The meeting went much better than I expected. Eight people attended. We tried a new format: Instead of reading a 20 minute paper and then having a discussion, I described a problem for 3-5 minutes, gave a discussion question, and opened the floor for discussion. Then another question, and so forth. Notes are below. They do not represent the discussion very well, because it went in lots of directions, but we stayed mostly on topic, with appropriate forays into adjacent territory.
I highly recommend the article by Wright, by the way, as a starting point for discussion and thought. The questions and the title of Wright's paper, by the way, could appear to some readers as saying that the Bible can't have authority. He does quite the opposite. He does call into question some of the 20th century conservative and liberal ideas of biblical authority, and then goes to the Bible to see what it has to say about authority. It's a very chewy, Bible-centered, profitable read.
The Bible and Authority:
Some Questions for Discussion
This material is largely drawn from “How Can the Bible Be Authoritative,” an essay by N. T. Wright, a New Testament scholar and the bishop of Durham in the north of England. You can find the essay online at http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm.
1. What does “authority” mean? What do we mean when we say that the Bible is authoritative?
2. (a) How can any text function as authoritative? (b) How can any ancient text function as authoritative? (c) How can an ancient narrative text be authoritative?
3. Do we turn the Bible into something else, and give that the real authority?
4. Mt. 28:18. If Jesus has “all authority” how does the Bible fit into that picture?
5. What is God using his authority to do? How does God’s authority work?
6. The Bible is not mostly creeds or rules for living, although it contains those, and more can be inferred from it. The Bible consists mostly of narratives. How can stories have authority?
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
August Meeting
The August meeting of the Sidewalk Theology Society will take place this coming Thursday night, Aug. 20, at 7 p.m., at Delaney's Tavern, 18th and Blake in downtown Denver. The topic will be "What is the Bible?" Short answers accepted. Those not bringing a Bible with them may buy me a drink.
JY
JY
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Notes for July meeting
Steven Crow has sent me a copy of the notes for the meeting on Wednesday, and I reproduce them below.
John
Jesus and the Quantum States
Steven Crow, PhD
22 July 2009
Neils Bohr: Anyone not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.
Dick Feynman: We do not know how to predict what would happen in a given circumstance , and we believe now that it is impossible.
Genesis 2:9: In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Apostles: I believe ... in the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting.
Monk: Buddha solved the problem of suffering!
Crow: Jesus solved the problem of death.
History
By 1900, physics had the universe well in hand. The universe had always existed. The present state of the universe completely determined the future. Observable phenomena were all of reality.
In 1900, there was a little problem with "black-body radiation". Max Planck solved the problem with something called quanta of light.
The Christian perspective in 1900 was entirely different. The universe was created at some time in the past. Fundamental realities were "things unseen", accessible only by faith.
By 1960, the views of physics had changed completely. The universe had come into existence at an instant in the past. Fundamental realities were quantum states, not directly observable. Observed phenomena determine only probabilities of future events.
In 1960, the Christian perspective was the same as in 1900 and remains so now.
Quantum States
The fundamental reality in quantum physics is the quantum state. A quantum state is expressed as a sum of amplitudes times base states, where the base states represent mutually exclusive outcomes of an observation. The base states are fixed, and the amplitudes evolve with time according to the Schrödinger equation.
Present amplitudes determine future amplitudes, so quantum states are deterministic. Unfortunately, they cannot be observed. They are "things unseen", represented by complex rather than real numbers.
Copenhagen
So how do the quantum states relate to the "real world", meaning the world of things we can see? The "Copenhagen interpretation" of Neils Bohr and his colleagues holds that the absolute squares of the amplitudes are probabilities that the base states will be observed. Physics cannot predict the future, but only the probabilities of alternative futures.
A definite future is not merely unpredictable. It is meaningless. All of the futures interact together in the Schrödinger equation to influence the probabilities of outcomes.
God does not know what will happen to you, though he may know what will happen to your quantum state. He has designed the universe so that the idea of a specific future for you is meaningless.
Many Worlds
An alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation is the many worlds interpretation of Hugh Everett III. According to the many worlds interpretation, all possible futures occur, but they occur as separate and parallel worlds characterized by the base states of the universal quantum state. The universe comprises infinitely many worlds flowing together through time. You occupy one world at this instant but will occupy many in the future.
The base states of the universe are "coherent", so they influence each other's futures. On the other hand, they are "orthogonal", so you cannot travel from one world to another. At least not without some help from outside quantum physics.
The Copenhagen and many worlds interpretations are mathematically equivalent and make the same predictions. I shall use the many worlds language as being a little more evocative.
Schrödinger's Cat
Schrödinger's cat is a famous parable of quantum physics. You put a live cat in a box along with a radioactive nucleus, a particle detector, and a device that breaks a capsule of cyanide when a particle from the nucleus is detected. The nucleus will decay at random with some half life. When the nucleus decays, the cat will die.
You close the lid on the box and wait for awhile, maybe for the half life of the nucleus. You then open the box and look inside. The cat is alive or dead, but not both.
But what about before you opened the box? Was the cat alive or dead? As far as the quantum state of the cat is concerned, the answer is both. Before you looked, the amplitudes of the live base state and the dead base state were both non-zero. The cat was both alive and dead!
According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the probability of the cat being dead when you opened the box was the absolute square of the amplitude of the dead base state. If you saw a dead cat when you opened the box, then the quantum state "collapsed" into the dead base state.
According to the many worlds interpretation, the cat remains both alive and dead when you open the box. If you see a dead cat, then you have established that you are in the dead cat world, and you have parted company with a likeness of yourself in the live cat world. Unfortunately, the two worlds (base states) are orthogonal. You cannot revive the cat by closing the box and trying again. Once in the dead cat world, always in the dead cat world.
Garden of Eden
An even more famous parable runs along similar lines. The Lord created the Garden of Eden and populated it with a man and a woman and two trees: the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Which tree will the couple choose?
We know how the story turned out in our world, but could Eve have eaten the fruit of the tree of life in another of the many worlds in the universal quantum state? Certainly God thought about that possibility:
The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever. Genesis 2: 22.
If there were even a remote possibility that Eve could have eaten first the fruit of the tree of life, then there must be at least one world in the universe where she did so. Of course the people in that world would be immortal. Might be a pretty nice place.
Billy's Eschatology
In March 2008, I asked Pastor Billy Waters of Wellspring Anglican Church a series of questions about life, death, and immortality. Pastor Waters artfully combined elements of Christian doctrine into a self-consistent theory of death and eternal life. Here are his answers.
1. “Soul” means the same as the Greek pneuma (air) but not psyche (literally butterfly).
2. No animals have souls.
3. All humans have souls.
4. All souls are immortal, meaning that they survive physical death.
5. Upon physical death, some souls go to heaven and some to hell.
6. Heaven and hell are places.
7. Hell is akin to the Greek Hades but not to the more abstract Hebrew Sheol.
8. Heaven is the residence of God.
9. Upon death, the soul of a 1-year old infant who has never heard of Christ goes to heaven.
10. Upon death, the soul of a 30-year old adult who has never heard of Christ goes to hell.
11. Transfer of destination from heaven to hell takes place at some unknown age between 1 and 30.
12. All souls that go to hell reside there forever.
13. Upon death, the soul of anyone saved by Christ goes to heaven.
14. Residence of souls in heaven is temporary and ceases on judgment day.
15. Upon judgment day, all souls in heaven reunite with their renewed bodies on a renewed earth.
16. The new earth is made of matter like the present one.
17. The souls with new bodies and the new earth last forever.
18. The new earth is dynamic, and beings on the new earth continue to learn.
Occam's Razor
Greek stuff involving souls and heaven can be eliminated in favor of answers 12 and 15-18, which pertain to the ultimate state of new beings on a new earth. The simple formulation conforms with the last two lines of the Apostles' Creed.
15. On judgment day, all saved by Christ unite with renewed bodies on a renewed earth.
16. The new earth is made of matter like the present one.
17. The new beings and the new earth last forever.
18. The new earth is dynamic, and beings on the new earth continue to learn.
Jesus and the Quantum States
Only a little thought is needed to cast the simple eschatology into something like the many worlds model of quantum mechanics.
1. World 1 produces entropy, while world 2 does not.
2. Worlds 1 and 2 share a common time, with world 1 as the clock.
3. We are born in world 1.
4. Worlds 1 and 2 are weakly coupled, but sometimes an agency causes strong coupling.
5. In such cases the state of a being in world 1 can transfer partly to world 2.
6. For a time, entropic processes in world 1 obscure world 2.
7. In time, entropic processes reduce the amplitude of a state in world 1 to zero, leaving any amplitude in world 2 intact.
8. World 2 then becomes apparent.
A glossary will help:
World 1 Old earth
World 2 New earth
Entropic process Death
Agency Jesus Christ
John
Jesus and the Quantum States
Steven Crow, PhD
22 July 2009
Neils Bohr: Anyone not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.
Dick Feynman: We do not know how to predict what would happen in a given circumstance , and we believe now that it is impossible.
Genesis 2:9: In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Apostles: I believe ... in the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting.
Monk: Buddha solved the problem of suffering!
Crow: Jesus solved the problem of death.
History
By 1900, physics had the universe well in hand. The universe had always existed. The present state of the universe completely determined the future. Observable phenomena were all of reality.
In 1900, there was a little problem with "black-body radiation". Max Planck solved the problem with something called quanta of light.
The Christian perspective in 1900 was entirely different. The universe was created at some time in the past. Fundamental realities were "things unseen", accessible only by faith.
By 1960, the views of physics had changed completely. The universe had come into existence at an instant in the past. Fundamental realities were quantum states, not directly observable. Observed phenomena determine only probabilities of future events.
In 1960, the Christian perspective was the same as in 1900 and remains so now.
Quantum States
The fundamental reality in quantum physics is the quantum state. A quantum state is expressed as a sum of amplitudes times base states, where the base states represent mutually exclusive outcomes of an observation. The base states are fixed, and the amplitudes evolve with time according to the Schrödinger equation.
Present amplitudes determine future amplitudes, so quantum states are deterministic. Unfortunately, they cannot be observed. They are "things unseen", represented by complex rather than real numbers.
Copenhagen
So how do the quantum states relate to the "real world", meaning the world of things we can see? The "Copenhagen interpretation" of Neils Bohr and his colleagues holds that the absolute squares of the amplitudes are probabilities that the base states will be observed. Physics cannot predict the future, but only the probabilities of alternative futures.
A definite future is not merely unpredictable. It is meaningless. All of the futures interact together in the Schrödinger equation to influence the probabilities of outcomes.
God does not know what will happen to you, though he may know what will happen to your quantum state. He has designed the universe so that the idea of a specific future for you is meaningless.
Many Worlds
An alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation is the many worlds interpretation of Hugh Everett III. According to the many worlds interpretation, all possible futures occur, but they occur as separate and parallel worlds characterized by the base states of the universal quantum state. The universe comprises infinitely many worlds flowing together through time. You occupy one world at this instant but will occupy many in the future.
The base states of the universe are "coherent", so they influence each other's futures. On the other hand, they are "orthogonal", so you cannot travel from one world to another. At least not without some help from outside quantum physics.
The Copenhagen and many worlds interpretations are mathematically equivalent and make the same predictions. I shall use the many worlds language as being a little more evocative.
Schrödinger's Cat
Schrödinger's cat is a famous parable of quantum physics. You put a live cat in a box along with a radioactive nucleus, a particle detector, and a device that breaks a capsule of cyanide when a particle from the nucleus is detected. The nucleus will decay at random with some half life. When the nucleus decays, the cat will die.
You close the lid on the box and wait for awhile, maybe for the half life of the nucleus. You then open the box and look inside. The cat is alive or dead, but not both.
But what about before you opened the box? Was the cat alive or dead? As far as the quantum state of the cat is concerned, the answer is both. Before you looked, the amplitudes of the live base state and the dead base state were both non-zero. The cat was both alive and dead!
According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the probability of the cat being dead when you opened the box was the absolute square of the amplitude of the dead base state. If you saw a dead cat when you opened the box, then the quantum state "collapsed" into the dead base state.
According to the many worlds interpretation, the cat remains both alive and dead when you open the box. If you see a dead cat, then you have established that you are in the dead cat world, and you have parted company with a likeness of yourself in the live cat world. Unfortunately, the two worlds (base states) are orthogonal. You cannot revive the cat by closing the box and trying again. Once in the dead cat world, always in the dead cat world.
Garden of Eden
An even more famous parable runs along similar lines. The Lord created the Garden of Eden and populated it with a man and a woman and two trees: the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Which tree will the couple choose?
We know how the story turned out in our world, but could Eve have eaten the fruit of the tree of life in another of the many worlds in the universal quantum state? Certainly God thought about that possibility:
The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever. Genesis 2: 22.
If there were even a remote possibility that Eve could have eaten first the fruit of the tree of life, then there must be at least one world in the universe where she did so. Of course the people in that world would be immortal. Might be a pretty nice place.
Billy's Eschatology
In March 2008, I asked Pastor Billy Waters of Wellspring Anglican Church a series of questions about life, death, and immortality. Pastor Waters artfully combined elements of Christian doctrine into a self-consistent theory of death and eternal life. Here are his answers.
1. “Soul” means the same as the Greek pneuma (air) but not psyche (literally butterfly).
2. No animals have souls.
3. All humans have souls.
4. All souls are immortal, meaning that they survive physical death.
5. Upon physical death, some souls go to heaven and some to hell.
6. Heaven and hell are places.
7. Hell is akin to the Greek Hades but not to the more abstract Hebrew Sheol.
8. Heaven is the residence of God.
9. Upon death, the soul of a 1-year old infant who has never heard of Christ goes to heaven.
10. Upon death, the soul of a 30-year old adult who has never heard of Christ goes to hell.
11. Transfer of destination from heaven to hell takes place at some unknown age between 1 and 30.
12. All souls that go to hell reside there forever.
13. Upon death, the soul of anyone saved by Christ goes to heaven.
14. Residence of souls in heaven is temporary and ceases on judgment day.
15. Upon judgment day, all souls in heaven reunite with their renewed bodies on a renewed earth.
16. The new earth is made of matter like the present one.
17. The souls with new bodies and the new earth last forever.
18. The new earth is dynamic, and beings on the new earth continue to learn.
Occam's Razor
Greek stuff involving souls and heaven can be eliminated in favor of answers 12 and 15-18, which pertain to the ultimate state of new beings on a new earth. The simple formulation conforms with the last two lines of the Apostles' Creed.
15. On judgment day, all saved by Christ unite with renewed bodies on a renewed earth.
16. The new earth is made of matter like the present one.
17. The new beings and the new earth last forever.
18. The new earth is dynamic, and beings on the new earth continue to learn.
Jesus and the Quantum States
Only a little thought is needed to cast the simple eschatology into something like the many worlds model of quantum mechanics.
1. World 1 produces entropy, while world 2 does not.
2. Worlds 1 and 2 share a common time, with world 1 as the clock.
3. We are born in world 1.
4. Worlds 1 and 2 are weakly coupled, but sometimes an agency causes strong coupling.
5. In such cases the state of a being in world 1 can transfer partly to world 2.
6. For a time, entropic processes in world 1 obscure world 2.
7. In time, entropic processes reduce the amplitude of a state in world 1 to zero, leaving any amplitude in world 2 intact.
8. World 2 then becomes apparent.
A glossary will help:
World 1 Old earth
World 2 New earth
Entropic process Death
Agency Jesus Christ
July Meeting, date and time
Remember that the July meeting will take place on Wednesday (NOT THURSDAY!), July 22, at 7:00 p.m., at Delaney's downtown on Blake, just off 18th St. Steven Crow will be speaking. His title is "Jesus and the Quantum States." [Is California a quantum state?] Should be fun. See you there.
John
John
Sunday, June 21, 2009
The June Meeting
The June meeting of the STS (on Thursday, the 18th) had 5 people attending. John Yates presented a paper titled “Understanding Our Identity in Christ from John 15.” Andy Walters then presented a paper (title?) discussing some of same topics from what he called an “emerging church” point of view, with Brian McLaren, Marcus Borg, Karen Armstrong, and Bishop John Shelby Spong as major influences.
The second paper and comments from the meeting will appear on this blog as soon as they are available.
The second paper and comments from the meeting will appear on this blog as soon as they are available.
Understanding Our Identity in Christ from John 15
by John Yates
delivered June 18, 2009
A. Scope:
Yes, we were supposed to look at Colossians 3 also. I have 3 reasons for eliminating it from tonight’s discussion:
1. I delayed too long in preparing.
2. John 15 has more than enough for us to look at tonight.
3 I really love this passage. It is one of my favorite passages in the Bible, and I am happy to stay here for a while.
B. Purpose:
We will try to derive from this passage an outline of who we are in Christ. The “who” question involves several aspects of personhood and relationships.
C. Method
The paper looks at John 15 within its context (text / book / author / 1st Cent. Christian Church/ the Bible generally), and makes minimal references to other material.
Question: Is this approach legitimate? What safeguards do we have to prevent distortion?
D. The Text: John 15 (vine and branches). We concentrate on verses 1-12, but we also look at the rest of the chapter.
E. Aspects of Our Identity in Christ
This text gives us not just a static picture, but also a kind of story, or at least the set-up for a story. It contains action, players, drama, tensions, etc. We examine here some of the themes of that story.
1. Life: Not only do we derive our physical life from Christ, but he also gives us a “new life,” which includes the ability to respond to him, to grow spiritually, to be conformed to his likeness, and to bear fruit. It also involves a real (i.e., ontic, metaphysical, concrete, active, dynamic) connection to Christ and interaction with him personally. This is a spiritual reality that exhibits itself in changes in our lives.
2. Fruit: The passage does not clearly specify what it means by this fruit. Possibilities include: a life characterized by self-giving love for others; increased depth of spiritual character; the conversion of others to following Christ.
Question: What exactly is the fruit?
3. Character and nature: God conforms us more and more to the image of Christ. This exhibits itself in our relations with each other, but also and chiefly with God. Thus our lives become more and more self-consciously relational and we look to God as the source of all our earthly good.
4. Abilities and freedom: This union with Christ implies communion with him, security in him, a connection with others who are connected with him (and thus the Church), and the ability to bear fruit. Others?
5. Abiding: What kind of activity is this? The sense of the verb is to denote the home-place where one dwells, and thus a picture of habit, steadfastness, belonging, and intimacy. Further, it is an activity, just as one chooses (whether consciously or unconsciously) to return to the same place every night for a meal and sleep.
Does this picture mean that the one abiding in Christ knows that it IS Christ in whom he abides? Or could the picture include the idea that some people REALLY abide in Christ, as evidenced by their love of neighbor and moral lives, but they don’t know that it is Christ in whom they abide?
Jesus isn’t trying to set out a comprehensive systematic theology here. He is telling this small group of followers what they need to do. The text as such does not address whether some aspects of this lesson also apply elsewhere. It does bring up many very interesting questions that it doesn’t answer.
Question: What are the details of “abiding”?
6. Relationships: Being alive and being a person entails relationship and interaction with other persons and forces. This passage briefly but profoundly looks at several different relationships that we have as a result of being in Christ.
6a. Relationship with Christ: All of our previous comments have already expanded on our relationship with Christ, so we won’t add anything here.
6b. Relationship with other Christians: The branches are connected with each other by virtue of being connected with the vine. He calls us his friends (verses 13-15), so how can we not be friends of each other, also? He commands us to love one another (v. 17), so that our relationships with each other also echo our relationship with him.
6c. Relationship with the world: The world, i.e., that system of existence that tries to live independently of God, hates the Word of God, this One who embodies the message that our existence cannot avoid depending on God, that God has not and will not abandon it, and that God continues to claim all his creation as his own. The world killed Christ. It will also hate us. Our response must also reflect that of Christ, namely, to love those who hate us.
6d. Relationship with God the Father: This is even more frightening than our relationship with the world, and yet ultimately consoling and life-giving. That the Creator and Upholder of existence and being should turn his personal attention to us—how can that be anything but scary? He “prunes” us, as a vine-dresser prunes grape vines. That has to be painful and frustrating and scary at the time. But he does it from love, with our interests at heart. And Jesus goes on in the next chapter (16:27) that God the Father himself loves us. This claim alone has more content than we can possibly unpack tonight, or even through eternity.
F. Closing Remarks:
The richness and profundity of this chapter defeats my attempts to summarize it in a few minutes. I hope that these hints at its meaning will provoke you to profitable contemplation and thanksgiving to the God who himself loves us in such a way that he gives himself to us in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ, and leads us by his own Spirit.
Amen.
delivered June 18, 2009
A. Scope:
Yes, we were supposed to look at Colossians 3 also. I have 3 reasons for eliminating it from tonight’s discussion:
1. I delayed too long in preparing.
2. John 15 has more than enough for us to look at tonight.
3 I really love this passage. It is one of my favorite passages in the Bible, and I am happy to stay here for a while.
B. Purpose:
We will try to derive from this passage an outline of who we are in Christ. The “who” question involves several aspects of personhood and relationships.
C. Method
The paper looks at John 15 within its context (text / book / author / 1st Cent. Christian Church/ the Bible generally), and makes minimal references to other material.
Question: Is this approach legitimate? What safeguards do we have to prevent distortion?
D. The Text: John 15 (vine and branches). We concentrate on verses 1-12, but we also look at the rest of the chapter.
1"I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. 2Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit. 3You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you. 4Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me. 5I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not abide in Me, he is thrown away as a branch and dries up; and they gather them, and cast them into the fire and they are burned. 7If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be My disciples. 9Just as the Father has loved Me, I have also loved you; abide in My love. 10If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love. 11These things I have spoken to you so that My joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full. 12This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.
E. Aspects of Our Identity in Christ
This text gives us not just a static picture, but also a kind of story, or at least the set-up for a story. It contains action, players, drama, tensions, etc. We examine here some of the themes of that story.
1. Life: Not only do we derive our physical life from Christ, but he also gives us a “new life,” which includes the ability to respond to him, to grow spiritually, to be conformed to his likeness, and to bear fruit. It also involves a real (i.e., ontic, metaphysical, concrete, active, dynamic) connection to Christ and interaction with him personally. This is a spiritual reality that exhibits itself in changes in our lives.
2. Fruit: The passage does not clearly specify what it means by this fruit. Possibilities include: a life characterized by self-giving love for others; increased depth of spiritual character; the conversion of others to following Christ.
Question: What exactly is the fruit?
3. Character and nature: God conforms us more and more to the image of Christ. This exhibits itself in our relations with each other, but also and chiefly with God. Thus our lives become more and more self-consciously relational and we look to God as the source of all our earthly good.
4. Abilities and freedom: This union with Christ implies communion with him, security in him, a connection with others who are connected with him (and thus the Church), and the ability to bear fruit. Others?
5. Abiding: What kind of activity is this? The sense of the verb is to denote the home-place where one dwells, and thus a picture of habit, steadfastness, belonging, and intimacy. Further, it is an activity, just as one chooses (whether consciously or unconsciously) to return to the same place every night for a meal and sleep.
Does this picture mean that the one abiding in Christ knows that it IS Christ in whom he abides? Or could the picture include the idea that some people REALLY abide in Christ, as evidenced by their love of neighbor and moral lives, but they don’t know that it is Christ in whom they abide?
Jesus isn’t trying to set out a comprehensive systematic theology here. He is telling this small group of followers what they need to do. The text as such does not address whether some aspects of this lesson also apply elsewhere. It does bring up many very interesting questions that it doesn’t answer.
Question: What are the details of “abiding”?
6. Relationships: Being alive and being a person entails relationship and interaction with other persons and forces. This passage briefly but profoundly looks at several different relationships that we have as a result of being in Christ.
6a. Relationship with Christ: All of our previous comments have already expanded on our relationship with Christ, so we won’t add anything here.
6b. Relationship with other Christians: The branches are connected with each other by virtue of being connected with the vine. He calls us his friends (verses 13-15), so how can we not be friends of each other, also? He commands us to love one another (v. 17), so that our relationships with each other also echo our relationship with him.
6c. Relationship with the world: The world, i.e., that system of existence that tries to live independently of God, hates the Word of God, this One who embodies the message that our existence cannot avoid depending on God, that God has not and will not abandon it, and that God continues to claim all his creation as his own. The world killed Christ. It will also hate us. Our response must also reflect that of Christ, namely, to love those who hate us.
6d. Relationship with God the Father: This is even more frightening than our relationship with the world, and yet ultimately consoling and life-giving. That the Creator and Upholder of existence and being should turn his personal attention to us—how can that be anything but scary? He “prunes” us, as a vine-dresser prunes grape vines. That has to be painful and frustrating and scary at the time. But he does it from love, with our interests at heart. And Jesus goes on in the next chapter (16:27) that God the Father himself loves us. This claim alone has more content than we can possibly unpack tonight, or even through eternity.
F. Closing Remarks:
The richness and profundity of this chapter defeats my attempts to summarize it in a few minutes. I hope that these hints at its meaning will provoke you to profitable contemplation and thanksgiving to the God who himself loves us in such a way that he gives himself to us in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ, and leads us by his own Spirit.
Amen.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Announcement of 4th meeting-June '09
The June, 2009, meeting of the Sidewalk Theology Society will occur tomorrow night at 7:30 p.m. (!!! sorry for the late notice) at Delaney's pub (next to the Celtic Tavern, which is at 18th & Blake in lower downtown Denver). We will revisit the topic of our identity in Christ, focusing on John 15:1-12 and Colossians 3:1-6. We want to emphasize the practical implications of this topic. Bring a bible for easy reference to these passages.
The patron saint for the evening is John Donne (1572-1631). Poet, preacher, and dean of St. Paul's, London, he wrote
No man is an island. entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
