This is a part of a discussion called Sticky Issues. In this particular topic thread we are talking about what to do with some of the more odd commands in the Old Testament. The last post that this builds off of is here.
One of the key descriptors God uses for himself is that of father. He seems to see himself as our Father, our Dad. He calls us his children. When he discusses the idea of our being reconnected to him, he uses the term adoption. He could have used any terms he wanted, he chose those. He sees us as family. It is by far the most common descriptor set he utilizes when he is describing his relationship to us.
So, let’s turn that thought over a bit and see if it is helpful.
As our Father, he looks at us both as individuals and as a holistic group. It isn’t that he cannot handle just giving us the individual treatment, as if he didn’t have the processing power to be up to the task, the RAM. It would seem that he actually looks at us differently than we look at ourselves, as much more interconnected with one another than we, as post-Enlightenment Westerners would.
So, as our Father, let’s consider the situation that God was in. Just to start, let’s consider how things were going for the Jewish people starting in the period starting in Exodus. It is the second book of the bible. The Hebrew people had been in captivity for at least a couple hundred years. After some very wild and miraculous interactions with the Egyptian leadership, they find themselves free. (If you would like to discuss the plagues, let me know. That is a whole other conversation in itself.) They would have likely known nothing about being a free people and likely just as little about the God that freed them. The false gods the Egyptians followed would have likely been much more understood. So, if God sees himself as a parent and sees his children as not knowing how to interact with their environment or himself as their parent, he would likely do what most parents would do in that situation.
He would parent his children.
The best parenting stage that would seem to describe where the Hebrews were in terms of being able to operate in their
environment as it was, would likely be that of the toddler stage. This isn’t an implication of the Hebrews’ intelligence, as the toddler stage isn’t indicative of intelligence in kids. Just awareness of the world they are in and how it works. Among other things, it is a the stage where danger isn’t understood. Simply put, many toddlers do not know the difference between the shiny mirror they have seen on playmats and the shiny edge of a knife. They see shiny and think fun.
The response of a parent to a child in that stage isn’t terribly nuanced. There is a lot of “no touch” when they get near things that are dangerous and big smiles when they do the right thing. Messages are very obvious. You don’t expect an infant to grasp subtle details, even their toys have bright, high contrasting colors. During this stage, the parent isn’t just protecting the child from themselves, they are helping to set up neuronal connections within their child’s brain that help them to understand what is going on. This isn’t a stage that you would expect a child to stay in. In fact, if they do, it is a signal that something abnormal is going on. It is just that, a stage.
Again, during this stage there isn’t much nuance. The world is ordered in very specific ways. We never cross the street without holding mommy’s hand. You don’t ever take candy from a stranger without asking daddy first. You are showing them how the world works in a manner they can understand. You are showing them what is good and what is bad. What is safe and what is not. Of course, none of this means you don’t want them to explore their world. It is essential that they do. It is more an issue of how they explore it.
It is interesting that it is during this “toddler” stage of the Hebrews’ experience with God where the really wild stuff happened. Water was pushed out of the way. They followed a pillar of smoke during the day, and a pillar of fire when God wanted them to move at night. Not super nuanced, eh? The question of “where is God leading me?” was a simple one. Just look for the pillar. Food is miraculously provided and if you don’t handle it the way that God said to, it became unusable for the rest of the day.
But just like the toddler stage in parenting, they were absorbing an incredible amount about God. He would protect them, he would guide them, he was aware of them; both individually and as a nation. He both wanted and could communicate with them and it was important that they listen. He had expectations for them and he was doing things on his end as well. This was a real, two-way relationship between themselves and God. He had made promises to them several hundred years earlier, and he was keeping up his end.
I have to admit, that when I saw this on CNN.com’s I was a bit surprised. To quote the artist, “I wanted to elicit the feeling of this family that’s desperate and lost and, you know, ‘What are we going to do? We’re having this baby. We’re not at home. This wasn’t our plan. This wasn’t what we um had thought we would be doing,’” sculptor Sarah Pratt.
Okay, it would seem that she has missed a bit of story, but I can work with that. To me, the wildest part of this whole thing is that, at some point there was a conversation that included… You know the nativity scene right? Okay, now picture it, in butter...
Probably for all of you, as for me, one of the biggest events of Saturday was the Va. Tech / UVa game. Okay, I realize that is not likely true, especially from my regular readers from Eastern Europe and Asia. But for those of you who regularly read this blog, AND live somewhere around Virginia, AND like college football, AND don’t have some sort of weird “I have always lived in VA but I just LOVE Ohio State football” thing going… It’s a big one.
Sports columnist for the Roanoke Times, Aaron McFarling, and I don’t always see eye to eye. But I recently discovered a gift that has, up to this point, remained hidden from my view.
Aaron may be my new favorite poet. And looks a bit like my friend, Mike Snow.
I would like to share his gift with you so that he can be your new favorite poet as well.
You can check out his article and from there take a look at his blog and other columns. I recommend doing both.
But today isn’t about other columns. Today isn’t about his thoughts about other important issues in the world of sport. Today is about poetry and the Tech/UVa game. So grab a pipe, light a fire and let this wash all over you…
They showed up on schedule
Saturday, noon,
One team was streaking
The other? Full swoon
Every statistical break-
Down would say
This game favored Tech,
And not UVa
Yet still they must play it
Proceed with the show
For after James Maddy
You simply don’t know (more…)
This post is a continuation of a series of posts started here. Welcome aboard and I would love to hear your thoughts!
The first topic we are reflecting on is the question of whether or not we can realistically take the bible literally. This post will make a lot more sense and flow better if take a look at Part One. Either way, this should give us a running start…
As, as it pertains to vocabulary, we are overall pretty well equipped to make those distinctions. We generally know what words mean and are fine with that. Certainly, as language progresses and as words’ meanings shift, we might miss something if we are reading something that draws on an earlier meaning of that word. But overall, that is not a huge issue.
Where we can sometimes run into issues would be when we fail to appreciate the type of literature that are interacting with. The danger here is that we might be asking questions of a piece of literature that it isn’t intending to deal with and that we might also miss issues it is trying to speak to.
For instance, as I am writing this blog I am rocking out to the 80′s pop station on . Rick Astley was just up and was sharing his perspective on how he and I are no strangers to love. He is aware of my high school dating exploits and, as such, is stating that he is also aware that I know the rules (as does he.) Then he seems to want to offer me a commitment, which is fortunate because apparently he is the only guy I would get something like that from.
While I appreciate his awareness that I am no stranger to love, his focus on me feels a bit creepy and his flat out statement that he is the only guy that I can expect any kind of commitment from feels a bit overreaching.
I can hear the cries of all of you intrepid blog readers. Yes Jim, we get it, first of all he isn’t talking to you and so your taking his words at that level isn’t getting at what they are truly trying to say. You have to understand he is writing awesome 80′s music and read his words within that framework.
And of course you are right. That is an obvious example of what I was talking about. It takes a certain level of ambient awareness to get an accurate read on the intent of the author. In the arena of pop music that is fairly clear. But what about the genre of literature that are more obscure?
If you are tempted to think I am making more of this than I should, keep in mind that the numbers of genres are widely debated, and not just scriptural ones, overall literary genres. Here that, the issue isn’t should we acknowledge the impact of different genre, but how do we read in light of it. And by some pretty big smarty pants thinkers. Aristotle felt that there were only a few different universal genres. He recognized epic, lyric, and drama. Cornelius de Man, a 17th century painter and thinker, saw things very differently.
Our notion and experience of the literary text seem inherently at odds with the procedure and goals of its explanation. We typically strive both to unfold the unique and unmediated particularity of the text of our reading experience and to generalize this particularity, phrasing its explanation in terms not its own. The resulting reduction and distortion has proven always undesirable and frequently untenable.
The Power of Genre Adena Rosmarin
de Mans seems to be saying that we read, and even analyse, literature within our own frameworks, and in so doing, we lessen the intent or power of what we read in the first place.
The point is this, many very powerful thinkers have struggled with how many genres there are, and the implications of ignoring them, but they aren’t saying this doesn’t matter. Not only did the original author select specific words to get their point across, they chose a medium for those words to float in.
Both matter.
So, if God is guiding the authors of the scripture that we have in the Old and New Testament canon, and if he is wanting to communicate something to the first readers and (most often) hearers of it, how would that impact our reading of them today? On Wednesday we will look at what those cultural differences might be and also the impact they have on our reading today….
What is your take on all this? Where should what I have said be challenged?
I will let ABC3 out of Pensacola, Mobile and Ft. Walton Beach lay it out for you…
Huge Jesus statue consecrated in Poland
November 21, 2010 14:18 ESTWARSAW, Poland (AP) — Local officials in Poland say it’s the world’s largest statue of Jesus.
It was consecrated today by Roman Catholic priests in the presence of hundreds of Polish faithful.
According to a Polish news agency , they walked in a procession, singing and carrying banners, to the huge statue overlooking a plain in a western Polish town .
People in the town say the statue with outstretched arms rises even higher than the famous Christ the Redeemer statue in Rio de Janeiro.
Local businesspeople hope the monument will attract tourists and pilgrims and give the area an economic boost.
I think that if this was what Jesus was going for, he would have chosen to come back to Rome and he would have worked through that government. It would have elevated both him and his message much more effectively than his choice of keeping his covenant with the people of Abraham. They had no access to the power structures of their day, had almost no ambient respectability from any other nation that was around them, and seemed to be almost powerless to exert their will onto anyone, even themselves.
But he did choose them, he kept his promise and came back. He spent his very short time of ministry making disciples and then he entrusted them, and now us, with the continuation of the process that he started.
Building people, not monuments.
Thoughts?
I cannot even guess how many times I have heard this question. And the looks I get from most people that ask it range 
from incredulity to frustration to pity. That thing they are referring to is the bible. The 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.
Growing up I saw the bible overall as an extended set stories, a bit like Aesop’s fables. Some helpful, some definitely not, and none of it authoritative. I can share how I traveled (very consciously) from that point to where I am now if anyone would like that to be a sticky issue we deal with.
So, as I said, I get that question quite frequently. From those in our church, followers of Jesus outside our church, and from those who don’t follow him at all. Do I take the bible literally?
Fair question, and one that is a bit more complex than most who ask it realize.
One of the first things I ask when that question is posed to me is; What do you mean by literal? The all knowing t only clears up the issue a bit. It defines literal as: Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words. 2. Word for word; verbatim. And that is what most mean.
But, here is where it gets more complex than most who ask would think.
Who defines the exact or primary meaning of the words?
I have been in countless discussions with those who bring an academically oriented skepticism to the scriptures. The idea some of them share is that if you read the bible devotionally – as a means to connect with God and become a better person – then they will be fine. But if you try to read them academically, using higher forms of literary and historic criticism, the scriptures simply don’t stand up to that pressure.
Here is my take.
I was taught in eleventh grade AP English, courtesy of Mrs. George, that the first step in understanding the meaning of a text is to work to understand what the author had in mind when they wrote it and what the first listeners would have heard or read when they encountered it. With the obvious exception of Waiting for Godot, I agree. I personally don’t believe Waiting for Godot had a point. But I digress.
So, if Mrs. George is right, then the exact or primary meaning of the words would be set by the author in the context of the first hearers. That is different from what I have typically been told literal means, by most that pose the literal question to me. What I tend to hear is: literal means whatever my generally fair impression discerns the word to mean.
As, as it pertains to vocabulary, we are overall pretty well equipped to make those distinctions. We generally know what words mean and are fine with that. Certainly, as language progresses and as words’ meanings shift, we might miss something if we are reading something that draws on an earlier meaning of that word. But overall, that is not a huge issue.
Come back in on Sunday and we will look at where the big issues start to really arise…
As the pastor of a church that has a very broad range of people in it; from those who have followed Jesus for many years to those that don’t, Democrats, Republicans, Tea Partiers, those who drink, those who don’t, people who range on their views in all kinds of ways… I get asked a lot of questions. One that I have been asked from time to time is about yoga. Is it something that is a good idea for someone who is a follower of Christ to be involved in?
The concern, for those who have it, is that yoga is heavily utilised in the practice of Hinduism. The word yoga itself is from the Sanskrit word yuj, which means to unite or yoke, to connect. The goal is to connect the mind, body and spirit and was first used in Hindu texts in the fifth century BC.
The reason that I bring it up now is twofold. I have been asked about it over the past week about three or four times (much more than usual) and there is a good deal of interesting internet chatter about it. A friend of mine, , wrote a great article for the Washington Post in response to something written by . Not only is Winn a great guy, but you will likely enjoy his writing as much as I do. . Nice job Winn! Seriously, check out Winn’s blog.
Then I saw that Relevant published a piece entitlted . I think you will like it as well. A great response to Mark Driscoll’s strong admonition to leave yoga alone.
Personally I can connect with aspects of both takes on this.
I don’t believe that the world we live in is spiritually neutral. Not everything is automatically safe to engage in, just because we wish it were. As such, we need to reflect on what we are doing, what inputs we are allowing into our lives, and ultimately, what the results of those various inputs are. Paul’s letter to the church that was in Rome offers us some guidance here.
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is–his good, pleasing and perfect will. Romans 12.2
Our inputs become our impacts. What we do deeply influences who we are.
It also seems that the yoga that most Americans interact with is less about participating in Hindu practices and more about the physcial movements and breathing that had historically been connected with those practices. A similar example would be how many Christians view the celebration of Christmas as having lost its religious underpinnings. Many, myself included, would say that most participate in the activities of Christmas and miss the meaning behind it.
Many Hindus feel the same about yoga.
I only tried something close to yoga once. A very well-intentioned co-worker, who was an instructor, walked us through some of
themovements and breathing. At the end, we were lying on the floor with our eyes closed. As we were supposed to be focused on relaxing, another co-worker farted, a bunch of us started laughing and that was the end of the class.
I have shared before that I am a fan of the orthogonal approach, especially in debates that can get intense, that trigger strong emotion and call on deeply held beliefs. For those who aren’t familiar with that term, it applies best to issues where there can be a strong “you versus me” mentaility. I win or you do. It becomes about voicing your opinion more effectively than someone else might be able to. If you do, you win. If you don’t, they win.
The orthogonal approach would suggest that instead of letting it go that route, a tug of war if you will, you put a right angle in there
somewhere and take the discussion a new direction. Approach the interaction differently.
This approach doesn’t mean that both sides give up what they believe, that isn’t the case at all. It just means we seek to reframe the discussion in a way that gives it some hope of avoiding the typical roadblocks. This approach also isn’t new. We are reminded in scripture to be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry. This isn’t suggesting we don’t share truth, not at all. It is more how we approach the interaction. We are told that we can be absolutely right, but if we don’t communicate our views with love and respect, we drastically reduce the impact we can have. So, this isn’t new.
As I have sought to apply this approach in the myriad of discussions about intense issues I find myself in I have learned a critical step in navigating them. Not only should I seek to understand before I am understood, but I should take the additional step to reflect carefully on what about my life and my experiences would make it harder for me to truly understand where the other person is coming from. I try to look at my filters and see if they are making things more difficult.
Hear me again, just because I look at my filters and reflect on them, doesn’t mean I drop them. Our filters are born out of who we are; our beliefs and experiences, the aspects of our world that we understand, the things we have learned. So, we don’t drop them, we simply ackowlege them and look to see if they impact the discussion we are in.
So… [nlcf] has been involved in a series called . The idea is that most people in our culture today, if asked, would say some semblance of this statement: I would be closer to God/Jesus but… this keeps me away. Whether the issue of God’s reality or presence is a central one in their life, or a very distant one,research shows most would have some version of this phrase somewhere in their mind.
On October 17th, [nlcf] dealt with this but… I would be closer to God but… He allows far to much suffering.
When we asked the members of [nlcf] and others to contribute their ideas for what we should cover (and over 250 people did) the issue of suffering was one of the highest requests on the list. And it was one of the most intensely emotional categories as well.
So, how does the orthogonal approach impact the issue of suffering that God allows?
It would cause us to take a step back and look at our filters. Honestly there are many, but let’s start with this one.
Ready?
We expect those with great power to use it to help those in need. (more…)
Alright, perhaps my post title was a bit misleading. Or really misleading.
What is offering is a new (read Doctorate of Ministry) program. And while I am overall very un-excited about demons, I mean.. look at that thing…I am very excited about this new offering.
I often get the question of why I haven’t pursued a graduate degree in some aspect of ministry. I have been in vocational ministry for almost 15 years, have been on a panel that has been able to speak into the development of a Masters program at a seminary, and highly value the intellectual component of my pursuit of God. So, it seems strange that I have yet to get my Masters. When I first came on staff I had three reasons and now I have a different three. I’ll let you in on those and then tell you why they make me so excited about Northern’s program.
Reasons I didn’t initially pursue a graduate degree…
Go Hokies! Okay, I just wrote that because I bet that very few outside of my mom (Hi Mom) will read this section. Honestly I am not sure that I would. But I do think I had some valid and not so valid reasons for my decision.
1. We were super-poor, no way we could afford it. The first few years of Tracy and I being in ministry were financially very tight. Once she sat on her $5 sunglasses, and we couldn’t afford replacements for a several weeks. The cost of a graduate degree was simply out of our reach.
2. Hubris. Plain and simple. I didn’t value graduate education in ministry. I thought it was primarily an institution that was funded by very wealthy churches that were out of step with where our culture is today. That seminaries were preparing ministers for a world that didn’t exist any longer. Just for the record, I still feel that can often be the case. My hubris came in with my pre-judging all programs based on my awareness of a few. I thought too highly of myself.
3. I wasn’t yet sure enough of what I believed to find a program that would challenge and push me toward what I sensed God was pushing me to become. Honestly, I am glad I didn’t go early in ministry for this reason.
Here is why I haven’t gone recently…
1. Time. It would appear that while finances can still be tight, the most tight comodity I have in my life is my time. With the churches, congregations and non-profits that [nlcf] has launched and my roles in many of those, added to my roles in other organizations, my roles within [nlcf], my family, time spent with the writing and launch of my book, the plans for another… Yikes. Things get busy very fast.
2. Lack of a program that I am really excited about, that I can meaningfully engage remotely. Yes there are programs around me, but none that truly generate that level of excitement in me.
3. Lack of a direct need to have one. The reality is that I ask my friends who are attending seminary to share their reading lists with me and I read many of those books. I have several groups around me where I can share my reflections and have those reflections challenged. I feel intellectually invigorated and am growing. I enjoy these times greatly.
But I sense that God might be moving in me to take the plunge. Tomorrow, the reasons why Northern’s approach is key in that. If you have found yourself in a similar situation to what I was in or where I am now, you will want to hear about Northern’s program and heart behind it.
See you tomorrow!
Over the past couple of years, my good friend and co-worker Matt has been putting a great deal of effort into reflecting on his homosexuality, among other parts of his life.
He has been reading widely, flying around the country to talk with people he feels like can help him during this season. And just about every Thursday night we have hung out on his back porch talking about where he is in this process. Processing what we are both thinking, and reading. Sometimes the discussions have been low-key and fun, and other conversations have been more intense.
I have been blessed by not only Matt’s friendship and his walk with Christ; but also by his honesty and willingness to allow me to walk beside him on this path. I am very fortunate.
Today, Matt passed along a letter written in 2005 by The Very Rev. Dr. Peter Short, Moderator of the United Church of Canada. The United Church of Canada was responding to Canada’s passage of Bill C-38 which allowed civil marriage for same-sex couples. The United Church had churches within it that both were celebrating this passage and churches that were against its passage. Dr. Short speaks wise words to our neighbors to the north.
As the issue of same-sex unions and the definition of marriage come more and more into our cultural and political dialogue, we that are followers of Jesus (regardless of our perspective on those issues) would do very well to carefully reflect on his challenge to give primacy to what deserves primacy. Certainly vigorous debate is ahead of us, and should be. But as Paul reminds us in 1 Cor. 13, how we speak is as important as what we say. So, let me allow The Very Rev. Dr. Peter Short to take it from here…
THE VERY REV. DR. PETER SHORT
Pastoral Letter Following the Passage of Same-Sex Marriage LegislationJune 29, 2005
Sisters and Brothers in The United Church of Canada,
Greetings in Christ!
Yesterday the Parliament of Canada passed legislation granting gay and lesbian couples legal access to civil marriage. This legislation comes as no surprise. The question has been debated and contested in a very public manner. The United Church of Canada has been an active participant in this issue in the 18 months since the 38th General Council asked the government to include same-sex marriage in the marriage legislation. During this time, United Church congregations have been encouraged to assess and determine their marriage policies with respect to same-gender couples.
This legislation is no surprise to anyone who has been in touch with current events in church and society. Nonetheless, it represents a profound change in civil society’s definition of marriage-an institution that stands at the heart of Canadian family life. It may not be a surprise to the mind that has been tracking the trajectory of the legislation, but the heart is deeply surprised as the legislation makes the passage from theoretical debate to law of the land. (more…)
