More on the Christ Cup

Wieland Willker has carefully assembled a good deal of the recent discussion on the so-called Christ cup. Here it is:

Mysterious CRESTOU inscription
Everything else of potential interest to forum members.
Write comments 7 posts • Page 1 of 1
Mysterious CRESTOU inscription
by wie on Wed 17. Sep 2008, 12:35

Another enigmatic inscription has surfaced:

DIA CHRHSTOU OGOISTAIS
ΔIA XPHCTOY OΓOICTAIC



Images courtesy of Der Spiegel. Thank you!
Copyright: © Franck Goddio/Hilti Foundation, Foto: Christoph Gerigk


(Larger images are available from me on request.)

Franck Goddio found this cup on the ground of the harbor of Alexandria in May this year. It has a diameter of about 9 cm and weighs 200g. According to their report, it was found in layer 2 of the stratigraphy, which means that it is from the first half of the first century!

The epigraph André Bernand from Paris thinks that the biblical Messiah is meant. He considers the cup as some kind of witch's cauldron which belonged to a fortune teller who was basing his authority on Jesus. The text means "Magician through Christ".

Skeptics think that Chrestos is just a common name and that OGOISTAIS refers to some kind of cult of Ogo, whatever that was.

The cup has been transfered to Madrid today where it will be shown in the "Matadero de Legazpi".

My initial thought was that OGOI just cries for LOGOI.
STAIS = "dough"?
The final U could also be a Nu.

Source: Der SpiegelΕἰρήνη ὑμῖν.
Wieland Willker
<><
Textcritical Commentary
wie
Administrator

Posts: 114
Joined: Fri 4. Jul 2008, 21:20
Location: Bremen, Germany
Website Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Mysterious CRESTOU inscription
by wie on Thu 18. Sep 2008, 09:03

Several comments have been given on blogs and mailing lists, which I have tried to collect below.

First, some raised the obvious question as to the authenticity of the artifact. Of course we cannot know. It may well be a forgery. The inscription looks very new to me, too, as well as the cup itself. The letters look like milled in. Well, I am no expert. But from what I gather, some epigraphs have seen it and not immediately rejected it.

The funny thing is that Google now has a new "word": OGOISTAIS.

Detail from the back:

Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν.
Wieland Willker
<><
Textcritical Commentary
wie
Administrator

Posts: 114
Joined: Fri 4. Jul 2008, 21:20
Location: Bremen, Germany
Website Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some comments
by wie on Thu 18. Sep 2008, 09:06

From various sources in no particular order:

Antonio Lombatti writes on his blog:
"You don't need a microscopical analysis of that inscription: of course, it cannot be so neat if the object was found under the sea. Moreover, I also find the carving of the Greek letters to be quite unusual--I mean, too perfect--for a text on a 2,000 year-old cup."
with these comments:
John N Lupia III: "The sgrafitto looks very recent. Compare the condition of cup's surfaces to the incuse of the letters and it looms out as incongruous, and suggests a modern hand."
Antonio Lombatti answers: "I agree. One doesn't need to have any expertise in Greek epigraphy or to try to understand the meaning of the inscription. The James Ossuary (among many others) docet!"

--------------------------------

AnneMarie Luijendijk wrote:
both words, christos and chrestos would, of course, be pronounced the same. In ancient manuscripts, the word "Christos" itself occurs most frequently written in contracted form as nomen sacrum. In those instances we don't know how the scribe would have spelled it in full. Several church fathers use the word play christos-chrestos (e.g,. Justin Martyr, Apology 1.4).
In the case of the word "christianos, -h," the spelling with an eta instead of iota is in fact the common one in documentary papyri (for example P.Oxy. 42.3035, P.Oxy. 43.3119, SB. 12.10772), but also the scribe of the Codex Sinaiticus wrote the word chrestianos thus in the three New Testament passages where that word occurs (Acts 11:26, 26:28 and 1 Pet 4:16).

------------------------------------

Lincoln Blumell wrote:
DIA XRHSTOY - As for your second point, the replacement of iota with an eta is fairly common in the papyri I have come across:
SB XVI 12497.50 (Early III) List of Nominations of Liturgies
P.Oxy. XLII 3035.3-5 (28 February A.D. 256) Order of Arrest
P.Oxy. XLIII 3119.14, 18 (A.D. 259-260) Official Correspondence
P.Oxy XLIII 3149.3-4 (V) Letter
P.Laur. II 42 r.2 (U) Letter
On this point Tertullian complains non-Christians do not pronounce the name correctly and he reiterates that he is a "Christian" not a "Chrestian." (Tertullian, Nat. 1.3.8-9).
See also the discussion in Orsolina Montevecchi, "Nomen Christianum," in Bibbia e Papiri: Luce dai Papiri sulla Bibbia Greca (Barcelona: Institut de Teologia Fonamental, 1999), 155.
I hope this has been somewhat helpful.

-----------------------------------

Peter Arzt-Grabner wrote:
I´d like to mention that
- the earliest papyrus references (for chrestianos!) are of the 2nd/3rd century CE (see also Lincoln´s mail),
- whereas the spelling chrestianos (with the eta) for "Christian" is quite common, the spelling Chrestos for Christos ("Christ") is rare; maybe the earliest and best reference for it is Suetonius´ famous passage on Claudius, expelling the Jews from Rome (Claud. 25,4), which proves that for a Roman the Greek "name" Christos could be easily mistaken for the Graeco-Roman name Chrestos/Chrestus,
- we have no evidence that the word play christos-chrestos (as used by several church fathers) was already used (and understood) by the very early Christians (during the first century; also Philem. 10 cannot be taken as a hint).
On the topic see already G.H.R. Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol. 3: A Review of the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Published in 1978, Macquarie University 1983, 129; M.J. Edwards, Χρηστός in a Magical Papyrus, ZPE 85 (1991) 232–236, esp. 232–233: “it is one thing to play upon words and another to think them identical, or advance one as a substitute for the other. The same observation applies with even greater force to those inscriptions and papyri [pagan and orthodox] in which the substitution of Χρηστιανός for Χριστιανός is regular, but that of Χρηστός for Χριστός more rare”.
Concerning the text and its meaning of the cup from Alexandria: as Wieland Willker already mentioned on his website, "We need an image of the back." Does anyone have access to such an image?

-----------------------------------------

John Whitehorne wrote:
The hand looks OK for i/ii CE, and XRHSTOS for XRISTOS is not a problem. But OGOSTAIS is a problem. There are very few Greek words that begin OGO or O (definite article) GO to choose from. The pot itself is also a bit small for a cauldron. Does it have any signs still of use on a fire? Or, if its [L]OGO ..., how much does it hold - does it correspond to any common measure of volume?

----------------------------------------

Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:
I do wonder why the inscription reads "DIA CHRESTOU OGOISTAIS" rather than "DIA CHRISTOU OGOISTAIS." The word "chrestou" is the genitive singular form of "chrestos," which is an adjective meaning "good," and therefore not the title "Christos," which is what one would expect if this referred to Christ. Why would a forger choose to inscribe the word "good" rather than "Christ"? Was the supposed forger so inept?
The German article in Der Spiegel notes that "chrestos" was actually used rather often as a Greek name:
"Chrestos war in Griechenland ein gebräuchlicher männlicher Vorname", erklärt der Historiker Manfred Clauss aus Frankfurt am Main, "das muss nichts mit Jesus zu tun haben."
Translated, this says:
"Chrestos was commonly a man's given name in Greece," explains the historian Manfred Clauss of Frankfurt am Main. "That need not have anything to do with Jesus."
This is correct, but I do recall, from my time studying with New Testament Professor Otto Betz in Tübingen, that "Christos" and "chrestos" were sometimes interchanged as a wordplay since "Christ" was "good." Perhaps the putative forger was not inept but clever?
To be clear, however, let me emphasize that I am also skeptical about this inscription, and for the reason given by Antonio Lombatti. The letters simply look much too distinct to be nearly 2000 years old.
But what in the world does ogoistais actually mean? If this is a forgery, it's a very odd one.

-------------------------------------------

Helene Cuvigny wrote:
Ma collègue Sylvie Marchand, céramologue à l'IFAO, me signale qu'il s'agit d'un gobelet à boire (pas d'un chaudron!) en sigillée égyptienne fabriqué à Assouan au Ier s. p.C. Elle a l'impression, d'après la photo, que l'inscription a été faite avant cuisson.
On aimerait vraiment voir à quoi ressemble l'inscription lue OGOISTAIS. Serait-il possible qu'il s'agisse d'une mélecture pour ὁ γεύστης, "celui qui goûte" ?
En ce cas, χρηστοῦ pourrait être une allusion à du vin "excellent", mais je ne sais pas quoi faire de διά. Il ne semble pas non plus exister d'attestation d'une expression familière διὰ χρηστοῦ ou δι’ ἀχρήστου.

Rough translation:
My colleague Sylvie Marchand, céramologue at the IFAO, says it is a cup to drink (not a pot!). Egyptian sigillée produced in Aswan au Ier s. p.C. She had the impression, after the photo, that the inscription was made before cooking.
We would really like to see the inscription of OGOISTAIS. Would it be possible that this is a mélecture for ὁ γεύστης, "the one who tasted"?
In this case, χρηστοῦ could be an allusion to wine "excellent" but I do not know what to do with διά. It does not seem to exist an attestation of a familiar expression διὰ χρηστοῦ or δι 'ἀχρήστου.

------------------------------------

Daniel Streett wrote:
My initial reading is that OGOISTAIS ογοισταις is best understood as a fuller form of O GOHS ο γοης, or magician. The Attic spelling would be O GOHSTHS ο γοηστης. We seem to have itacism of ι for ε and αι for η, neither of which is unusual for Alexandria.
I am guessing that this is the same conclusion that the scholars came to who were initially consulted and quoted in Der Spiegel to the effect that it referred to a μαγικος.

------------------------------------

Jean-Luc Fournet wrote:
To my opinion, it can't be a modern forgery because it was made before firing — it is clear on the picture (such inscriptions are not rare). Morever, the handwriting would perfectly fit the first century A.D. (i. e. the archaeological context).

-------------------------------------

Jack Kilmon wrote:
I think the goblet refers to wine and states "enchantment through excellence." I am puzzled by the claim that the inscription was done before firing since the brown slip appears flaked by the stylus suggesting it was
dried. The hand could also be 2nd to 3rd century, to me, so I would like to know more about the stratigraphic context that places it on the ground of the 1st century harbor. In my opinion, if the provenance is correct,
reference to XRISTOS is highly unlikely for the first half of the first century. I think XRHSTOS (excellent, good) is correct but the eta/iota shift is in O GO(H)ISTAIS. Alexandrian Koine is noted for provincialisms
and archaisms.
Come to think of it, that wouldn't be a bad slogan for a modern wine producer.

---------------------------------------

Jean-Luc Fournet wrote:
An inscription made after firing would not look like that: the line of the incised letters would not be so neat. If the letters appear clearer, it is because the clay is clearer than the external slip. They were made before firing but after the slip was applied on the pottery. I have studied inscriptions on amphoras for many years and came across many times this kind of graffiti and I must confess that I am not surprised by this one. But noboby is infallible and, since it is a ceramic object, I propose to ask directly ceramologists: they will surely have an authoritative opinion. As far as the writing is concerned, 3rd century seems to me highly unlikely.

------------------------------------Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν.
Wieland Willker
<><
Textcritical Commentary
wie
Administrator

Posts: 114
Joined: Fri 4. Jul 2008, 21:20
Location: Bremen, Germany
Website Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Video and another image
by wie on Fri 19. Sep 2008, 09:44

A short video of Franck Goddio presenting the cup was given by El Mundo yesterday. You can see it here:
(Note: a short advertisement is at the beginning)

Video:
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2008/09/17/ciencia/1221645751.html

And another image:

Franck Goddio presents the cup. (El Mundo, Foto: Bernardo Díaz)Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν.
Wieland Willker
<><
Textcritical Commentary
wie
Administrator

Posts: 114
Joined: Fri 4. Jul 2008, 21:20
Location: Bremen, Germany
Website Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More comments
by wie on Fri 19. Sep 2008, 19:12

Mika Kajava wrote:
The inscription looks somewhat strange (as others have already said: firing, incision, hand, etc.), but whether or not it is a fake, has anyone considered = diakhristou? - Diakhriston "ointment" (and similar) is found in medical texts and recipes (at least from Dioscorides), but it is also well attested in later sources, e.g., in Aetius' (compilations of) medical writings. Incidentally, I note that among his innumerable recipes (and abbreviations as well as expressions of "recipe language") one frequently finds "gost./goist.", e.g., "elaiou kalou goist. etoi oug. is", "asprou goist.", etc. etc., but this may not be relevant for the present case. - O might stand for o(inou) [e.g. diakhristou, o(inou)... a(na) ic] rather than for a numeral...? - Needless to say, this is pure guesswork (and a lot depends on the dating of the text).

Mika later explained further:

O might stand for O(INOU)
"gost./goist." - this is an abbreviation for "grammata hosa...", i.e. "ca. X grams".
Thus, ELAIOU KALOU GOIST IS
would mean
"ca. 16 grams of good oil".

He concludes:
"Generally, it seems that the tenor of a text like this, with reference to ointment and wine (both are very well attested in similar contexts), would suit the object itself (i.e., a cup)."

[Very good! Definitely worth checking further! So, whatever exactly is was, it seems to me a rather mundane usage, nothing to do with Jesus Christ. --- Wieland]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
wie
Administrator

Posts: 114
Joined: Fri 4. Jul 2008, 21:20
Location: Bremen, Germany
Website Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Mysterious CRESTOU inscription
by nconst on Wed 24. Sep 2008, 11:34

But this cup seems to contain 300 - 400 grams of oil, not 16 ... Or did I miss something ?nconst

Posts: 1
Joined: Wed 24. Sep 2008, 11:27 Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Mysterious CRESTOU inscription
by wie on Wed 24. Sep 2008, 15:55

nconst wrote:
But this cup seems to contain 300 - 400 grams of oil, not 16 ... Or did I miss something ?
No, you didn't miss anything.
This isn't completely clear.Εἰρήνη ὑμῖν.
Wieland Willker
<><
Textcritical Commentary
wie
Administrator

Posts: 114
Joined: Fri 4. Jul 2008, 21:20
Location: Bremen, Germany
Website Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Display posts from previous: All posts1 day7 days2 weeks1 month3 months6 months1 year Sort by AuthorPost timeSubject AscendingDescending

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Write comments7 posts • Page 1 of 1

Return to Other interesting matters
Jump to: Select a forum ------------------ FAQ - Important info about this forum Textual Criticism - General Discussion Textual Criticism - Book Alerts and Reviews Conferences and Meetings New Testament Variants Discussion The Pericope de Adultera The Endings of Mark Old Testament Variants Discussion Biblical Greek - non TC Other interesting matters Testforum
Who is online
No registered users

Portal » Board index The team • Delete all board cookies Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
xabbBlue Theme for phpBB Forums - Designed by phpbb-styles.com
Hosted by iphpbb3.com
Beliebteste Themen: Forum, Cover, Uni

Impressum

-----------

Having now looked at the detailed pictures of the cup itself two things seem clear to me: 1) there appears clear to be ancient patina in some of the letters; 2) it is quite possible that the first two words are actually one word--- DIACHRESTON, which means ointment. The meaning of the other word with the definite article can be debated. This then may be an ointment cup and not an ancient reference to Christ, but it is true that christos was sometimes rendered chrestos in the first and second centuries, because in that oral culture they sounded basically the same.

BW3

BW3 Leads Presidential Race?

In a year of political tensions and lengthy debates, and with the race in doubt, there seems now to be a new candidate who has entered the Presidential race at the llth hour, and is gathering a following. Copy and paste this link into your browser to find out who :)

http://www.tsgnet.com/pres.php?id=46832&altf=Cfo&altl=Xjuifsjohupo

'Through Christ-- the Magus'

Alexandria Satellite Photo, including harbor.



Here is an interesting news item about what appears to be an incantation bowl found in Alexandria harbor. I doubt this item could possibly date earlier than the mid to late first century, for Christianity as we know it seems to have come to Alexandria in mid-century (e.g. consider the case of Apollos of Alexandria, one of the great early rhetoricians in early Christianity and possibly the author of Hebrews). Below you will find the initial news release which appeared on the BAR website, following which I provide some analysis.
------------------

Possible Earliest Known Reference to Christ Discovered in Alexandria’s Ancient Harbor
October 5, 2008
A group of scientists have announced that they have identified what may be the earliest known reference to Christ. A marine archaeology team working in the underwater ruins of Alexandria’s ancient harbor recovered a bowl that dates from the late 2nd century B.C. to the 1st century A.D. The bowl is inscribed with the Greek words “DIA CHRSTOU O GOISTAIS,” which some scholars have interpreted to mean “by Christ the magician” or “the magician by Christ.” Dr. Franck Goddio, co-founder of the Oxford Center of Maritime Archaeology and the leader of the scientific team responsible for the recovery and study of the bowl, believes that the object could have been used by a “magus”—a magician—in the practice of fortune-telling rituals. “It could very well be a reference to Jesus Christ, in that he was once the primary exponent of white magic,” says Goddio.

--------------


Alexandria was one of the elite educational centers in all the Roman empire. It was also one of the place where one sees the confluence of many different cultures-- Greek, Roman, Jewish, Egyptian, and then Christian. One of the features of this mixed-cultural milieu was the mixing and syncretizing of various religious world views. It is thus not surprising that we appear to have now found an incantation bowl in the harbor where this city used to be which appears to have an inscription about Christ. As was the case when you have new converts from other world-views, these converts often brought various of their religious views and understandings into the new religion. Thus for example, if Jesus was known to be an exorcist and healer of various sorts, the assumption in the Greco-Roman world would be that he was likely some kind of a magician. How do magicians differ from healers or Jewish exorcists? Magicians tend to believe that certain kinds of incantations or ritual processes can produce certain kinds of spiritual results--- blessings, curses, healings and so on. There is very clear evidence from the second century A.D. and later that various religious groups tried to draw on Christ's healing powers by offering incantations or ritual recipes and recitations to produce a certain outcome. Magic, like divination is a bottom up process, by which I mean it is a human attempt to manipulate the divine. This would be the opposite of prayer which relies on, and trusts God, to do the right and helpful thing in a situation but the prayer knows that God's arm cannot be twisted, however careful the ritual process or incantation. No one can make God an offer he can't refuse, and therefore from a Judaeo-Christian point of view magic is the opposite of trusting God, and leaving the results of prayer in God's hands. Magic is the attempt to force the issue, force a certain outcome.

The term on the bowl, as reported in the news is however not magus, magi, which is indeed the Greek word from which we get the term magician. We find it in the Gospels applied to the 'wise men' who visited Jesus, who appear to have been astrologers. Goistas/ Goistais is however a different, though possibly related, word and in any case it is not clear from the Greek construction here that Jesus is being called a magician. My reading of the inscription is that the first phrase requires the translation "THROUGH CHRIST". That is Christ is the agent, not the actor here. The actor would be 'Ho Goistais' whatever precise nuance one wants to give this term. The whole phrase then may refer to a diviner or magician who used Christ or the name of Christ in his incantation-- he worked 'through Christ'. The rendering suggested in the news release, whilst more sensational seems less probable to me.

In any case, the real import of this bowl is for those tiny minority of folks out there who are arguing Jesus didn't exist and that there is no evidence outside Christian texts that he did. This is of course false-- we have Tacitus, we have Suetonius, we probably have Josephus, we have numerous inscriptions from the first and second century, we have old traditions in the Talmud which go back to the first century, we have the James ossuary, and we could go on.

What makes this incantation bowl piece of evidence especially interesting is that it shows that Jesus was so famous and well known as an exorcist or healer that even non-Christians or syncretists tried to gain acces to his power. This comports nicely with what we find for instance in a text like Acts 8 which tells us of Simon 'the Magus' who wanted access to this Jesus power through Peter, and it may even be relevant to that obscure text in the Gospels which tells of unknown exorcists using the name of Jesus to produce cures, which the disciples don't like and want to put a stop to, but Jesus objects (Mk. 9.38).

A Fresh Approach to Genesis by Dr. Bill Arnold

Dr. Bill Arnold and I have been colleagues and friends for a long time now, teaching together at both Ashland Theological Seminary, and then we both came to Asbury Theological Seminary at the same time in 1995. Bill is what the Britsh would call a top drawer OT scholar, and the proof of this is in this intriguing and very readable new Genesis commentary which reflects the careful hand of a mature scholar. Bill and I are the editors of the New Cambridge Bible Commentary series which now has a goodly number of both helpful OT and NT volumes. This is a series you will find affordable and stimulating, seeking to apply various new methodologies to the Biblical text. It is not the same ole same ole. Here below is the dustjacket blurb for this particular volume on Genesis.

"This commentary is an innovative interpretation of one of the most profound texts of world literature: the book of Genesis. The first book of the Bible has been studied, debated, and expounded as much as any text in history, yet because it addresses the weightiest questions of life and faith, it continues to demand our attention. The author of this new commentary combines older critical approaches with the latest rhetorical methodologies to yield fresh interpretations accessible to scholars, clergy, teachers, seminarians, and interested laypeople. It explains important concepts and terms as expressed in the Hebrew original so that both people who know Hebrew and those who do not will be able to follow the discussion. “Closer Look” sections examine Genesis in the context of cultures of the ancient Near East. “Bridging the Horizons” sections enables the reader to see the enduring relevance of the book in the twenty-first century."

And here are a couple of links which you can cut and paste into your browser and then go and purchase this volume. I highly recommend it! This is one of the most interesting Genesis commentaries I have ever read, and I have read a bunch of them.
BW3

http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521000673


http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-New-Cambridge-Bible-Commentary/dp/052100067X/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223151188&sr=1-11

The Leadership Structure of Earliest Christianity-- Was it Hierarchial?

Clement of Rome is an interesting figure in early Christian history, not least because he had contact with some of the original Christian eyewitnesses, apostles and their co-workers. Hermas mentions this Clement (Shepherd 8.2) as a leader in the church in Rome to whom he sent a book, who was then to "distribute it to churches in other locations, for that is his commission". Tertullian in fact says he was the second (or third?) bishop/overseer of the church in Rome ordained by no less than Peter himself (Prescription 32). Origen (Comm. John 6.36) says he was the sometime companion of Paul which comports with Phil. 4.3 which suggests Clement is with Paul in Rome. Indeed, what Phil. 4.3 says is that Clement is a co-worker of Paul in the Gospel. It is thus important that we take with absolute seriousness what Clement says about the leadership structure of early Christianity from the time it began right on through the first century. Most scholars date 1 Clement to the last decade of the first century, though it may be from the 80s. It is a letter that reflects that the author knows well Paul's 1 Corinthians and the way the church was structured there, and he is writing a further letter to the same house churches to further correct the ongoing problems there. Here below is the crucial passage of importance for our discussion from Chapter 42 of 1 Clement:

"The apostles were given the gospel for us by the Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. Thus Christ came from God and the apostles from Christ. Both things happened then in an orderly way according to the will of God. When therefore the apostles received his commands and were fully convinced through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and persuaded by the Word of God, they went forth proclaiming the Good News that the Kingdom of God was about to come, brimming with confidence through the Holy Spirit. And as they preached throughout the countryside and in the cities, they appointed the first fruits of their ministries as bishops/overseers and deacons of those who were about to believe, testing them by the Spirit. And this was no recent development. For indeed, bishops/overseers and deacons have been mentioned in writings long before. For thus Scripture says in one place (Isaiah 60.17 LXX) "I will appoint their bishops/overseers in righteousness and their deacons in faith."



Several points are of importance here. Firstly, Clement is perfectly clear that there is a hierarchial leadership structure in the early church which was set in place by Christ himself when he picked the Twelve, and then they and other apostles went out and picked leaders from their earliest converts in various local areas. Clearly, this is a top down structure. Clement ought to have known whether this was a recent notion in his own day in the latter half of the first century, but he quite specifically denies that it was. And if the tradition is correct that he was ordained by Peter in Rome in the 60s, he certainly was in a position to know the truth about this matter going all way back to the 'first apostle' Peter who is indeed the key bridge figure between the ministry of Jesus and the ministry of the early church. Secondly, Clement believes that the OT prophet Isaiah forsaw such a structure for the eschatological community. Clement here takes the Greek translation of the OT to be Scripture and authoritative in this matter (N.B. the Greek differs some from the Hebrew of Isaiah here). Clement does not assume a radical disjunction between the sort of hierarchial leadership structures found amongst the OT people of God, and that found amongst the NT people of God. Clement does however reflect a period of time when the terms episkopos and presbyteros were closely associated (see 1 Clement 44). That is, all 'overseers' were also elders, but not all elders were also overseers/bishops. What Clement also reflects is the fact that he is thinking in terms of a process of ordination and appointment from apostles to local leaders and so on, and when he uses the terms episkopoi and presbyteroi he is not merely talking about functions (though that is included), he is talked about ongoing roles that some persons were appointed and anointed to carry out in the local church. Among other things, he assumes this is the structure that Paul set up in Corinth as well, as his use of 1 Corinthians throughout 1 Clement makes very clear.

What conclusions should we draw from this important authentic early Christian document from the first century A.D. written by a co-worker of Paul's?

Firstly, the notion that there was no leadership hierarchy in the earliest period of Christian history is an absolute myth. The evidence, both Biblical and extra-Biblical insofar as it discusses such a matter confirms this fact. Secondly, the notion that everyone was called to take up leadership roles in the early church is also a myth. No, there were specific persons called to do this. Thirdly, the hierarchy existed not only in general between the linked house churches, but within them as well, from what we can tell. This is definitely what Clement believes if you read 1 Clement carefully. Fourthly, this sort of structure should not be blamed on the growing pagan influence on the church as time went on. This too is absolutely false. Clement sees it rather as a continuation of the Jewish leadership structures both spoken of and prophesied in the OT. As an associate of both Peter and Paul, Clement was in a position to know what the mind of Peter and Paul was on the issue of leadership structures in a way that we certainly are not.

Ergo, we do not assume such structures are later and pagan developments, any more than the very Jewish Christian author of the Didache did. To the contrary, this is precisely the sort of ordering of the church that the apostles themselves had in mind and put in place, and which Peter believed Christ himself had inaugurated in the first place, when he gave him the keys to the kingdom and the power of binding and loosing in the first place.

'Appaloosa': Wild Horses Couldn't Keep Me Away

Its fall and time for another attempt at a classic Western. Last fall there were two such attempts (Russell Crowe's "3:10 to Yuma" and the more mystical 'The Outlaw Jesse James'). This fall's attempt at this genre of film is Ed Harris's (director) 'Appaloosa'. With an all star cast of Ed himself playing the City Marshall Virgil Cole, and Viggo Mortensen playing his sidekick 'Hitch', with Jeremy Iron's playing the aptly named bad dude Bragg, and Rene Zellwegger thrown in as the love interest, this film doesn't lack for star power. It is also immaculately and accurately filmed and clocks in under two hours with an R rating (its a Western, so there are some varmits that need shootin' right from the start).

The plot is pretty simple, as in any good Western. Westerns most often attempt to reduce things to the lowest common denominator--- basic human instincts (lust, greed, power, jealousy etc.), basic character developments (the bad guys are truly bad, the good guys, while not perfect, are way better), basic plots (the Sheriff must clean up the town, and vies with his side kick for the only eligible woman in town), and basic dialogue (the only truly memorable line in the film is when Virgil is lying on his back shot in the knee and says to Hitch who, along with two bad guys are also shot-- 'Well darn, everyone could shoot'). While the Sheriff would like to learn to use big words like 'sequestered', it is a work in progress, as he reads Emerson and tries to achieve a vocabulary transplant. Things are kept simple, rather like the spartan existence in an old Western town. Things are dusty, dirty. There is drinking, herding, shooting, lusting-- all in a day's span. Basic.

What makes this Western different is not only the quality of the acting, but the interesting menage a trois going on between the widow Mrs. Allison French and the Sheriff and his Deputy. Only the Deputy is smart enough to steer mostly clear of this woman, not only because Virgil has dibs on her, but because as Everett Hitch tells Virgil, this woman simply wants to be with the lead stallion-- whoever that may be. She's not exactly likely to be the faithful type if one slips from one's position of power. This sagebrush saga has all the typical elements of the classic Western including a neat resolution of the plot's tensions at the end.

I will not spoil the ending of the movie for you, but I will say this-- If you liked 'Lonesome Dove' the award winning TV series, and you liked old movies like 'High Noon' or more recent films like 'Unforgiven', this movie is right up your alley partner. It's better than either of the two Westerns offered last fall. So hitch up your wagon and get yourself over to Appaloosa. You've got to love a film that ends with an old fashioned testosteroned honor challenge!

God and 'My Rights'

Dr. James Howell has written another fine column on the issue of American Christians and their rights and responsibilities. It reminded me of just how much it is a part of our American DNA to demand our rights, and assume them to be 'self-evident'. There is the famous story of a Civil War soldier from Tennessee with a deep southern accent who was captured by a Union brigade and one Yankee officer said to him "well now you will have to give up your slaves." Johnny Reb replied "I ain't got no slaves." This puzzled the officer and so he asked: "Why in the world are you fighting then?" He replied "I wants my rats" "Your rats?" responded the officer. Defiantly the rebel said: "Yessir, you know my R-I-G-H-T-S." Here is James helpful column.
--------------

Rights Talk

Mary Ann Glendon, who taught law at Harvard before being appointment U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican, wrote an important book called Rights Talk. In America, we talk endlessly about “rights,” and many political arguments are over “rights.” But whose “right” is right? Does the conceived child have a "right to life"? or does the woman have a "right to choose"? Do people have a right to privacy? or do citizens have a right to safety that overrides?

Glendon has noticed in our “rights talk” a disturbing “starkness, legalistic character, exaggerated absoluteness, hyperindividualism, and a silence with respect to responsibility.” She believes the shrill insistence on rights has ruined democracy and shortchanged citizenship. Flatly asserted, “I have this right!” leaves no room for exploration, no room for give and take. Little wonder debates cannot be resolved.

Usually, the notion of “rights” plays out as “my right,” which is pretty different from me defending “your right,” or those who have no “rights” at all. Not only do Americans have countless “rights,” but they curiously have no legal duty to come to the aid of someone in danger. Rights without responsibilities? God turns all this on its ear and lovingly suggests we have no rights, but many responsibilities.

Instead of “rights,” the Bible speaks of “gifts.” There is no “right to life.” Life is a gift, and this may be the compelling reason we do not have any right to destroy life. I do not have “rights” over my own body; God has those “rights.” My body is a gift of God, an instrument to be used in service to God, a temple of God’s Spirit, not a private domain for me to use as I wish. Christians get “responsibility” – which is “response-ability.” God has made us able to respond to God’s gifts. Responsible people do not gripe or whine so much as they get involved, they do something. Citizenship is responsibility, and perhaps the Christians could foster a buoyant hope in America life by simply refusing to play the “rights” card and instead lead the way in taking responsibility for the good stewardship of God’s gifts.

Isn't it freeing to think I am not a fist seizing my rights? but instead I am an open hand, gratefully receiving gifts from a loving God? Rights are about me; gifts are about us. Rights require law; gifts require love. Rights build walls; gifts open doors. Rights I cling to; gifts I share. Rights depend on government; gifts come down from God.

If we think of life as God’s gift, then the political argument shifts. We might even wind up with a new logic: years ago, Cardinal Bernardin popularized a notion called “the seamless garment of life.” If life is God’s good gift, and we don’t have the right to take another life, then we find ourselves against abortion, against capital punishment, against euthanasia, and against war. Of course, Christians who understand that life isn’t a right but is God’s beautiful gift may devise divergent arguments about how best to be responsible about life as God’s good gift – but at least we will be speaking the same language, and debating on the same terms.

Dr. James Howell,
Myers Park UMC
Charlotte N.C.

Jews and Muslims Celebrating in Jerusalem

Both Jews and Muslims have a ritual calendar which is lunar, not solar. This is why Passover, Hanukkah, etc. move around in the calendar and the same can be said about the Muslim celebrations such as Ramadan. I've been in Jerusalem when it was celebrated in May, but this year its being celebrated now. And it coincides this year with the celebrations leading up to Yom Kippur. Here is an interesting article from today's N.Y. Times about the juxaposition of these celebrations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/world/middleeast/29ramadan.html?th&emc=th


See what you think.

Is there A Christian View of Politics?

My friend James Howell, pastor of Myers Park UMC, always writes thoughtful columns on important subjects. Here is a recent one of his on politics.
-----


So what is the Christian angle on politics in America? Aren’t we supposed to buy into the conservative line, as we’ve been told for years? Or could liberals be onto something important? Or are they the ruin of everything we hold dear?

People ask me: are you liberal? or conservative? Sometimes my reply is: it depends on the issue – but my true answer is: neither! The Church drifts into absurd irrelevance if we do nothing more than baptize one or the other of the prevalent options society has dreamed up. We have our own perspective, which at times seems in sync with this or that policy – but then Bam! …we surprise everybody with a wrinkle, a twist. We are not middle of the road, although when we are most faithful to God we are likely to annoy (and occasionally to please) liberals and conservatives in equal measure.

How could this be? Human institutions, political parties, and even the noblest people who choose public service, are sinful, flawed; self-serving agendas get in the way, or the perils of the moment blind us to a greater good God would have us pursue. And frankly, not everybody out there is exactly “lost in wonder, love and praise,” deeply immersed in the Bible, and prepared to “take up your cross and follow” (Mark 8:34). Many citizens in both parties don’t think twice about God, or God is like a good-luck charm they think will help them get the goodies they crave. Politicans fawn over the electorate; they will “say anything,” and they even hire wizards to advise them on how to talk religious folks into voting for them. Parties and politics are not surprisingly out of sync with God.

We can see the wisdom, then, in John Howard Yoder’s words: “Jesus refused to concede that those in power represent an ideal or acceptable definition of what it means to be political. He did not say ‘You can have your politics and I shall do something else more important.’ He said, ‘Your definition of politics, and social existence, is wrong.’” Our intentions may be praiseworthy, and at times we rise to the occasion; there is so much that is marvelous and to be cherished in American life. But God quite mercifully calls us to something better than the inevitably compromised options of Democrat or Republican.

Tony Campolo has recently written about Red Letter Christians – those who take their cues, not from Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore, but from the words of Jesus; no political operative can tell us what to think, for we are Christians, believing Jesus is the way. Red letter Christians can be Republican or Democrat – and hopefully both! They can and should be the “leaven” in the world; they “should be the ultimate swing vote, holding both sides accountable to a broader moral vision” (as Campolo wisely states).

There is always – always! – a “contrarian” bent to the Christian political angle. After all, in the Roman empire the complaint filed against Christians was “they are turning the world upside down” (Acts 17). In a world that does not love the Lord Jesus, we will expect to find ourselves at odds with business as usual; we shun a judgmental spirit, but we do not refrain from making judgments. “The Church is not simply a ‘voluntary association’ that may be of some use to the wider public, but rather is the community constituted by practices by which all other politics are to be judged” (Stanley Hauerwas).

Abraham Lincoln told the truth about “sides” who boast of God: “Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; each invokes His aid against the other. The prayers of both could not be answered… The Almighty has His own purposes.” Knowing this, we treat each other charitably, and look to God for something better: “With malice toward none; with charity for all… to bind up the nation’s wounds – to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.”

James

james@mpumc.org

In God We Trust-- an Essay on the Idolatry of Security

-------------
I have just returned from a first rate symposium on the issue of security (political, spiritual, eternal, economic and other forms) where a group of theologians, Biblical scholars and ethicists gathered to discuss what the Bible had to say about various forms of security at North Park Seminary on Sept. 25-27. The papers in general were excellent and in due course will appear in a future issue of Ex Auditu. Walter Moberly a top drawer OT scholar and churchman who teaches at my alma mater the University of Durham presented one of the best and most challenging papers, and he kindly consented to let me reproduce the text of it here. The notes will appear with the edited form of this in Ex Auditu. Let me know what you think of his reflections.


"IN GOD WE TRUST"? THE CHALLENGE OF THE PROPHETS

R. W. L. Moberly (Durham University)

INTRODUCTION
Security is perhaps the most basic of human longings and needs. Nations, communities, families and individuals all in their various ways seek security – safety, protection, confidence, stability. Negatively, security means a context of living in which people are free, or protected, from dangers and threats, while positively it means a context in which people are able to flourish together, ideally also with the existential awareness that this is so.
If one wants to put "being secure" into biblical Hebrew, the root that most readily springs to mind is bth; there is a common verb batah ("trust"), and a related noun betah, which standard lexicons render as "security". Another Hebrew root is ys(, whose common verb and noun forms (hoshia(, yeshu(ah), generally rendered with "deliver/deliverance" and "save/salvation", cover related conceptual ground. Of the numerous other roots that might be mentioned, the noun shalom ("peace") should perhaps be singled out as belonging in this context. These are prime terms within the OT for depiction of the divine-human relationship as it should be. And of course the concept and reality may be present with no particular terminology to depict them.
Yet the more important the human need, the greater both the potential for, and the seriousness of, its misunderstanding and misuse: corruptio optimi pessima. Unsurprisingly, it is the prophetic corpus within the OT which most obviously and extensively addresses misdirection and malpractice in the whole area of the longing for security. Indeed, this is one of the prime reasons why the prophets have been valued down the ages; their highlighting of the ways in which the heart of life under God can be perverted has given the prophets an enduring existential challenge to groups and individuals alike.
Within the OT, the temple in Jerusalem is the prime place of the presence of YHWH with His people, a place of enormous symbolic significance. The Psalms in particular often celebrate Zion as the focus of YHWH's good pleasure, and the place where His people can expect to meet with Him and receive His blessing. In many ways, the temple symbolizes security. Here Israel can sing: "God is in the midst of the city; it shall not be moved… The LORD of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge" (Ps. 46:6,8 [ET 5,7]).
However, where much is given, there much is expected (cf. Lk. 12:48). A recurrent failure on the part of Israel/Judah to live up to those expectations and conduct themselves in a way commensurate with the presence of God in their midst is a prime concern in the prophetic literature. So I propose to look at three famous prophetic "temple sermons", passages that focus on the mismatch between the priorities of YHWH and those of Israel/Judah.

AMOS'S TEMPLE SERMON: AMOS 5:18-27
It must be admitted that it is not self-evident that my initial "temple sermon" is a temple sermon. I propose this, however, as a reading strategy, because the ten verses read well as a unit, and there is direct address to people engaged in the practices of temple worship. Within the context of the book one can imagine the temple in Bethel as its location, with the hostility of Amaziah as its response (Am. 7:10-13).

18 Alas for you who desire the day of the LORD!
Why do you want the day of the LORD?
It is darkness, not light;
19 as if someone fled from a lion,
and was met by a bear;
or went into the house and rested a hand against the wall,
and was bitten by a snake.
20 Is not the day of the LORD darkness, not light,
and gloom with no brightness in it?

The people Amos addresses have a confident expectation associated with God, an expectation depicted as "the day of YHWH". The precise nature of this day is assumed to be known, and unfortunately this assumption no longer holds for Amos's readers. Nonetheless, one main point is clear, that this is a time which can be depicted as "light", which would mean a time when in some special sense God's will is done, and God's people could expect to rejoice in it. Amos inverts this: "darkness, not light" is how the day of YHWH will be. This is illustrated by a picture of a man vainly trying to escape deadly animals – he escapes from a lion (intrinsically a remarkable feat) only to be confronted by a bear, and when he escapes from the bear into a house, presumably imagining himself safe at last, an unnoticed snake bites him. The inexorability of disaster is reminiscent of the covenant curses of Deuteronomy 28. Moreover, at the risk of over-reading the text, I would at least note that the imagery has strong canonical resonances: the lion is an image of YHWH's judgment in Kings, and YHWH's roar like a lion introduces Amos's whole message (Am. 1:2, cf. 3:8); while "the house" (habbayith) is the most common term for the Jerusalem temple. So one could perhaps read the man's fleeing from a lion as an image of Israel's fleeing from YHWH, with the suggestion that there is nowhere safe to hide and even (or, rather, especially) the temple offers no refuge. In any case, Amos resumes and intensifies his depiction of the day of YHWH as that which utterly confounds hopeful expectation (v.20).
Why should this be? A reason (additional to those earlier in the text of Amos) is directly given.

21 I hate, I despise your festivals,
and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies.
22 Even though you offer me your burnt-offerings and grain-offerings,
I will not accept them;
and the offerings of well-being of your fatted animals
I will not look upon.
23 Take away from me the noise of your songs;
I will not listen to the melody of your harps.
24 But let justice roll down like waters,
and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

The text focusses on what YHWH rejects and on what He seeks, and concentrates on what the people do (the many activities of temple worship) rather than on what they do not do. Yet the point is clear and emphatic: worship without concomitant practice of justice and righteousness is not merely worthless but actively affronts YHWH and is an object of loathing to Him. The imagery of rolling, flowings waters suggests that the practice of justice and righteousness should be both strong and constant, an integral aspect of Israel's life. Integrity in public life is the sine qua non of true worship.

25 Did you bring to me sacrifices and offerings the forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? 26 You shall take up Sakkuth your king, and Kaiwan your star-god, your images that you made for yourselves; 27 therefore I will take you into exile beyond Damascus, says the LORD, whose name is the God of hosts.

There are numerous well-known difficulties of interpretation here, the first of which is probably the separation of 5:25 from 5:24, since the negative rhetorical question about sacrifices best belongs integrally with 5:21-24 (despite the fine interim climax that is made by the summons for justice and righteousness). For present purposes we may simply note that Israel's worship not only lacks the necessary accompaniment of integrity but also is directed to recipients other than YHWH, such that YHWH is not the "one and only" focus of Israel's acts of devotion (cf. Deut. 6:4-5). As a consequence, Israel will not only lose temple and land by going into exile, but YHWH himself will be the instigator of that loss (no doubt through the agency of one of Israel's enemies). The "day of YHWH" will be darkness, and the form that darkness will take will be the loss of all security through defeat and deportation. YHWH becomes, as it were, the enemy of his chosen people. How this should be understood is an issue to which we will return.

MICAH'S TEMPLE SERMON: MICAH 3:9-12
No narrative context is given for the passage from Micah which follows, yet its content qualifies it as a "temple sermon". Moreover, the appeal to these words of Micah as a precedent for Jeremiah in the narrative account of Jeremiah's "temple sermon" (Jer. 26, esp. vv.17-19) implicitly locates Micah within Jerusalem, and the text of Micah also imaginatively invites such a location.

9 Hear this, you rulers of the house of Jacob
and chiefs of the house of Israel,
who abhor justice
and pervert all equity,
10 who build Zion with blood
and Jerusalem with wrong!
11 Its rulers give judgement for a bribe,
its priests teach for a price,
its prophets give oracles for money;
yet they lean upon the LORD and say,
"Surely the LORD is with us!
No harm shall come upon us."

Micah's address is direct and blunt. He speaks to the leaders of Israel, those with responsibility for its common life (3:9a), and portrays them as corrupt, failing in their obligations for just dealings in public (3:9b), and maltreating those labouring on public and/or private building projects with a harshness that is careless of life (3:10). The leadership in its various forms – both 'secular' (rulers) and 'spiritual' (priests, prophets) – is venal; the justice and guidance that should enable healthy communal life have become commodities, to be had only for a price – which intrinsically (though the point is implicit) subverts their true nature (3:11a). Yet apparently these leaders do not see their conduct as incompatible with strong religious claims; they acknowledge their dependence upon YHWH; they claim YHWH's presence "in our midst", which is clearly a reference to the Jerusalem temple as the focal point of YHWH's presence with Israel/Judah (as celebrated in the psalms); and they regard YHWH's presence in the temple as a guarantee of security from their enemies (as also celebrated in, for example, Psalms 46,48).

12 Therefore because of you
Zion shall be ploughed as a field;
Jerusalem shall become a heap of ruins,
and the mountain of the house a wooded height.

Micah brusquely draws out the implications of the mismatch between the leaders' practice and their religious claims, and "connect[s] fault with fate". It is precisely because of their complacent corruption that the disaster they are confident cannot happen will happen: city and temple together will be reduced to ruins overgrown by vegetation. What will happen to the people is not specified; though insofar as the site of city and temple returns to the wild, the implication is that its inhabitants will not be there to rebuild, and so will either be dead or deported into exile.
Although various questions can be put to this, not least in relation to the account of Micah's reception in Jeremiah 26:17-19, we will for the present move directly to our third temple sermon.

JEREMIAH'S TEMPLE SERMON: JEREMIAH 7:1-15
Jeremiah's well-known temple sermon is perhaps the only one of our three passages that would be generally recognized under this nomenclature. But although it is lengthier than the other two, and is provided with a clear narrative setting, there is, as will be seen, a striking commonality of content and understanding between all three.

1 The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: 2 Stand in the gate of the LORD's house, and proclaim there this word, and say, Hear the word of the LORD, all you people of Judah, you that enter these gates to worship the LORD. 3 Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Amend your ways and your doings, and I will let you dwell in this place. 4 Do not trust in these deceptive words: 'This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD.'

Jeremiah is to position himself in a place of maximal exposure to temple worshippers, and initially say three things. First (v.3a), he challenges temple worshippers to "amend their ways"; in other words, as Jeremiah puts it elsewhere, they are to "turn"/"repent" (3:12,14, 4:1, 18:7-8); change of conduct is necessary. Secondly (v.3b), he holds out a positive consequence of such turning, which is that YHWH will let the people of Judah stay in their land and not (by implication) be defeated by their enemies with consequent deportation for the survivors. Thirdly (v.4), he warns against a deceptive thought, a false presumption, that is the (implicit) assumption that YHWH's presence in the temple means security for Judah from its enemies. It is important, moreover, to see that what Jeremiah pronounces to be "deceptive" – "This is the temple of the LORD" – is on one level undoubtedly true: as a matter of fact the Jerusalem temple was the temple of YHWH. The way in which something that is good and true can become deceptive or false is central to Jeremiah's prophetic message.
The rest of Jeremiah's address expands these three points.

5 For if you truly amend your ways and your doings, if you truly act justly one with another, 6 if you do not oppress the alien, the orphan, and the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own hurt, 7 then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your ancestors for ever and ever.

First, Jeremiah gives fuller content to the initial challenge to amendment, and spells out what is involved. The basic requirement is to practise justice (mishpat, v.5b) – a key term as also in Amos (5:24) and Micah (3:9). This is specified in terms of not taking advantage of those of whom advantage might most easily be taken – the resident foreigner, the orphan, the widow – because they lacked normal social security as embodied in kin or head of the house. As so often in the OT, the assumption is that if justice is given to those who are most easily denied it, then justice will (in principle) be practised elsewhere too. Shedding of innocent blood could envisage either the oppressive maltreatment of labourers (as in Mic. 3:10), or the manipulation of legal procedure (as against Naboth, 1 Kgs 21), or possibly some other malpractice; whichever way, exploitation and violence are seen as the denial of justice. Going after other gods represents fundamental disloyalty to YHWH (a denial of the first of the Ten Commandments and of the Shema), and would also entail Judah's undoing ("to your own hurt"). In all these ways, the Judahites are challenged to change for the better.
Finally, YHWH's gift to Israel/Judah of its land in perpetuity ("for ever and ever") is implied to be no guarantee against YHWH's depriving them of that gift. The prophetic understanding is that gift implies expectation, and so failure to live up to expectation can imperil the gift and amendment is needed to retain it. Jeremiah's account of what that expectation entails now leads into his speaking further about how the people of Judah's belief in their security with YHWH, because of His presence in the temple, has in fact become false, and so idolatrous.

8 Here you are, trusting in deceptive words to no avail. 9 Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known, 10 and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say "We are safe!" – only to go on doing all these abominations? 11 Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your sight? You know, I too am watching, says the LORD.

Just as vv.5-7 expanded v.3, so now vv.8-10 expand v.4. The people's mantra, their "deceptive words" that "This is the temple of the LORD", is now resumed and clarified by the claim "We are safe", which makes more specific the belief that YHWH's presence in the temple means the deliverance of Jerusalem from its enemies. Yet Jeremiah sees self-contradiction here. In essence, Jeremiah's point is that the claim to YHWH's presence and protection is self-involving language, language that implies a human way of living commensurate with the divine presence that is invoked. But Judah is living in flagrant disregard of YHWH's priorities, and their specified transgressions reads like a summary of disobedience to the Ten Commandments. To suppose that one can use the language of YHWH's presence and protection and yet detach oneself from the intrinsic moral and spiritual dimensions of YHWH's will is to misunderstand one's language, to empty it of content and to abuse it. This is what turns claims about YHWH's temple, which on one level are factually true, into something deceptive, a falsehood.
Jeremiah next develops further the issue mentioned in v.3b, only casting it now not as hopeful possibility but as pure warning of disaster, where the possibility of hope can only be realized if the warning is heeded and acted upon:

12 Go now to my place that was in Shiloh, where I made my name dwell at first, and see what I did to it for the wickedness of my people Israel. 13 And now, because you have done all these things, says the LORD, and when I spoke to you persistently, you did not listen, and when I called you, you did not answer, 14 therefore I will do to the house that is called by my name, in which you trust, and to the place that I gave to you and to your ancestors, just what I did to Shiloh. 15 And I will cast you out of my sight, just as I cast out all your kinsfolk, all the offspring of Ephraim.

The warning is backed by appeal to a precedent – the temple of YHWH at Shiloh which by Jeremiah's time had been reduced to ruins and had been abandoned (i.e. Shiloh exemplified Micah's depiction of Jerusalem, Mic. 3:12). If the corruption of Israel led to the overthrow of Shiloh – where the strong emphasis on divine action in overthrowing is presumably to be envisaged in terms of YHWH's use of human agency – then the heedless and unresponsive corruption of Judah can similarly lead to Jerusalem's overthrow at the hands of an enemy, operating at YHWH's behest. The consequence will be the familiar fate of the vanquished, already experienced by the northern kingdom – deportation into exile. The irony is that YHWH Himself, to whose divine presence in the temple the Judahites complacently appeal as protection against disaster, will be the primary cause and agent of that disaster.

SUMMARIZING THE TEMPLE SERMONS
I hope it will be readily apparent why I have grouped these three passages together as temple sermons. Each criticizes corrupt practice in Jerusalem, which could be summarized as a failure to practise justice (mishpat); each criticizes spurious trust in YHWH, focussed in some way upon His presence in the temple; each sees the trust as spurious because it is complacent and has become detached from an obedience commensurate with the trust; each warns of a coming destruction of the temple and/or the Judahites' deportation into exile; and each sees the destruction and/or exile as the act of YHWH.
Because the implied dynamics of these prophetic messages are in principle familiar within Jewish and Christian thought, it would be easy to resort to shorthand formulations to summarize our expositions. One possible shorthand would be some form of "Ethics trumps ritual". However, I consider such a formulation unhelpful, as it oversimplifies the complex relationships between moral practice and the activities of worship. It is one thing to say that the rituals of worship without appropriate moral practice are empty, indeed offensive; it is another to denigrate ritual as such in relation to moral practice. Yet shorthand formulations in this area almost always imply some such denigration. A much better shorthand would be the first line of the well-known chorus, "Trust and obey", for such a combination indeed goes to the heart of the prophetic understanding of life with God. Nonetheless, even the best theological shorthands perhaps risk encouraging a certain kind of complacency, in that there is a danger that one may come away thinking "I knew that anyway" or "Nothing new here" without having felt afresh any existential challenge from the biblical text. So instead I propose briefly to offer a few preliminary reflections to try to exemplify what it might mean to take seriously these prophetic texts today.
First and foremost, any use of these biblical texts in relation to our concern with the idolatry of security today necessarily involves the adoption of analogical and metaphorical modes of thought, as the means whereby we may do our constructive thinking today in attentive and faithful dialogical relation with the ancient text. For the fact that the Jerusalem temple has long since disappeared does not nullify the prophetic challenge, or make it anachronistic, since there remain other prime symbols of trust in God, the human dynamics in relation to which may be strongly similar to those in relation to the temple.
Within a Christian context the two prime symbols are probably the Bible and the dominical sacraments (baptism and eucharist). In many and various ways these are understood to be vehicles of the divine presence, and as such become focal points of hope and expectation, and also of assurance that God is with His people. Yet Christians who attend diligently to reading and studying the Bible and hearing it preached, or who regularly attend eucharists and develop spiritual disciplines related to eucharistic worship (confession, fasting, etc), may become lax in their moral practices that relate to the wellbeing of others. If so, if there develops a significant mismatch between their religious practices and their way of living, they may need to hear a challenge that their religious practices have become empty, even offensive, to God.

SCRIPTURE, SECURITY AND CHRISTIAN ZIONISM
That which applies initially with relation to primary Christian symbols can pertain also with relation to larger concerns, such as church, race, country. At the risk of pointing to the speck in someone else's eye, while ignoring the log in my own, and/or raising an issue where heat can easily predominate over light, let me suggest that some of these problems are evident in major strands of premillennial dispensationalism and its outworking in Christian Zionism with its distinctive kind of political, financial and military support for certain aspects of the state of Israel.
At the risk of oversimplifying, there are at least two core characteristics of this movement. One is a focus on OT prophecy as predictive, indeed as predictive in an as yet unrealized way, awaiting realization once the timetable of the end times gets under way after the rapture. Quite apart from the way in which this ignores the intrinsically conditional and response-seeking nature of much biblical prophecy, the peculiar emphasis of this approach also effectively ignores the passages we have been looking at, which stress that without the practice of justice God's favour and protection is forfeited. Thus the more or less no-questions-asked support for Israeli militarism and for Israeli settlements in the West Bank in disregard for Palestinian concerns represents a failure to grasp that which is central to prophetic concerns. It is an approach that is incapable of hearing Jeremiah's warning that a land given in perpetuity may be forfeited through, among other things, unjust oppression of the weak and vulnerable.
A second characteristic is the indirect concern for America's own security, through the prime emphasis given to God's words to Abraham in Gen.12:3a, "I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse." The explicit logic of some Christian Zionism is that America must bless Israel (i.e. provide financial and political support) so that God may bless America (i.e. give America security and victory over its enemies). There is here a deeply chauvinist streak, perhaps most famously exemplified in Hal Lindsey's scenarios of God giving America ultimate victory over its enemies in the end times. There is less concern with America discerning and doing what is just, than with America positioning itself advantageously to receive blessing (security) now and in the end times.
This kind of Zionism involves at its heart a self-serving reading of the Bible, which fails to understand how God's promises relate to God's demands. It is ironic, indeed tragic, that Christians who seek to be distinctive by their faithfulness to Scripture should have allowed themselves to be misled in this way into idolatrous practice. As in the days of Micah, those who lead bear special responsibility.

JUSTICE, LOVE AND THE WRATH OF GOD
I would also like briefly to touch on a major theological issue posed by our prophetic texts: how are we to understand God? The OT portrayal of YHWH as one who brings conquering armies against His people, armies which destroy cities and carry the defeated into exile, is one that makes some believers nervous, especially in a contemporary context of heightened anxieties about the relationship between religious belief and violence.
This can be posed as an issue about the use of Scripture in forming belief, where there are ready polarized positions. On the one side, anything the Bible says about God must be straightforwardly accepted as a true self-revelation. On the other side, God is a literary figure within the biblical text and any relationship between that God and a true God is both unknown and unknowable. And there are, of course, significant mediating positions. But rather than approach the issue in this way, I would prefer to work with the classic Christian understanding that there is a true self-revelation of God within both testaments of Scripture, and that in prophetic texts such as the ones we are considering we hear an authentic message from God – and to ask what follows morally and theologically from this.
At the risk of grossly oversimplifying, let me suggest that a major problem for much contemporary Christian thinking is that of "de-moralizing" God. We rightly proclaim and celebrate God's "love" and "grace", yet we wrongly fail to understand the inescapably moral and demanding nature of that love and grace. In the terminology made famous by Bonhoeffer in the opening words of his The Cost of Discipleship we are prone to "cheap grace". Or, in the terms of this paper, we have forgotten and/or neglected the nexus between knowing God and doing His will which is repeatedly formulated within both testaments and given particular emphasis by the prophets.
Another way of putting this, in general theological terms, is that we have become uneasy and/or unfamiliar with the biblical concept of the "wrath of God" ()aph yhwh, orge theou). Yet it is one thing to recognize how easily this language is corrupted, and another to fail to understand its right use. In general biblical and theological terms, "wrath" is what happens when God's good and loving purposes (hesed, agape) encounter human complacency and intransigence (stiffness of neck, hardness of heart, impenitence, unbelief). Here a prime way in which the reality of God's moral character can be expressed is through warnings to try to engender a right response, rather than through affirmations of love and mercy, which can simply engender in the unresponsive the sense that they can get away with whatever they want. Or, differently expressed, heaven and hell are related dimensions of the realities of responsiveness, or its lack, to the call of God.
When such warnings are addressed not just to individuals but to a people, they will naturally tend to take those forms in which trouble and hardship would most readily come upon a people in that particular culture. For many Western countries today, especially those within NATO, warnings might not be meaningfully expressed in terms of the military overthrow that was an ever-present possibility for small countries such as ancient Israel and Judah – though no doubt things look different from within Kosovo or Georgia. To be sure, deep existential cultural fears remain, both in relation to the horrific potential of nuclear weaponry in unreliable hands, and in relation to the way in which the terrorist threats of Al Qaeda (among others) have assumed enormous imaginative significance. However, it is not at all clear how best, if at all, contemporary warnings might be formulated in relation to these – beyond recognizing that the Islamist critique of Western culture as decadent, arrogant and imperialistic contains important truth, if only one can find appropriately discriminating and non-ham-fisted ways of formulating the critique from within the culture.
In short, the challenge to discern an appropriate form of warning to the heedless and complacent in contemporary culture is a demanding corollary of a biblical and Christian vision of God.

CONCLUSION
In the above reflections I have somewhat narrowed our theme of "the idolatry of security" into a focus primarily upon two issues: the use of Scripture, and the relationship between grace/gift and demand/expectation. I trust that other papers will address other dimensions. The reason for my approach is that it is all too easy, within a context of Christian theologians in a Christian academic setting, to use familiar biblical language and concepts with insufficient reflection on their real significance. Those who have learned to inhabit the world of the Bible can readily bring biblical content to bear upon today's world – and I am all in favour of that! But a little reflection upon what we are doing ought to make us more alert in both watching our language and attending to our practice. As we ponder some of the many ways in which the human longing for security can become idolatrous and lead to corruption of self and injustice towards others, I hope that we will not ourselves be beguiled by the security of familiarity with the Bible and an academic context into idolatrously detaching ourselves and our love of the Bible from obedient attentiveness to God's priorities for His world.

AN EVANGELICAL VOTERS GUIDE-SIX WEEKS OUT

A VOTERS GUIDE FOR THINKING EVANGELICALS


A lot of heat, and very little light is about to be shed in the next six weeks when it comes to political races, and we have already seen some truly surprising things happen. Who would every believe George Bush would propose a massive bailout for Wall Street malfesance and bad financial practices? Not me. And now that we have Presidential debates starting this Friday evening, its time once more to trot out my voter guide-- with some revisions

Our current national economic crisis gives us an opportunity to reassess the whole issue of Christian aligning themselves with a particular political party, rather than evaluating candidates on an issue by issue, or candidate by candidate basis. We ought to be evaluating each candidate on their own merits, not on the basis of their current party affiliation. This of course requires more thought, instead of just pushing the straight party ticket button in the polling booth. Christians should be good citizens and be more thoughtful about who they vote for. They shouldn’t just listen to this or that Evangelical leader’s endorsements, even if it is someone like James Dobson or Pat Robertson who have considerable political clout.


In this particular post I want to suggest a series of steps Evangelicals should take in approaching next November’s elections. Some have to do with basic Christian obligation as a citizen of this country who appreciates the freedom and democracy we have, and then some of them have to do with critical thinking about issues and candidates.


DO YOUR HOMEWORK—There is really no excuse for laziness when it comes to being an informed voter, especially when we now have such a wealth of information online, and through other viable sources of news about candidates. Do not use the ‘cop out’ of ‘they’re all just the same’, or ‘no politicians are trustworthy’ or ‘I don’t have time for this’. If you have time to enjoy the freedoms you have in this country, then you certainly have time to become an informed voter. Period.

PLAN ON VOTING, EVEN IF YOU ARE FRUSTRATED—The percentage of Christians who could vote but don’t is high, much too high, and the end result of such bad behavior is that we often get exactly what we’ve voted for--- Nothing! Or at least, nothing good. Do not let the fact that at this juncture there may seem to be no obvious candidate for a truly conservative Christian to vote for, for this office or that, deter you. There is better and there is worse, and you’d better figure out which is which, or what we will get is worse. This is particularly an urgent matter since in the last eight years things have certainly gotten worse economically and it terms of our relationships both with our allies and enemies. The politics of fear is trumping the politics of faith and sound reasoning repeatedly, and this leads to disastrous results in the long run for our country-- both economically and militarily.

DO NOT BE A ONE ISSUE VOTER-- However passionate you may be about a particular issue, lets say abortion, you should never, never vote for someone simply on the basis of a single ethical issue. Never. Did, I mention not ever. Why not?

Because there are a plethora of inter-related important issues that affect our lives, and our Christian existence, and if you privilege only one such issue, you are likely to make a mistake in evaluating candidates. It is fine to allow a stance on one issue to be the tipping point such that you favor candidate A over candidate B, when otherwise it’s pretty much of a wash, but there should be no shibboleth. One illustration will have to do.

In a crucial election during the time of the cold war, and with heightened tensions with Cuba. Kennedy ran vs. Nixon. Many people did not vote for Kennedy, simply because he was a Catholic, and we had not had a Catholic President previously. There were even stupid and ill-considered inflammatory remarks made about how if Kennedy got elected, the country would be subject to the influence of the Pope in some objectionable ways. Thank goodness such benighted ideas did not determine the outcome of the election. Kennedy was the right man at the time, and he helped diffuse the Cuban missile crisis. We need to learn some lessons from the political past lest we continue to make the same mistakes over and over again.


From here on, in this post, I will be talking about matters that pertain to critical thinking on the issues.

THINK ABOUT HOW MUCH CHARACTER SHOULD WEIGH IN WHO YOU VOTE FOR---

Life is complex, and so are ethical issues. One of the things you need to decide is whether it is more important to you what kind of person you vote for, in terms of character, or what the stances are of the person you are voting for. Sometimes we have elected well-meaning good Christian folks who couldn’t govern their way out of a paper bag. Sometimes we have elected very effective politicians, who nevertheless raised some issues for us because of their stances on particular issues. In a perfect world we could wish for candidates who are both skilled as public servants and have impeccable character.

Unfortunately, this all too often not the case, especially because of the way our political process now works with PAC money and lobbyists and numerous other unhealthy factors determining who actually can be viable candidates for a major office. In the situation we are in, how much should the candidate’s agreement with me on my list of hot button issues weigh in my decision? How much should their apparent character weigh? What do you do if it’s hard to tell? These are important questions. Personally I would rather have a politician skilled in the art of compromise (which is of the essence of modern democracy and policy making) who is of generally good character, but with whom I may disagree with on this issue or another, than a devout but unexperienced and unskilled Christian person. Let me use an analogy.

Would you rather have a surgeon operating on you in a life threatening situation who is a devout Christian, but not all that skillful and experienced in getting the job done right, or would you rather have a surgeon who has an impeccable record in regard to doing his job well, a stellar record of good outcomes when he applied his skills but whom you had some ethical disagreements? I personally would want surgeon B, if there had to be a choice.


PRIORITIZE WHAT YOU IN GOOD CONSCIENCE THINK ARE THE MOST CRUCIAL ISSUES—AND EVALUATE THE CANDIDATES ON THE BASIS OF THOSE PRIORITIES.---


Obviously, this list of vital issues is a moving target which will change in some cases, as our country’s situation changes. I wouldn’t think anyone would be weighing where the current crop of candidates stand on the Spanish-American war many moons ago! I would strongly urge Evangelicals not to limit their list to just personal ethical issues, such as matters of sexual ethics, abortion, and the like. These are very important, but as thinking Evangelicals you also need to weigh where candidates stand on various aspects of foreign policy—the trade deficit, the war in Iraq, or economic relationships with China and other third world countries, the position of the candidate on Darfur, the issue of nuclear regulation (in North Korea, Iran etc.), our relationship with crucial Muslim countries where we have a stake but are not embroiled in military action currently—Turkey, Pakistan, etc. In other words, we need to be global Christians, and think globally, especially if our first commitment is, as it should be, to the worldwide body of Christ and the worldwide spread of the Gospel.


BE SMART ENOUGH TO SEE WHEN A CANDIDATE IS NOT BEING HONEST OR FORTH-RIGHT ABOUT HIS OR HER VIEWS

Obfuscation and fuzziness has of course become a political art form, and sometimes this is because the potential emperor has no clothes, or hasn’t thought through the issues themselves. The last thing we need in our current situation is politicians who make it up as they go along, or show signs of constantly shifting their views, depending on which way the political wind blows.


DON’T JUST VOTE ON GUT INSTINCT. THINK, EVALUATE, DISCUSS, PRAY BEFORE PULLING THE LEVER.

I wish I could tell you that the above outlined process of discernment was easy, but it is not. And there will be ambiguities, and you will have to make some judgment calls. You have to accept that you may well make some mistakes, and all the more is this likely to be the case when there is no clear front-runner that an Evangelical Christian of any stripe might think was someone one ought obviously to vote for.


Over the course of the coming six weeks, pay attention to the ads, watch a few of the debates, read up on the candidates web sites, watch the primaries, and be prepared. It would be a great tragedy if only a minority of Christians voted in the next election who are eligible, and the country continued its downward slide as a result. The old saying ‘you get what you pay for’ could be changed to ‘you get what you do or don’t vote for’.

Remember the old adage—all it takes for something bad to happen, or continue happening, is for good people to stand idly by and let that transpire.

IT'S A LITTLE DOGGONE SHAME

What people do to animals,is, well amazing. And dogs especially all to often seem to come in for what can only be called cruel and unusual treatment. But in these pictures there is an attempt to humanize the hound, as you will see.

I have some captions for you, so match the caption to the picture: 1) I can't believe the chihuahua drank all the root beer; 2) a dog cannot live by bread alone; 3) dog practices Kung Fu moves; 4)'Honestly I always wanted to look like a seal, and O.K. so I have my rubber ducky, but where is the Old Spice body wash?; 5) 'Who says there are no happy meals for dogs?'; 6) 'A mouse! Quick, jump up on a chair (especially if the mouse is bigger than you)'; 7) I'm writing a doggone term paper. Did you think I was looking for the mouse?'; 8) when you weigh less than 3 ounces wringing wet, you never wanna be wringing wet'; 9) 'If someone would just hold my head up, I could keep eating'; 10) 'Last I checked, Halloween is not a celebration for dogs'; 11) 'Not a peep out of you, 'cause I am nothing to sneeze at'; 12) 'O.K. now I see why they call this sucking thing a dummy in England'; 13) 'I don't care if I just broke my leg, I've just had a triple espresso at Starbucks also and I feel perky!!!'

Excerpts from the dog and cat diaries of the week:

DOG DIARY

Monday--- given a new bone-- the best treat ever!
Tuesday taken for a walk-- the best walk ever!
Wednesday-- fed left over steak bits-- the best meal ever!
Thursday-- Ride in car with windows down-- the best day ever!
Friday-- Play frisbee with master-- He's the best master ever!


CAT DIARY
Monday-- given more bland left over cat treats-- How long can this go on?
Tuesday-- allowed outside for all of five minutes! This is day 3,000 of my captivity.
Wednesday-- kicked out of my favorite chair by his highness when he came home. I thought possession was nine tenths of the law!
Thursday-- Hid under the bed while the infernal vacuum cleaner was going. God that thing is loud!
Friday-- Left blissfully alone as family heads off for a night out. Whew-- survived another week of incarceration.