On the latest Mere Fidelity, Andrew, Derek, Matt, and I talk about the recent book that has been causing a stir in the field of Pauline theology, John Barclay’s Paul & and the Gift. I reviewed the book for Reformation21 last month. Take a look over there for some more of my thoughts on the matter.
You can also follow the podcast on iTunes, or using this RSS feed. Listen to past episodes on Soundcloud and on this page on my blog.
A post of mine on the subject of Baptism and Christian obedience has just been posted over on the Theopolis Institute. It is the second of a three part series and continues the argument begun in my first post ‘Sealed for Resurrection: Baptism and the Objectivity of the Body’.
By speaking of the presentation of our members—our limbs and organs—to God, Paul accords a greater prominence to the body. What we present to God is not just our actions, nor our agency, nor yet even ourselves as agents, but the various and disparate bodily agencies and potentialities of our limbs and organs in their givenness and objectivity.
This makes a difference for the way in which we conceive of Christian obedience. It is the membered character of our body that alerts us to its givenness and otherness. Being an agent is a dimension of being a unified subject, my agency is a unifying bodily principle in which my nature as an agent is expressed, and my actions are the products of that subjective agency. Paul reaches behind all of these things to address the objective givenness of the bodily limbs and organs that serve as the precondition for my being an agent, exercising agency, and being the author of actions.
By stressing the diverseness and multiplicity of the bodily limbs and organs, Paul reminds us of the material body that underlies our unifying agency, reminding us that our subjectivity must always reckon with the objectivity of our bodies, an objectivity that we receive as a gift and must now render as an offering. My very hands, eyes, and feet must be presented to God; henceforth, I must live as one who acts using holy instruments. The assumption of my bodily autonomy and self-possession is challenged at its root when my limbs and organs are dedicated to God’s service.
Read the whole thing here.
I have a ten part series on the subject of the Transfiguration coming out over on Reformation21. The first part has just been posted.
The events of the Baptism and Transfiguration themselves are similar in some noteworthy respects. When he was baptized, the Spirit descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove, and the Father’s voice declared Jesus to be his beloved Son, in whom he was well pleased. At the Transfiguration, the Spirit descends in the form of the bright glory cloud [2] and the voice of the Father announces that Jesus is the Chosen Son, and that the disciples should hear him. Understood in such a manner, both the Baptism and the Transfiguration are overtly Trinitarian theophanies. In Luke’s gospel, there is also a characteristic emphasis upon prayer common to both accounts: both of the events occur while Jesus is praying (3:21-22; 9:29). Such associations between the Baptism and the Transfiguration–great disclosures of Christ’s glory and mission that initiate successive stages of his earthly ministry–are indications, far from being an anomalous event within the larger plot, the Transfiguration may be structurally integral to the progression of the gospel narratives.
The first of a three part series of posts of mine on baptism and the body has just gone up over on the Theopolis Institute.
The action of the ritual of baptism isn’t the act of the candidate, but of a minister of Jesus Christ, performed upon the candidate’s body. In contrast to the Lord’s Supper, where the communicant ‘takes’ and ‘eats’ in an actively bodily manner, the body of the baptismal candidate is passive in the act of baptism. While the body’s personal and purposeful activity and our bodily absorption of that which is external to us into our interiority are foregrounded in the Supper, it is the objectivity andexteriority of the body and self that are foregrounded in the rite that necessarily precedes it—baptism.
My body defies the distinction between subject and object: it is both the site of my interiority and subjectivity, yet also an object that exists in continuity with the world and as a part of nature that others can act upon. My body is the site of my consciousness, my sense of self, and my action, but before these come into being, my body receives meaning and identity from other sources. My ‘self’ is never simply my subjectivity: it is also my bodily objectivity and in this objectivity my body is the bearer of ‘given’ meanings that precede me, my subjectivity, my choices, and my actions.
Read the whole piece here and look out for the follow up pieces in coming weeks.
The open mic thread is where you have the floor and can raise or discuss issues of your choice. There is no such thing as off-topic here. The comments of this thread are free for you to:
Over to you!
As I am currently taking a break both from standard blogging and from commenting, I won’t be participating in these threads for a few months.
Earlier open mic threads:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42.
On the latest Mere Fidelity, Andrew, Derek, Matt, and I discuss the recent controversy over a Church of England ad for the Lord’s Prayer, which was in the news recently as the agency that runs most film advertising in the UK refused to show it in cinemas. Andrew posted on the subject last week. Ian Paul has also made helpful comments on the exact details of the situation here.
We all have a stimulating conversation/argument; Andrew and I sharply disagree with Matt on the subject (it is always reassuring to find myself disagreeing with Matt from time to time!).
You can also follow the podcast on iTunes, or using this RSS feed. Listen to past episodes on Soundcloud and on this page on my blog.
Last year Jake Meador and I had a wide-ranging and stimulating conversation on the subject of Lent, which was published over on Mere Orthodoxy. We both enjoyed the exchange immensely and recently decided to have another e-mail conversation, which we got around to doing last week. The result is entitled ‘Moral Sentimentalism and a Mechanized Society’.
Take a look and share your thoughts in the comments!
Mere Fidelity has a number of running costs: $135 a month when you include Soundcloud hosting and sound editing. To this point, Matt has very generously paid for all of this for us. However, we could really do with some funding to defray such operating expenses. Matt has set up a Patreon account. If you would like to help support our podcast, any donations would be greatly appreciated—especially by Matt!
Listen to past episodes of the podcast here or here, or follow us on iTunes.
My review of Jonathan Grant’s new book, Divine Sex: A Compelling Vision for Christian Relationships in a Hypersexualized Age, has just been posted over on The Gospel Coalition website.
Divine Sex divides into two halves: the first mapping the “modern sexual imaginary,” the second articulating a new vision for Christian formation. The modern sexual self, Grant argues, exists in a culture of authenticity and expressive individualism, with intimate personal relationship being “the place where we can most fully express and actualize ourselves” (30–31). When the culture has been shorn of transcendence, meaning and personal identity are sought in romantic fulfillment and the “authentic” expression of our sexual selves.
Grant insists that “attending to people’s sexual and relational lives is a critical part of [the] journey of discipleship because we are connectional beings” (25). Our relationships and sexual identities color much of our experience and understanding of faith, as we wrestle with God through singleness, marriage, childlessness, or against the backdrop of our sexuality. Our selves are powerfully implicated in our sexuality, and churches that fail to address people at this point fail properly to disciple them.
The modern sexual self is trapped in a series of dilemmas, caught between the desire for authentic intimacy and radical individualism’s quest for autonomy, between the fantasy of romance and the fatalism of realism. Our autonomous individualism denies we have “moral claims on each other’s lives, especially our sexual lives” (54), treating them as a purely private matter. We vacillate between contrasting individualistic visions of freedom represented by utilitarianism’s rational control, expressivism’s following of its heart, and postmodernism’s listless liberty. We value open options, but lack the capacity of wholehearted commitment, succumbing to “the easy rush of pornography, consumerism, uncommitted relationships, the next big experience, and so on” (59). Our false vision of freedom poorly equips us for the challenge of marriage, on account of our resistance to binding ties: we want the gift of marriage, but won’t accept its crisis.
Read the whole review here. I also highly recommend that you buy the book.
This week’s Mere Fidelity podcast has a very depleted cast; only Andrew and I were around, as both Derek and Matt were at ETS. I took the opportunity to discuss Andrew’s new book, The Life You Never Expected: Thriving While Parenting Special Needs Children, with Andrew and his co-writer and wife, Rachel, who joined us on the show. I highly recommend the book to you and hope that you find the discussion helpful.
You can also follow the podcast on iTunes, or using this RSS feed. Listen to past episodes on Soundcloud and on this page on my blog.
n. pl.
A miscellaneous collection of notes, remarks, or selections.
Alastair's Adversaria 