution in regard to his theology of “testing the spirits” as related to christology. He insists that acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh is a”definitive” test (though we might debate whether he means this to be the one and only definitive test) to see if a spirit has come from God. I’m not sure whether we would easily derive this anywhere else in the canon, but correct me if I’m wrong.

So what do you think? What has been given in 1 John that we would not otherwise know from the rest of the canon?

First John in Canonical Context (1)

WARNING: Very long!

Before embarking on the “theommentary proper” of 1 John, I want to comment in a series of two or three posts on the canonical context of 1 John. Those familiar with the “canonical approach” to Scriptural interpretation (particularly as espoused by the late Brevard Childs) will know that as we  do exegesis on a book of the Bible, we obviously seek to understand it in its original historical context,  but that we must also seek to discern the significance of a book’s location in the biblical canon, i.e., its canonical context.

One of Childs’ important challenges to the biblical studies guild was to think about the ‘goals’ of interpretation and how various types of criticism contribute (or not!) to those goals. Childs thus suggests that attention to the shape and form of the canon is in fact important for biblical exegesis, particularly when preaching and teaching is in view. This is because it is this canon from which we preach and teach, not the supposed sources or even original texts underlying the biblical books. Thus, we preach and teach from the book of 1 John as it comes down to us in its present form, not from any other historical or conceptual sources that the author may or may have drawn upon in its writing, as important as they may be to reconstruct the history of the formation of the text leading up to its final form. We preach and teach from the canon as it comes to us, not from the pre-canonical sources to which we no longer have access to. 

In my concern that biblical exegesis and theology serve the needs of the Church in its preaching and teaching, I therefore regard 1 John’s canonical context as having theological priority for exegesis over the question of its historical context for three reasons.

First, the historical context in which the letter was written is very difficult to discern and any reconstruction of that historical context will always be a matter of probability. No matter how much we wish that the historical context could be certainly clarified, we will likely always need to admit that we know very little of the book’s background and original context, and any historical reconstruction will be exactly that: a reconstruction only. Consequently, we must be careful that the findings of our exegesis, while relying upon whatever historical insights we may garner, cannot finally rely upon such historical insights as the lynch-pin of our exegesis. So, when it comes to the book, generally speaking, we can gather that the author is dealing with some kinds of false teachings and schism within the Christian community, but beyond this very general knowledge,  we have no names, places, or events mentioned to locate with any degree of certainty the original historical context of the book. First John, in other words, comes to us somewhat “out of nowhere” (like Melchizedek!) with no specific progenitor (author) noted, nor even a specific audience. But even as a “book out of nowhere,” 1 John cannot be categorized as a book of “timeless teaching” or “myth.” For unlike a myth (i.e., “an anonymous story designed to explain the mysteries of life”), the book of 1 John is a testimony based not simply as a retelling of an old story, but on the basis of what has actually been seen, examined, and touched by the author (1:1) (i.e., a first hand acccount–the stuff of history).   

Second, I see the canonical context as having theological priority because it identifies the nature of the book as it is received in the Church–as a concretely located portion of the biblical canon, as God’s Word to us. The book of 1 John, in other words, is theologically to be viewed first and foremost as Holy Scripture (not merely as a “text.”) As Webster puts it, “To talk of the biblical writings as Holy Scripture is ultimately to refer to more (but not to less!) than those writings ["texts"] per se.”  (Webster, Holy Scripture, 5). The “more” to which Webster refers is that while 1 John is undoubtedly a “text,” it is not only a text, but a portion of an ordered canon of texts which functions for the church, not merely as a “library” of authoritative texts, but as divinely ordered “Spirit-shaped/church-shaping”whole–the written Word of God, Holy Scripture. Thus, the inclusion of 1 John in the canon means its interpretation must not be restricted to an investigation of its historical origin, nor even to an internal analysis of its own words and sentences. Rather, the interpretation of 1 John, while not ignoring these aforementioned elements, must be seen both in theological continuity with the organic canonical whole and as contributing uniquely to the whole. It is as we examine the book in such a canonical context that we can dare then to “use” the book in the Church preaching and teaching because it speaks concerning the church’s one catholic faith as coming from one Lord and Spirit.

Third, in saying that 1 John is primarily read as Holy Scripture and only secondarily as a historical text,  I am not saying that i think that the book is historically contextless or “timeless,” but that the historical context of the book is not a given  to the Church (i.e., historical context is always in need of being reconstructed); rather, the canonical inclusion and location of 1 John in the Bible is a given, even if in the end we might disagree as to what the significance of that given canonical inclusion and location is. That 1 John is included and specifically located in the canon as it is is really all we have to work with, even if continued historical research may help us better to understand the particulars of what is said. So rather than a historical situation underlying the text as the common denominator for interpretation, I argue that the canonical position of 1 John is perhaps one of most significant common denominators for theological interpretation. 

WIth that rather technical introduction out of the way (I hope I haven’t bored you to death yet), the questions which remain are: What is the canonical context of 1 John? And how might this canonical context inform the theological exegesis of this text which I hope to undertake? In order to answer these questions, I see three important elements of canonical context which need to be dealt with. In the remainder of this post, I will deal first of all with observations on (1) 1 John’s canonical inclusion and location. In the next post (or two), I will then deal with (2) 1 John’s canonical catholicity (i.e., how it coheres with the rest of canon and so preserves the unity of the canon) and then finally with (3) 1 John’s canonical contribution (i.e., what would be missing theologically from the canon if we didn’t have the book).

1) 1 John’s Canonical Inclusion and Location

First question: Does the inclusion and location of 1 John in the canon in the form in which it has been delivered to us reveal anything at all significant about how it ought to be understand relative to the rest of Scripture? Admittedly, this is not a question we are usually ask in the first steps of exegesis, especially if we have been trained in the methods of grammatical, historical interpretation and criticism. But I think it is an vital to the task of moving beyond historical exegesis to doing theological exegesis.

But first a few brief comments on the “form” in which 1 John has come to us. The epistles of John  (1, 2, and 3 John) are grouped together in what is traditionally called “the Catholic” or “General” Epistles, comprised of Hebrews, James, the epistles of Peter, the epistles of John, and Jude. Yet it is interesting to note a few things about this canonical sub-group by comparing and contrasting the form of each “part.”

 First, Hebrews lacks the expected authorial saluations at the beginning of the book, but does end up with many of the expected blessings, personal greetings and exhortations at the end (Heb 13:18-25). James, the second in the group reverses what happens in Hebrews: it has an initial saluation and intended audience (James 1:1), but has no closing blessings, greetings or exhortations. The epistles of Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude all fit well within the classical definition of an epistle (with both opening saluations and closing greetings, blessings, and/or exhortations). However, though 1 John is usually spoken of as the first of three “epistles,” it has no opening greeting, and does not have a typical epistolatory ending. In fact it ends with a rather abrupt imperative: “Dear children, keep yourselves from idols.” While it is true that the author repeatedly addresses his readers as “dear friends,” there are otherwise no contextual/geographic/personal clues (as in most of the other Catholic Epistles) as to who these “dear friends” really are. They are literally without face and without location. So in many respects, 1 John does not really “fit” in the “catholic epistles” as an epistle per se, but reads more like what in Roman Catholic circles might be called an “encyclical”–a letter intended for broad distribution and addressed to all the churches. So in that sense, to play with the category in which the book is found, 1 John is prima faciae more “catholic” (or “general”) than it is an “Epistle”! This, I think, means that 1 John cannot be read flatly as merely “another epistle” alongside even the two other so-called epistles of John with which it is grouped. There is some material difference, and perhaps even some material priority given to the book amongst its “canonical peers.” 

Furthermore,  as we think about 1 John’s canonical location (i.e., where it finally ended up in the NT canon), I wonder if in some respects, 1 John (with the trailing 2 and 3 John and Jude) is related to Hebrews in a way that analogously 1&2 Timothy (along with the trailing Titus and Philemon) is related to the book of Romans in the Pauline Epistles. For as you look at how the Pauline and Catholic Epistles are arranged, there appears to be at least some striking similarities. For the sake of our description, I’ve organized the Pauline and General Epistles under these four categories and in this order: (1) Theology; (2) Ecclesial Theology and Wisdom; (3) Pastoral Theology; and (4) Occasional Pastoral Epistles. Now I realize those aren’t likely the only (let alone best) terms by which to describe this pattern, and I also fully realize the  danger of imposing something that isn’t there. (Just remember that this is an experimental blog meant more to provoke new ways to think about theological exegesis than as a definitive statement). But consider this scheme as outlined below in which I compare the canonical ordering of the Pauline Epistles with the canonical ordering of the General Epistles in which 1 John is found:

                                              Pauline Epistles                                           General Epistles

Theology                              Romans                                                      Hebrews     

Ecclesial theology
and wisdom                         1 Cor – 2 Thess                                         James – 2 Peter

Pastoral Theology                1 & 2 Timothy                                           1 John

Occasional Pastoral
Epistles                                Titus, Philemon                                        2-3 John, Jude

Now I realize the scheme isn’t entirely perfect, but consider the following canonical comparisons and analogies:

1) If Romans stands at the head of the Pauline Epistles as its “theological foundation,” is there a sense that Hebrews stands at the head of the Catholic Epistles as its theological foundation? In what sense, then, should the rest of the General Epistles (including 1 John) be read at least partially in light of Hebrews, even as we might read the rest of the Pauline corpus at least partially in light of Romans?

2) The books 1 & 2 Corinthians through to 1 & 2 Thessalonians are categorized here as “ecclesial theology and wisdom.” What I mean by this is that the Pauline Epistles in this second grouping commonly present themselves as theological letters written to churches to deal with specific theological and practical issues which the churches were facing. They are not “encylical” letters  in the sense that they were meant to be widely circulated (even if Colossians seems in content to be close to an encyclical, it is still directly attached in its prescript to the Church at Colossae), even if that is how they all ended up being read. But these letters are instances where the fundamental Pauline theology is brought to bear and expanded upon in the context of specific ecclesial issues where apostolic wisdom and guidance was needed. By analogy, it seems to me that the letters of James through 2 Peter function in a similar way: each seems to address theological and practical issues which originally, at least, were tied in to particular churches or groups of churches.  

3) If the letters of 1 & 2 Timothy pertain specifically to the theology of pastoral care, ordering, and protection of the flock for overseers, is there a sense in which 1 John may also be viewed, by canonical analogy, as the “pastoral theology” of the Catholic Epistles? It is difficult to ignore that the content of 1 John seems to commend something of this kind of reading; for throughout, it seeks to address a number of theological challenges arising within the community (this is Bultmann’s view of the essential nature of 1 John, by the way) in order more generally to care for and protect the flock.  If this analysis is plausible, then a theological exegesis of the text may need to guard against individualistic readings that pertain primarily to the individual Christian in favour of a more communal (John’s prefered term for the church is koinonia (“fellowship” rather than ecclesia  “congregation”) reading that addresses the care and protection of the Christian fellowship. I am becoming convinced that this is necessary and I will seek to follow this out in my own exegesis to come.

4) If Titus and Philemon are specific “occasional theological letters” to specific individuals or small groups, addressing them more individually, yet with the overarching Pauline theology and pastoral theology preceding them, is there also a sense in which 2-3 John and Jude are also more specifically occasional letters which are specific instances of applying the broad theology of Hebrews and the pastoral and ecclesial theology of the letters preceding them?

Now, I realize that this canonical analysis goes far beyond the immediate concern of dealing with 1 John. But this brief exercise was necessary, I think, to set the book in its NT canonical location and derive some implications for theological exegesis from that. So to recapitulate, I want to suggest that 1 John may be best read not as primarily an epistle, but rather as “pastoral theological encyclical” meant to inform, exhort, and encourage the fellowship of churches facing challenges of division and schism within, rather than as specific apostolic directives meant to deal with specific issues of discipleship with which individual Christians faced–even if there is no doubt that much can be learned even at this level. My point here, I think, is to suggest that perhaps the interpretation of 1 John has simply been too narrow both in exegesis and application. This also means that it may be necessary to take some care not to allow the claims of the book to be applied too rigidly, but rather to see the book as outlining a more general pastoral theology which must be, under the guidance of the Spirit, be applied in a discerning way to the various specific ecclesial locations. Thoughts or reactions to this? 

A second major point on the canonical location and inclusion arises from an analysis of the the “pre-script” (i.e., the first verse) of the book. (Again, I am indebted to Childs’ work here, especially the way in which he analyzed the prescriptions of the Psalms as being significant to understanding how the Psalms work together as a structure, even though for most us, we “blip over” them to get to the “good stuff”). In the case of 1 John, I’ve been thinking about the canonical significance of the first line: “That which was from the beginning. . .” (ho hen ap’ archês) – {sorry for the lack of a Greek font here…can anyone help me figure out how to include it on WordPress?} Of course, we have here a well known parallel/allusion to the prologue of the Gospel of John, “In the beginning was the Word (en archê ên ho logos), which is itself is a strong allusion to Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created.” This is obviously nothing new here which has not already been observed many times before. But I do wonder whether an analysis of what I will call the three “in-the-beginning prescripts” will reveal that they are strategically located within the canon and say something theologically important relative to one another. 

The first canonical occurence of the “In-the-beginning” prescript, Genesis 1:1, speaks of what I would call the “fundamental ontological relation” of God to creation. To speak of “the beginning of the heavens and the earth” is to speak of their essential and total dependence upon God the Creator. “In the beginning,” in Genesis 1, reveals to us the sovereignty and lordship of God over all that there is, whether “things in heaven or on the earth” (cf. Col 1:16). It sets God and creation in a vertical relationship, with God over Creation, and with God as fundamentally “other” than Creation. Thus, this first canonical “in-the-beginning presrcipt” functions, to use the Kierkegaardian/Barthian phrase, as an assertion about the “infinitely qualitative distinction” between God and the world.

The second canonical “in-the-beginning” prescript, John 1:1, signals a canonical and historical shift of perspective of the relation of God and creation as a  relation of ontological difference to a relation of God and creation in terms of “presence.” (As a sidenote, I think this sense of the “presence” of Yhwh-Elohim in creation is already anticipated in Gen 2 in contrast to the vertical transcendence of Elohim spoken of in Gen 1, but I digress!). Whereas up until John 1:1, the relationship of God to creation was primarily seen in terms of God’s transcendence, it is through this new “in the beginning” assertion that we discover that, from the beginning, there always has been a “horizontal presence” of God with his creation, most specifically in and through the agent of his creation who has always been with him, the Word.  Found as it is in the context of the canonical Gospels, the John 1:1 prescript introduces us now not only to a God who is over all as its Creator and Lord, but to a God who, by his own divine Word-agent, creates a world for the purposes of entering into the world in the flesh. This second canonical prescript thus signals to readers of the canon as Holy Scripture that the God who is revealed in Genesis 1 as the one who creates all things “anew” (i.e., ex nihilio), is also none other than the one who by the agent of his Word is the Light which comes into the world, right from the beginning–a light which is not merely a conceptual or existential idea (as if this light were nothing more than a “philosophical illumination of the mind”), but a Light which does its work of illumination through taking on, paradoxically, the flesh of humans.

Read against the backdrop of the first two canonical instances, the third “in-the-beginning” prescript of 1 John 1:1 speaks of yet one more repetition of the relationship of God to the world,  but again, with a new perspective and with added information. As I observe the canonical flow of these prescripts, I see this:

If the first “in-the-beginning prescript” of Genesis 1:1 speaks about (and I steal a construction from Barth’s doctrine of election here to aid in my explanation) the “beginning of all the ways and works of God,” it is the second “in-the-beginning” prescript of John 1:1 in which we find out about “the beginning of all the ways and works of God in Jesus Christ” (Barth, CD II.2, 94). If the first prescript speaks about God’s sovereign lordship over creation, the second prescript speaks of the Agent of God’s creative activity who, from the beginning, intended to take up residence in and alongside the very creation he has created. Canonically, the move is from the sovereign transcendence of the Creator God of the Old Testament to the humble immanence of God’s own fully divine agent of creation, Jesus Christ, who appears as the central actor of the New Testament Gospels.  So far so good…(I hope).

This is where the 1 John 1:1 prescript, “That which was from the beginning,” comes in as the third canonical movement of the “in-the-beginning” motif.  If Gen 1:1 speaks of pre-incarnation Lordship, and John 1:1 speaks of the humble visit of deity through incarnation, then 1 John 1:1 speaks of a post-resurrection/ascension expansion, yet again, upon “the beginning of all the ways and works of God in Jesus Christ”–an expansion which is accomplished through the proclamation of the One whom the apostle testifies to have seen, examined, and touched. This too, is a “new” aspect of the works and ways of God in Christ, but is also something which has been intended from the very beginning. The book of First John, then, needs to be seen, not only as a practical pastoral book (which it is) but also as providing a significant theological insight into the nature of God’s relationship to creation given his lordship over creation, his involvement in Creation in the Son, and his present intention to extend that relationship through the means of spiritual (or Spirit enabled!) proclamation of Jesus of Nazareth, who though no longer is available to be seen, examined, and touched, is nevertheless being heard of and believed upon in the world as he is received as none other than the the Word of LIfe (1:1b) who was with God (John 1:1) in the beginning (Gen 1:1). 

This means, canonically, that he function of 1John is to speak of the “new beginning” of Christ’s involvement in the world in his post-ascension existence extended through the work of the Church in proclaiming him to be the atoning sacrifice not only for our sins, but for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). First John is ultimately, then, a book to help us to preach Christ. 

Ok, enough for now. Sorry for the length, but I hope you get the general gist. In the next post, I’ll discuss more briefly (hopefully!) the canonical catholicity and the canonical contribution of 1 John before I finally launch into the “theommentary proper.”

Lacking the Theological Giants?

In his discussion of Hegel in Nineteenth Century Protestant Theology, Karl Barth commented on why philosophers seemed unable to go beyond the philosophy of Hegel in the latter half of the nineteenth century and opted instead to choose completely different paths of thinking. To answer those who felt that perhaps the age of the great thinkers had now passed away such that there were no longer any “great men” who could accomplish anything close to what Hegel did, Barth says, 

“It is always a bad sign when people can find nothing to say but that unfortunately the right people were lacking. This should be said either always or never. Every age, perhaps, has the great men it deserves, and does not have those it does not deserve. The only question remains whether it has a hidden flaw in the will of the age itself . . .”

Barth, Karl. Protestant Theology in the Nineteenth Century. London: SCM Press, 2001, p. 374.

I have often wondered whether and when the next Karl Barth will show up. Oh, yes, there are a good number of very good theologians doing very good work these days, but I would be hard pressed to identify a living analogue to Karl Barth today.

So is it simply that “great men” or “great women” are now lacking? That the age of the possibility of a “modern church father” has now passed? Barth doesn’t seem to think that we should think this way. But perhaps he has put his finger on something terribly troubling: Perhaps there is in our age a hidden flaw in our collective ecclesial will in which we collectively and systematically ensure that no one thinker or theologian attains to the stature that a Barth or a Hegel or a Calvin or an Augustine once enjoyed. Is it just that the shadow of a man like Karl Barth is just so long that we are too close to him in history that it is simply just too early for another great to rise in his place?

Or is it a flaw at all? Perhaps we have “arrived” to a point where no age before has gone.  In our utter commitment to “univeral rights of equality,” is it possible that we simply cannot and will not allow any theologian to rise up and to teach us and challenge a generation or two of lesser teachers and theologians in the way that Karl Barth does now? Perhaps the achievement of our age is a correcting of the flaw of previous ages where one voice was so often privileged over others. Maybe we have finally overcome that “flaw of the theological cult figure” and have finally managed to flatten out all the theological voices into a cacophony of differentiated voices, none of which has dominance but are leveled to become a sea of democratic equals? In other words, maybe the “achievement” of our age is that we have finally gotten to the place where we have convinced ourselves that it is better to have a lot more smaller voices speaking out than one louder, more dominant voice to which other lesser voices respond and interact?

I don’t know for sure, but there is something that bothers me about the latter vision over against the former. I have a gut feeling that the flaw has not yet been removed. Not that the former vision is necessarily better than or superior to the latter, but that perhaps the latter may end up impoverishing us even more than the former age did.

1 John: A Theommentary

Theommentary started as an outlet for my own thoughts about times, texts, and themes in ways that I hope will extend my calling as a theological teacher. So far, it’s been a great joy for me (and I hope, occasionally, for you, too). But in large part, the first couple of months has been largely devoted to theological commentary on the times (particularly, it seems, federal elections!) and themes (like the nature of preaching and public reading of Scripture, the meaning of public theology, etc.). Most of these have been “occasional” pieces to comment on current happenings. I’ve also commented on various extra-biblical texts as I saw fit or as I had been requested to do.  (Barth would call these kinds of comments the work of “irregular dogmatics.”)

Without wanting to stop engaging in that kind of “irregular dogmatic” work, I’ve also wanted to move forward with a plan that I have had right from the inception of Theommentary,  mainly, to do a bit more “regular dogmatic” work by walking through and commenting systematically upon a biblical book. My goal, in other words, is to do some theological exegesis and commentary on a particular book of the Bible. And now the time has come for me to begin that taskand I invite you along for the ride.

Several biblical books came to mind as potential candidates for “theommentary.” I’ve always loved the Gospel of John for the richness of its trinitarian theology, but I quickly realized that is probably a bit much too much to take on at the outset. I’ve also thought about Ephesians, one of my favourite New Testament books, especially for the close connection of soteriology and ecclesiology therein. I’m also fascinating by the Christology of Colossians. But in the end, I’ve chosen to begin working through the book of 1 John for a variety of reasons:

1) I love how 1 John refuses to separate what we sometimes call the “theological” vs. the “practical.” For the author of 1 John, such a dichotomization between the “theoretical/theological” and the “practical/spiritual” would be non-sense. For John, the knowing of Christ (i.e., the “theological”) is intimately tied to our obedience to Christ (the “practical”). “We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands.” (1 John 2:3). 

2) I love what I believe to the characteristic “deliberate ambiguities” in 1 John (e.g., Who is the one with whom we have fellowship with in 1:7? With Christ? Or with other Christians? Or both?) coupled with the “clear stark contrasts” in others (e.g., light and darkness, life and death, love and hate), and sometimes even ambiguity and contrast in the same sentence! Indeed, it is because of some of these ambiguities AND contrasts, that I am drawn to the book for what I would call a clear biblical example of “theological dialectic” at work.

3) I’ve always thought of 1 John as a letter of an old, wise apostle written primarily to those who are young and struggling in the faith without forgetting the older ones as well. So on the one hand, John treats us young followers of Christ with the gentleness that we need while still growing up in the faith. But on the other hand, John pulls no punches when we need a good theological black-eye (or perhaps a good warm theological behind?) to get us back on track or to put our pride in place, especially those of us who might be settling into a static form of faith as we get older. John’s theo-practical wisdom, in other words, lands exactly where it is needed: For the young children and young men who still find themselves struggling with sins they think they will never overcome, John reminds them of the promises of Christ’s work on their behalf; but for the old men and fathers who might wonder whether they are going to leave any kind of spiritual legacy, John gently reminds them that the legacy that counts most is a life lived abiding in Christ from the beginning.

4) It’s short.

5) The Greek of 1 John is some of the easiest to work with in the NT (i.e., I won’t need to spend as much time deciphering difficult Greek constructions!) and personally will be a good refresher for me (even though I did teach Introductory Greek eons ago!).

And the final reason: 

6) 1 John was the very first biblical book that I tried to teach to my teen Sunday School class in the summer after my first year of Bible College some 24 years (!) ago. I just wish I had kept my original notes to see if I’ve learned anything in the last 24 years!

Please keep in mind that I view this venture as a theological experiment and I make no claims to be dealing exhaustively with secondary literature. [That's the nice thing about a blog. You can deliberately NOT have to be exhaustive!] Yes, I wil consult the commentaries as necessary, but neither will I feel compelled to try to exhaust all the exegetical issues. Indeed, I may deliberately avoid certain exegetical issues simply because I think they are distracting to the task at hand. So if you think I’ve missed something really important, by all means, point it out to me, but I reserve the right to deal with it or not. Don’t be too offended if I decide not to! And how long I intend to take? However long that it takes!

The driving theological impetus for me will be to try  (with the Spirit’s help) to hear what (or more properly, whom) it is that John and his apostolic associates first touched and saw and heard themselves, and which the he now passes on to us and expects us also to pass on and to preach and teach to others. I’m less interested in what John meant (although that is obviously fundamentally important at one level) and more interested in seeing (spiritually) what John saw and now testifies to for our benefit. And I do this all in the hope that in a small way, those who are reading who are engaged in a ministry of teaching and preaching (at whatever level that may be) will perhaps find a nugget or two that will help them in their own ministry of the Word.

And of course, comments and interaction is always welcome!

10 Exhortations to “Modern” and “Postmodern” Christians

My friend Dustin has a powerful post on the new cooperative blog Four, Seven and Twelvefold in which he gives us 10 exhortations to so-called postmodern Christians. I’d only add that I think these exhortations are worthy to be heard for both “modern” and “postmodern” Christians alike.

To give you a taste, I quote the first exhortation here:

1. Have no other Gods before YHWH. Remember, you’re identity is in your baptism and not in your location in any cultural movement. In fact, you may find that your cultural situation runs both with and against the grain of your Lord’s command (most likely the latter). Ultimately, appellations before the word “Christian” are not important. Take your guidance from that word alone.

. . . 

Dustin’s “application” of the 10 Commandments reminded me of one of Karl Barth’s essays written in 1933–also worth a read.

See Karl Barth,  “The First Commandment As an Axiom of Theology.” In The Way of Theology in Karl Barth: Essays and Comments, ed. H. Martin Rumscheidt. (Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1986), 63-78.

Losing our Conscience in “The New Moral Order”

In his excellent article just released in Catholic Insight on November 10, 2008, Dr. Douglas Farrow of McGill University exposes what he calls the “The New Moral Order” being developed in Canada today. In this new order, Farrow argues, the older categories of:

1) natural law [the universal aspect common to all],
2) religion  [the covenantal aspect under which all are created], and,
3) conscience  [the personal aspect of moral response] 

are steadily being replaced respectively with the new categories of:

1) pluralism [i.e., the only thing universal is that we are all different);
2) secularism [i.e., rather than life under and before God, it is life without God]; and,
3) autonomy or individualism [rather than a personal adherence to a norm, it is personal adherence to oneself].

Now my own Barthian/Reformed sensitivities still prevents me from buying into my Doktorvater’s commitment to a notion “universal natural law” as is predominantly taught in Roman Catholicism. [The Cathecism of the Catholic Church says that "natural law is immutable, permanent throughout history" and is "a necessary foundation for the erection of moral rules and civil law." (Catechism, art. 1979)]. I still prefer to think along the more Reformed (especially Calvin’s) notion of “common grace.” Yet even if you replace “natural law” with the idea of “common grace” which understands that the world “is not only created by God but upheld in its created existence and nature by his grace” (Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, II/1, 117), I think that Farrow has rightly identified the three purely secularized replacements vying for recognition.

But beyond the way in which Farrow brought these three fundamental ideas together (along with their parodies) in such a precise fashion, I  found it especially illuminating how Farrow notes that conscience, traditionally understood, is the discipline of the self subjecting itself to a higher order. Conscience was, in other words, the testing of oneself–of “me”–to see if I was living in alignment with that which Iknew and believed to have binding authority upon me. To live and act according to conscience was in effect to say, “I will do what I know to be right and good on the basis of my acknowledgement that something or someone is higher than me.” Indeed, conscience, when it is working properly, is precisely defined (imagine that!) by Barth as “the place where man becomes one with God’s will” (CD I/1, 202).

But now, with autonomy and individual rights increasingly reigning the day, it has come to the place where even conscience must be obliterated, lest we find ourselves testifying even in a small way that we are subject to something outside of ourselves. To speak of conscience, in other words, is to admit that something (or heaven forbid, someone) is judging me. So, the last triumph of “human rights” talk will be when the conscience is completely redefined from “a moral agent’s internal compulsion to act in accordance to external authority” to mean “submission to one’s self, and to one’s self alone”–without the hassle of having to conform oneself in any way to something external or higher or larger or, to be sure, divine. As Luther, in his own characteristic fashion, once put it, “Conscience is an evil beast which makes a man take a stand against himself.” (Luther’s Works, American Edition, 7:331).

Though I encourage you to read the article in its totality on your own, I thought that Farrow’s penultimate paragraph was worth reproducing here:

What then shall we call this new morality, if not the morality of despair?  And with what shall we confront it, even and especially where it is most menacing, if not with the gospel of hope?  For despair, as Kierkegaard argued in Sickness unto Death, is the refusal to be oneself before God, and Christian hope is the right antidote to that.  Christian hope is grounded in the knowledge that God himself is for us in Christ, not against us, so that in Christ we may indeed be ourselves, and be ourselves before God. This, I think, is what Pope Leo XIII also had in mind when he said in Jesus Christ the Redeemer:  “The world has heard enough of the so-called ‘rights of man.’ Let it hear something of the rights of God.”

[You may also want to read Farrow' previous article (also in Catholic Insight) where he comments on how the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is attacking the freedom of conscience of individual physicians to not perform procedures such as abortions.]

The Chosen “O”ne?

My friend Jon commented a few posts back that there is a need to recover the art of satire. Well, if you are looking for some pretty good theo-political satire, I would suggest this article from Gerard Baker, a columnist with the UK Times. Though not satire, you may also want to read the provocative Catholic novelist Michael O’Brien’s chilling comments on Obama, written on the eve of the election.

In my last post, I offered a prayer (and you need to know that it was truly heart-felt) for both our own Prime Minister and for President-Elect Obama. I do want to give every respect due these men as God’s servants to do good for the nations they govern, but I also pray that they will continually remember that as human authorities, they are under divine authority.

I also pray that we the people under their governance remember that these are men, not gods, not even demi-gods. So while Canadians and Americans share the same fundamental sinful malady–the temptation to break the first great commandment (“You shall have no other gods besides me”)–at least one difference, in my humble opinion, between the current Canadian Prime Minister and the new President-Elect of the United States is that far fewer (if any) seem to think that our Prime Minister is the hope of the world. I’m not so sure I can say the same about many people’s (and not only Americans, but Canadians, Europeans, and Africans alike) near “Messianic” expectation of the new US President-Elect, aided and abetted and iconified in large part by gushing adulation much of the mainstream media.

I just hope and pray that Obama will be able to resist the unimaginable demonic temptation of taking those messianic expectations placed upon him too seriously. I also hope and pray that no one will seek to  make him a martyr when he, a mere man, fails to live up to such unrealistic messianic expectations. If some wanted to cast out Bush as a war mongering demon, others may well be standing in line ready to crucify Obama for failing to bring in a kingdom of their own expectation.

Fortunately, if there is one thing working in President-Elect Obama’s favour, it is that the problems that he faces are nearly insoluble and the pragmatic reality of the complexity of dealing with the ubiquitous fiscal, domestic and foreign policy crises will likely quickly serve to temper the public’s utopian expectations of what a president can accomplish. But though Obama himself warned in his acceptance speech that change will be slow, such talk can be easily forgotten in the face of utopian expectations. Public thirst for change is directly proportional to the degree that salty promises for change are served up as rhetorical appetizers before the main political meal.

So today and tomorrow, and next week, month, and year, may we never forget the fundamental confession proceeding by the Spirit from our mouths as followers of Christ: Jesus Christ is Lord and God!

A Prayer for Harper and Obama

God our Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords,

We come to you by your Holy Spirit and we thank you and acknowledge today that all authorities, kings, and powers are established by your hand. We thank you also that we live in lands where we are given opportunity to vote in freedom and without fear of reprisal or persecution. In these recent days in which both Canada and the United States have cast election ballots, we pray that these leaders of your choosing, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and President Barack Obama, will acknowledge in every aspect of their political capacity their status as men under your authority. We pray that they would daily acknowledge their dependence upon you, that they are men and not gods, and that these things would be in the forefront of their mind as they govern. We ask this so that the nations and people over which they have been given responsibility would also be reminded to remember you and to give you glory due to you as our Creator God.

We pray that you would give these men wisdom and discernment and that they would establish solid relationships with godly advisors–men and women who would think about your Name and your glory. We pray that their policy decisions would be ones that truly would further justice and mercy, not national glory or economic gain.

We also pray that your Holy Spirit, who convicts the world of sin, righteousness and judgement, would sharpen these men’s consciences sharply and deeply so that they will be able to govern with wisdom, righteousness, and justice, and not merely for public acclaim or personal gain. As both of them stand at the cusp of a sustained period of time where there will likely be no forthright challenge to their leadership, we pray that you will protect them both from the political sins of pride, arrogance, hubris, and entitlement which so many who wield political power fall into. Instead, we pray, that your Spirit would infuse them with humility, grace, mercy, and sacrifice of such a degree that even they will know that these do not arise not from their own heart, but as gifts from your providential hand.

We pray above all these things that Prime Minister Harper and President Obama would have their hearts and their minds pricked and prodded by our Lord Jesus Christ to defend the cause of the most vulnerable of all in our societies: those who are poor, who are destitute, who lack justice, who are without home or hope, and especially, O Christ our Creator,  those little ones who in their mother’s womb cannot speak for themselves and who are created in your image. We acknowledge that you, the everlasting Judge, will hold these men and us accountable on that great day of judgement for the millions of lives lost in order to retain our own comfort and convenience. Be merciful to us and by your hand, turn the tide toward life and peace, we pray, and away from the culture of death that continues to encroach and darken our lands and the lands abroad where we continue to wage war.

We pray, O God our Father and Creator, that you would bring about a spiritual and moral redemption in these men’s hearts and the hearts of the people of our nations–a godly reformation of the heart and the spirit that will turn our nations back to you in unheard of ways in this generation. We pray that the church who confesses the name of your Son Jesus Christ will stand in the unity of love of the Holy Spirit and that we will be faithful witnesses to these men and their representatives even while we confess our sins and our failures both to you and to one another. May we become known as salt and light to our leaders, not as acid and darkness. In this, we renounce the works of Satan, the ruler of darkness who opposes your way. In the name of Jesus Christ, we rebuke the Satanic powers that seek to deceive and destroy them and us by every means possible. Cover both Prime Minister Harper and President Obama with your blood so they may be protected from such spiritual deception and destruction. Protect us also from despair, but give us true hope–a hope that can only be found in you. 

God our Saviour, in this time of political and economic upheaval, may we not become so distracted in the Church that we forget to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is for all people of every race, tongue, nation, and tribe. Give your church the courage to proclaim it boldly. And may these our political leaders be ready to defend the freedom of the Church to proclaim this Gospel, even as they defend the freedom of those who do not yet believe it, and even those who oppose it as men and women loved and created by you.

Heavenly Father, we your Church pray that as citizens of these nations of the world, of Canada and the United States of America, we would not forget that we are also citizens of your kingdom. May we never forget that this world and its care is passing away as we await the blessed hope of the return of Jesus Christ to establish his eternal kingdom where justice and righteousness will be perfectly upheld. In the meantime, as we await your future appearing, we ask for strength to be obedient to your expectations to uphold Mr Harper and Mr Obama in prayer and to give them the honour due them as your servants. We acknowledge that to damn these men is to blaspheme you in your sovereignty and so we ask that you would protect us from such blaspemy. And so we bless them, O Lord, and we do not condemn them, even when they do things contrary to your will, but we ask that you will strengthen, judge, and chastise them as necessary so that your name would be known and the glory of your kingdom extended. We confess our failure to uphold our political leaders in prayer, and we pray for strength to be faithful in this regard, knowing that it is even as we pray for our leaders to you the Heavenly King,  we do so as witnesses to them and to the world that they, even in their high position, are under your authority and will someday, along with us, pass away even as the grass of the field.

Finally, we ask for the humility to encourage these leaders when they do right, to courageously speak the truth in love to them when they stray from your way, and to honour them and give them the due that is theirs as your appointed servants.  And we pray that in all things, whether in word or deed, that we would do so in your name and for the sake of your kingdom. We pray that your will will be done in Canada and the United States today just as your will is already done in heaven. For yours is the Kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever.

In the Name of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

Amen.