Author: Jason Goroncy

Shooting Dogs – A Review

Last night I watched one of the most challenging films that I’ve seen in months. Shooting Dogs (entitled Beyond the Gates in the USA where it has shamefully not got a distributor) tells the story of an English priest – Father Christopher (John Hurt) – who heads up a school in Rwanda in 1994. Christopher is caught up in the growing violence between Tutsi and Hutu tribes which escalates into genocide. The film, whose official website is a blog, is based on a story co-written by BBC journalist David Belton who was working in the country at the time of the genocide. The film powerfully accounts the events that took place at the Ecole Technique Officielle school in Kigali between April 6th and April 11th in 1994.

The film depicts the experiences of the world-weary school headmaster Father Christopher (John Hurt) and Joe Connor (Hugh Dancy), a charismatic and idealistic young man taking a year out teaching in Africa. When the genocide begins to erupt, the school becomes a refuge for Europeans and Tutsis. A contingent of Belgiant UN soldiers is stationed at the school but as the Hutu government vows to eliminate all Tutsis, the refugees wonder if the UN will protect them from the machete-wielding Hutu militias who start to surround the school. The film paints the UN as spineless, toothless and racist.

Director Michael Canton-Jones elicits naturalistic performances from the actors, some of whom are survivors of the genocide, as are many of the support crew. The film was shot at the location where the actual events took place.
Canton-Jones employs mainly handheld cameras in order to give the film a documentary feel. John Hurt and Hugh Dancy give strong, emotional performances as characters caught up in a series of moral dilemmas as to how they can help the Rwandans – both Hutu and Tutsi . By focusing on the fate of one school, this accomplished film succeeds in giving an overview of the devastating Rwandan genocide and the apathetic paralysis of various governments and organisations in dealing with the growing conflict which claimed the lives of somewhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 human beings.

I must say that despite watching the film with a bottle of good red (something which in itself requires reflection), it took me hours to get to sleep afterwards – such were the questions that it elicits: questions of justice, sense of call, costly discipleship, human limitation, the sacramentality of incarnational ministry, politics, love, racism, human depravity, hope. Moreover, it drove me to silence … and prayer.

Most reviewers have compared the film with Hotel Rwanda, almost unanimously preferring Shooting Dogs. I’m not sure it’s fair to compare the two films as is usually done. Although the overlap of historical subject matter is obvious enough, the films are attempting to do very different things. Both, I think, do it very well.

If I’m ever allowed back into a classroom, the issues wonderfully raised by this film would serve as a great compliment. A must see.

I’m just about to sit down (without a red) and watch another film on the Rwandan genocide. If Sometimes in April is half as good as Shooting Dogs, I’ll post on it sometime too.

Nicholas Lash on ‘Doing Theology’

‘“It is not reason that is against us, but imagination.” … The ways in which we “see” the world, its story and its destiny; the ways in which we “see” what human beings are, and what they’re for, and how they are related to each other and the world around them; these things are shaped and structured by the stories that we tell, the cities we inhabit, the buildings in which we live, and work, and play; by how we handle through drama, art and song the things that give us pain and bring us joy. What does the world look like? What do we look like? What does God look like? It is not easy to think Christian thoughts in a culture whose imagination, whose ways of “seeing” the world and everything there is to see, are increasingly unschooled by Christianity and, to a considerable and deepening extent, quite hostile to it.

In such a situation, continuing to hold the Gospel’s truth makes much more serious and dangerous demands than mere lip-service paid to undigested information. Unless we make that truth our own through thought, and pain, and argument through prayer and study and an unflinching quest for understanding – it will be chipped away, reshaped, eroded, by the power of an imagining fed by other springs, tuned to quite different stories. And this unceasing, strenuous, vulnerable attempt to make some Christian sense of things, nor just in what we say, but through the ways in which we “see” the world, is what is known as doing theology’. – Nicholas Lash, Holiness, Speech and Silence: Reflections on the Question of God (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), 3–4.

David Brown @ St Andrews

For those who are around Scotland, the Revd Canon Professor David Brown (Van Mildert Professor in the University of Durham), who is always worth hearing, will be presenting a paper on ‘Pork, eels and aphrodisiacs: Finding God in food’ on Monday 18 June 2007 at the School of Divinity at the University of St Andrews. For more information, contact Gavin Hopps (who is also always worth hearing) or phone (+44) (0) 1334 462 841.

Around blogdom …

I thought there was enough decent stuff around blogdom today to delay posting #16 in my series on the Name until next week. Here’s what I’m reading:

Simon has a nice reflection here on the question of whether theologians are friends or foes to pastoral ministry, with a nice plug of Ray Anderson’s fantastic book, Ministry on the Fireline.

Chris is working on a 2-part (a negative & a positive) statement of biblical inerrancy, which he hopes to turn essayward. To that end, he is finally seeking the help he so desperately needs. :-)

Alastair is posting some guest posts on the atonement. This one focuses on the early greek fathers.

Ben has listed a dogmatics for every occasion here.

And, of course, there’s the Barth Blog Conference to contribute to.

Dies Irae, John Donne and Luke 7:36–8:3

Over the past few weeks, I have posted some thoughts (here and here) on one of the lectionary readings for the coming Sunday. For those preparing sermons on Luke 7:36-8:3 for this Sunday, here’s a few thoughts.

Luke’s retelling involves three main characters: Simon the Pharisee (the inviter), Jesus (the invited), and a woman (the party-crasher). At the heart of the story is the issue of hospitality. Simon is a lousy host who has publicly humiliated his guest in failing to wash his feet, anoint his head, and to acknowledge his equal rank of rabbi by offering a kiss. The woman—the only one in the room who understands Jesus’ pain and his embarrassment by the Pharisee’s rudeness—realises that in Jesus the Shekinah has moved and now resides in a person. She alone shows the expected grace of a host. Jesus is an impolite guest who does the unthinkable, especially in a Middle Eastern culture—he attacks the quality of the hospitality. Even though he is probably embarrassed by the party-crasher’s gesture, he accepts it, and her, because he understands her motive. By the time Jesus finishes his parable, Simon and his mates are no longer angry with the woman. Their rage has turned towards Jesus. Upon him was the chastisement that brought her peace. In what is a foretaste of the cross, Jesus offers her a costly demonstration of unexpected love. In the words of William Williams, ‘What power has love but forgiveness?’And in that one action, he welcomes Simon and all who have ears to hear, into his own life.

There are a number of paintings that depict Luke’s homely scene. Julius Schnorr’s ‘Mary anoints Jesus’, and James Tissot’s ‘Mary anoints Jesus’ feet’ both serve as fine examples. There’s also Julius Schnoor’s moving woodcut, ‘Jesus Anointed by Sinful Woman’ originally printed in Das Buch der Bücher in Bilden. But it is some poetic reflections of this episode at Simon’s house that move me most. In her poem ‘In the Midst of the Company’, Janet Morley powerfully uses poetic license to recreate Luke’s painting from Jesus’ perspective.

In the midst of the company I sat alone,
and the hand of death took hold of me;
I was cold with secrecy,
and my God was far away.
For this fear did my mother conceive me,
and to seek this pain did I come forth?
Did her womb nourish me for the dust,
or her breasts, for me to drink bitterness?
O that my beloved would hold me
and gather me in her arms;
that the darkness of God might comfort me,
that this cup might pass me by.
I was desolate, and she came to me;
when there was neither hope nor help for pain
she was at my side;
in the shadow of the grave she has restored me.
My cup was spilling with betrayal,
but she has filled it with wine;
my face was wet with fear,
but she has anointed me with oil,
and my hair is damp with myrrh.
The scent of her love surrounds me;
it is more than I can bear.
She has touched me with authority;
in her hands I find strength.
For she acts on behalf of the broken,
and her silence is the voice of the unheard.
Though many murmur against her, I will praise her;
and in the name of the unremembered,
I will remember her.

The well-known thirteenth–century poem ‘Dies Irae’, thought to be written by Thomas of Celano, describes the day of judgement. Until about 35 years ago, the poem was used as a sequence (a chant sung or recited before the proclamation of the Gospel) in the Requiem Mass, and so, unsurprisingly, finds its way into the Requiem’s by Verdi and Mozart.

Stanzas 12-13 of the ‘Dies Irae’ express something of what might be going on here for Luke’s readers where Jesus’ welcome towards this woman encourages us to hope that as we move towards Jesus, we will discover one who has already moved towards us in and for grace.

I groan, as one guilty;
my face is red with shame;
spare, O God, a supplicant.
You who forgave Mary,
and heard the plea of the thief
have given hope to me also.

In Martin Luther’s words, we rediscover that ‘Thou art my righteousness and I am thy sin’. Our confidence rests, neither in our tears or in our zeal, but only in the gracious God. In Jesus Christ, we discover that grace is bloodied, despised and rejected, crushed for the iniquities of, and laden with punishment for, those who hide their faces from it. Never abstract or cheap, grace is a man groaning on a cross, dying, not only for those who would anoint him with precious perfume, but also for those who would stand by to hypocritically condemn; for those who know what they do and for those who don’t. Grace is God in his holy action, bearing the shame of desperate women and proud Pharisees on the killing tree.

Arms bare
bloodied sap,
stripped of all pretense,
simplicity giving way to strange beauty.
Alone, yet koinoniaed
Violence, yet concord
No form to desire this ugly tree
yet satisfied
the satisfaction of misplacement.
Its white crooked limbs stretch laboriously upward,
Longing …

A germ so long ago planted
out of season, yet for a time.
Once being about a business
Now being about a business … aching
forlorn and isolated,
rootedness in desiccated ground … and waiting …
Will it spring again?

Here I conclude with John Donne’s ‘A Hymn to God the Father’:

Wilt thou forgive that sin where I begun,
Which was my sin, though it were done before?
Wilt thou forgive that sin, through which I run,
And do run still, though still I do deplore?
When thou hast done, thou hast not done,
For I have more.

Wilt thou forgive that sin which I have won
Others to sin, and made my sin their door?
Wilt thou forgive that sin which I did shun
A year or two, but wallow’d in, a score?
When thou hast done, thou hast not done,
For I have more.

I have a sin of fear, that when I have spun
My last thread, I shall perish on the shore;
But swear by thyself, that at my death thy Son
Shall shine as he shines now, and heretofore;
And, having done that, thou hast done;
I fear no more.

Published in the June edition of Lectionary Homiletics.

Names and the Name – 15

The Scriptures contend that God declares himself in what he does. Thus we can speak of God only in attentive acknowledgement of the way he demonstrates his nature (in his acts and his commandments).

Vriezen has noted that ‘God can only be denoted as the Real One according to the functional character of His Being, not in His Being itself.’ If Abba is correct that the basic idea behind the name in the context of Exodus 3 and 4 is ‘presence’ (rather than metaphysics) revealed in what Delitzsch calls ‘the active manifestation of existence’, then God is present in history revealing himself (his character) to humanity through his actions. Is this not why the Bible is more concerned with speaking of the ‘name’ rather than the ‘concept’ or ‘idea’ of God! This personal God will not be confused or subsumed with an idea, Hegelian or otherwise. This does not mean that we are not given to know God as he is in himself, only that we must neither divorce nor confuse ontology and soteriology.

God’s name identifies his nature, so that a request for his ‘name’ is equivalent to asking about his character (Exo 3:13; Hos 12:5). As Coffin notes, ‘The [divine] name is taken as the expression of His nature and character; and His revealed name is associated with His people Israel and with His sanctuary in their midst. Their meeting with Him is more than a meeting with a tribal god, and the basis of their joy is the knowledge of Himself as revealed in His name.’ But it is more than this. Behind Moses’ request is the whole question about how Israel were to understand and define their own future. If Israel were to leave ‘secure nonexistence’ (Robert Jenson) in Egypt and speculate on the promises of their fathers’ God, then they first needed to know what sort of future this God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is. The answer comes in the guise of the name itself: YHWH. In 6:2-8, YHWH moves to define himself as not only the covenant making God of their father’s, but now as the one who has heard the groaning of this slave people Israel in Egypt, and who has remembered his covenant promise, and is therefore determined to redeem these slaves out from under the burdens of the Egyptians with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment that they might be his people, and he their God, and that they might know that YHWH is their God.

The point is that God’s action in history is not primarily with a view to revealing something about himself so much as it is to reveal himself. In this God’s freedom is such that he becomes something that he has never been that his people might know him and become something in him that they could not become apart from his becoming human for our sakes. This revelation of God as being for us in covenant love and faithfulness means that he can be trusted.

It seems to me that attempts to understand the divine name (YHWH) have proved unsatisfactory because scholars have sought to interpret it in isolation from its context. When we do consider the Exodus 3 narrative in its context we discover that the revelation given to Moses at the burning bush was not the revelation of a new and hitherto unknown name, as some have argued, so much as it is the disclosure of the real significance of a name long known. The giving of the name ‘Yahweh’ was the framework of revelation in the religious foundation of Moses and pointed back implicitly to this historical confrontation of God and humanity and all that resulted there-from. What matters is God’s continued, active presence and relationship, and not some abstract existential concept of being.

CS Lewis on reading theology

From Lewis’ introduction to Athanasius’ De Incarnatione Verbi Dei:

‘For my own part I tend to find the doctrinal books often more helpful in devotion than the devotional books, and I rather suspect that the same experience may await many others. I believe that many who find that ‘nothing happens’ when they sit down, or kneel down, to a book of devotion, would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their hand’.

How true!

Books on Sanctification

Monergism Books have listed their ‘Top Ten Books on Piety, Sanctification, Spiritual Growth’. Here’s their list:

10. The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification: Growing in Holiness by Living in Union with Christ, by Walter Marshall

09. The Bruised Reed, by Richard Sibbes

08. The Mortification of Sin, by John Owen

07. Crook in the Lot, by Thomas Boston

06. The Fear of God, by John Bunyan

05. Words to Winners of Souls, Horatius Bonar

04. The Doctrine of Sanctification, by A.W. Pink

03. Holiness, by J.C. Ryle

02. The Christian in Complete Armour, by William Gurnall

01. The Life of God in the Soul of Man, by Henry Scougal

Since I am working on sanctification (both personally and for my thesis) I was both interested and a little disappointed in this list. There are, of course, some excellent works on this list, and I remain convinced that the puritans offer us some of (if not) the most rich and practical models and theological resources for the Christian life, but some obvious omissions (they limited their list to ten so omissions are inevitable) come to mind – in no particular order:

Christian Perfection, by P T Forsyth (republished in God the Holy Father; the best treatment I am aware of on sanctification)

Possessed by God, by David Peterson

Hebrews and Perfection, by David Peterson

Faith and Sanctification, by G C Berkouwer

Holiness Past and Present, edited by Stephen Barton

Holiness, by John Webster

The Assurance of Faith, by Randall Zachman

Hearing God’s Words: Exploring Biblical Spirituality, by Peter Adam

Letters and Papers from Prison, by Dietrich Bonhoeffer

On Purifying the Heart, by Thomas Goodwin

Commentary on Psalms, by John Calvin

Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World, by Philip Jenson

Lectures on Philosophical Theology, by Immanuel Kant

The Grace of Law, by Ernest Kevan

The Struggle of Prayer, by Donald Bloesch

I could go on and I know that I’ve missed a truck-load, but I’m keen to find out what essays you have found helpful in this area, both personally and academically. Suggestions … ?

Names and the Name – 14

These posts on the Name have been concerned to affirm (among other things) that YHWH (unlike the gods) is not an impersonal cosmic force but rather One who enters into a personal and immutable (covenant) relationship with his people on the basis of his love and grace (Exod 33:19; 34:6). This forms the basis of his mongamous jealousy (Exod 20:5; 34:14; Deut 4:24; 5:9), a jealousy which leaves him vulnerable to suffer not only with (Exod 3:7-8) but also because of (Gen. 6:5-8) those he has made (Gen 6:6; 18:20; Exod 20:7; Deut 5:11). As Wolterstorff has reminded us, ‘God is love. That is why he suffers. To love our suffering sinful world is to suffer … The one who does not see God’s suffering does not see his love. God is suffering love … The tears of God are the meaning of history.’

The desire to know and be known is grounded in the covenant nature of God. Soulen notes,

[We] perhaps do not go too far astray of the biblical witness if we say that God’s covenant with Israel is the outworking of God’s desire to be known by name. For the sake of this name, God fashions a people out of the barren womb of Sarah and out of the chaos of bondage, so that by works of steadfast love and faithfulness, God might be glorified by name not only in the heavens but also by men and women on the earth. The biblical sense of the Tetragrammaton is thus finally also eschatological in orientation. Under the pressure of God’s great promise, “I will sanctify my great name” (Ezek 26:23), the Tetragrammaton points irresistibly forward to the consummation of God’s universal rule, when there will be an end to the state in which `all day long my name is despised,’ and God’s incomparable uniqueness will be fittingly honored by Israel, the nations and all creation.

Motyer reminds us that Israel’s personal knowledge of God (and his name) was closely linked to their experience of him. He notes, ‘… it was the claim of El Shaddai to be powerful where man was weakest, and He exerts this claim supremely by promising to an obscure and numerically tiny family that they should one day possess and populate a land which, in their day, was inhabited and owned by people immeasurably their superiors in number and power.’ Motyer goes on to point out three ways in which this is substantiated: (1) God took over human incapacity in the lives of the patriarchs in order to raise up a great nation; (2) God changed the name of Abram and Jacob to symbolise their transformed human nature; (3) God promised boundless posterity to them in the land of promise. In these acts, the patriarchs came to know God by experience.

John Calvin, commenting on Exodus 34:6f. notes that to know God is inextricably related to experiencing God. ‘Thereupon his powers are mentioned, by which he is shown to us not as he is in himself, but as he is toward us: so that this recognition of him consists more in living experience than in vain and highflown speculation’.

Posts to come:

* The name and action of God
* The name and blasphemy of God

* The name and mission: God as witness to his own name
* ‘YHWH’ and ‘Jesus’
* Hallowing the name of God

Names and the Name – 13

God has a name – 12


To be given to know God’s name is to be given life. In ‘God’s name’, revelation comes to us, prayers are offered, pastoral ministry of encouragement, teaching,
rebuke and calling folk to repentance occurs, God’s word is preached, baptised children are made ‘real’ members of the Church, bread is broken and wine consummed. Most importantly, it was in God’s name, and for the sake of God’s name, that Jesus Christ fulfilled his ministry as Son of God and Son of Man.

Christ did not come in the first instance to satisfy the needs and instincts of our diviner self, but to honour the claim of a holy God upon us, crush our guilt into repentant faith, and create us anew in the act. He did not come in the first instance to consecrate human nature, but to hallow God’s name in it. (Forsyth)

Whenever Jesus spoke, he ‘spoke in God’s name’, and insofar as he did this, he ‘really stood in God’s place’. It is true that he loves humanity, but that love is primarily served as he gives himself ever to God in loving obedience. His pity for humanity flows from his love, and that love is directly primarily at God and is fixed upon God’s holiness. For Christ, Forsyth contends, ‘the hallowing of God’s name always came first’.

Some other news …

Related to names, China is facing a surname crisis. Read here.

Related to mission in the name, some of the readers of this blog may be interested to know that India Baptist Theological Seminary (IBTS) in the Kottayam District of Kerala is seeking a teacher to teach a short module in historical theology. More information here.

On another news, Richard Rorty has passed away. You can read his obituary here.

Names and the Name – 12

God has a name – 11

We ought to honour, use and hallow God’s name precisely because it is the source and means of our life in Christ. Katherine Sonderegger has reminded us that we call God Father not because we and all our ancestors grew up in a patriarchal culture, nor because the Roman father was the model and local authority of the Empire, but because Jesus of Nazareth called upon Israel’s God by that name. Indeed, only the enfleshed revelation of God could disclose a new name for YHWH and justify such a shocking and revolutionary renaming of ‘the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob’.

Archbishop Thomas Cranmer contended that it is an act of Christian boldness to call God Father, because by that name we refer immediately and without fear to the very God that the Son knew. In that spiritual calling upon the Father’s name, as Sonderegger asserts, ‘we stand where Christ stood: as adopted heirs, as the beloved’. When we call upon the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit we embrace both an epistemological and metaphysical truth: We both name God truly, and we stand in that divine judgement, grace, and presence that Christ knew, obeyed, and suffered, for our sake. From in that place, we pray. From that place, we stand in the One who prays for us. From that place we know our place in the world, and in God. That is the promise and surety of grace.

Names and the Name – 11

God has a name – 10

Against Clement, who did not believe that the ineffable God had a proper name, I contend that not only is God’s name given in embryonic form to Israel in the form of YHWH (a name defined by God’s action), the final answer to Moses’ question comes only in Jesus Christ, where God reveals his ‘name’ (to. o;noma, sing. Matt 28:19), his ‘real name’, his ‘Christian name’ (Barth) – i.e. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Importantly, there is a correlation between the God who liberated Israel and the God who raised Jesus from the dead. He is the one God, now revealing his proper name in Jesus Christ. This is, for God, to show a vulnerability commensurate with the Incarnation itself. And in the person of Jesus Christ, through the ministry of the Spirit, we come to know not only God’s name, but God more fully. Not only has the one who has seen Jesus seen the Father, but it is only in Christ that we can address God by name in prayer.

The distinctive Christian name for God is in fact ‘the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,’ and he is called Father, not so much when we are speaking about him, as when we are speaking to him. When Peter and Paul in their letters are doing their theological thinking, they speak about God, but when, as often happens, their thought takes wings and turns into praise and doxology, it is then that they address the Father (ie. 2 Corinthians 1:3, Ephesians 1:3, 1 Peter 1:3). The source of such prayer to the Father is of course Jesus himself, all of whose recorded prayers with one exception on the cross begin with ‘Father,’ and who, when asked for a prayer that would be distinctive to his disciples, said, ‘when you pray, say Father’ (Luke 11:12). However, when we worship God as Father, we must also relate both to his Son, and his Spirit. This is what Paul is saying in Galatians 4:6, ‘God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out: Abba, Father.’ We pray our prayers to the Father ‘through Jesus Christ our Lord,’ because it is through his Son made man as Jesus of Nazareth that God has shown himself to us. In the words and deeds, in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus we know what God’s attitude towards us is and that he is prepared to reclaim and remake us for himself. That is why Christians worship God not as a remote and distant mystery shrouded in the glory of his deity, but as the one who in his love has come to us, lived among us, died for us and triumphed over our enemies. We call Jesus Lord, because we recognize in him God’s being and God’s presence, so that our whole relationship with God is based upon and shaped by what he is and has done. As John reports him as saying, ‘No one can come to the Father except through me’ (14:16) and, putting the same thing positively, ‘Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father’ (14:9). (The Forgotten Trinity, pp. 5-6)

God’s name brings both his identity and his uncircumscribable mystery into our very midst. Indeed, the truly mysterious God is not the nameless One, but the One who has a name and makes it known. ‘When you pray, say “Father”’. Everything said after that is supplementary.

Names and the Name – 10

God has a name – 9

It seems to me that to know God’s name is to carry (at least) a two-pronged fork. One prong brings a sense of security, responsibility and identity for God’s people. The other demarcates God’s people from those who don’t yet know his name, or who regard it differently (or indifferently).

What is significant in the OT is that to know the name of a deity is to wield power over that deity and indeed means that one can summon him/her to one’s aid against one’s enemies. This means (in an ANE kind of way) that for God to reveal his name is for God to make himself vulnerable. But as Exodus 33 shows, it is a vulnerability that it intractably tied up with God’s sovereign freedom. In verse 18, Moses asks God, ‘Please show me your glory.’ To which God replies, ‘I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name “The LORD” (YHWH). And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy’ (v. 19). Zimmerli comments here: ‘In this figure of speech resounds the sovereign freedom of Yahweh, who, even at the moment he reveals his name, refuses simply to put himself at the disposal of humanity or to allow humanity to comprehend him … According to the statement of Exodus 3:14, at the very point where Yahweh reveals his true name so that people can call him by it, he remains free, and can be properly understood only in the freedom with which he introduces himself.’

Again, as Thielicke has reminded us, ‘When God indicates his name, he shows that he is not to be located in a nexus of being, as though there were something all-embracing in which he could be integrated or something higher and general under which he could not be subsumed.’

Jesus and the Eyewitnesses – Bauckham Interview

Gary Burge, from Christianity Today, interviews Richard Bauckham here about his Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. For those who are yet to read the book, this interview is a great little taster.

A snippert:

The Gospels were written within living memory of the events. They are what historians in the ancient world regarded as the only sort of history that should really be written, that done while eyewitnesses were still accessible. They are what modern historians call oral history.

Chomsky and Interventions

In this characteristically punchy article, Noam Chomsky speaks about the status of democracy and the US’s responsibility in Iraq, U.S. imperialism over Latin America, and the media’s shallow coverage of foreign affairs. These topics, and more, are all explored in his latest book, Interventions.

Some Chomsky quotes:

‘you can’t really have a functioning democracy under military occupation. You can have some elements of it but not much. Military occupation is too harsh’.

‘if the United States was occupied by Iran, would we be able to run a democratic society?’

‘The responsibilities are to, first of all, pay enormous reparations, not just for the war but for the murderous, sanctioned regime that preceded it and fatuous support for Saddam Hussein during the ’80s.’

‘The presupposition is “We own the world.” … Because we’re there by right. And everything we do is right by necessity and there maybe some mistakes here and there but basically, it’s ours, we’re there. And if anyone’s interfering, it’s their problem, they’re the ones who are the criminals’.

I am reminded here of Forsyth’s words addressed to another (Christian) nation:

When the capitalist stops his charities because his property is threatened by legislation we learn how short in the fibre is the charity which is not rounded on the love and pity of God. The real test of the love of man does not come till we love our enemies. The love of our enemy is only the love of our neighbour true to itself through everything. For an employer to love the strikers that have ruined his business after a long and bitter war is not in nature.. Yet that is the kind of tax to which the love of man is at last exposed. And there is only one source in the world to feed it and keep it alive—which is God’s love of His bitter enemies, and His grace to them in repaying their wrong by Himself atoning for them on the cross. Central to all our humane kindness at last is the grace of the cross. (Cruciality of the Cross, 1667)


Names and the Name – 9

God has a name – 8

The Jewish theologian Michael Wyschogrod has written, ‘The God of Israel has a proper name. There is no fact in Jewish theology more significant than this’. The ongoing significance, however, for the people of Israel of God’s revealing his proper name through his action is aptly summed up by Janzen:

From now on, the issue of the faithfulness of God is posed both in terms of his faithfulness to the actual situation and its historical claims upon him, and in terms of his faithfulness to the intrinsic mystery of the divine life as pure unbounded intention. Complementarily, from now on the issue of the faithfulness of Israel is posed in terms of its loyalty to the name Yahweh: in the implications of that name for who Yahweh is and for who Israel is. Like Yahweh … Israel is called to be faithful to its past. Like Moses, Israel may never again allow itself merely to come to terms with the actual situation – for this is idolatry and death. The secret, the burden, the vocation of Israel lies in the divine name entrusted to it in the Book of Exodus.

While wrestling, Jacob asks for God’s name and is met with God’s refusal: ‘“Please tell me your name.” But God said, “Why is it that you ask my name?” And there he blessed him.’ Not by his name, but by his blessing, is YHWH known. So Exodus 34:5–7,

The LORD descended in the cloud and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD. The LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

The Exodus 3 account invites a plethora of unanswered – perhaps unanswerable – questions. Scholars have long debated the historical origins of the name, its pronunciation, its etymology, and its relationship to the other names that God spoke to Moses at the bush. But as Soulen notes, these questions are not the real mystery of the name. At most they are signs that point to the mystery, just as in the Gospel narratives the sign of the empty tomb points to the mystery of the resurrection. The genuine mystery of the Tetragrammaton is at once extremely simple and inexhaustibly deep: the Tetragrammaton is a proper name, a personal proper name, like Moses, or Jeremiah, or Mary Magdalene.

Dylan Thomas and Luke 7:11–17

Last Wednesday I posted on a lectionary reading for the coming Sunday. For those preparing sermons on Luke 17:11-17 for this Sunday, here’s a few thoughts. Simone Weil once wrote: ‘Difficult as it is really to listen to someone in affliction, it is just as difficult for him to know that compassion is listening to him.’ Compassion, what Schopenhauer called ‘the basis of all morality’, is the word that comes to mind when I read this passage. Walter Brueggemann notes that ‘compassion constitutes a radical form of criticism, for it announces that the hurt is to be taken seriously, that the hurt is not to be accepted as normal and natural but is an abnormal and unacceptable condition for humanness.’ He goes on to argue that we should understand Jesus’ compassion not simply as his personal emotional reaction but as public criticism in which he dares to act upon his concern in the face of the numbness of the society he serves. Jesus penetrates that numbness by his compassion. His criticism of injustice and dehumanising ideologies leads him to enter into, and finally embody, the hurt.

Australian poet Les Murray describes such one:

The man we surround, the man no one approaches
simply weeps, and does not cover it, weeps
not like a child, not like the wind, like a man
and does not declaim it, nor beat his breast, nor even
sob very loudly – yet the dignity of his weeping

holds us back from his space, the hollow he makes about him
in the midday light, in his pentagram of sorrow,
and uniforms back in the crowd who tried to seize him
stare out at him, and feel, with amazement, their minds
longing for tears as children for a rainbow.

While it is commendably true that the crowd identify in Jesus’ action the action of God’s prophet, there is much more going on in Luke’s passage. Here is the heart of God—the ‘God of the poor, friend of the weak’—receiving the gift of weeping from one who had nothing else to give.

Anyone who has ever been involved in the funeral of a young person senses that more than something is amiss. Grandparents and parents grieving while she who should be out playing is laying in a wooden box. Sharon Weber laments:

How can you be gone?
I wasn’t finished with you yet.
Now I have to “finish with you”
without you.

It all feels like the helpless despair reflected in Edvard Munch’s ‘Scream’, or Wilhelm Kotarbinski’s ‘The Grave of a Suicide’. And we intuitively sense that what is going on here is connected to a bigger reality, a wrecked world gravely out of joint, and that, in Peter Forsyth’s words, only ‘something deeper than the wrecked world can mend [it], only a God of love and power infinite’—if such one exists at all.

Luke’s text gives us no clues as to why this son died. Was he ill? Did he commit suicide, overcome with grief at his own father’s death? Was he executed by the state? Was he a soldier, killed in a senseless war? We simply do not know because we are not told—perhaps deliberately so. What we are told is that Jesus was there at the time of this widow’s grief, his heart went out to her, he spoke to the dead son, and gave him back to his mother. The disciples and large crowd were filled with awe, praised God and gossiped about what had happened.

During WWII, after a German V-2 rocket attack killed a child in London, Dylan Thomas penned his famous poem, ‘Refusal To Mourn The Death, By Fire, Of A Child In London’. In this poem in which art and death embrace, Thomas deals with the question of whether death is permanent or temporary. If, because of the resurrection, death is temporary, then it is acceptable, Thomas proposes, for us to mourn, for this process of temporary grief is commensurate with the temporary death. But if death is permanent, then, according to Thomas, grief must be repressed by refusing to mourn. The poem’s final line reads, ‘After the first death, there is no other’. Its meaning is perhaps deliberately ambiguous. Does it point to a second death? Or does it betray a more pessimistic belief about death’s permanency? Little wonder that Thomas doesn’t know whether to grieve or not. Perhaps the best insight we have of Thomas’ own hope is in the first line: ‘Never until the mankind making’. Is there a suggestion here that Thomas will mourn, but not yet; that he will mourn when God’s word spoken at time’s beginning is heard again, ‘Let there be light’? Thomas goes on to both affirm and enrich the movement of life and death by sowing his ‘salt seed’. He can do this because although he is journeying and mourning through the valley of the shadow of death, he maintains an uncertain hope that the mourning will end. Moreover, Thomas’ poem suggests that were it not for the resurrection, ‘the stations of the breath’, to come, then all humanity has been betrayed. Certainly, Luke’s story invites us to recall the resurrection of the Resurrector himself.

Just as clergy in the Middle Ages employed mural painting to cure body and soul, so here does Luke graphically use word painting to point to him who would heal and restore us. Certainly Christ does not heal us as a doctor might—standing over us, diagnosing our sickness, prescribing medicine for us, and then leaving us to heal ‘naturally’. Rather, as James Torrance reminds us, Christ becomes the patient, assuming the very humanity which is in need of redemption, and anointed by the Spirit in his life of perfect and vicarious obedience for us, our humanity is healed in him. When God became human in Jesus Christ and took his own humanity to the Cross, Jesus brought the presence and reality of God not only into life, but into death. He came to those who were bereft of faith as well as those who professed faith. God came to those who were sick unto death as well as to those who were given strength of health and life. In Jesus Christ, God en­tered not only into the dying of humanity, but into the grave of humanity. Indeed, God knows more about what it means to die than any of us because the tomb of Jesus became the tomb of God. No one goes to their grave alone. No longer does the grave represent the terror of godlessness, for God had his own grave here on earth.

We cannot read Luke’s story without sensing that this is one of those times when we must understand the present in light of the end, present death in the light of the death of death itself. For this One would face not only his own grave but the overcoming of such. Indeed, the overcoming of death in this One Man is the death of death for all.

Published in the June edition of Lectionary Homiletics.


Names and the Name – 8

God has a name – 7

Continuing the series of posts on the divine name, we find ourselves (again) in that place where the bush burns but is unconsumed. Technically, God does not answer Moses’ request for a name. Instead, what YHWH gives is a promise that he will be faithful to himself, and that he will reveal his identity through his actions, not least his promise to be with a doubting and unconfident Moses who is called to confront Pharaoh in ‘the name’ (Exod 5:23) of this now-named God and bring the slaves to the mount of disclosure that the one who spoke from within the bush might be worshipped (Exod 3:11–12). Everything is left open and awaiting filling. ‘I will be who I will be’ is really no name at all, but rather the self-reserving of God to make himself known by his (impossible) action. In so doing, God refuses to satisfy not only human curiosity, but also to lend himself out to creatures who would seek to put him at their disposal. He refuses to reduce his transcendence to a name. Furthermore, he refuses to align himself in the pantheon of the gods. One OT scholar notes that historians of primitive people’s have found that ‘the possession of a name is regarded as the medium through which good or bad influences may be exerted. This is not viewed as mere symbolism, but is thought of as a real process; for the name is considered to be a real part of the being for which it stands’. The divine name is ‘the manward side of the Divine Being, the medium of access to the divine presence, and the source of blessing to the worshipper’. Given this, because magical power is attained in name learning, it is no surprise that God refuses to compromise his sovereign freedom and so withholds his name. Coffin offers an example of ‘the primitive peoples of India’ (he is writing in 1900, well before the time of PCness!) when seeking to ‘appease the wrath of some malicious power, which has been the cause of affliction, misfortune, or sickness, the first step is to determine the name of the god or spirit that requires to be appeased’. In other words, God is affirming that in his essential character he will not be the product of human thought or manipulation, unlike the Egyptian deities with which the children of Israel would have been eminently familiar.

There are some exceptions to this. One recalls Elijah’s battle on Mount Carmel where each group called upon ‘the name’ of their god (1 Kgs 18:2040). The narrative as we have it suggests that this was with a view to the worshippers of Baal and Asherah knowing that Israel’s God ‘YHWH’ is God. This indeed is precisely what happened (18:3639). Eichrodt notes that the basic conviction of the Elohist was his almost exclusive use of elohim for YHWH. ‘Yahweh’, he writes, ‘is not just one individual ‘el, but ‘elohim, the sum of all the gods, i.e. Godhead pure and simple, and as such, for Israel at any rate, he rules out all the other deities’.

BTW: Byron has recently posted a helpful (and lengthy) review of Vanhoozer’s The Drama of Doctrine here.

GRADBritain Magazine

 

If you are (or planning to be) a Post-Grad, you might like to know of a new on-line publication that has recently been launched called “GRADBritain”. According to their blurb, it aims to be “A magazine for and by PhD students in the UK”. The first edition seems to have enough stuff relevant for those outside Britain as well. It is written and edited by PhD students and in the first issue included topics such as:

  • Top ten ways to avoid writing up
  • Beijing-bound for a conference
  • Presentation tips
  • Stuff wot’ undergradz say
  • Dr Flo solves isolation woe
  • The art of time domination
  • Mental health and the PhD

You can download a copy from here.

Names and the Name – 7

God has a name – 6

Motyer notes, arguing on the basis of Judges 13:17, Genesis 32:27 and Proverbs 30:4,The question “What is thy name?” is, therefore, the same as “What sort of person are you?”’. In this it is as much metonymous as it is anything else. What was not known about YHWH was not his name, but his character. The name ‘YHWH’ was not unfamiliar to this slave people of Goshen. What they didn’t know was what this name meant. Who is this YHWH? Etymology leaves us wanting, as does any investigation via a history-of-religions track (a track that rarely bares fruit). The divine word spoken in Exodus 3 only makes sense in the context of Israel’s plight in Egypt and in the broader Exodus narrative in which YHWH makes himself known in the form of the plagues (7:5, 17; 8:10, 22; 9:14, 29, 30; 10:2; 11:7) and deliverance itself (6:7; 14:4, 18; 16:6, 12). Indeed, YHWH is Israel’s verb around which their whole sentence (history) is structured.

Brueggemann is correct when he writes, ‘it is plausible that the entire Exodus narrative is an exposition of the name of Exod 3:14, requiring all of its powerful verbs for an adequate exposition’. Only after these experiences could it then be said that the people knew YHWH (cf. Exod 18:11; 29:46; Deut 4:35, 39; 7:9; 29:2–6) – not merely his name but his character. Out of what Egypt had become, a place where Israel understandably envisaged her future as certain death, YHWH takes Moses into the wilderness, into the nothingness, into the ‘realm of the suspension of the actual’. It is there that he tells Moses his name, a name that will take the rest of the exodus narrative, and the incarnation of the Immanuel to flesh out. But even by Exodus 19, YHWH had revealed his nature to Israel as one who had borne them on eagles’ wings and brought them to himself that they might obey his voice and keep his covenant and be his treasured possession among all peoples, although all the earth is his (Exod 19:4–5).

Israel’s entire creatio-soterio-historical narrative provides an explication of what the name YHWH means. But is it more than this? The name itself shapes Israel’s creatio-soterio-historical narrative. In other words, not merely does Israel’s history reveal something about the divine name, but the divine name also reveals something about how that history itself is to be interpreted.