Johann Hari: Deception and Freedom

Interesting how the Internet, often seen as a place where you can hide behind any pseudo-identity, and where the ease of anonymity allows free reign to darker impulses, has in Johann Hari’s case provided not only the temptation but also the bringing to light of deception.

His case illustrates the other side of the data age: the sheer amount of data available online, the power of crowd-sourcing (or in this case crowd-investigation) and the invisible trail which links us all to the machines we use, have made it impossible for him to hide. Astonishing that he underestimated its power so completely, that he took so few precautions, that he thought it wouldn’t catch up with him.

Such a web of deceit may not be as uncommon as we’d like to believe, but it’s extraordinary to see it laid out for us so completely. The scale of his bizarre behaviour as his alter ego ‘David Rose’, both deceitful and malicious, is perhaps more surprising than his plagiarism (which itself can hardly be excused by the ‘I didn’t know’ defence). Did he really think he’d get away with it? Or was he not really thinking?

This case has brought to mind bigger questions for me. So many of us live with varying levels of false identity and deception, with secrets and lies that we hope will stay hidden. The thought of having our deceptions, our darkest impulses, our libellous words and thoughts made known fills us with horror. When the deceit of others is discovered we react with astonishment and condescension but what arrogance and foolishness lets us think that our own lies will never be uncovered, that we’ll never be ‘found out’?

The Bible promises that one day all things will be brought into the light, that all will be uncovered and made known. Many of us long for the day when light will triumph and darkness will be no more. But, as Jesus said, some will prefer darkness: “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.” (John 3:19).

It is fear and pride that keep us from coming into the light, from allowing truth and justice to shine on our own deeds as well as those of others. But those of us who know Jesus, the light of the world himself, know that it is into love as well as light that we step and that if we embrace the light we have nothing to fear from truth, except the death of pride. And it is only through this death that we can be raised into light and life. If we want to live in a world where truth and justice reign, where there is no more darkness, then we have to allow our own selves, our own darkness, to be brought into the light.

Light can be uncomfortable when it shines on our darkness, but there’s freedom there too. Just three verses previous to that verse above, John famously tells us that “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.”(John 3:16-17). Whatever our darkness, God loves us enough to die for us. He wants us to live in freedom, in newness of life, without condemnation, and without fear.

Hari’s uncovering marks a turning point for him and a warning for the rest of us. With so much exposed, his pride battered before the world, there’s paradoxically a moment of freedom here, of release. There’s nothing left to fear when there’s nothing to lose. But there’s always a choice when we’re found out: do we hide our actions better next time, or do we decide to live a different way? Do we embrace the truth of who we are or cover it up? In exposure, there’s an opportunity to decide what kind of person we want to be – not only in the eyes of the world, but in our own eyes and in truth.

Every blessing to Johann Hari in the journey.

CS LEWIS on Longing for Beauty

“The books or the music in which we thought the beauty was located will betray us if we trust to them; it was not in them, it only came through them, and what came through them was longing. These things—the beauty, the memory of our own past—are good images of what we really desire; but if they are mistaken for the thing itself they turn into dumb idols, breaking the hearts of their worshippers. For they are not the thing itself; they are only the scent of a flower we have not found, the echo of a tune we have not heard, news from a country we have never yet visited. – CS Lewis, 1942, ‘The Weight of Glory’

“…that was not the real Narnia. That has a beginning and an end. It was only a shadow or a copy of the real Narnia which has always been here and always will be here … And of course it is different, as different as a real thing is from a shadow or as waking life is from a dream.” – Lord Digory, The Last Battle, p.159-60

POLKINGHORNE on Panentheism as our Eschatological Destiny

Interesting to find support for my ‘Where on Earth Does God Dwell?’ study paper thesis from John Polkinghorne in this interview. I hadn’t thought about the possibility of describing the future in terms of panentheism (not the same as pantheism!), though I guess that’s what I am essentially describing in my paper.

I believe that God created this world, this creation, to be other than God’s self and that it is allowed to be itself. However, as the Eastern churches have always maintained, through Christ creation is intended eventually to share in the life of God, the life of divine nature. Even now, this world contains sacraments, inklings of God’s new creation, the redemption of this world beyond its death. I believe that the new creation will be a totally sacramental world, totally suffused with God’s presence. That means, of course, that the world could then properly be described as panentheistic. So I see panentheism as an eschatological destiny rather than as a present reality.

JOHN WALTON on Genesis 1

Old Testament Scholar and conservative evangelical John Walton presents the clearest and most coherent explanation of Genesis 1 that I have come across. In this talk he makes the case for reading the text of Genesis 1 in the way it was intended – and does so in a highly lucid and entertaining manner. Very readable!

…the text has no interest in the physical, material cosmos. That’s just not what it’s talking about. That doesn’t mean that God didn’t also create the physical material cosmos, but that’s not what the ancient mindset is concerned about. That gets back to us wanting the text on our terms. We want to know about about the physical cosmos because that’s our ontology, that’s our world, that’s our concepts. That’s what we want to know about. We can’t indulge ourselves in that way with the Genesis account. Again, there’s no question that God did those things, but that’s not what this text is about. God makes it work.

From Minor Thoughts: Why Didn’t God Call the Light, Light?, a paraphrase of a talk by John Walton (Minor Thoughts also offers the MP3 file). John Walton is Professor of Old Testament at Wheaton College and author of the NIV Application Commentary on Genesis.

I’ve been looking at his ideas for my study project on the temple metanarrative, and I’m really looking forward to getting my hands on his book ‘The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate’ (read reviews at Amazon.com).

What literal readers of Genesis 1 miss out on

Genesis 1 really does contain the most marvellous poetry.

I’ve been studying it again recently as part of the Radical Network course (after two terms studying the hermeneutics of Genesis 1-3 last year!), and finding that there’s always more to discover…

Genesis 1 is a fine example of Hebrew poetry, full of patterns and structure. For example, many people will already be aware of the ‘forming and filling’ framework, but for those who aren’t:

The first three days are days of ‘forming’ or separating. They introduce the structure and divisions of creation: light from darkness – day / night (1), waters below from waters above – earth / heavens (2), and dry land from the sea (also plants on the land). The second three days correspond with the first three, but are days of ‘filling’: sun, moon and stars (4), birds in the air and fish in the sea (5), animals on the earth and, finally, humans (6).

This pattern is introduced in verse 2, which states that the earth was tohu vabohu (‘formless and empty’).

It has been suggested that the two sets of three verses also correspond to ‘dominions’ and their ‘rulers’, or ‘creation kingdoms’ and ‘creature kings’, for which there is some evidence.

However, on recent re-reading what jumps out at me is the way in which the poetry builds up to the creation of humanity, with the function and blessings given to the creatures paralleling not so much each other, but the specific roles given to humanity. It seems so obvious once you’ve seen it!  The lights of day 4 and the birds and fish of day 5 are clearly setting out the pattern for humanity’s role of ruling and multiplying (or even, again, forming and filling):

Day 4: God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night… to govern the day and the night”

Day 5: “Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens.” … God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.”

Day 6: ”Let Us make man in Our image … and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” … God blessed them; and God said to them, “ Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

The rule of humanity over the created world is paralleled by the rule of the lights over the day and night, and God’s blessing of fruitfulness and his command to fill the earth is set up on day 5 with the fish and birds.  Notice also that humanity if given dominion not just over the land creatures, but over the fish and birds as well (deliberately subverting the pattern).  Interestingly, humanity is not specifically said to rule over the sun and moon, but in giving the lights the role of ‘signs’ (v.14) , they are clearly intended to serve humanity.

Verses 26-30 are clearly the climax of the passage. It might even be seen that the whole creation account is designed to parallel the creation of humanity and man’s God-given role of ruling / separating and multiplying / filling. This is perhaps hinted at in God’s intention to create humanity in his own image (too frequently have we tended to interpret this idea outside of the context of Genesis 1).  In the same way as God we are here to bring order and fruitfulness where there was previously chaos and emptiness.

And I’m confident there’s more to find…

The Cleansing of ‘Heavenly Things’

What are the ‘heavenly things’ of Hebrews 9.23, of which the earthly sanctuary and vessels of worship are merely copies? What are these things that must be purified by a ‘better sacrifice’ (that is the blood of Jesus, the High Priest, himself, not the ineffectual blood of goats and bulls, 10.4)?

On the Day of Atonement, which is being referenced here, the High Priest offered a bull as a sin offering for himself and his household (Lev 16.6,11). He then offered two goats, with one being sacrificed and the other sent away bearing the sins of the people (the ‘scapegoat’).

The first goat is offered to the Lord “as a sin offering” (Lev 16.9) for the people (Lev 16.15) and its blood is sprinkled on and in front of the mercy seat (LXX, ‘hilasterion’, c.f. Rom 3.25). Interestingly, this sacrifice is to make atonement for three specific things: the holy place (16.16), the tent of meeting (16.16) and the altar (16.18). See also the summary in verse 20. The necessity of this atonement is explained in verse 16: “He shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the impurities of the sons of Israel and because of their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and thus he shall do for the tent of meeting which abides with them in the midst of their impurities.“

Thus, this goat is offered up to make atonement not for the people directly, but for the sanctuary (and its parts), that is, to reconcile it in some way to God. Clearly, it is this sacrifice, offered year after year, which makes it possible for the sanctuary to be kept holy and acceptable to God. But the question remains, what are the heavenly (‘true’) equivalents requiring purification in Hebrews 9? We know that Christ has entered the “greater and more perfect tabernacle… [that is] not of this creation” (9.11), and it is this tabernacle which he purifies with his blood.

So, where is this perfect tabernacle, this true sanctuary? Can this be God’s heavenly dwelling place – or his future dwelling place with his people? Heb 9.24 says that Christ did not enter a holy place made of hands (a mere copy of the true one) but entered heaven itself. So what does it mean for the heavenly temple itself to be cleansed (9.23) by the blood of Jesus?

It is worth noting that according to Heb 10.19 it is not God who required the blood of Jesus in order to find a way into this ‘greater’ sanctuary, but the people of God (cf. Eph 2.13-18). Both the heavenly things and our own consciences are mentioned as being cleansed by his blood (9.23, 10.22. See also 1 Peter 1.2). Can this mean that the heavenly tabernacle in view is the people of God themselves, the living temple of Eph 2.21 (“a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit”)?

Or is it simply that a way has been made for us into that sanctuary, now cleansed by the blood of Jesus, where, as Paul says, we are able to offer our bodies as living sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God (Rom 12.1)?

Comments and ideas welcome!

Schrödinger’s cat: an epic poem

I came across the wonderful The story of Schroedinger’s cat (an epic poem) in the
Straight Dope archive – brilliant!

An excerpt…

The effect of this notion? I very much fear

‘Twill make doubtful all things that were formerly clear.

Till soon the cat doctors will say in reports,

“We’ve just flipped a coin and we’ve learned he’s a corpse.”‘

BILL BRYSON and the Mysteries of Life

I’ve recently been listening to Bill Bryson’s ‘A Short History of Nearly Everything‘ on audiobook. Superb. It’s simultaneously an overview of the various scientific disciplines and a entertaining history of science, with its many colourful personalities.

I love science and finding out about the world, uncovering mysteries which lead to deeper mysteries. There are so many wonders out there – from the glories of space to the complexity of cells and the magic of quantum particles. As a Christian I love having my brain and imagination stretched, to celebrate and be thankful. There are so many bits of this book where I just went ‘wow’ – and others where I couldn’t wait to ask God what he was up to there!

What comes across in the book most distinctively is Bryson’s wonder – at the universe, our planet and most of all, at life. He seems almost overwhelmed at times by the sheer quantity and adaptability of life, it’s fruitfulness and diversity. Life is everywhere – at least on planet Earth! One of his repeating themes is the fragility of life and the unlikelihood of us being here.  He explains the anthropic principle early in the book (which states that the (or our) universe is necessarily ‘fine-tuned’ to us, else we wouldn’t be here to observe it were so) and he clearly wants to be convinced, but I was surprised how often he emphasises what an amazing number of remarkable coincidences have led to our existence here and now. Again and again he keeps coming across reasons why we shouldn’t be here!

The last chapter of the book is all about the extinctions that mankind has caused and he concludes like this:

I mention all this to make the point that if you were designing an organism to look after life in our lonely cosmos, to monitor where it is going and keep a record of where it has been, you wouldn’t choose human beings for the job.

But here’s an extremely salient point: we have been chosen, by fate or providence or whatever you wish to call it. As far as we can tell, we are the best there is. We may be all there is. It’s an unnerving thought that we may be the living universe’s supreme achievement and its worst nightmare simultaneously.

…If this book has a lesson, it is that we are awfully lucky to be here – and by ‘we’ I mean every living thing. To attain any kind of life at all in this universe of ours appears to be quite an achievement. As humans we are doubly lucky, of course. We enjoy not only the privilege of existence, but also the singular ability to appreciate it and even, in a multitude of ways, to make it better. It is a trick we have only just begun to grasp.

We have arrived at this position of eminence in a stunningly short time. Behaviourally modern humans have been around for no more than about 0.0001 per cent of Earth’s history – almost nothing, really – but even existing for that little while has required a nearly endless string of good fortune.

We really are at the beginning of it all. The trick, of course, is to make sure we never find the end. And that, almost certainly, will require a lot more than lucky breaks.

Bill Bryson in ‘A Short History of Nearly Everything’.

Waiting by TERRI CHURCHILL

i am here.

i’m in this place, waiting for you.

i’m waiting like those wise men,
following a star like a fool.

i’m waiting like jonah
covered in the slime and scale of the sea,
deep in the belly of darkness
hoping for a rescue.

i’m waiting like your mother
pregnant with fear and love.

i’m waiting like our first parents
in the stillness of the garden
listening for your footsteps.

i’m waiting like you did
on the day I was born and
you spoke my name into the world
and said I was good.

what a surprise to find you
already here
so quiet–
waiting for me.

From the Animate booklet, part of the Animate series on Imaginative Prayer at Woodland Hills Church. These look like great resources.

RICHARD BAUCKHAM on the Divine Strategy

On 1 Corinthians 1.26-29:

At Corinth – and Paul certainly does not mean only at Corinth – God singled out the poor and the powerless, choosing to begin his work with them, not because God’s love does not extend to the cultural and social elite, but actually for the sake of the wealthy and the powerful as well as for the poor and the humble. God’s love has to reach the strong via the weak, because the strong can receive the love of God only by abandoning their pretensions to status above others. Only when they see in God’s choice of those without status that status counts for nothing in God’s sight can they abandon the arrogance and the vested interests that prevent their right relationship both with God and with others. …

In this passage and its context Paul does something rather remarkable. In the first place, by echoing the Old Testament, he identifies a consistent divine strategy, a characteristic way in which God works, to which the origins of the church at Corinth perform. … This is the God who habitually overturns status, not in order to make the non-elite a new elite, but in order to abolish status, to establish his kingdom in which none can claim privilege over others and all gladly surrender privilege for the good of others. … God raises the lowly and brings down the exalted. God himself not only inhabits the highest heaven, but comes among the humblest of his servants on earth (cf. Isaiah 57.15)

Paul not only sees this as God’s usual strategy in human affairs; he also recognises it paradigmatically in the cross. The claim that God is to be encountered and salvation found in a crucified man – a man stripped of all status and honour, dehumanised, the lowest of the low – is the offence of the cross. This is the real scandal of particularity – not just that God’s universal purpose pivots on one particular human being (though that was stumbling-block enough for the philosophically educated in Paul’s day and the Enlightenment rationalists of our own), but, much worse, that God’s universal purpose pivots on this particular human being, the crucified one. 

No wonder the rulers of this age did not recognise him. …For those who see God in the image of their own power and status there could be no recognition of God in the cross. And yet the Christ who thus demeaned himself to the depths of human degradation, as Paul says in Philippians 2.6-11, is the one God has exalted to the throne of the universe so that every knee should bow and every tongue confess that he is Lord…  God defined his own kingdom when he exalted the crucified Christ. …

This means that as well  as the outward movement of the church’s mission in geographical extension and numerical increase, there must also be this (in the Bible’s imagery) downward movement of solidarity with the people at the bottom of the social scale of importance and wealth. It is to these – the poorest, those with no power or influence, the wretched, the neglected – to whom God has given priority in the kingdom, not only for their own sake, but also for all the rest of us who can enter the kingdom only alongside them.

Richard Bauckham, Bible and Mission, pp.50-54

[Sorry for the long excerpt - I just thought it was excellent stuff]