What's In A Name?

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!

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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?

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

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)

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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?

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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?

The Evolution of Language

A while back I posted a blog entitled "Beowulf & Moses" where I compared the language evolution of Biblical Hebrew to English. However, a friend of mine wrote me an email about how this probably isn't a proper comparison. She is a well-educated teacher and Jewish, so I thought I should listen. Here is what she said:

Anyway, about Biblical Hebrew and Old English, there is a vast difference in purpose and culture here. We believe that the Beowulf poem was written in the vernacular or vulgar tongue of the Anglo-Saxons. There you already have the melding of two people groups, cultures and languages. We also think the original poem may have been recited in Old Norse, a very similar language to modern Icelandic. Even though Britain and Iceland are two island nations, Britain's culture and its language suffered many invasions by other European peoples, the Danes the Norse, the Norman French. Its original languages have not fared well because of this.

Several of the old languages of the Celts, most notably Cornish and Manx are no longer spoken as a first language by anyone, though that may be changing thanks to Cornish radio and TV. They are following the Welsh strategy to reintroduce the language. The only reason I know this is because I am a member of the International Reading Association and attended one of their World Congresses in July of 2002 in Edinburgh. There I met teachers from these areas who told me how they were trying to revive speaking, reading and writing in the ancient languages.

English, as Leah likes to say, is a Creole, a mixture of many languages and cultures. Because of politics and trade, the language seems to be constantly changing for the last 1,000 years. England has never had an isolated culture. According to Robin McNeill, Iceland has a very different history. It traded almost exclusively with Norse peoples for several hundred years. It also has never been invaded like England. Its language has changed very little in all that time. This point was made in a recent indie film named "Beowulf and Grendel." The writers and producers of the film were mainly Icelandic, and in an interview I read, said they could read the old English pretty easily, unlike us.

So, the point is well taken. How much a language changes really does depend on its exposure to other cultures and languages, whether through invasion or trade. In any case, I found this information very interesting.

The Language We Use - Part 2

1. A lack of concern for our spirituality outside of the buildings we go to

This actually goes back to a post I put up a few months ago where I discussed our compartmentalization in our spiritual lives and I find that our language of "going to church" emphasizes that even more. In a sense we oftentimes believe that the place we go to worship has a more "spiritual" aspect to it, that it is more "holy" than other places.

I worked at a very small church in Virginia while I was finishing up college as the worship pastor/college pastor and it was a very sweet time. But Sarah and I were the youngest people by 10 years and that was only one other couple. Everyone else was at least 2-3 decades older than us. In any case, I was often reprimanded for hurdling the altar railing to get to the stage or for wearing my hat in the sanctuary (it was okay downstairs, but not "the sanctuary"). I was not allowed to wear shorts or t-shirts, etc. Of course I complied respectfully but I just didn't understand at all where they were coming from.

This is what I want to warn against. When we begin to exalt a space, we forget that we are the temple of the Holy Spirit, not any building. Working with the youth group I often hear the term "you can't do that in church!" But by saying such things, we are saying that there are things that are okay outside the church but not okay inside, as though the building somehow is where God dwells, instead of seeing that it's within us that God dwells. We can't get away from "the sacred space", it is always with us because it is us. If our conscience says not to wear a hat inside a church because it's somehow "sacred" we should never wear a hat because we ourselves are a sort of "sacred space". Is this not what Paul means when he says (albeit in response to sexual immorality but applies here), "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. Therefore honor God with your body (1 Cor 6:19-20)?Of course there are many issues that offshoot from this but my main point is that instead of bringing our idea of "church" down to the level of our daily lives, we should exalt our daily lives to the level of "church", since that is who we are.

The Language We Use - Part 1

This is from a post I did on my church's blog, I thought it might be thought provoking:

We have all heard it said, "The church isn't the building but the people". As much as we "know" that, we still have the "building" concept still embedded in our thinking. Just look at the words we use on a weekly basis.

I am going to church tomorrow.

What did you learn at church today?

Do you go to church?

What seemingly amounts to harmless semantics I think actually affects how we view our spirituality in general. By using such phrases (which shows how we really still think about things, even if on the surface we deny it) we are making it harder and harder on ourselves to not compartmentalize things. My thought is that such language breeds two things (although there is probably more):

1. A lack of concern for our spirituality outside of the buildings we go to

2. A passivity in our engaging in spirituality and our worship, especially when we gather on the weekends at our gatherings.

The Inferiority of Women

Oftentimes one reason given for the subordination of women to men is taken from the biblical text of Genesis 2:21-22 where the woman is created from a rib of Adam. So, goes the argument, since woman was taken from man she is therefore derivative and subordinate. However, Phyllis Trible in her classic work God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality has a humorous and very good argument against such reasoning. She very insightfully recognizes that the same language is used in the relationship between the man (ha-'adam) and the ground (ha-'adama). Man was taken from the ground (cf. Gen 3:19, 2:7).

So, even though man was taken from the ground that doesn't mean that man is subordinate to or inferior to the ground, actually the opposite is the case. "By strict analogy, then, the line "this shall be called 'issa [woman] because from 'is [man] was taken this" would mean not the subordination of the woman to the man but rather superiority to him" (101). I love it!

If we wanted to take the language strictly then the woman is superior to the man. Trible does say that superiority is not at issue so she is not arguing for woman's superiority but she does do a good job of dismantling an argument for male supremacy in this text. Bravo Phyllis, bravo. I found this very thoughtful and helpful.

A Little Clarification Please?

Schleiermacher in his Hermeneutics & Criticism very importantly distinguishes between a philological reading of the text and a dogmatic reading of the text. The philological reading isolates every text of every writer while the dogmatic reading regards the New Testament as One work of One writer. Importantly, he places these in opposition.

"In the application to the N.T. the philological perspective, which isolates every text of every writer, and the dogmatic perspective, which regards the N.T. as One work of One writer, are opposed" (52, #22).

Now Schleiermacher will go on to posit that these are in a dialectical relationship (mutually dependent although in opposition). He does however say that the philological explanation must precede approaching the N.T. as a whole.

Translation (while running the risk of nuancing and oversimplifying): We cannot lose sight of the individual writers in the New Testament (with all their idiosyncrasies and different 'theologies' if you will) by saying that it is all written by the Holy Spirit in some way. In fact, we must first start with understanding what Paul meant (not just broader theologies, but also individual words) and take that seriously before we broaden out to understanding a general "NT theology".

This also seems to play into our understanding of the role of Systematic Theology. Most scholars would agree that if a Systematic Theology is even possible (which many in the non-conservative camp deny) it has to rest on a good grammtico-historical exegesis of the text. In the words of Richard Gaffin, "Systematics rests on good exegesis".

My problem is when these lines are blurred. When we talk of things like a "Two-Adam Christology" in Paul or a Kline-ian reading of the "theophanic glory-cloud" or possibly even an "abeyance of eschatological judgment" found in Genesis 3 (although this is a little different in my mind), how much can we call this reading "Pauline"? When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 15 did he in fact have in mind a 2-Adam Christology that he was trying to get across to a new and morally immature church in Corinth? I am not in any way denying the validity of such a reading, I am only saying it falls under the realm of a dogmatic reading rather than a philological one and by calling such a system "Pauline" we might be blurring the distinction.

The Paradox of Death & Life In Christ

I thought may I had over-emphasized in my last post, but I randomly opened a book on the shelf by Rodney Clapp called Tortured Wonders: Christian Spirituality for People, not Angels. The page I happened upon said this:

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.

Where then is the paradox? That this death brings 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). You are dead to what goes on in this world and alive only to the Kingdom of God. Everything we do in this world is worthless unless it translates into eternity, unless it impacts the Kingdom. And I am sorry to say, even most of what we do at church doesn't impact the Kingdom and will eventually waste away with the rest of us.

The Royal Consciousness

Walter Brueggemann rightly speaks of the "golden age" of Solomon as a time of spiritual decay. Times of satisfaction are never good for the Spiritual life. It is in the passion and the longing for something more just and right that we thrive as spiritual people. Those times where we are in no danger and have become "established", Brueggemann calls "the Royal Consciousness" (more or less, although I am summarizing and editing a bit).

He says:The royal consciousness leads people to numbness, especially to numbness about death. It is the task of prophetic ministry and imagination to bring people to engage their experience of suffering to death (Prophetic Imagination, 41)

How true this is! We, as Christians, HAVE to learn to take the advice in Ecclesiastes, "Meaningless (or better translated, Stupid!), Meaningless, all is meaningless!" The world does not work the way we think it should. We can't keep putting that fact under the rug and keep our happy faces on all the time. The quicker we can come to grips with the fact that we will all die and that the good people oftentimes get screwed in life while the swindlers and thieves get rich, the quicker we will give up this nonsense of security.

You will not be remembered. A sobering fact indeed. No one, I mean no one, will even know you ever existed except for some name on a list, in a hundred years. We have to face this fact. But we still try don't we. Why? Because we cannot face our own death. We cannot imagine truly a time when we will no longer be. But if we can do that, if we can move as Heidegger calls it, into Authenticity, then we are free. We are free to serve God because we truly understand, not just with our mouths like we like to do, but with our lives, we will understand that everything is futile in this life, everything.

Beowulf & Moses

Although many might believe that somehow God gave us a "holy language" and a "Bible dropped from heaven", for the rest of us we have to wrestle how it is that we came to have the Scriptures we have today. Now, if we believe in at least essential Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (the Post-Mosaica adequtely barring the notion that Moses wrote all of the Pentateuch) and a Post-exilic writing of at least some of the Hebrew canon, there is around 1000 years between Genesis and Malachi. Now, the question is this. How is it that we have a fairly unified Hebrew throughout the Hebrew Scriptures even though the writing supposedly spans a thousand years?

In case you don't think that languages change significantly over the years, I have posted an image of a Beowulf manuscript in English from around the year 1100 (around 1000 years). Let me know if you can read it.

So then, do we accept what many would suggest, that most of the Old Testament was written in the Post-exilic period or do we allow for substantial linguistic updating (along with some evident redaction)? Or is there another option?

Calvin on Encouraging Words

John Calvin on Roman Catholics who deny justification by faith alone:

I forbear to say what sort of zealots for good works they are who thus carp at us. Let them rail with impunity even as they wantonly infect the whole world with their own foul lives! (Institutes, III, 16, 1).

I literally laughed out loud when I read this paragraph. What was it about these guys that just did not allow them to play nice?

This one is for you Dave Williams, here is your anti-papist rhetoric back in full swing.

Secular Space (continued thoughts)

I have done more thinking on what the emerging principle, transforming secular space, includes. As I thought, I remembered the oft-quoted saying by Abraham Kuyper, "there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: mine!" This truth is at the heart of what it means to transform secular space. It is the recognition that God does not just rule at church and among church folk but that he is active in all of creation and has invited us to join. We are so self-absorbed in our own "getting saved" that we miss the whole point of redemption. The good news is not that we "get a ticket to heaven" for when we die but that we are given invaluable insight into what it means to truly live and that life involves bringing heaven to earth, transforming the secular space.

This concept of "bringing heaven to earth" is key to understanding the believer's role in the realized eschatology of the Kingdom of God. It is not just a future, hope-oriented reality but has broken into this age in the death and resurrection of Christ. We, as those united to Christ, are called to bring this new age, this renewed creation, to our worlds.

But this isn't the type of thing that people like to hear because it consumes everything you are. Like CS Lewis said in his book, The Weight of Glory "We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased." This goes for Christians too (if not especially).

Secular Space

In the excellent Gibbs/Bolger book Emerging Churches, they identify 3 core practices of emerging churches. These are (1) identifying with the life of Jesus, (2) transforming secular space, (3) living as community. Now, I understand well the implications of 1 and 3, but what about transforming secular space? What is it and is it something we should care about? I haven't read that far in the book yet and have decided not to until I can think through those two questions. I want to know for myself if it's something I believe in or should be believing in. When the modern movement began, it became important to separate the realms of the sacred and the profane. Religion became privatized and also became oil to the water of science (they never mixed). However, recently Christians have bought into this compartmentalization and applied it to their own lives. Sunday morning "going to Church" becomes all-important to our Christianity while going bowling on Friday night or having dinner with the family becomes much less a religious ordeal. We have bought into the separation of the realms of the sacred and the profane. That somehow Sunday morning comes with it an extra boost of spirituality and that a pastor or someone who works in a local church is a "good Christian" or worse "a better Christian". They are somehow more spiritual because they work in the area of the sacred.But such cannot be the case. Maybe this transforming of secular space isn't such a bad idea.