Posts
It's worth saying, in case you start worrying about me, that I believe in the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. I don't just believe it. I believe it is essential to believe it and that the Bible specifically excludes a mere 'spiritual resurrection in the hearts of the disciples'. I also believe that Jesus really did feed the five thousand, turn water into wine and raise Lazarus. I believe Egypt suffered great plagues at the hands of Moses and that Jerichos walls came tumbling down.
Historical books in the Bible - and the gospels - are at pains to point out their accuracy, giving dates of reigns of kings and such like; exact places and times; historical details.
So please don't worry about me when I say that I'm not sure I'm required to believe that Jonah is a historical account - or meant to be taken historically. Conrad Hyers, in And God created Laughter, argues that is a story or tale. And I think I agree with him.
The type of literary seems exaggerated and hyperbolic. Jonah is a comic figure - on whom I've written before here. The events are wonderfully preposterous. Jonah is commissioned and doesn't say 'Here I am! Send me!' He runs. And meets pagan sailors who have more spiritual insight than him. He is swallowed by a whale and prays a prayer completely at odds with the rest of the story and is then vomitted onto land to be God's messenger (classy entrance) and preach to the 'sixty-mile across Nineveh'. He creeps in, whispers the message and the whole city repents - and even animals are put in sack cloth.
Jonah consistently shows his cold-heartedness, prejudice and meanness of spirit. God consistently shows his kindness, grace and abundant mercy. Both Jonah and Nineveh deserve wrath - but God leads the blind to the blind and gives sight.
A few comments:
1. The story of Jonah may well be based on a true story. A prophet called Jonah is mentioned in 2 Kings 14 - but there is no hint of this story there. What's more, it doesn't appear that Nineveh had a huge public change of heart, but perhaps there was some kind of 'revival' there at some time. Perhaps the message of the book is that perhaps there might have been a mass conversoin in Nineveh if Israel were not so much like Jonah.
2. The fact that Jonah being swallowed by a whale is, humanly speaking, unlikely makes no difference to whether the story is actually true or not. At least to me. As I said earlier, I believe that Jesus rose from the dead having lived a life of dozens of attested, didactic miracles. The whale in the Med swallowing a pompous twit like Jonah is really no big deal.
3. When Jesus refers to Jonah - as Hyers points out - in Matthew 12:40, he is not necessarily claiming Jonah to be real, any more than quoting Macbeth or Hamlet would imply such mythical shakespearean characters are real. The fact is that Macbeth and Hamlet are, in some sense real, because there are literary embodiments of attitudes or predicaments. The reason great works of literature, and many poor ones, resonate is because the characters have an authenticity about them - but that doesn't make them real.
4. Evangelical unwillingness to accept Jonah as a tale, not a history, tells us quite a lot about the artlessness and poor imagination in evangelicalism. Jonah is a story! A wonderful story! And it doesn't have to have happened exactly the way it said it did in order to be useful, didactic and moving. Biblical histories - and the gospels - are claiming historicity that is important to defend. But not Jonah. Jonah serves as a wonderful example of how to be a grumbling, joyless, petty, petulant member of God's people. And is all the more true and telling for being a tale.
Saturday, 26 April 2008
Thursday, 24 April 2008
Jonah Part 1
There are many verses in the Bible that bother me. They bother me because I don’t understand them, or they don’t fit with my current thinking or Biblical overview. Or they’re just a little odd.
What’s so bothersome about them is that they indicate I haven’t understood the passage, chapter or entire book, and my systematic theology is probably faulty somewhere. There problem verses are, then, good because they help me improve my understanding, change my system and humble me.
They function like medical symptoms, which are useful because they give you a better hint of what the problem is. On House, his team come in all bothered and worried because the patient who is dying of a mystery disease develops yet another symptom they don’t understand. And Dr House is usually pleased because it ‘something new’ and will help them crack the case.
Anyway, here’s the one such symptom. The city of Nineveh in the Book of Jonah. It's in 3:3. The ESV says this:
The passage clearly states that the city was three days journey across. Three days. A day’s journey is about twenty miles. So that makes Nineveh sixty miles across. Not even Tokyo is that size. What could the writer of Jonah possibly mean? Was he exaggerating? Was he mistaken? Is the passage corrupted? How do we read this verse while keeping the integrity of the story and the book?
Is the NIV version a bit of a fudge with this:
Required three days? What's that supposed to mean? Is it like a big theme park that you can't 'do in a day'?
I’ve just finished reading Conrad Hyers’ ‘And God Created Laughter’ which I’m very glad I read. It’s a bit of a jumble and I can’t quite work out his main point, but he writes a whole chapter on Jonah that I found very helpful. And I found a solution to the bothersome verse.
But I’m a little snowed under with work right now, so I’ll tell you what I think the answer is next time. Warning: You might not like it.
What’s so bothersome about them is that they indicate I haven’t understood the passage, chapter or entire book, and my systematic theology is probably faulty somewhere. There problem verses are, then, good because they help me improve my understanding, change my system and humble me.
They function like medical symptoms, which are useful because they give you a better hint of what the problem is. On House, his team come in all bothered and worried because the patient who is dying of a mystery disease develops yet another symptom they don’t understand. And Dr House is usually pleased because it ‘something new’ and will help them crack the case.
Anyway, here’s the one such symptom. The city of Nineveh in the Book of Jonah. It's in 3:3. The ESV says this:
So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the LORD. Now(B) Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, three days’ journey in breadth.
The passage clearly states that the city was three days journey across. Three days. A day’s journey is about twenty miles. So that makes Nineveh sixty miles across. Not even Tokyo is that size. What could the writer of Jonah possibly mean? Was he exaggerating? Was he mistaken? Is the passage corrupted? How do we read this verse while keeping the integrity of the story and the book?
Is the NIV version a bit of a fudge with this:
3 Jonah obeyed the word of the LORD and went to Nineveh. Now Nineveh was a very important city—a visit required three days.
Required three days? What's that supposed to mean? Is it like a big theme park that you can't 'do in a day'?
I’ve just finished reading Conrad Hyers’ ‘And God Created Laughter’ which I’m very glad I read. It’s a bit of a jumble and I can’t quite work out his main point, but he writes a whole chapter on Jonah that I found very helpful. And I found a solution to the bothersome verse.
But I’m a little snowed under with work right now, so I’ll tell you what I think the answer is next time. Warning: You might not like it.
Monday, 21 April 2008
Sabbath, Sundays and Seventh Days...
I've had some emails and comments about the last blog with regard to Sabbaths and Sundays. Interesting and helpful - and I can't help feeling this is a glaring hole in my theology. Why is this?
One answer is that, up until now, I haven't been sufficiently curious to go and find out for myself. Another is that I don't seek God's word and read it as thoroughly and often as I should. But another is that I hear very little teaching indeed on this subject. I've heard countless talks about the need for evangelism. The application of almost every talk I hear from British Evangelicals is the need to evangelise. That's okay. We need to. I get it. But we don't hear much preaching and teaching (what's the difference?!) about church, church family and gathering together on the Lord's Day. And in what ways does that differ from Sabbath observance? It does clearly. But how, I'm not sure.
Perhaps churches shy away from these issues because they are reluctant to appear to be too controlling - for fear of driving away the people they do have. A minister that says 'you need to commit more fully to my church' can be mistaken for a control-freak. He might be one. But the Bible teaches that we need to be much more committed to each other in out churches- see Total Church here.
A church service is not something you attend for a personal private experience, like a trip the movies in which you take up your seats with total strangers. After a while, maybe you get to know the regulars at your multiplex, but that's not the same as community in the Church sense, surely. Yet many still think it is. And while that anaemic view of church remains, will people take the call to use the Lords Day for church family seriously? I think it might help if the church was more dogmatic on this issue that it is currently prepared to be. But I don't want to be lay down the law or anything...
One answer is that, up until now, I haven't been sufficiently curious to go and find out for myself. Another is that I don't seek God's word and read it as thoroughly and often as I should. But another is that I hear very little teaching indeed on this subject. I've heard countless talks about the need for evangelism. The application of almost every talk I hear from British Evangelicals is the need to evangelise. That's okay. We need to. I get it. But we don't hear much preaching and teaching (what's the difference?!) about church, church family and gathering together on the Lord's Day. And in what ways does that differ from Sabbath observance? It does clearly. But how, I'm not sure.
Perhaps churches shy away from these issues because they are reluctant to appear to be too controlling - for fear of driving away the people they do have. A minister that says 'you need to commit more fully to my church' can be mistaken for a control-freak. He might be one. But the Bible teaches that we need to be much more committed to each other in out churches- see Total Church here.
A church service is not something you attend for a personal private experience, like a trip the movies in which you take up your seats with total strangers. After a while, maybe you get to know the regulars at your multiplex, but that's not the same as community in the Church sense, surely. Yet many still think it is. And while that anaemic view of church remains, will people take the call to use the Lords Day for church family seriously? I think it might help if the church was more dogmatic on this issue that it is currently prepared to be. But I don't want to be lay down the law or anything...
Sunday, 20 April 2008
Today I worked
Today, I worked. And I slightly regret it. Because it was a Sunday. I didn't organise the schedule. It was taken out of my hands, but in the future, I think I'll be saying 'no' to working on Sundays.
In years past, I would have been appalled at what I'm now saying. Here's how it would go if old Jam - with a evangelical anti-pharisee theology - talked to New Jam - with a more classically reformed theology...
Old Jam: Refusing to work on Sundays, New Jam? Why are you being religious in this way?
New Jam: I'm not being religious. I'm just resting on the seventh day, I was commanded. And spending the day with my church family. It's a nice command. Why wouldn't I want to obey?
Old Jam: But we're free in Christ! We're not pharisees and are not bound by laws!
New Jam: That's right. I've been freed from legalism to obey God's laws, not because I have to but because I'm am able to. Anyway, why would you want to work on a Sunday?
Old Jam: Well, you wouldn't want to work on a Sunday, ideally, but stuff happens. If you're job calls you in for one Sunday every couple of months, big deal.
New Jam: It is a big deal. Is my job more important than my Sunday commitment to my church family?
Old Jam: Why would put the two against each other like that? They so rarely clash.
New Jam: But sometimes they do clash - and then we see who wins. Up until now, it's been work. Why am I working?
Old Jam: You want to be a good employee, don't you? That's a good witness.
New Jam: It's a good witness to work hard for six days a week. Most of the time, I only need to work for five. God has created a clear order for the living on earth. Work for six days, then rest. I'd be surprised if you've got an update on that. they tried ten day weeks in revolutionary France. It didn't really work.
Old Jam: No one is saying that you should regularly work on Sundays. There's no need to be religious about it. Religion is the enemy of grace.
New Jam: Yes, but what we do is important. Why am I working on a Sunday? Because I'm afraid I'll get fired if I don't? Because I think God won't provide for me if I don't - that last one is me, because I'm self employed. Right now, I could square any amount of work on Sundays because I'm 'providing for my family'.
Old Jam: I just don't see why you need to be dogmatic about it.
New Jam: Because when I work on Sunday, I'm ultimately saying that I rely on myself rather than God. And God consistently, throughout scripture, shows how following his pattern is not only better but that he provides for you in the process. Look at the template of Jubilee. Take a whole year off from agriculture and God will make the land abundant to provide for you! Look:
Still not convinced that God provides? Look at how he provided for his people in a barren wasteland. He still tells them to sabbath. But he will provide!
Old Jam: We can all quote bits of the Bible at each other.
New Jam: Go on then.
Old Jam: Jesus picking ears of corn? In Matthew 12.
New Jam: That passage is about legalism. And sort of makes my point, doesn't it? Don't be legalistic and be so concerned to keep that sabbath you become loveless, religious and hateful - because you're turning the Sabbath into something it wasn't intended to be. If I'm one of God's people, a Christian, why would I want to spend my Sunday, the Lord's Day, doing anything other than being with his people?
Old Jam: Yes, but you don't have to.
New Jam: Maybe you do have to. And we can disagree over this - it's not a deal-breaker...
Old Jam: So there is freedom. That's Romans 14, isn't it?
One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
New Jam: Yes, which is why I don't think you're heretical or worthy of excommunication for thinking it's okay to work the odd Sunday, old Jam. You didn't become a 'true Christian' when you made this decision to not work on Sundays. I should bear with you, in love. And you shouldn't call me a legalist. Secondly, I'm not sure that verse is specifically about Sundays, but holy days. The nearest thing we have to them are bank holidays. It's interesting that it's assumed I won't work those, but that I would work on Sunday. Is that because Bank Holidays, and Saturdays, are 'me' time? Whereas Sundays, being God's time, are less well guarded, rather than more so.
Old Jam: So, what's the rules on Sunday? Would you not work, but you would, say, drive someone to the airport.
New Jam: Oops, you've turned it into rules. Stop saying that that is what I'm doing. The answer, no, I wouldn't work on a Sunday. If someone called me from work on a Sunday, I wouldn't hang up. I'd politely answer their question, and then gracefully explain today isn't the day that I work. And that they can call me at 9am on Monday.
Old Jam: What about 12.01am on Monday?
New Jam: If they really want to, yes. But they've made it a legalistic rule. Not me.
Old Jam: So what about driving someone to the airport?
New Jam: That depends on the friend and the location of the airport. If it takes me away from my church family, so that they can go on holiday, probably not. But if they've had a family tragedy and they need to get abroad and they're really stuck, would it be kind and gracious to still to my rule? Probably not.
Old Jam: Well, I just think it looks weird if Christians don't work on Sundays.
New Jam: Sometimes, I don't think Christians look weird enough.
Old Jam: Okay, okay. I get it.
New Jam: I don't think you do. But you will.
Old Jam: You're very smug, New Jam.
New Jam: Well, I'm married with a baby. What do you expect?
I hope that helps.
In years past, I would have been appalled at what I'm now saying. Here's how it would go if old Jam - with a evangelical anti-pharisee theology - talked to New Jam - with a more classically reformed theology...
Old Jam: Refusing to work on Sundays, New Jam? Why are you being religious in this way?
New Jam: I'm not being religious. I'm just resting on the seventh day, I was commanded. And spending the day with my church family. It's a nice command. Why wouldn't I want to obey?
Old Jam: But we're free in Christ! We're not pharisees and are not bound by laws!
New Jam: That's right. I've been freed from legalism to obey God's laws, not because I have to but because I'm am able to. Anyway, why would you want to work on a Sunday?
Old Jam: Well, you wouldn't want to work on a Sunday, ideally, but stuff happens. If you're job calls you in for one Sunday every couple of months, big deal.
New Jam: It is a big deal. Is my job more important than my Sunday commitment to my church family?
Old Jam: Why would put the two against each other like that? They so rarely clash.
New Jam: But sometimes they do clash - and then we see who wins. Up until now, it's been work. Why am I working?
Old Jam: You want to be a good employee, don't you? That's a good witness.
New Jam: It's a good witness to work hard for six days a week. Most of the time, I only need to work for five. God has created a clear order for the living on earth. Work for six days, then rest. I'd be surprised if you've got an update on that. they tried ten day weeks in revolutionary France. It didn't really work.
Old Jam: No one is saying that you should regularly work on Sundays. There's no need to be religious about it. Religion is the enemy of grace.
New Jam: Yes, but what we do is important. Why am I working on a Sunday? Because I'm afraid I'll get fired if I don't? Because I think God won't provide for me if I don't - that last one is me, because I'm self employed. Right now, I could square any amount of work on Sundays because I'm 'providing for my family'.
Old Jam: I just don't see why you need to be dogmatic about it.
New Jam: Because when I work on Sunday, I'm ultimately saying that I rely on myself rather than God. And God consistently, throughout scripture, shows how following his pattern is not only better but that he provides for you in the process. Look at the template of Jubilee. Take a whole year off from agriculture and God will make the land abundant to provide for you! Look:
Leviticus 25
18 " 'Follow my decrees and be careful to obey my laws, and you will live safely in the land. 19 Then the land will yield its fruit, and you will eat your fill and live there in safety. 20 You may ask, "What will we eat in the seventh year if we do not plant or harvest our crops?" 21 I will send you such a blessing in the sixth year that the land will yield enough for three years. 22 While you plant during the eighth year, you will eat from the old crop and will continue to eat from it until the harvest of the ninth year comes in.
Still not convinced that God provides? Look at how he provided for his people in a barren wasteland. He still tells them to sabbath. But he will provide!
Exodus 16:4
4 Then the LORD said to Moses, "I will rain down bread from heaven for you. The people are to go out each day and gather enough for that day. In this way I will test them and see whether they will follow my instructions. 5 On the sixth day they are to prepare what they bring in, and that is to be twice as much as they gather on the other days.
Old Jam: We can all quote bits of the Bible at each other.
New Jam: Go on then.
Old Jam: Jesus picking ears of corn? In Matthew 12.
New Jam: That passage is about legalism. And sort of makes my point, doesn't it? Don't be legalistic and be so concerned to keep that sabbath you become loveless, religious and hateful - because you're turning the Sabbath into something it wasn't intended to be. If I'm one of God's people, a Christian, why would I want to spend my Sunday, the Lord's Day, doing anything other than being with his people?
Old Jam: Yes, but you don't have to.
New Jam: Maybe you do have to. And we can disagree over this - it's not a deal-breaker...
Old Jam: So there is freedom. That's Romans 14, isn't it?
One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
New Jam: Yes, which is why I don't think you're heretical or worthy of excommunication for thinking it's okay to work the odd Sunday, old Jam. You didn't become a 'true Christian' when you made this decision to not work on Sundays. I should bear with you, in love. And you shouldn't call me a legalist. Secondly, I'm not sure that verse is specifically about Sundays, but holy days. The nearest thing we have to them are bank holidays. It's interesting that it's assumed I won't work those, but that I would work on Sunday. Is that because Bank Holidays, and Saturdays, are 'me' time? Whereas Sundays, being God's time, are less well guarded, rather than more so.
Old Jam: So, what's the rules on Sunday? Would you not work, but you would, say, drive someone to the airport.
New Jam: Oops, you've turned it into rules. Stop saying that that is what I'm doing. The answer, no, I wouldn't work on a Sunday. If someone called me from work on a Sunday, I wouldn't hang up. I'd politely answer their question, and then gracefully explain today isn't the day that I work. And that they can call me at 9am on Monday.
Old Jam: What about 12.01am on Monday?
New Jam: If they really want to, yes. But they've made it a legalistic rule. Not me.
Old Jam: So what about driving someone to the airport?
New Jam: That depends on the friend and the location of the airport. If it takes me away from my church family, so that they can go on holiday, probably not. But if they've had a family tragedy and they need to get abroad and they're really stuck, would it be kind and gracious to still to my rule? Probably not.
Old Jam: Well, I just think it looks weird if Christians don't work on Sundays.
New Jam: Sometimes, I don't think Christians look weird enough.
Old Jam: Okay, okay. I get it.
New Jam: I don't think you do. But you will.
Old Jam: You're very smug, New Jam.
New Jam: Well, I'm married with a baby. What do you expect?
I hope that helps.
Thursday, 17 April 2008
Imagining Gravity
I have just been listening to BBC Radio 4's excellent programme In Our Time. It really should be compulsory listening for all thinking people. It's an unashamedly brainy show, but Melyvn Bragg guides us through complex topics from Archaeology to Philosophy to History in the company of three boffins.
Newton's Laws of Physics has been a subject of the most recent one. It occurred to me while listening to it that Newton's greatest asset was not his scientific brain or powers of deduction but his imagination. His work Principia Mathematica was not just a great book, but a massive paradigm shift in thinking. Planets did not move in circles, but ellipses - AND every object in the universe is attracted to every other universe. He thought big. Rather than discount things, or accept explanations of the universe as they were, he went far beyond any thinking that anyone was prepared to do (except perhaps Hooke, who seemed to come up with a fair amount of Newton's stuff first. But Newton acknowledged this by saying that he was 'standing on the shoulders of giants', ironically referring to the fact that Hooke was severely stunted in growth).
So don't let anyone tell you that science is just about observing facts. It isn't. If you're going to do it well, you need be able to use your imagination.
I've written an article to this effect in the upcoming Third Way magazine. Plus the splendid Dr David Field is blogging about science here.
Newton's Laws of Physics has been a subject of the most recent one. It occurred to me while listening to it that Newton's greatest asset was not his scientific brain or powers of deduction but his imagination. His work Principia Mathematica was not just a great book, but a massive paradigm shift in thinking. Planets did not move in circles, but ellipses - AND every object in the universe is attracted to every other universe. He thought big. Rather than discount things, or accept explanations of the universe as they were, he went far beyond any thinking that anyone was prepared to do (except perhaps Hooke, who seemed to come up with a fair amount of Newton's stuff first. But Newton acknowledged this by saying that he was 'standing on the shoulders of giants', ironically referring to the fact that Hooke was severely stunted in growth).So don't let anyone tell you that science is just about observing facts. It isn't. If you're going to do it well, you need be able to use your imagination.
I've written an article to this effect in the upcoming Third Way magazine. Plus the splendid Dr David Field is blogging about science here.
Tuesday, 15 April 2008
And God Created Laughter
I'm reading Conrad Hyers' book "And God Created Laughter". It's an interesting read, although I'm struggling with it for a few reasons.
1. The book contains lots of interesting and enlightening insights and thoughts on how Christians relate to the Bible and various individual passages - but no real thought has been given, or at least put on the page, as to why we need a book about laughter (which we do!). Why do Christians often fail to see humour in the Bible? I see it everywhere in the Bible, as regular readers of this blog with know. But what's stopping other people? Do Christians think that laughing at the character, event or phrase in the Bible is inherently irreverent, as if being like Sarah, laughing at the goodness and faithfulness of God? I hope not, but fear so. Does that speak of a relationship based on grace? It does not.
2. The book doesn't really have any overall thesis about what laughter is, how comedy works and why we should find anything funny at all - or indeed what humour is. I'm not looking for in-depth sociology or physiological studies. But I've yet to discern any theme or big idea, which is a shame as this Hyers chap seems to be pretty bright.
3. The book is about laughter, but has yet to make me laugh. Sometimes he explains a Biblical 'joke' like an English teacher explains a joke in Shakespeare - when the whole class nod, write down the note and no one laughs. This fits in with my theory about the fact that the people who do write about comedy in the Bible understand the Bible, but not comedy. Which makes me more determined than ever to write a book on the subject. But this book will be an invaluable resource for me!
4. It also struck me that we keep reading Shakespeare and look for fresh ways to bring the text alive and retell the stories - and yet we don't do that with the Bible. Even Christians don't. What are we afraid of? Or are we actually not that interested? Do we treat the Bible as a codebook to be pored over, cracked and unlocked... Judging by how often conservative evangelical preach through epistles, I'd say we're more interested in knowledge than stories.
5. The Serrated Edge is still the one to beat, although it is principally about satire and causing offence.
Sunday, 13 April 2008
Spare a thought for Thomas
Today I had the privilege of preaching on John 20 - 'The Incredulity of Thomas'. There's not much point pasting sermon notes here. Soonish, the talk will be on the Christ Church Mayfair website if you're insanely curious to hear it, but here are one or two comments about the passage. Okay, five.
1. The petulance of Thomas's disbelief. The disciples are rejoicing having met Jesus and Thomas wasn't there. He really picked the wrong day to do his grocery shopping or visit his sister. But when the disciples say 'We have seen the Lord!', Thomas says "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it." What a remarkably petulant and unpleasant things to say. Unless Jesus Christ presents himself to me in person for my own inspection, I will not believe.
2. Blessed are those who have not seen yet still believe - this ties in with point 1. Thomas is wanted to subject Christ to his own tests and proofs. He wants the living God and creator of the universe to make himself available for inspection. He is putting the Lord God to the test. Jesus, in his mercy and kindness, shows himself to Thomas and demonstrates his wounds - but this is not a normal or desirable way to believe. Blessed are those who have not seen but still believe.
Believe on the basis of John's testimony. v30-31 "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
3. Christian faith is not believing something you think is unlikely to be true. That's what many people think it is - including some Christians. Tony Blair said that talking about religion in politics gets you labelled a nutter. This is because people assume theistic faith is inherently irrational. It isn't. Christians believe in a risen, physical saviour. If he didn't physically rise, it's all for nothing.
4. The painting at the top of this blog is deceptive. There is no record of Thomas reaching out to touch Jesus wounds. Reading the passage, you get the sense that Thomas would have been very ashamed of his previous words. If anything, he would have sunk to his knees, while exclaiming 'My Lord and My God!'
5. Poor Thomas. One crisis of faith that lasts a week and he's known as Doubting Thomas for the next 2000 years.
Wednesday, 9 April 2008
Jubilee and the Goodness of God
Christians are afraid of Jubilee. Or at least Western Christians are. By Jubilee, I'm referring to the Old Testament law in Leviticus 25 here. I recently heard an excellent sermon on Jubilee by Douglas Jones a few weeks ago and I've been thinking about it ever since.
As a western Christian living in Fulham in 2008, I am clearly one of the wealthiest people in history. So I look at the jubilee laws and gloomily conclude I'll have to give stuff back to people at some point in the future. As a pro-market capitalist (although the only invisible hand is God's, not the markets), I shudder and assume that this fifty year redistribution would ruin investment, profitability and society i general.
How greatly I doubt the goodness of God!
Read the chapter and you'll see these are the most progressive labour laws in history! Social justice that seems radical even now! The chapter reflects the goodness and mercy of God and his character. And his determination to bless his people. He knew that the land his people would be given in Canaan would be wasted, squandered, sold and given away; that individuals and families would get into debt and sell things they cannot afford to lose and spiral downwards into poverty - through ignorance, folly or injustice. But there is a Factory Reset button on society. God provided for it in jubilee. But we don't want to press it because we want to keep what we have, keep things as they are, and ultimately we doubt the goodness of God. Did God really say that he would bless his people? Did God really say he would provide for them? Yes and Yes!
How we institute jubilee now is totally beyond me. I notice that the market resets itself more often than every fifty years with a monumental crash. Why not do it God's way and plan for these things every fifty years? And isn't it a better way or redistribruting wealth than a byzantine and oppressive tax system?
As a western Christian living in Fulham in 2008, I am clearly one of the wealthiest people in history. So I look at the jubilee laws and gloomily conclude I'll have to give stuff back to people at some point in the future. As a pro-market capitalist (although the only invisible hand is God's, not the markets), I shudder and assume that this fifty year redistribution would ruin investment, profitability and society i general.
How greatly I doubt the goodness of God!
Read the chapter and you'll see these are the most progressive labour laws in history! Social justice that seems radical even now! The chapter reflects the goodness and mercy of God and his character. And his determination to bless his people. He knew that the land his people would be given in Canaan would be wasted, squandered, sold and given away; that individuals and families would get into debt and sell things they cannot afford to lose and spiral downwards into poverty - through ignorance, folly or injustice. But there is a Factory Reset button on society. God provided for it in jubilee. But we don't want to press it because we want to keep what we have, keep things as they are, and ultimately we doubt the goodness of God. Did God really say that he would bless his people? Did God really say he would provide for them? Yes and Yes!
How we institute jubilee now is totally beyond me. I notice that the market resets itself more often than every fifty years with a monumental crash. Why not do it God's way and plan for these things every fifty years? And isn't it a better way or redistribruting wealth than a byzantine and oppressive tax system?
Monday, 7 April 2008
Finally, they've spotted the flaw in the tax system...
Some MPs are unhappy about the axeing of the 10p tax band. Read all about it here.
Even by the ludicrously low standards of this current dunderheaded government, the deletion of the 10p tax band was a foolish move. Offsetting it with reducing the basic rate from 22p to 20p was always going to mean that the poor would pay the most in this new arrangement. A basic GCSE in maths would reveal this information.
Finally, MPs have done some basic calculations on the back of an envelope and have realised this. They should also realise one thing. Gordon Brown and his Chancellor, Darling, are showing that their primary interest is not the well-being of the poor. They talk a lot about helping the poorest, and reducing child poverty, but the poor are number three on their list.
Their primary aim is to show that this government, and their party, is willing and able to help the poor. And that using the state tax system and a hefty bureaucracy is the best way of doing that. So they tax any income a household receive above a few thousand pounds and then give it back to them through benefits, tax credits and the demeaning welfare system. This is also means that hundreds of thousands of people can work for the state, administrating this system, managing the people who run the system and working for the ombudsmen, inspectors and regulators who keep an eye on the system. The poor are not at the centre of the system. The government is.
Mr Brown, please do not tell me you are interested in the poor. If you were, you would reduce the tax-burden on the poor, make them less dependent on the state, reduce the state and the need for such punitive taxation on the poor. You interested primarily in political point-scoring and proving your party is the best party. Every day you continue to this, you penalise the poor and the under-privileged. Please stop.
Even by the ludicrously low standards of this current dunderheaded government, the deletion of the 10p tax band was a foolish move. Offsetting it with reducing the basic rate from 22p to 20p was always going to mean that the poor would pay the most in this new arrangement. A basic GCSE in maths would reveal this information.
Finally, MPs have done some basic calculations on the back of an envelope and have realised this. They should also realise one thing. Gordon Brown and his Chancellor, Darling, are showing that their primary interest is not the well-being of the poor. They talk a lot about helping the poorest, and reducing child poverty, but the poor are number three on their list.
Their primary aim is to show that this government, and their party, is willing and able to help the poor. And that using the state tax system and a hefty bureaucracy is the best way of doing that. So they tax any income a household receive above a few thousand pounds and then give it back to them through benefits, tax credits and the demeaning welfare system. This is also means that hundreds of thousands of people can work for the state, administrating this system, managing the people who run the system and working for the ombudsmen, inspectors and regulators who keep an eye on the system. The poor are not at the centre of the system. The government is.
Mr Brown, please do not tell me you are interested in the poor. If you were, you would reduce the tax-burden on the poor, make them less dependent on the state, reduce the state and the need for such punitive taxation on the poor. You interested primarily in political point-scoring and proving your party is the best party. Every day you continue to this, you penalise the poor and the under-privileged. Please stop.
Sunday, 6 April 2008
Hut 33 will be back soon.
Read more about my radio sitcom, Hut 33, here - where more information will appear in time.
Comedy is Relational
See below for details on my media merry-go-round. During the ride, I had one or two more thoughts about comedy. Here's the big one. It is relational. That's why people struggle to get their heads round it.
Comedy is Relational
I joke I tell my mother when I'm at home will be different from a joke I tell an ex-uni mate, which will be different from a joke I tell to a friend from church. The mechanism of the joke might be the same, but we all know there's a time and a place. A time to laugh and a time to mourn. A routine told by a stand-up comedian at midnight on a friday night will look very different to the Women's institute the following morning.
The reason Evangelicals can sometimes get upset - and legalists of all kinds - is that it appears morally relative to say that some jokes are okay sometimes and not at other times. "If you have something to say about someone, you say it to their face!" Yes, good principle. Bad law. If you would give someone a phone reference, you'd speak differently if you knew they were eavesdropping. You might not be sinning any more or less either way. You might think that assuming you're always being overheard makes you more honest and less prone to exaggerate or sin in that way. It doesn't. It makes you prone to flatter.
Did Jesus speak to everyone the same way? No. He spoke one way to pharisees, another to rich young man, another to fisherman, tax-collectors, prostitutes, and so on. Does that make Jesus a relativist? No! It makes him human. And relational.
Comedy is relational, situational and relative. The problem is that we live in an 'always-on, camera-phone ready, youtube' world in which any comment from one context can be judged by the wrong standards. And then someone can say 'I was offended by the joke' and claim the moral high-ground. Sadly, you have no right not to be offended. If you're being satirised and rebuked, you need to shut up and listen. If you're being cruelly singled out unjustly, then you can ignore it. If you're being gently ribbed for good reason, get over it and lose your pride.
Comedy assumes shared knowledge
Finally, comedy is based on shared knowledge. You need to know certain things in common to 'get the joke'. A joke about a building giving a false estimates requires both parties to know that builders are prone to giving wildly inaccurate quotes and estimates. A joke about the French and food requires the knowledge that the french take food seriously. Sometimes, though, comedy is based on ignorance - based on the way a people group look, or their obvious customs. It is hard to do comedy based on ignorance without sounding prejudiced. I need to think about this more, but comedy where there is no relationship or shared knowledge usually looks mean-spirited.
Lots more to think on here, so do jot down thoughts if they occur.
Comedy is Relational
I joke I tell my mother when I'm at home will be different from a joke I tell an ex-uni mate, which will be different from a joke I tell to a friend from church. The mechanism of the joke might be the same, but we all know there's a time and a place. A time to laugh and a time to mourn. A routine told by a stand-up comedian at midnight on a friday night will look very different to the Women's institute the following morning.
The reason Evangelicals can sometimes get upset - and legalists of all kinds - is that it appears morally relative to say that some jokes are okay sometimes and not at other times. "If you have something to say about someone, you say it to their face!" Yes, good principle. Bad law. If you would give someone a phone reference, you'd speak differently if you knew they were eavesdropping. You might not be sinning any more or less either way. You might think that assuming you're always being overheard makes you more honest and less prone to exaggerate or sin in that way. It doesn't. It makes you prone to flatter.
Did Jesus speak to everyone the same way? No. He spoke one way to pharisees, another to rich young man, another to fisherman, tax-collectors, prostitutes, and so on. Does that make Jesus a relativist? No! It makes him human. And relational.
Comedy is relational, situational and relative. The problem is that we live in an 'always-on, camera-phone ready, youtube' world in which any comment from one context can be judged by the wrong standards. And then someone can say 'I was offended by the joke' and claim the moral high-ground. Sadly, you have no right not to be offended. If you're being satirised and rebuked, you need to shut up and listen. If you're being cruelly singled out unjustly, then you can ignore it. If you're being gently ribbed for good reason, get over it and lose your pride.
Comedy assumes shared knowledge
Finally, comedy is based on shared knowledge. You need to know certain things in common to 'get the joke'. A joke about a building giving a false estimates requires both parties to know that builders are prone to giving wildly inaccurate quotes and estimates. A joke about the French and food requires the knowledge that the french take food seriously. Sometimes, though, comedy is based on ignorance - based on the way a people group look, or their obvious customs. It is hard to do comedy based on ignorance without sounding prejudiced. I need to think about this more, but comedy where there is no relationship or shared knowledge usually looks mean-spirited.
Lots more to think on here, so do jot down thoughts if they occur.
Those Ben Elton comments
It all rather spiralled out of control. I did an interview with Ben Elton a few months ago, it appears in Third Way magazine and suddenly I'm on Newsnight talking to Jeremy Paxman with Shappi Khorsandi and Mark Maeir. The next day, Professor Mona Sidiqui did a Thought for the Day on the subject suggesting that Muslims learn to have a sense of humour. And then I was on World Have Your Say on the BBC World Service along with Jeff Mirza, Muslim stand-up comedian, Paul Sinha, a nominally Hindu gay GP comedian and Anjem Choudhray, judge of the Sharia Court in the UK. And Reginald D Hunter on the line from Australia.
Here's what I learnt.
1. Radio is a far better media for discussion than TV. We all knew that but I was good to be reminded of the superiority of radio in this regard. The six minutes I had on Newsnight was fun, but ultimately didn't get us very far. There's so much context and preliminary comments that six minutes isn't realise enough for anything except a polemic or short talk. But Newsnight was fun and Mr Paxman was lovely.
2. No one has given this any serious thought at all - and I propose to. When it comes to comedy, people are clueless. They have no categories or understanding of how comedy works, how it should work, can work and often does work. The reason people become unstuck is that they want rules for comedy. They want a 'this joke is okay', and 'this joke is not okay'. People get frustrated that Jews can tell Jewish jokes but others, can't, shouldn't or won't. The person telling the joke makes a difference! I get to tell jokes about my mother that you don't! Comedy is personal and relational. More of that on another posting.
So I'm going to try and write a book called 'A Rabbi, a Priest and an Imam go into a bar...' Contact me if you would like to publish this book. (seriously).
Here's what I learnt.
1. Radio is a far better media for discussion than TV. We all knew that but I was good to be reminded of the superiority of radio in this regard. The six minutes I had on Newsnight was fun, but ultimately didn't get us very far. There's so much context and preliminary comments that six minutes isn't realise enough for anything except a polemic or short talk. But Newsnight was fun and Mr Paxman was lovely.
2. No one has given this any serious thought at all - and I propose to. When it comes to comedy, people are clueless. They have no categories or understanding of how comedy works, how it should work, can work and often does work. The reason people become unstuck is that they want rules for comedy. They want a 'this joke is okay', and 'this joke is not okay'. People get frustrated that Jews can tell Jewish jokes but others, can't, shouldn't or won't. The person telling the joke makes a difference! I get to tell jokes about my mother that you don't! Comedy is personal and relational. More of that on another posting.
So I'm going to try and write a book called 'A Rabbi, a Priest and an Imam go into a bar...' Contact me if you would like to publish this book. (seriously).
Wednesday, 2 April 2008
Interview with Ben Elton
A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of interviewing Ben Elton - who seems like a thoroughly decent bloke all round. The interview was published in Third Way magazine very recently. And then the Times just lifted a bit (that was probably one of the least interesting parts of the interview) and put it in their newspaper, here. Ben Elton makes a very good point, in my opinion, but what do we do about the 'muslim jokes' on the BBC? Or lack of?
Christians tend to get cross at this because they see their faith mocked regularly on television, but other faiths are treated with much more respect. There are reasons for that - some them good ones. Is it fair to mock a small minority about their religion? Especially when that people in the past have been mocked for their skin-colour in a very racist way? It may well be unwise or unkind.
Basic freedom of speech is something that Christians should be very quick to defend. It's one function they really should the state to defend - the right to say anything that isn't factually untrue or explicitly intended to provoke violence.
But Christians should be slow to use that right to mock others. There will be times when jokes about the Hindu faith or Islam are appropriate, but we should be very careful and sensitive as these traditions do not necessarily have the same senses of humour as we do. Does this mean we cannot challenge and question the tenets of their faith, show where we disagree and differ? No. We continue to debate and contend for our faith. The secularists and statists would love us all to say that all faiths are the same and that we worship the same God. This is hopelessly ignorant of the content of the faiths that explicitly contradict each other.
Of course, those who pin all their hopes on state intervention and the law, rather than grace and The Spirit, will never understand that Christians would seek a right and then, on occasions, forego that right. But confusing secularists is great fun so we should take every opportunity to do so.
Christians tend to get cross at this because they see their faith mocked regularly on television, but other faiths are treated with much more respect. There are reasons for that - some them good ones. Is it fair to mock a small minority about their religion? Especially when that people in the past have been mocked for their skin-colour in a very racist way? It may well be unwise or unkind.
Basic freedom of speech is something that Christians should be very quick to defend. It's one function they really should the state to defend - the right to say anything that isn't factually untrue or explicitly intended to provoke violence.
But Christians should be slow to use that right to mock others. There will be times when jokes about the Hindu faith or Islam are appropriate, but we should be very careful and sensitive as these traditions do not necessarily have the same senses of humour as we do. Does this mean we cannot challenge and question the tenets of their faith, show where we disagree and differ? No. We continue to debate and contend for our faith. The secularists and statists would love us all to say that all faiths are the same and that we worship the same God. This is hopelessly ignorant of the content of the faiths that explicitly contradict each other.
Of course, those who pin all their hopes on state intervention and the law, rather than grace and The Spirit, will never understand that Christians would seek a right and then, on occasions, forego that right. But confusing secularists is great fun so we should take every opportunity to do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)