Comments for Glebe Road Uniting Church - Booval, Ipswich.

Comment on Faith and Tenacity by GS

GS — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 00:59:48 +0000

Isn’t this a story about God being tenacious toward Jacob and not the other way around?
Gen32:24 says a man wrestled with Jacob – not the other way around.
When Jacob is defeated and is forced to reveal his name (and with it his lifestyle), then the other one blesses him by changing his name.
The best outcome of this story for me as a reader, is when I ask “Why would God bother with Jacob?”; because then I have to also ask “Why would God bother with me?”.
Because He is tenacious.

Comment on what are we willing to sacrifice? by Peter Hobson

Peter Hobson — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 02:22:58 +0000

Thanks for your comments – although I think you have misunderstood the point of my reflection…

I am not saying that ‘Abraham should have taken a prozac’, but rather I am concerned that when we read this story with our modern mindset, that this seems to be the only sensible response… We are in danger here when we that we think of this story in our own context – for to bind your son and offer him as a sacrifice is obviously abhorrent… You are entirely correct – we should never judge the ancient ones with our own modern sensibilities – and yet we do that every day… We just dress it up and repackage it… We call it patriotism rather than idolatry, or prosperity rather than greed – and we place our value systems upon the Biblical text so that we become the arbiter of truth…

Having said that – what we should never give up is our need, indeed our obligation, to ‘question’ the text. This is a tradition as ancient at the text itself. In the book of Job (surely the greatest witness to wrestling with theodicy) it is through Job’s questioning (not the offer of easy answers) that YHWH responds… If we skip to the ‘answer’ (which is as at times as vague as the very wind) rather than sitting awhile with the questions – we miss the point. When the writer of ecclesiastes tells us that ‘all is in vain’ – he does so after a life-time of questions…. and so the answer has some weight… If we begin with the answer – it means nothing…

So – what I am saying is that this story reminds us that our futures are in God’s hands… I am not called to judge what Abraham did in response to what he believed God was saying. But I am called to live in response to the call that God brings to me – in my context, in my time – and this will necessarily be different to what has been asked of Abraham… And if I ever hear of anyone preparing to offer their first-born on an altar on top of a mountain because they believe God has called them to do so – I am calling the cops (and I can only hope that you would do the same!!)

Comment on what are we willing to sacrifice? by child abuse?

child abuse? — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:33:01 +0000

Maybe you’re right. Maybe Abraham should have just taken his Prozac or some other drug and just sat down and waited for the voices to go away. I mean, as it is he lost the relationship with his son. Isaac didn’t even come down off the mountain with him, but went out to live in the desert. When Abraham got home Sarah left him and lived out her days at Hebron.
And just when should Abraham have decided that the time was right to stop obeying Yahweh? Maybe when the voice told him to NOT sacrifice Isaac – maybe he should have ignored that one?
I mean, what would be the harm? And who could say that he hadn’t tried his best? His war-torn life was just about over, right?
So what, if the promises that he had received from Yahweh (Gen 12:1-3) which were conditionally ratified on a second occasion (Gen 17:1-2) and which only became UNconditional AFTER the sacrificial trip to Moriah (Gen 22:16-17) had been left unfulfilled? What would be the worst that could happen – a world without Jews? Imagine that for a second.
What if Yahweh had been left with Ishmael as the only option with whom He could carry out His plans and Ishmael’s descendants (today’s Moslems) had become the ‘Chosen People’? No big deal, right?

If Yahweh is unfathomable, so must the direct outworking of His will through specially selected ones seem to us, who are given time to choose what we do and when we do it.

If Noah, Abraham, Nehemiah, Judas Iscariot, Paul of Tarsus, Joan of Arc, John Newton or Winston Churchill had not obeyed the call on their individual lives, this world would be a different place today.
But Yahweh would still be Yahweh.

It is unthinkable that one should judge these ones of history by today’s pop/psyc/culture standards
– or Yahweh.

Comment on ANZAC Day… by Peter Hobson

Peter Hobson — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 05:56:28 +0000

Thanks for your comments Scott…

I agree that it is quite remarkable that Christianity refutes idealism… And yet I also agree with your claim that idealism is alive and well within the Christian religion (I could add more than a few to the list you have mentioned!!)

Where I would differ from you, however, is your understanding of John 14:6. Jesus says ‘I am the way the truth and the life’, not ‘this is the way the truth and the life’. Christians are not called to follow an idea (idealism), but a person – Jesus Christ (discipleship). The Biblical language for ‘idealism’ is ‘idolatry’ – the process through which we replace allegiance to God with allegiance to ‘something else’. The danger for the Christian Church is that ideologies such as ‘capitalism’ or ‘socialism’ or ‘nationalism’ or ‘protestantism’ or ‘whateversim’ take the place of God and demand our allegiance over and against the Lordship of Christ. Our best theology (and our best intentions), can easily become an ideology, as soon as we think we have God all worked out…

And I am afraid that I must also disagree with your assessment that it is the ‘armed forces’ that allows me to ‘throw stones’. I don’t believe I am ‘throwing stones’ by any stretch, but rather proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ – that we are called to ‘love our enemies’ rather than kill them. And Scripture tells me that it certainly isn’t the armed forces that ‘allows’ me the freedom to proclaim the gospel – but rather the Holy Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:17).

Comment on ANZAC Day… by Scott

Scott — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 02:34:34 +0000

Your ideal of idealism having no place in Christianity is remarkable.
Here are a few that I’ve encountered in my life in the church so far, all deeply held.
The ideal of:
- living forever with God vs being destroyed in the lake of fire second death,
- living under God’s control vs so called self-control,
- being surrendered to God vs living for self-gratification,
- basing business and political decisions on love and not (pick-your-own substitute),
- good vs better vs best.
Every aspiration is an ideal, not just the totalitarian ones.
And if you truly do hold to your assertion that Christians should hold to a belief in Jesus, then what about His idealising statement that He is the Way the Truth and the Life? And that no one comes to the Father except through Him?
There is a gross contradiction between affirming believing in Jesus but not believing in the ideals of the things that He said.
And, by the way, (nod to your title bar) it has always been the ‘misplaced’ idealism of the armed forces that has enabled you to now live in a community that allows you to throw your stones.

Comment on Lent One… by Peter Hobson

Peter Hobson — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 09:40:04 +0000

hey ditque – perhaps where the streets are paved with gold – they are called ‘goldposts’? who knows?? I think Hauerwas would say being a Christian means you can’t be an ‘ist’ of any sort (although he proudly call himself a pacifist – and seems to love being a contradiction!). I think Karl Barth would say universalism is a heresy because it attempts to predetermine God’s grace – having said that I reckon that the idea of ‘God’s grace being big enough for all people’ is where he ends up… You are probable right NT Wright, although he challenges conservative evangelicals to step outside their comfort zone by suggesting that heaven’s roll call may contain a few surprises from outside the Christian faith. Thanks for the Hauerwas/Barth link – and I am impressed with your reading list. As for me – I am definitely in Barth’s corner on this one. I trust God with the outcome…
(ps whether any of us are right or wrong about this – in the end trusting God is all we have)

Comment on Lent One… by ditque?

ditque? — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 08:14:38 +0000

GOLD posts?? -snorkle- I know, you were typing fast(ly).
Sorry, I’m coming back late here, (hope you read back issues) I’ve been trawling through your Useful Sites page.

As a guess, I am going to say that you are a Universalist (undeclared), but, guess what?

With my head still spinning from grammatical calesthenics, I don’t think that N.T.Wright agrees with you http://www.thepaulpage.com/the-shape-of-justification/
Nor does Hauerwas, who thinks that your salvation is in doubt just for believing that January 1 is New Year’s Day.
Your last quote (above) is from Barth, now he IS a Universalist and he agrees with you. Not unexpectedly He disagrees with Hauerwas
http://www.inhabitatiodei.com/2010/10/14/kbbc-continues-barth-and-hauerwas/

So, I’m done here. If you are right, I’ll see you in Heaven; if you’re wrong, I hope to still see you in Heaven, but it won’t be so crowded a place – right?

Comment on Lent One… by Peter Hobson

Peter Hobson — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 23:46:20 +0000

Thanks ditque. Sorry if it feels like I am changing the goldposts on you. To be as clear as I can be. I haven’t read Rob Bell’s book at all – I have seen the promo material. There have been many who have condemned the book already. There are others who are warmly welcoming the discussion topic as one that is pertinent to the life of faith. I wouldn’t hazard a guess as to how many of these commentators are ‘smarter than us’ – but on the whole I think it is pretty dumb to judge a book by it’s cover (I heard that somewhere before….). I mentioned the book merely to say that the issues we were discussing are part of a much wider conversation that seems to be heating up right now. Because I haven’t read the book yet – I really don’t know what Rob Bell’s position is (although having read his earlier material I would suggest he probably takes the position of ‘optimist’ rather than ‘universalist’ – which is often accused of being).
What I have tried to do is clarify what I think Paul is saying in this particular passage – because I thought that was a more interesting conversation. I think Paul is, if you like, some sort of ‘first century universalist’ because he actually thinks that salvation can come to Gentiles – which is a huge theological stretch for the context in which he is writing (actually Paul is an apostle of Jesus Christ which means all other ‘isms’ and ‘ists’ become irrelevant – but I am sure you get my gist). So – when you were asking who were the ‘all’ that are being saved, I was referring you back to Paul, because I figured his opinion probably mattered more than mine… And in this passage, I think Paul uses the word ‘all’ to challenge the notion that salvation is only for the Jews. But if we follow the logic of his argument – if sin comes to all (that is Jew and Gentile), through one person (Adam) then salvation must also come to all (everyone!) through one person as well (Jesus). And just as sin is not always about my choice (see in particular Rom 7:14-26) I am not sure why we would ever think salvation should be…
But as for me, I think if it is God’s wish for all to be saved (which I take to mean as much about life here on earth as it does about eternity) then who am I to stand in God’s way (the doctrine of double predestination – that some poor folk are predestined to hell makes absolutely no sense to me!). In other words, I think it is God’s will that is at the heart of this question. I think most of us tend to elevate our own ‘will’ to a place it doesn’t belong. So, in other words, to be as clear as I can, I believe that just because someone is a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Jedi Knight, or an atheist, or even a Presbyterian – means diddly squat when it comes to what happens after we die (although it certainly means a great deal as to how we live!). I believe that what happens after we die is entirely in God’s hands. And I believe that what happened after we die has been determined by the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ whether we are mindful of it or not. In other words, I think ‘God’s will’ for my eternal destiny counts more than my ‘will’ or ‘decision’ on the matter. Does that mean we shouldn’t evangelise or live justly? Not at all – because God’s will for these things is also pretty clear. Scripture tells us to live just lives and to tell others about God’s love – so I reckon that’s what we should be doing…
The image of God that I find witnessed to in scripture, is that God’s love is more than a match for the evil of this world. I would say that in the end ‘Love Wins’ – but someone has already taken that line. Or as Karl Barth would say, God’s free grace is not bound by doctrine (or words to that affect), and I think that pretty much sums it up… Does any of this help – or is everything still as clear as mud??

Comment on Lent One… by ditque?

ditque? — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 21:14:17 +0000

At the start we were talking about all humans being SAVED; the sort of talk that leads most to be thinking in terms of living forever (with God). This is usually expressed as ‘being in heaven’. Here, you seem to have retreated to just speaking about a way of living, here on the Earth, during our lives. But I don’t want to put words into your mouth, I just want you to state your case clearly. Rob Bell’s book is far from being accepted (by, you know, those people who are smarter than us) and cannot, by logic, be any more authoritative, or dependable than the Book he is commenting upon, nor can it say extra to what it says. My interpretation of what he (R.B) is saying, is that every human that has ever lived can choose to live forever with God.
Is that what you are saying?

Comment on Lent One… by Peter Hobson

Peter Hobson — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:29:56 +0000

Sorry ditque – didn’t mean to lag behind… I referred you to v18 because I am not sure you are fully grasping the sense of what Paul is talking about. And I don’t think the translation you are using (KJ or ASV?) is helping you much. As I am sure you are aware – every translation is an interpretation, and so even though we are reading the best that scholars can offer us (folk much smarter than we are), each translation is also nuanced by the cultural/theological bias through which they are interpreting. Along with this, sometimes the most literal translations are also not always the most accurate in terms of meaning because of the use of imagery and phrases that may convey a meaning in our context, that is very different to the meaning intended by the original author. The phrase at the end of v18 ‘literally’ says ‘justification for/into life’ (not ‘of life’ as you have quoted). The NRSV renders this as ‘justification and life for all’, the NIV suggests ‘justification that brings life’ – even though these two translation are quite different – I think they come much closer to what Paul is saying. My grammatical analysis textbook (as I dusted it off the shelf) suggests the best rendering of the Gk idiom Paul uses is ‘Justification which is life’ for all. The reasons for not using a more ‘literal’ translation, however, is that the Gk word that we use for ‘justification’ is concerned about relationships – to be justified is to be made right in relation to another (including God), and the word translated into ‘life’ here can also refer to ‘a way of life’ as much as life itself. In other words we are made right with God in such a way that it should affect our way of life. We are made right with God as a ‘gift’ for the way we live. So – my paraphrase for the second half of verse 18 is that ‘through one person (Christ) all people can be made right with God, and this is a new way of living’. Hope this helps… But of course, I could be wrong…