divine discontentment

A few weeks ago our house was blessed with the birth of our second daughter. She is beautiful and everything appears to be fine, except for a few bumps in the road regarding a weak stomach (common in many infants). We are told that she will get through this, have been given some medicine to help her along the way, and that in the meantime we will have to do our best when she is dealing with some discomfort.

For the most part, she does really well and is good-natured. Content. However, yesterday was a bit difficult around here as she spent all day struggling to be comfortable and find rest. Discontent. This is the inevitable place where parents of infants find themselves. How often is unique to each family. Despite our attempts to comfort our daughter it was clear that something was not right, and she was willing to be the only one to recognize it if necessary. Ignoring our repeated whispers, "Everything's o.k." and patting and rocking and walking, walking, walking, this little girl refused to be comforted. Until morning. When everything came back to normal and she was released from the pain.

And so I am again reminded that you never have to look very far to find glimpses of the divine. Here is a little girl who is refusing to be comforted because she is the only one who truly realizes the situation at hand. She is an apt metaphor for those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, and who refuse to be comforted by anything but their realization. Until then the pain and discomfort of this world cannot be covered up by whispers of good cheer. In her tiny plight I hear the echoes of an ancient faith:

"A voice is heard in Ramah,

mourning and great weeping,

Rachel weeping for her children

and refusing to be comforted,

because they are no more."

Jeremiah 31:15

Rachel refused to be comforted because she knew that there was something wrong with the world. Her pain was deep and her discomfort ripped her apart from within. These words envisage the many who came to wish her well and to let her know that everything would be alright. But she would not accept it, because her heart and soul and mind were wise beyond the conventional words of the world. Rachel wept for the children of Israel who were killed in the face of the covenant promise of God that this people would be his vehicle for bringing salvation to the world.

It is no wonder that we have been summoned to a childlike faith in the midst of a grown-up world. Because these are the ones who understand the world most, and who are willing to voice their wisdom in the face of those who say otherwise. It is all too sad that the church has more often listened to the voices which say little of the mourning which has burdened God's heart over the state of his creation to embrace a message of escapism and happiness. Forgetting that we have grown old we must embrace the faith which refuses to find contentment in this world.

St Augustine: "Our hearts are restless, until they rest in thee."

blank

I remember a number of years ago I became an avid viewer of a couple of TV police dramas, notably the Law & Order shows - SVU and CI. These were (initially) more intellectual than many of the shows had been up to that point and I enjoyed trying to figure out the mysteries. But I also noticed that the content became increasingly graphic and depraved, and I finally decided to take a break from it. And I've never looked back. I noticed that as I have eliminated all such television shows I have decreased the amount of 'dark tone' that is in my mind.

Now, a couple of days ago the company which provides my internet access had a problem (stemming from a recent storm) which knocked out service in our area for a couple of days. When this happens you begin to realize how much time is spent running to and from the computer - either for work or for entertainment - and how much one waits for emails and online news and blogs. Notice that I speak of how much time and energy is given rather than how much time and energy one needs to be online.

My point with these two aspects of my life is that the blogosphere has become increasingly distracting for those things which are truly important to me. For the most part, there is a negativity and cynicism among people who blog frequently (even among bibliobloggers). Further, there is an air of self-significance which has taken a simple means of communicating thoughts and making them into pseudo-scholarly treatise. But in reality the level of discourse which occurs on these boards are obnoxious, rude, and dismissive. Cleverness is prized over thoughtfulness; shock value over sentiment; criticism over edification.

And these past few days have taught me to throw out the list which I typically follow. Only three or four remain - those who can get it right, and who seek to advance the discourse of the kingdom over their own agendas - and little will be added. There is too much good work to be done that it is fruitless to be caught up in this mire. I say this without disrespect or disregard to the many individuals who blog, and the very very few who will ever read these words.

I remember in a conversation with The Bishop that he disregards blogs (as he points out in his latest book), because it is an unmonitored and unchecked void. Now that I have broken away from it, I have to agree. But blog on, those who choose to blog. I will as well. But I will continue to realize my grand insignificance in the universe, both online and off. As for any mountains which will or will not be moved by the faith investigated here, that is for infinite grace to decide.

revelation summarized

Along with G. Caird's words, ". . . the end is not an event, but a person."

everything glorious

letterman and imus: separate beds?

In reflecting on what a scumbag David Letterman is proving to be, it crossed my mind to compare this situation with that of Don Imus, a shock-radio jock who made his own inappropriate remarks when speaking of the Rutgers Women's Basketball team during a 2007 broadcast. In short, Imus was fired from CBS Radio. David Letterman made a joke this week regarding the daughter of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. In short, the concept of his suspension or firing is not even close to the table. He works for CBS Television.

(Actually I mostly forgot that he even had a television program - me and the vast majority of American viewers, according to his ratings.)

It seems that the major distinction is that while Imus made an inappropriate remark in general, Letterman made a remark which is intended to personally hurt a politically conservative figure. And since he works for a network which is not friendly to conservatives, in a field which has many anti-conservative leaders, in a city which is certainly left-of-center, he can get away with it. Yes, Virginia, there is a double-standard in our culture: there are those who adhere to ethics and those who do not. And every time that someone who advocates a certain moral standard can be attacked, it is appropriate to do so.

But let's not assume that the personal difficulties found within the lives of those who advocate moral standards diminishes the standard itself. (Since the Palins identify themselves as Christians, we can easily work our discussion from a Christian perspective.) Those who advocate moral ethics usually do so on the basis that God has written his law within creation and bestowed his Spirit to guide us. Along with this worldview is the assertion that, while his creation was made good and his law remains perfect, those to whom creation and law were entrusted have become distorted. Thus, failure to live up to the standards of divine morality does not tarnish the law but rather affirms the narrative which surrounds the giving of the law in the first place.

Although it is common for those who wish to do whatever they want - so long as power, fame and money are coming in - to take opportunity for personally attacking the lives and families of those with whom they disagree, it does not in any way corrode the moral code itself. When we realize this we are then able to see the mean-spiritedness of those who choose to cackle at sexual references regarding young women less than three times their own age. The only achievement here is that people are indeed speaking about Letterman's show again, something which hasn't happened in a good many years.

Notice that you will not hear these comments about Malia and Sasha Obama (most people don't even know their names because the Federally-controlled media has obeyed the directive not to speak of them). Double-standards apply, but they are far greater than the Republican-Democrat or Conservative-Liberal lines . . . it is a matter of ethics and worldviews which either are or are not founded upon the Divine.

losing christian music

Christianity Today ran an article regarding the recessing market for 'Contemporary Christian Music' which seems to be happening. There appears to be no shortage of opinion for the reason(s) for this trend, many of which come from 'industry insiders' and are thus completely clueless. Others have some insight, but I believe there might be something which is being overlooked among the hand-wringing.

Mark Geil's article in CT includes many possible reasons for why Christian music is fading into the woodwork - the overall decline in the music industry in general (?), the emergence of iTunes over traditional CD sales, touring costs, the economy in general - all the reasons for such a situation, except for one important one. Inferior product.

That's right, the harsh reality of the majority of the CCM market is that it is by-and-large not quality music (there are a few notable differences). And I personally have been pointing out the decline of the industry with the rise of the worship-music-movement. Ever since the whole worship-music trend became popularized two effects can be identified: 1) the dissolution of genuine creativity in the Christian music market, and 2) the loss of artistry within the local church experience. How? The former is because it became en vogue for every artist to cover the same songs over and over and over again (with little variation); the latter is a reflection of every small praise band to act as though their congregations are meant to be the same experience as the David Crowder* Band concert last night.

(This loss within the local church is most disturbing, for it also works on the assumption that there is only one way to do church - only one approach to be 'successful' - and thus marginalizes the diversity of the body by allowing each congregation to infuse their own personalities and theology into the community worship experience.)

There seems to be no slowing down on the production of worship-music within the CCM market. Unfortunately. And before the objection is raised let us recognize that CCM being worship-music-oriented may be good in theory, the reality is that it makes the overall experience of Christian artistry shallow and one-dimensional. It is as if Christian expression only happens in this particular mode and that there is no spiritual significance unless it expressly uses certain words and phrases. And this is complete baloney. Possibly malarky.

In the end, it cannot be iTunes or the economy . . . it is only the decline of artistry in our culture. But does this come on the heels of truth being undervalued in the evangelical subculture? I believe it does. Thus we have lost beauty as well, for as Keats immortalized for us: "Beauty is truth, truth beauty."

over word-studying?

One of the benefits of the publication of new books in multi-volume works is that it tends to push me to catch up on areas which have fallen through the cracks. I have documented this before. Now I am addressing Dunn's series, Christianity in the Making, with the recent publication of the second volume: Beginning from Jerusalem (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). Before I can get into this much-anticipated work, I have portions of the first volume to work through - I interacted with bits of it on my thesis. With that in mind, I am engrossed in Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004).

Chapter 8 is part of Dunn's establishment of his hermeneutic, both by giving an historical overview of methodology as well as asserting his own perspective on interacting with the New Testament documents (specifically the Gospels and Acts). I am reminded throughout of his shorter and significant: A New Perspective on Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), a more accessible read of much of the same material. Here Dunn discusses the nature of oral transmission and its significance for understanding the gospel tradition within the earliest Christian communities.

While I am not looking to recount his perspective in detail, I do wish to raise a particular question (I am by no means the first) which stems from the concept of oral transmission. Dunn's assertion is that the development of the oral tradition remains fluid through its telling, and is shaped by the community which preserves it. This can be difficult to summarize with much justice to the position, but simply is an acknowledgment that the tradition was being shaped and formed from the moment it began; there is an immediate 'performance' of the tradition as it is preserved within the community. This is a completely cultural assertion here, one which is unlike modern or postmodern perspectives.

Dunn states: "An oral retelling of a tradition is not at all like a new literary edition" (248). So, the method of preserving history itself is completely different in the Semitic culture of the first century than it is in the modern and postmodern Western cultures. If this is indeed the case (and I believe that it is entirely the case), then we have better ground on which we may examine the parallels and distinctions within Synoptic material and other repetitious narratives. And it further provides an immediate reason for such shaping - these are good storytellers in their culture.

And one final question: If this is indeed the case, that community and culture were shaping the tradition as it emerged (a fluidity and flexibility joined with static accuracy), then can we be rightly accused of overusing the word study as a means by which we can understand the biblical text? It appears that our approach to hermeneutics can sometimes push for accuracy beyond that which the tradition expects. And when this happens we are thrust into finding meanings which are not necessarily central to the text itself. (We find too much significance in the trees because we have lost sight of the forest.) Further, we could also consider the study of Greek for what was originally preserved in Aramaic (a point which may need a bit more discussion than Dunn included in Chapter 8).

I say this not to get rid of word studies, they can be of great importance for biblical interpretation. My point is that we rather seek to discover the tradition as it emerged and enter into the world of the first century church when trying to get at their preservation work. Otherwise we are imposing a foreign way of thought upon their words - or, we could say, adding to the words given to us. Are we over-doing-it with the word studies?

Tools, but not the ultimate road to full and final meaning.

1 Corinthians 13:11 (sort of . . .)

New Yorker Cartoon

(probably copyrighted and such)

exposé plus 10

Over the past few weeks my wife has been home on maternity leave, while we welcome in our daughter who was born on May 1. Something which I have noticed from having a newborn around the house is the amount of time sitting and holding. And this leaves not much opportunity to do other things. So inevitably you find yourself planted in front of the television until you are directed to somewhere else by this tiny person who is controlling your house.

My wife ran into a marathon of Jon and Kate Plus 8 - the ongoing documentary style program of a family with 8-year-old twins and 5-year-old sextuplets. This family has reached the point of superstardom in the evangelical subculture of North America, and has gained much attention from other media as well. But their lives have been nothing like the last few weeks, with allegations that (both) Jon and Kate were cheating on each other and that their family is a shame and quickly heading to disaster. I have no idea what their family situation is like, I only have seen what the producers want the public to see in thirty minute segments designed to get an audience. And, frankly, that should put a lid on all of the criticism and condemnation - not to mention the acclamation and adoration - which has been thrust upon them.

Julie Vermeer Elliott has posted a very interesting article which provides a similar perspective at Christianity Today. The issues which she raises point more toward the evangelical subculture than the Gosselin family. As well they should. For too long Christians have allowed their morals and values to be shaped by things which are popular and passive rather than spiritual and demanding. Television is the last place where we should be looking for examples of ethics and morality. Yet that is what we have done, and now many people are left scratching their heads, vainly tuning in for comfort, and disillusioned by the inevitable.

One could charge the Gosselins with the axiom: this is what they chose for themselves. Yes, it is. But for evangelicals, this is what we have chosen for ourselves - to allow a televised family to be the shining example of morality rather than asserting the Word of God as the full revelation of redemption. The gospel only fails when God's people fail to live it. So, let the chips fall where they may with the Gosselins - I am not writing this to make judgments about them or their choices. We do not have adequate information to judge their behavior, especially when our information is packaged to appease and attract. Rather, this is an exposé of the condition of the evangelical church . . . a sad reality indeed.

jesus and the sabbath (review of Meier, v4)

John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew (v. 4): Law and Love (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009).

Because I had never taken the time to catch up with John Meier's multi-volume work on the historical Jesus, I took the last few weeks (in preparation for his fourth volume) to read through the previous three. For the most part this was new territory, though I had read bits and pieces depending on my particular research needs. So, in what follows I admit at the outset that I might indeed be a bit "Meiered-out" and will try my best not to let any critique arise from sheer fatigue.

I enjoyed the first volume, and much of the second. The third volume had the most promise for my interests, but didn't seem to deliver much at all. The fourth will fall somewhere in the middle. And as I worked through this examination of Jesus I couldn't help but notice that Meier was somehow rubbing me the wrong way, though I had a difficult time placing my finger on the problem. When I asked the opinion of a certain friend of mine, he mentioned that he thought that Meier's biggest problem was that he simply lacked 'historical imagination.' This is the critique for which I had been searching, and it aptly summarizes my own feelings which I was finding difficulty in expressing. Rather than try to match the breadth of this work point-by-point, I want to make a few brief comments regarding "Chapter 34: Jesus and the Sabbath" and allow this to speak for my thoughts on his work as a whole.

Let me first say that I appreciate Meier's detailed and methodical approach to the historical Jesus. His is an exhaustive approach, with the data that he selects, and serves the work of all Questers well regardless of one's level of acceptance with Meier's conclusions.

But to claim that Meier lacks historical imagination is simply this: if he does not readily understand a passage (or its telling, inclusion, redaction) he will mostly dismiss it as inauthentic. In other words, if something doesn't sound like a first century rabbi then it probably cannot be traced back to the historical Jesus. This is frustrating when so much of this appears to be assumed rather than reasoned in the text, which should have enough space to include actual interaction with those who claim otherwise. The other reason why this is a problem is that A Marginal Jew as a whole is built on investigations which use the 'criterion of dissimilarity' as foundational to historical inquiry. That is to say, sometimes something that doesn't sound like a first-century rabbi means that it probably is connected to the historical Jesus. Unfortunately this cannot swing both ways without further explanation, which I feel is missing from the arguments.

Another bit to understand when reading through Meier is that while some of his historical method(s) are quite questionable in practice (it appears that some texts have already been assumed inauthentic before given a chance in the discussion), is that about once or twice in every chapter Meier arrives at some exegesis which is quite brilliant. So there are reasons to read through this work, but so many reasons to be frustrated at the same time.

In capturing the historical Jesus, Meier rightly notes: "The historical Jewish Jesus must be seen as a Jesus immersed in the halakic discussions, debates, and actual practice of 1st-century Palestinian Jews" (267 emphasis in original). Such a statement captures the need for pastors and theologians to get the context right when approaching Jesus. But the remainder of the chapter seems preoccupied with 1) Jesus' "misinterpretation" of 1 Sam 21:2-10, and 2) Jesus' teachings about the Sabbath not being like anything which a first-century rabbi would have taught (thus inauthentic). And these latter two discussions are done so in the vacuum of assumption.

At the end of it one might be left to wonder if so much of what Jesus said and did could not have been unlike the teachers and leaders of first-century Israel, then why on earth was he regarded as something unlike anything Israel had ever seen before? Regarding the narratives which concern Jesus and the Sabbath, Meier asserts: "Not one narrative can survive close scrutiny" (295). Perhaps because they have not been given much of a chance.

I would recommend this series overall, and believe that one can learn a bit about the historical Jesus and christology from them. But amazingly little from the amount of work required to read through his material. I suppose Meier is debunking the gospels and reconstructing an historical Jesus. But, to what end?

[N.B., The final paragraph of volume four references the 'next volume' (658), making this single-volume-work-turned-three-volume-work-turned-four-volume-work now turned into a five volume examination. May God have mercy on us all.]