Saturday, December 29, 2012

Bringing in the New Year

The end of one period of 365 or 366 days and the start of another is a time for looking back and for looking forward. The looking back has its own therapeutic value, considering the good, positive, and beneficial moments and giving thoughtful meditation on those moments that would be considered negative.  The looking forward and the resolution process has fewer benefits, especially when any "goal" setting is limited to the "goal" with no consideration given to the "means" to achieve that goal.

So why does this day of the year get more attention than any other day?  Does the increase of a single integer hold such influential power? The biblical perspective would challenge this social practice. Matthew 6:34 records the word of Jesus saying, "do not be anxious for tomorrow, for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." (NASB)  Is it possible that the current focus on the past and on the future is an attempt to forget about today?

I have heard Kingdom living described as living each day fully in the present.  The failure of individual believers to live in the present culture where God has placed him or her prevents the Kingdom from influencing their culture.  Perhaps the best New Year's Resolution should be focused on living today within the kingdom and allowing tomorrow to care for itself.  This is not a denial of goals coupled with means, but it is an affirmation of living fully in the present with the God of yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

For a modern philosopher's take on the new year see:
http://www.arcamax.com/thefunnies/pickles/s-1249770

Monday, December 24, 2012

Luke's Christmas Story

During the time following John’s birth these things took place.  The emperor of Rome, Augustus, declared that all the inhabitants of the empire should be counted.  This was the first census that occurred while Quirinius was ruling the province of Syria.  Now all the inhabitants went forth to be counted, each one going to his own city.  Joseph, departing the town of Nazareth in Galilee, went up to Judea to the town of Bethlehem, the city of David, because he was from the household and lineage of David, and he took with him Mary, who had been promised to him as a wife, who was now pregnant.
         While they were there in Bethlehem her time came and she gave birth to her first-born son, and she wrapped him in cloths and laid him down in a feeding crib because there was no room in the place of lodging for them.
         In the same region there were shepherds outside of town guarding their sheep during the night watch.  An angel of the Lord stood over them and the glory of the Lord illuminated them and they were tremendously scared.  Then the angel said:
“Do not be scared! See! I am proclaiming to you a tremendous joy which will be joy for all people: A Savior has been born today in the city of David, the Lord’s anointed, the Messiah!  This is how you will know, you will find a newborn wrapped in cloths and lying in a feeding crib.”
Suddenly, a heavenly army appeared with the angel praising God while saying:
         “Glory be to God in the highest places
         Peace be to those whom God favors on earth.”
As the angels departed from them into heaven, the shepherds were talking among themselves:
“Let us go quickly as far as Bethlehem and let us see the word of the event that the Lord made known to us.”
Going with all haste they looked for it, even Mary and Joseph, but especially the newborn lying in the feeding crib. Upon seeing this they made known the message spoken to them concerning this infant.  Everyone hearing these words was amazed at the reports by the shepherds.  But Mary treasured all these words, pondering them in her heart.  Then the shepherds returned glorifying and praising God for everything they heard and saw, because it was just like they had been told.

Stan Harstine Translation

Monday, December 10, 2012

Expecting Advent to Reshape our Thinking

During the Advent Season, many church attendees are confronted with the idea that Christmas is more than a single day holiday celebration: like Independence Day, Memorial Day, and Labor Day  to name a few, and more than an extended buffet of shopping excursions into the commercial establishments screaming, "stuff, stuff, stuff your home with our stuff".  Instead these attendants to Christian Church worship services are encouraged to anticipate, to actually expect the coming of the Christ Mass, the celebration of incarnation. Thus in one fashion or another a local congregation accentuates the regularly scheduled worship with something more, the Advent reading and Advent candle lighting.

The most popular quad-diurnal theme focuses on Hope, Peace, Joy, and Love.  However, the website faithandworship.com provides an additional fourteen possible combinations. I remember vaguely from my childhood three from a fourplex of Prophets, Angels, and Shepherds. The churchofengland.org website states that the Four Last Things, Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell are traditional themes. What to make of the variety?  That is the real questions.

Does the celebration of advent and the selected themes speak to our human condition? Does the selection from the CoE speak about the focus of our celebration differently from the selection of Hope-Love?  I would say that the choice does speak about our human condition, but even more it speaks about our human focus.

Take for example the popular Hope-Love advent topics.  Are these something we possess already or something we look to receive at this time of year?  Is our focus on receiving from God?  Then shift to those from my memory, Prophets-Shepherds.  These represent those who proclaimed the coming of the messiah.  Does our selection reflect an emphasis on proclamation?

Symbolism is powerful. It not only reflects our thinking, it in turn shapes our thinking.  Be careful what you wish for, you may actually receive the same!

Monday, November 26, 2012

From Black Friday to Cyber Monday

Having worked in retail prior to the emergent worship movement directed at the world wide web I fully recognize the importance of the "Christmas" shopping season to the retail bottom line.  Working on a modified commission basis, the Christmas 'bump' provided the opportunity to earn a higher wage during the other eleven months of the year.  Thus, anyone who wishes to declare the post-Thanksgiving shopping days 'evil' should spend some time in purgatory-retail sales!

However, over the past 25 years the change that has come about is the hyper-marketing of 'special days' as if by 'naming' those days there is some inherent bargain related to the day.  I have been monitoring a particular laptop for church on an internet shopping site and there has been absolutely zero change in the price during the past three days.a

What does this say?  Well, following on the heels of a national presidential election the reader should beware any and all advertising that promises you what you really don't need and fails to address your true needs or the true nature of the advertiser.  One of my sons noticed that Reeses spends very little on marketing their product.  The product is orange and brown, it is circular with ridges, and it consists of peanut butter surrounded by chocolate.  That is it.  That is what Reeses is, what Reeses looks like and what Reeses tastes like.

Words flatter, deeds communicate. "My brothers and sisters, what is the gain if someone proclaims to have faith but does not have works? That faith certainly can not save him, can it? . . . That faith, if it does not possess works, is dead in and of itself." James 2.14, 17

To answer the question, "what is the gain?" is simple; to convince someone else of their value so they will be accepted.  Be paltry with self proclamations of your identity but generous with self revealing deeds!


Wednesday, November 21, 2012

What to say on the Sunday between Thanksgiving and Advent?

The Liturgical Calendar is, on occasion, a blessing for non-liturgical folk like myself.  So often the Sunday after Thanksgiving coincides with the First Sunday of Advent so selecting a sermon topic is in a sense uncomplicated.  However, every so often the American holiday calendar and the Christian Church Holiday calendar fail to cooperate and a minister is left with a Sunday that is an enigma. You can't be thankful two weeks in a row, can you?

So the so named "Last Sunday after Pentecost" (officially the 26th one) suggests the topic of Christ the King in one form or another (Catholic: The Solemnity of, NCCCUSA: Christ the King). The Scripture readings are Dan 7, Ps 93, Rev 1, and John 18.33-37.

But in the midst of Pentecost (and the 6 months with no major Christian Holiday) and Advent (Yes, one can prepare for Christmas is ways other than shopping), the most important figure in the four gospels beyond Jesus is forgotten: John.  Very few incidents are included in all four gospels, but John the one who baptizes is included. Indeed, no one else in the Christian testament links Jesus to the Hebrew testament quite like John.  The Lucan account of his birth comes in the midst of 2nd Temple Worship activities and links both in a way that is distinct from the other three.  Luke ties the Christian story to the Hebrew story and the Christian deity (God) to the Hebrew deity (God), indeed there is no way to read about JB and miss the connection.

The key idea from JB's birth in 2012 deals with the inconvenient provision of this Hebrew Deity to prepare a messenger for the people of the Hebrew deity. But, come to think of it, when does God ever provide what we truly need at the time we think we truly need to receive it?  Doesn't God usually provide for us at the time and place when we don't expect, or have stopped expecting, his provision?

So here is a brief synopsis of "God's Inconvenient Provision"
1. God's Provision Appears When and Where We Least Expect It: Luke 1.8-12
2. God's Provision Meets Our True Needs and Exceeds Our Expectations: Luke 1.5-7, 13-17, 25
3. God's Provision Necessitates Our Faithfulness: Luke 1.6, 18-22
4. God's Provision Results in Praise: Luke 1.67-75

There you have an opportunity to connect Thanksgiving and Advent!

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Personal Growth vs Spiritual Transformation

This week's Tuesday morning meeting with my pastor, David Gibbs, focused on the seemingly plethora of Personal Growth materials available.  The EntreLeadership podcast has guest interviewees on each episode, many of whom have written on the area of personal growth.  The question comes about, how does personal growth interact with spiritual transformation?

Rather than merely raise more questions, I would actually like to answer some.

Are PG and ST identical? NO
Are PG and ST similar? Yes
Are PG and ST compatible? Yes
Are PG and ST biblical? That is a good question.
Are PG and ST both necessary? Yes
Can one substitute for the other? See question 1 above, and NO.

So how do these two relate? Definitions are in order.  Personal Growth is a human initiated change of action/behavior/perception/knowledge that creates a more competent human in some selected area, finances, leadership, sales, oration, etc.  Spiritual Transformation is a divinely initiated change of spiritual character in an often time, undesired area. In other words, Personal Growth is a fleshly activity while Spiritual Transformation is a, need I say it, spiritual activity.

Whoa. I just lost some of you.  Personal Growth is not by definition, sinful. Flesh can have two connotations: physical and finite, or else self-centered.  By claiming that Personal Growth is fleshly, the only statement I am making is that Personal Growth has limits and takes place in our physical existence.

Is PG therefore not spiritual? NO

This question can be answered in the affirmative if one holds that the spiritual dominion of God is separate from and does not contain the physical dominion of humanity, in other words, heaven and earth are separate and unrelated spheres of existence. That position, to return to question 4 above, is definitely unbiblical, if not even abiblical.

Personal Growth in all its variations is therefore not sinful, the sinfulness enters the picture when humans begin to idolize the fleshly behavior and ignore the Creator. Spiritual Transformation is in the same fashion not always righteous. When Spiritual Transformation becomes the all encompassing ideal, and one forgets it is a process by which God makes us more useful within his kingdom, then it has become finite and limited and is now subject to all the problems that PG can face.

God has not created us to remain stagnant! God has not redeemed us through the demonstration of his love for us to fall again into idolatry! Rather God has brought us into his dominion in order that we might submit ourselves to him and to one another (Eph 5) so that his will might be accomplished on earth as it is in heaven.

Saturday, October 13, 2012

Grace

Had the chance to lead a workshop on Grace at the Aprentis Conference at the end of September and now to preach at the Methodist Church in Towanda tomorrow on the Reality of Grace.  We have so many ideas about Grace that we frequently misunderstand what Grace means in our daily living.  We have so many modern explanations that segment Grace into the chronological timeline of our lives, i.e. Grace before we know God, Grace to know God, Grace after we know God.

But biblically Grace is not referred to apart from the people of God. So Grace is essentially an element that the people of God experience.  I discuss Grace as the empowerment of God.  The Grace of God is God empowering his people to be His PEOPLE.  Grace can not be understood apart from this reality.

Another element of Grace is that it enables faithfulness.  God empowers us to trust him as his people should trust him.

So, in short, I developed a new acronym for GRACE to replace God's Redemption At Christ's Expense, an acronym that focuses Grace into a single action.  The new Acronym is
God's
Redeeming
Activity
Christologically
Experienced.

Any thoughts?

Monday, September 17, 2012

The "Off years"

It has been a month since I last posted to the blog.  Part of that is due to the time commitment of a new academic year and the start of the semester activities, but only part. The main reason is that I am fully into a period of time I will call my "off year".  This is a season of life where I am not spending a 50 minute lecture enlightening students with the many factors involved in interpreting a single quotation of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel or soaking in their gleanings from reading aloud (many for the first time) an entire book of the prophets.  This is a season of life when I take students from kindergarten through middle school in their understanding of the Greek language and the information needed to truly begin to interpret Scripture.  It is a Greek Year.

I do like my off years.  Day by day, week by week, month by month I introduce new material and ask students to look back two weeks into their past and realize what they have learned.  Off years are filled with constant recognition of 'new' learning.  Yet as the off year drags on and moves toward its scheduled finality, the newness wears off.  The gain increase of knowledge relative to the already received repertoire decreases, motivation decreases proportionally to devote the necessary "one hour per day" to make incremental changes.

Maybe we need more "off time".  When we depart from our regular schedule, with our time consumed by preferential, self rewarding activities, we have an imposed period of helping someone learn what they did not already know or were too scared to begin. By stepping into an 'off year' we begin to focus on imparting knowledge to others with none in that field.  By forcing ourselves to approach the truly ignorant, but also truly innocent we are reminded of what is truly foundational, we must learn to rollover, to crawl, to stand, to walk, and even then--to fall and get up again!

This blog seems to be about school and its changing paces, but it is not.  We need "off years" in our Christian faith and activities.  We begin this new life with such rapid growth we scarce can keep up, but then the rate of growth eventually slows and we sense we are getting nowhere fast. We are unwilling to provide the discipline to painfully add to our knowledge of God and His kingdom in the small incremental ways necessary.  We reach the painful, yet all too often subconscious, decision that enough is enough.  I know enough about God to last my lifetime.  I know enough about God to use the knowledge for what I need.  I have learned enough about God already that I outdo my peers.  When is enough enough?  never!  

We need the off years to go back to the basics and help others learn; we need the off years to teach and challenge us to learn more; we need the off years to remind us what we have forgotten-the light bulbs and energy of gaining new insights!  We need the off years to remind us that it is not and never truly has been about US.

Schedule an "off year" soon! It is the only way they can be experienced.

Sunday, August 19, 2012

The "truth" of Postmodernism

Read an article on hermeneutics that essentially described modernism as the objective pursuit of facts, which when gathered would represent 'truth.' One common thread of postmodernism was identified as "an attempt to undo the damage associated with the 'modern'."(Loren Wilkinson "Hermeneutics & the Postmodern Reaction Against 'Truth'"Act of Bible Reading, 116).  Wilkinson summarizes the Postmodern Hermeneutic in 2 points. "1. The modern project has erred by searching for absolute, objective knowledge that is accessible through a precisely definable method. 2. We need to recognize that understanding is tentative, personal, subjective and ad hoc. . . . Knowledge is a way of coping, a kind of conversation; nothing more." (133-34)

But postmodernism leads ultimately to a diverse understanding of any single text based solely on the interpreter.  This is not satisfactory. Texts do not have diverse meanings.  What they do possess is the power to change the interpreter when the text becomes the speech of the interpreter.

In other words, the modern attempt to seek the 'objective' truth through the pursuit of fact erred in making this truth separate from the individual. The postmodern errs in its attempt is to make the truth only that of the individual.  The true interpretation of a text is neither objective nor individualistic, rather  it is the text lived out in conversation.  In other words, when the text becomes part of the individual so that the individual is shaped by the text, then hermeneutic has happened.

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Gospel Truth

Many readers of this blog will know that I have had a 'pet peeve' surrounding the term "gospel" in its many limited uses. I have no 'pet peeve' when it is used correctly in its unlimited referential context. There is a blog by Peter Enns about this particular term's limited use in modern vocalizations and he references two other blogs by David Williams (and here).  I would like to simplify their argument.

Gospel refers in its original context to a proclamation of rule, in the New Testament that means the rule of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  In its current context, 'Gospel' takes on the limited meaning and referant of telling someone they need Jesus to go to heaven.  This is an oversimplification, but in this current world where words seem to have no meaning except in the group using them, "Sharing the Gospel" is the simplification of a process that found its reemergence in evangelical circles in the 1950's through Dawson Trottman and the Navigators and Bill Bright of Campus Crusade.  In its original form the phrase was "Sharing the plan of Salvation."  The 'plan of salvation' is limited, it refers to a recognition of our sin (total depravity for the Calvinist), the forgiveness offered by Jesus, and the call to confess Jesus as Lord/Ruler with one's mouth and believe in one's heart that God raised him from the dead.  But this "plan of salvation' was only the beginning for these groups and others like Billy Graham.  The unseen work was the training in discipleship, i.e. learning to live under the rule of God, and a lifetime of following God empowered by the Holy Spirit.

Any attempt to "share the gospel" and limit it to merely a plan of salvation diminishes the actual biblical message made popular in the song "Our God Reigns!" Until the people of God in the 21st Century take  a lifelong commitment to the reign of God seriously, little will change.  When the people of God take seriously God's reign in their life and the life of their community, God will be glorified and his reign more visibly recognized on earth as it is in heaven. Could the absence of this public prayer of Jesus lead us to forget God's reign?

Just a thought.

Monday, August 13, 2012

A blog for blog followers to read

A professional colleague recently posted his perspective on the new world of blogging.  It is worth the time to read: http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/vertical-blogs-vs-horizontal-blogs.html

From his description this blog leans toward the vertical.  I appreciate and enjoy interacting with commentors, however the blog is an opportunity for me to express some of my personal thoughts on the Bible and the world.  For those who don't know, in the 1990's I moderated one of the early list-serve discussions started by Alan Culpepper.  In the list-serve format emails were used to correspond back and forth with a discussion on a topic.  The follower could either receive emails on a daily basis, thus participate actively, or receive a daily digest, thus lurk in the background and read others' discussion.

The non-professional blogger is more apt to be vertical rather than horizontal while the professional blogger who actively responds to comments more horizontal.

My observation would be that the written word always leans toward the vertical (thus the Bible) while the oral conversation leans toward the horizontal (thus the kerygma). When placed on a common Harstine example, the spectrum, this time with two axes (the plural of axis not ax or axe) similar to the x-y axis of algebraic horror stories, only represented by the horizontal (x) and vertical (y), the question is raised, Where does your view of the Bible fall?  Is the Bible vertical (thus definitive and not open for discussion) or horizontal (thus descriptive and inviting discussion)?

Mor importantly, how are your verbal conversations?  Do you converse vertically or horizontally?  A description of this line of thinking can be found at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/08/remembering-the-progressive-orthodoxy-of-horace-bushnell-part-two/

Sunday, August 5, 2012

BBI Part Six

For those of you not among my Facebook followers, I will start by reposting a quotation in a book chapter that got me thinking about Part Six. "The antisupernaturalist rationalism that sprang from the deism of the Enlightenment and the pantheism of the Romantic movement had combined with evolutionary euphoria to produce among the professionals a kind of theology that effectively denied the faith of the Bible and the creeds on basics like the Trinity, the incarnation, the atonement, . . ." J.I.Packer, "Theology & Bible Reading" in The Act of Bible Reading, Paternoster Press, 1996, 72. Packer's conclusion is worth including: "There can be much spiritual understanding where there is little or no technical theological education. Anyone who reads and rereads the Bible carefully and prayerfully, asking to be taught by God the Holy Spirit about knowing God through our Lord Jesus Christ, will do well; our faithful God will see to that. These pages of mine are simply making the marginal comment that some knowledge of and commitment to theology may well help such a Bible student do even better." (87). 

Following Part Five: Share, Part Six is a bit more difficult, Continue Learning.

I feel that my educational experience permits the following statement, "Biblical Interpretation is not Mathematics." In mathematics a series of numbers used in a formula will always provide the same answer when kept according to mathematical theorems, i.e. 6 + 2 = 2 + 6.  There is a constancy and a stability in mathematical studies that permits postulating conclusions, theorems, and corollaries. Biblical Interpretation, despite the influence of "antisupernaturalist rationalism" and/or "evolutionary euphoria" and the efforts of a multitude of scholars working in the modern period is not constant.  The assessment of a "living canon" presupposes that each encounter with the biblical text produces a new, if not clearly distinct, event.  Since humans are most familiar with interacting with other, living, humans an analogy might be in order despite its inherent limitations.  Two individuals, friends in college, sharing experiences and retreats and teaching, do not see each other for five years.  They encounter one another, now married, one with kids, the other with none.  This second encounter with a living human will be new, if not clearly distinct, in the way that they relate although there will be some familiarity.  Why the newness?  Because each has a different frame of reference for the encounter!

Likewise, each repetitive encounter with a text will bring new, and distinct, events.  Take for instance a short reading, Paul's letter to Philemon.  Read it once.  Read it twice, Read it twenty times.  What will happen through each reading? Each reading will have a decreasing return on familiarity and perceived newness. After the 20th reading, take a moment to read a brief introductory article on the letter in a good Bible Dictionary.  Now read Philemon for a twenty-first time.  What just happened?  Something has made the 21st reading distinct from the 20th reading.  Even though after 20 readings the reader is familiar enough with the text that the changes of a 21st reading are minimal, there is an actual increase in perceived newness.  What causes the change?  It is the new perspective brought to the text by an outside experience.

Similarly, read Psalm 51.  Read it again and again.  If you are unfortunate enough to have a really, really, I mean REALLY, BIG life failure (Preferably not one that results in prison or divorce court), read Psalm 51 another time.  What has happened? The living text has come powerfully alive!

So, BBI Part Six: Continue Learning is crucial to biblical interpretation.  The Bible is not a mathematics table that one can memorize and then "spew, heave, retch" (you get the picture) when called upon from a static database that never changes.  Instead, the Bible is a living document that grabs one by the throat and raises up to one's toes until the uncommitted victim succumbs to its authority or is cast aside unwilling to engage the potentiality of the Bible's power (envision Darth Vader, Episode 4, with the crewman of Princess Leia's starship).

Continue learning and bringing your newfound knowledge back to the task of biblical interpretation.

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

BBI Part Five

Having finished reading, asking questions, reading again and seeking answers the question remains, "what next?" The next part is fairly simple . . .
BBI Part Five: Share

Biblical interpretation is not a solo adventure. The Bible is a community text and its interpretation is no less a part of the community.  Having read the text and found solutions to some of the questions, the next step is to begin to share with others what you are beginning to "sense" the text to mean. Interpretation that is shared can be challenged and challenge is good for several reasons. The first reason is that sharing forces the interpreter to voice the thoughts that are germinating in the brain cells. This becomes the first part of interpretation, actually voicing the interaction between human and text.

A second reason is that interpretations that may need information to clarify can enter that process.  Often times an initial "sense" of the text withers when brought to a shared light.  The interpreter is faced with actually assessing the validity of their own interpretation.  While others may disagree with this opportunity, not every interpretation of the Bible can be called biblical.  This often has to due with the process of finding interpretations that are not at odds with the larger text.  It is far too easy to remove a passage from the larger context and identify an interpretation that is at odds when seen in the larger context.

Finally, it is necessary for North American readers to realize that the Bible and biblical interpretation have a history that is more than a few centuries old. The interpretations from the 5th century shape the interpretations of the 15th century.  These interpretations shape, whether recognized or not, those of the 21st century. Seldom is an interpretation novel.  What becomes novel is the way that the interpretation takes life in the particular interpreter.  But that is for another part.

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Part Two of Book Interlude

After reading Michael Horton's book For Calvinism I should probably admit that I am now for Calvinism.  But I can't make that statement. What is interesting is that both Olson and Horton have the same essential purpose, namely to argue against hyper-Calvinism or what is sometimes called the "new Calvinism".  Horton provides a discussion of the five points of grace, erroneously known in his opinion as TULIP, and the Reformed perspective.  While mention is made frequently of other traditions from the root of Geneva, most of his "For Calvinism" comments are directed at "For Reformed" positions.  Horton provides a remarkably "moderate" position and explicates the various history, roots, and stances behind the often maligned or caricatured flower acronym.

Part of the reading is definitely pre-modern.  According to my understanding of Horton, the Reformed tradition continues to draw inspiration from a variety of patristic sources, who somehow got it right before "Rome" got it wrong.  In a sense, the Reformed Calvinism espoused is reflective of the tradition among many evangelicals to move back in time and join a tradition with older and perhaps deeper roots in their practice of liturgy.

I am bothered by the argument Horton makes because some paragraphs are merely a string of quotations of biblical passages strung together.  The method of using scriptural words to back up doctrinal statements simply because the words are agreeable, is not the same as seeking to understand scripture.  It appears that the best method for winning a doctrinal debate is to have the most pieces of evidence!

For one example that was especially perturbing to my train of thought, Horton makes the statement that Paul is discussing individual salvation in Romans nine and "(t)hat are in view is indisputable, they have names [he lists the names]." Anyone with half a minor prophets class (the last half) recognizes that with regard to (not with regards to!) Jacob and Esau, Paul is quoting Malachi and Malachi is not discussing a single individual but the corporate "family".  Throughout the minor prophets "names" are used to refer to the group of people.

A second problem I have with the entire Calvinism/Arminianism discussion is that it seems to be a case of potato/potato. For instance, in discussing election Horton makes a statement (and I will admit I am confused from the paragraph if this is his take or what he is arguing about) "Salvation may be provided by the Lord, but it is up to us to choose ourselves for this gift and to make and to make Christ's redeeming work effective by our decision." The italics make me think that he is arguing against the previous sentence, but the context is unclear.  To my knowledge, (limited to my experience) no one in Christianity argues with the first part of the statement, Salvation is indeed from the Lord.  The argument appears to lie in terms of the perspective of looking at the salvific event.  Does one attempt feebly to describe the event as God sees it or to describe the event as humans experience it?  There is the potato/potato paradigm.

Horton provides three chapters at the end that are a delight to read."Calvinism and Christian Life", "Calvinism and Christian Missions", and "Calvinism Today".  These are historical and somewhat personal reflections on the role of Calvinistic/Reformed theology in the practical element.  In the Afterword Horton shows his dealt hand and shares that Romans and John are two of the key NT books that have shaped his thinking.  Go figure!!!

Thursday, July 12, 2012

A Brief Book Interlude

I just finished reading Against Calvinism by Roger E. Olson and have started the twin sister For Calvinism by Michael Horton.  Olson writes from the Arminian perspective and discusses in particular high Calvinism and its Five Points, Five Doctrines of Grace, or TULIP specifically (There are a variety of names for these five positions but he only discusses 4, the book is not that long).  Olson makes a point of holding this manner of Reformation theology to the logical standards it so stringently enforces of others. While many of the examples do not resonate strongly, they are merely examples to illustrate various issues.

My concern as a non-professional theologian and as a professional biblical interpreter is the use by both positions of Scriptural passages. I understand the nearly 500 year history of these positions and their birth in the 'scholastic' era, but my concern is the continued (mis)use of biblical interpretation.  Both positions appear to prefer a prooftext approach to their theological positions. As a baptist who follows the Arminian track fervently and avows the free church position fervently, I find it interesting that both positions appear to take modern corrections, not to mention post-modern corrections, to scholastic biblical interpretation so lightly. While Olson gives frequent signs of the larger approach and I am not opposed to any particular Arminians or Calvinists, it is the Arminian and Calvinist use of Scripture that I abhor. If the avowed position is sola Scriptura, then why do both hold so dogmatically to, dare I say the word, "tradition"?

It appears that both positions are birthed from modernity and the adherents are content to argue their doctrines from the modern position with little recognition of the post-modern world.  We'll see how the book fur it reads!!!

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

BBI Part Four

Some of the followers of this blog may be getting a bit antsy about ever getting to the "meaning" of the interpretive process.  Read, ask questions, read again?  What kind of interpretation is this?

BBI Part Four: Look For Answers

Having now accomplished the task of identifying critical questions to understanding the text in question, it is time to move into the "research" mode. Research is defined as "the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions." (Apple Dictionary 2.1.3)  The questions that remain need to be answered and research is the first step toward obtaining relevant and accurate information.

The first course of action is to try to distinguish or categorize the questions into various groups.  These might be 'historical' questions that try to find out specific information, e.g. how long is a cubit.  There might be other questions, depending on the text chosen, that ask about where the writer got the information or why one passage doesn't seem to coordinate with another passage you know, e.g. the books of Kings and Chronicles.  Other questions will be of a devotional nature and will take reflection and meditation to discover an answer.

Begin by finding answers to the historical questions as they serve as a basis for biblical interpretation.  If you need to know a name, check out a 'biblical names' source, if it is a city try a biblical atlas.  Find out as much of the factual details you can since a wrong presupposition here, e.g. Jerusalem is south of Bethlehem, will lead you astray for many years to come. It should be noted that there is often disagreement about where a city might be located or what a name might mean, but the majority of historical questions are relatively easily answered.

The second type of questions mentioned are more difficulty.  For questions of this sort, you probably are going to need to read what other people have said about the passage under consideration.  The unreliable source is usually fond on the internet.  This does not mean that every internet source is erroneous, but many are not judicial in expressing their opinions fairly in light of opposing opinions.  The normal place to look is a book or electronic resource you might actually have to pay money for!  The free sites are free for a reason.  Matthew Henry commentary was written in the late 1700s and is not noted for provided recent opinions on the text.  While it might be suitable for the next set of questions it is not suitable here.  Commentary series vary and hardcover ones normally outperform paperback ones (it may have to do with the investment of the publisher to print good information). This is a more difficult section because only time and repeated attempts will help you discover where you can find good, reliable information.

Finally, devotional questions.  Some of you may be thinking: "this guy is finally getting spiritual!!!" The point is not that I am finally getting spiritual, but I am providing stages for developing and attuning the spirit and mind!!!  Far too many 'spiritual' interpretations have proven false when the information they were based on was found to be invalid!!!  One need only look at various translations of 1 Cor 7.1 and how they punctuate the second half of the verse.  Since Jesus once said "I am the way the truth and the life" it might be useful to base any understanding of Jesus on truth rather than folly, or on fact rather than rumor.  (Readers will be glad to note that I did not include a non sequitur just to create a list of three comparatives.)

Having established that devotional questions should be answered later rather than sooner, these devotional questions are a great time to begin journaling and writing down further questions that serve to clarify the direction of spiritual inquiry. This will require more of that which you thought the others required: time.  To answer devotional questions, one may even need to communicate with other believers and ask them questions to find answers consistent with the Spirit of God's direction.

Once the questions have been answered, it is on to Part Five!

Monday, July 2, 2012

BBI Part Three

Now that the biblical interpreter has asked a series of questions, what next? The logical solution is to begin to research and find answers for those questions.  This response is typical and EVENTUALLY necessary, but still premature.


BBI Part Three: Read Again
The third step in interpreting the Bible would be to read the passage again now that you have some questions. The first read introduces you to the text, the second part introduces questions that illuminate the areas where further understanding is necessary prior to interpretation.  The third part, re-reading is a necessary element since it will clarify the questions, or in the language of BBQ Pitmasters that I have enjoyed viewing recently "render the fat," getting rid of some unnecessary elements and infusing the other questions with more meaning/flavor!

This third part is the element that determines which questions are crucial to the interpretive process and which are merely peripheral questions that may be simple rabbit chases.  Since the goal is to interpret the text and not to chase rabbits the inclusion/ignorance of this part is crucial to the final product.

How then should one read? I suggest the descriptor: carefully.  What does this mean? The word has two avenues of understanding and both should be heeded.  First, carefully implies to make sure of avoiding potential danger. Rabbit chases are replete with potential danger. The opportunity exists for heads to be bumped on low hanging limbs, clothes to be snagged, torn or shredded by thorns, branches, and wires, and for the object of the chase to be lost and other more appealing avenues pursued that have no relationship to the primary concern, the text itself.

Second, carefully implies to be done with attention. Attention must be given to clues, to implications, to prior perceptions of the text, and even to what tradition might inform regarding the text. The lack of attention to the details of the text and its interpretive world leads to the hubris of "original thought" when very little is actually original regarding biblical interpretations.

Having read with questions in mind, part 3b is to identify the questions worth pursuing in the interpretive process. This will lead to part four.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

BBI Part Two

What happens after a person reads the biblical text? That is a great question.  There is normally some sort of response: prayerful repentance or prayerful praise.  However, when pursuing the scripture as something to understand the normal response is a series of questions; some appropriate, some not; some good, some not.

Part Two: Ask Questions
When I said above that some questions were not appropriate or not good, the decision is based on whether the question seeks to divert attention from the text itself or to short circuit the painful work of study by jumping to a conclusion based merely on the immediate reaction.  Neither of these count for the work of biblical interpretation.

Biblical interpretation does take work and the second part (remember the parts make a whole and leaving one out results in a half eaten donut hole) is to ask, or if you prefer to voice, the questions that the first part, reading, invokes.  These questions normally begin with what or how, even why or when, and often in the midst of narrative who or when.  The worst question of all to ask at this moment is the meaning question, "what does this passage MEAN?" because that question short circuits the interpretive process. Meaning is derived from context, both context within the Bible and the context of the reader.

I will assume that most of the nine regular followers to this blog are western hemisphere, north american, college educated and drive a car.  This last has nothing to do with the text but allowed me to end the sentence. If one is not western hemisphere, north american, college educated, or able to drive or even own a car then the context for understanding and finding meaning of the text will vary radically.  However, I prefer to deal with the text's context rather than that of the reader so I will stick to that area.

I recommend starting the questions with "What does this text say about God?" and "What does this text say about humanity?" I also try to avoid questions that lead to yes/no responses since little thinking takes place in that case, don't you agree?  Therefore, avoid the starting the question with a verb, especially "am/is/are/was/were"  Ask meaningful questions about the text, or about objects in the reading that you simply don't understand.  One can attend a lecture on quantum physics and come away with much or little based simply on an understanding of the vocabulary used.  If you don't know what a word means as it is used in the Bible, phrase it as a question.

Review:

Part One: Read
Part Two: Ask Questions

It starts to get more difficult soon, so try to master the first two parts quickly!!!


Wednesday, June 27, 2012

BBI part One

Starting a new thread today: Basics of Biblical Interpretation.  Although most other writers call it Bible Interpretation, I prefer biblical interpretation.  Bible is a noun  so either they mean the Bible interprets or interpretation of the Bible.  Biblical is the adjective so it describes what kind of interpretation will be pursued.  On to part one. . .

Part One:  This could also be called stage one, step one, rule one, guideline one, but I will go with Part one, as in there is no whole without all the parts.  Part One: READ


When I say "read" I find it interesting that self proclaimed students of the Bible will propose to study the Bible by reading a single verse or even clause. They will start with Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (NAS95) and stop reading. They will then study the prepositional phrase, "in the beginning" and try to determine what that might mean.  It is no wonder (satire moment) that Twitter has become so popular with the modern world.  All that needs to be said can be said in 140 characters or less!!!!! (more satire).

These same individuals will sit through an entire movie, or even 6 Star Wars Episodes or 8 Potter episodes at a single time, but when asked to "read the Bible" they will stop after a mere 10 words in the English language (also in the LXX if one counts the articles, 7 in the Hebrew).

So when I say "read" that is what I mean!  Read, read, read and read until you have read (past tense sounds like dead which never rhymes with read in the present).  Read again until you have nearly memorized what comes before, after, and even in the middle.  Read again and again.

The failure of this culture to value reading is demonstrated by the host of video productions released nearly every weekend.  The overproduction of reading materials (including blogs) leads to a devaluing of the reading experience.  Quora tells me that in 2007 27% of Americans did not read a single book and 27% read more than 15 books.  The mean was 6.5 books in a year!!!!! http://www.quora.com/How-many-books-does-the-average-American-read-per-year

So, what is the first part for biblical interpretation, it is reading. See Spot run!

Sunday, June 10, 2012

On Inerrancy

Following Roger Olson's post yesterday I decided to post my thoughts from several weeks ago as a starting point in processing the difference between practice and proposition.


The Error in Claiming Inerrancy
Why is inerrancy so appealing? Why is claiming inerrancy fraught with error? How does the claim of inerrancy weaken biblical authority? These questions are addressed in this proposition to examine the roots of and foundation for claiming biblical inerrancy, rather than the accuracy of that claim.
I find the appeal of inerrancy to be its ability to answer all the questions.  By affirming the inerrant nature of the biblical text, all questions brought to bear against Christian beliefs and practices can be answered by appealing to the text.  The problem this leads to is legalism.  Since there is one and only one answer available from the biblical text (and that one comes from the interpreter’s community) it becomes sufficient to have and abide by the answers to the extent that any unanswerable questions are considered inappropriate or irrelevant. When the answers, correct and unchallenged, define the pursuit, then legalism is the end result, even when it is not the goal.
Why is inerrancy an issue?  What gives rise to its prominence at this time in history?  The claim for biblical inerrancy is a consequence of modernism.  By “modernism” I refer to the philosophical belief arising from the Scientific Revolution that all things could be understood through observation and rational inquiry.  Nothing was considered to be beyond the reach of human inquiry.  The cultural world of modernism ran headfirst into the premodern world of Western Christianity. Soon the philosophical thinking of modernism permeated scholarship as biblical scholars began asking questions regarding the presuppositions of the origin and derivation of the biblical text. Consequently, 18th century Western Christianity had two essential choices, retreat or reforge.  The inerrancy claim is one element of the reforging movement. 
This new authority, scientific investigation, challenged the previously unquestioned authority of the Bible as a means for understanding the origins of humanity, the world we know, the universe, and as essential truth for human existence.  Any idea or previously held concept was open for rational or scientific inquiry and many of these findings undermined the previously unquestioned authority of the Bible.  At the same time the world was becoming smaller as the British Empire and other European nations expanded to encompass parts of all hemispheres. This expansion brought to light other understandings of the world with the result that the Bible as undisputed authority came under attack.  
Consequently, in order to reinforce the foundation of Christianity some understanding of the Bible had to be reached that would prevent it from falling into disrepute under the incessant waves of modern inquiry. What could be more unassailable than the absolute perfection of the textus receptus, the received text as originally placed into written format?  Since the original, autograph documents are directly from God they contain no errors, thus the inerrancy of the divine insures the inerrancy of the Scripture. 
The main problem with this particular resolution of the problem is that there are no original, autograph documents. This lack of original documents seeks to ground the Bible in something that it hasn’t had for nearly two millennia. The Bible does not trace itself to an original text, translation, or vision as nearly all other inspired, religious texts claim.  This claim of inerrancy states simply, if I may paraphrase, “if we had the originals there would be no way to question our teaching.” While this paraphrase may appear irreverent at first, it is much like stating, “if I had 100 bucks, I could pay you back.” From a logical standpoint the statement is nonsensical because the conclusion is based on a non-existent hypothesis.  To the non-inerrantist Christian and the non-Christian, the claim for inerrancy is a demonstration of irrational thought. As a result, continuing to claim inerrancy for the autograph documents in an open forum has no impact on the others.
A second and related problem to this approach of undergirding the foundation of Christian teaching is the reluctance to engage in a vigorous defense of Christianity.  The default mode for any discussion utilizing inerrancy is that since our source documents are unassailable there is no need to defend the Christian position. But the active defense of Christianity does not take place in a realm where the authority of the Bible serves as common ground that both sides recognize, because non-Christians don’t.  Instead the argument is being played out in the field of orthopraxis--how is Christianity lived.  Non-adherents to Christianity are asking whether the manner of living promoted by Christian adherents is viable, in other words is this manner of living better than any other options?
One could challenge the previous difficulty by appealing to the concept of truth.  If truth is the trump card of scientific discovery, isn’t the fact that the Bible is truth because it is inerrant sufficient to take all hands? Well, in a word, no. At the foundation of scientific inquiry is the pursuit of truth.  No truth exists unless it can be substantiated.  The words of the US Founding Fathers, “We hold these truths to be self-evident”, is not a statement of modernism. Truth for science is documented by observation and repetition, such as the acceleration rate of gravity.  This information might also be called fact, but the line between fact/truth is too permeable to hold any firm distinction.  The inerrantist will also make the statement that the information held within the inerrant Bible is fact.
A second avenue of challenge for inerrancy is post-modern thought.  Since inerrancy is rooted in the modern philosophical realm where scientific inquiry and the pursuit of knowledge held as a single goal the finding of the absolute, inerrancy has little to offer the post-modern world of thought.  Since modernism could not completely fulfill its self-promoted potential, humanity proceeded to another mindset, that knowledge was a result of specific combinations of presuppositions and perspective.  Individuals with differing presuppositions who shared the same perspective were likely to draw separate conclusions and those with shared presuppositions but different perspectives were equally likely.  In other words, the post-modern world shifted the pursuit of knowledge from an empirical model to a personal model.  The individual became responsible for assimilating empirical information and applying that information to their particular situation. The application of that information in statistically distinct individuals was seldom equivalent. Post-modernism is the by-product of extreme individualism.
The claim for inerrancy based on the textus receptus is no longer pertinent and a shift jn emphasis is required to engage the post-modern world.  Thus adherents of inerrancy move from the Bible as inerrant--a position holding a non assailable premise--to their individual (or in some cases shared group) application, i.e. interpretation, as inerrant.  The logic follows from the Bible as inerrant, to my particular position on the text as inerrant.  Thus the position of inerrancy removes the adherent from the realm of fruitful discussion with a non-adherent.  When one holds that his/her own theological position is unassailable because they consider it irrefutable, there is no room for real discussion with a non-adherent, others are wrong simply because they do not agree with oneself.
Before the reader jumps to the conclusion that this author is opposed to anyone who holds to the view of an inerrant Bible, that conclusion is false. I simply find it to be an untenable position and seek to offer an alternative model.  What inerrancy attempts to do by building up this ideal solution: undergirding the authority of the Bible, it actually prevents.  The plan of inerrancy is to cause non-adherents to accept the authority of Scripture and its teachings but the result is their rejection of its authority.  There is no prima facia evidence that can cause the acceptance of authority, neither does true and powerful authority require defending. I am arguing for a consideration, historical and spiritual, of the real authority for Scripture, the life giving nature of its teaching verified by 2000 years of experience within Christendom.  Those who follow the teachings validate their authority on a daily basis.  Those who question the authority of the Bible do so because they do not encounter adherents to Scripture who can give testimony to this life giving nature.
A second failing of inerrancy is to reckon insufficently the teaching of Jesus regarding the conflict between followers of and opponents to Jesus. There is, and has been for over two millennia, a battle for the hearts and minds of humanity.  God’s message, which for reminder sake predates the time of Christ, challenges the dominating views of its time period.  God’s message clarifies that there are many ways to wrongly attribute the blessings of God, and many more ways to merely pursue the selfish pursuits of the human will. Inerrancy seeks to eradicate this conflict with a single claim, accomplishing what even God and Jesus fail to achieve.

Challenges to inerrancy do not claim that God is prone to error, or that the Scripture is not inspired or even lacks authority.  Challenges to inerrancy are simply that, challenges to a viewpoint placed on Scripture to make it something it is not, namely God. The thought process, “since God is without error the Bible as the direct pronouncement of God is without error” is full of multiple possible addenda. Unless the proponent is willing to close the direct revelation of God to humans, and by doing so relegate God to the dark past, any direct pronouncement of God to humans must assume the same claim to inerrancy. A second element is the assumption of the process by which God made these direct pronouncements. Unlike other texts that discuss the supernatural source of their origins, the biblical writings are presented as that, written documents.  No one of them describes the process.  Few of them even indicate a divine origin for the recorded words. 

Finally, claims to biblical inerrancy do exactly what followers of God are commanded not to do, elevate anything else to the level of God.  Christians are called to worship God and God alone.  The recorded revelation of God is not God, but how and what God chooses to reveal of his person. It is not the summation of God, but the summation of his revelation.  




Sunday, May 13, 2012

The Role of Mothers

Departing John momentarily, I am given rise to thinking about the role of Mothers.  When the New Testament is considered, one only hears about  a single mother, Mary, while various passages from the Old Testament are hand selected for messages about Mothers.  I think, however, that one short passage from the New Testament could be critical for understanding the valuable role of mothers and mothering.

The passage concerns Paul's mother.  Wait, you haven't heard of this (feigned look of shock on my face)??? It is right in the text of the Bible, "Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine." (Rom 16:13, KJV)  Literally, the passage reads from the Greek, "You all Greet/welcome Rufus (he is chosen in the Lord) and the mother of him and of me." Why haven't there been any sermons on Paul's mother?  The text is very clear, is it not.  Paul has a brother named Rufus who is living in Rome with their mother.

If you are scratching the top of your head right now you have permission to stop.  The previous paragraph is intended to illustrate two points.  First is the irrationality of taking everything literally without concern for the original meaning. The second is to emphasize that translations vary.  The NAS95 follows the KJV, but the NIV, ESV,  and NRSV differ.  They add language (without providing any indication to the reader that the words are added to communicate the original meaning) of "who has been a mother to me as well" (ESV) or "who has been like a mother to me" (NRSV) or "who has been a mother to me, too" (NIV11).

Now back to the role of mothers.  This passage is indicative of many factors in play today.  The role of a mother in a child's life is rarely fully and completely clarified. While there are good mothers and some who are not so good this focus is on those who live in obscurity for the main part.  Mothers do not need to be saints, that rare, elevated person whom we put forth as the model to explain how we can't be like them.

Mothers simply need to be, well, mothers.  Mothers who are like this unnamed, but not unforgotten woman living in Rome in the late 50's of the first century, simply take those whom the Lord provides and do what they are to do: feed, nurture, raise.  But it is the raising part that seems to be difficult.  Raising includes teaching. Paul reminds Timothy in 2 Tim 1:5 of the "sincere faith" (NAS95) that was in his grandmother and mother, Lois and Eunice.

The most critical role of mothers is to be that first demonstration of God's embracing love, a love that doesn't require behavior or appropriate gifts to be given.  A love that proceeds forth simply because another has breath (and yes occasionally when one doesn't but that is another lesson). So to all those mothers who continue to demonstrate to their children, natural or merely embraced as, your non recognized activity and commitment does not go unnoticed by others.


Thursday, May 10, 2012

A question for the blogfollowers

Yesterday I was engaged in an "assessment" exercise with colleagues Jim Smith and Tony Clark.  The project was to locate on a grid all the courses in the Religion and Philosophy major at Friends.  The grid was set up by an assessment expert and had three rows, introduce, reinforce, and mastery.  We were to stick small cards with the class name in the various rows and under certain columns.  When we were done with our initial attempt, it was obvious that we did not place any courses in the Mastery row under the demonstrate responsible insights from Scripture column. That failure raises the initial question:

What does it mean for a student to develop "mastery" over "responsible insights"?

The followup question is:

Did you consider that you had developed "mastery" over "responsible insights" when you graduated?

Thanks for the responses.

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Separating Fact from Fiction (or bad breaks in the text)

After a student of the Bible has spent enough time studying or reading the larger story, or strays from whichever translation acts as his/her Textus Receptus, they uncover the reality that there are some really bad breaks in the Bible.  This phrase does not refer to individuals who had something bad happen to them, like Adonijah (I deserve to be king because of my name) who chose Joab over Benaiah as his sergeant-at-arms or even Shimei who lost his life because of two servants.

The phrase refers to places where we stop reading one section of the text because someone has decided to place a break in the text, perhaps even inserting a title or description of what is to follow.  This happens in Romans 8 that is an explanation of Paul's Thanks statement at the end of 7 or in Romans 7.1 that is a continuation of Paul's second point in 6.

The bad break in John under discussion today comes in 20.29/30.  Most of the time John 20:30-31 are separated as a "conclusion" to the book.  However, what if these verses are a conclusion to Jesus' words in 20:29? In that case Jesus' beatitude "Blessed are the ones believing but not seeing!" is an invitation to the gospel's audience who have heard, but not seen the signs, "These signs have been written so that" in my words, "you might be one of those believing but not seeing." In a more anecdotal phrase, All this stuff you've just heard about has been told for one reason and one reason only, so that you can believe.

The question becomes how does John 21 fit?  One way it fits is the use of "after these things Jesus" as it appeared in 3.22, 5.14, 6.1, and 7.1.  The phrase "after these things" also links directly back to the discussion in 13.7 with Peter over the washing of his feet.

So, how should 20:30-31 be read?  Should it be read as a first conclusion to an earlier edition of the Gospel with no reference to the rest of John 20? Or is it possible to actually read it without any break between 29 and 30?

The real question is how many other passages in the Bible are crippled because of a bad break?

Monday, May 7, 2012

Reflecting on John's Gospel

One more semester done working through the Gospel of John with a class of bright undergraduates.  What did I learn as the teacher?  That is probably as important as what they learned as students. One key element is that if you want them to improve their writing skills it does take considerable work.  First, as the grader I must spend considerable time on each paper identifying basic errors that are correctable.  My favorite this year is the verbal noun substitution.  What do I mean by that?  A few examples will illuminate. The use of the phrase "the concern of" instead of "concerning", "the indication of" instead of "indicating", etc.  Isn't it interesting that one who uses spoken English is characterized as "verbal"? The problem is that one who writes English is said to be "literate". Just putting "verbal" expressions on paper does not one literate make (intentional Yodaism).

On the other hand, whether students improve their writing skills does not lie/lay/lying/lieing/laid in my domain. To improve writing skills students must write a draft, revise their draft, edit their revision, and revise their "editation" (Yes, new words is a fun part of the process as well.  My text editor just highlighted "Yodaism", "lieing" and "editation").  It also helps to have the spell check feature of a modern word processor turned on when one is word processing! (But at the same time, isn't word processing the same as 'hearing' and/or 'reading'?) A typist is someone who types on a typewriter.  That makes sense to me.  Is a keyboardist one who keyboards on a keyboard?  Is that related to a snowboard or a surfboard?  Is a surfer one who surfs using a surfboard?  Then a snower is one who snows on a snowboard?  Maybe this paragraph makes no sense except to illustrate the obnoxious manner by which the verbal lack of imagination to name new items leads to a confusion in the language.

So too, one of the more interesting rabbits I chased (also known as a bunny trail?) was when I discussed with them how long it would take to "learn" John.  The students were not impressed when I told them that to learn John's Gospel they would need to read it once, read it again and revise their first revision, edit their second reading using new information from other sources, then revise their edit through a third reading, edit the Nth reading using new information from other sources, then reveise their edit through an N+1 reading.  In other words, the only way to learn is to continue the process until infinity or death, whichever might come first.  The problem is that as N increases the perceived learning actually decreases thus creating the perception that learning is actually inversely proportionate to N.  This perception causes one to summarize that the most learning takes place on the first effort so why continue to attempt to learn more?

I suppose real progress arrives on the Nth effort when one pauses and decides that the entire writing/learning effort makes zero sense in the current configuration and instead of editing to the Nth degree one chooses to scrap all previous understandings and efforts that are genetically flawed and simply start over with a new set of preknowledge to create something similar but Brand New.  That is what the New Testament might call 'repentance'. (the previous sentence is also flawed, it should read "The New Testament might call that 'repentance.' Introducing the 'That is what' introduces a relative clause with a relative pronoun rather than speaking in a direct sentence.)  The Fourth Gospel represents a message that requires the same result.  All previous understanding about God must be scrapped because it does not make any sense in the new paradigm of God Incarnate.  Jesus can not simply be added to my world view and over time edit my world view to remove the genetic flaws.  At some point I must willingly scrap my "sin infested attempts" at understanding God and start brand new.  When that happens and my preknowledge starts with God Incarnate, then real transformative progress can begin.  (James Bryan Smith refers to this as changing your narratives).

Hope you followed that.

Saturday, April 14, 2012

John 11, Martha or Mary?

As I am hurriedly marching through John 10-13, it is making me focus on what I deem to be critical elements that need clarification.  In class I asked the simple question, "whom do you prefer, Martha or Mary?" Poor Martha, only one or two students timidly raised their hands. Mary seems to be the sister we have been conditioned to favour. (Yes that is the British spelling, but I chose to use it despite the Google spelling helper).  There is nothing wrong with the account in Luke 10.  It is a 'nice' story that fits Luke's presentation of Jesus' life.  Indeed, the first Google hit for Martha and Mary story is the Luke 10 passage. gbgm-umc.org starts with this "Luke's story, though only four verses long, has been a complex source of inspiration, interpretation, and debate for centuries. John's story, which says the sisters had a brother named Lazarus, spans seventy verses." Perhaps this fact alone should cause us to question our preference for SPIN and PHOTO OPS for a valid presentation of someone's character????  I digress.

Evidently the class had been indoctrinated into Lukan portraits to the extent that their reading of John 11 in preparation for class could not change their opinion??? (yes, that is a bit of sarcasm since when I mention having read in class they avert their eyes from making contact!!) In John's Gospel Martha and Mary are presented IDENTICALLY in their initial response to Jesus when he arrives at Bethany (11:21 & 32).  In order to drive out the Lukan dominance from the room I slightly (maybe more than slightly) elevated my voice to read 11:25-27, where 27 is translated interestingly by the NLT “Yes, Lord,” she told him. “I have always believed you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one who has come into the world from God.” (Thanks to Biblia.com!) 


After a brief exposition of the importance of these word in the mouth of Martha instead of Peter (again a synoptic influence) the student preferences changed dramatically.  Point of all this?  What you read influences how you think. 



 Thanks for reading.

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

John 9, a second look

After working through the obvious contrasts of the Pharisees and the blind man, new sight brings out the depth of the passage. One of the themes introduced is that this man is blind in order that "the works of God" might be revealed/displayed in him.  The typical reader of this passage will find a way to associate the words "the works of God" with a mental image based on their experience and perhaps take this to mean that he is blind so that Jesus can perform a miracle. The astute reader will not reach that conclusion!
The astute, informed reader will remember that "the works of God" is a theme that has previously been introduced in this gospel. In 6:26-30 Jesus engages in answering this question to a less than astute audience. His answer in 6:28 identifies the "work of God" as believing in the one God sent.  If this is the case, then the man is born blind so that belief in the one God sent will occur.
The question becomes, in the words of the disciples, 'who sinned, this man or his parents?' Jesus' response to the disciples that echoes throughout the ages remains the same, those under the power of sin are in such a condition so that they might believe in the one whom God sent?

Is that an appropriate understanding of sin? Sin is unbelief, people have only one way to go when they are under the power of sin, that is to burst its bonds and in a victorious shout yell, "MY DEBT IS PAID", "I BELIEVE IN THE ONE WHOM GOD SENT!"  Jesus is the victorious one, should our reading of the Bible not transform our thinking?

Sunday, April 1, 2012

John 9 and "Be careful what you think!"

A brief outline of John 9 places the Disciples' question and Jesus' response in 9:1-5 in parallel with the Pharisees' question and Jesus' response in 9:40-41.  In short here are the two questions:
1) Teacher, who sinned to cause this man to be born blind, the man or his parents?
2) Surely you don't think that we are blind, do you?

Here are the two responses:
1) This man was born blind to cause the works of God to be revealed through him
2) If you were blind you wouldn't have any sin, but you have sin because you say that you see.

It appears to me that the teaching of this passage is relatively simple.  It revolves around the concept of reality.  Reality TV is anything but real.  Reality is admitting to the state of affairs as they actually are, not as we want them to be or think that they are.  Reality is when the perspective of God becomes the lens through which all things are seen.

We have two main characters here, the blind man (whom everyone but Jesus characterized as somehow being under the power of sin) and the Pharisees (whom everyone but Jesus characterized as not being under the power of sin).  In the eyes of Jesus the blind man was not under the power of sin because he willing permitted God to work through him while the Pharisees were under the power of sin (I am repetitive here but I can't presume that everyone can complete a parallel thought) because they would not allow the works of God to be revealed in them.

If that is the case, does it change how you think about sin?

Friday, March 2, 2012

John 6 and lightbulbs

What do those two have in common?  Well it happened today and the look from the front of the room was priceless as nearly 20 faces, eyes, mouths, and heads moved in sudden recognition as if I had run some kind of psychology test with electric wires connected to their seats.  How, you ask, did that happen?  It wasn't planned I can tell you that much.

We began John 6 with the traditional, boring introduction such as "to my knowledge more books have been written about John 6 than any other single chapter in the Gospel," and "John 6 is one of the most important passages in the entire Gospel."  These preparatory remarks were followed by an outline indicating the flow of the chapter: miracle, transition, water, transition, discourse in 3 parts, response.  Then we began looking at 6.1-13. I worked my way through the themes of the section in perfunctory fashion: the multitude, they were following him because of his signs on the sick and the relationship to John 5. Then I introduced the Passover and the idea that Jesus wasn't in Jerusalem this time, as he should have been. But neither were the multitude!

Then somewhere out of the blue I asked a simple question: "Why is Philip mentioned?" That led to another question, "What was the context of Philip's previous appearance." Within about 10 seconds the faces at tables, previously trying not to look bored, sleepy, or otherwise preoccupied at 1:20 pm on a beautiful, sunny Friday afternoon in March started to be illuminated!  Someone said something about Nathaniel, another 'the one about whom Moses wrote' and that was all it took.  I didn't have to say a word, they knew and recognized on their own in wonderfully magical amazement that this event was relating Jesus to Moses.

It may have helped that they had just written their 6th paper of the semester, this one on chapter two of my book Moses as a Character in the Fourth Gospel, but they learned.  Information that was randomly placed inside their cerebral cortex (or some other more technically described location) suddenly collided and a new trail was forged between disparate pieces of knowledge. LEARNING had taken place, in far more potent form than anything I could have planned.

The lightbulbs were floodlights!

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Waiting with baited breath.

I know all 9 of my readers are waiting with baited breath for a report on what I learned from my class today regarding their assignment to read with new eyes.  I am too!  Out of 20 students, 3 admitted to actually doing the assignment, 3 were not there on Wednesday and most acted as if they couldn't recall the instructions!!!  Was I surprised? No.  Was I disappointed? No. Why not?  Well, as the parable says, you can lead a horse to water . . .

Learning is a personal trait.  Even today as I provided, in my terms, a tantalizing analysis of Jn 5:31-47 and the critical relationship of several of the points to previous elements of the Gospel account, they didn't really learn.  If anyone learned, it was I. By teaching the elements, I was reinforcing my own previous learning.  Some took notes through pencil or iPad.  My words may come back to haunt me in the future, as they have in the past. But I am not certain that any of them learned in the 50 minutes I engaged with them.  I can hope, I can pray, I can even anticipate that someone did.  But only they can indicate that they learned by processing change in their thinking, believing, and acting.

So here is to learning.  May we all take it to heart!

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Reading Between the Lines, or not?

What happens when you change how you read?  Now I don't mean that you begin to obtain visual images through your left or right ear, although that may actually help.  But what happens when you change how you process information?  I suppose that I may be preempting, but that is exactly what I asked my class to do yesterday, to read with new information.  How did I get there, you might ask?  Let me describe it.

Looking at John 5:19-30 and breaking it into various sections (boring to repeat here) uncovered a chiastic patten that revolves around various themes.  Every theme is repeated except for what I called A5.  (Someone else may also have called it A5 but I think I broke it down myself for the class without consulting any other text).  By theory, A5 should be critical for understanding the passage.  The problem is that it is stuck in the middle and so forgotten by those who read all the way through, and never noticed by those who just glance over the passage.  But it is still critical.

So I asked my class to go home and read John 5:31-47 with A5 in mind.  I want them to tell me what a difference it makes when they read differently.  Unfortunately, I won't know until tomorrow.  So, I'll let you also do the assignment.  Read John 5:31-47 with A5 in mind, "in order that everyone might honor the Son just as they honor the Father. The one who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent the Son."

What happens when you change how you read?  Any comments?

Saturday, February 25, 2012

The Problem with (Un)Voiced Assumptions

What happens when you ask a relatively obvious question in a room where everyone is under a false assumption?  Well, usually not what one would expect.  Consider the scenario, a crowded room, many tables and chairs with not one available. Other people milling around, standing, leaning on the wall or room pillars, while there is a gentle haze above their heads from the exhaust of their breath. Throughout the crowd, uniformed attendees pass seeking to provide service in exchange for payment.  From outside one single word is heard, "FIRE."

What happens next?  That depends on whether you the reader assumes that the crowd hears a noun or a verb.  If a noun, the room will empty as people rush madly for the exits.  If a verb, the room will be a mad rush of falling bodies trying to get on the floor as quickly as possible.  The assumption predicates the response.

In class this week the question was asked, How did Jesus know that the man had been lying there a long time? The first voiced response was the typical Sunday School answer that originates in a semi-gnostic view of Jesus, "Because He was God."  While that may be part of the response, there are other possibilities if the respondent will only change their assumptions.

First Assumption: Jesus had never been to Jerusalem before.  With this assumption in mind, it is only possible for Jesus to know this fact from divine knowledge.

Second Assumption: Jesus was a law practicing Jew who went to Jerusalem throughout his lifetime in accordance with the customs of the festival celebrations.  With this in mind, it is entirely possible that Jesus had encountered the man before this time.

Third Assumption: The accounts of the miracles are only there to provide reports of actual, historical events.  With this assumption in mind, the reader misses the entire message of John 5, that Jesus is not threatened by external factors that could affect his ritual purity through association with pollutants. Nor is Jesus limited by the restrictions of the cultural practices of Sabbath.  Instead, Jesus enters the Temple compound in complete control of his surroundings, his actions, and his behaviors, so that those who are limited by cultural restrictions are unable to recognize what they have encountered.

SO then, what assumptions of cultural restrictions are preventing you from the encountering the  Jesus of the Gospels?

Friday, February 17, 2012

Connections in John

This week I had the pleasure of slowly working through some of the themes located in John 4 that are often overlooked by the modern reader. After starting the class off with the 6th hour (only in 4:6 and 19:14) and Jesus' declaration of thirst (4:13-15 and 19:28), we got to the discussion of worship in 4:21-24.  The focus on the spirit brought back to mind the preparatory staging of chapter 3, especially 3:31-36, to prepare the reader for the dialogue of chapter 4.

If one is to worship God in spirit and truth, then understanding the source of spirit is critical.  That brings me back to John 3.5-6 as a launching point. "I tell you the truth, unless one is born of the water and the spirit it is not possible to enter the kingdom of God. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the spirit is spirit."  Transposing this on John 4.24, one could say, "God is spirit and only those who are born of the spirit can worship him."  In between these two passages rests John 3.31-36, where it could be said, "the one who comes from heaven speaks of the things of heaven, which are the words of God, because God does not limit the outpouring of his spirit."

Thus the answer to the question, "who can worship in spirit?" is answered before the question is asked.  "The ones on whom God has poured out his spirit because they receive the words of the one God sent." This worship is synonymous with eternal life, the reason the Son came (3.16).

Monday, January 16, 2012

Another word on Justice

On this the celebration of Martin Luther King, Jr. I ran across the text of his "I have a dream" speech at  the Jesus Creed blog, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/ and glanced through it.  I was struck by the passion, the intricacy, the biblical imagery and references.  But I was also struck by the call to excellence. To quote MLK, Jr.

"We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone."


If there is any trait that is necessary in the pursuit of justice in the sense of the Minor Prophets, it is this understanding that what I do must be pursued on the "high plane".  To paraphrase MLK, 'the end does not justify the means.'  It is the loss of excellence that concerns me in this new decade of pursuing justice.  Too many people buy into the opposite philosophy, "the end justifies the means,' and as a result are changed objects rather than being objects of change.


If Jesus, Paul, the prophets and countless other saints of the Christian tradition are to be our example, then it is our transformed character that produces change in the world around us, not our creative solutions to the problem.