Family Gathering

It's nice having all the family around. Sure is tiring though.

Couple more days and I can put in my order for a 14" iBook. Psyched!

Stigmata

Stigmata was on TV tonight, I tuned in about a 1/3 of the way through. It's some horror flick from the late 90's. I rather liked the film. Of course, when I heard "the kingdom of God is inside you", I was like..psht - rippin off the Gospel of Thomas. I was like meh, still a good movie. The end 'blurb', however, was rather amusing. It spoke about the 'Gospel of St. Thomas' which was found in a library in Nag Hamadi in 1945. Except for the fact that I learned it as 'Nag Hammadi', true on all counts. It goes on: the Gospel of Thomas contains sayings that scholars from all around the world believe come closest to the words of the historical Jesus (my paraphrase, that's the gist of it). Throughout the movie it is portrayed that these secret sayings could topple the Roman Catholic church, and in effect present a challenge to modern day Christianity. It also plays it out as an Aramaic document. Unfortunately, I haven't ever heard of an Aramaic Gospel of Thomas. What I do know is that the Nag Hammadi version was written in Coptic, and there are a few Greek fragments found in Egypt which date to the second century (quite a bit earlier than the Coptic one @ Nag Hammadi). As far as we can tell, the Gospel of Thomas was written in Greek in the early to mid second century CE. All of this is no big deal, but for the movie to claim such high things about its historical value is a rather bold move. The value of the Gospel of Thomas for reconstructing the historical Jesus is precisely the question on the table, hardly something close to worldwide consensus! I guess they seem to have overlooked people like John Meier, or Ed Sanders, or Tom Wright - all central figures in historical Jesus scholarship. I don't mean to take a shot at scholars who give great weight to the Gospel of Thomas; however, I just found it pretty rude for the movie to give the impression that there is widespread agreement amongst scholars. I guess it's just the misrepresentation of present scholarship on the historical Jesus which bugs me. But, ending 'blurb' aside, really cool movie.

And if you haven't figured it out already, I don't agree with celibate priesthood. I still can't figure out why priests have to be celibate in the Roman Catholic tradition. I can dig the Pope and the sacraments and all that, but no woohoo for the priests! Ouch. Anyways, word on the street is Peter, Jesus' brothers, and even some of the apostles were all married. Poor Paul though, guess he never went for it.

Good ol' online quizes

Just for fun...

You scored as Servant Model. Your model of the church is Servant. The mission of the church is to serve others, to challenge unjust structures, and to live the preferential option for the poor. This model could be complemented by other models that focus more on the unique person of Jesus Christ. Servant Model 67% Mystical Communion Model 61% Sacrament model 61% Herald Model 45% Institutional Model 11% What is your model of the church? [Dulles] created with QuizFarm.com

Neat...

Excellent Movie! ...and some other stuff.

'Million Dollar Baby' is a beautiful movie; a movie with such power has not come out for a long time. And pay attention! - it's one of those movies where everything ties in...and there are few (if any?) useless lines.

Anyways I am slaving away with my term paper. I switched topics half way through my research. Originally, I wanted to take a look at Paul's anthropology and his comments regarding Torah in Romans, and then let that framework enlighten an exegesis of Romans 7.14-25 (the ever daunting "wretched 'I'" passage). Every day of research led to greater and greater confusion over the passage itself as more and more complexities emerged. I decided I just did not have enough time and experience with Pauline texts to come to any type of conclusion (and mind you, I've read a lot of/about Paul for a 2nd year kid). So realizing I was going to give up on that particular topic, I came to one that kept emerging as I was researching for Romans 7: the eschatological tension in Paul's thinking. In brief, the eschatological tension is the tension set up by what is already true in Christ--freedom from sin, justification, receiving of the Spirit--and what is not-yet true--destruction of sin and its influence, the redemption of the body which is only decaying, the restoration of all creation. I have come to see this already/not-yet tension run right through Paul's letters. So that is what I have set out to examine. Trouble is, I write too much. I'm already over the page limit and I have no introduction, no talk about eschatology in first century Judaism, no synthesis of my findings (very important part!), and no conclusion. So after my first draft is over I will probably have to go back to the drawing board and perhaps change my approach. Good thing is, all the relevant texts (all the authetic Pauline letters save Philemon) have been exegeted, so most of the hard work is done. But I need to find a new way to present the exegesis. That will be the concern for draft two.

I can taste freedom, summer is but a few days away. Yes.

Grace and Peace,
Kev

A Day at the Library

Well, I've been moving forward on my term paper. Tentatively, I'm going to do an exegesis paper on Romans 7.7-25...tentatively. I think I've cleared out Regent Library of all its good commentaries on Romans 1-8. Oh, and I realized just how much of my year of Greek I have forgotten this summer. That isn't good, I have a month to get it all back before Hellenistic Greek starts (probably only giving us a minimal review period).

In other news, I picked up a couple books to read in continuation of my two off-topic interests: the diversity within the New Testament, and how the New Testament is authoritative for Christian life and faith. The two books:

Dunn, James D.G. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity. 2nd Ed. 1990.

New Testament Theology in Dialogue. Edited by James D.G. Dunn and James P. Mackey. 1987.

Both look like they're going to be interesting reads. Maybe I'll post some thoughts I have as I go through them.

Diversity in the Church and in Christianity

Maybe having all these denominations isn't an unjustified evil. Maybe having three major streams--Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant (with Protestants especially subdivided)--is expected. Most people are under the assumption that there was once a pristine time when there was only one Church, back in the good ol' days of the apostles. Well, sorry folks, but that's bogus. Early Christianity was a very diverse thing.

But what about the New Testament - surely, of all things, it must be about one unified Church! Sorry again folks. The different authors in the New Testament had very different understandings of the significance of Jesus: of who Jesus was, of what Jesus did, and of how he brought salvation. By reading the texts it is also quite clear that they reflect different Christian communities, each going about how to be Christian in a different way.

Yet, the New Testament is Scripture, authoritative for the Church's (and the believer's) faith and life. But between Matthew and Revelation, such a diversity exists. Perhaps we should stop with the wishful ignorance that early Christianity was one nice monolith. Perhaps we should recognize that there are different ways of being Christian, different ways enshrined and justified within the New Testament itself.

Maybe the New Testament sets the boundaries for Christian faith. Maybe it tells us that diversity within bounds is okay. This whole post is more of a freewrite, trying to tackle an issue fresh on my mind. I do not have an answer, I do not know a way forwards.

Oh, and if you were going to ask: Judaism preceding and during the New Testament time was also very diverse. Definitely no monolith there.

Back to the drawing board.

Left Behind left behind?

I love this stuff!

And not just because I laugh--and gag, at the same time mind you--every time I have to suffer hearing/seeing/reading anything related to the Left Behind books.

....Okay, so maybe it is because I hate the books.

I hope someone makes a crack to the upcoming Left Behind computer game so I can play as the anitchrist...that should make for some good fun.

Please get the drift, this isn't what 'the Bible says'; like everything else, it is what some interpreters have come to believe it says. If they are trying to say it is how the texts ought to be interpreted in light of their social, historical, and literary contexts, then they are most definitely wrong. If it is their personal theologizing loosely based on these texts, then hey - what can I say to counter that! Do whatever you wish, but don't thereby claim it is the 'original' (tricky word) meaning of certain biblical texts.

Unfortunately, people make the claim that this Left Behind-ish type of stuff is what 'the Bible says', and therefore what every and all Christians do believe--lest they are heretics of course!--and so what Christianity is all about. In any case, Slacktivist points this out in more depth (and with a bit more coolness!) than my little soapbox rant, go check it out.

Term Paper Time Again

What to write about, what to write about!? So many things I'm interested in, so little time; and of course, only one of these interests can win out this time around.

So some interests:

- Pauline eschatology
- Paul's ethics in relation to his eschatology
- Apocalyptic imagery and eschatology (in which NT text/s in specific?)
- Original ending of Mark
- Exegesis of Romans 7.7-25
- Covenant membership for Paul in light of the Dead Sea community
- Paul's understanding/view of Torah

Which to choose...humph!

What I Am, and What I Am Not

I feel serious misunderstandings over what people think I want to do in Religious Studies. This is spread across the board from family to friends.

First, I am not in Philosophy. We barely discuss philosophy in my courses. The only time we talk about philosophy is when it has something to do with the historical context of an ancient text. Having said this, I am quite interested in certain specific branches of philosophy - namely epistemology. Epistemology is the study of knowledge: what is knowledge, how do we have it, how is it justified, issues like that.

Second, I am in Religious Studies, not theology, not divinity, not seminary. I study religion at a public school which claims no religious allegiance. The staff are incredibly good at this; I have yet to have professor who has an axe to grind for or against a certain religion. Being in a religious studies faculty, and with my particular focus the New Testament texts, we do not talk about what God actually is like. We talk about what ancient authors said God was like. Our goal is to describe, not impose. Being the public institution that UBC is, and with the aim at public dialogue, it is much easier to talk about what others have said than what actually is the truth to be believed and followed by all. I, for what it's worth, am quite comfortable with this approach.

Third, I am a historically minded examiner of ancient literature. My goal, academically, is to understand a text in light of its social and historical context. Now, I am not saying this is the only way to read a text, but it is the one I am most interested in and pursue academically. Of course, you can examine a text in its canonical context, in its reception in a modern context, in its perception by a reading community, in an allegorical context, and a whole slew of other ways to approach a text. But as I have said, the socio-historical method is where my interest lies.

Fourth, I am not out to prove or disprove my faith. I am greatly interested in the origins of my Christian faith, but I don't think my agenda is to prove it to anyone (or to myself!). I can not pull myself away from the figure of Jesus, and I think he has a lot to tell us about who God is, and what God is all up to. However, I approach this question in a rather open manner, exploring all sorts of terrain - some new, some old. What follows is that people sometimes marshal me to be the 'debater', or the 'brain' who can convince people of the truth of Christianity. Unfortunately, I'm not really all for that. Besides the fact that my positions on some issues would likely severely agitate those who steer me to such tasks, I don't think Christianity can be nicely and neatly 'proved'. I cannot prove God exists, I cannot prove what kind of person Jesus was, or that Jesus is the key to who God is, or that the Bible is authoritative for Christian faith and life (in what way exactly is a topic for another post, suffice it to say that I don't even have a good answer yet). No, I can't prove any of these. I have reasons to believe them, but they don't constitute mathematical proof. And I am always ready to re-examine my positions and perhaps reformulate my thought. I am quite convinced of the limitations of my thought, as well as the limitations of human thought (a highly ironic statement, yes). None of us is perfect, and none of us sees perfectly. How can I then turn around to someone and try and prove something to be certainly true? If someone wants to explore the Christian faith, then I am all for it. If they want to ask me what I believe, they are more than welcome to. But do not expect me to be a great apologist. I'll have nothing of that intellectual arrogance.

Hopefully this has cleared up a few things about myself and my involvement with religious studies. I hope the fires this post undoubtedly lit will be overcome by the grace and love of those who read it.

Peace be with you all.

Entropy of the Soul

Entropy: the tendency towards disorder. At the microscopic level, particles spontaneously tend towards greater and greater randomness, that is, from order to disorder.

Soul: totality of the self. Known variously as nephesh and psyche.

Entropy of the Soul: the tendency of the self towards greater and greater disorder.

More Bombs

More bombs. When will these people stop? If they're so pissed off at the American+Allies invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan (read: military invasion), why don't they go head to head against the armed forces. Why attack civilians who are tubing to their 9-5, half of which probably work a double just to make ends meet. Go (try) and bomb some military instalment. Keep the fighting where it belongs, with soldiers who've signed up for this shit. We civilians want none of it.

I really feel for Londoners. During the school year the public transport system is my lifeblood. I spend hours a day on it getting back and forth between school. And having worked in Vancouver, I know how important (and how vulnerable - have you SEEN rush hour traffic in busses, its packed) our Skytrain and bus fleet are to this city.

In any case, the last hundred years has seen London carpet bombed, V1 and V2 bombed, and terrorist attacked by the IRA - and yet, the city still stands. If these terrorists were trying to make a point, they sure picked the wrong city. London will rally and move forth as strong as ever (go Olympics!). These terrorist will pass into the shadows of history, forgotten by all.