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.)"

The face of God

I've been reading a number of excellent books this holiday as part of my research for an essay on the Kingdom of God. Not least among them for good thinking material has been 'The Challenge of Jesus' by N.T. Wright, as well as his bigger tome 'Jesus and the Victory of God'.

The main thrust of Wright's argument is that Jesus' parables and teaching about the coming of YHWH to Zion, as well as his Temple prophecies (e.g. Mark 13, Luke 19) were primarily intended for his contemporary audience, to be fulfilled in their lifetimes and most centrally in Jesus himself. He argues that Jesus was concerned first of all with revealing God's purposes right now (i.e. in 30 A.D.) and was not principally interested in revealing his 'second coming' - something which would have made no sense to disciples who were still coming to grips with the nature of the 'first'.

Despite his focus on (re)discovering the historical Jesus, I was struck by his high view of Jesus and not only his description of Jesus as God, but his redrawing of God in light of Jesus. I'll let him speak for himself:

“I suggest that we think historically about a young Jew, possessed of a desperately risky, indeed apparently crazy, vocation, riding into Jerusalem in tears, denouncing the Temple, and dying on a Roman cross – and that we somehow allow our meaning for the word ‘god’ to be recentred around this point.” (p.92)

“The portrait [of God] has been redrawn. At its heart, as disclosed in biblical writings, we discover a human face, surrounded by a crown of thorns.” (p.92)

“The Shekinah glory turns out to have a human face.” (p.89)

(All quotes from 'The Challenge of Jesus' by N.T. Wright.)

All of this reminds me of a quote I've been meditating on these last few months from one of my favourite people, Greg Boyd. As he's fond of repeating in sermons, "God looks like Jesus Christ."

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.

TOM WRIGHT on the pattern of incarnation

"I tell you the truth, whoever accepts anyone I send accepts me; and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me." John 13:20

Those who go in Jesus' name, who get on with whatever work he gives them to do in his spirit and his love, are given an extraordinary status and privilege. Anyone who welcomes them, welcomes Jesus, and thereby also welcomes 'the one who sent him'. You probably won't recognise it at the time. You'll be too busy thinking of the people you're working for and with. But, as you look back, you may be startled by the joy of realizing that as you walked into that house, that hospital, that place of pain or love or sorrow or hope, Jesus was walking in, wearing your skin, speaking in your tone of voice. 'I've given you a pattern,' he said, and he meant it.

Tom Wright, in John for Everyone - Part 2

The Word Made Flesh

Further things to add to yesterday's ponderings on a God who speaks, from reading NT Wright this morning...

I'll let him speak for himself:
"...through it all we find the elusive but powerful idea of God's 'word', not as a synonym for the written scriptures, but as a strange personal presence, creating, judging, healing, recreating." (p.28)

He goes on to quote the following scriptures:

"By the word of YHWH were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth."
Psalm 33.6
- again, the word of God and his breath are hung together

"Is not my word like a fire, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?"
Jeremiah 23:29

"All flesh is like grass, it withers and fades, but the word of our God will stand for ever"
Isaiah 40:8

"Like the rain and snow, coming down and watering the earth... so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it will not return to me empty, but it will succeed in the tasks for which I send it"
Isaiah 55:10-11
- God's word is clearly personified here. In what sense can words return, empty or not?

"The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart, so that you may do it."
Deuteronomy 30:14

I thought of a couple more as well...

"...and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God."
Ephesians 6:17
- This is an interesting passage because I think we mostly take the 'word of God' here to mean the Bible, taking an active and offensive (rather than defensive) role, as in 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness", but I'm convinced that the 'word of God' here, as in the scriptures above, is a bigger concept than just the Scriptures alone. And this passage could perhaps be taken two ways: the word of God is 'the sword of the Spirit', or the word of God is the sword of this heavenly armour, the Spirit.

I love this passage from Hebrews:
"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow, it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."
Hebrews 4:12
- although, the article here is an 'it' there is still a sense of God's word personified, "living and active", judging and penetrating.

Perhaps this all seems very obvious to people, but for me this is a new way to think about God's 'word'. To what extent are God's word, the Spirit and His breath related? All three ideas are used in such related ways and often appear to play the same part in this story. In the quote above, NT Wright talks about 'a strange personal presence' - how is this not the Spirit? Are they actually the same thing or am I missing something here?

I should make clear at this point, that in no sense am I interested in reducing the person and reality of the Holy Spirit to something impersonal, swallowed up within the person of God. On the contrary, I think we need to increase our concept of the 'word of God'. When we limit the 'word of God' to the Scriptures, or consider God's words as speech acts in the same way as human speech-acts, we lose something of that mysterious presence identified by NT Wright. As the Scriptures above show, God's word is clearly a personal force, separate from God (although issuing from him, see the Isaiah 55 passage above), a living and acting presence.

Thoughts anyone?

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."