The Wisdom Literature as an Apologetic: Part One

I’ve mentioned my theory on the wisdom literature a couple of times, in passing. I’ve decided researching and writing just for my lecturer is pretty boring. So I’m going to post my thinking (in the form of my essay) here for you to critique. It’s long. So I’ll do it in parts. Here’s the intro:

Where wisdom fits

The wisdom literature has been described as the “embarrassing step-child of Old Testament theology,”[1] because of both the clear influence of other Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) wisdom, and because there was no obvious synergy with “redemptive history” frameworks.[2] Some consider the wisdom corpus as natural theology due to an absence of direct redemptive action from God, rather than direct revelation.[3]

Difficult waters were muddied further by suggestions that Job and Ecclesiastes were so theologically divergent from the Old Testament, they must be considered “protest literature,”[4] produced to directly refute the so called “acts-consequences nexus” supposedly identified in Proverbs.[5] This system of retribution was a common ANE belief,[6] and it has been demonstrated that elements of Israel’s community had adopted such a position.[7] Such a reading of Job and Ecclesiastes is possible. But I suggest such retributive theology was a syncretism with foreign beliefs, that Proverbs itself sought to redress, and more broadly that biblical wisdom is partly a theological corrective of ANE wisdom, which was inherently religious.[8]

The pursuit of wisdom, and the production of wisdom literature, was an important intellectual and theological pursuit in the ANE,[9] it crossed international borders.[10] Examinations of the relationship between the biblical wisdom corpus and the wisdom of surrounding nations have arrived at varying conclusions, though all acknowledge cross-pollination of wisdom ideas. Many have rightly rejected the notion that Israel imported ideas from surrounding nations to develop their own cult,[11] but few have suggested that Israel deliberately interacted with these foreign ideas in order to push people towards a life appropriately geared to the Fear of Yahweh.

The foreign influence in the wisdom literature is apparent on the surface, Proverbs lists two foreign kings as authors, and none of the characters in Job are presented as Hebrew,[12] below the surface the wisdom corpus reveals a deep familiarity with contemporary ANE wisdom.[13]

This piece synergises the international influence, and the theological “protest” undergirding the text, by adopting an interpretive rubric that places the wisdom literature within Israel’s redemptive narrative. The wisdom corpus provides a Yahweh-centric approach to the same eternal questions as ANE wisdom, with the “fear of the Lord” offered as a theological corrective.[14]

Scholarly consensus is that wisdom literature describes Yahweh as the “guarantor of order that makes life in the world possible,”[15] most ANE wisdom concerned itself with understanding that order,[16] Egyptian wisdom placed the order in the hands of the king, who controlled Ma’at, while Israel’s king sought to place the control rightly in the hands of Yahweh.[17]

[1] Brueggemann, W, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy, (Fortress Press: Mieapolis), 1997, p 334, or “errant child” Clement, R. E, ‘Wisdom and Old Testament Theology,’ Wisdom in Ancient Israel, ed Day, J, Gordon, R.P & Williamson, H.G.M, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), 1995, p 271

[2] Brueggemann, W, Theology of the Old Testament, p 334, a summary of the “redemptive history” understanding and its synchronisation with the wisdom literature can be found in Hubbard, D.A, ‘The Wisdom Movement and Israel’s Covenant Faith,’ Tyndale Bulletin 17 (1966) pp 3-33, on wisdom’s international origins and lack of covenantal features being interpretively problematic see Clements, R.E, Wisdom in Theology, (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1992), 2002 Edition, pp 20-22

[3] Burdett, D, ‘Wisdom Literature and the Promise Doctrine,’ Trinity Journal 3 (Spring 1974) p 2

[4] Dell, K.J, The Book of Job as Sceptical Literature, (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 1991), Morrow, W.S, Protest Against God: The Eclipse of a Biblical Tradition, (Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2007), pp 129-146

[5] Essentially the idea that righteousness automatically produced material reward, and wickedness produced punishment, for a discussion regarding how appropriate it is to find such a nexus in Proverbs see Waltke, B, ‘Does Proverbs Promise Too Much?,’ Andrews University Seminary Studies, Autumn 1996, Vol. 34, No.2, pp 333-334 and Lucas, E, Proverbs: The Act-Consequence Nexus, forthcoming

[6] Beaulieu, P-A, ‘The Social and Intellectual Setting of Babylonian Wisdom Literature,’ Wisdom Literature in Mesopotamia and Israel, ed Clifford, R.J, Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series No 36, SBL: Atlanta, 2006, p 7 suggests that “every important Mesopotamian text” presupposes that individual misfortune flows from failure to meet the prescribed actions of the gods, Whybray, N, ‘Two Jewish Theologies: Job and Ecclesiastes.’ Wisdom: The Collected Works of Norman Whybray, ed. Whybray, R.N, Dell, K.J, Barker, M, () p 180 – suggests the Old Testament shares the “naïve assumption that virtue brings its own reward” with the ANE world. Fox, M.V, ‘World Order and Ma’at: a crooked parallel,’ JANES 23, 1995 pp 37-48 urges caution with applying the Egyptian concept of Ma’at to this notion or a retributive order.

[7] Some argue that Israel developed a calcified reading of Proverbs and a notion of Deuteronomic blessings and curses being applied to the individual. Many have suggested that this is the underlying philosophy of Job’s three friends as they seek to explain his suffering. Their assumption that he is suffering as the result of this retributive theology leads them to place the blame for his circumstances wrongly on his head see Zimmerli, Walther, ‘Expressions of Hope in Proverbs and The Book of Job,’ Man and His Hope in the Old Testament, Studies in Biblical Theology, SCM Press, London, 1971, pp 16-19, Shields, M.A, The End of Wisdom: A reappraisal of the historical and canonical function of Ecclesiastes, (Eisenbrauns, 2006), p 15

[8] Beaulieu, P-A, ‘The Social and Intellectual Setting of Babylonian Wisdom Literature,’ pp 6-7 a survey of Mesopotamian wisdom literature summarised the concerns of the “traditionally defined” wisdom books as “the rejection of hubris, the acceptance of human mortality, and ultimately on the submission to fate and to the order created by the gods.”

[9] Clements, R.E, Wisdom in Theology, (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1992), 2002 Edition, p 17, Ruffle, op. cit, p 36, Clifford, R.J, The Wisdom Literature, (Nashville, Abington Press), 1998, p 40 “Biblical wisdom literature is thus truly international, being found in the great empires that dominated Israel’s world as well as in the geographically closer cities of the Levant.”

[10] See, for example, Whybray, N, Wisdom In Proverbs: The Concept of Wisdom in Proverbs 1-9, (London: SCM Press, 1965), pp 15-16 on the international conversation taking place between scribes and sages across international borders.

[11] For example, Fox, M.V, ‘World Order and Ma’at,’ p 48

[12] On the link this implies with ANE wisdom see Day, J, ‘Foreign Semitic Influence on the wisdom of Israel and its appropriation in the book of Proverbs, Wisdom in Ancient Israel, ed Day, J, Gordon, R.P & Williamson, H.G.M, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), 1995, pp 55-56, Day suggests this international flavour means Israel’s “wise men” were more internationally minded than others within Israel.

[13] Wisdom that Von Rad points out is under the subject of divine judgment (Wisdom that is the subject of divine judgment (Isaiah 19:11; 44:25; Ezekiel 28:12ff; and Obadiah 1:8), Von Rad, G, Wisdom in Israel, p 319

[14] Williams, J.G, Those Who Ponder Proverbs (Sheffield: Almond, 1981), p 53, as an analogous point – scholars have long considered the Genesis account of creation as a corrective of creation narratives from surrounding cultures including the Enuma Elish a view that has reached broad acceptance with varying nuance. Enns, P, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the problem of the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), pp 26-27 notes the comparisons with the Enuma Elish and suggests the contrast in theology was a deliberate contrast with the reigning Babylonian authority.

[15] Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament, p 336

[16] This search for order has oft been conflated with the Egyptian concept of Ma’at, which has been traditionally understood as the personification of the truth or order underpinning creation – even the gods were subject to this order. Many have commented on its link with the presuppositions of Biblical wisdom – see Zimmerli, Walther, ‘Expressions of Hope in Proverbs and The Book of Job,’ Man and His Hope in the Old Testament, Studies in Biblical Theology, SCM Press, London, 1971, p 15, however Fox, M.V, ‘World Order and Ma’at: a crooked parallel,’ JANES 23, 1995 pp 37-48, at p 38 suggests the scholarly depiction of Ma’at as relating to order is wrong and that it almost exclusively means “truth and justice,” he suggests that the concept of a fundamental order of creation was foreign to both Israel and Egypt (p 41) and that Ma’at, like Yahweh, was understood as the “creator of order.” Clements, R.E, Wisdom in Theology, pp 45-46 suggest wisdom attempted to grasp the natural order of society, creation and the realm of human conduct.

[17] Fox, ‘World Order and Ma’at,’ p 41

August 23, 2010

How to choose a school for your child

I’m not a parent. I preface everything I say about parenting with that statement because I know parenting is one of those sensitive topics that people feel strongly about, and I know parenting advice is a dime a dozen anyway. And who am I to comment on how you’re raising your offspring, who is/are no doubt (a) unique and amazing snowflake(s).

But I agree almost entirely with what Simone says – in terms of how I plan to bring up any children that I should happen, if God wills is, to produce with my wife, should she agree with the very strong case I will put forward. Not only does Simone invoke my favourite Biblical mandate – the Great Commission – her son is also cool enough to be lobbying his local MP on humanitarian issues.

As I said in the comments on her post – I think her points are of particular importance for people engaged in Christian ministry (full time or otherwise) who might habitually surround themselves with other Christians. I don’t think you should sacrifice your children for your ministry (or in this case their academic future). But I think public education in Australia is not the basket case we often describe it as (having been the product of some pretty woeful public schools with some pretty excellent teachers on occasion). It’s a bit like our hospitals. We bemoan things in our country that other countries would give an arm and a leg for… learning about imaginary numbers is a luxury (and one I probably could have done without, in hindsight).

August 23, 2010

Minority Report: Everything Election in one post

I love elections. I love voting. I love watching the coverage. I love the post campaign dissection. Even when I hate the candidates equally, all those loves still apply.

On the outcome
A hung parliament presents a fascinating political landscape. It could either see us back voting again in three months or produce an incredible picture of the democratic process. I reckon the only thing that will get in the way of the latter is egos.

I have tremendous respect, as a former North Queenslander, for Bob Katter. The Kennedy electorate is geographically huge (the biggest in the state, and representing a third of Queensland I think), and the electorate loves Katter. Some people try to claim the maverick moniker, and there is nothing more culturally awkward than someone trying to give themselves a nickname – but Katter has truly earned his maverick stripes. He’s more maverick than Tom Cruise.


Image Credit: Me, here’s Katter speaking at the AGM for my old employer.

I think the other independents are men of equal integrity and I look forward to them coming in from the sidelines of parliament.

I know that Katter has been waiting for this for a long time. He spoke quite publicly about the possibility of holding the balance of power after the 2007 election.

I can’t see the three MPs siding with Labor – I think their constituents would probably not be too enamored with that idea.

The Greens have been called “the only clear winners on the night” and they are a force to be reckoned with – but I don’t think they’re going to hold the power they think they will in the senate because I think they are likely to find the ALP and Libs agreeing on more things than they think. I think Bob Brown calls every election result a “greenslide” and claims the emergence of the Greens as a new third party on the political landscape at every turn. They’re not new anymore, and they are going to consistently poll at around 20% forever, or at least as long as they try to merge being compassionate and environmentally progressive with being radically anti-conservative. They’ll always split the ALP vote rather than winning votes from the other side.

I actually think that the two major parties are much closer in policy and in philosophy to one another than they are to any of the loose cannons jostling for influence. Wouldn’t it be great if Abbott and Gillard sat down together and said, you know what, why don’t we put together a cabinet dream team featuring the best and brightest from both our parties – and treat each issue in parliament on its merit. Someone, I think it was Andrew Bolt, suggested that Kevin Rudd should be the speaker – because it would simultaneously stroke his ego, get him out of the hair of the party who blame him for their loss, and fulfill Gillard’s promise of a senior position for him in the new parliament. Not a bad idea.

Some other little tidbits – I was disappointed to see Ironbar Tuckey lose his spot as the “mad-uncle” of the Libs, abd as one of the true characters of Australian politics, although the new National Party guy in the seat has real potential. I thought the tale of two Wyatts was pretty fascinating too – with the youngest representative probably ever in Wyatt Roy showing that he was a born politician with his ability to stay on message under pressure and his overuse of cliches, and the first indigenous representative Ken Wyatt looking the goods in Hasluck (could headline writers have picked a better name for the electorate which may decide the fate of politics in our country?).

On the coverage

I channel surfed for most of the coverage the other night. I even, very briefly, watched SBS. I thought the integration of Twitter into the coverage was largely pointless, but served to provide some light relief. Twitter does have huge potential as a means for taking the pulse of the electorate – but it needs to be more than just a small group of people using the same hashtag for it to be truly worthwhile. I don’t know many people outside of the media who are over the age of forty and using twitter.

Channel 10 – though mostly light on substance, the 7pm project team provided relief from Lisa Wilkinson’s eyebrows and Kochie’s annoyingly high pitched voice on the other two commercial networks. Their vignettes on the campaign filled the hour before counting began nicely, though curiously when the going got serious the network switched to AFL.

Channel 9 – had the most dynamic, and thus the most interesting, panel of the night. Karl and Lisa did their jobs as comperes admirably for the most part – in the scripted bits anyway, and while it appeared they completely lost control of the guests, they stepped in just at the right time – controversy is good for ratings, but snide bickering is not. Barnaby Joyce should be given his own show – the quote of the night came when he tried to ask Tony Windsor and the New England MP described him as a “fool” who wasn’t worth listening to. As the night wore on it appeared that Nine were experiencing technical difficulties – but only with his microphone. Funny that. Peter Costello was amazing. Every time the camera cut to him while a Labor figure was talking he had that Cheshire Cat grin going on. He was everything a panelist should be, and much less prone to going for the jugular than the other two right-wing reps. Michael Kroger tried to virtually maul Wayne Swan during a live cross – with the treasurer taking umbrage at the criticism, Barnaby joined in making the interview one of the most awkward and most compelling pieces of television.

Nicola Roxon was a credit to her party – and gracious in what was essentially a defeat. Mark Arbib showed why he wields such power as one of the Labor party’s “faceless men” – he was involved in the takedown of K-Rudd. Michael Kroger is essentially his equivalent in the Liberal party – and his constant cat-calling for union supremo turned politician Bill Shorten to take the party reigns seemed a little too close to home for Arbib.

The only black mark on an otherwise pretty sterling performance was the presence of Julia Gillard’s biographer, journalist Christine Wallace. Her myopic view of the election results and constant defense of Labor’s results (the lowest primary vote for a major party since World War 2, possibly an historic ousting of a first term government, the apparent loss of 16 seats, etc) was almost as annoying as the group of women at J-Gill’s party cackling in chorus “Abbott’s got no mandate” as if that made the results more palatable. Both major parties were essentially repudiated by the people – but the LNP at least has a silver lining. Wallace was snide and annoying.

Michael Usher’s virtual parliament was just as annoying. An over the top use of technology that served no purpose except to associate the coverage with the aesthetic of a mid-1990s first person shooter, or that dizzying Windows 95 screensaver that featured cartoonish brick walls. Their “dead ducks” section was amusing once. But only once. And they trotted it out over and over again with the same people and no new results.

The ABC

Red Kerry’s ALP/ABC gaffe was one of the only parts of the night that made me laugh out loud. His excuse, that the “letters are too similar” was pretty funny too.

His defense of Maxine McKew after her extraordinary outburst in an extraordinary interview was heartwarming – because nobody deserves to be compared to Cheryl Kernot.

Antony Green, Nick Minchin and Stephen Smith are the A-list of election night panelists. It’s no wonder they rated the house down.

Seven
Kochie is annoying. Peter Beattie is annoying. I can’t even remember what other panelists they had. Their coverage was annoying. Oh yeah. Alexander Downer. Don’t get me started on him.

August 23, 2010

Super Mario World: All just a dream?


Image credit: Walyou

Facts.

1. Every other character in the game is focused on getting Mario. They become more hostile and determined the longer he is in the dream and the more he does to effect the environment.
2. The “levels” use similar architectural traits and contain constructions that seem to extend the time he spends getting from a to be.
3. Mario levels are like a maze. It’s as though they’ve been designed to keep him around for longer.
4. The music changes in pace (gets slower) the deeper Mario goes.
5. How an Italian plumber finds himself in a mushroom infested world is never really explained. How that world changes from level to level is also not explained.
6. When Mario dies he doesn’t die in real life. In fact, his dream continues. If he runs out of lives he continues from a previous level.
7. He often experiences a falling sensation.

August 20, 2010

Lame ninja toys?

Are all ninja toys good ninja toys? Ninja Stretch Armstrong says “no”…

Ninja (or possibly more correctly “Karate”) Gumby is pretty cool…

And this Chuck Norris ninja is guaranteed awesomeness.

More ninja toys here.

August 20, 2010

Baconfographic

Bacon is going to save the day. Again. Muscles had it wrong. Ice-cream has nothing on cured pig.

In full size here at Geekologie.

August 20, 2010

Gay marriage, ethics and economics

The issue of gay marriage is probably going to raise its head again in the next term of government. It’s been on the periphery of this campaign, though the Greens and Family First are doing their best to bring it front and center. One of my friends emailed me yesterday saying:

“The fact we live in a country that doesn’t allow gays to marry I find completely baffling.”

He suggested any opposition is due to either homophobia or a belief in arbitrary rules.

I responded. I actually don’t have a problem with the government allowing gay marriage (what are they doing defining marriage anyway?). My concern is that churches be able to legally conduct marriages for Christians without having to also conduct gay marriages in order to keep their marriage licenses. I think there is actually a pretty sound economic argument for the government positively discriminating for stable heterosexual relationships. It turned into a bit of an email discussion – here are my points.

Why shouldn’t governments protect, incentivise, and legislate benefits for relationships that can produce children. Stable families with parental input from both genders are the “ideal” condition for raising children. Why shouldn’t positive legislation exist to promote that ideal? Economically speaking. After all, as Houston, W, says: the children are our future.

If the government moved away from defining marriage at all – and let anybody call themselves married – but maintained the benefits they provide for families and couples with children – then I wonder if that would defuse the situation? If they framed it not as “banning gay marriage” but as the provision of tax incentives for reproduction for heterosexual families.

It’s discriminatory and a restriction of the kind of freedom Christians should be advocating for to deny gay couples “partnership” rights when it comes to health and estate benefits.

I think the whole debate is framed really unhelpfully because the government has taken on more than its fair share of responsibility.

What the government should be doing is not discriminating against gay relationships, but discriminating for stable heterosexual families.

It’s comparable to indigenous benefits – I was not born indigenous, I had no say in being born non-indigenous. But I, mostly, have no problems with the government trying to incentivise better health and future outcomes for indigenous people by recognising a problem and providing financial incentives for education (Abstudy).

positive discrimination for a subset of the community is not necessarily the same as discrimination against another subset of the community. And governments do it all the time (abstudy and the other examples I mentioned before). Any policy adopted by governments comes at a cost to other proposals.

For example, the “Building Education Revolution” could be said to have discriminated against any public service that wasn’t an educational institute. A hospital couldn’t have a school hall funded under the program – because a hospital isn’t a school. It serves an important purpose and deserves government funding, but the funding will meet different needs because of the different nature of the buildings.

Equally, the program has been shown to be a lemon, because some schools (or education departments) have abused it. This abuse doesn’t mean that the program was bad for the schools that weren’t abusing it, nor does it make it a bad program (in the same way that some bad parents collect government funding). It was a policy designed to maximise the positive of schools having halls.

I also have no problem with the government positively discriminating for mothers (who receive family payments), retirees, the sick and disabled… one could argue that they should also incentivise being gay because gay couples are likely to both work, and generally1 take less time off to look after their children, and thus pay more taxes.

1I understand that some gay couples have children. I don’t think this is child abuse, but I also think different genders have different input into the lives of their children.

August 20, 2010

Do not disturb: Essay in Progress

I probably won’t post much here in the next 24 hours. I’m trying to cut 2,000 words out of my essay on the wisdom literature. I got a bit carried away.

Here’s a paragraph that didn’t make the grade.

“The assumption that the permeation of foreign theology into Israel was a one-way osmosis is untenable in the light of the Biblical account. This idea, that foreign wisdom, and religious practices, seeped readily across Israel’s borders, but did not go both ways is not consistent either with the biblical account, especially the account of Solomon’s reign – our suggested key to unlocking the purpose of the wisdom literature.”

And by “our” I mean “my”…

And another off-cut:

“It seems that Israel was a participant in an international wisdom conversation, engaging in rich theological discourse both at home and abroad. This conversation was analogous to the conversation occurring in the pages of today’s peer-reviewed journals, serving to keep the nation of Israel focused on Yahweh despite the distractions of foreign gods, and offering a wisdom grounded firmly in the fear of the Lord to surrounding nations.”

August 18, 2010

Why you should not vote Labor (according to the Liberals)

So, three days to go. Or something. The Libs launched their latest attack ad today. A timely reminder that J-Gill knifed K-Rudd.

I think it’s bizarre. They list all these facts about Julia. She ousted the PM with the help of the NSW Right. She’s borrowing lots of money. She has been involved in some dumb policies. And KEVIN RUDD DOESN’T TRUST HER.

That’s their clincher. Who’d have thought?

Is being trusted by Kevin Rudd key to being elected?

August 18, 2010

On gender in fiction

Two cool things, slightly related.

The first is the Bechdel Test – which is a test devised by a comic strip for lesbian feminists. But is an interesting way to approach the film industry’s treatment of women.

To pass the test a movie must have:

(1) it has to have at least two women in it,
(2) who talk to each other,
(3) about something besides a man.

This site ranks cinematic releases according to the test (a surprising number fail).

Here’s the comic:

The second little tidbit is about characters in fiction for kids and young adults. There’s a magic formula of two boys to one girl that sucks in readers from both genders – get the balance wrong and you lose half the audience.

Ben Jeapes, under a nom-de-plume, wrote some books about vampires before that was cool (they’ve since been retitled and rereleased). In this post about that rebranding (which is a little cynical, which is funny). He makes the following observation.

“The three heroes stick to the magic Harry-Ron-Hermione formula for pre-teen adventures of 2 boys to 1 girl [though there is a guest extra girl in the second book]. This is because boys only want to read about boys whereas girls will read about either gender: so, you get a boy for the boys, a girl for the girls, and another boy to make up for the girl. Sad but true.”

August 16, 2010

I voted today

I dutifully sent off my postal vote today. It was an underwhelming experience. My favourite bit was preferencing people last as punishment for the most lackluster campaign of all time.

The LNP ran an abhorrent campaign with a bizarre focus on asylum seekers.

The ALP are a power-hungry group controlled by faceless apparatchiks who will do and say anything to stay in government. Plus the clean feed is possibly the worst policy ever invented and trades on fear and paranoia in order to sell a solution to a distressing problem that is tantamount to selling snake oil. It won’t work. It’s an awful slippery slope and has been sold using brute tactics to silence opposition.

The Greens are untenable. Their policies are half incredible, half terrifying.

Family First. Well. I won’t go there.

I was almost tempted to cop a fine, Mark Latham’s “blank paper” idea was stupid and how that clown keeps getting air time is completely beyond me. The decision to engage him as a political commentator speaks volumes about the farce politics in our country has become.

That is all.

August 16, 2010

Is your faith rational?

You can take the test here (h/t Craig).

I have a couple of problems with the absolute language used in framing the questions – and the presupposition that God must be testable in a materialistic framework.

Here’s where I “bit the bullet”…

“In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.”

Here were my results:

Congratulations!

You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity being hit only once and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.

The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hit and bitten bullets.

Because you only suffered one direct hit and bit very few bullets, you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!”

The other point I “failed” on was that I suggested the burden of proof for the Loch Ness Monster (a creature who should be physical, measurable and observable) was different to the burden of proof for God. Plus the question was framed equating the word “atheism” with rational thought, and not stating whether it was strong atheism (the positive statement of belief that there are no gods) or weak atheism (a lack of belief in gods). The justification of this approach is included in their FAQ.

“The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.”

August 16, 2010

A case for putting the “gimmicks” back into church marketing

This may just be the former PR professional in me. But, I’m a big fan of ministry gimmicks. I love a good “love” gimmick (with a caveat that it actually has to be matched by the real thing).

When I was involved in AFES at uni we used to take the “shock and awe” approach to promoting our mission weeks. The process basically went:

1. Put up a controversial poster.
2. Put up a second controversial poster.
3. Hope somebody out there might be offended enough to put up a response poster.
4. Put up a poster promoting our talks/explaining our angle.

I think that was uni ministry marketing strategy 101, though I did hear about one group who dressed up as death (complete with scythe) and walked around the uni campus reminding people of their mortality.

That kind of gimmick, and the previously described “marketing strategy” doesn’t really do a lot for me. It doesn’t teach the people taking part anything except how to annoy people or put up posters. It is low cost, especially if you’re masked. I don’t think it really works.

One of our most effective gimmicks at uni was holding a shoe shining booth – we cleaned and polished people’s shoes while telling them about whatever event we had coming up – and explaining that we wanted to serve our uni community.

I’ve been thinking a bit lately about how churches can make positive contact with people they don’t know in their communities – and I reckon gimmicks are ideal for that. Like I said at the start – this only works if your church can actually back up the gimmick with substance, if you really do love your community and are prepared to put yourself out for them…

I think our “application” when it comes to the question of how we can serve others in Sunday School and in adult bible studies always ends up being a little inwards focused, or a bit “build it and they will come” – cooking a freezer full of meals that end up being distributed to your church family is a great way to serve one another, and kids promising to pick up their rubbish at home is also good (and a subset of “honouring your parents”). But I’m really keen for people to start thinking small about how they can meet non-Christians in a positive way, while obviously as Christians.

So here are three gimmicky ideas I’ve had (feel free to chuck some more in the comments).

1. Street Working Bee/Street Party – I like the idea of starting a community focus right outside the door of your building. Church buildings are brand assets because of their constant physical presence. If you can have all the people on your street thinking positive thoughts when they walk past, or look at, your building – then you’re on the way to getting them through the doors. But I digress. Here’s my idea – most churches have monthly working bees that attract a group of people willing to put in some hard yards to make the church facilities sparkle. Most houses in the street, and indeed most houses, would love to have a similar level of care and attention – so why not get our working bees serving others? Do the whole street. Send out fliers a month in advance advertising the availability of a few teams of workers and ask people to book in jobs. Hold a BBQ at the church at the end of the day.

2. Get matching shirts and hang out at the local supermarket offering to help people – If your church is near a shopping centre, or there’s a “local supermarket” that most of your congregation shop at, then that’s a great place to find other people who could be part of your congregation (geographically speaking). Shopping centres are our cultural Mecca. I was thinking getting a team of people obviously marked out as members of a church to hang out at the shops and offer to carry people’s bags to the car, that sort of thing, might be a really nice way to get some positive interactions happening. It’s a good chance to talk to people (and you can subtly check out what people are spending their time and money on as a way of exegeting your suburb).

3. Get your Sunday School to make something for the kids in the neighbourhood – we were talking, at Clayfield, about our new series of Church4Kids Material, which includes a lesson on service. I don’t think my suggestion made the cut – but I reckon a great way to model service for kids, and a great way to “love” our neighbours, would be for the kids to help make up a massive batch of playdough, portion it up into containers, and have the leaders deliver it to houses in the streets around the church who have kids – complete with a little card explaining why the kids at church thought the kids not at church might like some playdough, and how it’s all about serving Jesus.

What are your thoughts on employing such obvious gimmicks as a means for sharing the gospel?

August 16, 2010

World War Three: Coming this Fall…

Simone has been enjoying trawling through the YouTube Archives of the Third Eagle of the Apocalypse (also known as the guy who wrote the “End Times Anthem”).

Here are his tips on how to prepare for World War Three. And if you don’t believe him it’s probably the devil.

I love how every prophecy of Daniel and Revelation actually apply to America.

August 15, 2010

Be Cool

Apparently there’s been a bit of chatter on the interwebs (see Al, and Mikey) about how appropriate it is for Christians to be “cool”… I’m breaking a cardinal rule of cool here by talking about what cool is, and isn’t. But this sort of quote is just a little bit stupid.

“Likely, right now someone in your church is reading Blue Like Jazz or some similar book. It will resonate with them in style and content—it is cool and Christian. And it is extremely unhelpful. The only antidote seems to be twofold. The first is to reintroduce young Christians to the biblical Jesus: the person who died an agonizing death for their sins, who will tread the winepress of the wrath of God, and who listens to their prayers. The second is to begin the battle against the cool. The godly must begin to prove in the pulpit, in writing, and in their lives that Christianity is the deadly enemy of the cool.”

Now, I don’t know what planet this guy is from. I could understand if he was directing these remarks at the kind of people who think it necessary to install dirt bike jumps in church auditoriums to weakly make a point in a sermon. But that isn’t the definition of “cool” he went with.

” And the cool is the Western postmodern entertainment driven culture that has tutored our children and ourselves for the last fifty years.”

He must be really old and lame. But that’s not what “cool” is. That’s an old man’s definition of cool. That’s the definition someone comes up with looking into an idea or concept that they are not part of. Nothing says uncool like trying to define cool. Unless you want to compare it to being forty+ and having a Twilight tattoo.

Maybe my reaction against this is because I have been brainwashed by my postmodern entertainment driven culture. Cultural texts like:

Cool is almost completely subjective. It moves and changes with whatever group of people you move and change with, including within Christian subculture. It’s an ambiguous word (check out how much trouble the dictionary has defining it), and I think it could readily be applied to the life and ministry of Jesus. Even King Missile thought he was way cool… Here are some of the lyrics from a song called Jesus Was Way Cool:

“He would tell these stories and people would listen.
He was really cool.
If you were blind or lame,
You just went up to Jesus
And he would put his hands on you and you would be healed.
That’s so cool.

He could have played guitar better than Hendrix.
He could have told the future.
He could have baked the most delicious cake in the world.
He could have scored more goals than Wayne Gretsky.
He could have danced better than Barishnikof.
Jesus could have been funnier than any comedian you can think of.

Jesus told people to eat his body and drink his blood.
That’s so cool.
Jesus was so cool.
But then some people got jealous of how cool he was,
So they killed him.
But then he rose from the dead!
He rose from the dead,
Danced around and went up to heaven.
I mean, that’s so cool.
Jesus was so cool.
No wonder there are so many Christians.”

But lets face it – definitions of cool are pretty arbitrary unless they come from The Rock.

Jesus was pretty good at that. Our job as Christians though is to be like him (which hopefully becomes more and more a case of “being ourselves”). I just don’t see how “cool” and “Christian” don’t mesh up – unless you understand “cool” as “conforms to social norms” rather than as “refuses to be influenced by social norms” (which I guess applies to those people who think Justin Bieber or any character from Twilight defines “cool”). The only thing this post proves is that trying to define cool in order to criticise it is just not cool.

August 15, 2010