Living by faith

If you have not known and experienced God in ways you cannot deny, I would suggest that you are not living in a needy and dependent way. God delights to show up when His children call on His name and when they are trusting fully in Him to come through, whether that is in relationships, in battling sin, in strength to make sacrifices, or in endurance to be faithful in daily life.—Forgotten God, pages 151-152

<idle musing>
That's the final snippet from this book. I'm glad I read it; although there was nothing radically new, Chan is always a refreshing read. He manages to capture the pastoral thrust of scripture in a fresh and new way, challenging us to live in full dependence upon God, via the "forgotten God" of the Holy Spirit. Well worth the time...

Not sure what book I'll be excerpting from next. It might be something a bit more scholarly, but we'll see. Lately the scholarly stuff I've been reading is mainly linguistics, which doesn't excerpt well—even when it is understandable! : )
</idle musing>

Hang on to your hat!

It snowed here yesterday—about 6 inches or so. It was beautiful coming down; the place looked like a winter wonderland. But then around 4:00 PM the wind started to blow. And blow. And blow some more. By the time we went for our daily 4-mile walk, it was blowing pretty hard and the snow was being whipped around.

By the time we were almost home and turned to face the wind—it was coming from the north—it was a challenge to go up the hill. Once we got home, I checked the weather and they said the wind was 23 MPH with gusts up to 46 MPH. And it sure felt like it.

Later last night, it sounded like the roof was going to be ripped right off the house. Here's what the weather said then:

Yep, gusts up to 50 MPH! I'm glad we weren't out in it. Right now the wind has died down and it seems eerily silent. The straight temperature is -12ºF here in town and -18ºF at the airport. Our high temperature was at midnight; the rest of the day the temperature is supposed to keep dropping...but it sure is beautiful!

Word-for-word

Languages show great variety in terms of the strings of words that they use; that is one of the reasons why word-by-word translation fails so miserably.—Analyzing Syntax, page 5

Another new book started

Well, new to me, anyway. About a year ago now (time flies!), Jim Eisenbraun recommended a book to me and I finally got around to reading it in the last month or so. I'll be excerpting from it for the next few weeks...

No longer can Acts be seen as a simple apologia that articulates Christianity’s harmlessness vis-à-vis Rome. Yet neither is it a direct call for liberations, a kind of theological vision that takes for granted the solidity of preexistent political arrangements. Rather in its attempt to form communities that witness to God’s apocalypse, Luke’s second volume is a highly charged and theologically sophisticated political document that aims at nothing less than the construction of an alternative total way of life—a comprehensive pattern of being—one that runs counter to the life-patterns of the Graeco-Roman world.—World Upside Down, page 4

<idle musing>
That's claiming a lot for the book of Acts. Let's see if he delivers...I am attracted to the fact that he doesn't fall into the current fad of "Anti-Empire" rhetoric. Instead, he addresses the whole of culture, which I think is a more accurate description of the Christian life.

Of course, that might be why it isn't the rage...we might have to question how we live and why we do what we do...an abstract "anti-empire" theme is safer : (

Just an
</idle musing>

The buck stops...over there!

“God rarely gets credit when things are going well, but He often gets the blame when times are tough.”—AHA Student Edition electronic edition

Um, about that sacred-secular split...

One of the main thrusts of the ethic of Jesus is the radicalization of an ethic so that we live consistently, from the so-called “private” to the “public” spheres. There is for Jesus no distinction between a secular life and spiritual life: we are to follow him. His ethic is an Ethic from Beyond.— Sermon on the Mount, pages 128-129

Prophets of Baal or of YHWH?

Even in our daily living we can look more like the prophets of Baal as we live our lives, running about in a frenzy, trying to fix our problems, not stopping long enough to call on the power of God Almighty. Yet as children of God, we are not called to trust in our idols or ourselves. We are made to be like Elijah, who did not question whether God would show His face that day. He prayed and asked for help, and God sent down fire from heaven in response.—Forgotten God, page 145

<idle musing>
Indeed. Running around like everything depends on us. We're more like Martha than Mary. After all, if we don't do it, it won't get done—or at least won't get done right!

We are deeply flawed. Entirely in se curvatus (curved in on ourselves) as the reformers said. The only solution is to throw ourselves entirely on God in total reliance on his empowering presence through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Then we can call on God the way Elijah did. And we can watch the real fire fall from heaven instead of the frenzy of empty activity that passes for Christianity far too often.
</idle musing>

Step two

“Our society is expert in blaming others for our own stupid choices. Instead of being brutally honest with ourselves, most of us want to place the blame on someone else. The word for this is projection. Denial is refusing to admit the reality of an unpleasant fact, but projection is admitting reality without taking responsibility. We just blame someone else.”—AHA Student Edition electronic edition

<idle musing>
This is step two of making an "AHA" moment stick in our lives. You can see the other two steps here.
</idle musing>

Turning the other cheek

“If anyone slaps you…”: For a person to be slapped on the right cheek apparently assumes being hit by a person facing them with a backhanded slap (or a left-handed person striking a person with an open hand). The backhanded slap is a gross insult to the dignity of a person. This principle of the later rabbinic rulings probably reflects the social customs at work in first-century Galilee, and here is the principle: “Everything is in accord with ones station [status].” This means, “if he smacked him, he pays him two hundred zuz.” But, the text continues, “if it is with the back of the hand, he pays him four hundred zuz (Mishnah Bab Qamma 8:6, italics added [by McKnight]). Instead of striking back, which would be both justifiable and equal retribution and a part of Moses’ “no mercy” law, Jesus creates an almost laughable scene of grace: “turn to them the other cheek also.” This is how Jesus did respond (Matt 26:67).— Sermon on the Mount, page 127

<idle musing>
So it is even more demeaning and radical a call than we thought! But that makes sense, doesn't it? God demeans himself to become man; why can't we demean ourselves to become a true servant?
</idle musing>

Life in the Spirit?

I think we all could agree that living “according to our sinful flesh” is not what is intended for us as children of God. Yet even so, we often choose to face life’s issues and circumstances in exactly the same way as someone without the Spirit of God. We worry, strive, and grieve no differently than unbelievers. While it is true that we are humans like everyone else, it is also true that we are humans with the Spirit of God dwelling in us. Yet, whether consciously or not, we essentially say to God, “I know You raised Christ from the dead; but the fact is my problems are just too much for You and I need to deal with them by myself.”—Forgotten God, page 145

<idle musing>
In a word, we are practicing atheists. OK, that was 4 words, but it is true. We don't believe God. We think we can do better—or that he doesn't care enough to work in our lives. Either way, we are just as bad as unbelievers because we are unbelievers!

There's a reason revival always has to start with the church—the church needs to be converted before it can convert the world...Lord, may this year see a true revival. May we see you in our lives in a real way on a daily, moment-by-moment basis!
</idle musing>

Thought for a New Year's Eve

Sinners can be easily romanticized as bold, even heroic, rebels. But in reality they are like silly sheep.—Handel's Messiah: Comfort for God's People, pages 113–14

Too honest

We’re willing to lie to ourselves about our reality and about what we believe if it means we can have something that we want.—AHA Student Edition electronic edition

<idle musing>
He's definitely being too honest here, isn't he? We are great deceivers—especially of ourselves. That's why his second point is to be brutally honest with ourselves. And mind you, we can't even get there without the prompting of the Holy Spirit (which is his first point).
</idle musing>

I dare you

So I would urge churches to ramp up their teachings on the nature of covenant love and the sacredness of marriage. Churches must have the courage to teach that divorce is never the will of God, and that divorce is only permitted because of the hard-heartedness of humans. These are the words of Jesus, and we do not have the option of toning them down (5:17–20) or pretending they don’t exist.— Sermon on the Mount, page 105

<idle musing>
I dare you to preach/teach/share that! If you do, let me know the responses you get...
</idle musing>

What do you remember?

We can have a great time singing and dancing ourselves into a frenzy. But at the end of it, fire doesn’t come down from heaven. People leave talking about the people who led rather than the power of God.—Forgotten God, page 144

<idle musing>
Indeed! When you walk out of a "service" what do you recall? What/whom are you talking about? Do you live differently as a result of that time? Or does the feeling fade and you go back to living as you did before?

That doesn't mean that God can't use those times of "worship." It just means that we need to realize that emotional experiences don't necessarily result in transformed lives. Transformation is a lot harder than dancing and singing. It requires saying yes to God and no to self on a moment-by-moment basis. It means not clicking on that link. It means not opening that cupboard door for one more (probably unneeded) snack. It means many little decisions that result in a life given over to God instead of self..."worship" is so much easier. But if it doesn't result in a transformed life, it isn't really worship; it's just an emotional high.
</idle musing>

If you are into New Year's resolutions

Then maybe you should consider this one

A 2012 Harvard University research study revealed that sharing personal information about ourselves is an intrinsically rewarding activity targeting the ‘nucleas accumbens’ area of the brain. This is the very same region of the brain that lights up when cocaine or other illicit drugs are digested. In a separate report, The University of Chicago determined that social media cravings rank higher, and are harder to resist than nicotine cravings. “If you look at people in a restaurant, nobody is having conversations anymore. They’re sitting at dinner looking at their phones because their brains are so addicted to it.” And why? Because we are both bent toward narcissism and bored with reality. ‘Like’ me, notice me, help me escape the here and now. The constant contact from status updates, ‘favorites’, re-tweets, and ‘likes’ attempts to fill the vacuum in our soul. But in reality, we are more isolated, alone and distracted than ever before. “This media we call social is anything but.”

<idle musing>
They also note that "The average American spends over 11 hours a day online, three of those hours spent on social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram." Eleven hours! When do they get anything else done?

It makes me wonder how they define "online." Does being online include being connected while doing other work? If that is the case, then I can understand it, but I would dispute the definition "online" in that case.

For example, while I am editing, I usually have a few windows open in my browser for checking bibliographical references—WorldCat, JSTOR, Google books, etc. I also have e-mail on, but don't check it unless I'm expecting an answer to a question. If I subscribed to Chicago Manual of Style or Merriam-Webster, then those would be open, too; currently I use the hard copy version of those (I really do prefer physical books).

All those thoughts aside, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to examine how we use our time. Maybe the Holy Spirit is prompting some of us to cut out at least some of our time surfing, browsing, tweeting, Facebooking, or posting pictures. Maybe God really is interested in who we really are instead of whom we want people to think we are. Maybe. Actually, that last one isn't a maybe. Maybe instead he's calling some of us to be more honest about who we are while we are online...I actually think that might even be harder, as it calls us to be honest with ourselves first.
</idle musing>

The power of the light

“When we’re honest with God about our sins, He forgives us. But when we are honest with other people, we find healing. What does healing mean? For one, confessing our sin to another person holds us accountable and helps us find the encouragement we need to break the cycle of our struggle. When we take what we’ve kept in the dark and drag it into the light, we find that it loses much of its power over us.”—AHA Student Edition electronic edition

<idle musing>
Amen and amen! Bringing it into the light defuses its power. But that makes sense, doesn't it? While it is in the dark, it can seem huge; there's no real definition to it while it's hiding in the closet. It could be as big as Leviathan—of course, it is more likely to be about as big as a chihuahua is, but like a chihuahua it barks and barks, making you think it is huge.
</idle musing>

Marriage

Divorce was not part of the Creator’s design, as Jesus will state up-front in Matthew 19:8–9. Moses only permitted divorce because the Israelites had hard hearts and didn’t want to bear the full burden of God’s holy law. In fact, Jesus believes Genesis 1–2 comprehends marriage as an inviolable union created by God—the man and the woman become “one flesh” (19:5–6). For Jesus marriage is about “with-ness” and the perichoretic indwelling of one another.— Sermon on the Mount, page 97 (emphasis original)

<idle musing>
Still the problem, isn't it? What percentage of divorces are the result of unforgiveness? I suspect a very high percentage. Hardness of heart, I want my own way and you want your own way. After all, isn't marriage about meeting my needs?

If that's your attitude going into marriage, then you are doomed to fail. Marriage is about dying to self, serving the other person because you love them. Not about getting them to serve you to prove that they love you! Oh, I know that sounds backwards. Maybe that's because it is backwards!

Footnote: Yes, I know there are instances of abuse. But Jesus wasn't addressing those here and neither am I. I'm addressing the vast majority of divorces that are the result of selfishness and unforgiveness...

Besides, it's my blog, and I can do what I want! (anyone sense the irony of that statement...)
</idle musing>

But I want a bigger church!

God is not interested in numbers. He cares most about the faithfulness, not the size, of His bride. He cares about whether people are lovers of Him. And while I might be able to get people in the doors of a church or auditorium if I tell enough jokes or use enough visuals, the fact remains that I cannot convince people to be obsessed with Jesus. Perhaps I can talk people into praying a prayer, but I cannot talk anyone into falling in love with Christ. I cannot make someone understand and accept the gift of grace. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. So by every measure that actually counts, I need the Holy Spirit. Desperately.—Forgotten God, page 143

How subjective, really?

[A]spect has nothing inherently to do with temporal sequence, with procedural characteristics of actual situations or of verbs and verb-phrases, or with prominence in discourse. It is instead a matter of viewpoint or focus, which is a rather subjective category, since a speaker may choose to view or portray certain occurrences by one aspect or another without regard to the nature of the occurrence itself. However, fully subjective choices between aspects are not common, since the nature of the occurrence or the procedural character of the verb or verb-phrase can restrict the way an occurrence is viewed by a speaker. In fact, aspect interacts so closely with such features and is so significantly affected by them that no analysis of aspect can be comprehensive without taking into account these interactions.—Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek, page 421

<idle musing>
So ends Fanning's magnum opus on aspect. Lots of good stuff to digest. I probably will be coming back to it in a year or so after I've digested it and read more by others, such as Comrie's Aspect. Unfortunately, because of Oxford's ridiculous pricing, I won't have it on my shelf, but will need to use interlibrary loan again...
</idle musing>

Summary of the Koiné aspect

The two major aspects of NT Greek are the present and the aorist. The present reflects an internal viewpoint concerning the occurrence which focuses on its development or progress and sees the occurrence in regard to the details of its make-up, without beginning or rend in view, while the aorist present an external view of the occurrence in summary, from beginning to end, without regard for its internal make-up. The perfect, on the other hand, is a complex verbal category which, in one point of its basic meaning, shares the aspectual sense of the aorist. It combines three elements in its invariant meaning: the Aktionsart-feature of stative situation, the tense-feature of anteriority, and the aspect of summary viewpoint concerning the occurrence.—Verbal Aspect in New Testament Greek, page 420 (emphasis original)