Fear & Trembling

Blog Has Moved!

2011-09-21T15:39:00.001-04:00

As of 2011, my blog is now at:

http://jbyas.com

Thanks!

Sorry for the delay

2009-01-02T23:37:00.005-05:00

For those few of you who do read my blog, I apologize for the lack of posting last month. I am really being hounded by deadlines right now. I have been out of town for Christmas and I have to have my course in Biblical Hermeneutics written and sent by Feb 1, I have 60 Amos exams to grade by next week, and we've just begun a new series at Encounter on James so I have had to gear up for that the past few weeks. I will be back...promise. Pray for my next month as I finish up all these projects and take a break for a few months! [And by break I mean focusing on my pastoring, taking only one class, and only being a TA for Mike's OTI].

Top 10 Movies I Watched This Year

2009-01-01T11:04:00.004-05:00

Keep in mind, I don't ever actually go to the movies, I always rent them, so these probably came out in 2007. I have chosen these not based on entertainment value but on impact, either intellectual, emotional, or spiritual. In no particular order:

1. Lars & the Real Girl

2. The Great Debaters

3. The Savages

4. In the Valley of Elah

5. For the Bible Tells Me So

6. The Last Kiss

7. Martian Child

8. Horton Hears a Who

9. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

10. When Nietzsche Wept

How Evangelical Are You?

2008-11-22T14:09:00.003-05:00

When I was poking around Lark News today, this was one of the advertised links in the sidebar. Maybe WTS should put this on their website under the "employment opportunities" page?

Helpful ANE Resources

2008-11-16T00:41:00.004-05:00

In case anyone is interested I found some helpful resources when dealing with the primary sources of ANE texts. Browse around. The first one looks hokey but the translations come from mostly standard sources or scholarly sources (such as the second link).

http://www.gatewaystobabylon.com/

http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/

Augustine & the Hot Dog

2008-11-14T11:57:00.002-05:00

Too awesome not to post...

The Burdens of The Giver

2008-11-12T22:25:00.004-05:00

One of my favorite books to read is The Giver by Lois Lowry. Not to get all reader-response or anything but I love it because it means something specifically to me and reminds me of my role as a pastor/theologian. Let me explain:

In The Giver the protagonist is a young boy named Jonas who lives in a utopian society where there are no skinned knees and there is no experience of pain. In this society the time came, at the age of 12, when children became adults and were given what was to be there destiny, their place in the community, the role they were to perform for the good of the community. There were all kinds of jobs but only every great once in a while was there a replacement chosen for the most revered role of all, the role of the Giver. This lot befell Jonas.

The Giver was responsible for bearing all of the painful experiences and painful memories of the community so that the community didn't have to (Christ figure?). At the end of the day, Jonas decides that the joys that come with pain are worth the pain and so he releases the pain back into the community.

So where do I see the pastor/theologian? S/he is the Giver in the community. The weight of theological and biblical "pains" must be borne by them, they are the gatekeepers of the faith. Not everyone who claims Christ needs to master or even be aware of the myriad questions and theological problems the pastor/theologian is constantly confronted with. But the questions and problems must be dealt with by someone.

With this position is the utmost responsibility - deciding in what scenarios and relationships it is best for the community to be exposed to a little "pain." Do you keep bearing all of the burden to shield those in your care? Or do you let them in on a little of your experience? But when will it do good instead of doing harm? This is increasingly the role I find myself in as a pastor and as a student of the Scriptures.

As I tell most people who aspire to know more about the Bible...be very careful that you don't have false expectations about what this knowledge will bring. This knowledge is not primarily a gift but a burden. If we are interested in having our egos boosted by our knowledge then pick another field because the ethical weight of Scriptural knowledge can be a weight under which our pride and self-sufficiency are crushed.

Textual Variant & the Sabbath

2008-10-25T13:49:00.002-04:00

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the NIV has smoothed over a difficulty in Genesis 2:2 with a "possible" reading.

The NIV reads: "By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work."

The ESV reads: "And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.

The Hebrew reads: וַיְכַל אֱלֹהִים בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה; וַיִּשְׁבֹּת בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, מִכָּל-מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה.

The problem is that the ESV is more accurate. To translate the bet-preposition as "by" is a stretch. To translate wayekal as a pluperfect ("he had finished") is also a stretch. Even more of a stretch is to translate bayom as "by...day" in the first instance and then translate the exact same phrase only 5 words later "on...day." Why does the NIV do this?

Well, because God is supposed to be resting on the seventh day, not finishing up his work. The same language is used in Exodus 20:10 and even explictly says that God made heaven and earth in six days. So what do we do?

Well, rather than trusting in all of these stretches Ronald Hendel in his apologetic for a critical edition of the Hebrew Bible called The Text of Genesis 1-11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition suggests taking the textual variant found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, Septuagint, Syriac Peshitta, and Jubilees 2:16 and replacing "seventh" with "sixth."

Now, typically I am skeptical of taking textual variants but Hendel makes a good case for it.

1. "...to posit that scribes or translators changed the text independently in three (or four) textual traditions is extremely unlikely, given our cognizance of the numerous shared readings in G, S, and Syr." Also, G of Genesis is known for conserving the Vorlage so that reading "sixth" for a Proto-G is warranted. So then, it is better to argue for a common root than independent traditions.

2. So the question must now be settled on text-critical grounds. While typically the harder reading is to be accepted, in this case there is another plausible motive for why "sixth" could have given rise to "seventh." Verse 2 can be split up in this way:

בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה
בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי מִכָּל-מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה.

"With the exception of the stylistic variation of mkl in v 2b, the two sequences are identical but for the variation of ["sixth"] in the place of ["seventh"]. It is entirely possible that a scribe could have miswritten ["seventh"] in lace of ["sixth"] in the first clause, triggered by anticipation of the parallel in the second clause. This would be an accidental assimilation by anticipation" (33).

So the difficult reading is chalked up to scribal error. I like it, mostly because that's the best explanation I've heard so far.

Aliens & Genesis

2008-10-12T09:56:00.002-04:00

I am currently writing a paper on the literary connections between the two creation stories found in Genesis. I am not at all interested in whether they come from two different sources (with a great redactor) or whether they are from one source, it makes no difference to me. Anyway, I have finally found the answer in a book entitled The Lost Tribes From Outer Space. Apparently Elohim was the creator God who created hominids and evolution and the whole bit and then this strange new guy, YHWH, came from outer space and created Jews (Adam & Eve) to colonize the earth. This also explains why Jews have been persecuted for so long, they aren't human! "their oppression is like the process of rejection that sometimes occurs in organ transplants" (19-20). That also explains why YHWH gets so ticked off about intermarrying, it's obvious that Aliens (Jews) shouldn't intermarry with lowly humans.

Whew, and I thought the enigma between Genesis 2:3 and Genesis 2:4 would never be solved...

Wasting Time

2008-10-08T11:57:00.004-04:00

I was scolded by my wife the other day like I was a 5-year old. The reason? Because I "waste" a lot of time on Facebook, and the new culprit, failblog.org. Okay, I admit, I often do act like a 5-year old and I even scolded myself on how much time I spent looking at failblog.org.

But what can you do, it's probably the funniest website I have ever seen. A lot of it is inappropriate (although they now have a G-rated filter) but the rest fits my kind of humor like a glove. Of course my wife looks at me with disgust when I laugh my head off because a guy probably just broke a few ribs falling off a ladder he was trying to sell on an infomercial, but I just can't help it. Besides, being productive in life is over-rated. The point of this post?

1. To tell you why I haven't posted anything in a week. I have been busy on failblog.org.
2. To justify looking at failblog.org

Westminster Seminary (WTS) & South-Going School

2008-10-03T11:15:00.003-04:00

From Dr. Seuss's The Zax:

"And I'll prove to YOU," yelled the South-Going Zax,

That I can stand here in the prairie of Prax

For fifty-nine years! For I live by a rule

That I learned as a boy back in South-Going School.

Never budge! That's my rule. Never budge in the least!

Not an inch to the west! Not an inch to the east!

I'll stay here, not budging! I can and I will

If it makes you and me and the whole world stand still!"

"Well...

Of course the world didn't stand still. The world grew.

In a couple of years, the new highway came through

And they built it right over those two stubborn Zax

And left them there, standing un-budged in their tracks."

Scripture & Action

2008-09-29T10:28:00.001-04:00

I always love the chance to show how relevant the Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard is to modern day Christians.

When I was in college I started learning an incredible amount about the Bible and how we are supposed to be interpreting the Bible. I learned about commentaries and context, Greek and Hebrew (the languages the Bible was originally written in). And because of all my learning I started looking down on people who didn't have the same knowledge and I started making it my life goal to make sure everyone knew that they needed the knowledge that I had. Somehow I had bought into the idea that knowing more about the Bible makes you a better Christian.

When I started graduate school a few years ago I realized that such is not the case. The poor peasant Christian in Thailand who only owns one torn out piece of Scripture, say Matthew 22 ("Love the Lord your God with all your heart with all your soul, and with all your mind. And the second is like it - Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and Prophets hang on these two commandments") but actually lives this verse everyday, has come closer to the heart of what Christianity is all about than I was after all of my training.

Enter Kierkegaard:

"In other words, it is not the obscure passages in Scripture that bind you but the ones you understand. With these you are to comply at once. If you understood only one passage in all of Scripture, well, then you must do that first of all...God's Word is given in order that you shall act according to it, not that you gain expertise in interpreting it...Being alone with God's Word is a dangerous matter. Of course, you can always find ways to defend yourself against it: Take the Bible, lock your door - but then get out ten dictionaries and twenty-five commentaries. Then you can read it just as calmly and coolly as you read newspaper advertising.

With this arsenal you can really begin to wonder, "Are there not several valid interpretations? So you calmly conclude, "I myself am not absolutely sure about the meaning of this passage. I need more time to form an opinion." Good Lord! What a tragic misuse of scholarship that it makes it so easy for people to deceive themselves!

Can't we be honest for once! We have become such experts at cunningly shoving one layer after another, one interpretation after another, between the Word and our lives...and we then allow this preoccupation to swell to such profundity that we never come to look at ourselves in the mirror...

It is only all too easy to understand the requirements contained in God's Word ("Give all your good to the poor" etc.) The most ignorant, poor creature cannot honestly deny being able to understand God's requirements. But it is tough on the flesh to will to understand it and to then act accordingly.

Herein lies the problem. It is not a question of interpretation, but action."

From For Self-Examination & Judge For Yourself, 26-35

Sarcasm & Myth

2008-09-28T14:29:00.002-04:00

As I was reading Kierkegaard's Philosophical Fragments today (as anyone is prone to do on a rainy Sunday afternoon) I ran into a small sarcastic quip that I thought again shows Kierkegaard extremely relevant for today. It is his introduction into one of his parables to explain how "the god" lisps to his loved one in order to have a reciprocal love:

"Suppose there was a king who loved a maiden of lowly station in life - but the reader may already have lost patience when he hears that our analogy begins like a fairy talk and is not at all systematic."

It seems that the problems we have today with systematic theologians has a long history (with Philosophical Fragments written in the first half of the 19th century).

Even then history was often considered more "truthful" than parable (or dun...dun...dun..."myth") and that "husking" the narratives of Scripture to get at the "kernels" is what is really important.

What a mean and petty God we serve who gave us a book that is mostly narrative and only partly propositional so that we have to spend all of our time finding out how to reduce the narratives to propositions...Wait a minute...

Brilliant - Facebook in Real Life

2008-09-26T16:53:00.002-04:00

OT Thoughts - Exodus (Part 7

2008-09-25T14:47:00.002-04:00

Where did Moses get his name from? The text itself says that the etymology of his name is כִּי מִן-הַמַּיִם מְשִׁיתִהוּ (lit. because from the water I drew him)But there are a few slight problems with saying that Pharoah's daughter named him "Moses," "Because I drew him from the water." First, the probability of Pharaoh’s daughter naming the child with a Hebrew name is slim for two reasons. The first is that naming him with a Hebrew name would give away his identity as a Hebrew...and remember, her Dad is killing Hebrew boys at the moment. The second reason it's improbable is that she's not Hebrew! It's not very likely at all that she would have known Hebrew. The conquoring country rarely learns the language of the conquored country. Secondly, the term itself is more easily taken from the Egyptian noun ms ‘boy, child’ as a cognate of the Egyptian verb msỉ ‘to bear, beget’ and appears in such names as Ptahmose, Tuthmosis, Ahmose, and Harmose.

But then why did the Jewish author record the Hebrew etymology and not the Egyptian etymology of the name? To say that it was obviously due to the ignorance of the author of the Egyptian derivation misreads the purpose of the text and certainly isn’t obvious, contra Durham.

On the contrary, it is quite possible (and likely) that the purpose was theological and literary. Naming in the whole of the Old Testament was a highly theological and literary enterprise and is used by the writer on more than one level and for more than one purpose. “Moses’ name meant for the Israelites (and therefore for God, whose Spirit inspired the writers) that he was drawn out of water and would draw them out of water” (Peter Enns, Exodus, 64-65).

So maybe it’s not the validity of the answer that should cause worry but whether or not we are even asking the right questions. There is much more meaning, for the reader today and especially for the ancient Jewish reader, in the Hebrew etymology of the name than in the Egyptian, not that the Egyptian etymology shouldn’t be recognized. The problem comes when we start thinking that the only thing that is truly "meaningful" is modern notions of history and "what really happened."

But the origin of the name of Moses seems to be an intentional foreshadowing. This foreshadowing in the name of Moses as one drawn out of the water only to later himself ‘draw’ his people out of the water is also supported by the placing of Moses "in the reeds" (בַּסּוּף)in 2:3 and "in the midst of the reeds" (בְּתוֹךְ הַסּוּף)in 2:5. And later he will in fact lead God’s people through the "sea of reeds" (יַם-סוּף).

Then there is a final, broader connection that comes by way of the overall structure of the stories. Just as Moses begins outside of the house of Egypt (raised in the court of Pharaoh), then enters the house of Israel, then is dealt harshly by Pharaoh who tries to kill him and then chases him out, so goes the story of Israel in Egypt (cf. the story of Joseph and Exodus 1:1-14:31).

OT Thoughts - Exodus (Part 6)

2008-09-25T14:42:00.001-04:00

Was Moses's Mom That Superficial?

2:2 of Exodus: "The woman conceived and bore a son; and when she saw how beautiful he was, she hid him for three months."

This of course begs the question: If Moses was ugly would she have not hidden him and left him to be found by Pharaoh to be killed?

Well, actually, there is much more going on in this verse than the English translations allow. The verse literally says, "Then the woman conceived and bore a son and when she saw him, that he was good (ki-tov), she him him for three months." This is exactly the phrase we heard over and over at the beginning of Genesis, "and God saw that it was good (ki-tov)." It seems then that the author is taking us back to the creation story and making some sort of connection with Moses.

But what does it mean for Moses's mom to see "that he is good?" Many translators have tried to decide:

NIV: "When she saw that he was a fine child"
NASB: "When she saw that he was beautiful"
JPS: "When she saw how beautiful he was"
NLT: "She saw that he was a special baby"
KJV: "When she saw that he was a goodly child"

I think that the NLT is probably the closest to the point that the author of Exodus was trying to get across, this Moses is special. It's not trying to say that he was such a great baby, he never cried, never spit up on his dear parents. Nor is it trying to say that Moses was cute or beautiful. But the point is that God is now engaged in the life of his people and is going to work through a special child, Moses.

But why do so many versions translate the verse as talking about his looks? It actually comes from the Septuagint, or Greek version of Genesis. This would have been the Bible that the writers of the NT would have used since many of them probably didn't know Hebrew anymore, or at least not nearly as well as they would have known Greek. So they used a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, similar to the way we use an English translation.

And in the Greek translation the word is asteion or "handsome." In fact, this is the word Stephen uses when he recounts to the story of Moses in Acts 7:20.

Barthian Ruminations

2008-09-23T16:03:00.003-04:00

As our Schleiermacher Reading Group at WTS is currently reading through Barth's Church Dogmatics section on Scripture, I have found myself having tremendous sympathies with his views on Scripture. Now, this is pretty scary and uncharted territory for me since I have it ingrained in me to consider Barth a hermeneutical and Christological heretic even though he opposed the theological liberals of his time (who I was also taught to consider heretical).

But I think that just as many of my fears about critical scholarship were unfounded so were my fears about Barth. For instance, he states:

"The demand that the Bible should be read and understood and expounded historically is, therefore, obviously justified and can never be taken too seriously. The Bible itself posits this demand: even where it appeals expressly to divine commissionings and promptings, in its actual compostion it is eerywhere a human word, and this human word is obviously intended to be taken seriously and read and understood and expounded as such. To do anything else would be to miss the reality of the Bible and therefore the Bible itself as the witness of revelation. The demand for a "historical" understnading of the Bible necessarily means, in content, that we have to take it for what it undoubtedly is and is meant to be: the human speech uttered by specific men at speciic times in a specific situation, in a specific language and with a specific intention. It emans that the understanding of it has honestly and unreservedly been on which is guided by all these considerations...To the extent that it [the concrete humanity of Scripture] is ignored, it has not been read at all."

What I love about this quotation is that it gets at the heart of what makes the Bible so uncomfortable for both theological conservatives and theological liberals: its historical situatedness. For theological liberals history is unimportant because it cannot be trusted to be accurate, so we tear off the husk of situatedness and grasp the kernel of moral truth behind the history.

For theological conservatives history is too concrete and not "transcendent" or "ontological" enough, so we tear off the husk of situatedness and grasp the kernel of "what the divine author really meant." We often read the text as though we want to always be getting behind the history rather than seeing the revelation itself as historical. I am not sure as to the implications of this but I do know that it gels much better with what we actually find in Scripture, that it was written by specific individuals, for specific individuals, for specific circumstances. We should probably then be spending our time figuring out how this fact affects our hermeneutic rather than expending all of our energy brushing this fact under the proverbial rug.

OT Thoughts - Exodus (Part 5)

2008-09-22T13:29:00.003-04:00

"Just as the men of Egypt cast their sons into the river, so He took revenge on one million, and one thousand strong and ardent men perished on account of one infant whom they threw into the midst of the river."
-Jubilees 48:14

At the end of the first chapter of Exodus we have Pharaoh commanding all male children (even Egyptian?) to be cast into the Nile. It has not failed interpreters, ancient and modern, to make a possible connection between the watery death of Israelite boys and the watery death YHWH brings on the Egyptians at the Exodus (see Exodus 14). Many Jewish interpreters saw this as an explicit demonstration of the Law, specifically the famous lex talionis, or "eye for an eye" law (Exodus 21:23-25).

Other sources that make this same connection:
Wisd. 18:5
Pseudo-Philo, Biblical Antiquities 9:10
Mekhilta deR. Ishmael, Shirta 4

Interestingly, James Kugel also points out in his The Bible As It Was, that there was also a tradition that it was actually the decision of Pharaoh's counselors to drown the children because these wise men had consulted the Hebrew Scriptures and determined that drowining would be the safest method against divine recompense. Kugel quotes b. Sota 11a, where after deciding that fire and sword are out because Isaiah 66 says that "the Lord shall come with fire...and by his sword [he will punish] all flesh," the counselors say, "Let us therefore sentence them [to die] by water, for God has already sworn that he will nevermore bring a flood into the world..."

What a creative gap-filling midrash.

OT Thoughts - Exodus (Part 4)

2008-09-22T13:25:00.001-04:00

Today I just want to point out how Pharaoh is depicted here in the first chapter of Exodus. And, well, it's not looking good. Basically, he is shown to be two things: a sort of "anti-God" who acts against God's creation mandate and secondly, as a sort of "royal boob" (to quote an old He-Man movie) who is naive and foolish in light of God (see I Corinthians 1:19, alluding to Isaiah 29:14), despite his prominence and power among people.

1. Pharaoh as Anti-God: The picture of Pharaoh as the "anti-God" is painted most explicitly in 1:10 where Pharaoh tells his people, "Come, let us deal wisely with these Israelites or else they will multiply..." So Pharaoh is against the very thing God had told the Israelites to do in the creation narrative ("be fruitful and multiply," same word used here). But as we'll see, Pharaoh is no match for God and his purposes.

2. Pharaoh as Foolish: We see here in the first chapter of Exodus 3 failures on the part of Pharaoh in his futile attempt to keep Israel from fulfilling their mandate to be fruitful and multiply.

The first failure comes in verse 12: "But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied." Shouldn't the opposite be true? God's wisdom confounds the wise. Pharaoh's first attempt fails.

The second failure comes in 17: "But the midwives feared God and didn't do what Pharaoh had commanded them." Since Pharaoh's first attempt fails he gets a little more desperate: let's get the midwives to kill all the boys. But he gets outsmarted...By women! Of course, this could be read in a feminist way (which I am not averse to when it's warranted) but I think here the sense is this: "Pharaoh's plan has no hope, even the women outsmart him!" Also remember that a theme throughout the Hebrew Bible (OT) is that God is so powerful he often uses the weakest to defeat the powerful to show that it is His power and not ours. God's wisdom confounds the wise. Pharaoh's second attempt fails.

The third failure comes in the birth of Moses (Ex 2:2): After the two failed attempts by Pharaoh he gets frantic and outraged. Now, every son (possibly even the Egyptian?) is to be thrown into the Nile to die! Instead, a son comes out of the Nile to live! This is the climax of Pharaoh's failed attempts. God's wisdom confounds the wise. Pharaoh's third and final attempt fails, a savior is born.

OT Thoughts - Exodus (Part 3)

2008-09-21T12:37:00.002-04:00

One thing I love about ancient Jewish readers of the Hebrew Bible (OT) is that they paid attention to the smallest details of a text. So our two examples today, about the midwives of the Hebrews (Exodus 1:15-21), will take their cue from ancient midrash.

First, I suggested in the last post that the midwives might have actually been Egyptian and not Hebrew (see below). Well, there is an ancient Jewish interpretation that suggests that they were Jewish. Not only were the midwives Jewish but they were none other than Jochebed and Miriam, the mother and sister of Moses! Now, there a few good reasons to think that it probably wasn't Jochebed and Miriam, including the fact that they are actually given other names in the text, but it's interesting to see how these interpreters filled in the "gaps" in the Bible. They took the names given for the midwives in the text to be "nicknames" or "descriptors" (like Jacob being called "heel-grabber") rather than their given names. Jewish interpreters loved doing this sort of thing (see Paul's use of Jannes & Jambres in II Timothy 3:8). Here is the passage in Jewish literature that relates the two:

"The Hebrew midwives (Exodus 1:15) were Yocheved and [her daughter] Miriam. Miriam, who was only five years old then, went with Yocheved to assist her. She was quick to honor her mother and to serve God (Eitz Yosef), for when a child is little, its traits are already evident. The name of the second (i.e., Miriam) was Puah (ibid.) for she gave the newborns wine and restored the babies to life when they appeared to be dead, she lit up Israel before God by teaching the women, she presented her face before Pharaoh, stuck up her nose at him, and said, "Woe is to the man (i.e., Pharaoh) when God punishes him!" Pharaoh was filled with wrath and would have killed her, but Yocheved appeased him, saying, "Will you pay attention to her? She is only a child, she has no understanding" (Shemot Rabbah 1:13)

Secondly, several Jewish interpreters noticed how improbable it was that there were only two midwives for all of the Jewish women (who were, if you remember, "increasing greatly"). So some suggest that these were simply the heads of the group of women who served as midwives. So they weren't the only ones, just the ones in charge. Of course, there are other explanations as well, although I think this is a pretty good one.

Old Testament Thoughts - Exodus (Part 2)

2008-09-21T11:28:00.003-04:00

Old Testament thoughts is a weekly post where we'll be looking at some interesting aspects of some Scripture from the Hebrew Bible (what Christians call the Old Testament). Right now, we are looking at the first two chapters of Exodus.
Yesterday I posted we looked at some of the creation language and the significance of such language. Today we'll look at the "Account of the Hebrew Midwives," in Exodus 1:15-22.

Hebrew or Egyptian

Are the midwives of Hebrew or Egyptian descent? The verse is actually inconclusive about the nationality of the midwives. It literally says "Then the king of Egypt said to the midwives of the Hebrews..."

וַיֹּאמֶר מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם, לַמְיַלְּדֹת הָעִבְרִיֹּת

Now, although it could go either way, here are a few reasons to support the view that they are Egyptian for three reasons:

1. The rest of the story reads like the women are not Israelites. They are referred to twice as "fearing God," a term often used for non-Israelites who nonetheless recognized God as God.

2. It also makes the story more believable. Why would Pharaoh believe Hebrew women, his slaves, when they said that they couldn't get to the women in time? Or why would Hebrew women even have midwives if they knew this was the case? Of course, some think that this is precisely the point, that Pharaoh is being portrayed as a complete oaf. While there is a trend here of women tricking Pharaoh throughout, I don't think that warrants taking the midwives as Hebrew instead of Egyptian.

3. The word "vigorous" or "lively" (כִּי-חָיוֹת) might be a negative way of referring to Israelite women. So the Egyptian women would be saying something like this, "Hebrew women are less refined and more animal-like than Egyptian women, they give birth quickly and don't even need a midwife." So the Egyptian women would be slamming the Hebrew women to more easily pull the wool over Pharaoh's eyes.

Of course, again, the answer is inconclusive and it doesn't really matter to the story, but some of the best things about a story can be found in the smallest details.

OT Thoughts - Exodus (part 1)

2008-09-20T10:39:00.004-04:00

Old Testament thoughts is a weekly post where we'll be looking at some interesting aspects of some Scripture from the Hebrew Bible (what Christians call the Old Testament). Right now, we are looking at the first two chapters of Exodus.

After finishing up Jonah, I have been agonizing over what Scripture to talk about next. There are so many things to choose from and I don't really want to get bogged down with too many technical details of the text. So I landed on the first 2 chapters of Exodus, just up to the Burning Bush. I have already posted several of these on the other blog where I am a regular contributer ( Encounter blog ) so today I will just post all them successively to get caught up on this blog.

First up today, the first evidence of "creation language" in the first chapter of Exodus...

As we'll see throughout this series, the writer of Exodus 1-2 uses a lot of images and language that was also used in the creation narrative (Genesis 1-3) up through even the pre-Abraham narrative in Genesis 11. So when I say "creation language" I only mean that the writer of Exodus 1-2 seems to be consciously using images and language that was used in Genesis 1-11. The writer probably has a theological reason for doing this, namely, that the story of Exodus 1-15 is the story of the creation of God's people, the Israelites (see Ex. 4:22). Adam has failed as God's representative on the earth, so Israel has now been given the task.

For my post today I am only going to give one example, to further explain what I mean by "creation language."

In Exodus 1:7, the beginning of the story after the genealogical introduction, we have this: "The Israelites were fruitful and multiplied and became extremely numerous, so that the land was filled with them." Sound familiar? What do we have in Genesis 1:28 following on the heels of the creation of humankind?

"God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth..."*

So Israel is fulfilling the duty God gave to the first couples.

*N.B.: I will be using my own translations in all of these posts, as I did with the Jonah posts. If you have any questions about why I translate something the way I do, let me know, I'd be happy to explain it. Otherwise, just know that I will oftentimes translate in a way that emphasizes the connections being made in Hebrew (something most mass produced translations do not do) but I will never translate anything in a way deemed "unacceptable" by scholars.

Unity & Diversity

2008-09-16T21:12:00.005-04:00

For my first post back after taking the summer off to be insane as a TA for summer hebrew I want to acknowledge something that has really hit me as a pastor.

We speak of unity in the midst of diversity in churches, but what we typically mean is one of two things:

1. We all think alike so that our diversity is really only make believe so that we can say we have "unity in diversity."

2. We all avoid the major issues that we disagree on so as to again pretend that we have unity where there is none.

Why isn't there unity between Democrat Christians and Republican Christians? Why no unity between Protestant Christians and Catholic Christians? Why no unity between "conservative" Christians and "liberal" Christians?

Well, you'll say, because insert my position here is right and insert the "other" position here is wrong. If they would just see that they're wrong, then we'd have unity. What kind of unity is that? It's supposed to be unity in the midst of diversity. Why can't we see that the resurrection of Christ is so much more important than the other issues that divide us? That's like not speaking to your sister because she wears GAP and you wear Banana Republic. The thing that unites makes the thing that divides almost superficial.

I know, we'll still say, "But my issue is different. I am defending biblical Christianity." And I'll say...point proven.

If there is one thing my heart is set on for this year it's to more fully understand the mess we've made by making mountains out of theological mole hills and by defending fringe doctrine over unity in the Body.

Caputo on the "Right" & WWJD

2008-06-27T15:30:00.003-04:00

Caputo's What Would Jesus Deconstruct is a really good book for anyone interested in Derridian philosophy and how it might bear on the church. It's quite simple and short but packs a lot of punch. I also love reading books that have great one-liners. Here are a few of my favorite things:

“It will be an eye opener to the Christian Right, who, having tried to blackmail us with this question [WWJD], will discover that the slogan they have been wearing on their T-shirts and pasting on their automobile bumpers all these years is a call for radical social justice!” (22).

“The question [WWJD] is tricky, not a magic bullet, because, everybody left or right wants Jesus on their side (instead of the other way around). It requires an immense amount of interpretation, interpolation, and self-questioning to give it any bite – and if it is not biting us, it has no bite – lest it be just a way of getting others to do what I want them to do but under the cover of Jesus” (24-25).

“We sing songs to the truth as if it were a source of comfort, warmth, and good hygiene. But in deconstruction the truth is dangerous, and it will drive you out into the cold” (27).

“The next time we look up to heaven and piously pray “Come, Lord Jesus,” we may find that he is already here, trying to get warm over an urban steam grate or trying to cross our borders” (30).

“The truth will make you free, but it does so by turning your life upside down” (30).

“The religious heart or frame of mind is not “realist,” because it is not satisfied with the reality that is all around it. Nor is it antirealist, because it is not trying to substitute fabrications for reality; rather, it is what I would call “hyper-realist,” in search of the real beyond the real, the hyper, the uber or au-dela, the beyond, in search of the event that stirs within things that will exceed our present horizons” (39).

"To announce the kingdom of God is to bring good news to all those who are poor in spirit and just plain poor, to those who hunger for justice and who are just plain hungry, to those whose minds are blinded by sin and who are just plain blind, to those whose hearts are bent by evil and whose bodies are just plain bent"

Jonah 7

2008-06-26T10:40:00.003-04:00

Although there are dozens of other great literary features in the book of Jonah (like chapter 4's affinity with the book of Exodus) I will end this series with a discussion of how the Ninevites are portrayed in the book. The book makes it sound as though the Ninevites are no better than cattle.

Now, oftentimes, the Old Testament will call people animals. For instance, Amos rails against some foreign wives and says, "Hear this word, you cows of Bashan who are on the mountain of Samaria, who oppress the poor, who crush the needy!" But there in Jonah the comparison between the foreigners and cattle is a little more subtle.

This idea is seen in Jonah 3:7-8 and 4:11. In 3:7-8 the author lumps man and beast together in the proclamation of the king of Nineveh who says:

"Do not let man, beast, herd, or flock taste anything. Do no let them eat or drink water. But both man and beast must be covered with sackcloth and let them call on God earnestly that each may turn from his wicked way and the violence which is in their hands." So both man and animal (what a strange idea) must be covered with sackcloth (a traditional Hebrew rite for mourning) and let them (another strange idea) call on God.

Then in 4:11 he also lumps them together although the connection is not as explicit:
"Should I not have compassion on Nineveh, the great city in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know the difference between their right and left hand, as well as many animals?"

Son Lux

2008-06-19T10:02:00.002-04:00

I very rarely listen to Christian music but when I was reading CT the other day they mentioned an artist that was obsessed with Radiohead and had won a contest and a chance to record with a label. Well, I took a chance and loved him. His name is Ryan Lott but his "alias" is Son Lux. Check out his myspace, though it only has songs from his old album, which is not nearly as good as the new one called at war with walls and mazes.

A Moral Statement?

2008-06-18T11:36:00.004-04:00

Watching these videos back to back made my mind reel with thoughts of the ethical temperature of our society.

Jonah 6

2008-06-12T09:37:00.001-04:00

Chapter 3 begins the way you would have expected the entire story would have (see the first post below). YHWH tells Jonah to "arise" and he does "arise" to go to Ninevah, instead of "arising" to "go down" to run away from YHWH.

Then he goes to Nineveh and says this, "Yet forty days and Nineveh will be haphak."

I will, for the sake of space and focus, not deal with how unlikely it would have been for the Ninevites to understand Hebrew, the language the Scriptures are written in. That is, what did Jonah really say? And did he say it in Hebrew? Or is what we have a translation? Ah...for another day...

But I do want to simply point out the ambiguity of the term haphak. If God (via Jonah) wanted to proclaim that in 40 days Nineveh would be destroyed there are several other words that would be unambigious. Instead, he uses the ambigious haphak, which could mean either "turned" or "overthrown." We obviously know which of those Jonah meant, he wanted Nineveh to be "overthrown."

Instead, verse 5 shows us that the Ninevites "turned" or "were changed," that is, they repented. Is that what God meant when he said, "40 days and Nineveh will be haphak"?

The interesting thing is that Nineveh wasn't destroyed. If you remember, in Deuteronomy, the mark of a true prophet is that his/her prophecy comes true. But Nineveh wasn't destroyed. So if Jonah took haphak to mean "destroy" then he is a false prophet. But as it is, and against Jonah's own wishes, Nineveh "turns," so maybe he wasn't a false prophet after all...

N.B.: Even the people of Nineveh thought (whatever language Jonah used) that God was planning on destroying them - see 3:9.

Jonah 5

2008-06-10T12:09:00.001-04:00

Old Testament thoughts is a weekly post where we'll be looking at some interesting aspects of some Scripture from the Hebrew Bible (what Christians call the Old Testament). Right now, we are looking at the literary aspects of the book of Jonah.

The Psalms in ancient Israel are everywhere. They seem to be what the Israelites continue to go back to in order to explain where they are in life. David prays for deliverance in 2 Samuel 22 quoting extensively from Psalm 18, Jesus uses Psalm 22 to describe his current pain and abandonment.

In Jonah 2, the Psalms are used the same way Beatles songs are used in the movie Across the Universe. There is a pastiche of quotes from the psalms all stitched together to make a coherent prayer for Jonah in the belly of the fish. Here is a list* of verbatim uses of the Psalms in Jonah 2:

Jonah 2:3a=Psalm 18:7; 30:3; 118:5; 120:1

Jonah 2:3b=Psalm 130:2

Jonah 2:4b=Psalm 42:8b

Jonah 2:5a=Psalm 31:23a

Jonah 2:6a=Psalm 18:5; 69:2

Jonah 2:8a=Psalm 142:4; 143:4

Jonah 2:8b=Psalm 5:8b; 18:7

Jonah 2:9a=Psalm 31:7a

Jonah 2:10a=Psalm 42:5b; 50:14; 66:13

Jonah 2:10b=Psalm 3:9

The rhetorical effect of this is in providing a structure that lends itself to introspection, as many of the Psalms are, but also of identifying with Israel as a whole. Why else might the writer of Jonah use all these Psalms in the prayer of Jonah?

*List taken from A Poetics of Jonah: Art in the Service of Ideology by Kenneth M. Craig

New Septuagint Translation

2008-06-09T09:43:00.003-04:00

For those (one or two) interested, there is a new English translation of the Septuagint (NETS) available for free online in pdf format.

The interview with Peter Gentry, a Baptist Septuagint scholar, reminded me of the excellent introductory book on the Septuagint, recommended to anyone interested in a basic understanding of what the Septuagint is and the issues surrounding it, called Invitation to the Septuagint by Karen Jobes & Moises Silva.

NETS Website

HT: Justin Taylor

Jonah 4

2008-06-06T08:54:00.002-04:00

Old Testament thoughts is a weekly post where we'll be looking at some interesting aspects of some Scripture from the Hebrew Bible (what Christians call the Old Testament). Right now, we are looking at the literary aspects of the book of Jonah.

A shorter post this time we'll continue the theme from last time - who really is a God-fearer in the story of Jonah? The writer makes another contrast between Jonah and the "pagan" boat crew. Here it is:

When the folks from Ninevah sin, Jonah has no interest in mercy or in trying to save them from their impending doom.

When Jonah sins, the "pagan" boat crew do everything they can, even against their best interest, to save Jonah.

Even after Jonah told them that the only way to calm the storm was to throw him into the sea they still "rowed desperately to return to land but they could not."

This may give some evidence as to when and why Jonah was written, although such a question is a little off topic from the purpose of these posts. However, many think that Jonah was written around the time of the exile of 586 BCE, either just prior (pre-exilic), during (exilic) or just after (post-exilic) This is important because later in the life of Israel, around the time of the exile, they became unhealthily ethno-centric. This rhetorical effect (or maybe even the whole book) may be one example of the writer of Jonah trying to correct how ingrown Israel had become. God cares about and yearns to have compassion on all the nations, not just Israel. Israel had forgotten that. So here, to make the "pagan" boat crew more God-like than the prophet of God, Jonah, is a slap in the face to the Israelites...but a much needed slap.

Summer Reading List

2008-06-04T14:54:00.003-04:00

Jonah 3

2008-06-01T09:31:00.001-04:00

Today we'll look at the contrast of character between Jonah and the "pagan" boat crew.

The first contrast comes in the form of "fear." When the sailors cast lots to see who was responsible for this great storm and the lot fell on Jonah, they asked him who he was. He replied, "I am a Hebrew, and I fear (yare) YHWH." But does he really? He has just run away from YHWH and has disobeyed him.

But the sailors, on the other hand, go through a "conversion experience" so to speak here in the first chapter of Jonah. When the storm first came about the sailors became afraid (yare) and each one cried to their own god.

Secondly, after Jonah tells the men that he is running away from YHWH, the one who made the heavens and the earth, they become "extremely afraid" (yare).

Then, to complete the conversion experience, in verse 16, after they have thrown Jonah overboard and the sea stops its raging, they "fear YHWH greatly" (yare), so much that they offer sacrifices and make vows.

Oh the irony, the true "prophet of God" who is a "fearer of YHWH" doesn't fear him at all. Instead we have a whole boat full of pagans who see God for who he really is. They are appropriately afraid of the storm, then they become extremely afraid when they find out Jonah is running from "YHWH, the one who made the heavens and earth." You ran away from who? That God? Are you crazy? Then finally, when the storm suddenly stops, the pagan sailors become true God-fearers, ironically unlike Jonah.

Who is the true follower of God in this story?

Jonah 2

2008-05-31T10:06:00.002-04:00

Still in Chapter 1, there are a few other nice literary features in the text to consider.

A Children's Story?

I had a professor tell me once that Jonah would've made a wonderful story for children (and maybe it was?). And he didn't say this after the VeggieTales got hold of it, but because of the personification and the hyperbole (do you remember your 9th grade English class?)

Personification - is when you give animate qualities to inanimate objects, such as emotions, willful actions, etc.

1:5 - The ship "reckoned that it was about to break" or "thought it was about to break"
1:15 - The sea "stopped its rage (or indignation)"

Hyperbole - exaggeration or a use of "extreme terms"

Look at all these:

1:2 - Ninevah the great city
1:4 - YHWH hurled a great wind
1:4 - there was a great storm
1:5 - the men hurled the cargo
1:10 - the men were extremely frightened
1:12 - the great storm
1:12 - pick me up and hurl me into the sea
1:15 - so they picked Jonah up, hurled him into the sea
1:16 - the men feared YHWH greatly
1:17 - YHWH appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah
3:2 - Ninevah the great city
3:3 - a great city, a three day's journey

Jonah 1

2008-05-30T14:50:00.003-04:00

I have been posting about the literary aspects of Jonah over at the Encounter blog and thought they would be good to reproduce here. Comments, critiques, and questions are helpful.

For today:

Jonah's "going down"

The very first word in the Hebrew after the introductory verse is the word "Arise" (Qum) followed by "Go" (Lekh). It is God speaking to Jonah and they are not requests but commands (or imperatives)

"Arise and Go." That is how the book of Jonah begins.

How does Jonah react? He "arises" alright, but he arises to flee. So when you are reading it you would expect it to say "So Jonah arose and went," obeying God. But instead you have "But Jonah arose to flee."

But that's just the beginning. Jonah's disobedience leads him down the wrong path, literally. Instead of "arising" Jonah begins to "go down" to escape from God.

Verse 3: Jonah went down (yared) to Joppa
Verse 3: Jonah went down (yared) into the ship
Verse 5: Jonah went down (yared) to the hold of the ship
Verse 5: Jonah was asleep in the hold of the ship

As we'll see later, Jonah "went down" to escape from God, but could not. Instead God takes Jonah even further down than even he wanted to go.

1:15 - Jonah was thrown into the sea, even further down than the hold of the ship
1:17 - Jonah went into the belly of the fish
2:2 - In this poem Jonah tells God that the fish has metaphorically taken him all the way down to the "depths of Sheol (hell)."
2:3 - It was God who cast Jonah into "the primeval deep," into the "heart of the seas"
2:5-6 - Jonah "goes down" all the way to the bottom of the earth until he is "shut out" of creation, the ultimate "going down"

Then comes the climax. After Jonah, by his own disobedience goes down to Joppa, down to the ship, down to the hold of the ship, down to the ocean, down to the belly of the fish, down to the bottom of the ocean and the "great deep," down until he is shut out of creation, then we have the climactic statement in verse 6:

"But You have brought my life up from the pit, O YHWH, my God."

Talk about a powerful few chapters. No wonder Jesus alludes to it when he talks about his own suffering.

It seems as though the writer of Jonah knew what s/he was doing...

I'm Back - Now with a Son

2008-05-29T09:21:00.003-04:00

I have not blogged for almost 2 months, but in my defense, I haven't really done much of anything but take care of Augustine for the last two months. Hopefully some cute pictures will make up for everything....

Liberty University in a nutshell

2008-04-05T15:24:00.003-04:00

If you went to Liberty, this will most likely be hilarious. If you didn't, it might still be funny but only in the same way that sometimes you laugh at jokes that you think should be funny but then get really embarassed when someone asks you why you're laughing and you don't have a good answer.

God is the cause of Global Warming

2008-04-02T14:46:00.004-04:00

I completely disagree with my friend Art who says that Satan and evildoers (like liberals, popes, people who don't believe in the rapture, et al.) are the cause of global warming. Although he does present some good evidence (click here to see his post), I have stumbled upon some counter-evidence that it's actually God and not Satan.

America and the Rapture Obsession

2008-03-31T14:12:00.003-04:00

I don't know where I got this picture from but I found it in My Pictures as I was rumaging. I happened to be rumaging the same day I was reading through N.T. Wright's new book, Surprised By Hope and was even furthered in my conviction that we've made a mountain out of a non-existing mole hill in our Lahaye, Left Behind fervor. I for one don't believe in any sort of rapture, but like the sign says, in case of rapture, my eschatology will change. But it almost seems like there is this fear in some churches that if you don't believe in the rapture you won't participate in the rapture. If the idea of the rapture is somewhat debatable in Scripture the idea that if you don't believe in it you don't participate in the 2nd coming is not.

Anyway, Wright does a great job of dispelling the 2 (that's right, only 2) proof-texts given in favor of a rapture in favor of a much more holistic and culturally plausible exegesis of those texts.

WTS

2008-03-29T13:58:00.002-04:00

My first post on the controversy at WTS. I have not been in the right mind before to post something I wouldn't regret, but I think I have calmed a little bit.

The Board of Westminster Theological Seminary had an emergency board meeting to discuss the orthodoxy and issues surrounding Pete Enns’ book Inspiration and Incarnation.

After the meeting the following announcement was sent to the board, faculty, and students of Westminster:

March 27, 2008
Thank you very much for your prayers for the special meeting of the Board of Trustees that was held on March 26 to address the disunity of the faculty regarding the theological issues related to Dr. Peter Enns’ book, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. After a full day of deliberation, the Board of Trustees took the following action by decisive vote:

“That for the good of the Seminary (Faculty Manual II.4.C.4) Professor Peter Enns be suspended at the close of this school year, that is May 23, 2008 (Constitution Article III, Section 15), and that the Institutional Personnel Committee (IPC) recommend the appropriate process for the Board to consider whether Professor Enns should be terminated from his employment at the Seminary. Further that the IPC present their recommendations to the Board at its meeting in May 2008.”

In order to provide the entire Westminster community with a more complete understanding of the Board’s decision and to offer an opportunity for questions and dialogue, the Chairman and Secretary of the Board will join the President on campus for a special chapel on Tuesday, April 1 at 10:30 am. Students and staff are encouraged to attend and participate. Following that special chapel, they will hold a separate meeting with the faculty.Our concern is to honor the Lord Jesus Christ and assure a faithful witness for Westminster for years to come. To that end, please pray for everyone involved during the next two months.

Jack White

Chairman of the Board

Peter Enns has shaped and formed my theology in ways that I will be forever grateful. I feel that WTS is losing an extremely important asset to their theological relevancy in the academic world. Please be praying for everyone involved.

Top Ten of 2007

2008-03-06T16:55:00.001-05:00

I know the days of "Top Ten of 2007" are over but as an avid movie watcher I thought I would give you my list of the top 10 documentary/independent movies I saw in 2007. I love documentaries and indie films but my wife is not such a huge fan. Anyway, some are on the list because they really inspired me or helped me understand the world in a different way while others are on the list because I thought it was fascinating and interesting. I decided on listing only documentaries and indie films for 2 reasons: One, it was a much easier and smaller list to handle than all of the movies I saw in 2007 and Two, these are probably movies most of you haven't ever heard of so maybe you'll go pick a few up and give them a try. Without further ado, the list (in no particular order):

1. Ushpizin (2005): A Jewish sub-titled 'indie' film about the festival of Succoth. In the "helped me understand the world in a different way" category.

2. The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (2007): A documentary about video gaming culture and the journey of one "outsider" to break the long-standing Donkey Kong record. Definitely in the "fascinating" category.

3. The Agronomist (2002): A documentary following Jean Dominique, a Haitian journalist fighting for human rights. Category: inspiring.

4. Year of the Yao (2004): Documentary that followed Yao Ming, NBA star of the Houston Rockets, in his first year in America. Category: fascinating & interesting.

5. Once in a Lifetime: The Extraordinary Story of the New York Cosmos (2006): Documentary about the soccer team the NY Cosmos and how they revolutionized soccer in America. Category: fascinating & interesting.

6. God Grew Tired of Us (2005): A Documentary following the Lost Boys of Sudan. Absolutely incredible. Category: ALL of the above.

7. Primer (2003): An incredibly low budget film made by 3 guys. highly involved and philosophical. Category: fascinating.

8. Color of the Cross (2006): A racially charged re-telling of the story of Jesus's death. Category: While not agreeing with the interpretation, it definitely widened my worldview in a healthy way.

9. The Heart of the Game (2005): Follows a high school girls basketball team. Category: Inspiring.

10. Devil's Playground (2002): A documentary that goes into the Amish teenagers "Rumspringa" or time of "sowing wild oats". Category: fascinating.

Honorable Mentions (all released in 2005 oddly enough): On a Clear Day, Grizzly Man, The Boys of Baraka, Chalk

Oprah & The New Age Jesus

2008-02-28T21:07:00.004-05:00

I received a forward from my aunt a few days ago about Oprah and her New Age Jesus and how Christians should beware, boycott, the usual conservative response. Anyway, instead of just deleting it because I know it will make me upset, I actually read it and here was my response.

Oprah is successful and people listen to her because she is willing to give and love. People listen to her message because she seems to really care about them as people, providing for their material needs.

Conservative Christians on the other hand, typically are always on the defensive, willing to boycott and throw their hands up (and send forwards saying I am not a good Christian if I don’t send it on) at anything that challenges their “traditional values or beliefs.” What if we quit all that and started going on the offensive. We should start meeting people’s needs and caring for them (with our time and money as well as our prayers) instead of sitting around all day waiting for someone like Oprah to say one wrong word about Jesus and then condemning her for it. Maybe then people would start listening to OUR message of love and acceptance?

Maybe I would listen to people more if they were doing half of the good in this world that Oprah does. Now, she probably does have wacky views and I probably wouldn’t consider her a Christian, to be honest I don’t think I have ever even watched an entire show of hers, but I can’t help but applaud her for doing the work many Christians in this world SHOULD be doing (such as the school she started in South Africa for girls)…If we weren’t so busy talking so much about what we DON’T believe in.

Important P.S. What the heck does Oprah’s bad theology have to do with voting for Barack Obama?

This post will probably only make sense to those who received the forward, which is probably a lot of people since I got 2 in 2 days from 2 different folks. Anyway, just my thought on forwards that ask me to boycott/beware of things.

The Oscars & Art

2008-02-25T14:16:00.003-05:00

Last night I went to my annual Oscar party, a night I look forward to each year. We each fill out a ballot to see which of us will win, which usually comes down to who guessed the winner for best short animated feature. The night was filled with sarcasm and criticism of movies and actors/actresses, red wine, popcorn, and Jon Stewart...what a great combination.

At some point in the night someone mentioned that it was great to see the Oscars because they judged movies on 'art' and not on mass appeal or box office numbers. And I want to second that notion, but also maybe go a little further with it.

According to Heidegger, 'art' is what a culture has/develops that not only encapsulates that culture but propels it, it not only symbolizes but creates. The Greek Parthenon, the ancient Catholic Cathedrals, etc, are works of art because they create the culture they are a part of. And they only do this when they are 'working' (insightful wordplay on 'work of art'). The Greek Parthenon is not 'for us' a work of art because it no longer 'works' as it did for the Greeks.

How does this relate to the Oscars? The movies that win Oscars are oftentimes what I would consider "works of art." They are movies that 'work' at creating our culture. There are many movies that have come out this year that were box office smashes, bringing in hundreds of millions of dollars. And I think that they are successful because they tap into the culture, they encapsulate the culture, they are, in a word, 'relatable.' But they do not move into the category of art, in the Heideggerian definition, because they stop at encapsulation and do no move on to propulsion. I would consider many box office smashes 'culture leeches' while I would consider many oscar winners 'culture propellers.'

Notice though that this is a general observation and not always the case since some box office smashes are also oscar winners and not all oscar winners are 'works of art,' but I did find that an interesting distinction as I sipped my red wine last night and made fun of Cameron Diaz and Miley Cyrus.

My Perfect Valentine

2008-02-21T17:58:00.003-05:00

You know you have been married for a good amount of time and have an amazing wife when she gets you a JPS Hebrew-English TaNaKh for Valentine's Day. It also makes me think I am not a normal husband.

Zondervan's "A Reader's Hebrew Bible"

2008-02-19T23:39:00.003-05:00

I wanted to advertise for the new Reader's Hebrew Bible that will be coming out in March that Pete told us about a few days ago. I have to admit I am excited. I use my Reader's Greek New Testament all the time, it was one of the best things I've ever bought for my study. The Hebrew Bible will contain in the footnotes all vocabulary occurring 100 times or less in the HB. It really does allow me to spend more time in the text and less time in the lexicon while at the same time not really losing any valuable study since I would be doing the same thing in a lexicon as I would by looking at the bottom of the page. The only downside is the lack of a critical apparatus but that allows for a much slimmer and light-weight Bible. I wonder if it would be okay to duct tape the Reader's GNT to the new Reader's HB?

Jim Wallis On the Poor

2008-02-15T14:12:00.004-05:00

Yesterday I went downtown to the Free Library of Philadelphia to hear Jim Wallis speak about his new book called The Great Awakening: Reviving Faith & Politics in a Post-Religious Right America. To be honest, I actually wasn't looking forward to it all that much. I didn't know anything about Wallis or the books he'd written. But after hearing him, an evangelical Christian who teaches on faith and politics at Harvard on occasion, speak in politically neutral but passionately religious language about how it is up to us to bring revolution in the areas of poverty and other social justice issues, I was hooked.

He told a story about he a conversation he had had with Bono of U2 about the text of Luke 4:18, the first public appearance of Jesus in the synagogue. The text says this:

The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

Wallis didn't mention this but it is interesting that where Matthew has in his Beatitudes "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven," Luke simply has, "Blessed are the poor."

Wallis's point? If it's not good news to the poor (the oppressed, the forgotten), then it's not the good news of Jesus Christ. I think evangelicals are finally grasping the significance of that statement. It seems like "those liberals" were onto something after all.

The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience

2008-02-08T11:25:00.000-05:00

In Ron Sider's great book entitled Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience: Why Are Christians Living Just Like the Rest of the World? there are some incredible statistics. The two most telling (for me at least) are those related to divorce and those related to tithing.

According to the sources Sider cites, only around 6% of Christians tithe (give 10% of their income to the church). If you are saying to yourself, "But the New Testament doesn't command us to give 10%, that's an Old Testament law," then you're missing the point. As Christians, we should give liberally and cheerfully. Personally, I feel as though something around 10% should be a minimum, but that's another story. What does this point to according to Sider? Rampant materialism and self-centeredness. We care more about having stuff and about taking care of ourselves than we do about other people and about the spread of the gospel. And I know this is true because if you're like me, even as I type this, I am justifying in 100 different ways why I don't give more than 10% of my income to the church and other gospel-oriented organizations. No wonder people like Jesus but not the church. Our money is certainly not where our mouth is.

Secondly, the divorce rate is no different among Christians than among non-Christians. In fact, of those Christians who divorced 90% were believers when they divorced (the other 10% got divorced before becoming a Christian). Why? As Sider's subtitle suggests, Christians are more interested in living just like the rest of the world, with perhaps a little more security and ticket to heaven thrown in for good measure. We aren't interested in "turning the other cheek." We think Christianity should make us happy and when it doesn't we get to take matters into our own hands.

Of course, many people suggest that statistics are unreliable, but I don't think anyone is surprised by these statistics. They aren't saying anything that we haven't already seen over the years. But the question remains, what do we do about? Or more directly, what do I do about it?

Jesus Wasn't The Messiah?

2008-02-05T13:55:00.000-05:00

What? I saw this book in a local Christian bookstore the other day and I am actually really tempted to buy it. If there is anything I think that the Bible tries to make a case for it is Jesus's Messianic claim. I would interested to see how exactly Hagee argues for this. Without having read the book, this ad seems to say that Jesus himself never claimed to be the Messiah, was not therefore the Messiah, and therefore all of our Jewish hatred in Christian history has been unfounded and we should support Israel because Scripture clearly says we should do that.

First Problem:

Even if Jesus never claimed to be Messiah, that doesn't mean he wasn't. At least, that's what Peter and Paul think. If Jesus didn't intend to be the Messiah, we have some major doctrine of Scripture issues to work out because apparently none of the disciples got the memo.

Just doing a 5 second "biblegateway" search of the term "Christ" got me 467 times in the NT in which that term is used. Does Hagee think that was Jesus's last name or something? Any Greek-speaking Jew during the 1st century would have known "christos" to be the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew משיח or "anointed one," transliterated as Mashiach or Messiah. For more proof that this was how Paul took the term "Christ" see N.T. Wright's great book The Climax of the Covenant.

All 467 times aside though, is it true that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah?

24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth."

25 The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us."

26 Then Jesus declared, "I, the one speaking to you—I am he."

John 4:24-26

Without the myriad of other texts in which Jesus implicitly (as well as explicitly) shows himself to be Messiah, I think this one should be given a second thought.

But, to be fair to Hagee, I have not yet read his book. He may have some good answers to these questions, but my guess is, if he wanted to overturn all of Church History's understanding of Scripture, his book might want to be a little longer.

Oh yeah, and if I can apply Ockham's Razor to this situation, we probably shouldn't hate Jews because Jesus says we shouldn't hate anyone and should love everyone, even our enemy. Something tells me Hagee made it more complicated than it needed to be.

Aristotle on Friendship

2008-02-03T22:16:00.000-05:00

Today, as I was researching for the discussion portion of LivingRoom (a group I am a part of that meets on Sunday nights), I re-visited some of what Aristotle says about friendship in his Nichomachean Ethics. In his discussion of "friendship among equals," he gives three foundations for such relationships.

1. Utility - Many friendships are based on a common benefit in terms of a service or good. I tend to think of this relationship as a business relationship. The two parties are friends but only insofar as they serve each other's purposes. This probably happens in many other friendships too and as Aristotle suggests, isn't a great foundation for a lasting friendship

2. Pleasure - This actually took me a little by surprise. In our day friendship is almost always based on pleasure. I am friends with people because we are similar and we enjoy "the pleasure of each other's company."

"Those who love for utility or pleasure, then, are fond of a friend because of what is good or pleasant for themselves, not insofar as the beloved is who s/he is, but insofar as s/he is useful or pleasant. Hence these friendships as well as the friends are coincidental, since the beloved is loved not insofar as s/he is who s/he is, but insofar as he provides some good or pleasure. And so these sorts of friendships are easily dissolved, when the friends do not remain similar to what they were; for if someone is no longer pleasant or useful, the other stops loving him/her.”

What I found as I thought about this is that all too often our relationships to other believers are also founded and based on the wrong things. They are all too often founded on things that are "coincidental," and we therefore love conditionally, on something found within us.

Of course, Aristotle's solution is the third type, the virtuous person, but I think that is still changeable and still in flux. It is still conditional on the virtue of the person.

For Christians however, our foundation for relationship is never found within but always without, in our being united with Christ. It is unchangeable and fixed and therefore never "coincidental" but unconditional. Christ's commitment to us is what grounds our love for other believers (and ultimately everyone on earth, i.e., our "neighbor") and since that commitment is never changing and is unconditional, so ours must be. We do not love for my sake or for the other, but for Christ's.

What Would Jesus Deconstruct?

2008-02-02T00:52:00.000-05:00

Along with Smith's Who's Afraid of Postmodernism I am also reading the second book in the series, What Would Jesus Deconstruct by none other than John Caputo. I have enjoyed it so much (if nothing else, it reads like a philosophy book...ah, the good 'ole days). I thought I would include some of my favorite one-liners from the book so far:

About the (in)famous WWJD:

"My hypothesis is if our friends on the Right really mean to ask that question instead of using it as a stick to beat their enemies, they are in for a shock...It will be an eye opener to the Christian Right, who, having tried to blackmail us with this question, will discover that the slogan they have been wearing on their T-shirts and pasting on their automobile bumpers all these years is a call for radical social justice!"

"In my view, a deconstruction is good news, because it delivers the shock of the other to the forces of the same, the shock of the good (the "ought") to the forces of being ("what is"), which is also why I think it bears good news to the church."

"We sing songs to the truth as if it were a source of comfort, warmth, and good hygiene. But in deconstruction the truth is dangerous, and it will drive you out in to the cold."

Simon Bar Kochba שמעון בר כוכבא

2008-01-30T00:05:00.000-05:00

I realized that my comment on mispronouncing Kosiba might bring some curiosity about why I would be talking about someone named Kosiba at a church. I actually love the story because of its parallels with the story of Jesus. I use it often as a way to tell about Messianic expectation or to compare Kochba with Jesus. If my sources are accurate only Jesus and Bar Kochba are explicitly recognized as Messiah in the histories. Anyway, here is a link that tells his story:

Story of Simon Bar Kochba

Encounter Teaching

2008-01-29T23:26:00.000-05:00

For those of you who don't know, I am a pastor at a church up here in the suburbs of Philly (formerly an 'associate pastor' until this past week). I teach about once a month but I haven't ever put any links to my teachings up here...until now. Comments and critiques are welcome, unless it's Art ragging me for my mispronunciation of Simon ben Kosiba (I really wrestled with how to pronounce it, fighting off my years of mispronunciation!)

Teaching on John 20:11-18

Finally...Someone gets it

2008-01-27T01:12:00.000-05:00

For my first post back from Christmas hiatus, I would like to recommend a book I have been reading this past week. It's about a year old now but is worth reading. It's James K.A. Smith's Who's Afraid of Postmodernism. It has been an easy-to-read (for the very basic philosophical literate) epistemological breath of fresh air in the midst of a polluted world of badly argued Christian critiques against men like J. Derrida, M. Foucault, and Lyotard. Even though I agree with where Smith takes a lot of his arguments, the main thing I appreciate is that he is competent enough to bring Derrida to the realm of the understandable without misunderstanding and misapplying him (unless he consciously chooses to).

But further than just giving Derrida a fair read, Smith agrees with the basic sentiment of Derrida that "There is nothing outside the text." And yet, he argues that this isn't antithetical to the Christian faith but in fact has bailed us out of an unholy marriage with modernity. Sadly enough, he had to spend a fair number of pages showing that Derrida does in fact believe in things and that he is not simply saying that the cup I see before me is a jumbled mess of letters. Are you serious? But hey, it had to be done. Anyway, I have made it only through the section on Derrida, but if the rest is like the first, it will be a great introduction to how Christians can/should respond/resist/absorb ideas from some great thinkers.

Is it just me or would Christianity not be in the mess it's in if it would've just listened to Kierkegaard in the first place? Truth is Subjectivity...ring a bell?

Texas & Linguistics - A Match Made In Heaven

2007-12-18T13:37:00.001-05:00

I ran across an interesting article today on the intricacies of the Texas accent from a semi-popular linguistics angle. As I am from Texas, and so obviously very passionate about it, and since I enjoy my share of linguistic study, it was an article that couldn't lose. Probably the most fascinating: There is a married couple who are both linguistics professors at the University of Texas-San Antonio whose major area of field research is the Texas accent. What a sweet job.

Anyway, here is the link: Texas Drawl Article

Holy Ghost Enema...Interesting Metaphor

2007-12-03T18:03:00.001-05:00

Plato & a Platypus Walk Into A Bar...

2007-11-29T00:39:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, as I turned on my radio for my daily NPR-listening ritual on my way to school I happened to catch the title of a book that sounded fascinating, it's called Plato & a Platypus Walk Into a Bar...Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes. When I got home I was able to find an interesting and short interview NPR did with the authors back in May when the book came out. You should take a listen here. After listening, I am even more determined to buy the book.

For me, it seems like the book hits on something Jesus found out a long time ago, people resonate with stories and pithy sayings (e.g. parables).

Levenson - Death & Resurrection of the Beloved Son: A Theology of Transformation

2007-11-28T01:48:00.000-05:00

"You shall not put off the skimming of the first yield of your vats. You shall give Me the first-born among your sons. You shall do the same with your cattle and your flocks" (Exod 22:28-29a, JPS)

"They have built shrines to Baal, to put their children to the fire as burnt offerings to Baal which I never commanded, never decreed, and which never came into My mind" (Jer 19:5, JPS)

"I, in turn, gave them laws that were not good and rules by which they could not live: When they set aside every first issue of the womb, I defiled them by their very gifts - that I might render them desolate, that they might know that I am the LORD" (Ezek 20:25-26)

These are the texts Levenson begins with in his The Death & Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism & Christianity . For many, this first text isn't all that shocking because we will automatically apply our rule of faith (allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture) but Levenson rightly cautions against this (at least so quickly). In Exodus 34:20, the sacrifice of the first-born is given the opportunity to be 'redeemed' by an animal while Exod 22:28 is eerily silent in terms of this provision.

What later prophets do with this text does seem to present some tensions: Jeremiah denies that YHWH ever commanded it (or is Jeremiah only speaking of sacrificing to other gods, e.g., Molech?) while Ezekiel, while not condoning the practice, does have it as a command of YHWH. Interestingly enough, Levenson also asks the probing question, "If, as Jeremiah put it, "burn[ing] their sons and daughters in fire" is something which YHWH "never commanded, which never came to [His] mind," then how shall we explain the aqedah, the binding of Isaac in Genesis 22?" (12).

What this seems to point to for Levenson is that "YHWH once commanded the sacrifice of the first-born but now opposes it" (8). This is not to say that people obeyed this law frequently but throughout the literature of the OT it is undeniable that this idea of sacrificing the first-born is ubiquitous.

Vestiges of this idea can be found most importantly in Genesis 12 (aqedah), Judg 11:29-40 (Jephthah's vow), 2 Kgs 3:26-27 (Mesha's sacrifice). The theology underlying Exod 22:28 is that first-fruits of all creation, animals and sons alike, belong to YHWH. This is the underlying motif that will undergo many transformations in the OT.

He then takes this tradition and extends it to the self-identification of Israel as the first-born of YHWH (Exod 4:22). The Exodus itself is a story of redemption at the cost of the first-born. Israel is released only at the expense of Egypt's first-born.

This notion is transformed further in a cultic setting. Whereas the offering of firstlings to YHWH in Exod explicitly says to give YHWH first-born sons as well, the stipulation in Deut 15:19-23 is missing. Has it been eradicated? Levenson says no, it has been transformed both by the cultic rites of the paschal lamb but also, importantly, in the dedication of the Levites whom Aaron is to "designate before the LORD as an elevation offering from the Israelites" (Num 8:11, 13).

This even goes so far as to present a crisis in Num 3:39-43 when the number of first-born males of Israel were 273 more than the number of Levites. "Thus Aaron and his sons were given 1,365 shekels as redemption moeny for the first-born for whom no Levites were available to serve as substitutes (Num 18:15-18, 49-51)" (47).

Ultimately this does lead to the theme of Christ as Son of God. Ironically Levenson does point out the hypocrisy found in Tertullian who railed against an ancient African practice of sacrificing their children because Saturn sacrificed his children: they were following imitatio dei, "in mimicry of Saturn's deeds with respect to his own offspring" (24). Tertullian found it repulsive to follow a god who would sacrifice his own children. Do you sense the irony? See John 3:16.

Levenson - Sinai & Zion: A Theology of Tension

2007-11-25T13:16:00.000-05:00

The first thing to notice about Levenson's approach to OTT is that it is a theology of tension. This is because one of Levenson's main points theologically is that the Hebrew Bible is much more ambiguous than we sometimes like to admit. There is this ongoing balancing act within the HB to navigate these tensions, sometimes knowingly letting these tensions stand, for theological significance. In the first section of Levenson's Sinai & Zion I noted some of the prominent contrasts and we have the following (there could be more):

intersection/barrier (15): In the theophany of Exodus 19:16-22 there are "contrasting movements," the first speaks of the intersection between the lives of God and Israel. The second speaks of the barrier between God and Israel. This points up the classic tension between the immanence and transcendence of God.

relevant/distant (16): "The Sinaitic experience is here presented as simultaneously supremely relevant to human experience and distant from it and foreign to it."

tree/fire (20-21): Deut 33:16, Exodus 3, and the wordplay between sene ('tree' or 'bush') and Sinay ('Sinai') suggest that YHWH is traditionally associated with a tree/bush. Later tradition shows that YHWH is associated with fire (see Deut 4:24). So then the narrative of Moses and the burning bush has both these symbols, tree and fire, "clash, and neither overpowers the other." This is the case as well with the Menorah of the Tabernacle and Temple (Exod 25:31-39; 1 Kings 7:49).

Egypt/Midian (21): If you try and figure out where Sinai is, based on the earlier texts, a curious thing becomes known: Sinai is neither in Egypt nor in Midian, God rather reveals himself in a literal "no man's land." This is seen even in Moses's request to Pharoah to let the Israelites worship "in the wilderness." The contrast is not only governmental (YHWH is not governed by either Egypt or Midian) but also between the desert and urban state. So then YHWH's home on Sinai represents freedom, "which stands in opposition to the massive and burdensome regime of Egypt, where state and cult are presented as colluding in the perpetuation of slavery and degradation."

legal law/affective law (50): This again points up the prominent dialectic in Levenson's works: "The energy and spiritual power of Torah flows in no small measure from its insistence on holding these two dimensions, the outer (legal) and inner (affective), in a tight unity, refusing to sacrifice the one on the altar of the other.

YHWH/other gods (56ff): This is where Levenson becomes somewhat 'controversial.' He begins to doubt whether Israel's religion was monotheistic throughout its history. I'll post again soon on his arguments for this.

God as king/Israel's king (70-72): Levenson argues here that the covenant relationship between YHWH and Israel precludes human kingship. YHWH is Israel's king and only rightful suzerain. This presents in some texts a tension between pro-monarchical and anti-monarchical texts (the pro-monarchical tradition is typically what Levenson will put under the "Zion" category), see Judges 8:22-23/I Samuel 8:7. Levenson would argue that even the Davidic covenant itself points up this tension. "Thus, it is of the utmost significance that the Torah, the law of the theo-polity, was, for all its diversity, always ascribed to Moses and not to David, to the humble mediator of covenant and not to the regal founder of the dynastic state."

law/love (86): "His past grace grounds his present demand...Mount Sinai is the intersection of love and law, of gift and demand, the link between a past together and a future together."

The point in bringing all of these up is to show again Levenson's methodology and his Sinai & Zion does this paradigmatically. Throughout even his part 1 on Sinai, Levenson is continuously pointing out tensions in the text, and this is all under the 'unified' rubric of Sinai. You can imagine what he does then when exploring the relationship between his two parts, Sinai & Zion. His first part develops one tradition found in the HB, in this case the Sinaitic. He then goes back and develops what he sees as another tradition found in the HB, in this case, Zion. Then his third part discusses the parts where these traditions both agree, but more importantly, disagree. I didn't always agree with Levenson's conclusions but I found his methodology refreshing. Pointing out the tensions really did open up the text and allowed me to see things in the text that I would never have seen before, mostly because my methodology didn't allow me to.

Rabbi Singer

2007-11-19T21:43:00.000-05:00

Recently my friend Art introduced me to Rabbi Tovia Singer, a Jewish "apologist" of sorts. He does a lot work with how to deal with Christians who are trying to convert Jews and their friends to Christianity. And boy does he do a good job. He has some very good things to say. Anyway, you can search for him on itunes but I actually found a website that has several lectures from several rabbis, including Singer, so check them out.

Here is Rabbi Singer's Page

And here is the homepage

Enjoy.

The Tax Exempt Status of "Prosperity" Ministries

2007-11-17T11:23:00.001-05:00

Saturday mornings have become my designated time for reading Time Magazine, mostly because I get it on Saturday. This morning I read an article on a subject I have been hearing a lot about in recent media. It is about Republican Senator Chuck Grassley's new investigation into the spending of the top "Prosperity Gospel" proponents, Time names six:

Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Benny Hinn, Eddie Long, Joyce Meyer and Paula White.

One thing I never knew before was that the tax exempt status of religious organizations is based in some way on the fact (or trust) that those organizations will be putting money back into public service, something that is to be rightly expected of religious organizations. I think the Church would agree. And this is the problem I have with the pastors listed above. Asking for money for your organization is great, if its used to further the kingdom of God, not the kingdom of Paula.

I agree completely with this quote from the article,

"Prosperity dominates American religious TV, and millions of adherents send millions of dollars to preachers they have never met. For Grassley, this might be fine if the ministries put all the money back into their mission work. But his now famous question about [Joyce] Meyer's $23,000 commode suggests he questions the destination of the her estimated $124 million annual take."

This actually raises questions for me about the tax-exempt status of religious organizations in general. Why don't we "render to Caesar's what is Caesar's"?

Now, this post is actually difficult for me since I actually grew up watching and admiring the pastor's listed here, but at some point enough is enough. I have a hard time trying to understand the logic behind the theology that says God will give you money if you give money to someone who already has a lot of money and is asking for more of it.

Here is the link to the article: Going After the Money Ministries

One Village Coffee

2007-11-14T23:47:00.000-05:00

For anyone interested, some of my best friends in PA started a coffee roasting business this year with an eye towards being missional. They are fair trade and partner with MAMA Project in Honduras, Stephen's Children and other very worthy kingdom building projects. My wife currently works with them on staff and our group, LivingRoom, is behind them all the way. Oh and by the way, their coffee is actually pretty good from what I hear (me not being a coffee drinker).

I post this now as Scot McKnight today posted some good reviews of the cofee on his blog

So please, check them out by going to the following and then buy some coffee!:

One Village Coffee

Levenson & the Task of Old Testament Theology - Part 3

2007-11-10T00:37:00.000-05:00

So now we know why Levenson isn't a fan of OTT, but at this point some accuse Levenson of speaking out of both sides of his mouth; he's not a fan of OTT and yet theologizes about the text Christians call the Old Testament. However, there seems to be an equivocation of terms. For Levenson there is a difference between the technical field of Old Testament Theology and doing theology with the text of the Hebrew Bible. The former, as seen in the other posts, is unable to accomplish its task of being historically contextual, creating a unifying theology out the entire Hebrew Bible, alongside the emphasis on the practice being done only by those of the faith. The latter has no such methodological baggage. “Instead, Jewish biblical theology is likely to be, as it always has been, a matter of piecemeal observations appended to the text and subordinate to its particularity. As Gershom Scholem put it, “not system but commentary is the legitimate form through which truth is approached.””

This is a very helpful explanation by Levenson of the differences he sees between "Old Testament Theology" and "Old Testament theology" (if I can distinguish the two with lowering the case of theology in the latter). Because of this explanation, Levenson actually does what he sets out to do and his works do in fact follow from the methodology he has laid out. “To be sure, Jews have contributed studies of theological themes in various texts of the Hebrew Bible.” Again, this is exactly what Levenson does in most of his major works and he does it fairly consistently. He does trace themes throughout the Hebrew Bible.

This post will be concerned with an interesting qualification on how Levenson plans on doing theology, namely, it's being synchronic. I am taking this qualification from his introduction to Sinai & Zion: An Entry Into the Jewish Bible.

Levenson’s explicit concern is to make this book a synchronic study rather than diachronic (page 12). While at first agreeing with Christopher Seitz who argued, “Although the author suggests in the introduction that his approach would favor synchronic analysis (p. 12), the bulk of his work remains at the diachronic level. This is not to say that Levenson is disinterested in generating stimulating theological positions based upon the present text. Far form it…but the spadework which produces these proposals is still predominantly diachronic…” I have come to nuance this view somewhat. Levenson’s view of synchronicity is in opposition to the type of historical criticism proposed by Wellhausen’s extreme source criticism. In this case, Levenson is showing that although he makes use of historical-criticism as a tool he is not interested in canonizing history as Wellhausen did. “In short, Wellhausen decomposed the Torah into its constituent documents, reconstructed history from those components, and then endowed history with the normativity and canonicity that more traditional Protestants reserve for scripture.” This is the sort of diachronic analysis he is avoiding when he calls Sinai & Zion a work of synchronicity. Importantly, what Seitz calls the diachronic spadework, is probably better described as tradition-history, a task Levenson is heavily involved in. Of course, to engage in tradition-history is in some sense diachronic, so I don’t want to dismiss Seitz’s observation outright, only show that Levenson’s definitions of synchronic and diachronic are not the same as Seitz’s and therefore shouldn’t be considered to be contradicting himself by declaring to do one thing while actually doing another. But there will be much more on how Levenson actually utilizes tradition-history in later posts.

The Future of Justification - Free Online Copy

2007-11-09T10:34:00.000-05:00

In case your interested and follow up on NT scholarship and the current "New Perspective" debate, a new Piper book The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright was recently released. Now, I don't mean to betray my devotion to wtsbooks.com so you can still click on the link above and buy it from wtsbooks.com or you can click HERE and download the entire book from Piper's Desiring God website in pdf (just click on the small link 'read'). Either way, I am sure it will be a helpful read, whichever side of the debate you tend towards.

New Father

2007-11-07T10:16:00.000-05:00

I am soon to be a new dad in April and my wife recently sent me the following video, I think I am a little offended. If I have conquered the Tipton digest and the Hebrew of Amos, surely some diaper changes can't be that bad...

Jon Levenson & The Task of Old Testament Theology - Part 2

2007-11-03T22:37:00.000-04:00

The last post was Levenson's argument that the task of Old Testament Theology is an untenable task. It cannot be both historical and create a unifying theology out of the entire Old Testament.

Levenson’s argument is furthered by his look at the insistence of many biblical theologians on the faith commitment of biblical theologians. Citing Moshe Goshen-Gottstein and Gerhard Hasel, he contends that Old Testament theologians believe Old Testament Theology is an enterprise only for those of faith. But Levenson determines that a person of faith actually is not able existentially, that is, as a practicing Christian, to do theology without post-biblical elements. The practicing Jew of this century cannot isolate the Hebrew Bible from the larger corpus of tradition just as a practicing Christian cannot isolate the Old Testament from its larger corpus of tradition. If s/he does isolate it from the larger corpus it is by definition no longer Jewish or Christian but simply historical.

Levenson’s main point in this discussion is that if “biblical theology is historical in character” as Gabler suggests then “the affiliation of the biblical theologian is of no account for their work.” And if this is the case, then there is no distinction between history of religion and biblical theology methodologically, as it should be, suggests Levenson. As he sees it, “If, however, there are “persistent…principles” or “an overarching unity,” then it would seem that the historian of Israelite religion ought to be able to see them as well as can the Old Testament theologian.”

Levenson goes on to further to bring these two ideas of what he’s getting at together by discussing the importance of context in interpretation, an emphasis he says biblical theologians have largely ignored. “The great flaws of the biblical theologians are their lack of self-awareness on the issue of context and their habit, in the main, of acting as though the change of context made no hermeneutical difference.” Eichrodt is a prime example of this since his goal was to “combine the historical context of the Hebrew Bible (“its religious environment”) and its literary context in Christianity (“its essential coherence with the NT”). The problem with this goal is that it sets the two sides or contexts up as parallel tracks and any historical inquiry that casts any doubt that the two might ever cross in contradiction is disallowed from the beginning. This results in Levenson’s own doubt casting. If the tracks are so parallel and if they indeed never cross in the New Testament’s “Christian recontextualization” then why did the Jewish tradition continue? The opposite is also the case. If the text univocally points to rabbinic Judaism, then why are there non-rabbinic traditions that still exist? The answer for Levenson is a hermeneutical key to almost all of his critiques of Old Testament theology:

In sum, the historical evidence suggests that the Hebrew Bible speaks less univocally than Eichrodt thinks: it is to some degree coherent and to some degree incoherent with all its recontextualizations – Jewish, Christian, and other. The privileging of one of these over the others depends on something very different from dispassionate historical inquiry. It depends upon something more akin to an act of faith. This is not to impugn the act of faith, but only to say that it is highly problematic when it becomes regulative for historical study.

This is Levenson’s main critique of the field of Old Testament theology, tying together the tensions he has pointed out between historical and faith commitments. Now, this is again a good point but here Levenson seems to be making a proscriptive judgment against Old Testament Theology on the basis of his descriptive observance of it. Does Old Testament Theology necessarily have to be done in an apologetic fashion where the Old Testament cannot be seen in direct contradiction to the New Testament, as Levenson’s reading of Eichrodt suggests? Does a Christian’s take on the text necessitate reading it only in light of the New Testament? There does seem to be a way to read a text in its historical context as a “first read” prior to bridging the gap towards the New Testament as a “second read.” When Levenson says that commonality between Jews and Christians is doubtful because “…to the Christian, biblical theology is concerned with Christological issues in a way that excludes the Jew…” this is unfair and doesn’t take into account the importance of this “first read,” that does indeed allow for commonality.

Now that we have what Levenson wants to avoid, we'll look for the next several weeks at what Levenson actually accomplishes theologically, and, I dare say, it has had no small impact either on the theological world or on my own personal world.

Levenson & the Task of Old Testament Theology - Part 1

2007-11-02T23:04:00.000-04:00

I want to attempt to review Jon Levenson in his relationship to Old Testament Theology. On the one hand, Levenson is explicitly against Old Testament Theology as he defines it, so this could be interesting. On the other hand, Levenson does do something akin to theology and he does it with respect to a set text that Christians call the Old Testament. So then we also need to account for what Levenson actually does positively in this field of “non-Old Testament Theology” Old Testament theology. For most of you, this second part will actually be the most interesting. Stay tuned...But up first, Levenson's reasons for doing what he does, his method to his madness (what we'll call his methodology).

The book, which is actually a collection of essays, that I found most clearly bring out Levenson’s views on the discipline of Old Testament Theology is The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism and the most helpful chapters in that book are the essays, “The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism” and “Why Jews Are Not Interested In Biblical Theology.”

Apart from the charge of Anti-Semitism, the most important disagreements Levenson has with the task of Old Testament Theology in these two works is its relation to history, which is in fact Levenson’s main methodological concern with the task of Old Testament Theology. If you remember, one of the staples of Biblical Theology that originally separated it from dogmatics was its insistence on the historical context of the text. But for Levenson this emphasis on historical context is in opposition to two other defining characteristics of Old Testament Theology, namely, presenting a unifying theology (singular) of the Old Testament and secondly, the role of faith within the discipline.

First up, the tension between taking a text in its historical context and making a unifying theology of the Old Testament. If the theologian truly deals with the text in its historical context, he or she cannot take into account all of the literature Christians call the Old Testament since “the construction of a religion out of all the materials in the Hebrew Bible violates the historian’s commitment to seeing the materials in their historical contexts. The result will correspond to the religion of no historical community, except perhaps some parties very late in the period of the Second Temple.” So then to discuss any unifying theology of the corpus of the entire Old Testament violates the historical context of each individual text, thus rendering the dual goal of Old Testament Theology untenable. This point is well taken. This is an important point that many Christians need to recognize. Levenson is not here saying that tracing unifying themes throughout the Old Testament is illegitimate, just that we need to be honest about what it is we are actually doing when we say we are giving full credence to the historical context.

At this point, Levenson is only arguing that ‘biblical theology’ is never an independent discipline, it is either history of religion or it is dogmatics masked as this unnecessary tertium quid. If only the historical context is taken into account, what makes biblical theology different from history of religion? If the text is looked at ‘canonically,’ what makes biblical theology different than dogmatics? So then, can the theologian construct a religion out of all the materials in the Hebrew Bible? Of course, but this is looking at the Bible in a literary context and hardly ever an historical context, a perennial problem of any religion of the Book. And at this point the scholar is engaged in what Levenson would consider ‘dogmatics,’ and should be willing to call it what it is. Any thoughts on this? I tend to agree with Levenson here on most of what he's saying. I would appreciate any feedback on how accepting what Levenson is saying here is wrong or makes me a heretic.

What's In A Name?

2007-11-02T22:53:00.001-04:00

My wife & I started a blog about a month back so that we can keep our family up to date on the pregnancy and all. Well I decided to write about the names we picked out, so here it is:

If it is a girl our kid will be named Kieryk Eileen

If it is a boy our kid will be named Augustine Fredryck

What is the meaning of all this, you may ask. Well, let me tell you.

Kieryk - Named after Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855). You can google him and find out more but he is Jared's favorite philosopher, and since Jared was a philosophy major, that's a pretty big deal.

Eileen - Sarah was gracious enough to allow Jared to have the first names after philosophers and theologians but she rightfully claimed the middle names for herself (although we both love all of the names and wouldn't have it any other way). It is interesting actually, Jared's names are of philosophers and theologians, Sarah's names are of family. To be honest, this is actually quite telling of the kind of people we are. In any case, Eileen is the namesake of Sarah's beloved grandmother, from what I have heard, a beautiful lady who loved ice cream. I don't have a picture right now but I will be sure to edit this tomorrow or Sunday and get that out.

Augustine - Not the city, the saint. I know there is a major (though futile) debate amongst pseudo-intellectuals as to what is the proper way to pronounce this name. Many of you reading this will pronounce it Awe-Gus-Teen while many more of you will pronounce it Uh-Gus-Ten, we prefer the latter. I have once heard it said, "Awe-Gus-Teen is in Florida, Uh-Gus-Ten is in heaven" and well, we like heaven better. In any case, St. Augustine is an incredible theologian, arguably the most important theologian of the Ancient Church (AD 354-430). If you have never read his Confessions click HERE, it is a classic, a masterpiece, and should be read by every Christian.

Fredryck - Again, the middle names are for family. This happens to be the name of Jared's grandfather. I am almost certain he didn't spell it the same way, and everyone called him Fred, but I know for a fact that my child will not like to be called Fred.

This speaks to another thing: Who thought of shortening everyone's names? With a name like Augustine people keep asking me what I am going to call him. Hmm, let's see, why not Augustine? Do we really have to have a pet name for our kid? So please, this is for you dear mother, no "Gus" or "Auggie," only Augustine. Love you all!

Happy Birthday World!

2007-10-24T09:58:00.000-04:00

According to Anglican Bishop James Ussher in his popular Annals of the World (1658) the world was created on October 23, 4004 BCE. So as of yesterday our planet is officially 6,010 years old! His research was based on a 'literal' reading of Genesis and a 'literal' reconstruction from the geneaologies therein. To read more, read the article or better yet, buy the book.

Jon Levenson & The Henotheism of Israel

2007-10-22T21:43:00.002-04:00

In both Sinai&Zion: An Entry Into the Jewish Bible and Creation & the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence Levenson makes use of the argument that Israel in its beginnings was not in fact monotheistic but actually affirmed the existence of other gods, of whom YHWH was supreme (henotheism).

Levenson points out several texts in the Hebrew Bible that affirm this reading:

You shall have no other gods (elohim) before me (Exodus 20:3)

Who is like you, YHWH, among the gods (ba'elim) (Exodus 15:11)

For a great God is YHWH,
The great king over all the gods (elohim) (Pslam 95:3)

Now, the purpose of this post is not to engage in the implications of these texts but to point out how amazed I am at my own situatedness in my "interpreted Bible." In the "interpreted Bible" I have inherited from those before me, I have always read the above in light of prophetic tradition that in good orthodox fashion proclaims, "They have thrown their gods into the fire and destroyed them, for they were not gods but only wood and stone, fashioned by human hands" (Isaiah 37:19).

Instead of reading, "You shall have no other gods before me," I have always read, "Of course you shouldn't have any so-called gods before me, there is no such thing." A huge difference. So now, ironically, I might seem like a fundamentalist here, but, I think it's time we get back to the plain reading of the text. On the one hand, it might be that this is an unfair reading of the text. On the other hand, it might not be. But we'll never know if we don't ask the questions...

Once In A Lifetime - A Postmodern Documentary?

2007-10-18T22:36:00.001-04:00

I am always a sucker for a good documentary. My wife on the other hand, not so much. But I still try and sneak them in whenever I can. Last night I watched Once In A Lifetime and I really enjoyed it. It's basically about the history of soccer in the United States in the past 50 years and the important role the New York Cosmos played in what we consider now to be a given sport for every 6 year old in America, with their cute "swarm" strategy.

Apparently, hardly anyone played the sport in America. But a business man, Steve Ross, owner of Warner Communications wanted to start a league and so he did. It was ragtag at first since no one around here really even knew how to play the game. But then Ross paid Pele, yeah, that Pele, to come over and play on this basically semi-pro start up team named the New York Cosmos. And the rest is history. It was amazing, several famous players from around the world ended up following suit. At the peak of the NASL (North American Soccer League) the New York Cosmos were filling Giant Stadium with 70,000 fans...um, that's incredible!

The story is great but one thing caught my attention as I watched this movie. There was something refreshing about the way they interviewed everyone: they let them disagree. It was amazing how much disagreement when on about what really happened. I appreciated the multiple perspectives of history and each persons view of what was going on. As subtle as it was, I really enjoyed it. Of course, if you watch this movie you might think I am over-analyzing a bit, or a lot, but for whatever reason, this type of filming caught my eye and this type of thinking is one of the good implications for a postmodern mindset.

Babylonian Talmud

2007-10-18T01:37:00.000-04:00

For anyone interested with a few spare dollars, the Babylonian Talmud has been on sale at cbd.com for a while now. It's the Neusner translation and comes with a CD-Rom as well. Sure, it is still $300, but that's nothing for the wealth of Rabbinic knowledge you'll be getting...

Click here to check it out...

Progressive Revelation - "Rein In My Overstatement" Edition

2007-10-17T12:27:00.000-04:00

I just re-read my last post and if I wasn't me I would have gotten the impression that I am affirming that Scripture contradicts itself. Now, for obvious orthodox reasons, I would probably want to shy away from that, even if that is where what Levenson says eventually leads. But how do I navigate this tension? Underlying all of this is my return to Calvin and Pete Enns' explication of the same notion in Inspiration & Incarnation:

"For who even of slight intelligence does not understand that as nurses commonly do with infants, God is wont in a measure to "lisp" in speaking to us? Thus such forms of speaking do not so much express clearly what God is like as accommodate the knowledge of him to our slight capacity. To do this he must descend far beneath his loftiness."

-John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I:13:1.

So then God in the Scriptures "lisps" to us, that is, comes down to our level of thinking. Now, Pete shows persuasively that this includes cultural context. God reveals himself in Scripture in a thoroughly historical way, including cultural context. So then my main question in relation to progressive revelation and even in dealing with how the OT can be normative for us today is,

"What if "our level of thinking" is wrong?" What does it mean for God to "meet us where we are" or more appropriately, for God to "meet the Israelites where they were," if that place is a place of error (in the case of Israel's acceptance of the existence of a pantheon of gods following their fellow ANEers) or a place of myth (in the case of primordial history)?

What are the implications if we say that God 'lisps' to Israel and develops them through their history (of redemption as found in Scripture) to bring them to a place of true understanding of God?

This may bring up some sticky hermeneutical or normativity issues but I also think it helps me to understand more the 'suprising' revelation of Christ. He is in fact the capstone to this true development we find in history as recorded in the Scriptures. Any thoughts?

Progressive Revelation - Extreme Edition

2007-10-17T11:25:00.001-04:00

As I have been reading a lot of Jon Levenson one issue that he non-chalantly brings up continually is the progressive nature of revelation. For many in the Westminster camp, this is great, until you really understand what he is trying to say.

In the Vosian view of progressive revelation, as many have taken him, there is an unfolding of revelation where the revelation revealed later in history builds upon and never contradicts or is in tension with previous revelation. This is the view of most Systematicians. Is this because Systematics as is usually defined precludes any notion of true historical dynamic? Does Systematics necessarily flatten history? That's a post for another day I guess...

As it has been explained to me, Vos' view, as interpreted by some faculty, describes the Hebrew Bible as a fully furnished room with no lights on. Everything is there, but it doesn't get revealed to us all at once. Certain pieces of furniture are left in the dark while others are 'progressively' being lit up so that we can see them. After reading Levenson, I realize that this position precludes any notion of true theological development.

One of the basic premises of Levenson's Sinai & Zion is that the Zion tradition inherits the Sinai tradition. Sometimes these traditions are in-step and sometimes they flatly contradict each other.

Within Levenson's Creation & the Persistance of Evil Israel develops historically from a nation of henotheism to a nation of monotheism, as evidenced from within the text itself.

Within Levenson's Resurrection & the Restoration of Israel Daniel 12:1-3 betrays a more developed notion of individual resurrection than the rest of the Hebrew Bible.

Now I haven't yet completely thought through the implications of this way of thinking, but Levenson's arguments on these issues are quite persuasive. It does in fact seem to me that early in Israel's history as we have it in the text they would have affirmed the existence of other gods. This is actually quite obvious if we would start to realize that we've been taught to gloss over these pericopes and assume that when the text says, "You shall have no other gods before me," we should read, "Of course, there are no other gods, they are only idols, so obviously you should have no idols before me."

My point though is not to argue these points, I might do that in another post, my only point is that I think Vos is right. And I haven't read enough of Vos to see how far he takes his idea of progressive revelation, but from what I hear, I think I am becoming more Vosian than Vos...

The Difference Of Perspective

2007-10-03T23:51:00.000-04:00

December of last year I was required to read a book by Gerhard Hasel called Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate and I was its most vocal critic. Not of course for any substantial theological or philosophical reason, but because I just didn't like the book. I thought it was dry, over-detailed and to be honest, I just wasn't really interested in the topic.

However, when this semester rolled around I was required to read it again, something I was not at all interested in doing. But after my initial class with Pete I have really learned to love the deep contours of Old Testament Theology. I devoured Hasel after that in about 4 days and I loved every minute of it. For me it was a matter of perspective. Pete showed me how these issues really affected how I viewed my Scriptures and how important it was for me if I was going on in my studies to know them and know them well. It was very interesting for me how my attitude towards the book could change so quickly and dramatically, but I am glad it did.

So far this semester, this class has been by far my favorite (although also my most time-consuming).

The book itself is used most helpfully as a historical resource into basic theological history of OTT. Hasel does offer his own input on the situation but I didn't find them that helpful. This book really is a great introduction into the 'current issues' in OTT.

Kieryk/Augustine

2007-09-28T20:31:00.000-04:00

I have been debated whether to post this or not on this blog since it's not my typical content, but since it's only one of the most life-changing things that's happened to me, I thought I might as well. My wife is officially pregnant. If it's a girl she will be named Kieryk Eileen (Yeah, that's after Kierkegaard, isn't my wife so sweet for letting me get away with it?) and if it's a boy he'll be named Augustine Fredryck (Yeah, that's after St. Augustine...see above). Here is our little blob at 7 weeks:

The Winds of Change

2007-09-05T23:59:00.000-04:00

You can ask most people that know me...I am not one for change. I have only eaten one flavor of snowcone since like 5th grade. I don't write in blue pen. I only eat vanilla flavored ice cream. If it's been part of my routine for a while, why mess with it? Plus, when you're OCD, things like this tend to happen.

Anyway, about a week ago, I got a new Mac. I have never owned a Mac but have always wanted one. It took me a few days before I even opened the box when it came in because I started to realize how much I'd have to learn and change with a new laptop. All my Hebrew & Greek shortcuts and fonts would have to be redone, all my favorites would have to be re-entered. I have to admit that a few hours after booting up, I was ready to send it back and just go get a Vaio. Everything's just so different. Why can't you just 'right click' on it? Why do you have to go up to "Quit" on everything instead of just hitting the x? These were my frustrations. But alas, after another few days on here and in anticipation for getting an interface so that I can record my own music (a major reason I opted for the Mac in the first place), I have finally warmed up to the Mac as of today. I am still not a Mac-head but if any of my Mac-owning friends are a vision of what's to come, then I am soon to be a PC basher as well.

*By the way, major props to my wife. She actually got my friends and family to send money for my birthday so I could get a new laptop since mine had major issues. Thanks love.

Things I've Learned This Summer

2007-09-05T21:50:00.000-04:00

As I trek back to that "other world" of Westminster tomorrow, I have thought tonight about some things I have learned this summer. The summer is always my time to process everything I've learned at Westminster and translate it all into my own language. But it's also a time for me to grow in other areas since it's really the only time I have for "other areas".

1. I love the Church. For many, this is obvious, but I really struggled with connecting with the Church. Growing up in Texas, I wasn't really ever taught that you were supposed to connect to a body of believers. It was always a place where I went to meet God and then go home. In college I learned that Church was actually a place to serve and help. But it wasn't until this summer that I really began to grasp what it means to love the Body. It's been an exhausting and exhilarating experience.

2. Through my "Summer of Religious Diversity" (which I am not done with by the way), I have learned to appreciate people. It's easy to demonize people's belief systems when they aren't actually attached to a person. Which is okay, until you start to treat the person the same way. It was such a great experience to see people practicing their beliefs in a simple and communal way. I learned to respect people's beliefs and people who believe differently than me.

3. I am pretty much a postmodern at heart. Of course, this may get me into some trouble, but I just can't help myself. I do find that authors like Derrida have important things to say about texts and we shouldn't as evangelicals throw the baby out with the bath water. It does in fact seem to me that there is "nothing outside the text." My questions now are "What does this mean for Scripture" and "How do we filter this idea through a Christian worldview?"

I am sure there are others, but that's all I have for now...

Philadelphia Folk Festival 2007

2007-08-25T23:45:00.000-04:00

So I went to this folk festival a few weeks ago and I enjoyed myself probably much more than I should have. It's a gathering of about 4000 hippies and wiser (read: older) generations dancing and chilling to folk, bluegrass, and celtic music for three straight days. I had heard stories about this festival in the past, the legends of people just walking around completely naked, etc. However, it was a lot more low-key than I expected: which oddly enough was a little disappointing. Not that I wanted to see naked people but I do love to dance to bluegrass and folk music. And dance I did. There were about 200 of us in the back of the field just having a good 'ole time dancing to the fiddles and the banjo. This year I went by myself but next year I hope to recruit some friends, since I will definitely be back next year.

I was planning on making some 'spiritual insight' or 'illustration' out of this experience but there really is no need. Music, dance, and the like are all God's and it was a joy to participate. I had a great time which probably betrays my true inner hippie.

The Preacher & the Rabbi

2007-08-24T23:09:00.000-04:00

One thing I noticed when I was at synagogue that has been rolling around the brain the past week: Their 'sermon' wasn't the climax of the Shabbat service. It wasn't like we often like to think about church, the music gets the heart softened and ready to hear "from God's word" and then all the drama, Scripture reading, etc. leads up to...the SERMON (dun dun dun). The sermon was there at Shabbat service, but it was just another part of the gathering. It wasn't long, only about 15-20 minutes out of the hour and a half service. As a result, it was a much more participatory service, where if you didn't engage, you felt left out.

On a similar note: the rabbi didn't present himself as "God's Man" as many preachers and pastors do today, and yet he is probably much more respected among his congregation than many preachers and pastors today. Maybe there's something to be learned there? It was very nice to have the rabbi identify the way he did with everyone else. He was there truly to shepherd and it showed.

Religious Understanding - Part 5 (Judaism)

2007-08-18T11:17:00.000-04:00

I went to synagogue last Friday. I was giddy about it all day, like a kid on Christmas. I am absolutely fascinated by Judaism, which is why if ever I decide to get a Ph.D. it will certainly be in something relating to the Hebrew Scriptures. Well, needless to say, I absolutely loved it and would go every Shabbat if it were closer to my house. It was almost entirely composed of congregational chanting/singing in Hebrew (good practice for me). It was a Reformed synagogue (but not of the Luther stripe), meaning it wasn't crazy conservative (Orthodox) and neither was it crazy liberal (Reconstructionist)...it might be described as a Jewish PCA of sorts (of course 'crazy liberal/conservative' is quite relative I've learned coming from Liberty to Westminster). I really did love the tradition and the emphasis on "remembrance." Remember who you are in the Almighty, remember what it means to be God's people. They were all so sincere and so serious about their faith, something a lot of us could learn something about. It wasn't at all about 'knowing the right things,' it was about embodying this thing they called "Judaism."

For those who aren't familiar and with blatant oversimplification, Judaism accepts what Christians call the Old Testament and the coming of Messiah, but denies that Jesus of Nazareth was in fact that Messiah. Because of this, after the destruction of Temple in 70 CE, Judaism took on even more of a bibliocentric and communal nature. So, since 70 CE Judaism has really evolved.

Overall, I loved it, absolutely. They didn't wear their religion on their sleeve, you could tell they felt a part of the Judaic narrative, they were entrenched in the story, and I envied that.

Communal Sex Lives?

2007-08-14T15:12:00.000-04:00

About a month ago I read an amazing book called Real Sex: The Naked Truth About Chastity, and it was a real eye-opener. There are many things to admire about this non-traditional approach to sex, but one thing in particular has really caused me to question a lot of my assumptions about the community's role in our sex lives. There is even a chapter called Communal Sex: Or, Why Your Neighbor Has Any Business Asking You What You Did Last Night. Here is an exerpt from that chapter:

"...the Bible tells us to intrude - or rather, the Bible tells us that talking to one another about what is really going on in our lives is in fact not an intrusion at all, because what's going on in my life is already your concern; by dint of the baptism that made me your sister, my joys are your joys and my crises are your crises. We are called to speak to one another lovingly, to be sure, and with edifying, rather than gossipy or hurtful, goals. But we are called nonetheless to transform seemingly private matters into communal matters...[Sociologist Wendell] Berry claims that "the disintegration of community" began when we started treating marital sex as a wholly private matter, when we severed the connections that link marriages to households and neighborhoods and communities" (56-7).

It is curious the many things we take for granted and assume in the ways we think. For most of history, even up until the 20th century, marital sex wasn't just between a husband and wife. How could it be when the majority of the populations lived (and still do in 3rd world countries) in one-room houses or huts? Your kids knew when you had sex. Your kids heard when you had sex...Scary thought?

In any case, my point is that we are to live in community because we are the body of Christ. What affects one part of the body affects the whole, whether we confess it or not. And our sex life is just one of those areas that we should be able to share about if need be, it just happens to be one of the hardest. But in the end we are free. We are free to be open and free to share because our worth isn't based on what we can hide from people about our sin and our humanity, but is based on a love by a God who already knows it and loves us anyway. Yet sometimes I think we value people's opinion but not God's. It's okay if God knows, but not so and so. Hmmm, interesting. But, as always, I am open for correction, rebuke, wagging fingers, etc.

"The best thing that could ever happen to any one of us is that all our sins would be broadcast on the 5 o' clock news." - Derek Webb

A Prayer by Anne Bronte

2007-08-07T17:00:00.000-04:00

Reflecting on the past few years here in the Philly area, I've realized how much my faith has grown. This is surprising considering how incredibly often I have been plagued by doubt here at seminary. I feel like I have survived the turbulent waters of 'being honest with the text' and 'letting the text be the text' and have passed to the serenity of a 2nd naivete. But as I reflected on that and praised God for his hand in all of it, I came across a poem that I have really become attached to in the past few days. It's by Anne Bronte, third of the famous Bronte sisters (Charlotte & Emily) and is found in an amazing book called A Sacrifice of Praise which is "an anthology of Christian poetry in English from Caedmon to the mid-twentieth century."

A Prayer

My God (oh, let me call Thee mine,
Weak, wretched sinner though I be),
My trembling soul would fain be Thine;
My feeble faith still clings to Thee.

Not only for the past I grieve,
The future fills me with dismay;
Unless Thou hasten to relieve,
Thy suppliant is a castaway.

I cannot say my faith is strong,
I dare not hope my love is great;
But strength and love to Thee belong:
Oh, do not leave me desolate!

I know I owe my all to Thee;
Oh, take the heart I cannot give;
Do Thou my Strength, my Savior be,
And make me to Thy glory live!

Religious Understanding - Part 4 (Unitarian Universalism)

2007-08-04T12:45:00.000-04:00

I have to admit, the question of why Unitarian Universalists even have 'church', has always been a mystery to me. But I found the answer (as stated on the back of the program):

Statement of Purpose:
We gather as a community,
To support and sustain
each other and our larger communities,
To further individual freedom of
belief, to encourage the search for truth,
and seek mindful relations with
all living beings,
By striving for justice and promoting the democratic
process in human relations.

So there you have it. The service itself consisted of readings by Shel Silverstein, Mark Twain, and Robert Frost. There were also some hymns sung from the Unitarian Universalist hymnbook. They were typically about nature and various other vague notions of peace and harmony. In the back of the hymnal were readings from all different religions, including humanism. Over all, I wasn't terribly impressed. They seemed a little arrogant to me (not that I can base it on one service) with a major emphasis on enlightenment thinking and thinkers. Which might not be universal (no pun intended) since I did go to The Thomas Paine Unitarian Universalist Fellowship.

The 'sermon' was by a member of the congregation on the connectedness of life based on the 7th principle of the UU Association:
7. Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

It was basically an extended discussion and possible argument for causal determinism, that we are all absolutely determined by our circumstances and temperment, both of which we have no control over.

One thing I was slightly disappointed in was that all of the rhetoric I heard and have read in the past about UU was how welcoming, tolerant, and loving they were but only 1 person talked to me the entire time I was there, and I even hung around for donuts afterwards for about 10 minutes just to see if anyone would come over to me. This is even more surprising considering that there were only about 45 people there. In any case, it wasn't too great of an experience, I still don't really understand the 'complete inclusivism' stance, it reminds me of the great conduit of wisdom Dash Parr from The Incredibles after his Mom remarks "Everyone's special Dash," he wisely responds: "Which is another way of saying no one is."

WTS Books & Blog Partnering

2007-08-01T14:22:00.000-04:00

For those of you who are new to theological books, I'll be the first to let you in on a little secret. Westminster's bookstore is pretty much amazing. First all of they have the lowest prices, yes, even lower than Amazon. They carry pretty much any theological book worth reading and only charge 5$ for shipping on orders of any size. I get most of my books through them. But now they've added a blog partner program (for every 50 referrels they give you a 10$ gift certificate), which is even better. It's a great program, one which I'll be using, so definitely check them out!

http://www.wtsbooks.com/

Alice's Language Games

2007-07-26T22:16:00.000-04:00

I have really wanted to read Alice's Adventures in Wonderland & Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll (which is a pseudonym for famous mathematician Charles Dodgson I just learned) for quite a while now. A few weeks ago I stumbled across a used book sale at my community library and stumbled across a 50 cent copy of Alice in Wonderland, o what fate. I finished it about a week ago and I absolutely loved it. Now, Alice is no Derrida or Wittgenstein, but for a children's book, the language games are everywhere, a fun read if nothing else for odd people who love language. A few examples:

"There's glory for you!"

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't - till I tell you. I mean 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "

"But 'glory' doesn't mean a 'nice knock-down argument,' " Alice objected.

"When I use a word, " Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all...They've a temper, some of them - particularly verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs - however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenatrability! That's what I say...I meant by 'impenatrability' that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppse you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life."

"That's a great deal to make one word mean," Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

"When I make a word do a lot of work like that," said Humpty Dumpty, "I always pay it extra."

Or try this one:

"Aren't you sometimes frightened at being planted out here, with nobod to take care of you?" Alice asked.

"There's the tree in the middle," said the Rose. "What else is it good for?"

"But what could it do, if any danger came?" Alice asked.

"It could bark," said the Rose.

"It says 'Bough-wough!' " cried a Daisy. "That's why it's branches are called boughs!"

In the first excerpt above, I quoted so much of it because of the way everything plays out. It starts out with a very meaningful conversation about language but ends up unraveling into a mere deconstruction of language, playing with language. Which is typically what you'll find throughout the book. You won't find profound statements about language but the way the characters interact with language says something, if nothing else, the oddity of languages.

But if I could read into the two excerpts a bit, there may be something more to be had. This entire book could be a critique on a realist theory of language or correspondence theory, that words have real referents or referents in reality, a thought Derrida spent much time dismantling (in most cases rightly in my opinion). I found it to be a critique in that it presents what an absurd world we'd live in if a correspondence theory of langauge really obtained. The book then is, in a sense, hyper-literal, almost satirically so. At many places in the book, the characters in 'Wonderland' assume that the signifier has intrinsic connection (by way of form - spelling, sound, etymology) to the thing signified, which ends up with Alice scratching her head at such absurdities. The thing that makes it so funny is that you follow right along, you understand the logic, faulty as it is: they aren't just arbitrary incoherent strands of words. So whether you want to have a good book to read to your kid, love to play with language, or want to blow past any notion of authorial intent (maybe?) and have yourself a full blown satire of language, Alice in Wonderland is the book for you!

Religious Understanding - Part 3 (Buddhism)

2007-07-24T10:11:00.000-04:00

Well, I have learned a ton about Buddhism over the last few weeks and it has truly been enlightening (pun intended). Unfortunately, I wasn't able to actually go to the Buddhist temple. I called them but they couldn't speak English so I couldn't get the information I needed. If anyone has been to a Buddhist temple and could let me know some information about it, I am still willing to go. However, the temple is usually used mostly by Buddhist priests/monks, not as a 'place of worship' like Christian churches, so I don't think not going was too much of a hindrance in understanding the lay-people who practice Buddhism.

After all the research I did over the past few weeks, the bare bones of the Buddhist philosophy is the following:

The Four Noble Truths:
1. The Noble Truth of Suffering: Suffering exists.
2. The Noble Truth of the Cause of Suffering: Craving for the desires of the senses causes suffering.
3. The Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering: To be free of suffering, get rid of this craving: this is Nirvana.
4. The Noble Truth that leads to the Extinction of Suffering: The Eightfold Path leads to the ending of suffering

Eightfold Path:
1. Right Views: Accept the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path.
2. Right Resolve: Renounce the pleasures of the senses.
3. Right Speech: Do not lie; do not slander or abuse anyone.
4. Right Behavior: Do not destroy any living creature; do not steal; abstain from unlawful sexual acts.
5. Right Occupation: Earn your livelihood in a way that will harm no one.
6. Right Effort: Prevent evil qualities and strive to acquire good qualities.
7. Right Contemplation: Be observant, strenuous, contemplative, and free of desire and sorrow.
8. Right Meditation: Enter the four degrees of meditation.

Five Precepts:
1. Kill no living thing.
2. Do not steal.
3. Abstain from sexual misconduct
4. Do not lie.
5. Do not drink intoxicants or take drugs.

So first off, I was thrown off by the fact that the above has a lot of great things to say. My struggle comes in however, when I try to find any Buddhists who only practice these principles. Although these seem to be the "bare bones," I have yet to find anyone writing that only affirms the above. Oftentimes there are more mystical Hinduism or folk religion overtones thrown in. One author even said that Buddhism was meant to piggyback on Hinduism. There are so many different cultural variations it's hard to get a grasp on the singular Buddhism. My questions and concerns come in because of a website I found that had a practicing Buddhist Sensei that was also a practicing ordained Jesuit priest. I had heard of Christian Buddhists in college but of course, I wrote them off without a second thought, even though I had no idea what Buddhists believed. Anyway, I am still wrestling with whether it is possible. I do have some issues with some of the principles above (notion of sin [natural state of man], notion of senses being inherently bad, etc.) but I don't know if they are enough to deem them absolutely incompatible with Christianity. Any research or recommending reading would be appreciated. Again, I don't want to become a Buddhist or anything, but I do want to be able to understand and relate.

30 Days of Heck Yes

2007-07-19T00:34:00.000-04:00

Do you remember Morgan Spurlock? He was nominated for an Academy Award for Supersize Me back in 2005. Well he began a series in 2005-2006 called 30 Days that ran on FX. Sarah & I were looking for a new TV show to watch on DVD and picked it up. It is amazing and one of the most educational and eye-opening shows around. The basic premise is that someone does something completely different for 30 days to step into the shoes of someone else in society or into the shoes of some other societal situation. So a Christian from WV lives with a Muslim family and practices Islam for 30 days, an Atheist lives with a Christian fundamentalist family for 30 days, a couple live on minimum wage for 30 days, etc. I know it's an old show by now, but if you haven't seen it, pick it up. It certainly makes me a lot more careful not to stereotype and to watch what I say about other people's religion and culture.

In the most recent episode we watched, a Christian man lived with a Muslim family for 30 days. It was interesting to see, first of all, his pyschological conflict as to whether he was able to pray the prayers since he was a Christian. He didn't know if that violated his own faith. More than that thought, it put a face to a nameless label. There were plenty of Muslims living daily lives in Dearborn, MI, just like any American. One thing was different however - the self-discipline. I was very impressed by their self-discipline and the practice of praying five times a day. That seemed to help them keep their focus on God. It is certainly something I could learn from.

There was one poignant point made by one of the teachers when the Christian was wrestling with whether it violated his faith to participate. He insighfully said, "You're here to learn, not to believe." I think this is a very helpful statement when dialoguing with people of other faiths. Rather than get offended, remember that most people aren't trying to convert, only to have you understand. So instead of being close-minded and defensive, we should try to remember that we dialogue to learn, no one said we had to believe. Sometimes our fear of lack of faith on our own part leads us to dismiss out of hand the faith of another.

Religion & The Democratic Party

2007-07-13T11:19:00.001-04:00

There was a very interesting article in the Time this week about Democratic leaders now being willing to talk about their faith in the public arena. To read the article, click here. Some may see this as only a contrived effort to get more religious votes, others a sincere step forward. In any case, the article was a breath of fresh air for me, that this complete bifurcation and assumption that all Christians are Republicans is starting to break down. Here is a taste of the article:

"The most conservative white Protestants, he says, are all but
off-limits to the Democrats. But then there are more than 22 million voters he
calls "freestyle Evangelicals," worried about not only their eternal souls but
also their kids' schools, their car's fuel efficiency and the crisis in Darfur.
In the past, those voters may have leaned Republican in part because the GOP has
been far smarter about presenting itself as friendly to people of faith while
painting the Democrats as a bunch of sneering, secular coastal élites. But
the Republican lock on Evangelicals may be breaking. The percentage of white
Evangelicals who self-identify as Republicans has declined from roughly 50% in
2004 to about 44% this past February, according to Green. Now the number is
closer to 40% as more Evangelicals choose to label themselves independents.
"There is a loosening of the Republican coalition, particularly among people
under 30," Green says, "but it is not yet a movement toward the Democrats. It is
a small but real change.""

The Agronomist

2007-07-12T13:11:00.000-04:00

A few months ago, I watched a documentary called The Agronomist. It is a documentary by Jonathan Demme (Famed director of both Silence of the Lambs & Philadelphia) and is absolutely inspiring and motivating. It is the story of Jean Dominique, told mostly through the eyes of Dominique himself (through interviews held 1991-2000), of the political corruption in Haiti. Dominique didn't start out political but rather had a degree in agriculture. He was also interested in the arts and helped start a cinema group that was later shut down because they showed a film higher political figures in Haiti didn't approve of. When he began to see that things just weren't right in his country he began broadcasting on the radio and ended up owning Radio Haiti-Inter which later went under literal gunfire because of their standing for the people. They even broadcasted in Creole, the language of the people, rather than French.

I recommend the movie to any and all. It was incredible to see the simplicity of standing up for what is right. Even though I often justify my not helping those treated unfairly by saying "I don't even know where to start," this film reminds me that standing up for my beliefs is so simple, but that it is certainly not easy. I loved that Jean Dominique and his wife could have lived a pretty easy life but chose instead to be with the people. He had status and he had some wealth, but he chose justice.

Religious Understanding - Part 2 (Catholicism)

2007-07-10T23:43:00.000-04:00

Although the next few weeks will be probably more enlightening and “interesting,” the past two have been incredibly refreshing. As much as we evangelical Protestants like to tout our breaking with “tradition” and “religious dogma,” putting down Catholics for their rigidity and archaisms, I realized that we too have our own “tradition” and “religious dogma.” And at the risk of being called a ‘heretic’ (which means less and less to me anyway, overused as it is) I found the unashamed religiosity of the Catholic Church soothing. Sure, I found it boring after about 30 minutes, but I loved that they weren’t there to “get ‘em saved,” they were there to meet as the Church. I loved that they didn’t try to impress anyone with modern day marketing schemes or advertisement, only a huge crucifix hanging from the ceiling. I don’t at all want to criticize the contemporary church, their intentions are pure enough (for the most part). I can only say what I felt, and I felt relieved. It felt good to worship next to brothers and sisters in Christ who had such a different way to worship that same Christ.

Since I grew up in the church, I heard lots of religious jargon. Probably 20-30 times since college have I heard something like the following:
“Do Catholics believe that too? I only thought Christians believed in that!”
“There were lots of religions there, Christians, Buddhists, Catholics, etc…”

As evangelical protestants I think we’ve done a poor job at encouraging fellowship with our Catholic brothers and sisters. Sure, they believe some things differently than us, but if we only and often emphasize those differences we raise up kids (and adults) who have cut off an important part of the body. Whether Protestant or Catholic, if we are Christian, Catholicism is our heritage, it is part of our roots, it is our grandfather in the faith. And just like our biological grandfather, I feel like we have to say, “sure we don’t always agree, sure I think he’s wrong about some things, but I love him anyway, and I respect him, and I have to, he’s family.”

Sorry, that was little rabbit trail. I did feel lost a few times in the service and that made me wonder how awkward it would have been for someone who had never been to a church before to have been in that building trying to follow along. Just a thought. Overall, the experience was great and it has really incited me to read much more Catholic theology, especially Aquinas.

“Calvin at least was accustomed to appeal to Thomas of Aquino (Aquinas). And I for my part am not ashamed to confess that on many points my views have been clarified through my study of the Romish theologians.” -Abraham Kuyper, a very Reformed Protestant in his Lectures on Calvinism

Choice as Neglect

2007-07-06T11:19:00.001-04:00

I was at a party on July 4, talking with JR Briggs of Resonate about books. He said that he gets anxious in a bookstore because every book he chooses is his choosing 1000 other books to NOT read. I can definitely relate to that. But as I thought about that statement later I found it to be true in almost every sphere of life. In fact Derrida talks about this in his Gift of Death, which is an excellent book by the way. But it is true that our choice in almost everything is a choice that excludes almost an infinite amount of other possibilities. And this has very practical implications in our Christian lives. Every time I choose to eat a fancy restaurant, I am choosing to not send that money to a starving family in Africa, and I am responsible for that decision. But every time I choose to send that money to a starving family in Africa, I am choosing to neglect a starving family in Asia. Of course this could go on infinitely, but hopefully it helps us to see that our choices affect more than just those things or people that are directly influenced by that decision. So it seems somewhat funny and trite when we think about this concept in terms of books, but not so funny when we think about it in terms of hurting people in this world. Now this could easily lead to despair, a labyrinth of neglect, a drowning in the awareness of the profundity of every decision we make, but it doesn’t need to. But then again, maybe that’s the point.

Religious Understanding - Part 1 (Antiochian Orthodox)

2007-07-02T14:03:00.000-04:00

This past Sunday was my first trek on my summer of religious understanding. I am starting slowly, just going to a few places that are very different than my own but undeniably Christian. This week I went to St. Philips Antiochian Orthodox Church (pictured left). It was a great experience.

First, the artwork was incredible. There was artwork on every square inch of the sanctuary, in typical ancient Eastern Christian style. Deep blues, reds, and lots of gold. The pictures told so many stories, I felt like I was a part of the stories themselves, surrounded. Right in front of me was a giant representation of Jonah being swallowed by the fish. I could've stared at it for a long time. Orthodox Christians allow icons and other pictures in their worship so this wasn't surprising to me. When you first walk in you are greeted by a small painting of St. Philip (the patron saint of this parish) on a podium. Everyone kissed it and crossed themselves as they walked in. If a couple had a child, they picked up the kid so that s/he could also kiss it. Interesting.

Second, the sounds. They chant everything in a sort of antiphonal sing-song. It was hard to tell the difference between a hymn, prayer, and Scripture reading, they all sounded similar. But I absolutely loved the ancient melodies and harmonies. I have to admit though, they got a bit tedious after an hour or so.

It wasn't all that surprising that no one brought a Bible with them to this church. But instead of being critical (which is my typical response to everything) I realized that they had the Bible all around them in pictures, in song, in chant, and in several Scripture 'readings.' Who am I to judge which medium is 'best' for church? Do we have to have a preacher preach every Sunday? They didn't seem to think so and I don't at all doubt their authenticity and devotion. We have such an Enlightenment focus on knowledge and 'the text' in so many churches, this was actually quite refreshing.

My final surprise came when I was studying about their beliefs and happened upon their website. One of the "What we believe" sections talked about why they pray to saints, something Protestants are notoriously critical of. But the explanation was quite good I thought. Basically the argument is this: We believe that Christians have eternal life. That is, they remain alive even after phyiscal death. We often ask our friends to pray for us, why not ask our friends who are physically dead but still very much alive? Anyway, I won't be praying to any saints any time soon, but that truly did change my perspective.

Overall, I loved the experience. I will probably go back sometime soon.

Summer of Religious Diversity

2007-06-20T21:03:00.001-04:00

Ever since I moved here to Pennsylvania from Texas and then Virginia, I have been wanting to go to some different services and get to know some different religious communities. Nothing against Amarillo, TX but it's not really known for it's "diversity". Catholicism is about as "far out there" as it got. So for the remainder of this summer I will be visiting a different community every week, starting Sunday July 1 through the second weekend in September. I have picked religions or denominations that I have always been curious about and have specifically picked locations close to home. The best way I figure to love my neighbors as myself is to actually get to know them and there are a surpising amount of these communities close to my house and home church. Anyway, I will be blogging about my experience each week. I am very excited about this and know it will be a great experience. My tentative schedule is:

1. Antiochian Orthodox
2. Catholicism
3. Buddhism
4. Islam
5. Unitarian Universalism
6. Judaism
7. Hinduism
8. Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)
9. Jehovah's Witness
10. Mormonism
11. Messianic Judaism

Tired of the Bible?

2007-06-19T11:36:00.000-04:00

This week I have been thinking about the Bible. For whatever reason I grew up in a tradition that emphasized reading my Bible and going to Church. What Christian tradition doesn't? But as I look back and I look around even today, I see a bibliolatry and a misplaced emphasis. First, we worship and serve a Person, not a book. This I think has many implications for how we look at and read Scripture, but my thoughts this week have really centered around the idea of a "misplaced emphasis." How often does Scripture talk about the importance of reading Scripture? Don't get me wrong, it's there. Most of the NT presupposes a thorough knowledge of the Hebrew Bible. How often does Scripture talk about the importance of "going to church" in order to be a "good Christian?" Now this one is actually harder for me to find reference for, besides of course the old Hebrews passage every pastor uses, "Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing..."

My point is not to say these are bad things or that we shouldn't be doing them on a regular basis, only that we've made them ends in themselves when they are only a means to an end. Scripture doesn't give nearly the emphasis on these things that we do in American Christian sub-cultures. Meditating on the Scriptures and meeting regularly with believers are necessary conditions for spiritual growth but they are not sufficient conditions. What does this end up looking like? Well, to the world, it looks like we are smug in our traditionalism, we couldn't care less what happens to the world as long as we are "saved" by reading our Bibles and going to Church.

It's like me proclaiming myself to be an amazing cook, since of course, I have read all the best cookbooks. This is silly. No one will hire a chef because they have "studied and memorized the best cookbooks." No, they have to have actually cooked before. For me, I am tired of "studying the Scriptures" as though that is an end in itself. I realize I know more recipes (read: Scriptural "understanding") than most people but I haven't even really began to cook. I know perfectly the recipe for an amazing dinner, lamb racks in garlic sauce, etc, but all I ever make is a PB&J sandwich.

As students of Scripture it's easy to think that our knowledge of Scripture qua knowledge actually means something, but it is only meaningful in so far as it is the impetus to action.

Gratitude

2007-06-10T23:54:00.000-04:00

Tonight I went to a church service, and it was good. There was one thing in particular that made me really think. At the end of the time of singing (sorry for the lack of a better word, I refuse to call it "worship") the music leader prayed, "God, I wish there were words big enough to show our gratitude." For whatever reason, it hit me. We kind of do have 'words big enough to show our gratitude.' They are called 'actions.' Of course the leader didn't say this intentionally but I understood those words in my own life as giving lip service. It's much easier for me to say, "I wish I had words big enough to show my gratitude" while I am missing enormous opportunities to show my gratitude by loving my neighbor as myself, by letting my neighbor borrow my lawn mower (even though I know I won't see it again for 6 mos, or ever), by giving up on the lame excuse "I just don't have time" so that I can volunteer at a homeless shelter, so that I can take time to pray for the less fortunate, by giving up my vacation time at work to go to help Katrina victims. That is gratitude. Now even those might not be gratitude enough, but I have to say it's much better than cop-ing out with a "I wish I had words..."

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go visit you?"

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me." [Matthew 25:37-40]

Hebrews was written by nobody

2007-05-31T17:10:00.001-04:00

This just in, the book of Hebrews was written by nobody. I love it. Click to read the article "Study suggests book of Hebrews wasn't written by anybody."

Global Warming & the Anti-Christ

2007-05-29T02:18:00.000-04:00

"I am strongly against Christians embracing the environmental movement. It’s easy to relate to a desire to save the earth. Unfortunately, the designers of this movement have a political agenda that few true Christians would find compatible with the Bible.

The true goal of the environmental movement is to draw the world into a central body that would set the rules. This plan is part of the devil’s master scheme to recreate the type of control he had during the time of the Babylonian Empire. The only way to get back to Babylon is to push for world unity.

The environmental movement is a perfect disguise because it asks nations to surrender their sovereignty for a cause seemingly beneficial to all nations. Recently, a group of well-known evangelical leaders fell for this ploy by deciding to back an initiative to fight global warming."

By Todd Strandberg - Raptureready.com

I have heard a lot of good and bad arguments for why we should or shouldn't take care of creation, but this is a new one for me. Wow.

Courtesy of Raptureready.com (Thanks Art for the link).

Jesus & the Elephant

2007-05-28T01:43:00.000-04:00

I am here in TX and truly cringing at the amount of broad generalizations I have run into. I recently had "the conversation" as my wife and I like to call it (both of us being from the South) with my mom about how it really is possible to be a democrat AND a Christian. Needless to say, I wasn't too convincing. But the claims I have heard all week are somewhat depressing, a lot of polarization going on. "Those liberals" all they want to do is take God out of the government. We were founded on Judeo-Christian ethics and our country is going down the tubes because of "those liberals." Global warming? Oh Jared, that's just a political agenda. We can't destroy this earth. What was interesting was some of the broader generalizations that were even about Baptists, "you know, they only teach the basics, but at some point you have to grow out of being a baptist." Anyway, I was amazed at it all and I am know rethinking my coming out of the closet with my democratic and 'liberal' stances, from fear of being forever excommunicated from the family. But, as Kimball says in his new book (which I am ironically reading in TX):

"Today, Christians are known as scary, angry, judgmental, right-wing finger-pointers with political agendas."

His (and my) conclusion about outsiders and their views on Christianity: "I can't blame them - I wouldn't like Christianity either"

Derrida on Death

2007-05-27T09:47:00.000-04:00

The Phaedo explicitly names philosophy: it is the attentive anticipation
of death, the care brought to bear upon dying, the meditation on the best way to
receive, give, or give oneself death, the experience of a vigil over the
possibility of death, and over the possibility of death as
impossibility.
-Derrida in The Gift of Death

The idea of "being-towards-death" and "facing your own death" are central to existentialism. However, it seems odd to me that the for Heidegger and other existentialists, these terms mean the exact opposite of Kierkegaard's notion of "facing your own death," with Kierkegaard being the supposed Father of Existentialism. For Kierkegaard "facing your own death" is relational and exoteric (the subject before God). For Heidegger, etc "facing your own death" is esoteric (the subject before the subject). It seems then that for the unbelieving existentialist, "facing your own death" is merely resolving to the fact, a sort of neo-Stoicism. But with Kierkegaard it is a living faith, a relation by constant choice.

Maybe a practical implication:
For the common American, life is the material. But death is non-material and therefore cannot even be in the purview of the material mindset. It precludes the notion of death, it is inauthentic in the Heideggerian sense of always losing oneself in the crowd so as to not have to face one's own death. It needs a material ending and that ending is (perhaps?) retirement.But for the spiritual, death can be faced since it is not only not precluded but included in the very nature of the spiritual. The material is taking and can decide when to stop taking, when it's had enough (retirement). But the spiritual is giving and so cannot decide when to stop giving, only death decides. But it is a death that can be accepted, it is truly the believer's retirement.

The importance of death to the believer cannot be stressed enough.

As we learn to acknolwedge and admit the reality of death,
rather than deny it, we can prepare for our own death by familiarizing
ourselves with it while it remains (probably) at some distance...We should not
downplay or suppress the reality of death in our worship. Every occasion
of worship, after all, harks to the death of Christ on a cross. Every
baptism is a death, a drowning, and we should not gloss this.

-Rodney Clapp, Tortured Wonders
So then, this life brings death and this death brings life (just as Jesus taught). This is the paradox of the Christian life. It brings life now, but only insofar as its hope is in the future, not in this life. To grasp your own death as a Christian is to truly "hide your life in Christ" (Colossians 3; II Corinthians 4:18; Hebrews 11:1).

Ehrman on Inerrancy

2007-05-26T02:44:00.000-04:00

I just finished Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. It was a pretty basic book but his main point raised some very good questions for me. His main beef about inerrancy is that it is a vacuous word. Almost all evangelicals affirm in their creeds innerancy but only in the autograph. But the problem, Ehrman rightly contends, is that we don't have the autograph. For me, the only thing I thought was "now we have something to work towards." The fact that we don't have the autographs at least gave us something to do, but I never actually thought through what it meant for innerancy. And I haven't thought through all the implications but one thing I know, inerrancy as its classically been defined has become for me a vacuous term. I can completely agree that the Bible is inerrant in its autograph but that doesn't get me anywhere. In what sense then can we talk about the Bible as inerrant?