Posts
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Inter-Seminary Sports Fest
I was defeated. Soundly. Once again, on the chessboard, I made some silly blunders upon which my opponent capitalized, and I very quickly found myself on the losing end of the proposition. The tournament was a team format, with school A pitting three players against school B, and the school with the greater number of wins advancing on. In the two matches we played, we only won two games. Our best player won both his games, while I and the third player were both sorely overmatched. Because of one team's default, however, we had a chance to get into the finals with a win in the second match. But my performance in the second game was even more dismal than the first; I was checkmated in less than thirty moves. And then I came home and tried to console myself through some online chess victories, only to see myself make several more key blunders and lose a number of them in a row. Maybe I just need to quit playing for a while. It's not like I don't have a lot to do...
The Third Sunday after the Epiphany: Hope extended...again...
Jonah 3:1-5, 10; Psalm 62:5-12; 1 Corinthians 7:29-31; Mark 1:14-20
The book of Jonah, it can be said, is a midrash (=Scriptural storytelling) on the vision Jeremiah has of the house of the potter in Jeremiah 18. Especially significant is the line, "God changed his mind about the calamity that he has said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it (v 10). See Jer 18:7-8 for the specific language, in a promise form, that is given in Jonah 3 in a narrative form. And specifically for Jonah, while this should be a cause of rejoicing, since his evangelistic crusade in the evil city of Nineveh had such tremendous success, it was only a reason for more bitter complaint against God. This is exactly the opposite of what we should expect to hear from this preacher, but then again the entire book of Jonah is exactly the opposite of what we would expect to hear from the Bible.
The initial resistance and, in Jonah's case, flight, is not out of the ordinary. Most of the prophets are shown as initially resisting the divine call in some fashion (see Exod 3, Isa 6, Jer 1). But whereas Moses, Isaiah, and Jeremiah eventually "enjoyed" their careers and the "success" their preaching had, Jonah is presented as a sulker and a complainer. Jonah represents the typical attitude of Israelites in the post-exilic period who thought that the worship of Yahweh should be confined to those who could establish their proper ethnic identity. The whole story of Jonah and the conversion of Nineveh was a bomb dropped on that exclusive claim. But Jonah is still left sulking, thinking, sweltering under the hot sun--and perhaps that is as good a metaphor as any for the reaction that this little midrash might have gotten.
The common theme running through the lectionary passages for this week is putting trust in God especially in view of how short the time is. Both Testaments deal with the expectation of a quick end to the world and its frustration. As with mamny other groups throughout history, Jews and Christians very quickly developed strategies for reinterpreting the hope of an imminent end of the world into a longer expectation, and a resultant ethic for the time in-between. This shows the brilliance of both groups in that they did not abandon their hopes when they were frustrated; instaed, they recommitted themselves to God and God's promises in the sure and certain hope that these things would come about just as they had been foretold.
At the beginning of a new year, we are always confronted with a choice: will we participate in this creative reworking of hope, or will we abandon it this time since it continues to lie unfulfilled? It seems like the question must be decided in favor of the former, since the nature of hope is that it, well, hopes...and hope does not disappoint, for God in his love has poured the Holy Spirit into our hearts (Rom 5:4). Hope does not disappoint, even when hope itself is disappointed. Will 2009 be the year our hopes are finally realized? Perhaps, depending on the hope: new love, new job, new house, whatever. How about this: will 2009 be the year our Hope is finally realized? Perhaps not, but we still live in the expectancy, for hope--and Hope--will finally not be snuffed out. Amen.
The book of Jonah, it can be said, is a midrash (=Scriptural storytelling) on the vision Jeremiah has of the house of the potter in Jeremiah 18. Especially significant is the line, "God changed his mind about the calamity that he has said he would bring upon them; and he did not do it (v 10). See Jer 18:7-8 for the specific language, in a promise form, that is given in Jonah 3 in a narrative form. And specifically for Jonah, while this should be a cause of rejoicing, since his evangelistic crusade in the evil city of Nineveh had such tremendous success, it was only a reason for more bitter complaint against God. This is exactly the opposite of what we should expect to hear from this preacher, but then again the entire book of Jonah is exactly the opposite of what we would expect to hear from the Bible.
The initial resistance and, in Jonah's case, flight, is not out of the ordinary. Most of the prophets are shown as initially resisting the divine call in some fashion (see Exod 3, Isa 6, Jer 1). But whereas Moses, Isaiah, and Jeremiah eventually "enjoyed" their careers and the "success" their preaching had, Jonah is presented as a sulker and a complainer. Jonah represents the typical attitude of Israelites in the post-exilic period who thought that the worship of Yahweh should be confined to those who could establish their proper ethnic identity. The whole story of Jonah and the conversion of Nineveh was a bomb dropped on that exclusive claim. But Jonah is still left sulking, thinking, sweltering under the hot sun--and perhaps that is as good a metaphor as any for the reaction that this little midrash might have gotten.
The common theme running through the lectionary passages for this week is putting trust in God especially in view of how short the time is. Both Testaments deal with the expectation of a quick end to the world and its frustration. As with mamny other groups throughout history, Jews and Christians very quickly developed strategies for reinterpreting the hope of an imminent end of the world into a longer expectation, and a resultant ethic for the time in-between. This shows the brilliance of both groups in that they did not abandon their hopes when they were frustrated; instaed, they recommitted themselves to God and God's promises in the sure and certain hope that these things would come about just as they had been foretold.
At the beginning of a new year, we are always confronted with a choice: will we participate in this creative reworking of hope, or will we abandon it this time since it continues to lie unfulfilled? It seems like the question must be decided in favor of the former, since the nature of hope is that it, well, hopes...and hope does not disappoint, for God in his love has poured the Holy Spirit into our hearts (Rom 5:4). Hope does not disappoint, even when hope itself is disappointed. Will 2009 be the year our hopes are finally realized? Perhaps, depending on the hope: new love, new job, new house, whatever. How about this: will 2009 be the year our Hope is finally realized? Perhaps not, but we still live in the expectancy, for hope--and Hope--will finally not be snuffed out. Amen.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Ping pong and chess
Over the last couple of days, I have been practicing for the upcoming Inter-Seminary Sports Fest, which is exactly what it sounds like. I don't recall having an event like this when I was in seminary in the States, but that's a secondary matter relating to how seminaries of different traditions interact with one another. If the results of my "friendlies" are any indication, I should be out of the two tournaments for which I am registered in relatively short order.
I have signed up for chess and ping pong. I realize you cannot get two more opposite sports (except maybe darts and decathlon) but whatever. On Wednesday I was obliterated in four chess matches against one of our students who is also signed up to play, though he may not because he's going also to be taking photographs of the event. I made some blunders, and he capitalized on them brilliantly, and I got smashed.
In ping pong, the results were the same. Last night I was defeated in three straight games by a student playing ping pong in ISSF (though a different one from the chess guy). The scores were 21-14, 21-13, and 21-10, convincing and crushing defeats. My only decent performance was in the first game, in which we were back-and-forth tied until 9-9, then he pulled out ahead 12-9 and didn't look back.
Incidentally, this brings my overall ping pong record at APNTS to a disappointing 1-3.
I have signed up for chess and ping pong. I realize you cannot get two more opposite sports (except maybe darts and decathlon) but whatever. On Wednesday I was obliterated in four chess matches against one of our students who is also signed up to play, though he may not because he's going also to be taking photographs of the event. I made some blunders, and he capitalized on them brilliantly, and I got smashed.
In ping pong, the results were the same. Last night I was defeated in three straight games by a student playing ping pong in ISSF (though a different one from the chess guy). The scores were 21-14, 21-13, and 21-10, convincing and crushing defeats. My only decent performance was in the first game, in which we were back-and-forth tied until 9-9, then he pulled out ahead 12-9 and didn't look back.
Incidentally, this brings my overall ping pong record at APNTS to a disappointing 1-3.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
How many ways can you say I've got a lot to do?
Under the gun, behind the eight ball, long way to go and a short time to get there...
Let's see:
Let's see:
- I'm writing a paper for a conference here in Manila next month.
- I'm writing a paper for a conference in Indiana in March.
- I'm editing a book manuscript due at the end of June.
- I'm editing a book manuscript due at the beginning of August.
- I'm thinking about a proposal for a conference in Louisiana in November (proposals due March 1).
- I'd like to get my grading done and back to my students in a timely manner.
- I'm preparing my lectures on the fly, usually the night before, which cannot be good for quality and depth, or something.
- I'm trying to be a good and attentive boyfriend, which I am discovering takes a lot of effort and a lot of time...but the benefits far outweigh the necessary investment.
- I'm also shepherding a student through the writing of a master's thesis due in the middle of March.
- I'm also (supposed to be) in touch with the folks at the other Nazarene Theological Seminary on a collaborative project.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Prayer for January 20, 2009
Lord God Almighty, you have made all people of the earth for your glory, to serve you in freedom and in peace. Give to the people of my country a zeal for justice and the strength of forbearance, that we may use our liberty in accordance with your gracious will; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
The Second Sunday after the Epiphany: What do you see?
1 Samuel 3:1-10(11-20); Psalm 139:1-6, 13-18; 1 Corinthians 6:12-20; John 1:43-51
The reading from 1 Samuel is important for me personally, because in my Historical Books class this semester we just began discussion of the book of 1 Samuel this past Thursday. Explication of the call of Samuel, with the Voice from heaven and the transition in leadership from the evil of Eli's house to the good of Samuel's house will next occupy our attention. It is quite ironic that eventually the house of Samuel will turn evil as well, because just as the sons of Eli--Hophni and Phineas--are scoundrels out for personal gain, so in 1 Sam 8 the sons of Samuel--Joel and Abjiah--are declared unfit to rule by the people of the land, and they consequently demand of Samuel that he appoint for them a king, like the other nations around them. The end of the book of Judges very simply states that "In those days there was no king in Israel, and all the people did what was right in their own eyes." On the one hand, this statement is a direct endorsement of the development of monarchy in Israel, even in the fact of the fable of Jotham (Judg 9) and the warnings Samuel gives about what exactly a king will do to the people when once absolute power is ceded to him (1 Sam 8) and, for that matter, Yahweh's assurance to Samuel that they are rejecting Him, not him, as king over them. And the name of Samuel's second son is "Abijah," which means "Yahweh is my father." And the name of Gideon's son, who took the throne for himself (becoming, oddly, the first king of Israel, not Saul), was named Abimelech, "My father is king." Very interesting names in there.
Up until the kings are established, it is only when someone's son succeeds him that things are bad: Abimelech succeeding Gideon, Hopni and Phineas succeeding Eli, and Joel and Abijah succeeding Samuel. It strikes me that the transitions are important, especially as they deal with the finding out of sin. Yahweh goes on to tell Samuel that the sins of Eli's house have brought condemnation, and his line will be cut off. But through Samuel God will establish a new way. Even if eventually the same judgment is made of Samuel's house, God still has a plan, according to the text, and the institution of kingship is not, as some writers mistakingly suggest, the beginning of the end in terms of "good" Israelite society. True enough, a lot of the kings are scoundrels, but their sin is almost always found out, even in the case of the great king David. When it comes down to it, you simply cannot act for your own advantage, as the passage from 1 Corinthians indicates. God who knit us together in our inward parts (Psalm 139) will be able to find even those things that we are successfully hiding from others: our church members, our pastor, our friends, our coworkers, our students, our spouses, ourselves.
The opposite side of this comes in the Gospel text, where Philip tells Nathanael to come and see this one whom the former says is the one about whom the prophets have been prophesying for many years. Nathanael is doubtful, wondering if worthwhile anything can come out of the hills. It is somewhat refreshing to read that even the disciples had the same kind of cultural provinciality that often affects us. It's almost comforting. But I can hear a bit of embarrassment in Nathanael's words to Jesus, because he has just expressed to Philip his rather derisive opinion of everything and everyone that comes from Nazareth. I have had this experience on more than one occasion, having had a prejudicially negative opinion of someone only to find that person respects me very much, or at least is not at all deserving of my negative attitude. Whether or not I express those opinions--and I usually don't, because I find I always get into trouble when I do--I always feel that at least on some level the other person is being nice to me in order to heap burning coals on my head (Prov 25:22, Rom 12:20). There is no chance that such people know what thoughts I have had about them before meeting them, but there is every chance in the world, indeed it is certain, that Jesus knew what Nathanael had been saying about him just before he and Philip came around the bend in the road. The rebuke of Nathanael goes on a little bit further, with Jesus telling him he will see even greater things than what has already happened. At the end of John's Gospel, a similar rebuke is sounded against Realistic Thomas, and the promise given to him is that those who have not seen, and yet have come to believe (i.e., the readers of John's Gospel in the first century and the twenty-first) are blessed in just the same way as those who have seen and touched Jesus for themselves.
Sin will always find you out (Num 32:23), but thanks be to God that his glorious gift is given to us no matter what our sin. It is not for those who deserve it, but for those who ask for it. "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened for you" (Matt 7:7). When I was twelve or thirteen (somewhere in that neighborhood) I started to write a Christian rock song that I never finished. The song was to start with the band singing a capella those words from Matt 7:7, and parallels, with the capline: "Jesus knows your mind!" Jesus is the one who searches us and knows us (Ps 139), and promises to us that even though we think we have seen great things, we will indeed see even greater things than these. But blessed, even still, are those who have not seen, and yet have come to believe. Amen.
The reading from 1 Samuel is important for me personally, because in my Historical Books class this semester we just began discussion of the book of 1 Samuel this past Thursday. Explication of the call of Samuel, with the Voice from heaven and the transition in leadership from the evil of Eli's house to the good of Samuel's house will next occupy our attention. It is quite ironic that eventually the house of Samuel will turn evil as well, because just as the sons of Eli--Hophni and Phineas--are scoundrels out for personal gain, so in 1 Sam 8 the sons of Samuel--Joel and Abjiah--are declared unfit to rule by the people of the land, and they consequently demand of Samuel that he appoint for them a king, like the other nations around them. The end of the book of Judges very simply states that "In those days there was no king in Israel, and all the people did what was right in their own eyes." On the one hand, this statement is a direct endorsement of the development of monarchy in Israel, even in the fact of the fable of Jotham (Judg 9) and the warnings Samuel gives about what exactly a king will do to the people when once absolute power is ceded to him (1 Sam 8) and, for that matter, Yahweh's assurance to Samuel that they are rejecting Him, not him, as king over them. And the name of Samuel's second son is "Abijah," which means "Yahweh is my father." And the name of Gideon's son, who took the throne for himself (becoming, oddly, the first king of Israel, not Saul), was named Abimelech, "My father is king." Very interesting names in there.
Up until the kings are established, it is only when someone's son succeeds him that things are bad: Abimelech succeeding Gideon, Hopni and Phineas succeeding Eli, and Joel and Abijah succeeding Samuel. It strikes me that the transitions are important, especially as they deal with the finding out of sin. Yahweh goes on to tell Samuel that the sins of Eli's house have brought condemnation, and his line will be cut off. But through Samuel God will establish a new way. Even if eventually the same judgment is made of Samuel's house, God still has a plan, according to the text, and the institution of kingship is not, as some writers mistakingly suggest, the beginning of the end in terms of "good" Israelite society. True enough, a lot of the kings are scoundrels, but their sin is almost always found out, even in the case of the great king David. When it comes down to it, you simply cannot act for your own advantage, as the passage from 1 Corinthians indicates. God who knit us together in our inward parts (Psalm 139) will be able to find even those things that we are successfully hiding from others: our church members, our pastor, our friends, our coworkers, our students, our spouses, ourselves.
The opposite side of this comes in the Gospel text, where Philip tells Nathanael to come and see this one whom the former says is the one about whom the prophets have been prophesying for many years. Nathanael is doubtful, wondering if worthwhile anything can come out of the hills. It is somewhat refreshing to read that even the disciples had the same kind of cultural provinciality that often affects us. It's almost comforting. But I can hear a bit of embarrassment in Nathanael's words to Jesus, because he has just expressed to Philip his rather derisive opinion of everything and everyone that comes from Nazareth. I have had this experience on more than one occasion, having had a prejudicially negative opinion of someone only to find that person respects me very much, or at least is not at all deserving of my negative attitude. Whether or not I express those opinions--and I usually don't, because I find I always get into trouble when I do--I always feel that at least on some level the other person is being nice to me in order to heap burning coals on my head (Prov 25:22, Rom 12:20). There is no chance that such people know what thoughts I have had about them before meeting them, but there is every chance in the world, indeed it is certain, that Jesus knew what Nathanael had been saying about him just before he and Philip came around the bend in the road. The rebuke of Nathanael goes on a little bit further, with Jesus telling him he will see even greater things than what has already happened. At the end of John's Gospel, a similar rebuke is sounded against Realistic Thomas, and the promise given to him is that those who have not seen, and yet have come to believe (i.e., the readers of John's Gospel in the first century and the twenty-first) are blessed in just the same way as those who have seen and touched Jesus for themselves.
Sin will always find you out (Num 32:23), but thanks be to God that his glorious gift is given to us no matter what our sin. It is not for those who deserve it, but for those who ask for it. "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened for you" (Matt 7:7). When I was twelve or thirteen (somewhere in that neighborhood) I started to write a Christian rock song that I never finished. The song was to start with the band singing a capella those words from Matt 7:7, and parallels, with the capline: "Jesus knows your mind!" Jesus is the one who searches us and knows us (Ps 139), and promises to us that even though we think we have seen great things, we will indeed see even greater things than these. But blessed, even still, are those who have not seen, and yet have come to believe. Amen.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
White hair should not follow black
Our campus is in mourning this Saturday morning.
Yesterday we learned the tragic news that the five-year-old son of two of our staff persons died from diphtheria. They had been at a public hospital for infectious and communicable diseases here in Manila since Sunday or Monday. They had initially thought the little guy had the mumps, because there was the tell-tale swelling on at least one side of his face. But, as it turned out, the real diagnosis was much more severe.
I have no idea of the source, or even if it is authentic to China, but I am given to understand that there is a Chinese proverb that runs, "White hair should never follow black." Wherever I read this interpreted this saying as saying (wow, the puns are thick today) that the older generation should not outlive the younger generation. This is a bit of folksy wisdom from all over the world, I would imagine, so there is no particular reason that this statement should be Chinese specifically. It is never supposed to happen that the little ones die before their parents, and especially not when the little ones are still little. I find I don't have any grand theological answers. And that's ok.
Yesterday we learned the tragic news that the five-year-old son of two of our staff persons died from diphtheria. They had been at a public hospital for infectious and communicable diseases here in Manila since Sunday or Monday. They had initially thought the little guy had the mumps, because there was the tell-tale swelling on at least one side of his face. But, as it turned out, the real diagnosis was much more severe.
I have no idea of the source, or even if it is authentic to China, but I am given to understand that there is a Chinese proverb that runs, "White hair should never follow black." Wherever I read this interpreted this saying as saying (wow, the puns are thick today) that the older generation should not outlive the younger generation. This is a bit of folksy wisdom from all over the world, I would imagine, so there is no particular reason that this statement should be Chinese specifically. It is never supposed to happen that the little ones die before their parents, and especially not when the little ones are still little. I find I don't have any grand theological answers. And that's ok.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Another first
This morning (actually in four hours from right now) I will attend my first thesis proposal defense. A student whom I inherited is finishing his thesis for the Master of Science in Theology. I have discussed his situation in other entries from time to time. But this is my first proposal defense not only as a professor, but period. When I was in graduate school, my institution did not require an oral defense of the proposal. Instead it got shipped off to my readers who approved it and then off to an interdisciplinary committee of the graduate school. This interdisciplinary committee rejected it the first time (which, incidentally, was the 15th or 16th actual draft) then accepted it the next time. By that point, I had already written a significant amount of the dissertation, so it was just a few months from approval of my proposal (March I think) to graduation (October). So this will be an interesting experience. This particular student is very talented and articulate, so he shouldn't have any problem...and if he does, it sort of becomes my problem because I am his adviser.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
The Baptism of the Lord: Yeah, we're going to get you wet
Responsibilities this past week kept me from posting a meditation last Tuesday, the date of the Epiphany. I'm sure no one is finding these things the only source of spiritual nourishment, so I am not too worried.
Genesis 1:1-5; Psalm 29; Acts 19:1-7; Mark 1:4-11
Seeing Psalm 29 in the readings for today reminds me of a conversation I had Friday night at the birthday party we threw for the Asia-Pacific regional director, in town for the district assembly yesterday. A friend asked me what was going on with Gen 6:1-4 and the "sons of God" marrying the "daughters of humanity" and creating the giant race called the Nephilim. I suggested it was probably some kind of strange holdover from ancient pagan mythology left in the Bible because it was in the found in the traditional teachings about the old ancient world before even the peoples of antiquity showed up, or something. She said, "Well, if it's old pagan mythology I don't think it belongs in the Bible," or something similar. I said, "Well, yeah, you're probably right. But the biblical writers didn't agree, and so now it is what it is." This is not a bad thing, not something that should be left out or ignored or explained away; clearly the ancient writers and editors did not have as big a problem with it as we do.
Something similar is going on, undoubtedly, with Psalm 29. For when you compare Psalm 29:1-2 to Psalm 96:7-8, you see a definite shift in emphasis. The language of the two Psalms is almost identical, except for the "persons" to whom the summons is addressed. In Ps 29, the summons is to "divine beings," unfortunately but understandably translated as "mighty ones" by the NIV. Ps 29 surely represents something of the older polytheistic context in which ancient Israel came to be. While monotheism was insisted upon with varying degrees of strenuousness throught the history of ancient Israel, it did not finally win the day over polytheistic or henotheistic understandings until the Maccabean Revolt in the middle of the second century BCE (reflected in the apocalyptic book of Daniel).
For that matter, the polytheistic environoment may perhaps lie behind the presentation of the (first) creation story in Gen 1. Since this probably came into being in contrast to polytheistic Babylonia's creation myths, the Gen 1 creation myth (and YES, it is a myth, for myth does not equal falsehood) depersonalizes the stuff upon which God acts in creation as opposed to the battle between the gods that goes on in the Babylonian stuff. But later on down in the Gen 1 creation myth, God says "Let us make humanity in our own image..." This is not (NOT!) a hint of Trinitarian theology, but probably some kind of leftover from polytheism. This is not a bad thing, not something that should be left out or ignored or explained away; clearly the ancient writers and editors did not have as big a problem with it as we do.
The Acts 19 and Mk 1 passages both discuss the baptism of John the Baptist, which was a baptism for repentance. When I was preparing my lecture on NT backgrounds for the doctrine of holiness, delivered Friday, the discussion between Paul and the Ephesian converts caused me to stop short. Paul asks the converts how they were baptized, and they say it was into John's baptism. BUT THEN PAUL BAPTIZED THEM AGAIN. This seems to go against everything I have come to understand about the unrepeatability of baptism. There surely has to be an explanation in New Testament scholarship or in theology for this one. I haven't investigated it. But then again, perhaps I need to take my own advice and let it be. This is not a bad thing, not something that should be left out or ignored or explained away; clearly the ancient writers and editors did not have as big a problem with it as we do.
When I was young, the little sister of one of my friends absolutely hated it when we sprayed her with the hose, which is probably why we continued to do it. "My mom told me I'm not supposed to get wet!" she would scream, which never made any sense to me. It's hot out today, you'll be dry in a few minutes, I thought, so why even tell your mom that you got wet? Jesus submitted to baptism in order to fulfill all righteousness. So following the example of our Lord, and his institution of baptism by offering himself as a participant in it (just like he participated in the Eucharist at Calvary), we baptize in the name of the Trinity, even if we cannot find a hint of it in the plural pronouns ascribed to God in Gen 1.
Is baptism necessary for salvation? Yes. Not in the sense that this is some kind of magical rite that convinces God to save you; this is part of the old polytheistic environment that we should, and have, cast aside. But it is necessary for salvation in that it is the rite of entry into the Church, into Christian fellowship, into Christian maturity. And there is no salvation outside the Church; so says St. Chrysostom. So, yeah, sorry, we're going to get you wet. Not with a hose, probably--unless there is no other water available--but with the water of repentance, to signify your desire to live a life free from sin. For, in the words of Paul's great baptismal meditation, we "should consider yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus" (Rom 6:11). Amen.
Genesis 1:1-5; Psalm 29; Acts 19:1-7; Mark 1:4-11
Seeing Psalm 29 in the readings for today reminds me of a conversation I had Friday night at the birthday party we threw for the Asia-Pacific regional director, in town for the district assembly yesterday. A friend asked me what was going on with Gen 6:1-4 and the "sons of God" marrying the "daughters of humanity" and creating the giant race called the Nephilim. I suggested it was probably some kind of strange holdover from ancient pagan mythology left in the Bible because it was in the found in the traditional teachings about the old ancient world before even the peoples of antiquity showed up, or something. She said, "Well, if it's old pagan mythology I don't think it belongs in the Bible," or something similar. I said, "Well, yeah, you're probably right. But the biblical writers didn't agree, and so now it is what it is." This is not a bad thing, not something that should be left out or ignored or explained away; clearly the ancient writers and editors did not have as big a problem with it as we do.
Something similar is going on, undoubtedly, with Psalm 29. For when you compare Psalm 29:1-2 to Psalm 96:7-8, you see a definite shift in emphasis. The language of the two Psalms is almost identical, except for the "persons" to whom the summons is addressed. In Ps 29, the summons is to "divine beings," unfortunately but understandably translated as "mighty ones" by the NIV. Ps 29 surely represents something of the older polytheistic context in which ancient Israel came to be. While monotheism was insisted upon with varying degrees of strenuousness throught the history of ancient Israel, it did not finally win the day over polytheistic or henotheistic understandings until the Maccabean Revolt in the middle of the second century BCE (reflected in the apocalyptic book of Daniel).
For that matter, the polytheistic environoment may perhaps lie behind the presentation of the (first) creation story in Gen 1. Since this probably came into being in contrast to polytheistic Babylonia's creation myths, the Gen 1 creation myth (and YES, it is a myth, for myth does not equal falsehood) depersonalizes the stuff upon which God acts in creation as opposed to the battle between the gods that goes on in the Babylonian stuff. But later on down in the Gen 1 creation myth, God says "Let us make humanity in our own image..." This is not (NOT!) a hint of Trinitarian theology, but probably some kind of leftover from polytheism. This is not a bad thing, not something that should be left out or ignored or explained away; clearly the ancient writers and editors did not have as big a problem with it as we do.
The Acts 19 and Mk 1 passages both discuss the baptism of John the Baptist, which was a baptism for repentance. When I was preparing my lecture on NT backgrounds for the doctrine of holiness, delivered Friday, the discussion between Paul and the Ephesian converts caused me to stop short. Paul asks the converts how they were baptized, and they say it was into John's baptism. BUT THEN PAUL BAPTIZED THEM AGAIN. This seems to go against everything I have come to understand about the unrepeatability of baptism. There surely has to be an explanation in New Testament scholarship or in theology for this one. I haven't investigated it. But then again, perhaps I need to take my own advice and let it be. This is not a bad thing, not something that should be left out or ignored or explained away; clearly the ancient writers and editors did not have as big a problem with it as we do.
When I was young, the little sister of one of my friends absolutely hated it when we sprayed her with the hose, which is probably why we continued to do it. "My mom told me I'm not supposed to get wet!" she would scream, which never made any sense to me. It's hot out today, you'll be dry in a few minutes, I thought, so why even tell your mom that you got wet? Jesus submitted to baptism in order to fulfill all righteousness. So following the example of our Lord, and his institution of baptism by offering himself as a participant in it (just like he participated in the Eucharist at Calvary), we baptize in the name of the Trinity, even if we cannot find a hint of it in the plural pronouns ascribed to God in Gen 1.
Is baptism necessary for salvation? Yes. Not in the sense that this is some kind of magical rite that convinces God to save you; this is part of the old polytheistic environment that we should, and have, cast aside. But it is necessary for salvation in that it is the rite of entry into the Church, into Christian fellowship, into Christian maturity. And there is no salvation outside the Church; so says St. Chrysostom. So, yeah, sorry, we're going to get you wet. Not with a hose, probably--unless there is no other water available--but with the water of repentance, to signify your desire to live a life free from sin. For, in the words of Paul's great baptismal meditation, we "should consider yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus" (Rom 6:11). Amen.
The fastest district superintendent election I've ever seen
Yesterday at District Assembly, the Metro Manila district elected a district superintendent. I wanted to go and watch because I've seen superintendent elections (well, one anyway) in the States and I was curious to see if it would be anything like my previous experience.
Any ordained elder before the age of 70 (I'm not sure if there is a age floor) can be elected district superintendent. Whether or not the person so chosen accepts the election is another matter, of course. It is typical practice now to use the first ballot as a nominating ballot, then limit successive votes to those persons who received votes at first, in order specifically to prevent Billy Bob Joe Fred from not getting any votes until ballot 17 and then taking just enough to keep Rev. So-and-so from being elected. For the chair to declare an election, one candidate must receive two-thirds of the votes cast in any one ballot. This prevents the parliamentary move of a block of voters geting up and leaving the bar to protest a protracted or especially contentious election. I do not know if this unusual parliamentary move has ever been made, but I think it would be kind of foolish anyway, since it would cause a candidate to suddenly need 20 out of 30 votes--or something--instead of 126 out of 188. For that matter, if all the supporters of Rev. So-and-so got up and left because they and the supporters of Rev. Thus-and-such kept at an impasse, then all they would do is assure the election of Rev. Thus-and-such. And if there was agreement for supporters of both sides to leave in equal numbers, then why couldn't they just agree on a candidate...and so on.
When a DS was elected in Tennessee some years ago, it look eighteen ballots or something, and the person they chose wound up not accepting anyway. In my experience, and this may only be the case in the States, I don't know, one to four candidates may jockey for position at the top of the slate for a few rounds then the eventual winner picks up more and more steam as the voting goes along, sometimes rather limping over the 2/3 tape. But it was not the case here. On the nominating ballot, there was a clear, convincing choice at the top. The person eventually elected was nominated with 70 more votes than anyone else received on the nominating ballot. It only took three rounds to elect him. He was one of my students last semester, but I should think that if that had anything to do with it it was in spite of instead of because of, you know? I did not stay long enough to hear his comments to the assembly, and I haven't heard of anything strange happening like someone rejecting that clear of an expression of a district's will, but I'm sure that means there is a new district superintendent in Metro Manila. Congratulations and God bless.
Any ordained elder before the age of 70 (I'm not sure if there is a age floor) can be elected district superintendent. Whether or not the person so chosen accepts the election is another matter, of course. It is typical practice now to use the first ballot as a nominating ballot, then limit successive votes to those persons who received votes at first, in order specifically to prevent Billy Bob Joe Fred from not getting any votes until ballot 17 and then taking just enough to keep Rev. So-and-so from being elected. For the chair to declare an election, one candidate must receive two-thirds of the votes cast in any one ballot. This prevents the parliamentary move of a block of voters geting up and leaving the bar to protest a protracted or especially contentious election. I do not know if this unusual parliamentary move has ever been made, but I think it would be kind of foolish anyway, since it would cause a candidate to suddenly need 20 out of 30 votes--or something--instead of 126 out of 188. For that matter, if all the supporters of Rev. So-and-so got up and left because they and the supporters of Rev. Thus-and-such kept at an impasse, then all they would do is assure the election of Rev. Thus-and-such. And if there was agreement for supporters of both sides to leave in equal numbers, then why couldn't they just agree on a candidate...and so on.
When a DS was elected in Tennessee some years ago, it look eighteen ballots or something, and the person they chose wound up not accepting anyway. In my experience, and this may only be the case in the States, I don't know, one to four candidates may jockey for position at the top of the slate for a few rounds then the eventual winner picks up more and more steam as the voting goes along, sometimes rather limping over the 2/3 tape. But it was not the case here. On the nominating ballot, there was a clear, convincing choice at the top. The person eventually elected was nominated with 70 more votes than anyone else received on the nominating ballot. It only took three rounds to elect him. He was one of my students last semester, but I should think that if that had anything to do with it it was in spite of instead of because of, you know? I did not stay long enough to hear his comments to the assembly, and I haven't heard of anything strange happening like someone rejecting that clear of an expression of a district's will, but I'm sure that means there is a new district superintendent in Metro Manila. Congratulations and God bless.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
The Bowl Championship Series works!!
Utah in 2005. Boise State in 2007. Utah again in 2009.
The only non-BCS-conference school to qualify for a BCS bowl and then lose was Hawaii in the 2008 Sugar Bowl. That makes 3-1. I used to be an advocate for a playoff system in FBS/I-A of college football. But what settled the issue for me was the pounding that Utah gave Alabama in the Sugar Bowl this year. True enough, they did not hang 50 points on the Crimson Tide, and they probably will not have a legitimate shot at splitting the national title, but they will certainly get some votes, just because they are the only undefeated team. Now, Boise State was the only undefeated team after the 2007 bowls (if memory serves), but even though I have been a Broncos fan my entire football life I understood that Boise State did not deserve to share the title with Florida that year, particularly after the latter had made such a definitive statement in the BCS title game against Ohio State.
But let me return to 3-1. Let us analyze these games. Last year, Georgia housed Hawaii. Blah, blah, blah. Yawn. Wake me up when it gets interesting. This is not surprising; in fact this is what is supposed to happen, if the arrogant folks in the major conferences (and, by the way, the majority of their rabid, generally unthinking, fans) are right in what they say, that the major conference teams are simply better than the others. This is why a team like Boise State this year, which went 12-0, did not get into the BCS again, with that slot instead going to Utah. This turns out to have been the correct decision, with Boise State losing the Flower Pot Bowl and Utah thumping Alabama by two touchdowns. Alabama! By two touchdowns! Boise State had its third undefeated regular season in the past five years, but they got shut out, correctly, because the competition they face does not merit them getting a bite of the pie. At least not this year. But, in the 2005 Fiesta Bowl, Utah destroyed Pittsburgh, though admittedly a weaker team, thus setting the stage for non-BCS conference teams to continue to have success against the big kids. True enough, Boise State did not put a hurting on Oklahoma in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl the way Utah did against Pittsburgh and later against Alabama. But still Boise State-Oklahoma will, has to, go down as one of the greatest games in the history of college football.
What does all this mean?
The non-BCS-conference teams are 3-1 in BCS games. And, lest we forget, Utah didn't play the Air Force Academy in the 2005 Fiesta Bowl or the 2007 Sugar Bowl. They played Pittsburgh from the Big East and Alabama from the SEC. Boise State didn't play Texas-El Paso in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl. (Nothing against the Air Force Academy or Texas-El Paso; understand the point!) They played Oklahoma from the Big Twelve.
Still think a non-BCS-conference team will never get a shot at the national title game? Don't hold your breath. A .750 winning percentage means that these "lesser" teams are improving.
And that means that the BCS has done exactly what it was intended to do. You can argue until you're blue in the face about how this or that team should have been selected over that or this team in such-and-such title game. Blah, blah, blah. Yawn. Wake me up when it gets interesting. But the far more important point in the entire discussion about the BCS is 3-1. The non-BCS-conference teams have a winning record in BCS games against the BCS-conference teams.
The Bowl Championship Series works.
The only non-BCS-conference school to qualify for a BCS bowl and then lose was Hawaii in the 2008 Sugar Bowl. That makes 3-1. I used to be an advocate for a playoff system in FBS/I-A of college football. But what settled the issue for me was the pounding that Utah gave Alabama in the Sugar Bowl this year. True enough, they did not hang 50 points on the Crimson Tide, and they probably will not have a legitimate shot at splitting the national title, but they will certainly get some votes, just because they are the only undefeated team. Now, Boise State was the only undefeated team after the 2007 bowls (if memory serves), but even though I have been a Broncos fan my entire football life I understood that Boise State did not deserve to share the title with Florida that year, particularly after the latter had made such a definitive statement in the BCS title game against Ohio State.
But let me return to 3-1. Let us analyze these games. Last year, Georgia housed Hawaii. Blah, blah, blah. Yawn. Wake me up when it gets interesting. This is not surprising; in fact this is what is supposed to happen, if the arrogant folks in the major conferences (and, by the way, the majority of their rabid, generally unthinking, fans) are right in what they say, that the major conference teams are simply better than the others. This is why a team like Boise State this year, which went 12-0, did not get into the BCS again, with that slot instead going to Utah. This turns out to have been the correct decision, with Boise State losing the Flower Pot Bowl and Utah thumping Alabama by two touchdowns. Alabama! By two touchdowns! Boise State had its third undefeated regular season in the past five years, but they got shut out, correctly, because the competition they face does not merit them getting a bite of the pie. At least not this year. But, in the 2005 Fiesta Bowl, Utah destroyed Pittsburgh, though admittedly a weaker team, thus setting the stage for non-BCS conference teams to continue to have success against the big kids. True enough, Boise State did not put a hurting on Oklahoma in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl the way Utah did against Pittsburgh and later against Alabama. But still Boise State-Oklahoma will, has to, go down as one of the greatest games in the history of college football.
What does all this mean?
The non-BCS-conference teams are 3-1 in BCS games. And, lest we forget, Utah didn't play the Air Force Academy in the 2005 Fiesta Bowl or the 2007 Sugar Bowl. They played Pittsburgh from the Big East and Alabama from the SEC. Boise State didn't play Texas-El Paso in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl. (Nothing against the Air Force Academy or Texas-El Paso; understand the point!) They played Oklahoma from the Big Twelve.
Still think a non-BCS-conference team will never get a shot at the national title game? Don't hold your breath. A .750 winning percentage means that these "lesser" teams are improving.
And that means that the BCS has done exactly what it was intended to do. You can argue until you're blue in the face about how this or that team should have been selected over that or this team in such-and-such title game. Blah, blah, blah. Yawn. Wake me up when it gets interesting. But the far more important point in the entire discussion about the BCS is 3-1. The non-BCS-conference teams have a winning record in BCS games against the BCS-conference teams.
The Bowl Championship Series works.
The Second Sunday after Christmas: Breathlessly awaiting the promise
Jeremiah 31:7-14; Psalm 147:12-20; Ephesians 1:3-14; John (1-9)10-18
First, a note on the texts. Both the Old Testament and the Psalm readings for today have alternatives listed out of the Apocrypha. Sirach 24:1-12 is listed as an alternative for the OT, and Wisdom of Solomon 10:15-21 for the Psalm. But, in the words of a preacher I used to know, "I'm a good Protestant," so I'm not going to bother with the Apocrypha.
I make New Year's Resolutions every year. Of course, mine are mostly the standard ones: lose weight, don't procrastinate, don't make my temper so great, and so on. I know I'll fail at most of them, or at least not have as much success as I'd like to have. But I make my resolutions anyway, perhaps because it is part of my somewhat breathless anticipation of what this future, this new year, will hold.
The text from Jeremiah is part of the Book of Consolation, the material that seems to turn toward the people in, well, consolation, binding up the wounds of exile and seeming to hold out a promise for the future. It is not quite correct to see the prophetic words turning exclusively from judgment to salvation with the exile, for there are oracles of salvation before the exile and oracles of judgment after the exile. But with Jeremiah and with Second Isaiah (Isa 40-55), there does seem to be an emphasis on God not wanting just to punish the people for their sins, but also to purify them in order that they can live a new life with him under the covenant, sometimes expressed as a new covenant, as later in Jeremiah 31.
Psalm 147, as part of the Hallelujah collection at the end of the Psalter, expresses a similar sentiment. God will strengthen the bars of Jerusalem's gates, making it secure forever. This is a nice promise that, while not necessarily worked out in experience, is still to be made and believed. It is not quite satisfactory, I'll admit, to push off the Ultimate Fulfillment of the Promise into the time of the end, but there is certainly something to be said for groups holding on to a particular promise increasing in membership and in fervency even when the prediction comes to naught.
Ephesians 1:3-14 is one of my favorite passages in the entire Bible. In Greek, this is one sentence. That's right. What gets chopped up into five or six sentences in most English translations, mainly because English teachers do not like run-on sentences, is one long string of participle after participle. It almost gives the sense of a speaker stumbling over the words in the excitement to get them all out. A negative picture of this is the series of servants reporting to Job on all the tragedies that have come on first his possessions and then his family: "While he was still speaking, yet another came up and said..." But Paul--or the one writing in the name of Paul; I am not qualified to take a position on that question--keeps stumbling over the excitement of the message, adding more and more to it to create as comprehensive as possible a picture of what it means to live in the promises of God.
John 1 seems almost not to fit amongst all these breathless, somewhat dreamy promises. True enough, the promise that it speaks of surpasses all of these others, but the language in which it is described is much more formal, almost staid. Yet even in the midst of all the stuffiness of a Hellenistic rhetortician, you can still hear the breathlessness if you listen closely enough. Take a minute to read these words from John in a staccato, catching your breath sort of fashion and you'll see what I mean: "There was a man, uh...sent from God, whose name was, um, John, uh. He came to bear...witness to the light, so that...whew...all might believe through him. Uh...he, um...himself, he was not the light, but he came to...bear...witness to the light. The true...light, the light which enlightens everyone, was...coming, um, into the, uh, world."
Breathlessness. Excitement. Anticipation. That is how the promise of God, which reached ultimate fulfillment in Jesus (see Heb 1) was treated by those who experienced it, or by those who learned at the feet of those who experienced it. And the turning over the leaf from the punishment of exile into the new hope of the life afterward expresses a similar kind of thing: God is coming back to us. Life will be different in this New Year. And as we stand just inside the door of a new year, our anticipation is not the same as what others anticipate. Sure, we're making resolutions and promises to do better with this or that, but the newness of life represented in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ ultimately renders all such resolutions important but not Important, significant but not Significant. In the light of this Christ, while we still live in the world, we are not of the world. In the light of this Christ, although we breathlessly await the fulfilling of the promise, we do not live aloof from the concerns of the world. This is the great tension, the great anticipation in which we find ourselves. Ultimately, we are so torn that we cannot adequately express it, but instead we keep getting tangled up in the breathless retelling of the promise. Amen.
First, a note on the texts. Both the Old Testament and the Psalm readings for today have alternatives listed out of the Apocrypha. Sirach 24:1-12 is listed as an alternative for the OT, and Wisdom of Solomon 10:15-21 for the Psalm. But, in the words of a preacher I used to know, "I'm a good Protestant," so I'm not going to bother with the Apocrypha.
I make New Year's Resolutions every year. Of course, mine are mostly the standard ones: lose weight, don't procrastinate, don't make my temper so great, and so on. I know I'll fail at most of them, or at least not have as much success as I'd like to have. But I make my resolutions anyway, perhaps because it is part of my somewhat breathless anticipation of what this future, this new year, will hold.
The text from Jeremiah is part of the Book of Consolation, the material that seems to turn toward the people in, well, consolation, binding up the wounds of exile and seeming to hold out a promise for the future. It is not quite correct to see the prophetic words turning exclusively from judgment to salvation with the exile, for there are oracles of salvation before the exile and oracles of judgment after the exile. But with Jeremiah and with Second Isaiah (Isa 40-55), there does seem to be an emphasis on God not wanting just to punish the people for their sins, but also to purify them in order that they can live a new life with him under the covenant, sometimes expressed as a new covenant, as later in Jeremiah 31.
Psalm 147, as part of the Hallelujah collection at the end of the Psalter, expresses a similar sentiment. God will strengthen the bars of Jerusalem's gates, making it secure forever. This is a nice promise that, while not necessarily worked out in experience, is still to be made and believed. It is not quite satisfactory, I'll admit, to push off the Ultimate Fulfillment of the Promise into the time of the end, but there is certainly something to be said for groups holding on to a particular promise increasing in membership and in fervency even when the prediction comes to naught.
Ephesians 1:3-14 is one of my favorite passages in the entire Bible. In Greek, this is one sentence. That's right. What gets chopped up into five or six sentences in most English translations, mainly because English teachers do not like run-on sentences, is one long string of participle after participle. It almost gives the sense of a speaker stumbling over the words in the excitement to get them all out. A negative picture of this is the series of servants reporting to Job on all the tragedies that have come on first his possessions and then his family: "While he was still speaking, yet another came up and said..." But Paul--or the one writing in the name of Paul; I am not qualified to take a position on that question--keeps stumbling over the excitement of the message, adding more and more to it to create as comprehensive as possible a picture of what it means to live in the promises of God.
John 1 seems almost not to fit amongst all these breathless, somewhat dreamy promises. True enough, the promise that it speaks of surpasses all of these others, but the language in which it is described is much more formal, almost staid. Yet even in the midst of all the stuffiness of a Hellenistic rhetortician, you can still hear the breathlessness if you listen closely enough. Take a minute to read these words from John in a staccato, catching your breath sort of fashion and you'll see what I mean: "There was a man, uh...sent from God, whose name was, um, John, uh. He came to bear...witness to the light, so that...whew...all might believe through him. Uh...he, um...himself, he was not the light, but he came to...bear...witness to the light. The true...light, the light which enlightens everyone, was...coming, um, into the, uh, world."
Breathlessness. Excitement. Anticipation. That is how the promise of God, which reached ultimate fulfillment in Jesus (see Heb 1) was treated by those who experienced it, or by those who learned at the feet of those who experienced it. And the turning over the leaf from the punishment of exile into the new hope of the life afterward expresses a similar kind of thing: God is coming back to us. Life will be different in this New Year. And as we stand just inside the door of a new year, our anticipation is not the same as what others anticipate. Sure, we're making resolutions and promises to do better with this or that, but the newness of life represented in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ ultimately renders all such resolutions important but not Important, significant but not Significant. In the light of this Christ, while we still live in the world, we are not of the world. In the light of this Christ, although we breathlessly await the fulfilling of the promise, we do not live aloof from the concerns of the world. This is the great tension, the great anticipation in which we find ourselves. Ultimately, we are so torn that we cannot adequately express it, but instead we keep getting tangled up in the breathless retelling of the promise. Amen.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
New Year's Day: "We must not commit the sin of turning our backs on time."
Ecclesiastes 3:1-13; Psalm 8; Revelation 21:1-6a; Matthew 25:31-46
The readings this time deal in a very clear way with the passage of time. The Old Testament reading is significant for me because Ecclesiastes is one of my top three favorite books in the canon. If I had not written my doctoral dissertation on Jeremiah, than either Job or Ecclesiastes would have been in focus. I might have even investigated this somewhat depressing poem about there being a season for everything, and a time for every purpose under heaven. The entire book of Ecclesiastes is depressing, really, chasing after all sorts of things that are supposed to satisfy but in the end are found wanting. Ultimately Ecclesiastes does sound a kind of positive note, with a theological twist, but it is a kind of resignation, an ultimate casting of everything upon the will of a generally inscrutable God. This is typical of later Hebrew thinking in antiquity, leading a scholar such as Jack Miles to wonder if God loses interest.
But then this is balanced with Psalm 8, a hymn that shows all of humanity, all of creation, in praise of Yahweh as the sovereign, whose name is majestic over all the earth. Whereas Ecclesiastes 3 suggests that the ultimate good of humankind is, essentially, to eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you die, Psalm 8 says that Yahweh has taken such great regard for humanity as to make them just a little lower than the gods. True enough, this reflects a much earlier form of Hebrew religion than Ecclesiastes, and it is much closer to the polytheistic environment in which Israel came to be, but the contrast is illuminating nonetheless.
When I saw that Ecclesiastes 3 was paired with Psalm 8, I immediately saw Tom Hanks' character in Cast Away, which is in itself a pun. Twice in the movie, once before his ordeal and once after, Chuck Noland (=No Land, =Homeless) says that "We must not commit the sin of turning our backs on time." Time is important, and transitons in time are important, for even though, as Ecclesiastes says, there is nothing new under the sun, we do long for the time when the new heaven and the new earth come, and the Son of Man sets up his judgment throne, as said by the passages from Revelation and Matthew, respectively. The hope of the final judgment is not, as Nietzsche says, the product of an unrequited sense of vengeance, but a genuine trust in God that things will come to the conclusion that he intends. Even if the world has gotten off the track, indeed as far back as the first couple, whenever that was or if they even existed, but mistakes by humans do not ultimately thwart the plan of God. This is what our confession of faith means when we say that Christ was destined before the foundation of the world--in the time before time began--to be the redeeming sacrifice. The death and resurrection of Jesus was not "Plan B," was not God returning to the drawing board and ginning up some new plans after the humans messed everything up.
Chuck No Land is much more thoughtful the second time he says that we should not commit the sin of turning our backs on time. No moments can be relived, except in the furtive experiences of memory. This can lead us to an ultimate resigned depression, as with Ecclesiastes. It can also lead us to a sure and certain hope that God will wipe away every tear, as with Revelation. Enjoying ourselves and our days as long as we live, taking care to take care for others, giving praise to Yahweh, following Jesus Christ--these are the things that make for new life under the sun. And under the Son. Amen.
The readings this time deal in a very clear way with the passage of time. The Old Testament reading is significant for me because Ecclesiastes is one of my top three favorite books in the canon. If I had not written my doctoral dissertation on Jeremiah, than either Job or Ecclesiastes would have been in focus. I might have even investigated this somewhat depressing poem about there being a season for everything, and a time for every purpose under heaven. The entire book of Ecclesiastes is depressing, really, chasing after all sorts of things that are supposed to satisfy but in the end are found wanting. Ultimately Ecclesiastes does sound a kind of positive note, with a theological twist, but it is a kind of resignation, an ultimate casting of everything upon the will of a generally inscrutable God. This is typical of later Hebrew thinking in antiquity, leading a scholar such as Jack Miles to wonder if God loses interest.
But then this is balanced with Psalm 8, a hymn that shows all of humanity, all of creation, in praise of Yahweh as the sovereign, whose name is majestic over all the earth. Whereas Ecclesiastes 3 suggests that the ultimate good of humankind is, essentially, to eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you die, Psalm 8 says that Yahweh has taken such great regard for humanity as to make them just a little lower than the gods. True enough, this reflects a much earlier form of Hebrew religion than Ecclesiastes, and it is much closer to the polytheistic environment in which Israel came to be, but the contrast is illuminating nonetheless.
When I saw that Ecclesiastes 3 was paired with Psalm 8, I immediately saw Tom Hanks' character in Cast Away, which is in itself a pun. Twice in the movie, once before his ordeal and once after, Chuck Noland (=No Land, =Homeless) says that "We must not commit the sin of turning our backs on time." Time is important, and transitons in time are important, for even though, as Ecclesiastes says, there is nothing new under the sun, we do long for the time when the new heaven and the new earth come, and the Son of Man sets up his judgment throne, as said by the passages from Revelation and Matthew, respectively. The hope of the final judgment is not, as Nietzsche says, the product of an unrequited sense of vengeance, but a genuine trust in God that things will come to the conclusion that he intends. Even if the world has gotten off the track, indeed as far back as the first couple, whenever that was or if they even existed, but mistakes by humans do not ultimately thwart the plan of God. This is what our confession of faith means when we say that Christ was destined before the foundation of the world--in the time before time began--to be the redeeming sacrifice. The death and resurrection of Jesus was not "Plan B," was not God returning to the drawing board and ginning up some new plans after the humans messed everything up.
Chuck No Land is much more thoughtful the second time he says that we should not commit the sin of turning our backs on time. No moments can be relived, except in the furtive experiences of memory. This can lead us to an ultimate resigned depression, as with Ecclesiastes. It can also lead us to a sure and certain hope that God will wipe away every tear, as with Revelation. Enjoying ourselves and our days as long as we live, taking care to take care for others, giving praise to Yahweh, following Jesus Christ--these are the things that make for new life under the sun. And under the Son. Amen.
Holy Name of Jesus/Solemnity of Mary:
Numbers 6:22-27; Psalm 8; Galatians 4:4-7 OR Philippians 2:5-13; Luke 2:15-21
Manigong Bagong Taon! Feliz Año Nuevo! Happy New Year!
In the liturgical calendar, there are two entries for New Year's Day. This first is the Holy Name of Jesus, also intended to commemorate Jesus' circumcision, as he was one born of a woman, born under the law (Gal 4:4). In some traditions, most notably the Roman Catholic, this first service/Mass on New Year's Day is designed especially to give honor to the name of Mary. I read just yesterday a Roman Catholic writer ( Hans Küng) on Marian devotion. He recognized that it is a significant problem between Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox, this special position given to Mary as co-redeemer and queen of heaven. Küng admitted that this is not found in the New Testament, but is a much later theological development, and so he issued a call for reevaluating it in light of the pressing need for ecumencial dialogue and cooperation. He was writing this in 1974 (interestingly enough, the year of my birth), so the book On being a Christian was a hefty contribution to the important conversations about ecumenism that had been going on for some time, but were codified in the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). I have spoken in some of these other posts about approaching a devotion of Mary, though I am not at all prepared to make the step that my Catholic brothers and sisters have.
In any event, devotion of and even prayers to Mary have been the subject of much strife between Protestants and Catholics even as far back as the Reformation. Protestants and Catholics are more in agreement, though not any less concerned with, the Jewishness of Jesus. If we confess, as we do in the Creed, that Jesus became a human, then we have to say that he lived in human history, at a particular place, at a particular time, within a particular religious/political system. The eighth day was the day of circumcision for Jewish males, and so on January 1 that is what we commemorate. That's why I like the Galatians passage for today; Jesus was born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those under the law. Paul says elsewhere in this letter than the law was the "school master" until Christ came, and because of the coming of Christ all of the traditional distinctions are done away with. This is an important point for ecumenical dialogue, for although Paul certainly did not have in mind the tragically fractured state in which the Church of Jesus Christ finds itself in the morning of the 21st century, he was dealing with class, social, racial, gender, and other sorts of divisons operating throughout 1st century CE Hellenistic society.
The priestly blessing in Numbers 6 is one of the really cool texts of the Old Testament. It was also one of the first I learned to recite in Hebrew. The blessing of Yahweh, it is my prayer, should be upon everyone in this new year. This is a typical sentiment when the calendar turns over, but it's not trite or hackneyed for being typical. For while it might be expected among religious people to invoke the blessing of the higher power or the fates or wisdom or whatever, and for those in the Judeo-Christian tradition specifically to invoke the name of Yahweh, this is not at all how people in "the world" do things. They'll celebrate with fireworks or with drinking or revelry or whatever it is they do, and they'll deal with the appropriate consequences the next day, whether cleaning up burnt stumps of firecrackers or nursing a hangover. Then they'll go on with their lives, empty and yet thinking they are fulfilled. What sort of blessing are you looking for this year? Amen.
Manigong Bagong Taon! Feliz Año Nuevo! Happy New Year!
In the liturgical calendar, there are two entries for New Year's Day. This first is the Holy Name of Jesus, also intended to commemorate Jesus' circumcision, as he was one born of a woman, born under the law (Gal 4:4). In some traditions, most notably the Roman Catholic, this first service/Mass on New Year's Day is designed especially to give honor to the name of Mary. I read just yesterday a Roman Catholic writer ( Hans Küng) on Marian devotion. He recognized that it is a significant problem between Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox, this special position given to Mary as co-redeemer and queen of heaven. Küng admitted that this is not found in the New Testament, but is a much later theological development, and so he issued a call for reevaluating it in light of the pressing need for ecumencial dialogue and cooperation. He was writing this in 1974 (interestingly enough, the year of my birth), so the book On being a Christian was a hefty contribution to the important conversations about ecumenism that had been going on for some time, but were codified in the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). I have spoken in some of these other posts about approaching a devotion of Mary, though I am not at all prepared to make the step that my Catholic brothers and sisters have.
In any event, devotion of and even prayers to Mary have been the subject of much strife between Protestants and Catholics even as far back as the Reformation. Protestants and Catholics are more in agreement, though not any less concerned with, the Jewishness of Jesus. If we confess, as we do in the Creed, that Jesus became a human, then we have to say that he lived in human history, at a particular place, at a particular time, within a particular religious/political system. The eighth day was the day of circumcision for Jewish males, and so on January 1 that is what we commemorate. That's why I like the Galatians passage for today; Jesus was born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those under the law. Paul says elsewhere in this letter than the law was the "school master" until Christ came, and because of the coming of Christ all of the traditional distinctions are done away with. This is an important point for ecumenical dialogue, for although Paul certainly did not have in mind the tragically fractured state in which the Church of Jesus Christ finds itself in the morning of the 21st century, he was dealing with class, social, racial, gender, and other sorts of divisons operating throughout 1st century CE Hellenistic society.
The priestly blessing in Numbers 6 is one of the really cool texts of the Old Testament. It was also one of the first I learned to recite in Hebrew. The blessing of Yahweh, it is my prayer, should be upon everyone in this new year. This is a typical sentiment when the calendar turns over, but it's not trite or hackneyed for being typical. For while it might be expected among religious people to invoke the blessing of the higher power or the fates or wisdom or whatever, and for those in the Judeo-Christian tradition specifically to invoke the name of Yahweh, this is not at all how people in "the world" do things. They'll celebrate with fireworks or with drinking or revelry or whatever it is they do, and they'll deal with the appropriate consequences the next day, whether cleaning up burnt stumps of firecrackers or nursing a hangover. Then they'll go on with their lives, empty and yet thinking they are fulfilled. What sort of blessing are you looking for this year? Amen.
Rest in peace, Uncle John, but sorry, there's no handicapped parking in Heaven
My father informed me via email that my uncle John Modine passed away around 10 PM, December 30, which would have been about 2 PM on New Year's Eve for me. He had been battling multiple sclerosis for many years, and as those who are familiar with this horrid disease know it was an increasingly losing fight. But Dad did go on to say that Uncle John had become a Christian some time ago through the efforts of a pastor visiting the nursing home where he lived. Thanks be to God for that.
I just added the second part of the title of this post under a flash of inspiration: "but, sorry, there's no handicapped parking in heaven." I realize it is a quite sappy phrase, but I can be allowed a bit of sap in the aftermath of the passing of family. See, Uncle John had been confined to a wheelchair for the last few years of his life. I saw him last probably 5 years or so ago and even then he was not looking very good. He was a rather active person before the disease attacked him, and so I am sure he is active again now in heaven with his Lord.
Whenever I think of people getting saved later in life, and especially near death, as in Uncle John's case, my mind immediately goes back to the parable of the brothers, what is usually called the parable of the prodigal son, in Luke 15. A much overlooked point of this parable, in the midst of the wonderful news of even someone who has actively rejected the father's house (=salvation) being joyfully received upon returning, is the conversation between the father and the older brother while the party is going on. The older son complains that he has always been faithful, he has always done his work, and papa never even threw a small party for him and his friends. "But THIS SON of yours," and I am sure the emphasis was just like that, coming out of the older brother's resentment and desire not to have further relations with the prodigal. The father says to him, "Everything I have ever had is yours. But we had to celebrate, for THIS BROTHER of yours was dead and is alive again." Once again, I think that the emphasis was just like this. Have a relationship with your brother as I have with my son, says the father. That part of interpreting the parable is left open, because there is no more to the story.
I link it up with the parable of the workers in the vineyard in Matthew 20. There, the slackers who work only an hour get paid the same that the people who worked all day, and that makes the latter decidedly unhappy. But the point of the parable is that the landowner does what is considered right, so go your way. If the day's wage is equated with salvation, and I think it's legitimate to do so (even though we should recognize the danger we face in coming close to works righteousness), then those who have been around forever do not have any extra bonus compared with those who came along only very late in the day. So also, those who have been Christians their entire lives have the same gift as those who confess their sins and trust in God for salvation only at the very end of life. Incidentally, this is the problem I have with the contemporary chorus often sung in evangelical churches like mine nowadays, "Come, now is the time to worship." The offending line is this:
And that, my friends, is NOT sappy.
I just added the second part of the title of this post under a flash of inspiration: "but, sorry, there's no handicapped parking in heaven." I realize it is a quite sappy phrase, but I can be allowed a bit of sap in the aftermath of the passing of family. See, Uncle John had been confined to a wheelchair for the last few years of his life. I saw him last probably 5 years or so ago and even then he was not looking very good. He was a rather active person before the disease attacked him, and so I am sure he is active again now in heaven with his Lord.
Whenever I think of people getting saved later in life, and especially near death, as in Uncle John's case, my mind immediately goes back to the parable of the brothers, what is usually called the parable of the prodigal son, in Luke 15. A much overlooked point of this parable, in the midst of the wonderful news of even someone who has actively rejected the father's house (=salvation) being joyfully received upon returning, is the conversation between the father and the older brother while the party is going on. The older son complains that he has always been faithful, he has always done his work, and papa never even threw a small party for him and his friends. "But THIS SON of yours," and I am sure the emphasis was just like that, coming out of the older brother's resentment and desire not to have further relations with the prodigal. The father says to him, "Everything I have ever had is yours. But we had to celebrate, for THIS BROTHER of yours was dead and is alive again." Once again, I think that the emphasis was just like this. Have a relationship with your brother as I have with my son, says the father. That part of interpreting the parable is left open, because there is no more to the story.
I link it up with the parable of the workers in the vineyard in Matthew 20. There, the slackers who work only an hour get paid the same that the people who worked all day, and that makes the latter decidedly unhappy. But the point of the parable is that the landowner does what is considered right, so go your way. If the day's wage is equated with salvation, and I think it's legitimate to do so (even though we should recognize the danger we face in coming close to works righteousness), then those who have been around forever do not have any extra bonus compared with those who came along only very late in the day. So also, those who have been Christians their entire lives have the same gift as those who confess their sins and trust in God for salvation only at the very end of life. Incidentally, this is the problem I have with the contemporary chorus often sung in evangelical churches like mine nowadays, "Come, now is the time to worship." The offending line is this:
One day every tongue will confess you are God,This is so wrong that I refuse to sing it when this chorus is sung in church services that I attend. It seems to be exactly against things like Luke 15 and Matthew 20. While the eschatological vision of every tongue confessing the lordship of God is correct, it is heinous to suggest that those who choose him now, however gladly, can expect a greater treasure than those who wait. By contrast, deathbed confessions and the stories of them that are told afterward are very powerful parts of Christian literature. This is precisely because even those who rejected God and Christ for many years, either by refusing to heed the call (Matthew 20) or by actively turning their backs on faith (Luke 15), can be redeemed and will be redeemed when they finally come and answer the call of faith. While Uncle John did not confess Christ is Lord at the very hour of his death, but rather some time before, nevertheless he has the same gift that I do after being a Christian for 22 of my 34 years.
one day every knee will bow.
Still the greatest treasure remains for those
who gladly choose you now.
And that, my friends, is NOT sappy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)