The Christian's Ode to Joy

This is arguably the best talk I've heard on the issue of not feeling what I know to be gospel truths. 

Don't listen to ourselves; talk to ourselves, for truth lies outside of us - in God's Word. 

"What is Literature?" - A Peek

     Let’s start with this quote from Tony Bennett: ‘the uniqueness of ‘literature’ consists in its tendency to ‘defamiliarise’ experience.’

     Thus, the simple answer to the proposed question is this: literature is any work which causes us to think and feel anew – that is, experience something as though for the first time. Well, admittedly, this doesn’t sound smart, nor does it sound complicated – but I think it is really important. Let’s explore why.

     Almost 100 years ago, a smart guy from Russia called Viktor Shklovsky identified a problem in his society. He quotes Leo Tolstoy who says ‘if the whole life of many people is lived unconsciously, it is as if this life had never been.’ Shklovsky chillingly elaborates, saying that ‘this is how life becomes nothing and disappears. Automatization eats things, clothes, furniture, your wife and the fear of war.’

     Two words are worth exploring: ‘unconsciously’ and ‘automatization.’ What Shklovsky has in mind is that once an experience is repeated - and in our age, so many things are on repeat – it becomes a habit, and routine actions become automatic. For example, I was lost during the first few days of my arrival in Durham and everything looked fresh and new. Now, after having lived here for almost a year and a half, I’ve lost the initial feelings I had when I first experienced the city. Now, I ‘recognise’ things instead of ‘see’ things. In other words, we are being routinely desensitised to life; ours is a numbed existence where we embark on a wild goose hunt for success and dreams, only to find waiting at the end of the rainbow – the sniggering face of Death.

     Literature then, is that which ‘restores the sensation of life, in order to make us feel things, in order to make a stone stony.’ This re-sensitising us to ‘the sensation of life’ is achieved primarily through ‘defamiliarisation.’ This simply means that we describe things differently. I’d like to take a look at this short story a friend (Clarissa, who blogs here) wrote, called ‘AlternateFrequencies:’

"There are many differences between him and her: skin colour, bank balance, number of years they have carried on their shoulders. They travel in alternate frequencies, destined not to meet.

Everyday at 3.15pm, however, he would wait outside her school door, the hot sun pressing down upon him. The beads of sweat slide agonizingly on his forehead like the condensation of his sugar cane drink.

There she is. Her designer schoolbag on her back, her latest iPhone, the heavy textbooks she carries with one hand – all reminders of the dissonance between him and her. Her eyes cut across the after-school din to meet his.

She approaches him, and gets inside the backseat of the car (not his). He revs up his engine and drives.

And finally silence settles.

All the other drivers told him he was lucky, he was paid so well. All her classmates told her it was good she was driven around. But no one saw the tragedy of the silence. 

They travel in alternate frequencies. They cannot, do not, make conversation."

     In her recounting the scene of a driver escorting his employer’s daughter home from school, Clarissa draws attentions to the disparity between the two characters – whose lives, though vastly different, intersect in a seemingly mundane moment. This ability to capture the imagination, I believe, lies in the disinterested narrator’s careful attention to details. For, although we see a lot of things: the waiting driver, the schoolbag, the iPhone and etc.; and we hear equally much: the after-school din, the revving engine, the voices of other drivers and classmates – there is finally and ultimately, an alienating silence.

     I believe many of us have witnessed scenes similar to this, but have never felt moved like we would have when reading the short story. There is nothing inherently significant about the story. Its effectiveness in communicating emotions is achieved simply by defamiliarising our habitualised perception. Thus, returning to our quotation at the start: ‘the uniqueness of ‘literature’ consists in its tendency to ‘defamiliarise’ experience,’ we begin to see how unpretentious, yet powerful this tool of defamiliarisation can be.

     This, is what I would consider the ‘literariness’ of a text: its ability to make one see and experience life.

PS: I hope I have not misread Clarissa’s short story. XD

Book Review: Iron Sharpens Iron - Orlando Saer

     This is a great resource on how to lead a small group Bible study. The chapters are:

          1) Why Small Group Bible Study?
          2) Preparing for Leadership
          3) Managing the Group
          4) Mapping Out the Study
          5) Leading the Meeting
          6) Prayer, Care and Personal Nurture

     The book length is manageable, and each chapter has robust content despite being quite a short 
book.

     Saer's thought moves from the importance of small group Bible study to consider the nitty-gritties of actually planning, managing and leading the group. He provides practical tips with clear Biblical foundations.

     The book is written from experience and that comes across in the issues - dangers, challenges, realities - of small group study and is thus very helpful for anyone in such a leadership position. The book is also accessible to Christians who are not leaders - it offers a glimpse of what gospel-centred ministry looks like and I believe would help readers be better small group members.

     However, the book is not a comprehensive guide to leading a Bible study and Saer offers a list of further readings at the end of the book. Nevertheless, this book is a very helpful introduction to this topic and if someone asked me for a book on how to lead a small group, I would definitely recommend this - perhaps because this is the only book I've read on the topic. Regardless, I've found it immensely beneficial, especially in how he ably crystallises the foundations of and tips for leading a good small group Bible study. 

For us men

     Below is an excerpt from Designed for Joy: How the Gospel Impacts Men and Women, Identity and Practice. I was very struck by this passage and thought it was worth sharing. 

     "My (Grant’s) dad, Charles Kelly Castleberry Jr., was a Marine Corps fighter pilot and a Christian. One night my dad’s squadron took a “mandatory” trip to a beach house somewhere along the Atlantic Coast. No wives or children were allowed to come. This was a special night in which many of the young pilots would receive their “call signs.” Shortly after my father arrived at the beach house, he realised why family members were not invited. Someone had invited strippers as entertainment for the evening. Later that night, when he confided this event to my mom, she asked him how he responded. He said that he had stayed in the corner of the beach house with his hand over his eyes.

     A few months later, my father was killed in a midair collision over the Atlantic Ocean. After my father’s crash, a pilot in the squadron gave my mom a picture that someone had taken inside the beach house that night. He told my mom that deep down “everyone respected Kelly for it, but no one had the guts to follow him.” Sure enough, in the photo was my father in the corner, hand covering his eyes. When I was a young boy, my mom showed me that picture and explained the integrity and courage my dad had displayed in that moment – integrity and courage that had characterised his life in Christ. Mom framed the picture and put it in my room as a constant reminder of his legacy.

     When the squadron cleaned out my dad’s locker after the accident, they found taped up inside his locker Paul’s last will and testament to a young pastor-in-training:

For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing. (2 Tim. 4:6-8)

     My dad covered his eyes at the beach house because they were fixed on his Saviour. This focus isn’t easy. As Paul said, it’s a fight of faith. It’s a fight for purity. But it’s worth it. Christ is the purity we can count on. Keeping our eyes on him is worth it because he is the only one who can truly satisfy our souls. “For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come” (Heb. 13:14)." (pp. 116-117)

     The fight for purity takes guts, it takes courage – I don’t want to be a coward. In the gospel of Christ, I don’t have to be a coward. 

Poem: Sin

Shut up God,

I’m in charge,

No place for you.

Such is the depth of my depravity,

That every atom lodging in this frame

Rebels with unashamed impunity

Against the One who formed and so did name

Me as His own – imagine that insanity!

Who would pay thought to save this helpless slave,

Who revels in his self-condemning state?

Him, whose voice shone light into the dark, gave  

Him to see the tree on which the debt was paid,

Where Christ – the promised king submitted to the grave.

Thus,

Saved by God,

I’ve no charge,

None could but you. 

Some thoughts on the extent of the Atonement

I have just started reading Perspectives on the Extent of the Atonement. I am only in the foreword and already there are lots of things to digest. I would like to write about it as I read as a way to articulate my thoughts. So here I offer some preliminary thoughts. The three views discussed are: 1) Definite Atonement (limited atonement or particular redemption), 2) General Atonement (universal or unlimited atonement), 3) Multiple-Intention View of the Atonement (Amyraldism or hypothetical universalism). 

Definitions:
1) Definite Atonement: Christ's atonement is particular in intention and efficacious in character. Thus, we say 'Christ died for his people.' This view is generally held by Calvinists and is currently the view I hold to. There are four major concerns: 
     a) Penal Substitution - individual sinners need to be punished.
     b) Divine Justice - God cannot punish sin twice, ie. if Christ died for all, no one should enter hell.
     c) Language of Efficacy - categories of the atonement: propitiation, expiation, redemption, reconciliation are regarded as efficacious (actually achieved) rather than provisional (having the potential). 
     d) The Unity of God's Purpose - Trinitarian purpose of salvation. The Father elects a people, Christ dies for them, the Holy Spirit regenerates them (and enables them to persevere as well). 

2) General Atonement: Christ's atonement is universal in intention and provisional in character. Christ intended to provide atonement for all, but did not intend to apply atonement to all people without exception: application is instead the purview of faith. Major concerns:
     a) Exegetical Concerns - this emerges from a plain reading of Scripture. 
     b) Theological Concerns - God's love is infinite; Christ's death doe not itself save, it makes salvation possible for those who actualise it by faith; humans are free to choose. 
     c) Evangelistic Concerns - one can really say 'Christ died for all.'

3) Multiple-Intention View of the Atonement: Christ's atonement has both universal and particular purposes and has elements that are alternately provisional and efficacious in character. This is clearly a middle ground. This view maintains that Christ intended (1) to pay the penalty for the sins of all human without exception, thus making possible both the salvation of all and the free offer of the gospel to all, but (2) to secure the salvation of the elect alone. Thus, a 'universal atonement' and a 'limited redemption,' and 'sufficient for all but efficient for the elect.' A distinction here from Definite Atonement is that DA would argue that it is 'sufficient and efficient for the elect.' Concerns are mainly trying to affirm the nice bits of both extremes. 

A few thoughts:
On the surface, DA seems pretty harsh: God's choice seems arbitrary; human agency seems to be disregarded; can easily lead to a fatalistic determinism; evangelistic language issues (one can't really say 'God died for you' since we don't know that). 

GA sounds pretty acceptable, but seems to diminish God's work by emphasising a human response (faith) as a necessity to receive salvation. Thus, the cross doesn't save, it might save, with the individual as the ultimate determining factor.

This is the first time I've encountered the MI view. I'm not sure how we reconcile 'sufficient for all but efficient for the elect.' If it were sufficient for all, should not all have an equal chance of being saved? Anyway, I'll have to read more about this. But this book is already proving to be really exciting. 

They said, "I can't believe you actually came."

     In the past week, I went to two church friends’ ‘Physics Poster Presentations.’ I don’t know if the events are really called that. I study English and my knowledge of physics is like a toddler’s understanding of walking; and yet I found myself (with some other church members) hearing a fascinating explanation of Feynman’s path integral theory. I came away feeling a wee bit smarter, but what struck me most was that my Physics friends said, ‘I can’t believe you actually came.’ Well, technically, only one of them said this. But I figure it’s safe for me to make the assumption that my other friend was thinking along the same lines.

     Right, so what was an English student doing at a physics event? I can honestly say that it is more than just pure interest. That is certainly a contributing factor, but I know that the deciding factor that made me go was because they were my brother and sister in Christ.

     Should it be surprising for a Christian to go out of his/her way to support a fellow Christian in the things they are involved in, big or small? I suppose not. In fact, I think it should be surprising if we don’t do that. Christianity claims to completely transform relationships and communities. One of its main characteristics is a self-sacrificial other-person-centeredness. In my church Bible study, we’re going through 1 Corinthians and one of Paul’s major concerns from chapters 8-14 is that we act for the good of the other person. This applies to using knowledge (chap. 8), employing our Christian rights (chap. 9-10), eating the Lord’s Supper (chap. 11), and corporate worship (chap. 12-14).

     Our age is one which idolises the individual and the Bible speaks against this subtle form of self-worship. Paul doesn’t teach that we don’t take care of ourselves; he says the other (whether Christian or non-Christian) is more important than us. And the motivation for such self-sacrificial living is the gospel – where Jesus gave up his life for undeserving rebels.

     We are not asked to give up our lives to save another person from sin – thankfully –but we are called to be proactive in seeking the good of others. Matt Perman in “What’s Best Next” suggests that a core purpose for the Christian is ‘to do all the good I possibly can, for as many people as I possibly can, as often as I possibly can, in all spheres of life, regardless of whatever difficulties I meet with, and to do this to the glory of God through Jesus Christ’ (p. 163). In this instance of going to a Christian friend’s ‘Physics poster presentation,’ it doesn’t seem terribly significant, but I think our willingness to give up time – precious time – which I could have used to study or ‘do my own thing’ for ‘small’ things trains us to make sacrificially serving others a habit.

     Is this really important though? My going or not doesn’t seem to have any tangible effects on the other person. But I’m sure they would be encouraged; I’m sure they would appreciate it. Who doesn’t like talking about something they worked hard for to a willing audience? I think this is a good work, because we are showing a genuine interest in the other person’s life. We’re saying, ‘I’m not an expert on this subject, neither am I passionate about it. But because you are my brother or sister in Christ, I will choose to be interested in what you are interested about. We might not gain any benefit from showing interest – but when has Christian relationships ever been about benefiting the self first?

     Seeing my friends smile and be surprised when they see you is great. It reminds me of grace – in this case doing something nice for someone not expecting it – and points me to God’s greater grace, where “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8).

     There will always be times when I'll place myself before others, but I want to be intentional in relating to others. So when I make decisions about spending time for people, this (I hope) will inform my choice: I will give; I will serve; I will come if that shows the other person that one more Christian cares, because God first gave; Christ first served; Christ first came, and I’m a grace case.