JB_Fidei_Defensor's Xanga

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Wed, 07 May 2008 13:30:05 GMT

"God has deliberately given the Torah to be the means of concentrating the sin of humankind in one place, namely, in his people, Israel--in order that it might then be concentrated yet further, drawn together on to Israel's representative, the Messiah--in order that it might there be dealt with once and for all."

--N. T. Wright (Climax of the Covenant, p. 196)

Gratia vobis et pax a Deo Patre et Domino nostro Iesu Christo.

Big exam week. I'm completing finals these days, and although I look forward greatly to the impending liberation, saying temporary farewells to many of my friends is proving to be rather difficult. Some really great people 'round these parts.

I've finished reading N. T. Wright's The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. It was... amazing. I can't say I agreed with everything Wright said, but he was exceptionally persuasive on most issues, and he presents a perspective that, from the Pauline literature, exegetes Paul's extremely nuanced position on the Torah and displays it fairly cogently. I can't say that I fully understand all of the absurdly fine nuances involved... but this should definitely hold me over until Paul and the Justice of God gets released. In the meantime, I've also completed George Nickelsburg's Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity. I don't actually have much left to read up here; I've completed virtually everything in this subset of my personal library. I've been working on Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy on and off since last week; I'd say I'm presently about halfway through. I'm also starting to read Ben Witherington III's John's Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel. The only other thing I have here is The Nag Hammadi Library, and I have enough of a headache these days without trying to sort through hundreds of pages of extremely fragmentary, largely incoherent Gnostic tractates. I suspect that, after the semester's over, I'll have ten days of intense reading from my home stash before I depart for China. (I'm leaving on the 17th, if I recall correctly, and I'm absolutely psyched.) While there, I intend to read the Dead Sea Scrolls (specifically, Geza Vermes' The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English) and Craig Keener's A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. During the intervening time, I'm not sure exactly what I'll tackle. I might see if I can find my copy of Gustaf Aulen's Christus Victor, that might make a nice read. If I'm feeling a tad masochistic, I might set myself to the task of getting through Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, now that I have a copy, or maybe the thinner but hopefully more intelligent The Case Against Christianity by Michael Martin. I'll save the other, as well as Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, until after my return. I might conceivably attempt to get through Luis de Molina's On Divine Foreknowledge... but I'm not yet entirely sure.

And, of course, I'll be wanting to read through the manuscript of J. P. Holding's Shattering the Christ Myth: Did Jesus Not Exist?. It's coming along quite well. The afterword is very brief, and there's a foreword by Mike Licona. Even if each page in the manuscript corresponds to just one page in the publication, it should still come to over 400 pages. Speaking of this book, I suspect I'm Tekton's unofficial Zeitgeist guy; from the looks of things, JPH will be deferring people with questions relating to Zeitgeist to me. I've already aided one inquirer to the fellow's satisfaction, so it seems.

On another note, I panicked a few nights ago when I feared that I'd accidentally violated my Nazirite vow... by eating Froot Loops. Nonetheless, after an extended investigation, all parties present unanimously affirmed their belief that the cereal lacks any substantial involvement of actual grape products, so it looks like I'm safe for now. Granted, I despise what's become of my hair--especially these blasted bangs--but at least my beard is interesting enough for me to conjecture that I may just keep it.

The past couple days, I've finally had an opportunity to get started on a project of mine that I've been contemplating for a few weeks now. It is, essentially, to be an anthology of all the ancient references I can find to Melchizedek (tentative title: A Melchizedek Reader?). It's coming fairly well, about 20 pages thus far, and that's without any commentary. But I still need to get my hands on the requisite Talmudic selections, so I'll be putting it on hold for a bit, I suppose. I don't expect to have the Talmud in my hands any time soon.

Sunday night, some of the folks from my Bible study gathered together to finish up Hebrews. It was a great time, and not without the occasional bit of madness. E.g.:

JB: Okay, bonus points to anyone who remembers where the burning coal imagery is found in the Bible.
Dave: Ezekiel?
JB: No. Next person.
Rob: Isaiah?
JB: Yes, now who knows which chapter?
Person 1: 2?
JB: No.
Person 2: 4?
JB: No, try adding those together.
Rob: 7!
Ryan: Rob! God is a consuming fire!

Stumbling around YouTube, I finally happened upon my favorite song:

Next year will be... an active time. Some friends of mine and I are founding a group on campus that, with good fortune, will take some of the unnecessary burdens off of the Wednesday night service, which has for several years been weighed down with things that, quite frankly, belong elsewhere. And so this new group, God willing, will be able to take some of the weight from that and serve as an open discussion forum and an outreach tool. My vision for it is the sort of thing that can take potentially controversial issues and deal with them in civility and respect while fostering both intellectual and spiritual growth within the Christian community and provide an opportunity for honest and intelligent interaction with the 'outside'. This would thus fulfill a vital role that, regrettably, is largely vacant at present. And I want to make sure that everyone has a voice, that all perspectives willing to come to the table are fairly represented and able to gain a fair hearing. For example: it's been done before, but I can easily foresee, sometime next year, having a night to deal with "Homosexuality, the Bible, and Contemporary Relevance". I can all but guarantee that there's no risk of something like that ending up as anything remotely like an 'echo room'. Another night, more inwardly directed, might attempt to grapple somehow with the issue of the Torah from a Christian perspective. Yet another night might attempt to host a brief formal debate on, say, the existence of God, with a Q&A afterwards. These are the sorts of things that are bound to gain a decent audience at a place like this. Hopefully, what will come out of it all is that Christianity is not some relic of an outdated past but a viable intellectual option capable of critically engaging the contemporary world, and hopefully this will prove to be an avenue for dealing with the obstacles that separate many from the Christian faith. We would hopefully also have more open nights, where the topic of discussion can be directed by the group as a whole, and perhaps video clips to spark discussion (I know that at the Wednesday night services this past year, we've occasionally used some NOOMA videos; this group seems a better placement for that). Who knows, maybe even work on putting together some kind of performance? For some time now, the idea's been buzzing around in my head to rework the Book of Job into a suitable stage dialogue. (I'm currently working on writing it up.)

Thoughts?

Moving right along: In my previous post, I offered a rather critical perspective on the slant imposed on the data in my New Testament literature course. In reply, a classmate offered these remarks, to which I wish to present a brief reply:

my smug attitude has really nothing to do with the Bible itself. I very rarely argue homosexuality as a moral issue. For me, the issue of gay marriage gains power in its stark showing of inequality under the law. I don't often argue homosexuality in the context of the Bible. It's like arguing the morality of Christianity on the basis of the text of the Qur'an for you. However, whether I believe in the literal truth of the Bible as God's word or not, I have a concept of God, and I cannot believe that God would hate any of His children, and that if their hearts are full of love, God would see and understand that. Also, speaking of smug attitudes, perhaps you should recognize your own in defaming a professor who has had much more time to study the subject on which he teaches, whether you agree or not. If you search hard enough, you can find an argument against anything- and I think your treatment of our professor is rough and unfair.

What must be noted is that the majority of what she has said is completely irrelevant to everything I actually said in my post. The problem was not people opposing the traditional Christian perspective on homosexual behavior; rather, it was the poor argumentation being marshaled against the traditional Christian perspective. If one wishes to reject the traditionalist stance, then a mere, "I simply don't accept the biblical view as authoritative" will suffice; offering subpar criticisms (such as pretending that either all of the Levitical regulations apply or none of them do; that sort of overly simplistic hermeneutic cannot compete with, e.g., Webb's 'redemptive hermeneutic'), as was done in class, will not do, and it is this to which I object. It matters now how frequently one does it. Doing so at all is a failing that undermines the smug arrogance of those in the class who gleefully offered these arguments forth as though they mortally wounded the traditional view. As I said before, they might be sufficient to stump the sorts of fundamentalist protesters that our college attracts, but they aren't enough to deal with an informed traditionalist view--and for the class to pretend as though there were such a thing is, quite frankly, an offense to every critical thinker who supports the traditionalist stance. It is, moreover, a caricature to suppose that the traditionalist view entails that "God would hate any of His children". My opponent here should by all rights know better than that, and for her to put this forth is something of a disappointment. The traditionalist view affirms God's love for humanity as a whole, while at the same time labeling homosexual behavior as a deviation from the proper mode of conduct. The two are hardly in opposition, but if my classmate so wishes, she is free to defend her statement. Finally, I must dispute her charge that I've somehow "defamed" our professor. I haven't, nor have I been "unfair". "Rough", perhaps, but academia is far from the land of gumdrops and rainbows. I deny that I have leveled any unwarranted criticisms, and I affirm my right to do so. While my classmate wishes to resort to an argument from authority--our professor has studied extensively and so is therefore exempt from criticism on these fronts--I could likewise respond that my critiques of his views are taken from some of the leading scholars in the field, scholars with decades of study and research under their belts--since my points derive from them, and I have in fact toned down the rhetoric of their criticisms, does this derivative authority make my points similarly immune from criticism? I certainly note that my classmate did not present any counterarguments, but merely offered the claim that anyone can argue against anything. Perhaps, but whether or not the arguments are successful is more to the point. If she wishes to engage the actual issues, she is welcome to do so. I have clearly made my point--clearly enough for most rational, objective individuals to recognize, barring apathy, I would say--that the class did not represent a balanced viewpoint, and that in certain cases the views presented are subject to powerful criticisms that deserve to be voiced to the class. This being the case, I have been given no sufficient reason to retract the content of my prior criticisms, and thus cannot in good conscience do so.

Moving on again: I intend to conclude this post with a series of videos. It's a lengthy interview between Mark Bunker of XenuTV.com ("His words are wise, his face is beard...") and Jason Beghe, an ex-Scientologist celebrity, who here tells the story of his time in Scientology. (Beghe achieved the level of OT V.) Very enlightening series; I note for the sake of some of my readers that Beghe uses a fair bit of profanity. The videos:

Gratia vobis.

Monday, April 28, 2008

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:25:01 GMT

"Turn yourself to me, and have mercy on me, for I am desolate and afflicted. The troubles of my heart have enlarged; bring me out of my distresses! Look on my affliction and my pain, and forgive all my sins."

--Psalm 25:16-18

Gratia vobis et pax a Deo Patre et Domino nostro Iesu Christo.

What a week. What a month. I... don't really care to get into the intricacies of what's been transpiring. Suffice it to say that I've been under some very heavy burdens lately. I doubt, however, that any pain I might feel approximates even a thousandth of what I've dealt out... But as I said, I don't want to discuss the matter. Pray for me, if you're the praying sort. I suppose I've also lately been rather... unpleasant to a number of people, and for that I issue a public apology. I am not one to aggravate during difficult times, I fear, and I may have snapped needlessly at some people.

Shifting gears, there's good news: I finished reading Macrobius' Saturnalia. Extremely boring work. If you aren't intending to dive into ancient literature wholesale, as I am, there are at most five chapters in it that I might recommend. Otherwise, it can be fairly safely skipped by most. Now, however, I'll be free to resume reading the books I set aside for the sake of Saturnalia. I've since gotten through three chapters of Walter Brueggemann's The Word That Redescribes the World: The Bible and Discipleship--and I have to admit that it's a lot better than I first gave it credit for--but I'm chiefly focusing on making progress in N. T. Wright's The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Happily, I've finally gotten through the Christology portion, fascinating as it was, and now I can tackle the subject that excites me more and more each day: the subject of the Law in Paul's thought.

Also, as for J. P. Holding's Shattering the Christ Myth: Did Jesus Not Exist?, things are coming well. The contributors have now been given access to the bulk of the manuscript, and let me tell you, this thing is gonna be amazing. It's a very large book; by my estimate, once it's published, it may well exceed 400 pages, maybe by a considerable amount. And the quality appears excellent. Yes, I know, as a contributor I'm bound to be biased, but let me just recommend that everyone at least look into getting it once it's out. Believe me when I say that it'll be worth it. Anyway, after the semester draws to a close, I intend to review the full manuscript and proofread it; skimming through, I saw a few errors here and there, mostly mishaps involving italics or minor points of grammar.

More good news, I suppose: I somehow managed to win the campus-wide writing competition for the second year in a row; also snagged some honors in the field of mathematics, which came with a gift of membership in the Mathematical Association of America. The $100 I got should help to at least partly pay for the external hard drive I'm getting so that when I go to China, I'll have room on my computer for all the pictures and video footage I'll be taking. I'm also a bit over a third of the way through my Nazirite vow, and for those of you who haven't seen me, yes, my beard's getting a bit on the bushy side, and my hair's longer than ever. I may look like a "hairy beast", as my friend Mary put it, or like one of the Geico cavemen, as my mother quipped, but the general consensus seems to be that the new look isn't so terrible after all.

Furthermore, I'd like to share a few links to which a friend of mine directed me. First, there's the Curious Signs blog, showing slightly quirky signs like the recently posted "That Son-of-a-#$^# Can't Be Trusted!". Second, the blog my friend showed me first and foremost was Literally, A Web Log, devoted to cataloguing severe misuses of the word "literally". We're both partial to the teddy bear that's "literally alive". One can also find a wealth of atrocities against the English language at ShamefulTypos.com. It wouldn't be complete, either, if I didn't include a link to The "Blog" of "Unnecessary" Quotation Marks (title self-explanatory), especially with "The Building Formerly Known as Church", or "Thank 'God'". My friend is rather partial to "3'D'". Then there's another blog, Passive Aggressive Notes. Also, for anyone with an interest in the lmlk seals, another friend of mine pointed me to this site, a great resource. And while I'm giving links, Wednesday I stumbled upon Demon Hunter's "I Have Seen Where It Grows" on YouTube--I don't think I'd ever listened to the song before that, as I'm mostly just familiar with their more recent work--and I was just in awe. Go ahead and click the YouTube link, it's only 3:14 long, and quite worth it in my estimation.

I've met the end of being
My eyes are open wide
I feel myself depleting
And watch my body die
(DIE!!!)
A step to the throne, I stand alone
A vacant mind and a destined home
Engaging the end in a seamless gaze
Like blind I climb through the tortured blaze
Raise me up into white unstained,
Eternity gained, only life remains
Forever the scars have been washed away
Like blood on the brow of a forgotten day

I await the day... and sometimes can't help but sigh and groan within in my impatience.

Next year, since my friend Steve and I will be co-leading a Bible study, I'd like to propose to the group that we work our way through Romans. It's an incredibly deep epistle, of course, but we have some truly great minds there. I hope, over the summer, to do some serious study of the letter. I plan on purchasing a few commentaries on it (as well as the whole New Interpreter's Bible Commentary series, covering the whole Bible with the addition of the Apocrypha) once I have the money, and so I ought to be at least somewhat prepared if we go that route. Speaking of the Bible study, we managed to get through Hebrews 10 this past Tuesday, and I can't wait to tackle Hebrews 11 with them. Had some good continued discussion of the relationship between Christ's sacrifice and the OT sin offerings.

Yesterday morning, since I was finally around campus for a weekend, I had a chance to visit a local church, so at around 8:30 in the morning I set out on my hike (Zion E. C. Church is definitely over a mile from campus, and I compulsively arrive places early). Unfortunately, after getting there, I learned that the brochures for the church in the college's chapel are, well, rather outdated. They haven't had a 9:00 AM service for quite a while; that was moved to 5:45 PM. The 10:30 AM service was still current, though, and so I sat in on a Sunday school class for a while, where for several weeks they've been discussing the subject of Christianity and war. I didn't really have any input to offer, least of all that early in the morning, but it was interesting to hear various thoughts here and there as the class discussed how to live as Christians in a war-ridden world. The service, too, was quite excellent, although my stomach didn't take long in reminding me that I hadn't eaten anything since lunch the preceding day. The subject of the sermon was Christ as the bread of life, with the Scriptural text being John 6:25-35. The pastor was pretty good. Excellent speaker, gave a nice children's lesson near the beginning. I thoroughly enjoyed listening to him. As I observed him work, my mind wandered to thoughts of my own prospective future career in pastoral ministry. I can only hope and pray that I'll do well.

Last week, I had a chance to address my New Testament literature class and demonstrate, contrary to essentially everything we'd been taught for the past several weeks, that the Gospels are not fundamentally midrashic, as John Spong contends. Leading experts on what midrash is know fully well that midrash is primarily a commentary on a Scriptural passage and does not involve the creation of non-literal narratives to embody themes found elsewhere; for Spong and his ilk, however, midrash involves precisely such a creation, such that the Gospels are comprised of ahistorical 'midrashic' tales that take stories from the Old Testament and recast the plot elements into a new story. It was... an enjoyable experience, although I undoubtedly didn't field questions as well as I might have when on my A-game. After speaking for a couple minutes, I fear I tend to feel exceptionally lightheaded and dizzy, and having given blood the preceding day probably didn't help matters. The response to my criticism of Spong came in three basic points:

(a): Spong was addressing a popular audience and so needed a word to describe the phenomenon he had in mind.
(b): The New Testament is, essentially, a commentary on the Old Testament, and is therefore midrashic.
(c): The notion of 'midrash' has changed dramatically over the centuries, even between NT times and the compilation of the Talmud.

I didn't, unfortunately, have a chance to respond in class--we seldom ever do, which does little to help the ever-present problem of a very slanted learning experience (I can only hope that no one in the room actually believes that there's any real semblance of balance in the presentation of the material, because while it could easily be more slanted, it's at a substantial tilt as it is*)--but my response would have followed these lines:

(a): Whether or not Spong was addressing a popular audience, and whether or not he needed a word, the fact remains that he used the wrong word--or, rather, took a word with an existing meaning and then applied it to a phenomenon completely outside of that meaning. If I were to say, "I believe that the Gospel of Mark is a novel", and by "novel" I actually mean Greco-Roman biography, I would be wrong in using the word "novel" that way, and the "popular audience" defense would clearly be erroneous. In much the same way, the "popular audience" defense does not save Spong from the fact that, as N. T. Wright so aptly put it: "Spong apparently does not know what 'midrash' actually is. [...] There is such a thing as 'midrash'; scholars have been studying it, discussing it, and analysing it, for years. Spong seems to be unaware of the most basic results of this study. He has grabbed the word out of the air [and] misunderstands the method itself, and uses this bent tool to make the gospels mean what he wants instead of what they say" (Who Was Jesus?, 71-72). Midrash is simply not what Spong thinks it is, and the fact that the class continued to incorrectly use the term 'midrash' for Spong's idea after learning the truth is, quite frankly, an embarassment to academia.
(b): Unfortunately, the professor did not elaborate much on this point; he instead simply reiterated the claim several times. In what manner the New Testament is a 'commentary', it was not said. Perhaps this is some peculiar new use of the term 'commentary' to correspond with the unorthodox use of 'midrash'. But clearly, in any sensible use of the word, the New Testament is not 'commentary'. The word 'commentary' would better go, perhaps, with some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, although they predominantly use pesher (and even raz-pesher) rather than midrash. The Gospels, while occasionally referencing passages from the OT to illustrate the continuity of the events reported with the sacred traditions of Israel (so as to rebuff charges of insidious novelty), and while occasionally even declaring 'fulfillment' (whatever that might mean within the context of the passage cited), do not often quote Old Testament passages and then use this as a point of departure. The Gospels are not midrash, and the New Testament is not a commentary.
(c): I confess I was rather stunned by this point, and it took a great deal of willpower to restrain myself from objecting then and there. You see, the book from which I had quoted a definition of "midrash" was Richard Longenecker's Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. (I even wrote this title on the blackboard, so all were aware of it.) Emphasis on "apostolic period", as in, the time period in question. Hence, to raise the point that rabbinic midrash, say, might be quite distinct from first-century midrash is to offer nothing of relevance to the question at hand, because the definition given--which wholly subverts Spong's scheme--pertained to the time period at hand and, thus, is the sort of "midrash" which we should seek in the New Testament if we want to know whether or not they incorporate midrash.

That all said, it should be clear why I conclude that the response given was markedly insufficient to salvage Spong's "gospels as midrash" proposal, which had been uncritically accepted in class for weeks, really. I talked to other students afterwards, and the impression seemed to be that the reply given on Spong's behalf came across as perhaps a tad... well, desperate, maybe grasping at straws a bit. Hence, I consider this a victory and can only hope that at least some students in the class gained some perspective from the ordeal.

[* We've read plenty of Spong, far more than the renegade ex-bishop deserves, especially considering he isn't a credentialed scholar, routinely makes sweeping generalizations without even making the effort to offer justification for them, commonly portrays his ideological adversaries as simple-minded, and engages in laughable logical gaffes on a regular basis. We've also had an excerpt from Jim Burklo's Open Christianity; what that contributed to the academic atmosphere of the class is difficult to say, at least if one wishes to focus on positive contributions. There has, further, been one sole entry of "historical Jesus" research presented, and that by Borg. The article further dropped my estimation of Borg's scholarship--while he began by mentioning how important it is to recognize Jesus as Jewish, he spent the remainder of it eschewing Jewish thought and instead analyzed Jesus in the cross-cultural category of "sacred person", after calling Jesus a non-eschatological and non-messianic figure. Justification for those latter two claims, in light of the superb work that's been done in their defense (by, e.g., Wright and others), and the utter incomprehensibility of a historical Jesus without a messianic self-awareness and an eschatological orientation? Nah. Further, we had Dunn's contribution to analysing the Christology of Philippians 2:5-11... but Dunn's analysis is quite outdated by almost three decades now, and furthermore added a great deal of conceptual baggage to Adam-Christology that therefore presented the false impression that Adam-Christology is inherently non-incarnational (it isn't; see Wright's Climax of the Covenant, ch. 3, for an incarnational Adam-Christology in Php 2:5-11). And, of course, one would never know (save for my voice, on the rare occasion that I have opportunity to speak) that many excellent scholars see Wisdom Christology in Paul, in the Synoptic Gospels, even in the so-called Q material (a la Witherington, in his classic examination of Wisdom thought, Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom). We did have, thankfully, a brief article by Bauckham... but only on 2 Peter and Jude. The class would never know that his work on John is so extensive, or that it critically subverts some of the fundamental claims made about the Gospel of John in class (for example, the dichotomy between John 20 and John 21--one of the chapters in Bauckham's Testimony of the Beloved Disciple provides a strong and novel argument for their unity on the basis of features within the text itself, such as careful literary craftsmanship using gematria that can only be discerned when one regards the chapters as a unity). Instead, we get an article analyzing John merely as a "document of faith", and the non-consensus view of the Gospels as other than biographies is often touted--understandable, considering that the professor published a recent book defending that position with respect to Mark, but as Dr. Craig Keener well said, "The current trend, however, is again to recognize the Gospels as ancient biographies" (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 17), and I fear that in the excerpt from the professor's book we were given, I spotted no interaction whatsoever with Burridge's critical study of the subject. I can only hope that that occurs somewhere else within the book. Finally, as for a fringe note, we had Robert Price's chapter from The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave attacking 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 as an interpolation, although the reasoning tends to be rather shoddy and Price is notably at the outer edges of scholarship. Moreover, a great deal of classtime has been spent on the issue of Christianity and homosexuality--and this I can perhaps understand, given that the professor serves as faculty advisor for the campus 'gay rights' group--but I confess that I'm dismayed by the smug arrogance displayed by far too many of those present, as though once anyone gains an awareness of contextual considerations, maintaining a somewhat traditionalist stance on the matter becomes utterly unthinkable. Frankly, anyone with a copy of, say, William Webb's Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (see my review of said book here) could easily knock down the rather poor arguments mustered by some of the folks in that class, esp. re: Leviticus. A suitable argument, perhaps, against the fundamentalist protesters who occasionally 'grace' our campus with their presence, but for many of my peers to pretend that the whole of their opposition is on that level is, well, sheer ignorance. Then, of course, there have been the proposals in class that Paul was a closeted homosexual (to our prof's credit, he noted that this was a relatively weak argument)... or that Judas Iscariot is a fiction invented to demonize Jews... or that Jesus was romantically involved with Mary Magdalene... or myriad other such things. Sigh...]

I'd next like to share my next Psalm-like composition. Actually, I skipped over a few, but this is thematically more suitable for the present time:

My strength is dried up and gone,
And the might of my arm is wasted.
I recline, and do not sleep;
Every thought of my heart is sorrowful.
Why, YHWH, am I forsaken?
Why am I cut off in your sight?
Are you a God of bondage, and not of rescue?
Or of weakness, and not of power?
How long, YHWH, am I to be abandoned?
Why, O Holy One, do you smite my cheek?
My bones are made weary,
And my tongue cannot bear my pains,
Nor can my soul find refuge from my afflictions.
My body clings to the earth,
My life is cast down and unable to rise.
The pangs of death surround me;
Sheol engulfs me in its grasp;
The chains of Sheol ensnare me;
Death has drawn near to my soul.
I am as one of the shades,
Adrift in darkness and useless,
Feeble and handed over into mourning.
I am as one cut off from you,
As those who recall you no longer,
Who sleep in the dust of the earth.
Would that I had not seen the light of day!
For there is but pain in it.
Would that I had not seen the night!
For there is no rest in it.
Your wrath is surely upon me,
And of me they say, "A curse!"
Your anger has swept my feet away,
And your face is hidden from my sight.
Give heed to my prayer, O God of peace!
Answer my outcry, YHWH of Hosts!
Let my lament approach your ears;
Let my sorrows pool at your feet.
Renew me, YHWH!
Spare me, O God!
Send forth your Holy Spirit,
And I will breathe the breath of life;
Cast down your mercy like rain,
And I will stand again, I shall not fall.
Save me, Lord of the earth!
Redeem me, King of the nations!
Unless you cleanse me, I cannot be clean;
Unless you redeem me, I am in chains as death's slave.
Flood my innermost being with living water,
And satisfy my burning thirst,
For as the beasts of the field long after the rivers,
So does my soul long for your favor, YHWH.

Finally, bringing things full-circle, I conclude with a music video:

Gratia vobis.

Friday, April 18, 2008

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:19:30 GMT

"How long, YHWH? Will you forget me forever? How long will you hide your face from me? How long must I bear pain in my soul, and have sorrow in my heart all day long? [...] Consider and answer me, YHWH my God! Give light to my eyes, or I will sleep the sleep of death."

--Psalm 13:1-3

Gratia vobis et pax a Deo Patre et Domino nostro Iesu Christo.

Ahh, how I wish I could say that I've been faring well. But in truth, I've been quite troubled lately. I... cannot escape my thoughts. Nor can I seem to get more than a couple hours of sleep per night. And with all the tasks I've had this week and will continue to have in the next few weeks... well, this isn't good. I'm not sure how well I'd be faring without the support of my friend Joi-Yan. I'm certain, of course, that I'll make it through all of this... but the next few weeks shall not be kind to me.

I'd like to take a moment to compose a little something in the style of the Psalms:

My bones are shattered within me,
     And my life draws near to Sheol;
I have nought but dust for my bread,
     And my flesh is denied water all the day.
Why, YHWH, is your presence gone from me?
    How long, O God, will you conceal your face?
For my soul is a pit of troubles,
    And my cup is the cup of trembling.
For what cause is sorrow my portion?
    And why have the lots fallen into my adversary's lap?
To you I raise my petition,
    In you will I hope,
Though you are silent
    And though you do not speak.
Answer me, YHWH!
    Stand in judgment, God of Gods!
Will you abandon me to the jackals
    Who scoff at your decrees,
Or to the depths of Sheol,
    Wherein there is neither mirth nor feasting,
    Nor joy, nor a lasting name?
YHWH, why are you distant?
    Why do you remove yourself from my heartfelt groans?
For my life is consumed by darkness,
    And the light of my eyes has faded.
Am I to be counted with those who drink
    Your cup of fury, the goblet of wrath?
Or am I to be consigned to the pit,
    To the bowels of darkness?
I am but the dust of the earth
    And a worm of the land,
Yet still I trust that YHWH
    Cares for the sons of men.
Redeem me, you Holy One!
    Incline your ear to my cry!
Arise, YHWH, and sit in judgment;
    Vindicate me in the face of my troubles!
For you are YHWH, the God of Hosts
    And blessed is he who trusts in your strength.
You are not a God of desertion, but of faithfulness,
    And faithful is your name.
You will rise to shine light on all peoples,
    And on your holy mountain will be a feast for all nations,
A feast of choice meats and of fine wines,
    And all who come will buy without cost.
YHWH is the God of provision,
    And his mercy endures for all ages.
He will surely bless the man who walks steadily
    In the path of the wisdom of the words of YHWH.

In other news, I'm rather pleased to say that things are going well with J. P. Holding's upcoming Shattering the Christ-Myth. I finally got around to putting the finishing touches on my chapter ("The Zeitgeist Heist"), and it's now in Holding's possession. I think it was around 38 pages, with over 250 endnotes. Holding's pretty much just doing some editing at this stage, and from here on out, it's largely out of my hands. I highly encourage everyone to keep their eyes peeled for the publication; I'll be sure to make an announcement as soon as I find out.

Another bit of good news: I've been elected as next year's Ministry Team president. Heh... I look forward to becoming more involved, between that and co-leading the Guys' Bible Study with Steve. Speaking of Guys' Bible Study... wow, the last session was pretty explosive. In a good way, I'd like to think. We only had five people there, and for some reason, we got sidetracked onto talking about topics like Reformed theology and the current state of the church. (Shouldn't take much effort to guess that my perspectives were rather negative for both.) Well, I got to talking, and it didn't take too long before I managed to find my way into a full-blown rant, the sort I try to avoid having except in very, very private company. Still, from the looks of things, some of the folks there rather enjoyed listening to me go on and on. Afterwards, I continued to have several hours of extended discussion with my friend Ryan about... well... anything and everything, from traducianism to Molinism to the merits of the Reformation and the issue of praying to the saints. Good times. I was pretty blasted exhausted by the end of it all, but good times.

As for reading material, I started to read George Nickelsburg's Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity, but mostly I've been reading the Saturnalia of Macrobius. Everything but that is pretty much put on hold, since the Saturnalia is from the college library and so is a bit more urgent. It's... a very strange work. Takes place as a dialogue, but with no consistent topic. From etymology to Latin grammar, from solar mythology to jokes, it really has it all. I've only finished the first two of its seven books, but the first one was absolutely massive. A story:

An old soldier who found himself in danger of losing an action at law in which he was the defendant accosted the Emperor in a public place with a request that he would appear for him in court. Augustus at once chose one of his suite to act as counsel and introduced the litigant to him. But the soldier, stripping his sleeve and showing his scars, shouted at the top of his voice: "When you were in danger at Actium, I didn't look for a substitute but I fought for you in person." The emperor blushed, and, fearing to be thought both haughty and ungrateful, appeared in court on the man's behalf. (Saturnalia 2.4.27)

Further--and blame my roommate Chris for showing me this--I can't help but interject this video:

I've been watching it over and over again since he introduced me to it. I find a bizarre amusement in this sort of thing. "Above us, there is nothing above but the stars above!"

Finally, since my "Question of the Post" received no feedback last time, I reiterate it:

In lieu of using the form of a question, I'm going to ask for assorted musings on the significance of the frequent prophetic critiques of idolatry, in terms of theological content and/or contemporary application.

Gratia vobis.

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Sat, 12 Apr 2008 21:12:52 GMT

"What this world needs
Is not another one-hit wonder with an axe to grind,
Another two-bit politician peddling lies,
Another three-ring circus society;
What this world needs
Is not another sign-waving super-saint that's better than you,
Another ear-pleasing candy man afraid of the truth,
Another prophet in an Armani suit;
What this world needs
Is a Savior who will rescue,
A Spirit who will lead,
A Father who will love them
In their time of need.
A Savior who will rescue,
A Spirit who will lead,
A Father who will love them--
That's what this world needs."

--"What This World Needs" by Casting Crowns
(cf. The Altar and the Door)

Gratia vobis et pax a Deo Patre et Domino nostro Iesu Christo.

Greetings and blessings upon you all. It's been... quite the interesting week. The annual school holiday arrived on Wednesday, so classes were cancelled. I got to spend a fair deal of it with my girlfriend, a decent amount of time with my best friend Daniel, and the rest hard at work. Thursday morning, after returning from my duties at the local secondary school, my roommate and I embarked on our travels to a nearby seminary for an open house. (I know, I know--so soon after my trip to the Kingdom Hall.) Of course, we first had to stop to get MapQuest directions (evidently my map wasn't good enough), trekked to the parking lot to snag his pick-up truck, and supplied the gas tank with some contents. But after getting to ETS, it was just a wonderful time. A few speeches/panels, followed by a pizza lunch and a guided tour of the campus that culminated in the library. That's where we noticed some shelves of books for sale reeeeeeeal cheap. I chipped in to help my roommate buy all six volumes of Matthew Henry's classic commentary series, while I myself spent $1 on A Survey of the Old Testament by Andrew Hill and John Walton, Old Testament Commentary Survey by Tremper Longman III, A Layman's Guide to Protestant Theology by William Hordern, and The Evidence for Jesus by R. T. France; I also picked up a free copy of The Concept of God by Ronald Nash. Chris and I finally ended up leaving, after we'd listened to a couple more addresses and socialized a bit with some of the cool folks we'd met there. I have to say, ETS is a pretty awesome place. It's not exactly where I intend to spend my seminary career--my current top choice is still Princeton Theological Seminary--but I know I'll have to take a couple courses at ETS eventually for ordination, and I'm pretty pleased with the idea.

Friday night was sort of a cast party for the Easter drama, held at the chaplain's house. I could've sworn that we were supposed to meet at the chapel first and then head over, so when my friend Joi-Yan and I got there and met my girlfriend, we were the only three there. Eventually I figured that there was a miscommunication, so our trio took the walk to the party, where we found a number of our friends engrossed in what turned out to be an extremely lengthy game of Encore. After a great length of time, the game finally wrapped up, and we watched through the DVD of the performance. It came out pretty well, in the end. Unfortunately, a rather fierce storm lead most of the folks to depart early, and after everything was finished, the chaplain did the rest of us the favor of driving us back to campus. (He also had to put up with Daniel and I giving each other some good-natured ribbing in the back. Heh... when the chaplain asked where to drop Daniel off, I said to drive down the broad road that leads to destruction, and he'll find the place at the last stop.) I then got to spend a fair amount of time hanging out with Joi-Yan and getting to know her better. I may have gotten to bed at 4:30 AM, but I had an awesome time.

Today, my family made the mistake of mentioning that the local used book store was having a rather absurd sale. For the stuff outside, fill an entire bag of books for $4; everything inside, an additional 20% off. I ended up spending around $50, but I got a decent haul. Some things, I got because they looked awesome; others, because they appeared absurdly terrible; and still others, just for the heck of it:

Approaching Hoofbeats: The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse by Billy Graham
At the Table of the Lord by Richard Dobbins
Beginning the Old Testament: Studies in Genesis and Exodus for the General Reader by Erik Routley
The Beginnings of Modern Science: Scientific Writings of the 16th, 17th, and 18th Centuries by Holmes Boynton
The Book of Common Prayer (1944 edition)
The Central Message of the New Testament by Joachim Jeremias
Children of China: Voices from Recent Years by Chin Ann-Ping
The Christ-Centered Marriage: Discovering and Enjoying Your Freedom in Christ Together by Neil Anderson
A book containing both Andrew Murray's With Christ in the School of Prayer and Brother Lawrence's The Practice of the Presence of God
Christian Teachings: Affirmations of Faith for Lay People by Martin Heinecken
Crossing the Threshold of Hope by John Paul II
Disappointment with God: Three Questions No One Asks Aloud by Philip Yancey
Experiencing the Passion of Jesus: A Discussion Guide on History's Most Important Event by Lee Strobel and Gary Poole
Fire in the Fireplace: Contemporary Charismatic Renewal by Gary Hummel
Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World
The Free Church and Seductive Culture by Calvin Redekop
The Gift is Already Yours by Edwin Prange
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
God Who Acts: Biblical Theology as Recital by G. Ernest Wright
God, I Don't Understand by Kenneth Boa
God-Man: Our Final Evolution and the Neo-Tech Discovery by Mark Hamilton
The Gospel in Solentiname (Vol. 1), by Ernest Cardenal
Growing Your Soul: Practical Steps to Increase Your Spirituality by Neil Wiseman
Help Thou My Unbelief by Manford George Gutzke
How Black is the Gospel? by Tom Skinner
How to Be Born Again by Billy Graham
How To Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart
In His Steps by Charles Sheldon
Intimate Friendship with God: Through Understanding the Fear of the Lord by Joy Dawson
Interpreting Jesus: Introducing Catholic Theology by Gerald O'Collins
Jesus Means Freedom by Ernst Kasemann
The Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ by James Stewart
The Lost Continent of Mu by James Churchward
Marian Prayer Book
The Moon is Not the Son: A Close Look at the Teachings of Rev. Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church by James Bjornstad
The Near East in History: A 5000-Year Story by Philip Hitti
The New Testament in Current Study by Reginald Fuller
The New Testament in Modern English, translated by J. B. Philips
The New Tolerance: How A Cultural Movement Threatens to Destroy You, Your Faith, and Your Children by Josh McDowell and Bob Hostetler
The Oriental Philosophers: An Introduction by E. W. F. Tomlin
The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware
Paul Among Jews and Gentiles by Krister Stendahl
Peace in the Post-Christian Era by Thomas Merton
Primary Purpose: Making It Hard for People to Go to Hell from Your City by Ted Haggard
The Prophetic Imagination by Walter Brueggemann
Putting It Together in the Parish by James Glasse
Devotional Classics (Quiknotes) by Daniel Partner
The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels by Luke Timothy Johnson
The Refuge by Jim Bakker
Religion in the Secular City: Toward a Postmodern Theology by Harvey Cox
Religions by James Haskins
Reverence for Life by Albert Schweitzer
Right with God by John Blanchard
Rise, Let Us Be on Our Way by John Paul II
Salvation: God's Amazing Plan by Millard Erickson
Secular Humanism: The Most Dangerous Religion in America by Homer Duncan
Serendipity New Testament for Groups
Siddur Maforesh
The Signature of God: Astonishing Biblical Discoveries by Grant Jeffrey
The Sirius Mystery by Robert Temple
The Source of My Strength by Charles Stanley
Spiritual Growth in the Church: Spiritual and Numerical Growth for the Local Parish by Steve Clapp
A System of Christian Ethics by Leander Keyser
A Theology of Proclamation by Dietrich Ritschl
Thy Kingship Come by David Mains
Touchstones: A Daily Meditation for Men
Tough-Minded Faith for Tender-Hearted People by Robert Schuller
Twentieth-Century Religious Thought by John MacQuarrie
A Geocentricity Primer / The Geocentric Bible 3 by Gerardus Bouw
Voltaire by Theodore Bestermann
The Way of the Master: How to Share Your Faith Simply, Effectively, Biblically - The Way Jesus Did by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort
Who Speaks for God? by Jim Wallis
Witness: Empowering the Church Through Worship, Community, and Mission by A. Grace Wenger
Witnessing to Jews by Moishe and Ceil Rosen
3 issues of Theology Today from the late 1990's
14 issues of Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology from the 1970's

At any rate, I just got back from volunteering at Water Street Rescue Mission. Always a blessing to be able to lend a helping hand there. On the way to and fro, I made some decent progress in reading Isaiah; I should be able to finish it at church tomorrow morning. I suspect I'll turn next to Ecclesiastes before finally getting to Jeremiah and Lamentations. After that, perhaps Ezekiel. It's been a while since I went all the way through Ezekiel. I'm still reading Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled by Acharya S (terrible, terrible book...), but I should finish it this weekend. Then I'll be free to return to better things: The Word That Redescribes the World by Walter Brueggemann and The Climax of the Covenant by N. T. Wright. As far as the chapter I'm writing for J. P. Holding's upcoming book Shattering the Christ-Myth goes, things are going pretty well, although the ILL is really slow in getting the last thing I'd like before I send it off to JPH. Either that, or I only dreamed that I placed the request.

In my last post, I clarified my prior question about justification by faith by asking about justification itself. And ah! here the matter became confusing. We can speak with ease about what it means to be justified by faith, or so we seem to think; but faced with a challenge as to what justification is, in and of itself, the realization of ignorance sets in quite quickly. I had a very excellent conversation about this, as well as about free will and predestination, with my dear friend Ryan a few days ago. I currently see little good reason to disagree with the notion of justification that N. T. Wright sees in Paul: namely, that justification is more or less God's declaration that one is "in the right" and therefore within the bounds of his people. Hence, justification may be both present and future. The emphasis, further, of justification by faith is that in the present, the advance verdict is proclaimed for all those who have faith, the defining marker of God's people--that is, in contrast to upholding the ethnic regulations of the Torah, which are not to be imposed as somehow binding upon Gentiles, who are (like Judeans) justified in the present by faith, not by the Torah. Awareness of this controlling dimension of Pauline thought, further, enables theologians to grapple more suitably with election: the key issue is that no ethnic arrogance can presume to deny God the capacity to elect Gentile as well as Judean.

Moving on from the topic of justification, then, I raise a new Question of the Post... sort of. In lieu of using the form of a question, I'm going to ask for assorted musings on the significance of the frequent prophetic critiques of idolatry, in terms of theological content and/or contemporary application. A few of my thoughts will accompany the next post.

Gratia vobis.

Sunday, April 06, 2008

Sun, 06 Apr 2008 19:50:19 GMT

"Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in him."

--Psalm 2:12

Gratia vobis et pax a Deo Patre et Domino nostro Iesu Christo.

Been a little bit since I last posted, I guess. I'm doing pretty well today, to tell the truth. It's a strange feeling. Last Tuesday began very... poorly. A year since the start of one of the worst times in my life, and the morning began by flooding my mind with nightmarish memories and depictions. Still, I eventually shook off the worst of it and pressed forward. Tuesday night Bible study was, well... empty. Very empty. Just a couple people showed up, and then my friend Steve made the mistake of leaving his wallet on the floor when he left to go to the bathroom. On April Fool's Day. Yeeeeah... we dispersed the contents around the room, mostly in his Bible, and then after he returned and we were searching for passages to discuss, I kept bringing up locations where we'd hid his stuff. Fortunately, Steve was a bit slow that night, and it took him forever to catch on. He also fell for it when Ryan suggested we discuss Romans 17. (Hint: There is no such chapter.) Fun night. We ended up studying the genealogy of Jesus from Luke 3 (mostly laughing at the funny names), and then just shared stories, especially after my roommate Chris appeared to tell various tales. (He has... many stories. I'll leave it at that.)

I've continued to work diligently on writing up that chapter for Holding's upcoming book. Things are progressing nicely, though I still have quite a bit of work to do. The chapter's around 36 pages long so far, with 200 endnotes. I'm being quite... thorough. And also finding a lot of material in Acharya S's Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled, which is thankfully not as terrible as was The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold. (For the time being, I've put Walter Brueggemann's The Word That Redescribes the World: The Bible and Discipleship and N. T. Wright's The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology on the back burner. I've finished Marcel Detienne's Dionysos Slain and M. J. Vermaseren's Cybele and Attis: The Myth and the Cult.) Needless to say, I've spent much time hunting down arcane references. And I spent Friday taking all my parenthetical citations and plopping them in special format between paragraphs, just like Holding asked... and then like an hour later I get a message from him asking to have everything in endnotes, because he forgot what he'd originally requested. So, I spent my Friday night taking care of that. I expect to spend a lot of time in the coming week on this project.

Also, I owe some people responses over at ARU's site, but I'm not going to have much time for a while, so I'd appreciate it if somebody could bother me about it every now and then so that I won't forget.

Today at church, quite a number of people complimented me on my beard. It'd been a couple of weeks since they'd last seen me back home, so it's a fair bit longer now. It'll be sure to keep growing for the duration of my Nazirite vow, and I think there's a good chance that I may decide at the end of it all that I enjoy having long hair and a beard; I might just end up keeping the look (even though my family thinks I look like one of the Geico cavemen). After church, my best friend Daniel dropped by, and we embarked on... well, it turned out to be quite an adventure of a road trip, considering how navigationally impaired we both are. We discussed a variety of things during the course of it, ranging from N. T. Wright to career plans to interpretations of Romans. But we finally made our way to the nearest Kingdom Hall just in time for the Jehovah's Witnesses' meeting. Hence, having paid a visit, I can now give some reflections. First of all, everyone was extremely warm and friendly. Frankly, it quite nearly made me ashamed at how cold and impersonal even my own church seems in comparison--and there are very many loving, outgoing folks in my congregation. Of course, the JWs were few in number--83 folks were in attendance today--and it was quite clear that neither Daniel nor myself were from among their number. I'd brought my New World Translation; Daniel didn't have anything. After being greeted by at least ten people and engaged in conversation, we found some available seats. Finally, it was time for the weekly 'Bible talk', delivered by a JW whom I'll call "Uriah", even though that isn't anywhere close to his actual name. Uriah, as it happens, was the JW who had for a long time been visiting me sporadically, and who had extended the invitation for today's talk. He did a very excellent job with the speech, which really wasn't terribly objectionable. It began, though, in an unexpected way. To paraphrase: "You remember the good old days? Our grandparents remember the good old days too, and so do our parents, but they're an entirely different set of good old days? So how can they all be the good old days? Well, the world keeps getting worse and worse." The talk went on to highlight five major areas in which all human governments inevitably fail but in which Jesus succeeds, with illustrations from the Scriptures. There was even a bit of democracy-bashing, the sort Daniel and I were unused to in church. Of course, the both of us are more-or-less monarchists, of a sort, so we were fairly pleased. There was also an interesting point at which it was said (to paraphrase, perhaps): "This isn't true just because I'm saying it. This isn't true just because the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is saying it. It's true because the Bible says it." (Of course, the verse in question was actually a quotation from Satan during Jesus' temptation in the wilderness, which made me laugh a bit inside.)

Anyway, after the Bible talk came the first hymn (they would've called it a 'song'), #172 in the hymnal Sing Praise to Jehovah. Daniel and I both looked around for such a book, but neither of us could find one; evidently, the JWs each have their own. The woman in front of us, thankfully, was kind enough to let us borrow hers, while she shared with her husband. The hymn was actually very good. Better, in my personal opinion, than a lot of the songs from my church. The Scriptural theme of the song was Psalm 2. After this came... well, a curious thing for which I'm not sure I have a name. Each week, evidently, they go over an article in the latest issue of The Watchtower. This week's was about Jesus as the "greatest missionary", being sent from heaven by Jehovah to compassionately teach the people. The majority of the article was unobjectionable, although one could see beneath the surface a notion of Christ as a created being, as the archangel Michael. The Kingdom Hall meetings use a study edition of The Watchtower, with numbered paragraphs and questions in footnotes. One man read a paragraph or two at a time; then he stopped and another man in the "pulpit" area asked the question from the footnotes, and called on people who raised their hands. Two men took microphones around to everyone, and often quite a bit of time was spent on each question. It was... well, a tad boring. The questions were very, very simple, sometimes capable of being answered perfectly in a single word, and the people answering often seemed to use the same words as in the paragraph, as if it were soaking into them. Very strange. 'Course, then I was struck by a frightening thought: most Bible studies I've seen have been even less intelligent than the discussion we found there. Also, on one page of the article, there was a picture of Jesus teaching a crowd, and we paused to analyze the facial expressions of the people. As it turns out, Daniel and I both have interpretive instincts very contrary to what the JWs had. The drawing rather amused me, though. Finally, after working through the rest of the article, there was one last song (#72) which included a reference to us all going door-to-door witnessing. Well, that was a tad awkward... but I think that the whole experience, especially those songs, made me really understand better what life might be like through JW eyes. There finally came a prayer, led by 'Uriah', and finally we were dismissed. There was much more conversation to come, of course; probably about six or seven other people introduced themselves to us, and we got to talk to folks for a while before finally making our way to Uriah and chatting with him a bit. He'll be keeping in touch, and hopefully we'll get to start having more study-oriented meetings after June begins. I found that a few key words kept cropping up as distinctives, and naturally so: "Jehovah". "Kingdom". "Theocracy." "Organization." "Governing Body." "Training." "Christendom", once. And in place of the typical "accept Christ as your personal savior" bit that most modern churches churn out, there was a replacement phrase along the lines of "accept Jesus as the reigning king". A superior phrasing, if you ask me. The songs also refused to simply gloss over notions of divine judgment; such was quite clearly retained, even if perhaps a bit disturbing at times in connection with the soft, almost cheery tune of the music itself. The JWs were quite obviously eager to have Daniel and myself return to visit again sometime, preferably soon. And I do think that, someday, I would enjoy visiting on another Sunday. It was... a very different experience. One both foreign and familiar, alien and human. Seeing everyone milling about in conversation, people of all ages, even little children darting around in the aisles under the affectionate watch of adults... it was a very human sort of thing, one that could take place in any church, one that's at home in any church. The hymns were beautiful, the prayers were exalted and--I dare say--a bit more Christocentric than those in many Trinity-affirming congregations. The speech was unobjectionable, and--aside from a few overly negative aspersions on political participation--would have actually made a rather suitable sermon in any church, better than many I've heard. In the course of the service, I could definitely sense a perception of superiority over "Christendom". Christendom's agents are lazy and short on faith, but Jehovah's Witnesses give their own time and work to spread the gospel, paying for their own transportation and facing apathy and prejudice on a regular basis. Christendom's missionaries get involved in local politics and lose sight of the gospel, but Jehovah's Witnesses are genuinely focused on serving God alone and spreading nothing but the good news. That sort of thing.

At any rate, Daniel and I had quite the experience once we left there, headed back to my house, grabbed my stuff, and headed back up to college. For one, Daniel kept missing the roads we were supposed to take, and sometimes we'd have to spend five minutes going the wrong way and having no clue. We actually got into a bit of an accident on the way back. Some mentally defective bloke decided to make a three-point turn in the 55-mph section of a major road, and when we swerved to avoid him, we realized that there was a car parked at the side of the road, so we were basically forced to drive off the road and, well, into a tree. Daniel's car only got a minor dent, and I was pretty much laughing hysterically, but that's because I'm insane. We eventually made it to the right town in one piece, stopped to split a large pizza at the local pizza shop (ran into our friend Alyssa there and had to spend some time annoying her, too), and ended at campus. It's good to have a best friend as strange as Daniel.

Finally, courtesy of Abi, I'd like to invite you all to take the "Heresy Quiz". My own results:

You scored as Chalcedon compliant
You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you're not a heretic. You believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man and like us in every respect, apart from sin. Officially approved in 451.

Chalcedon compliant
100%
Apollanarian
50%
Pelagianism
42%
Monophysitism
33%
Nestorianism
25%
Monarchianism
8%
Adoptionist
8%
Albigensianism
0%
Donatism
0%
Socinianism
0%
Modalism
0%
Arianism
0%
Gnosticism
0%
Docetism
0%

It was a pretty interesting exercise. I also find myself amused by these philosophy break-up lines.

The question-of-the-post from last time was about justification by faith, and I got some decent answers... but I must have worded the question poorly, because none of them really hit on what I was looking for. A couple folks focused in on what "faith" means, and why it's relevant... but no one focused in on what "justification" means. So I'd like to conclude this post with another couple questions:

What does "justification" mean? In light of that, what does "justification by faith" mean, and why is it so crucial in Pauline thought?

Gratia vobis.

Friday, March 28, 2008

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:02:03 GMT

"What the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: he condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."

--Romans 8:3-4

Gratia vobis et pax a Deo Patre et Domino nostro Iesu Christo.

It's been far too long since I've blogged here, hasn't it? The past few weeks have been... absurdly hectic. Crazed, in a way. And above all, very stressful. I've already recounted both Z-Day (15 March 2008) and the Holy Week Drama (19 March 2008). Those are two of the key events since my last "real" post, I suppose.

In other news, you may have seen me mention in the Z-Day post that I was not done with my repudiation of Zeitgeist. Well, this turns out to have been quite true, but not at all in the way I expected. In short, don't expect to see a revamped version of my rebuttal. At least, not online. Now, in print, that's another story... Plans are that it will appear as a chapter in J. P. Holding's upcoming book against the "Christ-myth" hypothesis. Needless to say, I was stunned when the proposal was made. But, it certainly is a pleasing turn of events, and should hopefully recommend me to seminaries in a few years. Hence, I've spent the past couple weeks engaged in extensive additional research, rewriting, and reading. I've made a lot of changes, and I sure ain't done yet.

Second, on Easter (or "Resurrection Sunday", if you prefer*), I made the decision to take an oath modeled after the Nazirite vow. I am henceforth prohibited, during the next three months, from cutting my hair, shaving, partaking of grape-derived foods or drinks, contact with human corpses, and anything that strikes me as an excessive breach of purity. In this time, I intend to pursue more ardently my devotion to God and to gain greater focus. Should be an interesting venture, I suppose.

Third, I found myself quite dismayed over the past weekend. As you know, I'm scheduled to visit China for a couple weeks this summer, and I was supposed to spend the last couple days in Lhasa. However, because of the current unrest in Tibet, the decision was made by the ISLP to switch those last few days to Guilin, an exceptionally beautiful but otherwise boring region in which I have little to no interest whatsoever--or, at least, not at the price tag attached to the add-on. Through an extended wrestling match over the phone with a representative of the ISLP, a refund was procured... but at the cost that I will now be finding my own way to and from Beijing, and then traveling between the airport and the hotel once I've arrived in a country whose language I do not speak. I'm sure you can imagine precisely how thrilled I am at such a notion, what with my astonishing navigational skills and absent-minded knack for getting myself into trouble.

Fourth, have I mentioned lately how much I love the "Guys' Bible Study" on my campus? It's one of the few times during the week when I actually feel truly happy, truly comfortable. There's no awkwardness, there's no shame, even the weariness of the week temporarily lifts there. Plus, it's one of the few times when people actually pay attention to what I say. And the conversations we manage to stumble upon? Priceless, whether highly intellectual or merely absurd. It's one of the few places where we can spend a half-hour exploring deep theological questions and, in a matter of seconds, find ourselves comparing the archangel Michael to Chuck Norris. This past Tuesday, since we're working our way through Hebrews, I fulfilled my previous promise to everybody to comb the Dead Sea Scrolls for information about Melchizedek. Well, I carried through, and so I brought everybody a copy of 11Q13 ("The Heavenly Prince Melchizedek"). In essence, for the author Melchizedek was an exalted heavenly figure who leads the forces of good in battle as their commander, who is responsible for saving the covenant people of God from the hand of Satan, for passing judgment on the forces of darkness, and for "forgiving [the people] the wrong-doings of all their iniquities". Oh, and he's also referred to as "Elohim" in an interpretation of Isaiah 52:7. In other words, an incredibly exalted figure, which makes all the more awe-inspiring the comparisons between him and Christ in Hebrews. But before we explored Hebrews, of course, we discussed 11Q13 and Melchizedek for a while, and then I led everyone through an overview of first-century Judaism, attempting to represent different figures in broad terms of current American politics (the Pharisees were the Democrats, followers of Shammai were Clinton-supporters, followers of Hillel were Obama-supporters, the Sadducees were the Republicans, and the Essenes were the Green Party). Let me put it this way: the Bible study started at 8 PM, and around 8:55 is when we finally got around to actually looking at Hebrews. We spent maybe 20 minutes exploring the last part of Hebrews 7, with a quick outline of the distinctions made between the Levitical priesthood and the "priest[hood] after the order of Melchizedek". It was, on the whole, an amazing study. And as it turns out, it looks like my buddy Steve and I will be taking over the reins from Anthony next year. Me, in charge of a Bible study, with a group of peers who can actually think? It's a dream come true...

As far as reading goes, the last time I posed I was reading J. L. Mackie's The Miracle of Theism. It took me ages, but I finally managed to wrap that up. It wasn't nearly as good as I'd figured. Perhaps I just didn't notice it in other circumstances, but when Mackie began to tread on arguments that are more along my lines of expertise, it was quite obvious that his counters were exceptionally limp. I also managed to read through Questioning Q: A Multi-dimensional Critique, edited by Mark Goodacre and Nicholas Perrin. As the title implies, it's a book that, through several different angles, challenges the dominant hypothesis within Gospel scholarship that the "Minor Agreements" between Matthew and Luke are best explained by a common source designated "Q", which can be reconstructed with a decent level of accuracy. Instead, at least several of the contributors prefer the Farrer hypothesis, in which Matthew relies on Mark and Luke relies on both, rather than Matthew and Luke being independently dependent upon Q.

Earlier today, I also finished the next book I was working on: Paul: In Fresh Perspective by N. T. Wright. Easily one of the best books I've ever read, and that's high praise coming from me. But Wright has, once again, earned it. Paul: In Fresh Perspective is a simple but beautiful analysis of the complexity of Pauline thought, explaining it with incredible clarity (well, given the subject) and providing me with much insight that I hadn't previously had. I also, at long last, had a chance to confront Wright's contentious understanding of "justification by faith". And you know what? I agree with him on that, too, as it turns out. Unlike the standard Protestant understanding, Wright's refreshing look at the Pauline doctrine actually makes sense, both as it stands and within the framework of Pauline thought. I highly recommend Paul: In Fresh Perspective. I came out of it enriched, enlightened, and challenged to my very core. In short, the usual reaction to reading N. T. Wright.

Now, though, I'm working on two books side-by-side. The first is Cybele and Attis: The Myth and the Cult, by Maarten J. Vermaseren; the other is Dionysos Slain by Marcel Detienne. The latter is... well... not a great book. The first chapter was rambling, and most of the next couple chapters were barely relevant. For a four-chapter book, that's kinda sub-par. Still, hopefully the remainder of the final chapter will actually dig to the bottom of the famed Orphic tale of Dionysus' death, and will touch upon the real issues. As for Vermaseren, his book focuses mostly on Cybele, which isn't what I'm really looking for, but still, Vermaseren is a gifted scholar, and I can appreciate what I'm learning from his work.

That should, in the big scheme, catch me up on blogging now. In the meantime, answer me this Question of the Post:

What does "justification by faith" mean, and what impact should it have on our thinking?

Gratia vobis.

----------------------------------------------------------------

* Some Christians, I know, object quite heavily to the use of the term "Easter" in reference to the celebration of Christ's resurrection. I appreciate their reasons for deeming "Easter" unsuitable, but I find it curious that those who do so almost universally retain pagan names for the days of the week--and while they might regard it as somehow inconsequential, I remind them that many early Christians vigorously protested the use of terms like "Sunday" in the same manner, and with essentially the same reasons, as they today object to "Easter". Today, however, the days of the week are no longer associated with their names in a pagan fashion, despite the derivation; the same applies to "Easter", and so I see no strong grounds to make such a pointed break with a long-standing tradition on this.