How fixed is the script?

I was interested to read Ben Witherington's view on God's 'script' and the significance of human decisions.

"Whilst, God could have done otherwise, he has chosen to allow us to be viable partners with God in ministry and the working out of his will and Kingdom on earth, beings capable of making un-predetermined choices that have incredible consequences. The issue is not the sovereignty of God - the issue is how God has chosen to exercise his power and will. And what the Bible says about this is that he has not pre-determined all things from before the foundations of the world.

Human history is not merely a preordained play, played out perfectly to a pre-ordained script. On the contrary while there is a blue-print, or a general script, God has allowed, indeed invited us to make the drama like a night at the Improv, improvising our roles as we go, and making viable choices of moment and consequence along the way. Are we supposed to follow the general instructions in the script? Well yes, as they provide the boundaries beyond which we ought not to go and show us what character and kind of roles we should play. But of course we may fail to play our parts well, or indeed at all."

I absolutely agree. Saying that God always gets his way makes no sense of Jesus' instructions on prayer, in particular the Lord's prayer:
"Let your kingdom come, your will be done..."

Another interesting link I came across on Ben's blog is a 'blogalogue' between Bart Ehrman and N. T. Wright on the problem of suffering. Ehrman has just published a book called 'God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question – Why We Suffer'. NT Wright is as eloquent and graceful in his replies as ever. I always find him refreshing on this subject as he takes the existence of evil seriously and isn't content to attribute all suffering in the world to human choices.

"...the Gospels constituted, and still constitute, a challenge to all expectations, particularly in that they link – as readers for hundreds have years have found it difficult to do – the story of Jesus’ kingdom-inauguration with the story of his crucifixion and resurrection. Somehow, they are saying, this is what it looks like when the good, all-powerful and all-loving God is in charge of the world. You may say that if this is what they’re saying then the God of whom they speak is not ‘all-powerful’ in the way we might have imagined, and I suspect that is in a sense correct. Near the heart of Jesus’ proclamation lies a striking redefinition of power itself, which looks as though it’s pointing in the direction of God’s ‘running of the world’ (if that’s the right phrase) in what you might call a deliberately, almost studiedly, self-abnegating way, running the world through an obedient, and ultimately suffering, human being, with that obedience, and especially that suffering, somehow instrumental in the whole process. What ‘we would want God to do’ – to have God measure up to our standards of ‘how a proper, good and powerful God would be running the world’! – seems to be the very thing that Jesus was calling into question.

The mystery of Jesus himself, then, is for me near the heart of – not ‘the answer’, because I don’t think there is such a thing as ‘the answer’, but – the matrix of thought and life within which God’s people are called to continue to grapple with the problem. This is where, in Evil and the Justice of God, I try to draw together traditional discussions of ‘the atonement’ and traditional discussions of ‘the problem of evil’ and suggest that it’s odd that they should ever have been separated, since they seem to go together so closely in the Bible itself. (And can’t be reduced, I suggest, to the ‘God punishes sin’ logic; I have tended to include some elements of that within the Christus Victor motif, which, yes, involves suprahuman cosmic powers and all that. Hard though they are to describe adequately, they are even harder, in my view, to ignore.)"

Durham is the time, is the place, is the motion...

Isn't Durham wonderful?

Ben Witherington visits Bishop Tom and extols Durham's long tradition of NT scholarship on his blog.

It's no turkey

"Warren stresses that he's not for the right wing or the left wing but for the whole bird. Amen to that as well. Just need to make sure the bird one is holistically endorsing is the Gospel bird, and not a turkey."

Ben Witherington praises Rick Warren as a model of faith on his blog.

It's great to see one Christian writer being so generous about another, and both Rick Warren (the author of The Purpose Driven Life) and Ben W come across very well. The USA Today article Ben cites on 'America's most influential pastor' is also well worth a read.

The God who Speaks

I have been reading N.T. Wright's Scripture and the Authority of God.

I will aim to review it more completely when I have finished reading it, but for now I will say that it is shaping up to be an altogether refreshing read. Every now and again you read a book which doesn't so much give you something new, but instead more fully articulates something you already sensed was true, and in doing so helps to order your thoughts into something more lucid and coherent.

I was particularly interested to read this morning his reflection on a God who speaks, "who communicates with his human creatures in words" (p.24). He makes the point that this distinguishes the God of the Bible from other gods known at the time, and today. Indeed, in comparison with other creation myths, which incorporate many elements of a sexual and reproductive nature (egg, semen, birth, flesh broken...see the Wikipedia article on Creation Myths), the God of the Bible speaks creation into existence:

"And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light." Genesis 1:3

And, in John's Gospel:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." John 1:1

Ben Witherington, on his blog, makes the point that the ancients saw words very differently than we do. As he explains:

"We are apt to see words as just combinations of letters or ciphers or symbols, but this is not how the ancients, living in an overwhelming oral culture, saw words. Words spoke things into existence if they came from God. Genesis 1 is quite explicit about this. But the Word could not only create reality, it could become a human being as John 1 says---‘and the Word took on flesh’."

I recommend reading his reflections on a 'Wordshaped Bible', if only for his thoughtful poem, which serves as introduction.

I was also interested in the comment from Sandalstraps on the power of speech and the connection between breath and speech as he reflects on his son learning to speak. He makes the point that there is an intimate connection in many languages between the words for breath and spirit.

The English word spirit comes from the Latin spiritus, which means breath. Similarly the Hindu concept of Prana (life-force) is a Sanskrit word for breath (see also Qi). In the Bible, the Hebrew words for breath and spirit are the same: ruach; and the Greek word used in the NT for the Spirit, pneuma, also has the same connection with wind or breath.

I made the point in my sermon a couple of weeks ago that the breath of God (giving life in creation - Genesis 2:7) and the work of the spirit are essentially synonymous. I wonder whether it's not too great a leap to relate God's breath (and the Spirit) and his speech in a similar fashion. In this context it makes sense for Jesus to be the Word, God's fullest revelation of himself. Jesus is God expressed, God spoken.

And finally, if God gives life by speaking, as NT Wright points out, "the idea of reading a book to hear and know God is not far-fetched, but cognate with the nature of God himself."