...that theological students don't know how to have a good time! The evidence is here!

Cheers Mandy!

...there's anyone reading this who doesn't also read David Field's blog (you fool!), here's the funniest thing I've read in ages.

I came across this today in a library book (Stephen Charnock's 'Discourse on the Existence and Attributes of God') which obviously hasn't been read for some time. It's an Agenda for a meeting of the Southern Counties Convention, Weston-Super-Mare local committee from Friday 14th June, 1957.

Prayer.

1. Minutes.

2. Matters arising from Minutes.
a. Publicity.

b. Local arrangements:-

1. Working party - including a special person to be in attendance until the evening services.

2. First Aid.

3. Litter Baskets.

4. Stewarding.

5. Badges.

6. Offering Boxes.

7. Lighting over platform.

8. Team for counting offering.

c. Hymn Sheets.

3. Flowers on platform.

4. Any other business.

Closing Prayer.

So, one of my strategies in the essay (on divine eternality and timelessness) was to blind with science. It's certainly the first time I've had a footnote explaining the second law of thermodynamics.

So, if anyone's interested and wants to impress people at dinner parties (or even over coffee in the academic centre foyer), here's my two sentence summary:

Over longer periods of time and in larger-scale systems, change can only occur in one direction: entropy levels will always increase. In microscopic systems fluctuation occurs which may temporarily reverse this but, bizarrely, this fluctuation is a necessary part of the proof of the law as a whole (not quite sure I remember how). If this law holds, which by observation it appears to, then the flow of time is an inherent part of the universe, only reversible or stoppable by the disintegration of the fabric of the universe itself.

In other words, time can't go backwards.

So now you know.

It's in, it's done, the last paragraph was very feeble (even in comparison with the rest which was fairly feeble) and I never have to write another essay again (at least until September).

My software (NotaBene) decided to close three times without warning this afternoon (having not done that at all since I upgraded before Christmas). My printer screwed up the first attempt to print off the final version and then went into snail mode.

So at 4.59pm the rare sight of Ros running was visible in the Namugongo link. I think I shall have a stiff drink to celebrate.

Am getting there with the essay but I need your help! Haven't got my notes on Doctrine of Salvation with me and haven't got time to look this up. Where can I find a nice, succinct, clear outline of the internal inconsistency of libertarian free will? A reference to Jonathan Edwards would be particularly pleasing, but anyone will do!

Thanks

Four years, countless essays, and the last deadline's tomorrow. So why am I now suddenly facing my first essay crisis? I blame the blog. Maybe. So no posts until after 5pm tomorrow. None. Nor comments. I'm relying on you all to help me with some self-control here.

Four days ago I posted a comment that my blog was reaching record numbers of people with over 30 visitors and over 100 page views in a day. Oh, how things change! So far today, I've had 51 visitors and more than 200 pageviews. So thanks to everyone who bothers to check what nonsense I'm spouting and even more thanks for those who make the effort to post a comment (not always that easy on this website) and correct me.

I fully agree with the recent denouncement of most evangelical theology as psychopathically minimalist: see here and here and especially here (though I'd be grateful if someone could decode the unpronounceable acronym).

One thing I think we're too frightened of is identifying deliberate allusions in the bible. Unless there are actual quote marks and an introductory formula 'As the Scripture says...' then we tend to worry that we're reading things into the text.

Here's what Robert Alter (talking about literature generally, in 'The Pleasures of Reading') has to say about allusion:

‘Allusion is not merely a device, like irony, understatement, ellipsis, or repetition, but an essential modality of the language of literature.’ [p111]

‘Literary allusion... involves the evocation - through a wide spectrum of formal means - in one text of an antecedent literary text. The consequence, as Ziva Ben-Porat has observed, is a “simultaneous activation of two texts” in patterns of interrelation that are usually quite unpredictable.’ [p112]

‘How does an audience identify an allusion? The whole system of signaling depends, quite obviously, on a high degree of cultural literacy - an easy assumption in traditional societies with fixed literary canons and a high capacity for verbatim retention of texts, but something of a problem for contemporaries, who often come to literary texts from a background of loose canons, little reading, and languid memory.’ [p119]

Now that last point is fascinating. It seems pretty clear that, at least in comparison with our own society, both Old and New Testament writers were writing for communities with a fixed literary canon and a high capacity for verbatim repetition of texts.

Which means that we are MUCH, MUCH more likely to miss an intended allusion than we are to spot an unintended allusion. Which is very liberating. Let's try reading all of our bibles with open eyes.

Just as an illustration of this, I was amazed, while I was doing my research on the Song of Songs at the number of times I noticed resonances with NT texts. But none of NT commentators I checked seemed to recognise these at all. And it seems likely that that's at least in part because of the way we split OT/NT in the academy. And because most of us don't know the OT at all well. And specially not the Song. But also I wonder if it's because they're afraid of sounding fanciful, and of reading things into the text?

Anyway, here's a short list for you to check out for yourselves...

Song of Songs 2:10-13 and Luke 21:25-31

Song of Songs 3:6-10 and Matthew 2:11

Song of Songs 2:16, 6:3, 7:10 and Revelation 21:3, 7

Song of Songs 5:2-7 and Revelation 3:20

And if you haven't read Alter, you should. Especially if you're not persuaded about allusions - he gives some examples of how they work in ordinary literature which I think help us to have even more confidence about how they work in the bible.

We had a barbecue today. And although it was cold and windy and almost (though not quite) raining, everyone stood outside eating their food, despite the easy availability of plenty of comfortable indoor seats. Why? Even the Germans and Americans among us stayed outside, presumably as a result of misguided peer pressure. Still, I think it probably achieved some kind of team bonding. Important, at the last meeting of the year.

Oh well. There was very yummy food and nice people, one of whom asked if I was going to blog about it. Always happy to oblige!

Sometimes God is merciful to us and doesn't give us what we deserve.

Sometimes God is good to us and gives us what we need.

Sometimes God is kind to us and gives us what we want.

And we shouldn't feel guilty about any of these times because he's God and he decides.

It seems that Ruth Kelly's legacy to the education department is the commitment to provide before-and-after-school-hours clubs to every child in the land so that no parent should have to take responsibility. Schools thus are now clearly seen to be childcare providers rather than educators.

So why does the government think we should have children? So that there's someone paying taxes in years to come. But in the meantime lets make sure that as many people are working as many hours as possible in paid (and, therefore, taxed) employment. So much better to pay someone else to look after your child while you go out to work because that adds two taxpayers to the list. If you stayed at home and did it yourself, that doesn't help anyone!

Don't be selfish! Farm out your children and go out to work. You know it makes sense.

Blair sense, anyway.

Today (Friday) for the first time the number of visitors to my blog has reached 30 (33 so far) and the number of hits is more than 100 (104). I've also discovered that 219 people have viewed my profile since January and the total number of page views in that time is nearly 1700.

Here's to the future!

If you google 'rosclarke' you get this blog as the first link. If you google 'ros clarke' you get to Liam Beadle's blog at number 42 (which would then offer you a link here) but it doesn't appear directly in the first 100 links. 'ihaveaquestion' gets you here at number 95 but 'i have a question' doesn't.

What to do? I'm sure there are many millions of people out there wanting to read this stuff but not finding it. I hope this post has helped! Any other ideas?

In Doctrine of God earlier today, we were discussing the idea of perichoresis (the mutual indwelling of the persons of the Trinity) as a dance. This idea is much beloved of proponents of social and/or egalitarian trinities since it allows them to explore the idea of different persons as the leaders of the dance at different times.

However, as Sally Reeve pointed out, in ballroom dancing it is essential that the same person always leads. And in modern disco dancing there are no leaders at all.

Hurrah for Dawn who suggested the conga as a dance in which the leader changes from time to time. Next time someone plays the perichoretic trump card, ask them if they really want to employ the image of the eternal divine trinity enjoying an everlasting conga around the half-empty glasses and dead party poppers of eternity.

And while we're on perichoresis - no Marc, you can't say that the eternal Father died on the cross by virtue of his indwelling the eternal Son. Since the eternal Son died according to his human nature, it is clear that only the person who took on that human nature died. If we claim that the human nature is in some sense the Father's then it seems pretty clear that you've entirely collapsed the distinction between persons.

I don't know if this is true across the board, but those blogs I check out on a fairly regular basis have all experienced a sudden upturn in production in the last few days. Is this to do with the weather? Or the fact that exams/essays are due in soon so work avoidance has become a priority?

With the kind of intellectual rigour only gained by years of being beaten up in the playground for having a girl's name, it seems that Hilary addressed the postmodern question only a matter of 1700 or so years ago. Here are some of his choicest one liners...

On heresies which appear to have biblical support: 'the crime comes from the construction not the word.'

On the danger of proof-texting: 'stringing together of isolated phrases' which fragments the unity of God's witness.

On the consequences of this kind of reading: 'we set up our desires as doctrines' rather than letting 'our doctrine dictate our desires.'

In this kind of way, people declare 'war on the Word of God'

So how do we get our biblical interpretation right?
'We must make our choice between rejecting his witness, as the heathen do, or else believing him His as He is, and this in the only possible way, by thinking of Him in the aspect in which He presents Himself to us.'

These are all from De Trinitate via Mike Ovey's Doctrine of God handouts.

Check out Liam Beadle's song based on the Song here.

So, I have a Latin tag I'd like to use in an essay. I read Latin and can translate the quotation, which is not that hard. Should I a) put the Latin in the main text and translate in the footnote; b) put the Latin in the main text and translate in brackets; c) put the translation in the main text and the Latin in the footnote; d) just give the translation; or e) just give the Latin and assume the reader will be able to translate it themselves?

Does it look like showing off if you include the original? Even if you translate it? Or more so if you translate it, because then it looks like you think the reader won't understand? In Dorothy L. Sayers novels she never translates any of her quotations (mainly from French or Latin) but her publishers made her translate a letter written in French in one of her books because it contained the crucial evidence for solving the crime. I believe her reasoning was that she would rather presume her readers' intelligence than otherwise.

What's the etiquette?

In an aside, the Archbishop's Missioner (it was unclear whether this included mission to the Archbishop) made reference in chapel this morning to 'the Fathers and Mothers of the Church'?

Any suggestions for who he might have meant?

...here's some thoughts on the Sabbath year and the Jubilee year.

Sabbath year (see Leviticus 25)
In the Sabbath year regulations, the Lord commanded obedience from the people to allow the land its sabbath and commanded the land to provide for the needs of the people during that sabbath. The sabbath year was a demonstration of the land's relationship with the Lord as its creator and redeemer, just as the sabbath day was a demonstration of the people's relationship with the Lord as their creator and redeemer.

Just as the sabbath day gave the people limited, temporary respite from the curse of painful toil, so the sabbath day gave the land limited, temporary respite from its curse in producing food (see Genesis 3:17-18). This rest was a foretaste of the future, final redemption from that curse.

It's worth noting that sabbath rest is never equated with total inactivity. God, on the seventh day, rested from his work of creation but not his works of sustaining and providing. Our sabbath rest is a rest from toilsome labour but not from works of service (see Luke 19:1-27). The sabbath rest of the land will not mean inactivity but unfettered fruitfulness.

Jubilee year
Leviticus 25 makes several contrasts between the sabbath year and the jubilee year which are helpful in correcting some common misunderstandings about the jubilee.

Where the Sabbath was for the land, the jubilee was for the people. There was rest for the land but there was also a restoration of land to its owners and a release of enslaved landowners to return to their land. Inevitably this restoration had economic effects, but the aim of the jubilee was not wholly (nor, I would argue, primarily) economic. Forms of wealth other than land were not redistributed. In particular, city properties were exempt from the regulations. And it seems plausible to argue that the 50-year cycle of the jubilee was intended to prevent individuals from regaining their land and to emphasise the continuity of the family inheritance.

Rather, it seems better to interpret the jubilee as an institution for the preservation of the family unit. Land was not reallocated at the jubilee. Instead, there was a general 'homecoming'. Each family had their land, land which had been given to them by the Lord, land through which the Lord provided for their needs, land on which they were responsible for observing sabbath, land which was inextricably bound up with the exercise of their faith.

There is nothing here to suggest the underlying principle of state-enforced wealth distribution which is usually associated with the word 'jubilee' today. What was important in the jubilee was not so much restoration of wealth, nor of equality (since there was no redistribution to make up for shortcomings in some family holdings). What mattered was the family-land unit which was central in the relationship with the Lord.

Someone put a glossy brochure from the Keep Sunday Special campaign in my pigeonhole today. I don't know who it was, so I'm just going to explain here why I won't be supporting this campaign against the new government proposals to extend Sunday trading hours or possibly to remove all restrictions on Sunday trade.

KSS 'believes that any extension of Sunday trading hours would be damaging to our society.' They argue that this issue is not just one of cultural heritage but has particular importance for Christians.

The Sabbath 'principle'
Bizarrely, they argue that the Sabbath as instituted under the old covenant is NOT binding upon Christians since 'under the new covenant we're saved by what Jesus has done, not by keeping the law.' They don't say how they think people were saved under the old covenant if not by what Jesus had done. Nor do they say why they think that God's laws have changed. And, although they recognise that Jesus showed his disciples how to understand and obey the OT Sabbath law properly, they think that really what Jesus was showing was the principle 'of having a day off for our own good' which hasn't changed.

Now that's very odd, since in the OT the Sabbath never seems to be 'for our own good'. It is a memorial of creation (Exodus 20:8-11); a reminder of redemption (Deut 5:12-15) and a promise of sanctification (Exodus 31:12-17). It is a Sabbath to the Lord, a way of honouring Him, not of looking after ourselves.

So it seems very strange to think that in any of this there is a 'principle' of a day off for our own good, which applies to non-believers as well as to covenant people.

Sabbath activities
According to KSS, Sundays as a day off give us time for God, time for ourselves and time for others. We need a shared day off so that we can meet with other Christians at church. We need time for ourselves to relax and to recharge. And we need time to spend with our family and friends.

Obviously it's true that we need to meet with other Christians. And there's enough examples of people in the bible going off to pray by themselves to suggest that this is a good idea too. And of course our family and friends are important.

But what has any of this to do with Sabbath? The early church met every day (Acts 2:46) and the exhortation in Hebrews 10:24-25 doesn't suggest that these meetings are limited to one day of the week or even the formal church meeting. And shouldn't we pray on our own every day? And make time for friends and family throughout the week?

Consumer choice
So here we get to the real point. The KSS people say they 'don't want to tell people what they can and can't do on a Sunday.' But that's exactly the point of their campaign! They do want to say that certain people can't work on a Sunday and that none of us can shop on a Sunday. They claim to be protecting the freedom of choice of those who would rather not work on a Sunday.

If people don't want to work on a Sunday they don't have to. If people don't want to shop on a Sunday they certainly don't have to. At lunch today, I was discussing this issue with someone from Kenya who said that shops are free to open on Sundays there, but very few do because everyone's at church so no-one's going shopping. There's nothing to stop people here from boycotting shops on Sunday if they choose. And if they did, it wouldn't take long before the shops were shut again and no-one was asked to work on Sundays. The KSS campaign is all about restricting people's freedom by means of the law.

Whose decision is this anyway?
Which leads to the final point. The KSS campaign is premised on the idea that this is an appropriate matter for the state to control. Which is extraordinary. How does a religious institution, specifically designed as a reminder of our relationship with the Lord, ever come to be considered a matter for state control?

I choose not to shop on Sundays. I organise my life so that I don't do academic work on Sundays. I make spending time with my church family and other Christian brothers and sisters a priority on Sundays. I do all this freely as an expression of my love for the Lord and as an expression of my obedience to his law.

But I don't think any of this has a bearing on what non-believers choose to do with their time and nor do I think that any of this is the business of the state. If pastors choose to exhort and discipline their congregations on Sabbath observance, well and good.

So, I won't be signing the online petition, telling my friends, writing to my MP or raising the issue in my community. But I will be encouraging Christian brothers and sisters to observe the Sabbath and I will be sharing the gospel with unbelievers and praying for the advance of the gospel in this country and across the world. I think that's a much better way of keeping Sunday special.

...that if the Queen survives until December 2007 she will become England's oldest reigning monarch?

...that there are 20,000 light bulbs on the Eiffel Tower?

...that tickets are available for commercial space flights at just 200,000 US dollars

...that Engalnd took 89 wickets to beat Australia last summer?

...that Jane Eyre ends with the words: 'Amen. Even so, come Lord Jesus'?

Neither did we and that's why our team only came second in the quiz tonight.

On the other hand, we were pretty proud of ourselves for recognising Bobby Moore, Leo Blair, Pink, the William Webb Ellis trophy and Missy Elliot.

And for knowing that for every pound spent on petrol, 75p goes to the government. Okay, that was a guess, but it was a correct one!

Not bad, for 'the giggling gaggle of girls' - you know who you are.

Not only did he preach over 120 extremely edifying sermons on the Song, he also produced a particularly clear, thorough and persuasive discussion of divine eternality in his 'Body of Divinity'.

Here are some of my favourite bits...

His eternity may be argued from a state of non-existence he must have been in, if not eternal; and if so, then there was an instant in which he was not; and if there was an instant in which he was not, then there was an instant in which there was no God; and if so, there may be one again in which he may cease to be; for that which once was not, may again not be; and this will bring us into the depth of atheism.

In short, God is Eternity itself, and inhabits eternity; so he did before time, and without succession; so he does throughout time; and so he will to all eternity.