Innasense

What’s the point of having your own blog if you can’t occasionally share a good old rant?

I’ve noticed recently that educated people speaking extemporaneously in public often randomly pepper their discourse with the term, “innasense”.

I have had two theories as to how this term came about.

The first theory was that these people enjoyed watching Ali G and therefore they really wanted to say “innit” but felt that their audience would disapprove, so they replaced it with their own version: “innasense”. But I have abandoned this theory.

My second, preferred, theory is that “innasense” was originally a codeword with a specific meaning. It either meant:

Please realise that I know that reality is multifaceted and quite complicated. I am also quite well aware that what I am about to say or have just said is only true from a certain perspective. I’m tired of people taking my statements out of context and assuming that what I have just said / am about to say about a specific subject is universally valid for all places and all times without exception or qualification. This is not true in this instance. Please just listen to what I have to say in its context.

Or, for others, it meant:

I am not one of those raving loonies who believe in absolute truth. Just thought I’d remind you.

Now, however, through constant usage, it seems that the original meaning of the term has eroded so that “innasense” now mostly just means:

Um

Now, don’t get me started on “To be honest”.

3rd January, 2011 | Category: Epistemology, Laughing on Inside, Revelation | 3 comments - be the next! - ()

Re-reading Doug Campbell

Here’s something I’d like to say:

I’ve just picked up a copy of Douglas A. Campbell’s The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul (Grand Rapids / Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2009). Initially, I was a bit daunted. It’s a very big and scary book, running to 1218 pages. But I’ve just realised that I don’t need to read it all to understand its meaning! I have a theory about the book, that makes more and more sense the more I think about it. The book can’t be Doug Campbell’s own position. It’s too full of overly complicated theories and uncalled-for denunciations. On my reading of Campbell, his whole book is actually a presentation of the position of one of his opponents, whom he wants to discredit simply by quoting at length. Campbell’s own position only truly shines through in his very last, highly ironic, sentence, where he sums up his opponent: “It seems that beyond our European conceits, the real Paul awaits us.”

Did I say that?

13th May, 2010 | Category: Laughing on Inside, Paul, Romans | 3 comments - be the next! - ()

A tribute to Anglican Liturgy

Liturgy

For the Moore College Review, 2003
Words by Dave ‘McCartney’ Hann and Lionel ‘Lennon’ Windsor
With help from 3rd year Moore College 2004
Rubrics by Lewis ‘Harrison’ Jones and Lionel ‘Lennon’ Windsor
To the tune of ‘Let it Be’
The people sitting, appropriate chords of introduction are played.

DRAWING NEAR TO LISTEN

When he found himself in times of trouble
Ecclesiologically
Cranmer had an answer: Liturgy
So he got a bunch of laws and passed
An Act of Uniformity
That is how it started: C of E

Liturgy, Liturgy, C of E, Liturgy
Cranmer had an answer: Liturgy

The congregation may join in singing. A collection may be taken here.

When I find myself in Broughton’s Chapel,
Brother Shead he speaks to me
Speaking words of wisdom: Liturgy
And in my hour of coldness
It is staring from the OHP
Screening words of wisdom: Liturgy

Liturgy, Liturgy, APB, Liturgy
Reading words of wisdom: Liturgy

And when the people call me parrot,
‘Words come out so endlessly’
I give them an answer: Liturgy
And though they may be martyred
They can still do Christian Worship 3
Polly want a cracker, Liturgy

Liturgy, liturgy, can you see, liturgy
Polly want a cracker, Liturgy

A pause for self-examination may be used here.

An appropriate guitar solo is played by the priest.

The people may raise their hands and wave them.*

* Which order is well meant, for a signification of our musical appreciation and joviality. Yet thereby no adoration is intended, either unto the guitarist or unto any corporeal Presence of Christ in the music.

Liturgy, liturgy, can you see, liturgy
Polly want a cracker, Liturgy

All then sing this General Confession:

But wherever gathered Christian people
living in the world agree
Suddenly you find it: Liturgy
When you find yourself repeating words like:
‘Do you live way A or B?’
Then you know you’ve got it: Liturgy

Everywhere you can see, Liturgy, Liturgy
Everybody’s got one: Liturgy

STAYING IN TO SERVE

And when the day is dreary
There are still the words on OHP
Shine on ‘till tomorrow: Liturgy
I wake up to the sound of pack up,
Always ‘Third year, A to G’
Goodbye morning tea, just Liturgy

Liturgy, Liturgy, MTC, Liturgy
Goodbye morning tea, just Liturgy

A final chorus may be sung, during which another collection may be taken.

Liturgy, Liturgy, Let it be liturgy
Compelling words of wisdom: Liturgy

The message may conclude with the grace, or suitable chords of dismissal

31st December, 2004 | Category: Laughing on Inside |

Old Testament Studies Revolutionised

Newsflash: Old Testament Studies Revolutionised.

Exciting new evidence supporting a late dating for the Old Testament book of Daniel has arisen in a curiously unexpected way. It appears that an orthodox fragment of an ancient source underlying Daniel has been preserved by oral tradition to this day amongst a group of Western fundamentalists, who even now regularly chant the fragment in weekly meetings. The fundamentalists have been hitherto blissfully unaware of the significance of their so-called ‘Worship Services’, but scholars are now hailing it as one of the greatest documentary finds of the twenty-first century.

The chant, commonly known in fundamentalist liturgy as Ancient of Days, is clearly a less theologically developed (and therefore earlier) form of Daniel 7:13-14. The book of Daniel presents a startlingly ‘Christological’ account in which a human figure (‘One like a Son of Man’) is given universal and eternal dominion over the creation that, by rights, belongs only to God (The ‘Ancient of Days’). The fundamentalist chant Ancient of Days, while displaying obvious formal parallels to Daniel 7:13-14, is completely devoid of any of this developed Christology.

Examples abound. In Daniel 7:13-14, ‘One like a Son of Man’ approaches the Ancient of Days and is given ‘glory’. ‘All nations’ are to serve him, and he is given an ‘everlasting dominion’ which ‘shall not pass away’, a ‘kingdom’ that will ‘not be destroyed’. Yet in the chant Ancient of Days, ‘glory’, the worship of ‘all nations’ and the ‘kingdom [that] shall not pass away’ is all ascribed simply to the Ancient of Days. The modern chant is clearly preserving a saying which is more in keeping with the orthodox monotheism of the pre- and post-exilic prophets. Equally clearly, Pseudo-Daniel has radically transformed this traditional saying to suit a theology more in line with the later Christological developments evidenced in the New Testament (e.g. Philippians 2:10-11 ‘at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.’).

Scholars are eagerly awaiting further analyses of modern fundamentalist liturgy to see what other gems of sub-Christian residue may be hidden beneath the surface.

31st December, 2004 | Category: Laughing on Inside |

Should theological students have a day off?

I like having Saturday off (normally).

I suppose you could try keeping the fourth commandment literally, according to the original instruction. But that would involve downing tools at Sunset on Israel’s Friday (about 2 AM Saturday morning EST) and picking them up again 24 hours later (2 AM Sunday morning). Anything else (e.g. just ‘having Saturday day off’) requires some sort of arbitrary non-literal interpretation based on human institutions like the International Date Line or Catholic tradition (especially if you have Sunday off). I think it’s wiser just to work out how to apply the spirit of the law to your current situation. For me, it’s having Saturday off. What is it for you?

Here are five reasons you might choose not to have a day off each week:

  1. You are God, and the salvation of the elect depends upon your continuous upholding of the universe (John 5:17).
  2. You and your family are in danger of starvation if you don’t work seven days a week (Mark 2:23)
  3. You are a slave, and your master requires you to work seven days a week (1 Peter 2:18)
  4. You have a son or an ox that falls into a well every time you try to have a day off (Luke 14:5)
  5. You are a legalist and will just spend your day off stressing about whether you’re really having a proper day off (Colossians 2:16)

Here are five reasons you might choose to have a day off each week:

  1. You need to remind yourself that you’re not God, and the salvation of the elect does not depend upon your continuous upholding of your ministry or study.
  2. Your family isn’t in danger of starvation but would really like to spend some time with you.
  3. You aren’t a slave to the College syllabus, or to your current/future congregation or bishop, for that matter, but you are responsible to God for how you use your time.
  4. You’re able to organise your son and your ox (and your life) so that things don’t regularly keep falling into wells without notice.
  5. You’d like to practice resting in the mercy and salvation of our glorious God.

In repentance and rest is your salvation, in quietness and trust is your strength (Isaiah 30:15)

31st December, 2003 | Category: Laughing on Inside |