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.