Director of the film, Titanic, James Cameron, claims to have found the bone boxes (ossuaries) of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and other members of Jesus' family. When I first saw the news story I scoffed. Which is kind of strange for someone in my position: why wasn't it the most interesting piece of news I've heard in ages? I guess there are a few reasons I was underwhelmed:
1. The words came out of James Cameron's mouth, and he isn't someone I generally refer to for my NT history.
2. There have been a number of stories like this in recent times (Dan Brown's being the biggest of course), so I'm probably a little theory-weary.
3. The ossuaries were empty, so it would seem that they have no possible bearing on the discussion of the resurrection of Jesus nor anything remotely relevant to Christian faith (except, perhaps, adding some historical data to what we know from the New Testament).
4. I do expect evidence of the Passion events to keep being found, but I expect it to match Gospel accounts, such is my confidence in their historicity.
But suppose for a moment this IS the ossuary of Jesus of Nazareth. Suppose it could somehow be demonstrated that Jesus' bones were in here, that the body decayed and returned to dust like everyone's does.
That would be news. Unwelcome, lifechanging news. Such is the historical seriousness of Christian faith.
I'll get our NT scholars onto a more detailed look at the story.
Send CASE an email
Monday, 26 February 2007
Monday, 12 February 2007
Pearson on Rudd
In columns in The Australian, Christopher Pearson has been challenging the authenticity of ALP leader, Kevin Rudd’s Christianity. Pearson claims Rudd equivocates on religion—sometimes Anglican, sometimes Catholic, sometimes privately religious, othertimes suggesting a greater role for the church in state life. Whether or not he has a point, some of Pearson’s poor arguments against Rudd have reinforced for me the importance of sophisticated Christian intellectual engagement in social debate. Pearson just won’t allow for any subtlety of argument.
For example, Pearson suggests that Rudd’s vote in support of legalising the RU486 abortifacient drug was an anti-Christian act. Taking the drug might be anti-Christian and sinful, if one views human life as beginning at conception (as I do), but surely being involved in a political process about its availability is not.
Pearson also suggests, bizarrely, that the Bible contains five passages condemning abortion: one in Galatians and four in Revelations [sic], he says. Galatians 1:15 raises God’s foreknowledge of a human being before birth, but does not contribute anything to the argument about abortion. It is part of the Bible’s overall maximal attitude to human life (the basis of my own view on abortion). I am still struggling to identify the Revelation references: Chapter 12, perhaps, with the child-devouring dragon? But surely Pearson understands this is apocalyptic imagery, not a lesson in ethics? Or does he mean the condemnation of murderers in Rev 22:15? But that pre-empts the argument.
One wonders if Pearson is a Bible reader or merely a Bible wielder, scoring blows for political purposes. I’d love to see the ALP revisit its position on a range of bioethical issues, but Pearson has hardly provided the impetus for it.
In a follow-up column last weekend, Pearson aimed to foil Rudd’s efforts to win back the Catholic vote to Labor. There has been a drift in the other direction over the past decade, and many commentators have noted that Howard’s cabinet looks like a DLP collective! Pearson emphasises the theological distinctives of Roman Catholic and Protestant faiths (a refreshing admission of difference when many paper over such distinctions) and proclaims that Rudd can’t have it both ways. I can’t remember the last time I heard that a politician’s views on transubstantiation might ruin his chances of election. But I do love the fact that it is bringing theology to the fore in our national debates.
Tim Johnson has expanded on my thoughts nicely here
Send CASE an email
For example, Pearson suggests that Rudd’s vote in support of legalising the RU486 abortifacient drug was an anti-Christian act. Taking the drug might be anti-Christian and sinful, if one views human life as beginning at conception (as I do), but surely being involved in a political process about its availability is not.
Pearson also suggests, bizarrely, that the Bible contains five passages condemning abortion: one in Galatians and four in Revelations [sic], he says. Galatians 1:15 raises God’s foreknowledge of a human being before birth, but does not contribute anything to the argument about abortion. It is part of the Bible’s overall maximal attitude to human life (the basis of my own view on abortion). I am still struggling to identify the Revelation references: Chapter 12, perhaps, with the child-devouring dragon? But surely Pearson understands this is apocalyptic imagery, not a lesson in ethics? Or does he mean the condemnation of murderers in Rev 22:15? But that pre-empts the argument.
One wonders if Pearson is a Bible reader or merely a Bible wielder, scoring blows for political purposes. I’d love to see the ALP revisit its position on a range of bioethical issues, but Pearson has hardly provided the impetus for it.
In a follow-up column last weekend, Pearson aimed to foil Rudd’s efforts to win back the Catholic vote to Labor. There has been a drift in the other direction over the past decade, and many commentators have noted that Howard’s cabinet looks like a DLP collective! Pearson emphasises the theological distinctives of Roman Catholic and Protestant faiths (a refreshing admission of difference when many paper over such distinctions) and proclaims that Rudd can’t have it both ways. I can’t remember the last time I heard that a politician’s views on transubstantiation might ruin his chances of election. But I do love the fact that it is bringing theology to the fore in our national debates.
Tim Johnson has expanded on my thoughts nicely here
Send CASE an email
Tuesday, 6 February 2007
Percy's Cosmos
Let me return to the blogworld for 2007 by sharing a couple of quotes I'm enjoying today. Doing some extraneous reading to avoid writing, I'm flicking through Walker Percy's very funny and poignant mock-selfhelp book, Lost in the Cosmos. Percy is a Catholic humanist 2oth Century novelist, and wry wrestling with the inexplicable God and His absurd world mark all of his fiction. This book is a form of philosophical therapy, a selfhelp quiz asking the reader to carry out a series of thought experiments in order to explore his or her view of the Self. Its parallel in the world of movies would be I (heart) Huckabees. Percy's self-analysis is sharp, in the sense that it cut through even the thickest self-deception.
The book ends with what Percy sees as the choice for moderns (it was written in 1983): accept the preposterous doctrines of Christianity, or the more preposterous doctrines of scientism. Ask yourself, he suggests, whether you would rather be in 'Church' or in 'Nature' when an extraterrestial message comes in from the Great Beyond, "Do you read me? Come back".
Anyway, my two quotes for the day are:
"Two gods in the Cosmos is one too many."
"Whoever heard of a bad poet committing suicide?"
Send CASE an email
The book ends with what Percy sees as the choice for moderns (it was written in 1983): accept the preposterous doctrines of Christianity, or the more preposterous doctrines of scientism. Ask yourself, he suggests, whether you would rather be in 'Church' or in 'Nature' when an extraterrestial message comes in from the Great Beyond, "Do you read me? Come back".
Anyway, my two quotes for the day are:
"Two gods in the Cosmos is one too many."
"Whoever heard of a bad poet committing suicide?"
Send CASE an email
Wednesday, 17 January 2007
Secrets included
Where did I get the idea that God knows my ‘inner life’—what I’m thinking, my emotions that remain unexpressed, my lusts and temptations, my dreams. After all, it is counter-intuitive. I’d started to think that maybe I’d gleaned it from Romantic literature and the mystics rather than the Scriptures. But then I opened Matthew 6. Three times, Jesus recommends private religious activity—giving to the needy, praying, fasting—each time contrasting the reward received by displaying these activities before others with the ‘secret reward’ that God grants when these deeds are done for His eyes only.
“And your Father who sees in secret will reward you”, Jesus repeats after each instruction.
Without words such as these (and there are plenty more in Scripture, now that I’m thinking of it), there would be no basis for morality beyond public laws. None of my thoughts, feelings, inclinations, prayers, would matter in the slightest. But because of these words of Jesus, I am beholden to God for all that I am, inside and out.
It is an idea that supports the hope that in the end, true justice will be done by God, since God knows all, secrets included.
Send CASE an email
“And your Father who sees in secret will reward you”, Jesus repeats after each instruction.
Without words such as these (and there are plenty more in Scripture, now that I’m thinking of it), there would be no basis for morality beyond public laws. None of my thoughts, feelings, inclinations, prayers, would matter in the slightest. But because of these words of Jesus, I am beholden to God for all that I am, inside and out.
It is an idea that supports the hope that in the end, true justice will be done by God, since God knows all, secrets included.
Send CASE an email
Monday, 15 January 2007
Proximate words
There is great wisdom in some Buddhist scriptures, but nothing that can reliably be traced back to the Buddha himself. This is the conclusion of Edward Conze, the translator and compiler of the Penguin selection of scriptures. In his introduction, he makes it clear that there is no "original gospel" (his words) in Buddhism. "All attempts to find it are based on mere surmise," he explains. The major reason for this is that many of the traditional texts were written down between 100-400 A.D. (Conze doesn't use C.E.), that is, 600-900 years after the Buddha's life. That is not to say that the words of the Buddha have not been preserved, just that at the moment we have no reliable way of finding them.
Christianity has its traditional texts, too, but it is much easier to identify the source of the traditions—the writings of the followers of Jesus, in particular the four 'biographies' (gospels) written within 70 years of Jesus' life on earth. There's potential for slippage there, too, but the proximity of Jesus' life to its earliest written records helps us to understand why Christians can hold the New Testament in such high regard as a genuine source of knowledge about their leader.
Send CASE an email
Christianity has its traditional texts, too, but it is much easier to identify the source of the traditions—the writings of the followers of Jesus, in particular the four 'biographies' (gospels) written within 70 years of Jesus' life on earth. There's potential for slippage there, too, but the proximity of Jesus' life to its earliest written records helps us to understand why Christians can hold the New Testament in such high regard as a genuine source of knowledge about their leader.
Send CASE an email
Tuesday, 28 November 2006
Broad not narrow
Jesus' words about sticking with the narrow gate are about entering the kingdom, and they risk getting distorted when applied to politics. It seems to me far better for Christians to be broad in politics. But we struggle to do it. In America, the Christian Coalition has booted out its new leader before he got started. Joel Hunter wanted to broaden the group's focus to look at both 'right' and 'left' issues—AIDS as well as abortion, poverty as well as sexual morality, global warming alongside . I don't know all the details, but it seems to me a shame.
To boast a little, Australian Christians are moving ahead of the US on this one. The 'About Us' page of the Australian Christian Lobby website still sounds very 'family values', but the group has worked hard in recent times to broaden its focus so that in the corridors of power it can represent Christians across the political spectrum. A quick look at their news and articles will see commentary and proposals on cloning, aboriginal health, business ethics, family wellbeing, and international poverty. This has got to be healthy for a Christian political vision that minimises its blindspots and represents Christ in all his fullness.
Send CASE an email
To boast a little, Australian Christians are moving ahead of the US on this one. The 'About Us' page of the Australian Christian Lobby website still sounds very 'family values', but the group has worked hard in recent times to broaden its focus so that in the corridors of power it can represent Christians across the political spectrum. A quick look at their news and articles will see commentary and proposals on cloning, aboriginal health, business ethics, family wellbeing, and international poverty. This has got to be healthy for a Christian political vision that minimises its blindspots and represents Christ in all his fullness.
Send CASE an email
Tuesday, 21 November 2006
Silly point
Ashes to ashes
Dust to dust
If Lee don’t get you
Warnie must
It’s been a long wait through 2006 for cricket fans. Finally, the English side has arrived to defend their unlikely and unthinkable status as holders of the Ashes, the famed cricket trophy that means more to many Australians than the national anthem ever will. Tomorrow, the Brisbane test match begins. Tomorrow, the short English reign enters its death throes. My prediction is 5-0 to Australia, with a possible boring draw in Adelaide. Bring it on!
But while those of us who feel that all is right in the world when white-clothed figures walk onto a green expanse to hit a red ball around sit back and ready ourselves for the series, let’s spare a thought for those who haven’t been blessed with a love of cricket. This game can go for five days (five times!); it dominates certain TV and radio stations all summer; it has arcane language and strange rules; it alienates non-fans; and it’s just a game.
Life goes on around cricket, and cricket lovers needs to remember it. Especially cricket lovers whose allegiance is first to the Son of God and only second to the King of Spin, Mr Cricket and Pup.
Furthermore, to my regret, I haven't been able to construct any very strong cultural apologetics based around the game. Can anyone help?
Send CASE an email
Dust to dust
If Lee don’t get you
Warnie must
It’s been a long wait through 2006 for cricket fans. Finally, the English side has arrived to defend their unlikely and unthinkable status as holders of the Ashes, the famed cricket trophy that means more to many Australians than the national anthem ever will. Tomorrow, the Brisbane test match begins. Tomorrow, the short English reign enters its death throes. My prediction is 5-0 to Australia, with a possible boring draw in Adelaide. Bring it on!
But while those of us who feel that all is right in the world when white-clothed figures walk onto a green expanse to hit a red ball around sit back and ready ourselves for the series, let’s spare a thought for those who haven’t been blessed with a love of cricket. This game can go for five days (five times!); it dominates certain TV and radio stations all summer; it has arcane language and strange rules; it alienates non-fans; and it’s just a game.
Life goes on around cricket, and cricket lovers needs to remember it. Especially cricket lovers whose allegiance is first to the Son of God and only second to the King of Spin, Mr Cricket and Pup.
Furthermore, to my regret, I haven't been able to construct any very strong cultural apologetics based around the game. Can anyone help?
Send CASE an email
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)