Oh another Oak Hill bog

Sorry, I forgot to mention:

Celal Baker - college financial administrator and elder at Enfield Evangelical - http://www.icarusredeemed.blogspot.com/

which is well established now.

Another sad statistic on the family

They mentioned on The Today Programme on R4 today that:

More than 3/4s of all married couples in the UK today are known to have lived together for a period of time before marriage.

Perhaps one might expect the figure to be more like 90%? Not sure what counts as "living together for a period of time". Presumably staying over in the same bed a few times doesnt count!?

Good to be bucking a bad trend - if chewing the carpet... 24 days to go, I think.

Revd Ray Porter FRAS

FRAS?

So is he a surgeon?

Or a Fellow of a Royal Society?

Architechture?

Ancient stuff?

Antiquary?

Agriculture?!

Asiatic, it turns out.

The RAS is apparently a proper 19th C learned society.

One of Ray's friends was in charge of it or something.

They have dinners and speaker meetings and so on. They publish the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society - Ray has done some book reviews for it etc.

* * *

What societies would you like to be elected to?

FBA, anyone?

Can non-members propose people? For example, Garry obviously deserves some kind of history / theology greatness award? DD(Oxon) when The Atonement is published in 500 years time, perhaps?

Or can one found a Royal Society? Do we need a minor Royal to join?

Or perhaps a dinning or drinking club is more at our level?

R4 Prayer For The Day today

See previous post on "Revd" Ernest Ray's Radio 4 Prayer For The Day yesterday.

Ernest's prayer for the day was much better today - though it was about Shakespear, not the Bible or the God of the Bible but "god".

Maybe there'll be a steady improvement all week? Or perhaps that is too optomistic and charitable?

Too charitable... Dont think that is one of my besetting sins. Except perhaps with people I have met and like...

Looks like a great project

My friend Lorna Robinson MA(Oxon) PhD (UCL) has just been employed by the University (of Oxford) to launch this fantastic looking project.

http://www.irismagazine.org

And is currently being splashed accross the TES and other papers, I understand.

Her PhD on Magical Realism approaches to Ovid's Metamorphoses and Gabriel Garcia Marquez's Cien anos de soledad and sounds fascinating. She says she has another book in her about Margaret Atwood and some old poem - the Illiad, was it? And we are eagerly awaiting the publication of the now finished (again!) but unread (!) novel. Great stuff!

A girl to watch!

Her recent wedding (green dress and take-away Pizza) sounds like a one off too!


:)

Well done Lorna. And all the best with it!

P.S. when are you going to become a Christian?

Marc Lloyd

This Marc Lloyd seems to have shot up the Google rankings and I've no idea why.

I guess the "wierd" - to some stange people - spelling really helps?

How to depose the 1st guy and become number 1? Evil genious laugh etc.

Mmm. Its no good being also ran number 2.

Might get eaten by worms, though, if I were too pleased with myself, don't you think? And Google noteriety is a pretty dubious sort of distinction...

Here's an idea, though, at a dinner party, give your guests an amusing print out of a web site that bears their name as a place setting.

For example, did you know you can get Major Matthew Mason action dolls, I believe? And there is a prominent "Matthew Mason" that yields the fist line "I am an athiest". Or another, "I have been playing the drums for 5 years...", or some such. Endless fun.

New "Oak Hill" Blog!

You may remember the delightfully amusing Jenn-ay, a Concordia student from a while back, who did a semester at Oak Hill? She had plans to travel but where in the world is Jenn-ay?

All is revealed at:

http://whereisjenae.blogspot.com/

But perhaps if we start allowing the Yanks to have "Oak Hill" blog status it'll just go crazy here in Oak Hill Cyber Space? Rather like South Wing in College?

The Great Limited Atoement Debate (updated)

Here are all my comments so far on the great debate raging on Mandy's blog between Oak Hill-ers and Moore College, Sydney-ers over effectual redemption:

Obviously some of this stuff is easier to follow (if you care!) on the blog, but there are over 90 comments no, so do set aside enough time each day to keep up!

* * *

Well, a few thoughts from me, which I hope will be enjoyable, helpful and godly: 9 points of Calvinism:

0. By the way, did you know that in the dinning hall at Oak Hill there is a crest with the motto, "Be Right and Persist!". Wise words, I think we can all agree.

1. Yes, lets be nice. Lets not be rude or silly either - especially about Dr William's excellent arguments and superior mind, morals and practice. Childlike but not childish

2. Shouting texts that you misunderstand and that your opponents know about already and have dealt with perfecly well already is not an argument. DO CAPITAL LETTERS REALLY HELP? Perhaps enclsosing what you want to emphasise in * s like *this* is a better way of indicating emphasis in plain text?

3. Lots of the Moore people seem to need to distinguish: in what sense in this context etc? Avoid the illegitimate totality transfer fallacy. Or indeed, "this word makes me think of this so this is what it must always mean whoever uses it wherever". True, a bit of presupositional (Van Til-esque) perspectivalism, (Frame et al) would always help. Good reccomended reading, Thomo. Maybe I've broken some of Frame's rules here?

4. I dont think there is an Oak Hill line or argument on this or a complete consensus amongst faculty or students so that party spirit is not the greatest help.

5. What is the difference between over-systematising and thinking through the true and necessary consequence of a passage and making sure you dont expound one text such that it is repugnent to another, as the Westminster Confession and 39 Articles would admonish us? Is not God faithfull and consistent and coherent? Do not the revealed things belong to us and is it not our duty and our glory to search them out, rather than making a virtue of the supposed incoherence (to us) of God's revelation, because we cannot know the unsearchable mind of God? What is it with all this Barthian anti-rationality stuff anyway?

6. So is Revd ? Mr ? Dr? Professor? Dave Barrie getting rid of the P petal now too? There are surely many unquestionable perseverence of all true believers to the end texts. I reckon we could easily show that the perseverence of the saints is the Orthodox consensus throughout time. Maybe there arent famous names as everyone thought it?

7. Some of the debate may be confused as some of the American Alburn Avenue Covenantal Objectivists Reformed Is Not Enough chaps use the term Christian to mean Baptised Non-excommunicate included in the objective covenant professing (if adult) and Believer to mean truly regenerate elect to ultimate salvation.

8. Is the "stretched" "natural" "plain sense" reading stuff just a way of saying "natural to me", ie i havent heard your argument before and it seems a bit strange to my excentric and parochial ears?

9. Yes, good point, Ros.Please would someone list the HyperCalvinists at Oak Hill - or indeed pretty much anywhere today AND - oops, *and* - show a necessary or even "natural" link to limited atonemnet? It is interesting that Dr Williams is being so active in Divinci Code evangelism at the moment when he neednt bother and might have better things to do with his time. (Even if perhaps he is being a bit too evidentialist and argumentative for some of our Barthian friensds?) A covenant sucession Covenant Household generational theology style is more likely to lead to less cold contact evangelistic effort, perhaps, but that's hardly the Limited Atonement point.

Ah, that's better.

* * *

Where there are some questions of point of historical fact /information in this discussion, why don't we get some real experts (apologies if you are one and you've said something here and I don't know) to tell us the answers? e.g. Dr Williams? e.g. Professor Trueman on (Mr Jensen's) the John Owen is sold out to Aristotelainism though he thinks he's sticking to the Bible stuff. We could ask them for their take on the whole thing while they're at it!

* * *

Thank you Prof Mr Dr (My?) Captain Barrie and (Arch? X2?) Bishop Jensen et. al. for the historical references, the blogging tips etc.I agree we LA boys ought to get to work on the historical consenus examples for L & P, though I imagine Carl Truman and Garry Williams have it all at their finger tips so I'm going to wait and see if they come up with the goods before bothering to attempt any work on it.Yes, sorry for all the typos. I blame them on the gift of dyslexia and laziness etc.Michael, could I buy you a pint in Oxford or London some time?

* * *

Oh the comments by Drs Sach, Jeffrey and Field here are just outstanding.Mr Thomposn deserves to be created DD(Oxon) for his contributions to this blog alone and appoined Ajunct Professor of Reformed Theology at Moore College.By the way, are there any plans for the *Reformed* Theological Review to change its name, does anyone know? Evangelical or Lutheran or Sydney or B. Knox Memorial might be more accurate adjectives?As well as Dr Trueman's work (on Owen and Protestant Scholasticism) hasn't Professor Richard Muller (Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics etc) absolutely killed many of the methodological, hermeneutical, philosophical, historical and even exegetcial errors being mouthed here? At Oak Hill many of the 1st years wrote on "Protestant Scholasticism: Zenith or Nadir of Reformed Thought?". PS was basically a jolly good thing. Would any of the Oak Hill boys be able to link to their essays, please? Dr Williams suggested maybe yours, Sachy or Jeffery, would help us?Even Professor Paul Helm's classic on Calvin againts the Calvinists would help us here, would'nt ut?PS Presumably when the exams are over, some of you will be able to devote your energies full time to this vitally important discussion?

* * *

We at Oak Hill should just say how much we love the Jensens and Moore College and B. Knox and Professor Peterson. We owe so much to John Chapman and friends.But it seems we have been reading different books for the last few years? You are getting more deeply into Barth.We are more in love with Edwards, Owen, Augustine, Acquinas - even!I'm sorry if the rhetoric volume of my posts has been too high at times: I didn't mean to be rude or offensive or cause a brother to stumble.By the way, I understand that Professor Paul Helm's reply to James Torrance in their exchange might especially hlep us.Who are the authors and what are the books you guys are excited about in all this?

* * *

PS - obviously I accept your kind offer of a pint. Will anyone join us from Oxford or fly in from Moore T C for it, I wonder?

* * *

And I'm sure you've all thought of this but "I lay down my life for the sheep" in the context of John 1o seems to teach limited atonment very clearly.On its own the text does not require it. Christ could say that and still die for the sheep and also for unmentioned others.But the context of the drama proves the atonement is limited. It is hard to see a sensible or significant way in which the shepherd can be said to lay down his life for the wolves, hirlings, theives, robbers and not-my-sheep-ones against whom he defends the sheep. Thus the atonment is not universal: it is, as it were, against not for the enemies of Christ.I do not think this presses the parabolic or allagorical sense too far. Christ seems to be speaking in a pretty much more or less this equals that way.This point that the enemies die and are not died for is obvious from all the conflict stuff in the Bible, as David Field's material also suggests.A Christus Victor (Christ defeats his enemies - cosmic and otherwise - by his cross) model of the atonement thus teaches Limited Atonement, much to the surprise of Chalke et. al.

* * *

So on my re-reading-scan of all thses comments, there are no outstanding questions of substance for the real atonement guys, but the proponents of a limited atonemnent have a number of clear and specific questions of importance listed above to get to work on?Does anyone disagree?We LA chaps need some distractions (structured procrastination) from proper work, so, come on, what should be on our "To Do" list?Maybe proving the historical case that Calvin clearly believed LA & Owen was thoroughly Biblical? But it does seem that's all been done in books we all have in our libraries...So what shall we do today? Maybe those pints?

Passing on Impassibility & Graham Cole

Does anyone know exactly what Dr Graham Cole said at the Oak Hill School of Theology on grieving the spirit? Was it just "remeber God is passionate and has emotions and real relationships in which he is "affected" by us - even if they are not like human emotions, relationships or affecations - which I understand to be consistent with Orthodoxy? Or was Dr Cole trying to say something else? When do the tapes come out? Where none of the Doctrine Boys keeping an eye out?

* * *

I enjoyed Rev'd Graham in chapel the other day. Being from Trinty Evangelical Divinty School, I was expecting an American Baptist not a Sydney Anglican who had transformed Ridley College, it seemed. Good on him for getting back to the class room.

I loved the line:

Or to put it in technical Aristotelian terminology: "You'd be nuts, mate!"

Might plagarise that one.

And was it something like:

And if you invited them to a dinner party or a barbie, which in Australia is the same thing...

I believe a "barbie" is a "barbeque", by the way.

I wondered whether what Rev'd Cole was saying about the relationship between evangelism and social action was really consistent if pressed?

* * *

Dr Cole seems to have an egalatarian view of men and women in the church - women can preach to men etc. - but a hierarchical view of men and wonen in marriage, I understand? Some people thought his 7 points in favour of his view didn't work, but I've heard them described more as "considerations / ways into thinking about this / how would the landscape look with these features in place / are these part of a more plausible picture" than arguments - cumulative or otherwise. Does that help? I understand there was some heat, however much light?

The Father Died (revised 1)

I thought all right-thinking would agree with me on the following:

*Original Post*

In the death of God the Son, the Father (who operates inseperably with and mutually indwells said Son) died in the Human Nature of the Person of the Son?

Thus the Father died, but not as God nor as the Son since it was the humanity of the Son (not his divinity) and the Person of the Son (not the Father) who died.

That's the Reformed Orthodox consensus, isn't it? Or rather, the true and necessary consequences of the Bible: what the Protestant Scholastics believe now and would have believed then if they'd thought about it much? Would Dr Weinandy agree with me? What's his email address, I wonder?

Or does the Father only indwell the divine nature of the Son not his human nature? Or is that heresy? There is scope for useful hair-splitting on the mode of perichorisis here, then? Dr Ovey?

It always feels that one is a semi-colon from Anathema in such discussions, don't you think?

* But it seems that my good readers all disagree with me. So I've revised my views: *

Thank you for bothering to address your disagreement, Gentle Commentors.

But the stuff above still seems to me the set of options if you accept the corrolate ideas of:

(1) Inseperable Operation

and

(2) Mutual Indwelling or Perichorisis

By (1) I mean, in Augustine's phrase, that the Father is not (ever) without the Son and vice versa. The inseperability is of a different order from that merely of friends who always agree. Father and Son always do the same actions together and in every act and every aspect of that act they act together. Yet their modes or manners of action may be distinguished. The Father does not have to act in the same way as the Son though he must do all the actions of the Son with the Son. For example, the Son is begotten and the Father is not but the being begotten of the Son is not an action independent from or seperable from the Father. In this action Father and Son are not merely subject and object as if they are to seperate persons involved in the same stuff. John 5 would be the main text here, I think.

Which is related to (2). The actions of the Trinity ad extra are undivided since the persons indwell one another.

The economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity, and so on, as Rahner's dictum has it. They are eternally related: in one another. A kind of dance?! (see Ros's blog, was it, on the Triune Conga? - who leads etc? hierarchy and subordination of dance partners!)

The Father is in the Son not so much in a spacial way as the Father has no physicality. But the Father is always "there", in and with the Son. If you've got the Son you havent just got "God" (some divine essence behind the persons) you've got The Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I imagine the Father indwells the Person of the Son, but perhaps in the divine nature only.

Though the Father is certainly in the Human Son by the Spirit (whom the Father also indwells!). Tricky.

So once again, maybe as I suggest above it is just as simple as saying that the Father only indwells the divine nature of the Son not his human nature? This seems a bit wierd to me, but perhaps that's right. It is corrolate with the correct orthodox view that the Son dies according to his humanity or in his human nature not in his divinity, yet it is truly the Divine Son who really dies...

I'm not at all sure.

So what we are after is a non-heretical articulation of the death of God which upholds the mutual indwelling of the Father and Son and their inseperable operation without seperating the divine persons, please?

And some good historical articulations would be happy too, if you've got them handy. Ta.

To complicate matters, what of the Spirit? Surely the Spirit must indwell the Son (1) as a divine person from all eternity (2) as a man, the architypal believer.

But Dr Ovey must have all this at the tip of his tongue? I'll email him this. As my supervisor, perhaps he'll be alarmed into action if I really am going heterodox here.

Son Forsaken But Not Without Father

How do we hold together the cry of dereliction (“My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”) and perichorisis, mutual indwelling (“I am in the Father and the Father is in Me?”) and inseperable operation (Augustine: “The Son is Not Without the Father” etc.)?

Is it just that God the Son was temporarily abandoned according to his human nature? Is that all there is to say? The Son of God was abandoned as a man, just as he died as a man. Was this a unique moment? Unique for the intra-Trinitarian life? A change in God, or merely a change in relations between God and the God-Man?

What are the limits of orthodoxy here / legitimate ways of speaking / The Reformed Consensus / what Garry says in CD4.3?

Is there an original and significant PhD here or is it a tired old question to which all right thinking people already know the one simple and easily explainable answer? Professor Mason?

Oak Hill Ball Independant Report

Mandy's excellent independant report of the Private Oak Hill College May Ball - wot Ros and I did so well - with photographic evidence can be found here.

So far we have covered our costs, given gifts to men and made a massive £10.40 for the Bongo Bongo fund. What could be better?

I would be willing to Chair the Entz committee next year, if it can be a private dictatorship with my friends co-opted at whim. Maybe risky but I reconkon more fun and more efficient and you could always depose me by force of arms if I became a tyrant? We could split the profits: 33% for SCR, Bongo Bongo & Marc's new home fund?

And does the ball count as College Job for me and Ros for ever? And can you transfer College Job credits to Westminster Theological Seminary, Philly? And do they even have the strange compulsary secret-before-you-sign-up college slavery unpaid job system for people paying fees at Westminster? Pay to work: novel. Mind you, I wouldnt swap bing head juniour Librarian for the world. Wendy - our most excellent of librarians - has given me so much more than I could ever repay. Thank you.

Thank you Ros, and everyone who helped and came and actually paid their £2 entry fee and God, not necessarily in that order.

And I'm sorry I didn't dance more enthusiasticly and speedily, sweet heart - Yvonne, that is, in case you were wondering.... Next time. A bit of dancing seems to me little to ask, when compared to the humiliating indignity of the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ for his bride-to-be, so next time I pledge myslef to strut my stuff with gay abandon and a big smile on my chubby little face!

Is Faith In Public Life Good For Britain?

I think this is what I would have said if they'd given me 1000 words to read at the Faithworks Public Debate on "Is Faith In Public Life Good For Britain?", after Steve Chalke, Poly Toynbee and National Secular Society man had spoken.

My main points would be:

It all depends what we mean by “faith” in public life

A. “faith” as believing / depending on things is inevitable

B. “faith” as gullibility / certainty is not good for public life in Britain

C. “faith in public life” is good for Britain

C2. good “faith” in public life is good for Britain

C3. I’m for “faith in Jesus” as good for public life in Britain

Sorry if you find it a bit predictable. Its dangerously close to the vital but now boring Oak Hill mantra of "We must distinguish!".

Any feedback welcome.

I'll be handing this in tommorow, d. v.

Not Prayer For The Day

Grrrr.

The “Rev’d” Earnest Ray did an awful “Prayer” for the Day on Radio 4 this morning: “I’m grateful for the faith I learned at my mother’s knee in Northern Ireland, but there were down sides: only when I went to University did I realise that there were good Roman Catholics and now I’ve travelled a long way since my childhood faith. I’m profoundly convinced that the Muslim and I are on the same path and seeking to know and serve the same God and we’ve both got part of the truth. Prayer: god help us learn from other religions.”, sort of thing.

You can read the text today at http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/prayerfortheday/

You couldn’t get more rank liberal pluralism. One mountain many paths. I expected him top start saying something or other about elephants and blind men any minute. Same kind of shape as John Hick’s story.

Go back, Ray. The Old Paths are better. Ulster Protestantism sounds better than Multi-faith mash.

This sort of thing is just so damaging in the light of the Great Final Day when God will judge all men by the Man He has appointed, the Lord Jesus Christ. It will be dreadful on that Day for the Muslim who will find he is on a very different road. And it seems to me that Earnest will be in trouble else he repent too.

* * *

How does one go about getting someone stripped of their “Revd”ness, by the way? Who can I write to?

Is it a waste of my valuable time and energy to write to the BBC about this?

And who picks these guys for Radio 4? I seem to remember Revd Earnest used to be head of religious broadcasting at the BBC? Our national voice in safe hands?

* * *

And isn’t “prayer” for the day a great misnomer? Its actually mini-sermon with rather didactic thought tacked on the end and addressed to “god”.

Grrrr. There, I feel a bit better now.

My uncle's view of the Oak Hill lot

If it isnt a social faux pas to quote an email one has recieved, on one's blog, I thought those strange wanna-be vicars at Oak Hill who had been chatting to my atheist uncle about God and science etc. yesterday might like to know that he's not yet on the point of "praying the prayer" or signing up for ordination training.

Amidst saying lots of nice things about the day, and picking up on my comment about the strangeness of Oak Hill, he said:

The trainee vicars are indeed a strange lot and never really answer my underlying curiosity about the brain separation that seems to be going on - they invariably simply revert to - "the answer is in the gospels"....

Thanks again both for the ... insite into the weird world vicars.

I think one of the big puzzles for my uncle is, how can obviously clever and otherwise sane people, who in some cases know lots of science, possibly believe in this made-up God and swallow the Bible whole?

Bishop Watching

Not to put it too strongly, I think we could probably say:

Chelmsford: boo!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/5011406.stm - Isn’t that a funny version of purple, by the way? Perhaps he needs some of that not-just-choosing-colours but the importance subtle shades and getting-it-exactly-right consultancy you were offering, Ros?

Kenya: Good on y’u, Brother.

According to the BBC News website, Bishop Gladwin was forced to cancel a Caribbean trip in 2005 because of his views on homosexual clerics. So we discover that being a Bishop is great for foreign jollies. Being pro-gay less good. Unless you’ve a vocation to vacation with the Episcopal Chruch of the U. S. A., I suppose? But I hear Sydney’s nice this time of year, Bishop?

Rochester: Horray!

http://www.churchnewspaper.com/news.php?read=on&number_key=5821&title=Time%20to%20defend%20Christian%20institutions%20says%20bishop

Being a Bishop also seems to be great for getting on the radio. In a way I’m surprised that we’re surprised that a Bishop says “we were / are / let’s be a Christian country”, rather than going for multi-faith mash. But then, with the likes of Chelmsford, maybe it is surprising?

Hope I’m not being unnecessarily rude or nasty about Chelmsford? And that I’ll never want him to give me a job?!

Please evangelise me better!

My friend Chris said to me in the pub last night, “Marc, you never really made a sincere effort to convert me when we shared a flat” – whereas I thought I was always banging on about Jesus and that, trying to persuade him.

Pretty damning, eh?

So I’ve decided to pull my finger out and try harder all round!

I guess part of Chris not feeling too got at was my not really having a seeker-friendly church (!) to drag Chris along to, where we were living in Southend-on-Sea, but perhaps we’re rather over dependent on events and invites for our evangelism?

* * *

Chris was being terribly modernistic in argument (if what you're saying is true then all other views are wrong etc.) whereas Jeffers seemed to be explaining that some people believe that everyone has part of the truth and all roads lead to God. I hoped this wasnt the way of the future for Bishop Neil? Sorry, Archbishop.

Oak Hill Blog Log (updated)

(This post was last updated: 3/9/06)

Keeping up with the blogs has become a full-time occupation. Maybe there’s scope for a new module – “Church And World” category, perhaps – on internet theology? Dr Strange? But make it 6. Masters -level only. And it probably ought to be compulsary to do the module every year, or something.

There’re the old favourites, of course:

Revd Dr David Field - http://davidpfield.blogspot.com/

Ros Clark – I have a question - http://www.ihaveaquestion.blog.co.uk/

Ros’ blog might be very pretty – with its pink flowers – but I notice blogspot seems to be the Oak Hill provider of choice.

Although he has moved on to bigger and better things (diaconal ministry), perhaps we could include:

Revd Matthew Mason – Mother Kirk - http://motherkirk.blogspot.com/

as a product of the nation’s foremost theological college.

Revd James Oakley has also been blogging since April at:

http://www.oakleys.org.uk/blog/

And there's Celal Baker, the self-styled Oak Hill "bean-counter" and an elder at Enfield Evangelical church:

http://www.icarusredeemed.blogspot.com/

And Liam Beadle is a regular visitor to college, and d.v. a future student?

Liam Beadle - http://www.liambeadle.blogspot.com/

But had you spotted the exciting new sites? Or have I just been slow on the uptake?

Mandy Curley’s valiant defence of the gospel (a.k.a. limited atonement) and gluten-free chocolate cake recipe are not to be missed and can surely be included, even though she is soon to revert to Moore College.

Mandy Curley – Safety Girl - http://www.mandycurley.blogspot.com/

One can keep up with Chris Thomson (Mandy’s substitute at Moore)’s exploits at:

Chris Thomson - http://www.christhomson.blogspot.com

The boys have been getting in on the act:

Tim Gough - http://www.timothygough.blogspot.com/

Paul Kerry – Freedom is Coming - http://www.freedomiscoming.blogspot.com/

Amusement (oh, and theological depth, of course) can be hoped for from:

Pete Matthew – Big Pete - http://big-pete.blogspot.com/

Perhaps he could confine his inappropriate comments to cyber-space rather than chapel, where he seems to think it is pastorally helpful to pat those to whom he thinks particular sermon applications especially apply?

The latest addition I know of is Mr T:

Andrew Towner - Towner's Thoughts - www.townersthoughts.blogspot.com

Would anyone else care to declare themselves, or shall we get on with some proper academic work? Good old revision week, eh?

The much loved and very young looking Dawn Evans has joined the ranks of the esteemed bloggers. For all your children's and youth work solutions, for insights into all manner of subjects from Scripture to shopping, for Northern wisdom and a lo a lo a laffs, may I suggest:

www.sisterdawn.blogspot.com

Dawn explains that you need to imagine hand gestures to accomponay words such as phone, piano, typing, up north, camera etc.

Happy blogging.

Pete Jackson’s been blogging away at:

http://peteatcollege.blogspot.com/

Dan Green, a recent Oak Hill student, now youth worker at Holy Trinity, Eastbourne, has a blog at:

http://dan-ycm.blogspot.com/

Great things can be expected from Nick Cornell at:

http://my.opera.com/nsc21/blog/

Miss Ruth Field (whose excellent cleaning services I’d be very happy to recommend):

http://www.pickledonion.blogspot.com/

Revd Chris Green, the vice-principal of Oak Hill, has a new blog at:

http://www.chris-green.blogspot.com/

Helen Morrow has been blogging away at: http://helenmorrow.blogspot.com/

Rachel Warwick, a former member of staff at Oak Hill, has a blog entitled Not "where next?" but "where now?" at: http://rachwarwick.blogspot.com/

Mix 'n' Match Spheres

I don’t think I’d ever really thought about the land “sphere” as corresponding to the family before reading Deacon Matthew’s comment:

garden/sanctuary; land/family; world

Ros would of course have told me off for not remembering the importance of the land to family continuity.

And if land naturally suggests nation, if the nation is the (extended) family writ large, then the family link ought to have been obvious.

So is there the further correspondence of spheres:

(1) church / sanctuary / garden

(2) family / home / land

(3) state / palace? / world

Does the civil state fit more properly in (2) or (3)? Maybe the construction above is a bit too suggestive of the rather worrying idea of a world-empire other than that of the Lord Jesus Christ?

Big Bits of Audible Bread

I’ve just started reading N. T. Wright’s Following Jesus: Biblical Reflections on Discipleship (London, SPCK, 1994)

Part One, “Looking to Jesus”, gives “a kind of aerial photograph or bird’s-eye view” of six different New Testament books. Wright says: “To change the image, I have supplied a kind of programme note for each book, so that, as with a symphony, one can listen out for the main themes.”

The chapters are:

(1) The Final Sacrifice: Hebrews

(2) The Battle Won: Colossians

(3) The Kingdom of the Son of Man: Matthew

(4) The Glory of God: John

(5) The Servant King: Mark

(6) A World Reborn: Revelation

These invitations to whole books of the Bible may well prove helpful. Given the way we often push reading notes or daily Bible reading schemes, its worth thinking about Wright’s comment that:

People do not always, perhaps, realize how natural and easy reading whole books
of the Bible can be, You can read through Colossians quite slowly in about
twelve minutes; you can get through Hebrews in under and hour…. I am convinced
that using a lectionary - reading the Bible in little snippets - is a second
order activity; the primary activity ought to be reading the Bible in large
chunks, to get its full flavour and thrust. (p. x)

He adds,

Many of the sermons – all those in the first Part, and chapters 9 and 10 in the second – were preached in the context of the Eucharist, and some of the eucharistic references remain. This, I am again persuaded, is no bad thing. The visible word and the written word – or if you like, the edible bread and the audible bread – go closely together, as they did for the two on the Emmaus Road in Luke 24. Following Jesus, after all, involves heart, mind, soul and strength. A church without sermons will soon have a shrivelled mind, then a wayward heart, next an unquiet soul, and finally a misdirected strength. A church without the sacraments will find its strength cut off, its soul undernourished, its heart prey to conflicting emotions, and its mind engaged in increasingly irrelevant intellectual games…. if these pieces suggest ways in which word and sacrament can be held firmly together, supplying together the context and energy to enable us to follow Jesus, I shall be delighted. (p. xf)

For the record: “The second half of the book ranges more widely over various topics which together inform, and set the context of, the biblical model of discipleship.”:

Part II: A Living Sacrifice

(7) The God Who Raises the Dead

(8) The Mind Renewed

(9) Temptation

(10) Hell

(11) Heaven and Power

(12) New Life – New World