I haven't published anything lately due to mucho activity resulting from our new life in Grand Rapids. My wife got an amazing job at Cornerstone University in Grand Rapids, MI and I have already visited the two bargain book centers for Eerdmans and Baker Publishing companies here in town. Wow! I was going insane with all the deals.
We were at the end of the last set of ropes we had to hang onto and now that we have a job, God has provided a way to get back out of debt and the low standards of living we were under. We cannot complain by any means, but not having adequate health insurance, having two failing vehicles, living in a cramped 2 room apartment and living from paycheck to paycheck with a newborn wasn't fun. We now know what it's like to live in the shadow of Providence, hoping that the reality of the life doesn't slip past the barrier and get to us when we are not looking. Food stamps, state health care, cheap beer, and cramped quarters has taught us a lot. We will be unpacking that for awhile, but for now we are enjoying our sustenance and security. Thank you Lord for all that you do and don't do on our behalf, and it really has been on our behalf - thank you.
For now my days are filled with being mr. mom and supporting as best as possible my wife's new position, now that she's the bread winner. I hope to get a beer mug that reads, "My wife is paying for this!" Well, I'll keep writing in the meantime now that we have settled in. Talk to you soon!
-Nate
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Impious piety!
Stole this from James K.A. Smith's blog - here
"Gibney was not what you would call pious. In fact, he had an attitude that would be commonly called impious, only I believe God understood well enough that his violence and sarcasms covered a sense of deep metaphysical dismay--an anguish that was real, though not humble enough to be of much use to his soul. What was materially impiety in him was directed more against common ideas and notions which he saw or considered to be totally inadequate, and maybe it subjectively represented a kind of oblique zeal for the purity of God, this rebellion against the commonplace and trite, against mediocrity, religiosity."
"Gibney was not what you would call pious. In fact, he had an attitude that would be commonly called impious, only I believe God understood well enough that his violence and sarcasms covered a sense of deep metaphysical dismay--an anguish that was real, though not humble enough to be of much use to his soul. What was materially impiety in him was directed more against common ideas and notions which he saw or considered to be totally inadequate, and maybe it subjectively represented a kind of oblique zeal for the purity of God, this rebellion against the commonplace and trite, against mediocrity, religiosity."
~Merton, The Seven Storey Mountain, pp. 200-201
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Faith - Commonalities and Politics
Recently, the country of Bangladesh "reinstated a ban on Islamic political parties." The article can be found here.
Tony Blair recently held a contest for 18-25 year olds challenging them to come up with a short film in his "Faith Shorts" challenge of what their Faith meant to them. Here are two runner ups.
And the Winner is....
Check the story here
Tony Blair recently held a contest for 18-25 year olds challenging them to come up with a short film in his "Faith Shorts" challenge of what their Faith meant to them. Here are two runner ups.
And the Winner is....
Check the story here
Monday, August 02, 2010
Parables are tough to crack
Yesterday we listened to a sermon by Shane Hipps from Mars Hill Bible Church on the parable found in Luke 11:5-8 about the "persistent" guest who knocks at the door late in the evening for food.
5Then he said to them, "Suppose one of you has a friend, and he goes to him at midnight and says, 'Friend, lend me three loaves of bread, 6because a friend of mine on a journey has come to me, and I have nothing to set before him.'
7"Then the one inside answers, 'Don't bother me. The door is already locked, and my children are with me in bed. I can't get up and give you anything.' 8I tell you, though he will not get up and give him the bread because he is his friend, yet because of the man's boldness[e] he will get up and give him as much as he needs.
His understanding of the passage was that it wasn't about persistence in prayer but that the word, anaideia, in Greek actually means shamelessness on behalf of the home owner not the person knocking on the door. The home owner will respond - not based on friendship - but based upon the fact that he doesn't want to be shamed for not offering hospitality. How much more will God offer us his love and hospitality?
Scot McKnight, on his blog, offered argues a different view posited by Klyne Snodgrass in his book, Stories With Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus. He states,
"this parable is about a God who is dramatically unlike that sleeper who got up only because of the prayer's boldness. The parable doesn't teach us to be bolder and if we are God will eventually give in; it doesn't teach rudeness. Nor does it teach that God is like that sleeper. Instead, it is clever Jewish irony and a fortiori logic: if fathers act like this and eventually give in to rude neighbors, how much more will the good God, the Father, respond in grace. That is why the next set of teachings, which in my view function as the nimshal (the interpretation), focus on God being so much better than human fathers."
In spending a lot of time with parables, scholars come up with many different principles, some of them complimentary, others in opposition. One thing we know about parables from the Bible is that they are hard nuts to crack. My take on this one, is that this parable has a multiplicity of meanings and applications that can be allegorized as well as applied literally. That is obviously breaking a lot of rules - but they are rules made by people who are Western, situated and believe themselves to be authorities based upon the time that they have spent with this subject. There have been many who have spend time with a lot of subjects over the years who have never been able to remove their blindspots - blindspots that directly affected their area of "expertise."
Can we learn from the experts, yes, but we shouldn't give them carte blanche when it comes to interpretation and interpretive rules. They are just as affected by their historical context, environment and personal agendas as anyone else, and as such are a bit more dangerous.
I believe that it would be safe to say that Christ intended for all of these views to be present and that there wouldn't be one right interpretation that X's out the other possibilities (unless they are totally off the wall). Parables in their essence are meant to be heard by more than just one and for each of us to find our place in that parable in order to encounter what God is doing in our life as well as in the community's life. The genius of this is that the only one that can know what each of us needs to hear is God himself, requiring the interpretive rules to be mostly his. Are there guidelines, yes - can they be stretched - they need to be based upon the nature of parables.
Do I have the answer, nope but I am part of the conversation and it needs to keep going. Eventually someone will discover something else that undermine the rules of the parable police. It's inevitable - so give up on being in charge and allow the parables to do what they do in the hands of our competent Savior. At the same time, thank you to those who have spent their life in the parables and for helping them to be clearer, though clarity is much different than certainty.
5Then he said to them, "Suppose one of you has a friend, and he goes to him at midnight and says, 'Friend, lend me three loaves of bread, 6because a friend of mine on a journey has come to me, and I have nothing to set before him.'
7"Then the one inside answers, 'Don't bother me. The door is already locked, and my children are with me in bed. I can't get up and give you anything.' 8I tell you, though he will not get up and give him the bread because he is his friend, yet because of the man's boldness[e] he will get up and give him as much as he needs.
His understanding of the passage was that it wasn't about persistence in prayer but that the word, anaideia, in Greek actually means shamelessness on behalf of the home owner not the person knocking on the door. The home owner will respond - not based on friendship - but based upon the fact that he doesn't want to be shamed for not offering hospitality. How much more will God offer us his love and hospitality?
Scot McKnight, on his blog, offered argues a different view posited by Klyne Snodgrass in his book, Stories With Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus. He states,
"this parable is about a God who is dramatically unlike that sleeper who got up only because of the prayer's boldness. The parable doesn't teach us to be bolder and if we are God will eventually give in; it doesn't teach rudeness. Nor does it teach that God is like that sleeper. Instead, it is clever Jewish irony and a fortiori logic: if fathers act like this and eventually give in to rude neighbors, how much more will the good God, the Father, respond in grace. That is why the next set of teachings, which in my view function as the nimshal (the interpretation), focus on God being so much better than human fathers."
In spending a lot of time with parables, scholars come up with many different principles, some of them complimentary, others in opposition. One thing we know about parables from the Bible is that they are hard nuts to crack. My take on this one, is that this parable has a multiplicity of meanings and applications that can be allegorized as well as applied literally. That is obviously breaking a lot of rules - but they are rules made by people who are Western, situated and believe themselves to be authorities based upon the time that they have spent with this subject. There have been many who have spend time with a lot of subjects over the years who have never been able to remove their blindspots - blindspots that directly affected their area of "expertise."
Can we learn from the experts, yes, but we shouldn't give them carte blanche when it comes to interpretation and interpretive rules. They are just as affected by their historical context, environment and personal agendas as anyone else, and as such are a bit more dangerous.
I believe that it would be safe to say that Christ intended for all of these views to be present and that there wouldn't be one right interpretation that X's out the other possibilities (unless they are totally off the wall). Parables in their essence are meant to be heard by more than just one and for each of us to find our place in that parable in order to encounter what God is doing in our life as well as in the community's life. The genius of this is that the only one that can know what each of us needs to hear is God himself, requiring the interpretive rules to be mostly his. Are there guidelines, yes - can they be stretched - they need to be based upon the nature of parables.
Do I have the answer, nope but I am part of the conversation and it needs to keep going. Eventually someone will discover something else that undermine the rules of the parable police. It's inevitable - so give up on being in charge and allow the parables to do what they do in the hands of our competent Savior. At the same time, thank you to those who have spent their life in the parables and for helping them to be clearer, though clarity is much different than certainty.
Sunday, August 01, 2010
The Power of Sabbath to unlock Love of God and Love of Other
I'm interested in the social and economic dimensions of Sabbath that are both personally experienced and participated in socially. Sabbath is connected to Jubilee and it seems everything in-between is integrated in this theme. Rest/Shalom/Sabbath are personal, social and transcendent. It seems to be an all-encompassing theme that is supposed to effect everything - economics, trade, land, politics, stewardship, relationships, health, etc.... It's a grander ethic that in the tradition of the Jesus sayings - demands more than the law does.
So I guess for me the Sabbath "day" is representative of a way of life that IS Sabbath. Therefore we should experience Sabbath all week and be reminded of its foundational effect by sacramentally practicing it at least one day of the week. Because we are prone to disorder, distortion, immaturity and selfishness in our sinful nature, Sabbath gives us the ability to sacramentally integrate our being into the worship of God as it relates to the realm of time. Because time is divided, conquered, and has an ability to fragment our life's focus, Sabbath seems to realign our whole being to the worship of God in spite of our dramatic and unsuccessful attempts at controlling time. It in fact controls us regardless of what we do and instead of fighting it, Sabbath allows us to participate with the realm of time in a worshipful way rather than in the desire to subjugate it.
Therefore participating in the order of how God works requires that we practice Sabbath so as to enter that order. We should not view Sabbath as an end - and not even as a means, but as the key to a holistic life of Sabbath. The biggest lie is that we can avoid the presence of God (Adam and Eve in the Garden), and Sabbath reminds us consistently that that is a lie. Everything we do (ethics) is in full view of God so celebrating a day where we intentionally become aware of his providential presence requires us to realize that there are always at least another set of eyes on our decisions, acts, responses, etc... The worst thing we can do isn't the initial act of injustice, selfishness or disrespect, it is the second act of denial that really distorts our ethics - the denial that did the act of injustice to begin with, the denial that we are wrong, the denial that there someone got hurt or was wronged in our act. In seeking to normalize our selfishness, we are denying the reality of the pain and distortion we have caused and are only compounding the first wrong with the second wrong of denial and avoidance. This is the greatest lie - that we can ignore the reality of an act, of the presence of the other, of the presence of God. We want to be able to transcend our awareness of them because it gives us the ability to oppress without cost and subjugate without concern for the well-being of the other. The farther we can remove the other from our awareness, the easier it is to oppress and subsume them into our self-focused agendas regardless of how it affects them. Sabbath doesn't allow us to commit the second wrong and it gives space for us to reconcile the first wrong! We cannot and should not subjugate the other for economic, political and personal betterments and in turn entrust our well-being, success and flourishing to the order God has instituted - the order of Sabbath!
Practicing Sabbath is a bold declaration of God's providence, goodness and concern for the under-privileged, those without leverage as well as our own inner life of peace and trust in God's order and providence. Just as we don't always realize the multiple negative implications of our privileged decisions on the under-privileged, our decision to practice Sabbath has the same over-flowing ability to benefit the under-privileged other. It does more than we could imagine or understand and so trusting God in justing "doing it" causes us and the "other" relief and shalom that we may not see right away or may never see. An entire orientation will begin and move is the direction of realizing the biggest lie that we believe in so many aspects of our life - Sabbath will give us the ability to begin exposing those lies we believe and removing their indolence and distortion, bringing new light and awareness on our everyday decisions of privilege and allowing us to enter into an increasingly holistic life of awareness, truth and reciprocity with God and the other. (The 1st and 2nd Greatest commandments).
Sabbath is the key that unlocks love of God and love of the other!
So I guess for me the Sabbath "day" is representative of a way of life that IS Sabbath. Therefore we should experience Sabbath all week and be reminded of its foundational effect by sacramentally practicing it at least one day of the week. Because we are prone to disorder, distortion, immaturity and selfishness in our sinful nature, Sabbath gives us the ability to sacramentally integrate our being into the worship of God as it relates to the realm of time. Because time is divided, conquered, and has an ability to fragment our life's focus, Sabbath seems to realign our whole being to the worship of God in spite of our dramatic and unsuccessful attempts at controlling time. It in fact controls us regardless of what we do and instead of fighting it, Sabbath allows us to participate with the realm of time in a worshipful way rather than in the desire to subjugate it.
Therefore participating in the order of how God works requires that we practice Sabbath so as to enter that order. We should not view Sabbath as an end - and not even as a means, but as the key to a holistic life of Sabbath. The biggest lie is that we can avoid the presence of God (Adam and Eve in the Garden), and Sabbath reminds us consistently that that is a lie. Everything we do (ethics) is in full view of God so celebrating a day where we intentionally become aware of his providential presence requires us to realize that there are always at least another set of eyes on our decisions, acts, responses, etc... The worst thing we can do isn't the initial act of injustice, selfishness or disrespect, it is the second act of denial that really distorts our ethics - the denial that did the act of injustice to begin with, the denial that we are wrong, the denial that there someone got hurt or was wronged in our act. In seeking to normalize our selfishness, we are denying the reality of the pain and distortion we have caused and are only compounding the first wrong with the second wrong of denial and avoidance. This is the greatest lie - that we can ignore the reality of an act, of the presence of the other, of the presence of God. We want to be able to transcend our awareness of them because it gives us the ability to oppress without cost and subjugate without concern for the well-being of the other. The farther we can remove the other from our awareness, the easier it is to oppress and subsume them into our self-focused agendas regardless of how it affects them. Sabbath doesn't allow us to commit the second wrong and it gives space for us to reconcile the first wrong! We cannot and should not subjugate the other for economic, political and personal betterments and in turn entrust our well-being, success and flourishing to the order God has instituted - the order of Sabbath!
Practicing Sabbath is a bold declaration of God's providence, goodness and concern for the under-privileged, those without leverage as well as our own inner life of peace and trust in God's order and providence. Just as we don't always realize the multiple negative implications of our privileged decisions on the under-privileged, our decision to practice Sabbath has the same over-flowing ability to benefit the under-privileged other. It does more than we could imagine or understand and so trusting God in justing "doing it" causes us and the "other" relief and shalom that we may not see right away or may never see. An entire orientation will begin and move is the direction of realizing the biggest lie that we believe in so many aspects of our life - Sabbath will give us the ability to begin exposing those lies we believe and removing their indolence and distortion, bringing new light and awareness on our everyday decisions of privilege and allowing us to enter into an increasingly holistic life of awareness, truth and reciprocity with God and the other. (The 1st and 2nd Greatest commandments).
Sabbath is the key that unlocks love of God and love of the other!
The Power of Myth - Joseph Campbell Foundation
The Joseph Campbell Foundation can be found at www.jcf.org
Here are few videos of their online content for free,
Here are few videos of their online content for free,
Literary Topos? - Does the Bible share similar literary structures with other religions and myths and why? The Creators of the Matrix and Star Wars tell us where they got their inspiration.
I found this article on Wikipedia regarding this question - a question I'll be delving into more and more in my further research.
"Ernst Robert Curtius expanded this concept in studying topoi as commonplaces: reworkings of traditional material, particularly the descriptions of standardised settings, but extended to almost any literary meme. Critics have traced the use and re-use of such topoi from the literature of classical antiquity to the 18th century and beyond into postmodern literature. This is illustrated in the study of archetypal heroes and in the theory of "The Hero With A Thousand Faces," also the name of a book written by modern theorist Joseph Campbell.
For example, oral histories passed down from pre-historic societies contain literary aspects, characters, or settings which appear again and again in stories from ancient civilizations, religious texts, and even more modern stories. The biblical creation myths and of "the flood" are two examples, as they are repeated in other civilizations' earliest texts (see Epic of Gilgamesh or Deluge (mythology)) and are seen again and again in historical texts and references."
The work of Joseph Campbell, though provocative, is not finished. Much of what he says is impelled, thanks to the research of postmodern philosophy, by his own agenda to some degree. This is true of us all and should inform how we hear, read and understand people like Joseph Campbell among other. Here is a video of his talk that takes us into his world.
Both the creators of the Matrix and Star Wars based a lot of their philosophy upon what Joseph Campbell was writing on. Paradoxically, many people watching the matrix thought they were watching a movie inspired by the story of Christ, but what Joseph Campbell illustrates, is that the story of Christ is inspired by pre-existing myths that are shared by cultures and communities all over the world.
Here's one more!
"Ernst Robert Curtius expanded this concept in studying topoi as commonplaces: reworkings of traditional material, particularly the descriptions of standardised settings, but extended to almost any literary meme. Critics have traced the use and re-use of such topoi from the literature of classical antiquity to the 18th century and beyond into postmodern literature. This is illustrated in the study of archetypal heroes and in the theory of "The Hero With A Thousand Faces," also the name of a book written by modern theorist Joseph Campbell.
For example, oral histories passed down from pre-historic societies contain literary aspects, characters, or settings which appear again and again in stories from ancient civilizations, religious texts, and even more modern stories. The biblical creation myths and of "the flood" are two examples, as they are repeated in other civilizations' earliest texts (see Epic of Gilgamesh or Deluge (mythology)) and are seen again and again in historical texts and references."
The work of Joseph Campbell, though provocative, is not finished. Much of what he says is impelled, thanks to the research of postmodern philosophy, by his own agenda to some degree. This is true of us all and should inform how we hear, read and understand people like Joseph Campbell among other. Here is a video of his talk that takes us into his world.
Both the creators of the Matrix and Star Wars based a lot of their philosophy upon what Joseph Campbell was writing on. Paradoxically, many people watching the matrix thought they were watching a movie inspired by the story of Christ, but what Joseph Campbell illustrates, is that the story of Christ is inspired by pre-existing myths that are shared by cultures and communities all over the world.
Here's one more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)