Here is the footage from April’s Department of Theology Drama Production… who ever thought John Millbank would come across this well in a donkey suit?

forgive me

Items and their labels…

The healing-balm-provider (Jeremiah 8:22):

The bearer of milk and sweet things (Leviticus 20:24):

The keeper of the communal goods (Acts 2:44):

Yale Divinity School Dean Harold W. Attridge and Professor Emeritus David L. Bartlett discuss The First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians, Ch. 15. This is session 8 of 8 videos for the First Letter…

I’m not convinced by all that they say – but I found it an enjoyable watch – perhaps the series would be an interesting set of discussion starters for a Bible study group…

Amazon recommended me a commentary on 2 Corinthians entitled “Varsy Arsy”!!  I suppose it comes from the US, where that title wouldn’t sound so rude – but what on earth is it supposed to mean??

Last night we had a band meeting, to prepare for our annual “bonfire night” gig this Thursday.  Item three on the agenda was “food” – so we sampled some delicacies from the local fish n’ chip shop.  So here’s where the competition comes in – guess what this item is…

It was from the fish n’ chip shop, and as you can see, had a most pleasing grease content.  The prize for this competition is the glory associated with knowing what this item is!

I think I have just invented the lamest and most esoteric theological joke ever (correct me if I’m wrong):

Q: How do we know that Calvin prefers fighting to drinking?

A: Because Battles is better than Beveridge!

UPDATE: If you prefer, you may use the other version of the joke:

Q: How do we know that Calvin prefers beer to war?

A: Because Beveridge is better than Battles!

I want to explore something a little more that I’ve explored here before, related to the “denial of resurrection” in Corinth: To get you up to speed, I guess I’m wondering whether perhaps the problem was tripartite:

1. Some in Corinth were confident in their own present “spiritual” immortality (as many Christians are today – assuming that we are essentially an immortal soul)
2. They were dismissive of the plight of those who had died – assuming that ”the dead” were at a real disadvantage
3. They looked down on Paul’s gospel of present cruciformity

Paul responds by insisting that the life of the believer consists in living an ongoing death (i.e. the pattern of the cross), and looking ahead, with those who have died, to Christ’s future appearing, when the dead will be raised, and will finally share in Christ’s immortality.

Anyway, the further development is that I’ve been looking more into the question of whether point 1 above is reasonable: Is it reasonable to think that people thought of themselves as already having entered a sort of spiritual immortality.  I had already noticed that the Epicureans thought that way – presently imperishable and immortal…

And it has now struck me that Philo seems to envisage something similar – the possibility of entering imperishability/immortality in the present, in some sort of spiritual sense:

Perhaps some in Corinth were acting as though something similar had been inaugurated for themselves – having become Christians, they had passed from “creation and mortality” to “the uncreated, to the immortal, to free will” – and thus were in a position to look down on those who had died: “There is no resurrection of the dead”.

I know it’s Reformation day and All Saints’ Eve and Halloween and my mum’s birthday – but there is an even more pressing issue to post about: I think there’s a new cold war a’brewin.  My evidence?  For the last week or two I’ve received LOADS of russian spam on my blog.  I don’t understand any of it, but I suspect the KGB.

What do Coolio, U2, Boney M, and Shakespeare have in common?  They all share the honour of participating in the Bibledex Psalms video, along with Peter and myself…

My job hunting is leading me to reflect on the relationship between individual belief and confessional tradition.  At this point I am applying for one position in Australia, and one position in the US of A (both are for a position as full time New Testament lecturer in a confessional institution).  It has struck me that there is an extent to which my individual beliefs ought not to be relevant: Rather than asking me, for example, ”Do you believe that such-and-such a form of church government is the biblical position?” perhaps it would be more fitting for them to ask, “Will you submit yourself to such-and-such a tradition for the term of your appointment?”

Of course, I don’t mean that personal belief is irrelevant – just that it’s possible to submit oneself to a tradition: I can choose to commit to a set of beliefs and practices, even though I may not experience a strong sense of personal conviction about some of the areas it covers… I guess, though, that it’s important that there’s the opportunity for ongoing reflection and dialogue.

Just some rambling thoughts, really…