new songs for old

I've just realised I'm getting old.
I've just received my copy of Songs of Fellowship 5 (music version) and was looking through it. The first thing that struck me is how many of the songs are actually old (and still fairly well-known hymns) which have been 'tweaked' ever so slightly. It appears that by adding an extra line or two, you can then re-copyright the song and get royalties for it.
So I found myself muttering that the old tunes were fine and didn't need anyone mucking around with them.
This is actually rather hypocritical as I occasionally come up with new versions of tunes for well-known hymns myself ;-)

However, when I got to 'Immortal invisible, God only wise' I spluttered to a halt. Why?
Because the first verse goes:
Immortal, invisible, God only wise,
In light inacessible hid from our eyes.
Most blessed, most glorious, the ancient of days,
Almighty, victorious, thy great name we praise.

But the chorus that's been added basically says 'there is none like you, Jesus'

Jesus immortal? Well, that has to be a yes and no.
Invisible? Hidden? Inacessible?

Like I said, I'm getting old and nitpicky

essay

I've finally finished reading Jesus and the Victory of God by NT Wright. It was good, but didn't half take some getting through (all 700+ pages of it). So now I'm deep in other stuff, all so I can write an essay about the resurrection.
I thought it would be easy - believing the resurrection happened was (and still is) the cornerstone of my faith. I'm with St Paul on this one - if the resurrection didn't happen, then we are to be pitied. Not necessarily for still being dead in our sins, but for being complete idiots. The more I read, the more I realise what a stupid idea Jesus being physically resurrected from the dead is. Surely ANYTHING has to be a more sensible explanation than that?

So far the alternative explanations I've come across are:
1) Jesus wasn't crucified. That's the Muslim view - that Jesus was assumed directly into heaven (cf Elijah, Enoch) and someone else was crucified instead. God simply would not let one of His messengers get treated so disgracefully.
2) Jesus didn't really die, he revived in the tomb. The problem with the 'swoon' theory is that firstly Romans were pretty good at killing people - they had had alot of practice crucifying people - and secondly how would an almost dead Jesus convince his disciples that he was the Lord of life? I've seen people with major blood loss, and they don't exactly look bursting with health.
3) Jesus did die, but his body was tossed into an unmarked communal grave. It explains why the tomb was empty (no body there in the first place) and also why the body couldn't be produced. But it has to be combined with something else to explain why the disciples suddenly started preaching resurrection.
4) Someone stole or moved the body - Joseph of Arimethea, the disciples, the authorities - take your pick! Again, it explains an empty tomb, but not preaching resurrection.
5) some sort of hallucination/ vision. In this version, saying Jesus is risen means "I've had an experience of Jesus and he's still with me" and no physical resurrection is involved. Or it was a bereavement phenomenon. Stories about the empty tomb were later fabrications.
6) a combination of 5 AND either 3 or 4

NT Wright was really helpful in explaining that at the time Jesus lived, there was belief in a bodily resurrection of all the righteous at the end of time. Ongoing existence of the soul was not called resurrection. And there was no hint that any one individual would be resurrected before the general resurrection. So if that's the case, why would anyone interpret a vision as meaning Jesus was resurrected? Other visions in the Bible don't get interpreted like that, they are understood to be visions, and accepted as such. Similarly, when Rhoda opens the door to Peter after he gets out of prison, she doesn't conclude he's been resurrected, she thinks he's a ghost.

There is an unspoken imperialistic strand in alot of what I've been reading: "In our modern scientific age, of course we know better than to believe such stupid things. They were uneducated and lived in premodern conditions and therefore naturally believed all sorts of outdated things". Except, according to the gospels, seeing the empty tomb didn't make any one think Jesus had risen. They thought someone had stolen the body, or moved it elsewhere. When Jesus appears to them, he does things to prove he's not a ghost. Which to me, suggests that the disciples (including the women) knew that dead people stay dead.

Of course, you then get in to the whole question of how reliable are the gospels, when were they written, how much is hearsay etc etc etc
But alot of that discussion depends on presuppositions as to what is 'reasonable' and what isn't. As does the disussion about the resurrection. Ultimately it boils down to whether you think that if there is a God they might intervene in the affairs of the universe on occasion (ie perform a miracle). If you do, then the resurrection is more plausible than the alternative explanations. If you don't, then even being there yourself as an eyewitness at the actual moment of resurrection wouldn't convince you.

Any thoughts gratefully received (especially if you don't agree with me - just keep them polite ;-) )

quick joke

Not posted for ages as been away alot and busy. One of things I was away at was a pastors' spouses get-together, when the following joke was told, to sounds of rueful agreement....

What's the difference between a pastor's spouse and a wheelie-bin?


The wheelie-bin gets taken out once a fortnight....

the parable of the whirligig

Once a man put up a whirligig in his back garden. He watched to see which part of the garden got the most sun exposure, and duly inserted the whirligig spike into the garden as directed. All went well for a few months. Then he noticed the whirligig was leaning rather too much to one side. On further investigation, this was due to the hole the spike had made becoming larger. So he did a temporary repair by putting a small bit of wood in the hole. This worked until a few rainfalls later, when the hole enlarged again. After several such temporary fixes, he decided something more definite was needed, as despite all the bits of wood, the whirligig was still leaning rather badly. So off he went to the local superstore to get some magic concretey-stuff to cement the spike into place. "That'll fix it" he thought. Unfortunately, the next time he hung the washing out, it was rather windy. And it got even windier. The next time he looked out of the window, not only was it raining, but the whole whirligig had parted company with the earth, a perfect block of concrete still around the spike...

I'm sure there's a parable in here somewhere ;-)
MrPM has now reconcreted our whirligig. Hopefully it won't come out of the ground again.

PS a whirligig is an outdoor rotary clothes line

back again

Things got quite busy for a while, what with having visitors and two Guide camps on successive weekends (don't think I will make that mistake again!), so no blogging.
Now it's back to more usual life, so I am busy doing some more apologetics - next essay is about proof for the resurrection. I though it wouldn't be too difficult, after all, it's why I became a Christian in the first place: I couldn't come up with a more convincing alternative explanation of what had happened to Jesus' body; therefore I had to believe the resurrection had happened; therefore I had to take Jesus seriously; therefore I had to believe in God....
At present I am plowing through The Resurrection of the Son of God by NT Wright. I suspect the information I really need is near the end of the book, but it's only going to make sense if I read the rest first. I've made it to page 360, which is about halfway :-( I'm finding it very interesting, but it does take a bit of wading through. It's much less entertaining for mrPM though - with some of the other books I've read, there have been regular explosions of 'Rubbish!' (no, that's not the actual word I used - any readers who know me in the flesh will know exactly which word it replaces) from the settee. It's going to be quite difficult to write an essay taking some of these views seriously...

pastorate

For those of you who know something of the saga, mrPM has had his meeting with the "high heid-yins" and they've given him the go-ahead to think about going back into pastorate. This did come with the proviso that he shouldn't be in too much of a hurry to get back...
Fair enough, we thought. We weren't in a huge hurry - we have no idea what God wants us to do, and we're also much more wary than we were before, but it was good to have mrPM's calling reconfirmed.

apologetics

I've been busy reading in preparation for my next essay, which is on apologetics. The actual title is very long and rather woolly, but basically it comes down to what is apologetics? and how would you prioritize different things within it?

I've really enjoyed reading "Humble Apologetics" by Stackhouse, so much friendler in tone than many apologetics books. He has a rather tongue-in-cheek definition of apologetics as 'making the other person sorry they asked why you were a Christian'. ;-)
I hope I don't do that, but I suspect I do fit another definition Stackhouse had: 'explaining why you're sorry you're a Christian'....

So any other ideas for what apologetics means or involves?