Sleight of hand

We can say that practice sees what it intends to accomplish, but it does not see the strategies it uses to produce what it actually does accomplish, a new situation. Althusser shows that practice will give an answer to a question that was never posed: the effectiveness of practice is not the resolution of the problematic to which it addresses itself but a complete change in the terms of the problematic, a change it does not see itself make.— Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, page 87

<idle musing>
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Right? We do it all the time; it's self-delusion, but I think it is a sanity play on our part. We can't live with uncertainty, but we can't live with the knowledge that we forced certainty on uncertain circumstances. So we employ ritual (she calls it "practice" here).

Think about it. And let me know if you agree or disagree...after all, this is just an
</idle musing>

Hike in the woods

Well, we went for a hike yesterday to Oberg Mountain. It's about a half hour from us along the lake shore. It was a beautiful drive, the clouds had broken up and the wind had died down. It was crisp, in the low 50s F, just perfect for a fall hike.

As we feared, most of the leaves were on the ground. Of course, that makes for some great leaf-crunching! I've always loved kicking up the leaves in the fall while I walk; I'm almost 60 now, but I still love it! It was still beautiful; there were a few really bright red maples that stood out even more against the mainly bare trees.

If you ever get up here, this is one of the premiere hikes in the fall. Well worth your time.

By the way, it still hasn't frosted here. Got close last night and there was some frost on the shop roof, but the ground was wet but not frozen. I might get another picking of beans yet! And that Delicata squash plant is working hard at maturing those late babies!

A climate of thought

Gramsci proposed that hegemonic ordering of power requires people both to envision and to suppress, to self-censor and to appropriate liberties to themselves. He argued that ruling classes establish dominance not merely through overt mechanisms of control but through a climate of thought to which the oppressed classes subscribe. This theory of ideology suggests what has been called a general "strategy of containment." It also implies what others have made explicit, that ideology is not a disseminated body of ideas but the way in which people live the relationships between themselves and their world, a type of necessary illusion. To maintain and adapt their assumptions about the order of reality persons and groups engage in degrees of self-censorship or misrecognition, as well as legitimization and objectification in the guise of more stable social structures.— Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, page 85

<idle musing>
Indeed! We see this everyday, don't we? The leading pundits (right or left) are continually trying to create a "climate of thought" to which they try to get their followers to subscribe. But as Christians, we should subscribe to none but that of Jesus, enlightened by the Holy Spirit. Sadly, we choose our favorite pundit instead...
</idle musing>

Quick summary/update

It's fall. Definitely fall. We still haven't had a frost, which is extremely unusual. The leaves are at/near peak, but today we had winds that blew a good number of them onto the ground. That's disappointing, because we were/are planning on going for a hike this afternoon to see the leaves. Oh well, it will still be in the woods!

This morning, at the beginning of my ride, I was going up the hill and against the wind. The wind was so strong that it blew me against the curb and almost knocked me over. At the same time, it began misting and was blowing it at me. I considered abandoning the ride, but when I looked up, I saw a complete rainbow! It was beautiful! It restored my perspective, and I fought the wind for 10 miles; it was from the north, so it was against me no matter where I rode. But, hey, it was along the lake; what more could you want?

On the way back, I saw a freighter on the horizon, a sure sign that the wind is strong and the waves are big. They normally stay out in the middle of the lake, where the route is more direct, but when the winds get strong, they move closer to shore for protection. Another sign that fall is here.

The cabins are beginning to slow down; today is the first day we don't have anyone in a place since June, but we still have 3 to clean and tomorrow we have 4 coming in. We're full on the weekend, of course. On the whole, it has been a very busy summer, but we've enjoyed it.

We close on October 26, so I'll be draining the lines and we'll be doing final cleaning for a couple of days then. All the blankets get washed and stored away; the places get a thorough cleaning; all the freezable items, like liquid soaps, detergents, etc., get brought in. And then the cabins get locked up and the windows get screwed shut—we had a window blow open one winter and...well, let's just say it wasn't pretty inside. : (

The garden has been slowing down, although with the unusually warm weather, the beans are blooming, the potatoes are still growing, and I even have a winter squash that thinks it can get a few more squash to mature before frost! We'll see about that.

Maybe I'll even have time to begin some serious reading again real soon, in which case you'll see a bit more activity here, so stay tuned.

Say that again, slowly this time

A fourth characteristic of practice, closely intertwined with the features situationality, strategy, and misrecognition, has to do with the motivational dynamics of agency, the will to act, which is also integral to the context of action. It addresses the question of why people do something or anything, but in a form that attempts to avoid the reductionism of most self-interest theory.— Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, page 83

<idle musing>
I don't have the slightest idea what she's saying here. Do you?
</idle musing>

Let's pretend

The third feature intrinsic to practice is a fundamental 'misrecognition' of what it is doing, a misrecognition of its limits and constraints, and of the relationship between its ends and its means. An appreciation of the dynamics of misrecognition as such goes back to the Marxist argument that a society could not exist "unless it disguised to itself the real basis of that existence." However, the idea has been developed in a variety of ways—in the notion of aporia developed by Jacques Derrida, in Althusser's notion of "a sighting in an oversight," or in Paul DeMan's discussion of "blindness and insight."

Bourdieu provides a clear illustration of this aspect of practice by reexamining the dynamics of gift exchange. To work effectively, the practice of traditional gift-giving presupposes a "deliberate oversight" of the "fake circulation of fake coin" which makes up symbolic exchange. What is not seen by those involved is that which objective analysis takes to be the whole explanation of the exchange, namely, a reciprocal swapping of items with no intrinsic value. Misrecognition is what "enables the gift or counter-gift to be seen and experienced as an inaugural act of generosity." What is experienced in gift-giving is the voluntary, irreversible, delayed, and strategic play of gift and countergift; it is the experience of these dimensions that actually establishes the value of the objects and the gestures. The context of practice, Bourdieu stresses, is never clear cut but full of indeterminacy, ambiguities, and equivocations. Hence, 'theoretical reconstruction,' as a description in terms of general laws, removes the very conditions that afford misrecognition and the social efficacy of gift exchange. By abstracting the act from its temporal situation and reducing its convoluted strategies to a set of reversible structures, theoretical analysis misses the real dynamics of practice.— Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, page 82–83

Say what?

As a second feature of human activity, practice is inherently strategic, manipulative, and expedient. The logic of practice (and there is a logic of sorts) is not that of an intellectualist logic, argues Bourdieu. Practice, as real activity in time, by its very nature dodges the relations of intellectualist logic and excludes the questions asked by the analyst. Its practical or instrumental logic is strategic and economic in that it remains as implicit and rudimentary as possible. Practice, therefore, is a ceaseless play of situationally effective schemes, tactics, and strategies—"the intentionless invention of regulated improvisation."— Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, page 82

<idle musing>
I think I understand what she's saying here, but I might need to read it a few more times and digest it...
</idle musing>

That dratted Sitz im Leben thing again...

First, human activity is situational, which is to say that much of what is important to it cannot be grasped outside of the specific context in which it occurs. When abstracted from its immediate context, an activity is not quite the same activity. Practice may embody determinative influences deriving from other situations, but practice is not the mere expression or effect of these influences. Indeed, it can be said that a focus on the act itself renders these 'influences' (structures or sources) nonexistent except insofar as they exist within the act itself.— Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, page 81

Good definition

I will use the term 'ritualization' to draw attention to the way in which certain social actions strategically distinguish themselves in relation to other actions. In a very preliminary sense, ritualization is a way of acting that is designed and orchestrated to distinguish and privilege what is being done in comparison to other, usually more quotidian, activities. As such, ritualization is a matter of various culturally specific strategies for setting some activities off from others, for creating and privileging a qualitative distinction between the 'sacred' and the 'profane,' and for ascribing such distinctions to realities thought to transcend the powers of human actors.— Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, page 74

<idle musing>
That's a good start; it definitely shows why these particular actions are different than normal actions. Let's see where she goes with it...
</idle musing>

What a deal!

I'm in the process of sending this BookNews e-mail. Thought those of you not subscribed would like to know, too. And why aren't you subscribed? : )

October is Theological Libraries month and Eisenbrauns wants your theological library to celebrate by saving cash. We're offering all theological libraries a one-time chance to save 30% on everything we have in stock. Yes, everything in stock! All the library needs to do to take advantage of the sale is put ATLA in the purchase order field when they order from our web site. The discount will be applied by our customer service reps before the order ships. Remember though, this is for libraries only. Let your favorite theological librarian know!

Shame-based theology

Many evangelicals and progressives today are steamed up about their opportunity to change the world and to be significant and to do something important. For all the “good” this movement can do and is doing, I contend that, far more important, it is largely a shame-based movement masking a shallow gospel and inept grasp of what kingdom means in the Bible. One wonders at times if kingdom theology for many is religious language used to baptize what to most other observers is merely good actions done by decent people for the common good. Is kingdom language, then, the attempt to make something wholly secular somehow sacred?— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 254

<idle musing>
Ouch! Scot doesn't mince words, does he? That's the final post from this book, which took the better part of the summer to get through. Next up? I'm not sure; I haven't had much time to read this summer, between the cabins (which are still extremely busy—we've had a very warm September), Eisenbrauns, and copyediting. But I'll probably start excerpting from Catherine Bell, ; Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. So stay tuned.

By the way, Roger Olson has a good push-back today on Scot's book. Well worth you time.
</idle musing>

Interesting Greek note

I'm editing a Greek Discourse Handbook right now on 1 Thessalonians. In the course of reading through it, I noticed that the Greek word ἀδελφοί (adelphoi, brothers/sisters/fellow believers) seems to occur more frequently than normal. So, I started Accordance and did a search on the inflected form.

Sure enough, as you can see from the above chart, the density is much higher in 1 Thessalonians than any other books than James and 2 Thessalonians. Wonder what's going on here? Any ideas?

Personally, I wonder if it might be that Paul is trying to reassure the Thessalonians that even though he got driven out of town and hasn't been able to revisit them, they are still dear to him—family even.

What do you think?

Go to church?

[W]hen I hear them make “church” something one goes “into” I cringe. Part of our problem here is that the word “church” has become a building or an institution and has lost its cosmic shape from the Bible (ever read Colossians and Ephesians?!)…— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 232

<idle musing>
Ain't that the truth! Have you been following Roger Olson's review? He's sympathetic to Scot's view—very sympathetic. But, and here's where I'm at as well, what about the "dones?" What about the ones who have become disillusioned with church as it is done in the U.S.? Where is it more God and Country, or God and Self, or God and whatever. The whatever is anything but Jesus; A.W. Tozer in Pursuit of God says that whatever comes after the and is a distraction from God. I agree. And that's where the vast majority (in my experience over 43 years of being a Christian) of churches land.

There's something wrong when a church's web site features the U.S. flag in a prominent position. There's something wrong when a church's web site brags about their pastor/teacher, what have you. There's something wrong when a church's web site promotes a particular political view (right or left!).

Lord, purify your church! And start with me!
</idle musing>

At what cost compromise?

Randy Balmer, one of America’s finest historians of evangelicalism, after years of studying the relationship of evangelicals and politics, concludes on a similar note in his God in the White House: “My reading of American religious history is that religion always functions best from the margins of society and not in the councils of power. Once you identify the faith with a particular candidate of party or with the quest for political influence, ultimately it is the faith that suffers.” He concludes with a subtle, but searing reminder: “Compromise may work in politics. It‘s less appropriate to the realm of faith and belief.”— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 215 (emphasis original)

<idle musing>
That quotation alone is worth the price of the book! The kingdom of God is just that, the kingdom of God. Trying to mix our best efforts at creating a kingdom just isn't going to work. God's calling is higher and beyond our meagre efforts.

Jesus said you can't serve two masters. I fear some have sold the true master for a chance to influence the current world. At what cost?

Lord, have mercy! Open our eyes that we may see! That we may catch a vision of your kingdom!
</idle musing>

Vain attempt

The Christian Left and the Christian Right are doing the same thing—seeking to coerce the public or, more mildly, seeking to influence the public into their viewpoint through political agitation and majority rule. Hauerwas describes the ultimate goal of both sides: “their common goal of making American democracy as close as possible to a manifestation of God’s Kingdom.” I need not provide details in a history that has been told well by others. But I will say that Hauerwas and I agree that American democracy can’t be the kingdom of God until it submits, for one thing, to Jesus as the redemptive King.— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 211

<idle musing>
Amen and amen!
</idle musing>

Constantine again

The church’s historical temptation is to make “kingdom” public by aligning itself with the state or the powers of culture, often called the Constantinian Temptation. In the United States, both the Moral Majority (or the Christian Coalition) and the Christian progressives have succumbed to Constantine; that is they are tempted to use the state’s force (even if of the majority) to legalize the Bible’s teachings and its arena to carry out their battles.— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 206

What's a person to do?

In the last post, I mentioned that Roger Olson is blogging through the book Kingdom Conspiracy. Yesterday, he asked a serious question about the nature of church. Here's the relevant paragraph:

My experience of visiting numerous churches in numerous locales is that very, very few are fitting “kingdom of God” as Scot describes it (“a new kind of fellowship, a new community, a new people of God” [emphasis original]). Most of them, in my humble opinion, are American first and Christian second or Baptist first and Christian second or middle class first and Christian second. Most of them function like community clubs. There’s a lot of God talk but very little God showing up among them. They are not really “a people, a community, a fellowship.” For the most part they don’t even know each other well. They certainly don’t share their lives; they value their privacy and individuality far, far too much for that.

Think about that. Is it true? Is a megachurch really a church? Or is it a social club that talks a bit about God? Is there real community there?

I'm not picking on megachurches; they can be places where real fellowship happens, but I would submit that you have to work at it very hard to make it happen. And just because a church is small doesn't mean fellowship happens. You still have to work at it, but it's a bit easier when you can't hide in a crowd. But our culture still works against real fellowship...it's got to be a supernatural move of God to get people out of themselves. Even so, come Lord Jesus! Move in your people!

Just an
</idle musing>

But are they really?

[I]t is reasonable to say that the kingdom is the church, and the church is the kingdom—that they are the same even if they are not identical. They are the same in that it is the same people under the same King Jesus even if each term—kingdom, church—gives off slightly different suggestions. In particular, “kingdom” emphasizes royalty, while “church” emphasizes fellowship. Slight difference aside, the evidence I have presented in this book leads me to the conclusion that we should see the terms as synonyms.— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 206 (emphasis original)

<idle musing>
Not sure I agree totally with him here. Roger Olson is blogging his way through the book, too (part 1 and part 2). He has not yet come to this section, but before he began, he expressed his disagreement with an equation of the two: kingdom does not equal church. Maybe, given the caveats that Scot expressed here, Roger will agree, but I doubt it.
</idle musing>

Are we really that screwed up?

Two stories from pastors. One, the pastor of a megachurch, confessed to me over a round of golf that he could do away with Sunday morning services because small groups did everything he believed a church should be. Of course I asked, “How so?” To which he replied, “Because church is about fellowship, and I’m not sure that happens on Sunday mornings.” Another pastor, convinced that churches ought to be marked by fellowship, created the practice of the church gathering for a church-sponsored, cheap meal on Thursday evenings. For a long time the only ones who gathered were the pastor and his wife and the youth pastor and his wife, with an occasional straggler. It took years for the congregation to embrace the idea. Over lunch at an Italian restaurant he said these two things: “our people are too busy for fellowship,” and “One person asked me what fellowship had to do with church!”— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 202

<idle musing>
Are we really that confused about what the church is all about? Do we really think it is only a 1–2 hour stint of sitting in pews (or padded chairs) on Sunday morning, singing a few songs, and then listening to a person (usually a man) expound on a verse or two of scripture? Doesn't your heart long for more?

Mine does! I want vibrant interaction among people who love Jesus. People who know that their lives have been re-created in him. People who know that the power of the Holy Spirit is real and can make a difference as they face the trials of daily living.

But apparently most people are too busy for that...how sad.
</idle musing>

It overflows

Zacchaeus’ conversion shows that genuine conversion, as John the Baptist himself taught (Luke 3:7–9), erupts into a life of love for others that includes economic care for others. The cross of self-denial leads to loving others.— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 176

<idle musing>
Amen and amen! If our lives aren't transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit, I have a hard time believing that a person actually encountered God.

Just an
</idle musing>

But it's mine!

Westerners may not see wealth so much as a blessing of God, but the do see it as the reward of labor; they tend also to see poverty as the just reward for laziness. To be sure, the more liberal see a systemic problem in free enterprise itself, but the system is one in which reward, or possession, correlates with labor. The impact of this is that what we earn is ours, and what others earn is not ours. In other words, self-centeredness rules much of what we believe about possessions and ownership in Western economy. Self-centeredness makes us blind to injustices.— Kingdom Conspiracy, pages 174–75

Where do you find peace?

Those who talk most about peace are talking about peace in the world, and almost never about peace in the local church. The peace of the kingdom, I am contending, is first and foremost a shalom that marks the kingdom as it is present now—that is, in your local church as it is now. First we are to seek peace in our local fellowship, to end strife and to seek reconciliation with God and with one another, and out of this peace-shaped, kingdom-shaped church we spill over peace into the world. But our tendency today is to politicize peace, to make it about global relations and ethnic strivings, both of which are instinctual desires for anyone who follows Jesus. But I assign these to the expression “good works,” while I assign the peace Jesus talks about to be fundamentally about how members of a local church, or the church universal, live with one another under the King of Peace.— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 171 (emphasis original)

<idle musing>
Roger Olson is discussing the book now, too. You should definitely read his push-backs against Scot.
</idle musing>

I want one of these, and one of these, and...

I've been working on the Eisenbrauns fall catalog lately. It went to press today and is available on the web here (5.3 MB). I see all these great books and I want to read them all! Not that I have the time right now, but come this winter, I'll get a good percentage of them read.

There are two that especially grabbed my attention:

The "Image of God" in the Garden of Eden
The Creation of Humankind in Genesis 2:5-3:24 in Light of the mis pi pit pi and wpt-r Rituals of Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt
Siphrut: Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures 15
by Catherine McDowell
Eisenbrauns, 2015
Pp. ix + 246, English
Cloth, 6 x 9 inches
ISBN: 9781575063485
List Price: $47.50
Your Price: $38.00
www.eisenbrauns.com/item/MCDIMAGEO

and

Standing in the Breach
An Old Testament Theology and Spirituality of Intercessory Prayer
Siphrut: Literature and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures 13
by Michael Widmer
Eisenbrauns, 2015
Pp. xiv + 592, English
Cloth
ISBN: 9781575063256
List Price: $64.50
Your Price: $51.60
www.eisenbrauns.com/item/WIDSTANDI

Of course, there are others, but I'll limit myself to two right now...

And the greatest is...

Love, then, is not one of the virtues; loves is the one and only virtue that creates space for all the other virtues. We can agree that Jesus made love central to the kingdom, to the church.— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 168

At the core

What Jesus advocated, then, was a cruciform existence for his followers. The moral fellowship of the kingdom, then, is a fellowship in the cross. Think briefly over the pages of the New Testament where cross becomes the norm for discipleship (and not just the atoning sacrifice). Jesus maps the Christian life along the coordinates of the cross (Luke 9:23), Paul sees the cross as pattern of his own ministry (2 Cor. 4:10; Phil. 3:10–11), and the pattern of Christ’s own self-sacrifice becomes the solution to the local church’s struggle for a loving fellowship (Phil. 2:5–11).— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 162

Simple, but it demands everything

In summary, to enter the kingdom one must surrender to Jesus as King and live under King Jesus. Entrance here is so unlike much of what occurs in church settings today, where if one is baptized as an infant or if one has walked the aisle or if one has been baptized as an adult or it one has made the decision, one is in. Not so for Jesus: to enter the kingdom means a person surrenders to live under King Jesus. Jesus is not talking here about sinlessness—the failure of the disciples, Jesus’ rebuke, his forgiveness, and their resumption of discipleship proves that. He’s talking about the core commitment of one’s life. The only ones who enter the kingdom are those who give themselves to Jesus.— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 161 (emphasis original)

What a mess!

Why is the church so messy and inept and divided and pock-marked by the infections of the powers and principalities? Why is the church so battered by incomplete redemption and in fact belittling itself by thinking redemption is only spiritual? How can we call our local church the kingdom of God or even associate kingdom with it? I suggest once more we look to eschatology, and in particular at the tension we observed already: that the kingdom has been inaugurated but not yet fully consummated, that the kingdom is partly here and partly in the future, that the church is the holy bride of Christ but will only be spotless and pure in the final kingdom. In the New Testament, salvation is found in all three tenses because the kingdom has only been inaugurated. That is, we have been redeemed (past), we are being redeemed (present), and we will be redeemed (future) .— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 157

What a feeble gospel!

So often today, kingdom gets boiled down to ethics; for those who make that move, the kingdom is little more than justice. Others reduce the kingdom redemption to personal salvation. Both sides deny holistic redemption…— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 152

Who needs insecticides?

Just saw this:
More Flowers, More Food, More Bees, Fewer Pests. Can It Get Any Better?

Could cornflowers and poppies take the place of pesticides? That’s what researchers are proposing in a new study on wheat fields. By planting strips of wildflowers alongside the crops, the scientists found that they could encourage the presence of helpful bugs that eat pests.

They found a 2.5–10% increase in yield—with no pesticides! Increase, not just remaining stable...so why aren't we doing it?

But does it deal with sin?

Kingdom redemption, then, is the work of God, through Jesus, and by virtue of his sin-solving cross and new-life-creating resurrection, unleashed to those who are needy because of their sins. Any kind of “redemptive” activity that does not deal with sin, that does not find its strength in the cross, that does not see the primary agent as Jesus, and that does not see it all as God’s new creation life unleashed is not kingdom redemption, even if it is liberating and good and for the common good.— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 150

<idle musing>
Indeed! As far as I'm concerned, that's the distinguishing mark between "Christian" works and "good" works. If it doesn't deal with the core issue of sin, then it might be very good, but it isn't a distinctly Christian work. It can be done by Christians—and there should be more Christians doing this kind of thing—but it isn't distinctly Christian.
</idle musing>

I guess not

Hmmm. Jim West answered my question with a resounding "NO!" But then I read this:

What about when you double up this heightened male interest for greater sexual variety in a same-sex relationship? Scholars have examined this, finding that only a third of committed homosexual male couples had agreements on strict monogamy and truly honored them. The other two-thirds had mutually established ground rules for extra-curriculars or regularly failed to adhere to their commitment to monogamy. In fact, in the openly non-monogamous relationships, the frequency of sex outside the relationship in the last year ranged from zero to an extreme of 350 occurrences, with a median of eight hook-ups over a twelve month period. Even the couples who pledged true monogamy, the range was from one to sixty-three “slip-ups” with a median of five. The corresponding numbers for men in heterosexual marriages are microscopic in comparison. Women settle men down. Other men do not.

So, I guess Jim is right...celibacy won't ever find a voice among the same-sex marriage advocates. It's hard even to find a voice for it among heterosexual marriage advocates...

Bicycling, an observation

I've been riding in the mornings along Highway 61 for the last 6–8 weeks. The last week or so has been relatively foggy, so I've started turning on my flashing tail light (for those who care, it's a Planet Bike Superflash) before starting.

Some days the fog has turned out less dense than it appeared at first. On those days, I've noticed a scary pattern: The cars/trucks give me less clearance. That's right, they don't move over as much as when I'm not using the tail light. Now, that's not a big deal to me, because I'm riding on the generous shoulder, but it reinforce the findings that I posted way back in 2007 about helmet use. For those who don't click the link, motorists gave less clearance to cyclists wearing helmets than to those who didn't wear helmets! Counterintuitive, isn't it?

Here's my theory: Without a flashing light, the vehicles see a bicycle, but aren't exactly sure where it is on the rode, so they give you more clearance, just to be safe. With the flashing light, you are more visible to them, so they feel more confident that you have a enough room.

Now, I'm not going to stop using the Superflash on foggy days, but it does make you wonder...

A genuine question

A question for those of you who are in a church endorsing same-sex marriages: When will you begin to preach celibacy in singleness? Or is that too old-fashioned, too?

Just an idle musing...

But who's counting?

With six stone jars holding a total of about 180 gallons (perhaps a little less), and with each gallon being the equivalent of just a shade over five ordinary (modern) bottles of wine, that means Jesus just served up to the wedding party the modern equivalent of about 907 bottles of wine. Jesus could have just filled up each person’s wineskins or mugs or pitchers, but instead he chose to do something incredibly and beautifully extravagant. He took ordinary stone jars of water that were used to purify and made them vessels of abundant joy.— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 149

Is Christ really the center?

Although “mission” is not the first word, sometimes people approach it as if it were. That is, for some, one’s mission determines one’s Christology, and Christ is then used for an agenda.— Kingdom Conspiracy, pages 135–136

Not what was expected

When Peter calls Jesus Messiah (Mark 8:29), and Jesus responds by revealing that he will suffer and rise again (8:31) and by rebuking Peter’s perceptions (8:32), we enter into the unique interpretation of “Messiah” by Jesus and the church: the Messiah will rule, but only after dying the death of others and by rising and being exalted far above all rule. Jesus is that Messiah, but his kind of Messiah bewilders his contemporaries, including his closest followers. He cannot be embraced as Messiah until his story is embraced; that story is the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, and it is that life story that shapes what “Messiah” means. Jesus is the gospel-shaped King. There is no other messianic story like the one Jesus told and lived.— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 133

Sure it's good, but

Next, I appeal to Paul in Galatians 6:10: “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.” Notice the order: first the church and kingdom, and then society and culture and world. When social activism decenters or replaces the church, it becomes a kind of idolatry in which our allegiance is no longer to Jesus and the kingdom but to the world. But when the kingdom citizen’s activism in the local church spills over into the world, that is the “good work” about which Peter is speaking. This is the place—this “spilling over” of kingdom goods into the world—where social gospeling and liberation theology belong. If the activism is designed to make the world a better place, it is “good works,” but it is not kingdom mission.— Kingdom Conspiracy, pages 121–22

Nope. That's not it.

[F]irst, Christians were expected to be good citizens by participating in the community, and second, Peter doesn’t come close to describing benevolence as kingdom work. Like everyone else in the Bible, Peter saw kingdom as the realm of redemption and the redeemed, not what followers of Jesus did in the public sector.— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 114

The kingdom

Kingdom is people; church is people. A people under King Jesus begins to live into an alternative society that witnesses both to and against the world’s system. Our world is marked today by isolation, fragmentation, transience, privacy, consumerism, power, complacency, alienation, suspicion, and a host of idolatries. The church, which is a kingdom fellowship under King Jesus, counters each of these stories with the story of new creation that becomes possible through the power of the Spirit and the life of Jesus. Kingdom creates a family called a church.— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 106

Putting the "Two Kingdoms" theology to rest

We are not “under the Lord” when we do our part as Christians—at home, in the church—but then “under Caesar” when acting as public citizens. If Jesus is Lord, he is always Lord—at home, in the church, and in the public. We don’t have an ethic for our Christian life and another ethic for our public, worldly, secular life. We have one ethic because Jesus is Lord over all.— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 103

Listen up!

Politics is a colossal distraction from kingdom mission. Politics entails diminution of our kingdom message, because to speak well in the public forum means we have to turn our gospel-drenched message that focuses on Jesus, the cross, and the resurrection into acceptable, common-denominator language and vision. Instead of talking discipleship and a cruciform life, we talk about values and soak it in the pretentious “Judeo-Christian ethic.” Politics entails energies and time that could be used more directly for kingdom mission task. Politics means seeking to influence the state in the direction of the kingdom, but in so doing it is asking the public and the state to put into law and policy the kingdom story.— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 102

<idle musing>
Would that people would here this! The kingdom of God is not the kingdom of this world—be it the U.S. or any other country. We are to draw people to the kingdom of God, not our preferred political viewpoint. (Of course, my viewpoint is the one that is closest to the kingdom of God, right?!!)
</idle musing>

Wrong focus!

But Christians have failed to embody the church as an alternative politic and have instead opted for influencing and improving Caesar or transforming culture or using the political process to accomplish their wishes. American love politics, as do people all over the world. America is made up of lots of Christians, and this means many Christians get riled up in the political process.— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 101

Too hard? Or just hard?

This means that all true kingdom mission is church mission. For many today it is far easier to be committed to social justice in South Africa, to the restoration of communities on the Gulf Shore following Katrina, to cleaning up from the devastating tornadoes of the Plains, or to fighting sexual trafficking in any country than it is to be committed to building community and establishing fellowship in one’s local church. I hate to put it this way, but I must: it is easier to do the former because it feels good, it resolves some social shame for all that we have, it creates a bonded and encapusulated experience, it is a momentary and at times condescending invasions of resources and energy, and it is all ramped up into ultimate legitimation by calling it kingdom work. Not only that, it is good and right and noble and loving and compassionate and just. It is more glamorous to do social activism because building a local church is hard.— Kingdom Conspiracy, pages 96–97 (emphasis original)

<idle musing>
Yep. He's right—not that I like to admit it!
</idle musing>

But it's more fun doing it our way...

Our responsibility is to point our noses at the Bible to see what is there, to read it carefully enough to fashion an explanation that is rooted as much as possible in what it says. We are not supposed ot invent our own ides, then go to the Bible to find support, and then claim the Bible as the authority for our own inventions.— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 66

How do we get the kingdom?

I call this quest for power through the political process the “eschatology of politics”—that is, the belief that if we usher in the right political candidates and the right laws, then kingdom conditions will arrive. Every two years America goes through convulsions as one candidate after another promises (all but) the kingdom if he or she is elected. Every two years American go through the same convulsions as they lather up for the election because they believe if they get their candidate, not only will they win, but (all but) the kingdom will come. This is idolatry…— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 62

<idle musing>
Amen! The kingdom of God is just that, the kingdom of God. Only the Holy Spirit can usher it in, not human politics...
</idle musing>

There really are two different ways

Roman politics is about power and domination and might and force and coercion and the sword. The politics of Jesus is about sacrificial love for the other even if that means death from the sword. Lording it over others is the way of Rome; serving others is the way of Jesus. The lords of the empire are for Jesus lordless lords. Those are two stories at work in two politics, and the politics of Jesus counters the politics of Rome.— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 61 (emphasis original)

<idle musing>
And unfortunately, even as Christians, we tend to lean toward Rome : (
</idle musing>

Avoid it!

When we are persuaded into the depths of our heart that what we believe to be true is the Truth, we want this for all others. When we want this for others, we are tempted for our witness to become coercive, manipulative, and sometimes to resort to violence. Jesus opposed the ways of the Maccabees and the Zealots and offered instead of the symbol of the sword the symbol of the cross. The way to “rule” was the way of service; the way to love was with the basin and towel. Kingdom mission must resist all temptations to use coercion and violence to accomplish God’s will.— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 57

Pharisees as the good guys

No Christian wants to be called a “Pharisee,” so it can shock modern Bible readers to learn that the Pharisees were good guys. They were the home Bible study movement in the land of Israel, the ones who wanted to interpret Torah in such a way that everything was clear so everyone could follow the whole Torah. Their vision for Israel was to obey the Torah, to teach the Torah, and in so doing to stimulate a revival in the land and draw down the blessing of God, including the coming of the Messiah and the kingdom.— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 51

Holy warfare?

This holy warfare to bring in the kingdom strategy was the rejected option for Jesus, and so we dare not ignore the presence of a Zealot in the circle of Jesus’ twelve apostles. Simon is called the “Zealot” in Luke 6:15, and one has to wonder about the violent proclivities of James and John, who are dubbed “sons of thunder” in Mark 3:17. Jesus shut down the pervasive desire on the part of the disciples to lord it over others (Mark 10:35–45). Jesus’ strategy was dead opposed to holy warfare, because for him the way of “winning” was “losing,” and the way to resurrection and kingdom was through love and through the cross. Kingdom cannot be connected to holy warfare; holy warfare destroys the kingdom. Jesus’ words are not “Grab some swords and let’s head for the hills surrounding Jerusalem” but “Take up your cross daily.”— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 50

Give thanks

Adam and Eve sinned; they died. Sin leads to death. The sin they committed was the sin of usurping, of wanting to be God-like instead of god-ly. They died for the sin. We, too, are usurpers. From the moment we become conscious to the moment we die we want to be in charge, we want to control, and we want to rule our life. That is the sin of Everyman and Everywoman.— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 36

<idle musing>
Ain't that the truth! I get frustrated. Why? Because I can't control what's going on. I'm not God; I'm not even a god! Of course most things are out of my control. That's part of life. The trick, if it is a trick, is responding in the Holy Spirit instead of in the flesh.

That's what I'm learning this summer. People leave late and come early. You can't possibly get the cabins done in time. Relax and enjoy the summer! Do your best, but don't fret it.

The Internet connection is flaky. What does getting frustrated do? It certainly doesn't fix it! It just makes you—and everyone around you—upset and in a bad mood.

The web site interface is being flaky and taking longer to get anything done. If I can get it done! "In everything gives thanks!" Not what the flesh wants, is it? But by the power of the Holy Spirit, it can happen...
</idle musing>

Plan B

Here is where we now stand in explaining how to put the big picture together. Plan A is God’s will for the world: God rules with Israel governing under God on God’s behalf. But because Israel wants a king like other nations, Plan A takes a divine detour in Plan B, where God accommodates Israel’s selfish desire. During Plan B arises the memory and a hope for the return of Plan A, to God’s rule in Israel with no human king. As this hope moves forward, a Servant King who redeems by way of suffering and who rules by way of redemption comes to the fore.— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 33

40 years folded into one book

Yesterday one of the printing reps stopped by Eisenbrauns home office in Warsaw, Indiana. He brought a gift for the business:

Isn't that cool! I can't wait to see it in real life (I'm in Minnesota).

North Shore musings

This weekend is Fisherman's Picnic, the busiest weekend of the summer. And for us, it began earlier this week, which explains the sporadic nature of the posting lately. Anybody who thinks that cabin caretaking is a relaxing job hasn't done it! But, no complaints; we love it!

We have 7 cabins and 2 motel units that we care for. Each one takes about an hour to an hour and a half to clean. Plus the time to do the laundry, which varies. Last Sunday, we had 6 to clean, which is fairly normal for a Sunday. But Monday, we did 7, which on top of the 6 the day before was pretty tiring. Add to that the temperature. Normally, living 2 blocks from Lake Superior, we don't get much above 75ºF, in fact we usually don't even get that high (that's why I grow tomatoes in a hoop house). Well, Monday was 85ºF—in the shade! And being this close to a large body of water, the humidity tends to be high. The air was so thick you felt like you were eating it. Needless to say, it was draining.

But, this is the North Shore, so the next day, the wind switched and came off the lake and it was cloudy. We didn't get above 65ºF the whole day. And it was windy, so it felt colder. I actually closed up the hoop house to keep the tomatoes and peppers warm!

But enough of that! We love it here. And the variableness of the weather is part of it. As is the scenery. This is the height of the summer, and the scenery is beautiful. The crispness of the air makes everything jump out. The clouds, the lake, the trees, the ridge, all of them forming a continually changing backdrop to life.

Our garden is doing great. We've been eating broccoli for over a month now, the green beans just came in on Tuesday, right after that hot Monday; they must have grown 3 days worth overnight! The first two plantings of peas are done and the third one is starting; the snow peas are just starting, too. And the scarlet runner beans are in full bloom, much to the hummingbird's delight.

A friend gave me some walking onions, also known as top-setting or Egyptian onions. I planted them late last fall and here's what they look like:

Pretty funky looking, aren't they? They're pretty hot, so you don't want to eat them raw, but the greens are great raw. Oh, and we've been eating leeks, too. And the summer squash is about ready, and the raspberries are just starting, right on schedule.

The only downside is we could seriously use some rain. I have 400 gallons of water in rain barrels, but it's down to about 75–100 gallons. Enough for about a week, at the most.

Well, which will it be?

Samuel’s displeasure (1 Sam. 8:6) is met by a revelation from God that provides one of the secrets to understanding kingdom. In YHWH’s revelation to Samuel, YHWH explains what is really going on in the minds and hearts of those who want a king like the other nations. We learn from YHWH that Israel doesn’t want to rule for God in this world but wants to be like the world and rule like God.— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 30

Like? Or Under?

Adam and Eve decide they want to rule “like God” instead of ruling “under God,” which means Adam and Eve are usurpers. The sin they commit is the sin of wanting more than responsibility of governing on God’s behalf; the sin they commit is made clear in the words of the scumbag serpent in Genesis 3: “For God know that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened [in a Pleasantville sort of way], and [here it comes with full force] you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (3:5, emphasis added). The story of sin in the Bible is the story of God’s elect people wanting to be God-like instead of god-ly, of ruling instead of sub-ruling and being ruled.— Kingdom Conspiracy, pages 28–29 (all emphasis original)

It's all about?

The gospel is a story about Jesus, and because it is about Jesus, it is about us. To make the story first about us, or first about me and my salvation, is to reduce the story and to rob Jesus of the glory of being the central actor.— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 25

The World

This selection of texts from the Fourth Gospel represents the New Testament posture toward the “world” as the unredeemed realm of human affairs, a realm into which Jesus is sent and out of which he saves his own. The point I am making, then, is that Jesus didn’t come to make the “world” a better place or to “influence” or “transform” the world. He came to redeem people out of the world. Trying to make the world a better place is a species of worldliness, and “worldliness,” to quote Hauerwas and Willimon, “is a hard habit to break.”— Kingdom Conspiracy, page 17

A summary

The fruit of the Spirit is not a to-do list to check off. The Spirit produces the fruit in us. Christianity is not a set of rules, nor is the Bible a manual for good living. Christianity is about a relationship with God the Father, through His Son Jesus Christ, empowered by the Holy Spirit.— Live Free: A Fresh Look at the Fruit of the Spirit, page 31

Dead people don't sin!

We are no longer under the authority of sin. Paul develops this point in greatest detail in Romans 6. If we have died with Christ, we have been set free from sin (Romans 6:7). What Paul means by “sin” in Romans 6 is sin as a power, or ruler. The point he is making is that, by dying with Christ, believers have been released from sin’s power; we now live under Christ’s authority. Yet Paul appeals to the Romans not to put themselves under sin again (6:12–13). While sin is no longer our master (6:14), the pull to go on “obeying” sin is real and powerful. But Paul wants us to realize that we don’t have to give in.

The famous Welsh preacher D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones illustrated this struggle well. In 1865 the work of Abraham Lincoln and others to abolish slavery in the United States finally came to fruition. All slaves were declared free. Lloyd-Jones says to imagine you had grown up a slave in Alabama. One minute, you’re a slave. The next, you are free—legally, officially, and forever free. While you may now have your freedom, your internal grasp of that freedom may take some time to catch up to the reality. Imagine that one day you ran into your former slave-owner on the street, and he calls out to you, “Come here, boy!” At that moment, will you feel like a slave? I think you probably would. Your whole life, you’ve responded to him as your master. You’re conditioned to obey that voice. Every muscle and fiber in your body is inclined to obey.

But the reality is that you are free. You are not a slave. Your former master has no authority over you at all. He cannot tell you what to do, and you have no obligation to obey him. Our struggle with sin is just like this. Sin once ruled over us, and our bodies were conditioned to obey its demands. It’s the way we lived our entire lives until we were set free by Christ. Now that we know spiritual freedom, our comprehension of it can take a while to catch up. Occasionally, sin calls out, “Come here, boy!” and our initial impulse is to obey. But in Christ we are no longer slaves to sin. We do not need to obey its call. And yet we will feel its pull and even struggle with our first reaction to give in to its demands. Even though we are free, we can choose to do what it says, even though sin has no right to tell us what to do.— Live Free: A Fresh Look at the Fruit of the Spirit, pages 28–29 (emphasis original)

Dos and Don'ts

Notice that Paul does not say, “Don’t do these things.” Instead, he appeals to a deeper way of thinking. He appeals to a spiritual reality. If we belong to Christ Jesus, we have crucified the flesh. Now, remember that the vice list is introduced as the acts of the flesh. Flesh is the power that produces such practices.

But in [Galatians] 5:24 Paul says that the flesh has been crucified. It has been put to death with Christ. Because we belong to Christ Jesus, we are united with Him in His death. Spiritually, we have been put to death. We are no longer subject to the power of the flesh. This is so much more than a simple command to avoid certain behaviors. A radical change has taken place and we no longer belong to the realm of the flesh, enslaved by its passions and desires. We now belong to the realm of the Spirit.— Live Free: A Fresh Look at the Fruit of the Spirit, page 18 (emphasis original)

It's far deeper than that!

The Spirit isn’t interested in just changing certain behaviors—adding some and removing others; He is interested in changing who we are as people. Changed people do changed things. But the internal change has to come first. God doesn’t want us to be robots who always do the right thing but whose character is, well, robotic. God is after our hearts.— Live Free: A Fresh Look at the Fruit of the Spirit, pages 15–16 (emphasis original)

About that list of yours...

[T]he fruit of the Spirit is not a to-do list. These verses do have implications for how we live (and we’ll get to that), but Paul does not say, “live like this, like this, and like that” before he lists the fruit of the Spirit. Fruit grows from the Spirit. It’s not the result of our hard work or discipline, and it’s not a list to check off when we feel we’ve “got it down.” It’s not even a list to put on our wall to remind ourselves of things we need to work on. It’s not a list of imperatives—commands for us to follow. It’s a list of indicatives—it’s just the way things are.— Live Free: A Fresh Look at the Fruit of the Spirit, pages 10–11

Whose fruit?

No, not who is a fruit! Whose fruit as in who produces it? Sometimes (most times?), I think we act like we are supposed to produce the fruit of the Spirit. Right! Like we can do that...anyway, today we start excerpting from a new book, actually more of a pamphlet. I heard about it from Ted Gossard's blog some time ago. Follow along as we see the insights that Con Campbell has on the fruit of the Spirit...

While there’s nothing wrong with virtue, it is not the same thing as fruit of the Spirit. Anyone can have virtue or many virtuous qualities. They are usually self-cultivated. A “virtuous person” is someone who has disciplined herself to be patient or brave or generous. On the other hand, “fruit of the Spirit” implies something quite different. Most obvious perhaps is that it’s the Spirit’s fruit, not ours. No amount of determination or discipline ripens the fruit of the Spirit.— Live Free: A Fresh Look at the Fruit of the Spirit, page 7

The purpose of scripture

[W]e must never forget that the purpose of the words is to draw us to the Word and thus into the embrace of the triune God. As people who grow to cherish and delight in the sacred writings, we must never forget their fundamental purpose: that we might know the true God and respond to him in repentance and faith, being drawn into communion with him. Strangely—but not surprisingly to any of us who end up professionally handling the Scriptures on a daily basis—there is always the temptation to make the Scriptures an end in and of themselves.—A Little Book for New Theologians, page 117

<idle musing>
I would love to have this inscribed on every Bible. And have every pastor remind their flock of this every time they preach. It can't be said enough; the Bible is not the source of life, Jesus is! But, as humans, we love to have something we can hang onto, that we can point to. Basically, an idol.
</idle musing>

Unstained?

James reminds us, “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world” (Jas 1:27). What I always find so startling about this statement is that the text puts caring for those in need with the call to be “unstained from the world.” For in truth, we in the church sometimes seek to be “unstained” by distancing ourselves from those most troubled in society, those in most need.—A Little Book for New Theologians, page 84

<idle musing>
Yep. As usual, we get it backwards...
</idle musing>

Object of study? Or object of worship?

One of the great dangers in theology is making our faith something we discuss rather than something that moves us. We lapse into this problem when we treat God as a mere object of our study rather than as the Lord we worship.—A Little Book for New Theologians, page 65

<idle musing>
A timely warning. This is probably the biggest temptation for me. I love theology and biblical studies so much that there are times when it can become a god to me if I'm not careful, displacing the one true God.
</idle musing>

Guess what? I'm not God!

Pride and arrogance, which often accompany theological discussion, are not simply the temptation of the domineering pastor or condescending professor; they are a temptation for all of us. When we speak of God, a strange enticement can occur. In subtle ways we begin to confuse ourselves with God. We think our words, our understanding, our convictions perfectly reflect God’s truth. In fact, we are not God, we have blind spots, we do not ever fully see how all things work together.—A Little Book for New Theologians, pages 46–47

It's a parsnip?!

I overlooked harvesting three parsnips last fall. They overwintered and began to grow...and grow...and grow. I was going to pull them and compost them, but Debbie said to let them grow; she thought they looked kind of neat. So I did.

They are now over 6 feet tall and look more like small trees than parsnips. Here's a picture of them. They are growing right next to a rain barrel.

Worship and theology

We rightly respond to God’s revelation when our words about God, whether many or few, are placed into the matrix of worship. When we see the relationship between theology and worship we are moved beyond intellectual curiosity to an engaged encounter with the living God.—A Little Book for New Theologians, page 37

We sure act like it!

We are not God. This may seem ridiculously obvious, but much of our practice ignores this simple truth. Not only can we not control the events around us, but our understanding is inescapably incomplete.—A Little Book for New Theologians, page 30

Expanding the horizons

Growing in our knowledge of God changes our view of everything else. It is not that we lose sight of all except God, but rather that we view everything in light of God and through the story of his creation and redemption. True worship of God frees and enables us to love his creation rightly and to grieve when we see it abused.—A Little Book for New Theologians, page 26

The cry of the heart

Let me seek you in longing,
and long for you in seeking.
Let me find you in love,
and love you in finding—Anselm, Proslogion cited in A Little Book for New Theologians, page 19

Divide away

I have seen God use good theology to liberate lives. But I have also seen people misuse theology, resulting in abuse, hard hearts and pain. One thing that I have become concerned about in theological studies is the temptation to make overly strong divisions: between academics and the church, between theology and life, between truth and love.—A Little Book for New Theologians, page 9

<idle musing>
New book started today. I had read about this book multiple times and it sounded intriguing. So I finally broke down and got it (via interlibrary loan, of course!). Let's see what we can learn as we go through it.
</idle musing>

The cross beckons us

The Sermon on the Mount is not law that can save us; it is, rather, the texture of the life of those who have died with Christ and are now made alive with him through resurrection (e.g., blessed are those who mourn, who hunger and thirst for righteousness, who turn the other cheek, etc.). The disciple is called to the cross, to come and follow Jesus into death. And this is not because Jesus’s call seeks masochism, but rather because Jesus’s call is the gift of giving us new life through the Stellvertretung (the place-sharing) of Jesus’s very person. The disciple is called to the cross because it is from the cross that Jesus calls us, calling us to carry our cross, calling us to love the person of our neighbor in and through suffering of the cross that they bear.—Bonhoeffer as Youth Worker, page 189

What would the early church do?

Yesterday SCOTUS decided that same-sex marriages were legal. So, I ask, "What would the early church have done if the emperor had allowed same-sex marriages?"

You think this is unique to the United States and a few other countries? That we have (depending on your perspective) advanced/declined beyond any other civilization?

Hardly! The ancient world knew a good bit about sexuality—the sexual revolution of the 1960s has nothing on them. Why did Achilles in the Iliad get so mad about the death of Patrocles? It certainly wasn't because they were merely comrades! They were lovers. Or, have you heard of the Theban Band of 300? They were gay lovers who formed the core of the Theban army that dominated Greece for a while. Or what about Alexander the Great? He had his male lover. Or Julius Caesar? His troops had him as the butt of a joke about infamia—the passive role in homosexual sex. Or Marcus Arurelius? Or...well the list is long.

OK. Those are relationships. But what about marriage? Well, that wasn't all that uncommon either. Check out the wiki article, which seems pretty accurate.

OK. But what would the apostles say? Surely Paul—or Peter especially—would call down judgment on the emperor if he declared same-sex marriages legal! Guess what? Nero, you know the emperor who beheaded Paul and crucified Peter, was married to another man, not once, but twice! Once as the groom, and again as the bride. And probably at the same time. So, bigamy besides. You can read about it in Suetonius here, chapter XXIX.

And what do we hear from the apostles? No especial condemnation, just the generic condemnation of sexual sins of all types. There isn't any wringing of hands, worries that the world as we know it is ending. Just a proclamation of the Good News that God in Christ has come to redeem us and set us free from sin. All sin. Sexual sins. Greed. Lying. Cheating. Murder. Envy. Gluttony. All of them.

As for whether or not homosexuality is a sin, the Bible is very clear about it. It is. Period. But it isn't listed as any worse than lying, cheating, stealing, divorce, etc. All are sins. And Christ came to set us free from them.

So our response should be the same. The world needs the freedom from self that only Christ can bring. As Christians, we have the responsibility to live in that freedom ourselves and proclaim it by our lives and words to those around us. And, above all, to love others with a selfless love.

Costly Grace

Grace is costly, then, not because it is an idea; it is no principle, program, or doctrine. Grace is costly because it is a person; it is the very Christ who calls us. Jesus’s person is the living reality of grace itself. And because it is a person who calls us to come and follow, it is not base in our own works, it is not based in the power of the human will to create for itself. Grace is based solely on the encounter with the person who lives and calls us to himself through love and life.

Christian faith is no “idea”; it is, at its core, first and finally, a person. Christian faith exists not through its ideas, institutional programs, principles, and doctrines, but only because the person of Jesus Christ lives and continues to call us, even today, Bonhoeffer would say, beckoning our young people to come and Nachfolgen, to come and follow. Christian faith is not believing in the ideas of Christianity, but following the person of the living Christ.—Bonhoeffer as Youth Worker, page 182

More than head knowledge

Bonhoeffer was aware that the situation in which these young pastors would find themselves in the future would be one of great challenge, a test that could be met not by sheer intellectual book knowledge but only through a deep theological commitment that formed in them a rich spirituality. Bonhoeffer pushed them academically, bringing to bear the full weight of his academic credentials. But he did not do so outside of prayer, meditation, and confession. The student needed to encounter the living Christ as much as learn about him. Bonhoeffer would not settle for theology in his school but demanded a move into the theological, into concrete spiritual experiences of the living Christ.—Bonhoeffer as Youth Worker, pages 140-141

<idle musing>
And that is one of the reasons I like Bonhoeffer so much. His theology is rooted and grounded in the practical.
</idle musing>

Invite them to dinner

Youth workers are like plumbers called in to fix a leak, to fill the gap, but rarely do we invite the plumber fixing the gap in our bathroom waterline to dinner, into the heart of our communion. We appreciate the technical work of solving the problem of the gap but are not sure outside this technical know-how what purpose they have in our family. So we appreciate the technical ends the plumber wins for us but keep him from the center of our family life.—Bonhoeffer as Youth Worker, page 126

<idle musing>
And I would argue that the same could be said of biblical scholars...
</idle musing>

But where is he?

He [Bonhoeffer] asserted in his dissertation and embodied in his ministry that it is not in the institution of the church that Jesus Christ is found, but in the communion of persons that we encounter the living Christ among us. Jesus is not found in the bricks and mortar of the church, or even in its ideologies and positions. Jesus Christ is found in the meeting and sharing in persons; we encounter the living Christ concretely in the life-community of the church.—Bonhoeffer as Youth Worker, page 123

Fear not!

Anxiety, as neuropsychologists today tell us, is toxic; our brains are wired to avoid anxiety. Anxiety corrupts the chemistry of the brain and leads us to depart (emotionally or physically) from the others to protect ourselves. Jesus’s words to his disciples “to fear not” (Luke 8:50 NRSV) become of utmost significance. Anxiety is so acidic that it is nearly impossible to have relationship, to be a place-sharer, where the air is poisoned with it.—Bonhoeffer as Youth Worker, page 100

Institution or community?

In our own day children’s and youth ministers seem to be working so hard to include children in the church, debating issues like children in worship, because for decades or more children have been either directly or functionally moved to the periphery. Yet Bonhoeffer would remind us that such a move only shows that the church has sought to operate more as a society than as a life-community. We have organized ourselves around religious functions and productivity, seeking to build institutions. Against this backdrop, children have little to no value.—Bonhoeffer as Youth Worker, page 51

<idle musing>
Yep. Appropriate follow on from the last excerpt of the previous book I was posting from. Market-driven Christianity right into institution building Christianity. Both wrong. Both extremely common. Neither focusing on building a community of believers. One wants a brand, the other wants a building. Christ wants a community. But that's much harder! It requires that we listen and respond. Too hard. Forget it. Let's go back to our watered-down version that only requires an intellectual nod. "These aren't the droids we want. Carry on."

And a watching world, that had hoped there really was good news in the gospel, sighs and looks for the next option.
</idle musing>

Tired of the market-oriented approach to Christianity?

Today we see broad evidence of Christians seeking these historic Christian experiences in worship. Tired of market-oriented approaches that seem to focus on self-improvement of finances, relationships and self-image, many cry out to be held near by the transcendent God, to experience a piece of what they can never fully experience here, and to be transformed into what God created them to become.—Why Church History Matters, page 177

<idle musing>
A fit ending to the book, I think. Of course, a knowledge of church history isn't necessary for transformation to happen. But I would argue, as did Rea in the book, that your Christian walk will be deeper the more you are aware of the saints who went before. And, I would further argue, you shouldn't stop at the Reformation; there are many saints in the 2000 year history of the church who would serve well as role models. (Of course, the obverse is true as well!)

Next book up: Bonhoeffer as Youth Worker. Should be an interesting read...
</idle musing>

What exactly does sola scriptura mean, anyway?

Recent scholars have pointed out that for most historic and contemporary Protestants, sola scriptura does not mean that the Scriptures are the only source of theological truth. They do not see Scripture as sole resource, sole source, sole authority or material sufficiency. Rather, sola scriptura means that nothing other than Scripture properly understood is the final authority or norm for Christian belief. The fact that the Reformers not only appealed to ancient creeds but also wrote creeds to which their constituents must adhere demonstrates that for them there are other sources of authority, but only insofar as they reflect accurately the teaching of Scripture.—Why Church History Matters, page 143

Arghh!

I have not been a fan of Microsoft Word since version 1, way back in 1983. I always preferred either WordPerfect or WordStar (or more specialized word processors, such as WatchWord). But the version of Word I'm using now is driving me crazy (Word for Mac 2011)! It reformats at the drop of a hat, silently! Especially Hebrew or Syriac (or any other R-L language). The words will suddenly be backwards, or the letters will. Frustrating! This was especially a problem with the HBCE Proverbs. In fact, for that, I worked off of PDF generated hard-copy to prevent it.

But in the book I'm editing now, a book on the wisdom tradition, Word has started doing something even more devious. It will reformat a sentence by moving words to the next line, but then not rewrite the preceding line. The result is that it looks like there is a double occurrence of the word, but there isn't! Arghh!

So, if you happen to read a book on the wisdom tradition and find a missing word in a sentence, it isn't the editor! It's MS Word!

And I still hate it, 30+ years later! But I have to use it, because it has functions that the open source alternatives don't do properly...Arghh indeed!

Zwingli was right, for a change!

Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531) emphasized that the Spirit of God empowers Christians to understand the Bible, and he taught that an uneducated peasant who had the Spirit could understand the Scripture. Although at times he cites the fathers, he challenges students of Scripture to judge the decisions of popes, fathers and contemporaries by the Scriptures.—Why Church History Matters, page 142

<idle musing>
A double-edged sword, no doubt...it definitely led to the production of masses of denominations. Too bad, that. But, I firmly believe it is true.

The problem is, that rather than discuss the differences of opinion in a humble and prayerful way, the ruling party would simply anathematize the one disagreeing—and the disagreeing party would simply start another denomination (unless, of course, they were killed before they could!).
</idle musing>

This is wrong

Even conversion among Bible-focused Christians is understood to be individual: one individual has a “personal experience,” connecting the person directly with God. Subsequent fellowship in the church is treated as an optional by-product of this personal conversion—helpful, but not necessary. The real goal is to sustain, repeat, maximize or supplement this individual experience. Again, there is loss of community.—Why Church History Matters, pages 98-99

Sola? or prima?

The Reformers insisted on sola scriptura, though we have already seen that they often cited the church fathers as they discussed Scripture. As a result, many Bible-focused Christians today still see the tradition as the primary problem. Their foundational paradigm pursues church history to show how the church failed and to rediscover what the church should be. They see the past as a source of deception, a failure that lost or hid the truth. So rather than considering the tradition as a rich resource for contemporary Christians, they are suspicious of the tradition.—Why Church History Matters, page 93

One church?

The notion of one church in one world, still held by East and West even after their separation in 1054, gave way to a variety of denominational commitments, depending for authority upon leading theologians and the support of their political princes. Protestants still appealed to the tradition, but many viewed the tradition with a strong sense of suspicion.—Why Church History Matters, page 51

<idle musing>
And that's where we are today: Tradition is still important, but it is redefined as choosing your favorite theologian/denomination, calling it biblical, and then calling the rest tradition and throwing it away. In other words, tradition is anything that doesn't fit my preconceived ideas of what the Bible says! OK, I'm being a bit cynical here, but I don't think I'm too far off, sadly.
</idle musing>

Umm, your heroes used it! Tradition, that is

The mainline Reformers, therefore, did not reject the tradition, but rather the abuse of tradition that exalted the papacy and the magisterium above the Scripture or threatened the doctrine of justification by faith as they understood it. In fact, they often appealed to the tradition to justify their own reading of Scripture.—Why Church History Matters, page 49

Listen to Aquinas

Nevertheless sacred doctrine makes use of these authorities [Church Fathers and tradition] as extrinsic and probably arguments, but properly uses the authority of canonical Scriptures as a necessary demonstration and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets, who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors—Thomas Aquinas as quoted in Why Church History Matters, page 44

Huh? Say that again slowly

We see here the developing belief that the Scripture extends to items outside of itself, though the canon of Scripture does not. The canon of Scripture is closed, but the teaching of Scripture includes writings outside the canon of Scripture, which therefore share the inspirational power of Scripture.—Why Church History Matters, page 43

Who can intercede?

From a forthcoming SBL book, Is There a Wisdom Tradition? New Prospects in Israelite Wisdom Studies, chapter 10, "How Wisdom Texts Became Part of the Canon of the Hebrew Bible" by Raik Heckl:

The pious sufferer who keeps his relationship with God in spite of his suffering is alone able to perform the intercession that Eli thinks to be impossible [I Sam 2:25]. The characterization of Job follows the manner of Eli as well as of Samuel. But Job outrivals not only Eli but also Samuel, if we take the later development of the Samuel story (1 Sam 8) into account. The pious sufferer alone is able to intercede effectively for others to God.

Thought for a cloudy Thursday and a link or two

God’s will is that your lives are dedicated to him. This means that you stay away from sexual immorality and learn how to control your own body in a pure and respectable way. Don’t be controlled by your sexual urges like the Gentiles who don’t know God. No one should mistreat or take advantage of their brother or sister in this issue. The Lord punishes people for all these things, as we told you before and sternly warned you. God didn’t call us to be immoral but to be dedicated to him. Therefore, whoever rejects these instructions isn’t rejecting a human authority. They are rejecting God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you. (1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 CEB)

<idle musing>
In a related incident, I ran across this article by that great Aussie, Michael Bird. Here's an interesting snippet, which immediately follows his quoting of the above verses:

I know that infidelity happens and some celebrity couples have “open marriages” because of a male movie star’s over-active libido, but most of us have cringed at that because we see the value and virtue of faithful life-long partnerships. But when the virtues of exclusivity and fidelity are portrayed as a toxic relic of the Victorian era that people should not have to hear about because it’s very statement is offensive, then the game has changed. Far from ushering in some kind of sexual revolution with newly found freedoms, I think we’re going to see society degenerate further towards the perversity of ancient paganism, where sex becomes about the use of others, the gratification of the self, the pornification of women, and the worship of desire. It will lead to a generation of men and women who find sex and relationships hurtful, confusing, manipulative, and wonder what true love really is. The darker the darkness of the surrounding sexual culture, the more Christian marriages – I mean true and authentic Christian marriages – will stand out. That is because Christians will claim that sex is a gift to be enjoyed in a committed relationship and love is about giving rather than gratifying. It gives Christians the opportunity to show that love can have both eros and agape. Then suddenly the mono-normativity of Christianity might not seem like such a bad option.

Indeed!

And then this showed up in my RSS feed about putting your pro-life money where you wife is. Read the whole thing, please. He pushes hard on how much we really trust God. Here's a snippet, but please read it all. Really! Do read it!

Now, I’m not a doctor nor the son of a doctor. I’m not qualified to give medical advice and neither do I want to. But what I do want to say is that there is another Factor that the world chooses to ignore, but that we as believers must figure into the equation.

You see, God has no place in secular science or in philosophy. From a strictly medical perspective, the doctors were right. We should have aborted. Maybe it is true that babies that are in the situation that my daughter was in have no hope for a normal healthy life. But again, we believers play by a different set of rules. We live in a different kingdom. We believe that there is a God who is all powerful, who can and does, work in our lives. Now, maybe we can forgive non-Christians for failing to take into account the fact that God can (notice that I didn’t say “will”) do the impossible. But if truth be told, the God-factor has no place in the everyday life of many believers in Jesus either. Sadly, God is abstract for them. He’s merely someone that you talk about, sing to on Sunday mornings for 45 minutes, but don’t really trust in. He’s theoretical. He’s simply the distant foundation for our political views.

But let me encourage all of you readers out there: God’s not theoretical. He does see the situations we face, he is involved in our lives, and sometimes (not every time) he even does the impossible. (emphasis original)

Yes. How much does the "God-factor" change the way you and I live day-to-day? Not enough, I fear.
</idle musing>

The early church's use of tradition

With few exceptions, Christians in the early period saw Scripture and apostolic tradition as one great rule of truth. By the end of the early period it had become evident that there could be contradictory and competing traditions, sometimes with each position supported by widespread acceptance and long–standing practice. This caused a number of problems. Yet most Christians, supported by evidence or despite evidence, continued to believe that these disputes would be settled, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the life of the church, by careful appeal to the single source, which was Scripture and tradition. Scripture was sufficient, they believed, but only when interpreted properly.—Why Church History Matters, pages 41-42

What about tradition? What do we do with it?

[A]lthough Protestants often have declared their distaste for tradition, they have nonetheless developed traditions that are necessary to their ability to implement Christian faith and practice. Tradition helps them preach the gospel.—Why Church History Matters, page 31

And:

At the same time, we must recognize the dangers of tradition. Past Christians have had good reason to suspect the tradition, as we will see. Blind following of tradition has led to many travesties among Christians, as all Christian groups would admit. Jesus decried traditions that impede obedience to the very commands of God.—Why Church History Matters, page 32

<idle musing>
Indeed! I recall reading Clark Pinnock many years ago where he asked how one could use tradition without becoming Roman Catholic, and yet how one could ignore tradition without becoming a flaming liberal. A difficult balancing act, isn't it?
</idle musing>

About that garden thing

Last week was a busy one for gardening. I finally finished the third bed that I've been meaning to make for two years now. And I put up the hoop house. I don't have a place on the property that gets sun in December–January; the sun is too low on the horizon, even an eight foot fence projects a twenty foot shadow for about eight weeks. Kinda hard to get anything to survive, let alone grow, when you don't get any sun! So, this is a bit of a compromise. Debbie didn't like it in the backyard—and I don't blame her; it's 12' x 16' and 7' tall. That pretty much takes up our backyard and blocks any view of the rabbits. So, I put it on the north side of Cedar (the log cabin). It gets excellent sun from about April to the end of September. So, that's where I'll put the warm weather crops like tomatoes, squash, and peppers.

I put up the PVC frame, screwing it to the beds as added stability. We get some pretty strong winds coming down off the ridge; I found that out when I put the one in the backyard 2 years ago. The wind demolished it because I thought the fence would protect it. It didn't! Next I put the plastic over the top and on the west end. The last step was building the doors on the east end. I have three beds inside the house, so I need two doors. They are only 24" doors, so a bit narrow, but I can get tomato cages in and that's what counts.

After building it, I let it sit empty for a few days. Then, on Saturday, I planted 24 tomato plants—3 Roma, 3 Oregon Spring, 3 Cosmonaut Volkov, 6 Glacier, and 9 Beefsteak. The middle three are cold weather tomatoes, in fact Volkov supposedly will set fruit as cold as 39ºF.

I also planted 18 peppers of the bell variety—4 California Wonder, 6 New Ace, and 8 King of the North. The latter two are new to me, but are supposed to do well in northern climates. We'll see! I also planted 4 chile peppers, removed a bit from the others, I don't want all my peppers to be hot : )

Oh, and I planted 5 hills of Delicata in the north bed. I still need to plant cukes and summer squash, but they won't be in the hoop house. I'll cover them with row cover until they flower; that should keep them warm enough to do well.

I also planted 3 cherry tomatoes. Two in a wooden planter on the deck and one in a self-watering container made out of 2 five-gallon buckets (food grade, of course!). Finally, I planted Fortext, Provider, and Scarlet Runner green beans. Oh, and Oregon Giant Snow Peas. Not too shabby a week, no?

All that was done by Saturday afternoon. Just in time for it to freeze Saturday and Sunday nights! But I was ready! I had row cover over the tomatoes and peppers in the hoop house, so they were protected down to about 25ºF and I covered the cherries with old sheets—that's one advantage of the cabins, we always have plenty of old sheets! It only got down to about 30ºF, so everything was fine both nights...

Now, off to clean a couple of cabins, sort the recycle, and put up the Eisenbrauns monthly sale...

Oh, did I mention that we hiked in Judge C.R. Magney, Temperance, Cascade, and Oberg Mountain last week?

A wide perspective

When we consult resources to help us understand history and theology, we must be careful not to limit our resources to authors who share our cultural perspectives and intellectual commitments. We need the point of view offered by contemporaries of various perspectives and various cultures. But also, we cannot hope to approach “objective enough” unless we also consider the points of view offered by historical figures who lived godly Christian lives and who endeavored to understand the truth with open hearts in times and cultures very different from our own. Only then can we expand our own limited understandings to approach a fuller and fairer analysis of the past in order to understand the present and improve the future.—Why Church History Matters, pages 27-28

<idle musing>
Indeed! If we only read people from our own time and/or tradition, we will become even more convinced that outside of that tradition, God just isn't doing anything—and never has. Sound familiar?
</idle musing>