Atlas of True Names

This seems to bring together two of my favourite things: language and maps. I'm not convinced that the etymologies are always just so, but it's fun anyhow. I feel vindicated when I look at where Dublin is and it says 'Blackpool': as a child I remember finding out what the Gaelic meant and finding it amusing that there was a Blackpool on both sides of the Irish Sea -sorry that should be Westland Sea, perhaps. I also like that the Land of Strangers gives the sense of 'Wales' and the Mountains of Fellow Countrymen gives something of the sense of the Welsh (strangers') word for Wales, 'Cymru' (pr "come ree" if you're speaking a version of English where that first vowel is not like in 'foot'). Have a look.Atlas of True Names

Historicisation of God's being

I've just recently come across this article (and it's worth noting that this site makes a number of academic articles available in full). It is an examination of Some of Karl Barth's thought in relation to resurrection and God's eternity. I was drawn to it because the title "The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: Karl Barth and the Historicization of God's Being" seemed to offer some help with my own project of interpreting the atonement as a historicising of God's being -those weren't the words I had been using to describe the insight I was trying to develop, but there was a sense of recognition when I saw it.
Here's a quote from Barth which seems to go to the heart of the matter:

in the resurrection of Jesus Christ we have to do with a movement and action which took place not merely in human history but first and foremost in God Himself, a movement and action in which Jesus Christ as the Son of God . . . [is] a pure object and recipient of God [the Father's] . . . free and pure grace which as such can only be received, and the historical fulfilment of which is the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

and

'the resurrection . . . took place . . . not merely in human history but first and foremost in God himself'

Now that is very helpful in making a case for events in the history of the Christ being out-showings of God's 'inner' being. What I want to do, I think, is a bit harder: that the cross is an out-showing of God's forgiving. This may be harder because it is something that is more fully dependent on contingent being; fallen humanity needing forgiveness.

I think that my approach will be to start with the human experience of forgiveness, practical theology style; to analyse some of the more important aspects of forgiving and to relate those to divine forgiveness (including, wrath, love, mercy, compassion and pain-bearing). The end to which I am heading in this thinking is, in effect, to say that the cross is the space time eikon of God's forgiveness. I think I mean eikon rather than 'icon' in the sense that I'm drawing on what I understand to be the Eastern understanding of a quasi-sacramental thing: an outcrop into ordinary spacetime of divine or spiritual reality such that our interaction with is is a real spiritual interaction.

Obviously, there are a lot of gaps to be filled in on this, but I think it could be sound. And finding out Barth was saying this stuff, really helps.
Wiley InterScience :: Article :: HTML Full Text

Not quite baptised

I have read recently of how it was reported that there had been cases in the church of the late Roman period where men being baptised did so with their right hands raised out of the water so that their sword hand would remain unbaptised, allowing them (by some twisted logic) to continue as soldiers. Well, I wonder whether there is a lot of truth in this late capitalist version (save that it should perhaps be a credit card)?

Of course, if we held that as some kind of doctrine, what would it say about baptism by aspersion?
Out of Ur | Conversations for Ministry Leaders

The honest truth about Christmas card sending

Dave Walker anatomises the dilemmas of Christmas card sending very neatly in his latest cartoon:
Cutting down the Christmas card list

The Bible is not a metanarrative

I seem to spend a lot of time on the quiet questioning fellow Christians about the assertion that Scripture is a metanarrative. I've tended to ask if that's so: why do the same stories get told differently? How come there are clear culturally-different takes on things? Why is it that we can't come to agreed Christian views about various things on the basis of Scripture? So, I was happy to discove that I'm not a voice in the wilderness. Here's the article I found comfort in: THEOOZE - Articles: Viewing Article: And here's a quote to try to persuade you to read it. "In light of this explanation of meta-narratives, does the Bible fit into such a category? Is the Bible a meta-narrative in the modern sense? The answer is clearly, no. As was discussed earlier, the New Testament church is not part of a meta-narrative, but is a movement of resistance against such. The Roman Empire oppressed the early Christians with its power, but through weakness the church endured; and this is the proclamation that we read each time we open the Scriptures. Just as Homer’s Odyssey is a “big story” of proclamation, so also biblical authority is found in the story that is told, not in some form of scientific or universal reason. James K. A. Smith states:

While in modernity science was the emperor who set the rules for what counted as truth and castigated faith as fable, postmodernity has shown us the emperor’s nudity. Thus, we no longer need to apologize for faith—we can be unapologetic in our kerygmatic proclamation of the gospel narrative."

Charity Christmas gifts online

And this isn't just buying a physical present for someone that is fairtraide, say. Rather this is not buying something that you send to a friend or family member, rather you buy something for someone in the developing world, to help lift them out of poverty, and your would-be-donee gets a card to say what has been given on their behalf, so to speak. A few years back, I got a card with 10 chickens on it as 'my' present was 10 chickens to a family in east Africa. I really liked that -after all, like most people in the west, I actually have my fill of little ornaments and fripperies. What do you get for the person who has, well, if not everything, at least most things that they could need and many they could want? Something for someone else who doesn't have much. This is much more in the spirit of Saint Nicholas, methinks. Anyway, there's a good explanation here: Charity Christmas gifts online are perfect solution for Christmas shoppers | Ekklesia: "Instead of simply giving more unwanted clutter to friends and family, the Christian aid agencies have come up with a range of 70 charity Christmas gifts which you can give to developing communities - on behalf of others.
From an ox to an HIV education system, a wheelchair to a bicycle, you can order and send your charity Christmas gifts all online too. All you have to do is visit the web site, choose a price range and select a gift with the details of the friend on whose behalf you are sending the present. The charity then sends a special card to your friend or family member, telling them what has been given on their behalf."
And at that site links to three charity sites where they are doing this.

One note of caution though. Don't do this to someone else unless they are happy about it, or you could lose a friend. Better is to let people know that this is what you'd like for Christmas, and hope that some of them might take the hint. And remember, it doesn't have to be either/or: you could elect for a little gift and ask for the rest to be a charity gift.

Children and religious belief -psychological findings

I'd commend this to your attention. It's only short but it manages to acknowledge that there are two basic ways to interpret the data. Justin L Barrett: Do children believe because they're told to by adults? The evidence suggests otherwise | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk:
After looking briefly at the findings, Justin Barrett concludes "That belief comes so naturally to children may sound like an attack on religious belief (belief in gods is just leftover childishness) or a promotion of religious belief (God has implanted a seed for belief in children). What both sides should agree upon is the scientific evidence: certainly cultural inputs help fill in the details but children's minds are not a level playing field. They are tilted in the direction of belief."
Interesting, don't you think?