Thursday, May 28, 2009

Live Long and Prosper

I just returned to my computer after seeing the movie Star Trek with my sons.  You are probably asking what does Star Trek have to do with the Bible!  The answer is "more than you think." But for this blog, there is only one comparison worth noting.

Near the end, Leonard Nimoy (Spock 1) greets Zachary Quinto (Spock 2) by  saying "I am not our father." Despite the temptation to discourse on the Lord's Prayer or Pater Noster or "Our Father" I will refrain.  However in departing, Nimoy avoids the traditional "live long and prosper" and closes with "good luck", seeing how the whole time travel incident has taken him back and he has already "lived long and prospered," making the greeting a bit redundant.  That is worth mentioning.  

The whole journey of faith is one of perspective. When our perspective is skewed, then our life's attitudes, actions, and logical analysis also become skewed.  The Star Trek film indicates that returning to the past with the end results already known leaves any wish for a successful future a bit overspoken.  But if I may be so bold, this is exactly how God intends for us to live. Because we live in a world situation that has been altered by God the rules don't apply to us in a restrictive and depressing manner.  Instead we have the promise of the god who intervened in human existence to bring about a new manner of living, a resurrected manner of living, that should alter our perspective from fear to faith, from despair to hope.

If it is possible in a movie to envision a change of time and realities, is it not possible in a Christian life to envision a change of time and realities?  It is this new perspective, this transformed mind, that the disciple of Jesus is called to embrace.  When we embrace this reality, our reality is altered by none other than the God who created both time and space.

Friday, May 15, 2009

Translation Theorizing

I've been listening to some recordings of lectures by Raymond Brown on the Gospel of John as I drive back and forth to Wichita.  He is speaking to a group in England and raises the issue of translation.  As one of the preeminent scholars on John's Gospel in the 1960's through the 1980's, Brown is quite qualified to discuss biblical translation theory.  However, he doesn't discuss the theories behind translating a text in Greek to produce a text in English or some other language. Rather, he introduces the term to discuss the communication of cultural events and understanding from one culture to another in a contemporary time and place.

This concept intrigues me. I will admit that most of my studies and teachings are focused on contextualizing the Bible, putting the text in its original culture and language to my best ability.  However, the real issue that prevents the Bible from having an impact on the culture of America is our inability to translate it.  Currently the American generations extend from those who experienced Pearl Harbor to one that didn't experience 9/11/01.  Each generation has its own culture.  Those who grew up during the 50's differ from those who grew up during the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's.  The values and beliefs of each generation are different; and when separated by a decade they are remarkable different.

The difficulty of having an impact on a distinct generation rests in our skill in translation.  Only when the Bible teacher can translate the meaning he or she finds in the biblical text into words, figures, examples, and ideas that another generation can understand will the Bible's message be proclaimed effectively.  

My question is, "how much time do I spend working on my translations?"

Sunday, May 10, 2009

The Destructive Forces of Life

My town was hit by a "derecho" on Friday morning.  Not being a meteorologist I didn't know what hit us until the next day when I read its description in the newspaper.  All I  knew was that the power went off at 5 a.m. and didn't return quickly.  As the daylight began to shine in the darkness I saw a tree down in my backyard.  As neighbors began to move out word spread that the downtown area was pretty bad.  With chainsaw in tow I left to venture downtown (about 1/2 mile).  The damage was hard to describe.  Entire trees, 70-80 years old, laying on the ground with their root systems in full view, tree tops naked with the inner core shining as white beacons of a terrible fate.  Streets impassable due to electric lines and poles down or leaning skewed to the east.

What did I find that was good?  Cooperation and camaraderie unseen before. Other chainsaws were at work in the piles of trees, cutting away branches from the trunks so they could be lifted off of cars and removed from driveways.  City trucks from 30+ miles away driving through streets, machinery working to remove debris, all these signs that when tragedy strikes, humanity springs into action.  Professionals engaging their specialized skills to move trees from homes, some miraculously unscathed by the trees landing. People helping people.

You ask, how does this relate to the Bible Man blog?  It is the answer to life.  Individuals live such disengaged lives that only severe tragedy can shake them from their isolation.  But the reality is that on a daily basis lives are traumatized by the tragedies they endure. Many live isolated in a life of shelter, free from the effects of tragedy, when only a short distance away people we know and some we hardly know are suffering under the weight of fallen branches, unable to move through life in a normal fashion. How is this the answer to life? Life is most fulfilling when we get out of our small world and engage in life, side by side, with those who are hurting and in need.  Life is fulfilling when we look not to satisfy our needs but the needs of others.

Monday, May 4, 2009

Definition vs. Description

As I attempt to help students learn to read the Bible, one of the confusing elements that I encounter is the tendency for students to look to have definitions that rule out optional understandings rather than descriptions that provide boundaries for understanding. The cultural approach to learning experienced by our nation's young people rules out multiple answers, tests are given with a "correct" answer, their responses are geared toward meeting the teacher's expected answer, and patterns or styles are limited to those anticipated by the teacher. The teacher's response, "that wasn't the answer I was looking for" or the child's response of "Jesus" to the Sunday School question "what is brown, furry, with a long tail and eats nuts?" indicate the attempt to conform manners of thinking.

This enters the theological world when we seek to "define" God so that there are no optional ways of understanding (as if we as finite humans could fully understand an infinite deity!) lead to the rejection of people based on their perspectives and definitions. Descriptions of God as they are given by people often tell us as much about the person as it does about their deity. Yet, when we read the Bible, do we read it as a "definition" or as a "description". Does our prose based society create an inability to read and understand poetry?

This becomes evident in 1 John. The various statements and questions recorded by this anonymous author create chaos for the logical, linear thinker. Statements such as 1:6-7 begin to use synonymous terms to describe what the announcement of the author is.
1. God is light
2. If we walk in darkness we do not "do" the "truth"
3. If we walk in the light

The definitive approach states that light and truth are two distinct words, thus two non equivalent terms. The descriptive approach sees that "do" the "truth" is equivalent to "walk in the light" in terms of opposites to walking in darkness.

The question is "how do we help students learn to think descriptively rather than definitively?"

Friday, May 1, 2009

Exams and Examinations

Today was the final exam in Romans class. As I read through the responses on some of the short answer questions I was forced to pause and examine my own motives for asking the questions.  What is important for students to recall when they study biblical works such as Romans? Is it enough just to "learn the lingo" that is being used or should they learn more?  How much time do I spend in class emphasizing that it is the context in which the lingo gets used that is more important than just words?  How do I help students get beyond the simple and into the serious issues?
The main problem is training.  As individuals, the psychologists discuss the effects of training on humans. While we are not Pavlov's dogs that salivate at the ringing of the bell and we can perhaps distinguish actions more than Sandy who goes wild whenever the trash can is moved since it frequently means getting fed, are we immune to unconscious training? If we get teaching week after week, month after month, year after year that does nothing but try to remove words from their original context and explicate their meaning based on some dictionary definition, how long does it take for us to begin to act differently when given the option of thinking within context?
So exams examine more than the examinee, they also examine the examiner's examination of the examined material!