Meandering in a Forward Direction

This Blog is Moving!!!

2010-01-03T14:10:00.003-05:00

I had a sudden revelation this morning in church, and, oddly enough, it directly impacts my blog. It was one of those "this is what you're supposed to be doing with your life" moments, and it gave me the chills. Totally out of the blue, too.

But the end result is that I'm closing this blog down and starting up a new one--one that's a little less self-focused, purposeless, pretentious, and, well, again, all about me.

Here's the link.

Parenting, pt. 4

2010-01-03T13:54:00.003-05:00

So I actually covered part of this in the last post . . . when it comes to an organic process, sometimes it's hard to strictly separate out different steps. They all sort of flow from one to the other.

But the last step I've found to this is Direction. And that's just following up your strategic thinking with strategic action. You see the challenges your kids will face, the parts of their personalities that will be stretched the most in the next stages, and you create opportunities for growth and teachable moments that can begin to move your kids toward maturity in these areas.

My daughter had a very definite view of the how the world Should Be, and sometimes it's very hard for her to adjust to the world As It Is. So I create small opportunities for her to learn to be a little more flexible in her approach to life. One of the things I've done is made sure I regularly serve food she's not a fan of, just to help her learn obedience in small things and to learn to deal with not always having things her way. And that it's OK that Liam messes up her organization, especially when she organizes things that aren't hers! It's not a big thing, but it helps build in her a certain way of looking at life. Small steps are easiest to teach, I think.

So that's it, really. Just OCD parenting (joke!). It's not reactive parenting, and when I find myself reacting, feeling out of control, and I pray, 9 times out of 10 God will tell me I'm not taking the time to think about my kids, and so I'm not prepared for them. If you have a strategy before the problem hits (or before it hits next time), you have a new default setting (a new automatic response) that can take over, instead of your old reactive setting. So it's not reacting to your kids, but being proactive: thoughtfully and prayerfully watching them, thinking about them, and then directing them on a path that fits them and moves them toward maturity. Easier said than done, that's for sure. But it helps to have something concrete to work toward!

What about you? What parenting advice do you give out, or was given to you? Believe me, I'd love to hear it. I, for one, have a long way to go!

Parenting, pt. 3

2010-01-03T13:11:00.002-05:00

OK, so Christmas got the better of me. That, and filling out applications and financial aid applications for Ph.D. programs. Essays, essays, essays . . . and all about what I want to do with my life, when I have so little idea of what that is! Ah, well. I'm thankful God's got that covered. It's pretty intimidating for me to consider.

And now, on to the second part of what I've learned about parenting. The first was learning to watch my kids, to get to know them. The second is Contemplate, which is basically the acronym-appropriate way to say that you set yourself to think deliberately and strategically about them.

As I get to know my kids, I start to notice their strengths and weaknesses, and I learn more and more about the stage of development each is at. So the next thing I have to do is consider what I know about them and set it next to what I know about life, my own experiences, those of my husband, the stages of development my kids are in and those they're moving into, and consider what challenges, victories, learning opportunities, and general growing up my kids will experience now and in the future.

For example, my daughter is a perfectionist. So one of my goals for her is to help her not fear failure, that she will learn to have the courage to try new things, even if she's not good at them yet, and not give up just because she doesn't succeed the first try. My son, on the other hand, sees failure as a personal challenge, an affront to him because he didn't win. So my challenge is to help him understand that just because it's there doesn't mean he has to win over it right now. Sometimes it's better to wait until you're properly equipped to handle the situation--like a 7-month-old trying to climb the stairs by himself. Not safe. Failing just made him want it more!

Those are long-term goals. Short-terms goals are important, too. My daughter lives in her own world, a very imaginative world. She gets it from me, so I really understand how important it is for her to get out and do physically active things, to learn active games like basketball, soccer, etc., just to learn the skills of teamwork, competition, etc. My son, on the other hand, lives very much in this physical world, so I'm trying to gradually teach him that it's OK to have quiet time and that playing by yourself for a few minutes is a good skill for you and those around you! He's 25 lbs, and wants nothing more than constant attention, games, and being held around the house. We're working on expanding his repertoire of skills. These kind of short-terms goals are things you can work on as part of a game with your kids: teaching them to catch (hand-eye coordination) or jump (balance), to sing or to take turns playing.

The key is to look at your kids now and to look ahead for them and help prepare them for the future. My goal is to grow healthy, responsible adults. My prayer is that they love Jesus, too. That's a continual bit of teaching and role-modeling, and the most demanding and intimidating. It's a whole new world of thinking to figure out how to talk about Christmas and Easter to a very sensitive 2-yr-old, to role-play Bible stories and remember children's songs about the Bible and set about to deliberately, strategically instill that in my kids. It's hard, because I want it to be real, to be honest, and to be God-led, not me-led. And that's the toughest part about parenting. It's more and more about God doing his thing through me, teaching me the skills and the way to think, but letting his strength, his love, and his kingdom life be what drives and forms my parenting and my life.

Mapping out Cancer

2009-12-17T15:01:00.002-05:00

Another tangent, and way too cool: they've mapped out the genetic codes for melanoma and lung cancer. And this is the crazy part: "experts estimate a typical smoker acquires one new mutation for every 15 cigarettes they smoke. Although many of these mutations will be harmless, some will trigger cancer."

Wow.

Gotta love the Onion!

2009-12-16T23:56:00.002-05:00

And on a totally unrelated note, check this out. The history-linguistics geek in me thought it was hilarious. And yes, I have a really weird sense of humor.

What I've learned about parenting, pt. 2

2009-12-16T22:34:00.004-05:00

Or rather, ideas I have about parenting so far, given that I'm not very far into it: my daughter turns 3 in just a few months. On the other hand, I'm fast coming to believe that toddlers are just very young teenagers . . . or maybe that teenagers are just very big toddlers??? Hmmm. And now I'm just going to leave that right there.

So what I'm discovering about parenting is that it seems to be a 3-stage process. This isn't developmental stages or anything like that. These are stages I go through--or remind myself to go through--every day. Because I needed an acronym I could remember easily, and because I've got a pretty weird sense of humor, I call it OCD parenting: observation, contemplation, direction.

I have to observe my kids constantly, starting at birth. Those of you who are parents know that there are some things you can just tell about your kid (especially in contrast to an older sibling) from their first 24 hours of life. For example, my daughter is the oldest. She watches the world, considers it, analyzes it, and figures out how to get what she wants and where she wants based on the rules she deduces. My son is almost 8 months. From the time he was born, he saw the world, and tried to change it to match what he wanted. My daughter will deal with things as they are until they pass her internal limit, and then she falls apart. On the other hand, things are either good or the end of the world; there is no middle ground for this boy!

So I watch both of them, trying to get to know them and understand them and how they think.I keep track of where they are developmentally, and try to figure out what might be the biggest challenges and the most rewarding aspects of the stage they're in and in the next stage. That way I can help them with their challenges and praise them and appreciate their successes. I can also be prepared with some strategies for the next stage, but that's getting ahead of myself. That's the next step: contemplation.

And it's late, and my daughter is apparently out of bed and in the bathroom playing with her stepping stool. Let's end it here for now, and pick up with contemplation next time! It's time for little girls to be in bed.

What I've learned about parenting, pt. 1

2009-12-07T21:33:00.004-05:00

It's embarrassing to realize that I promised this post a full 4 months ago, and am only now finally sitting down to write it. My excuse? Umm . . . parenting??

Actually, it's true. My son waited until he was 6 months old to sleep more than 2 hours at a time at night, and my daughter hit that wonderful 2 1/2 stage. I though maybe I should figure out some of my own parenting puzzles before writing about "everything I've learned about parenting." What I've learned in the past 4 months feels nearly equal to the previous year! So this one post will actually become two, and yet, in the end, really only cover two things: what I see as my job as a parent, and the parenting philosophy I've sort of settled on after a few years of hearing everyone else's advice and watching how everyone I know does family.

My least favorite part of parenting is the enforcer role. You know, the one that feels like a kill-joy ("Don't push your brother around the dining in his highchair!!") and so often ends in discipline ("Go to your room, NOW!"). I hate it. I hate that I have to emotionally distance myself from my kids to discipline them well. I've discovered that if I let myself stay emotionally invested in the situation, I react emotionally to their disobedience, and disciplining my kids when I'm emotionally involved always ends up feeling like punishment instead of discipline. I want to train my children even in the consequences they face for bad behavior. I don't want to just shut them down. So I've developed a mini-speech I always give my daughter after I discipline her. First we talk through why she got disciplined. Then I tell her I love her, and that my job is to help her grow up and be safe, and that's why we have rules and consequences.

Those two phrases--"grow up" and "be safe"--have come to summarize (to me, at any rate!) my job as a mother. So how do you define these? Safety is the obvious one. If the hurt you'll do yourself is not worth the cost of the injury and what you'll learn from it, don't do it. But what about "grow up"? I define that as preparing my kids to one day enter the real world as healthy and responsible adults capable of successfully navigating the confusing decisions of adulthood. As a Christian, a huge part of that for me is introducing them to the God of the Bible, who loves them profoundly and practically, and to Jesus, who walked in their shoes and offers the way back to God and to the kingdom reality we were meant to experience in complete trust and confidence in him.

Nearly every rule, every situation in parenting so far fits under being safe and growing up. Disobedience? It's part of growing up healthily, because we all need to be able to take direction and obey authorities. Don't play with hot water? Be safe. Don't hit your brother? It's part of growing up to be a healthy, responsible adult. Loving other people? Same thing. It helps my daughter understand I have reasons, and that these reasons are to help her, not just to shut her down. But then, that's her personality. I have a feeling that it will be more important to just say "I'm mommy, and get over it!" to my son!

The side benefit of consistently reminding Jenna of this is that I remind myself of it, as well. And that encourages--well, it challenges--me to parent thoughtfully, with one eye on my children and one eye on their future. And the idea of taking the long view on my kids actually brings me to the second part of what I've learned parenting: my parenting philosophy. It's based on our need as parents to get to know our own kids and to parent them based not on today's needs (at least, not only!) but on the future adults we see in our children.

A Change of Focus . . .

2009-08-07T14:16:00.006-04:00

Having graduated (finally!) with my MDiv this past May, I'm taking a well-earned year off before diving into a doctoral program. A year off being a stay-at-home mom, prepping some papers for publishing, brushing up on my Spanish and French, and learning Latin and German. So, maybe not a year off.

But it is a year away from the classroom, be it learning or teaching. And I find my thoughts frequently drifting away from intricate arguments of interpretation and what's cutting-edge in the biblical studies world. I've got to admit, it's refreshing to be a bit more down-to-earth; academia so often seems most at home in the stratosphere! I continue to be grateful that I married a pastor, though--consistent involvement, even by proxy, in the heart of church life does force you to put feet and hands to what you learn in the classroom. I'll always be an academic at heart, but I'm grateful I've been consistently forced into the real world of real people and real problems.

That being said, it seems like a good time to look back over the last few (intense!) years of studying, teaching, growing up, and struggling to work out in life what I've been tested on in the classroom.

First up? Parenting . . . about as far from academia as you can get, I think!

Holiness and the Church

2009-08-06T14:19:00.002-04:00

So I read through my last couple of posts and realized I didn't really finish my train of thought. All of this discussion on holiness or purity in the OT and NT deals with God's interaction with humanity and our interaction with him. Jesus turns the expectations of the OT upside down because in the Gospels he appears to "transmit" purity to the unclean instead of becoming unclean himself by touching them.

But there is one other aspect of holiness, outside of interactions between God and humanity, and that is interactions, or maybe I should say impact, of God's people on those who do not follow him. Holiness (literally, "set apart-ness") was, and still is, to be one of the key identifiers of God's people. We are to be set apart from a selfish, sinful way of looking at and doing life, and instead see and do life God's way. So what does this have to do with my previous comments on contagious holiness?

Well, put contagious holiness alongside our calling to be holy and do what we see our Father doing. What does that mean for the church? I think it could mean that we are called to be contagious ourselves. Instead of letting the world rub off on us, we are called to rub off on the world. We are called to follow Jesus' example and to grow the kingdom wherever we are. Wherever we go, we take a new way of looking at things, a new way of doing things. Jesus called us salt and light--preservatives and illumination. Our very presence changes the basic nature of our surroundings. And like the OT Israelites, we are also called to be holy--but a new holiness, constantly renewed by God's grace and forgiveness, that "trumps" the darkness and sin around us, purifying not just us but also through us, drawing to a dramatic close God's plan to redeem all of creation.

(By the way, this plan isn't just a NT thing. God didn't totally change his plan between OT and NT. He planted the seeds for it in the OT, and brought it to fruition in the person of Jesus. He is utterly consistent in plan--and fabulously patient in working it out.)

Jesus and Contagious Holiness

2009-07-27T23:47:00.001-04:00

When we get to the New Testament,though, Jesus turns the standard understanding of holiness on its head. Throughout the Gospels the authors describe him healing by touch (Matthew 8.1-4, for example, or John 9). The account in Matthew underscores that Jesus didn't need to touch the recipient in order to heal him or her: directly after touching and healing a leper, Jesus speaks healing over the centurion's servant. It can only be that Jesus' touch is deliberate. Any first-century Jew would know that touching a leper makes you unclean; i.e., the uncleanness of the leper is contagiously passed on to you. But Jesus touches the leper without compunction, and apparently without contracting uncleanness. He cures the man's disease and, by curing a disease that thrust the leper out of the Jewish community, heals the man physically, socially, and spiritually (the man is now welcome back into God's presence at the Temple). Just looking at the Gospel accounts suggests that the healings Jesus performs have this three-fold purpose deliberately: physical, social, and spiritual healing. Jesus' holiness is passed on to the sick, demon-possessed, etc.

And Jesus' healing of the paralytic in Matthew 9 explicitly ties forgiveness to healing (a perfectly reasonable tie, given the link between sin and disease, disfigurement in the first-century Jewish worldview). Forgiveness, healing . . . these sound a lot like the results of sacrifice in Leviticus. I would argue that the Gospels deliberately set Jesus up as a new sacrifice, a replacement for Temple sacrifices, foreshadowing his offering on the cross by describing healings in which heals and sanctifies (by forgiveness?) the sinful, diseased, and otherwise marginalized. They "catch" holiness from Jesus (by faith) and are returned to full community. His touch purifies them of disease and sin alike, and his role as sacrifice is completed on the cross.

Obviously, it's been a while since I first started thinking about this, and a very long time since I started posting some of my thoughts. They've undergone some changes, additions, etc., and I suddenly realize there's a whole lot more work to be done in the Gospels and in Leviticus and some of the prophetic passages that deal with sacrifice in order to fully flesh these out. But there's enough just at a cursory glance that I think I'll be pondering these things for a long time.

Contagious Holiness in the OT (Leviticus?)

2009-04-28T23:13:00.000-04:00

Leviticus 6.24-30 contains some interesting wording when it comes to the holiness of sacrifices. According to the TNIV, verse 27 reads "Whatever touches any of the flesh will become holy . . . ." This certainly sounds like contagious holiness, but the rest of the passage does not reflect this idea at all: the second half of the verse requires that any garment that touched the meat be washed, and verse 28 continues with the more frequent injunction to destroy or clean any pot in which the meat was cooked. These warnings are standard within these sections of Leviticus describing the various sacrifices, and nowhere do these descriptions suggest any sort of holiness that "passes on" from the sacrifice to any other object.

The NET probably has it right: "Anyone who touches its meat must be holy . . . ." Again, the holiness of an item, even of a sacrifice, continues its status subject to the holiness/cleanliness of what it contacts. So this passage, which I originally read in the TNIV, does not actually support any idea of "contagious holiness." So why bring it up at all? Simply because it demonstrates a principle core to the idea of contagious holiness: true holiness that trumps sin and uncleanness must come straight from the source--that is, God--and not from something else, even if it is associated with or given by him. This may not seem like a big deal, but its practical implications are pretty important. I'll take a look at those very briefly, and in just a minute. But first to look at holiness within the OT sacrificial system.

God set up the sacrificial system with its limitations so that it would be clear to Israel that holiness only came from personal interaction with himself via the avenues he specified (and thus demonstrating one's submission to his rule). Opening up another way to holiness via impersonal objects would bring "magic" back into Israel's experience of God (magic and divination were very significant parts of Egyptian and Canaanite religious rites). The key to magic is that man has control over the outcome. A priest trained for years in the "right" way to pray, to sacrifice, and to perform the rites so that he could guarantee the deity's response to the petitioner. In other words, praying the right prayer and giving the right gift guaranteed that you'd get what you wanted. It was a contract whose outcome you could control, and thus you had a measure of control over the divine.

The core of God's interaction with Israel, though, was their trust in his goodness and their consequent submission to his response to their petitions. This was completely the opposite of the religious atmosphere they left in Egypt, where one's status with the gods could be bought with proper rites. Israel's status with God depended instead on his grace, on their obedience, and on a covenant of trust and obedience instead of a contract of rituals and proper wording.

Ezekiel 47 takes this emphasis on the heart instead of on right ritual to a whole new level. Sacrifice and ritual--even as expressions of submission, obedience, and trust--are bypassed in favor of a new way in which God pours himself out on Israel, and Israel responds in heartfelt submission that transcends rite to be a personal interaction with God himself. This is where contagious holiness comes in, then: at the level of interaction with the person and power of God, and not with any other thing, no matter how closely linked to God's holiness it may be.

So what does that mean practically? It means that we can't expect God's holiness and his cleansing to "rub off" on us if we're not actually in contact with him. Too often we can get sidetracked by things that are "supposed" to grow us spiritually, whether they by people, practices, or events. But if we're not deliberately interacting with God at that heart level as a matter of lifestyle, we can't expect, much less demand, the outpouring of God's presence and power in our lives that we so very much desire. And with that, it's time to look at Jesus and how he viewed purity and holiness.

Contagious Holiness, Ezekiel Style

2009-04-14T21:15:00.008-04:00

So the most vivid examples of contagious holiness can, I think, be found in the prophets and, specifically, in those prophetic passages that describe Israel's restoration and return from exile. In chapters 40-47, Ezekiel relates his vision of the new Temple and new Israel. A quick scan shows that it's full of odd details, numbers, etc. The perfection of the numbers and images (perfect cubes, numbers significant to Israelite history and gematria like 12, 40, etc.) indicate that the vision is symbolic. In keeping with his earlier vision in 10-13, Ezekiel's description of the Temple emphasizes its sheer "otherness," highlighting the transcendent glory, holiness, and power of God.

The imagery of this utter perfection coming down to dwell with Israel brings an astounding note of personal care and intimacy to Israel's future interactions with God. But the really astounding bit is found in Ezekiel 47. The Temple is once again in Israel, full of God's glory and holiness, and a river runs from the altar out of the Temple. It grows as it leaves the Temple, starting as a trickle but soon becoming an uncrossable river, overflowing the land. The river brings life everywhere it goes--life abundant and overwhelming, transforming a desert into fruitful land and even turning the Dead Sea into fresh water (but leaving the salt marshes salty in order to retain their usefulness). The trees bear unending fruit and their leaves bring healing to all. The uncleanness of the land that Ezekiel witnessed in chapters 10-13 is washed away in this flood as if it never existed.

Because of the link Ezekiel's already established between sin and the failure of the land and its people and the abandonment of God, the return of fruitfulness, the implied prosperity of God's people, and the simple yet undeniable fact of God's returned presence all point to a reversal of the OT concept of holiness as subject to defilement. The sacrificial code itself is based on the idea that the uncleanness of sin destroys the purification of holiness, making the repetition of sacrifice necessary in order to remain holy and within the covenant God established with his people (and, by extension, to remain within the community of God's people as well).

The OT view of the Temple is as a center of holiness, a place to come and have your uncleanness and sin effectively erased by sacrifice. However, neither the Tabernacle nor Solomon's Temple "infected" the land and its people with holiness. Instead, as Ezekiel saw, the sins of the people could defile the Temple itself, leading to God's abandonment of it, for it was no longer an appropriate dwelling for a holy God. This stands completely in line with the view of holiness described above.

However, Ezekiel's description in chapter 47 of unheard-of fruitfulness indicates a sanctification of the land--in a sense, its redemption. God's life-giving presence so pervades the land that it can only be described in cosmic, nearly surreal terms. No mention is made of sacrifices brought to the Temple; instead, the river bubbles forth from the altar spontaneously to bring holiness and redemption to God's people. The uncleanness of the land has been washed away in an outpouring of holiness unlike anything seen before. What is holy is not made unclean by the defilement of the land, but instead "trumps" the sin in the land in an explosion of life and healing. It is a contagious holiness that purifies all it touches.

To All Things There is An End . . . we hope!

2009-04-12T22:24:00.002-04:00

Well, I have finally semi-officially finished my Master of Divinity! My thesis is submitted and my classes completed. On to graduation at the end of May! And now, for the first time in 2 years, I have time to explore all the ideas and fields I've put on hold because of my thesis. I've sadly neglected my blog, and I'm looking forward to working out some ideas I've kept in the back of my mind for the past few months.

But first I promise to finish some of my thoughts on contagious holiness. In the next couple of day, I'll sit down and look at sacrifice, Temple, and new covenant through the lens of contagious holiness--and then finally move on to how Jesus enacted this idea in his ministry, and what the implications of his actions are in regards to his understanding of God's promises to Israel and, possibly, our role as the church today, following the model he laid out.

Delayed, Belated, But Finally Here: Contagious Holiness, pt. 2

2008-09-20T16:59:00.004-04:00

Again, my apologies for the long delay. Life got a little busy around here between the beginning weeks of school and Hurricane Ike roaring up through the middle of Ohio (!). Hurricanes and the Midwest are not a combination I'd ever imagined before, but it was interesting! But back to contagious holiness:

The first time I see contagious holiness at work in the Old Testament is actually all the way back in Eden. God created Eden as the perfect paradise, a place of abundant life surrounded by chaos and wilderness. God commands Adam to take care of this garden and maintain it (Gen 2) and to fill the earth and subdue it (Gen 1). G.K. Beale in The Temple and the Church's Mission observes that the language used to describe Adam's commission indicates that Adam is not only to care for the garden but to expand its borders as well. So let's follow the logic: Eden is a place of abundant life, where rivers flow from it to water the earth. Eden is also the place where God comes to "walk with" man, so it is a place where God meets with and communicates with man. Eden is a place of order and a focal point of God's creative ability. These things together depict a place where God's rule, his sovereignty, and his presence, are active in a unique and powerful way. By any definition, this makes Eden a primordial temple. Adam's charge to expand its borders is equivalent, Beale says, to expanding God's rule on earth. Beale bases his conclusions not just on the language of the text but also on his understanding of how ancient civilizations would have understood the Eden account.

But what does this mean? Well, if Eden is a sort of organic temple, and God's plan for Eden was that it expand over the earth, then God's plan from the beginning of earth's time has been that his presence and his rule spread throughout the earth, not just in an omnipresent, omnipotent way, but in a special, active way where not just humanity but all of creation are determined to fall in with and pursue his will in all things.

Again, what does this have to do with holiness? My answer is that if holiness is being set apart to God for service and devotion to him, I can find no better description of the process outlined above than sanctification. Seen in this light, Adam's job was to expand the borders of a holy place, to infect the lands around Eden with a sense of being set apart to God for active obedience and service to him. Yes, God made the world, and so it technically is all his anyway. But he created mankind with the freedom to choose: to choose sin, and thus spread evil everywhere he goes, or to choose holiness, and to spread the rule of God everywhere he may go. And we--the church--have been commissioned to do the same: to infect those around us with this same sense of being called to set ourselves apart from sin as a people holy to God, expanding the borders of the kingdom throughout the world.

Contagious Holiness

2008-09-01T21:40:00.003-04:00

The idea of "contagious holiness" has sort of made the rounds in recent years, most notably in Craig Blomberg's Contagious Holiness: Jesus' Meals With Sinners. In this book, Blomberg took a look at what it meant that Jesus ate with sinners. In a culture where purity was key to one's standing before God, this was a tremendous break not only with tradition but also with theology. Blomberg concludes that Jesus' meals were in fact a sort of parable-in-action: Jesus showed God's contagious holiness in a very human way to demonstrate the new way of the kingdom.

Blomberg's book is well worth the read if the above description intrigues you. He's done a superb--and thorough--job of discussing a concept not many have really touched on. But by the end of the book, it was clear to me that Jesus' eating habits was not the only example of contagious holiness in his ministry.

In fact, I think the idea of contagious holiness begins way back in the Old Testament, back as far as ~~the Tabernacle and sacrifices~~ Eden and can be see drawn larger than life in the prophets. In fact, it seems quite possible Jesus was deliberately evoking these images and stories in his actions, demonstrating contagious holiness not just as part of his announcement of the new kingdom way but as a fulfillment of the prophecies and symbols of the Jewish Scriptures. With this in mind, in the next couple of posts I'll tackle some Old Testament passages and talk about a new way Jesus brought holiness: through his healing ministry.

Now here's my disclaimer: these will really be more like outlines of ideas based on these passages and certainly not publishable as is. I'm still putting this together in my mind, so I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Addendum: I've recently come across some ideas that mean I need to rethink some of my approach and incorporate some new information, so it may be another couple of days before I get to the good stuff!

What do you think?

2008-08-31T21:29:00.002-04:00

While I was studying for the GRE last week, I ran across an issue topic that's been running through my head ever since:

"In order to produce successful original work, scholars and scientists must first study the successful work of others to learn what contributions remain to be made."

In other words, as I research and write my thesis, my main objective should be to discern areas that have been overlooked or questions that have not been answered. Realistically, of course, you need to have an idea or area already in mind, and then look to see if there are holes to be filled in that area or with that idea. So you must start at least with a tentative direction and not with an exhaustive--and exhausting!--review of an entire body of literature. Then you can look for weak spots or holes that you think you can address in an original and thought-provoking way.

This general idea strikes a chord with me, both in terms of guiding my research and in terms of how I present my research (rationale for the method and topic, especially). What's curious to me is that no one I've spoken with has couched academic contributions in this manner. Instead, it seems that the underlying idea is just to present your take on something and hope someone else jumps on it as a timely or brilliant piece of work (hopefully, both!). In retrospect, this approach seems incredibly un-strategic (is that even a word?) and not a terribly efficient approach to something that's going to swallow a good part of your life, be it thesis or dissertation. The thought of jumping into such a project without some strategic thinking suddenly gives me the chills!

All I can think is that I've stumbled onto a basic principle that either everyone knows and doesn't talk about (because they assume everyone knows), or I've just discovered the way people should have been thinking about research and presentation all along! What do you think?

School is here!

2008-08-30T22:57:00.004-04:00

This fall is starting off with a bang: Greek began once more at 8am for all my poor bleary-eyed undergrads last week, and classes begin for me the following week. On top of that, I took the GRE this morning (it wasn't required for seminary, but it is for my application to doctoral programs--so nice to have it out of the way!), and am still trying to finish the first chapter of my thesis in the midst of the usual round of frantic before-the-semester-really-gets-under-sway meetings this coming week. It's been busy, though I hope with the GRE out of the way, I'll be able to focus more on my thesis and maybe (!) post some thoughts over the next few days.

With that in mind, I wish all of you a relaxing Labor Day weekend, an oasis in the flurry of fall beginnings!

Symbols and Symbolic Language

2008-08-09T21:33:00.005-04:00

Ben Witherington, in his Christology of Jesus, writes that kingdom is not a symbol in itself because symbols point to something else, and so refer to something external to the symbol itself (194). Instead, he says that ~~kingdom~~ kingdom of God "refers" to another set of ideas, but does not symbolize them (195). It appears that part of his concern here is to take the kingdom out of the abstract and affirm its present, dynamic reality. Also, he is intent on affirming that the kingdom of God embodies the concepts it refers to, so that these are not concepts outside of itself that it somehow abstractly "stands for." His definitions of an external referent (see above), and what I suppose he would call an internal referent clarify this rather complex distinction.

Something to think on as I determine what sort of language I'll use when I describe Matthew's use of kingdom of Heaven later this fall.

The Evolution of Symbols

2008-08-09T21:13:00.004-04:00

Recently I've been reading Norman Perrin's Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom. His material on symbolic language is what drew me to his work. I'm not convinced by his designation of "steno" and "tensive" symbols, though. According to the authorities, a steno symbol is one that is static, and its meaning does not change. A tensive symbol is dynamic, and the meaning of the symbol may change over time or in usage.

It seems that such a distinct breakdown is unrealistic, not to mention anachronistic for the first century, as Witherington notes. Language is inherently fluid, and when the meanings of regular words are subverted for rhetorical impact or just for fun, symbols are even more subject to subversion, because a symbol is so much more profound than a description or synonym. A symbol may hold a set meaning until a gifted orator subverts its meaning for his own agenda, or until political, social, or even natural events cause a shift in emphasis and, over time, meaning.

However, a valuable contribution Perrin has made is that he has recognized--and drawn attention to--the dynamic nature of symbols (though he would admit to only certain symbols changing). Their ability and, I think, their tendency to change has implications, then, on how we approach symbolic language and even on how we interpret the author's message and intent.

Practically speaking, this means that the individual contexts in which a symbol is used should have a significant role in determining the meaning of the symbol, in tracing the author's argument through his development of the symbol, and in discussing the impact of the text (how the audience would perceive it). The context in which the author uses the symbol reveals a lot about the message he is trying to communicate--both in the specific instance and throughout the text--which in turn reveals a lot about the author's view of reality and his theology, and opens new venues for considering the author's purpose and rhetorical strategy.

For example, Ezekiel's use of Temple imagery, or Jeremiah's use of covenant, Paul's use of "Gentile" or "Israel" . . . anybody interested?

I'm back!

2008-08-09T15:06:00.003-04:00

Sorry for the unannounced hiatus, folks. A few days after my last post it was forcibly born in on me that I was badly burned out. I took a vacation--first I've taken in well over two years, and in that time I've had a baby, started work on my thesis, taught two semesters of Greek, and finished over half of my M.Div. It's amazing how tired you discover you are when you finally admit it! Still am, actually, but I'm ready to go again. I'll give you an update over the next day or two of the past month, and all the exciting thesis- and Ph.D.-related things that have been going on. It's good to be back!

The Purpose of the Temple/Tabernacle

2008-07-09T20:49:00.003-04:00

My thesis (M.Div.) will discuss the themes of Temple and Kingdom from the Gospels of John and Matthew, respectively. As always seems to happen with research, I've run across tangents that I'd still like to explore. This may well be the best venue, at least until I have something in publishable form.

This particular tangent was a thought I had regarding the purpose of the Temple. Here goes:

The overarching purpose of the Tabernacle (and, by extension, the Temple) is God's presence, out of which flows the need for atonement in order to enter his presence, and the need for worship to respond to his presence. These three—presence, atonement, and worship—describe all of the major ritual roles of the Tabernacle described in the Law. For example, Exodus 25-30 recounts the structures of the Tabernacle and their purposes. Each item either plays a part in the atonement ritual or celebrates God's presence in a tangible way. Leviticus 1-9 describes the rituals of atonement and worship, and the degree to which the two are consistently so closely intertwined throughout the text suggests that their interweaving is intentional. In addition, the many passages within the Law that dictate proper expressions of worship all hold a common thread: worship is to be in the presence of God, at the Tabernacle.

So, to restate, while presence is the key symbol here, atonement and worship are the active images describing the responses of the people to God's presence, and the structures and rituals of the Temple all reflect this in some way.

Any ideas on this? I'd welcome any refining or critique. It's an intriguing enough idea that I believe it merits a lot more thought. More than I currently have to devote to it, I'm afraid. It also occurs to me that I've missed the purification aspect of so many of the rituals. Purification has obvious ties to God's presence, as his people must be clean/pure/sanctified in order to enter his presence. I'm sure I've missed something else--feel free to let me know in the comments.

The ramifications of this view of the Temple extend to the church, as well. Jesus, as the preeminent Temple in his incarnation, certainly fulfilled the atonement imagery perfectly. How should the church, as God's Temple on earth now (1 Cor. 6, among others), fulfill the worship and purification imagery?

Thoughts to ponder, I suppose.

The Kingdom and the Church

2008-07-09T00:05:00.003-04:00

In the conclusion of his book The Kingdom of God, George Beasley-Murray makes a case that the kingdom and the church are not the same entities; they cannot be used interchangeably, suggesting that members of one are not automatically members of the other. However, he seems to be making his case by defining the church as an organization, an institution. (He doesn't actually offer an explicit definition of church, but his usage suggests this definition.) He does provide a short definition of the kingdom of God, though, as the reign or rule of God.

Given these definitions, I can agree that the organization or institution known as the church should not be blithely equated with the kingdom. However, I find it surprising that Beasley-Murray, who has so consistently throughout his book depended on biblical usage to determine definitions (especially of the kingdom), to then use a definition of the church that holds no resonance with the New Testament. NT usage of ekklesia refers to the gathering of those who believe, not to an institution of attendees.

The church is made up of those who believe and seek to obey God, who have been brought into "the kingdom of the Son he loves" (Col. 1.13). So the church is part of God's kingdom. And by Jesus' definition, those who believe his words, love him, and obey his commands belong to his family, the church (John 15, Mark 16, Luke 8). So these, then, belong to the kingdom. The members of the one really are automatically members of the other, because obedience is the proof of membership for both. Yes, I can concede that the kingdom transcends the church because I would include God's supernatural working as key to kingdom momentum, but I do wish Beasley-Murray's discussion was more detailed. As it is, I just can't buy it.

It's late . . .

2008-07-09T00:04:00.000-04:00

and I suppose one shouldn't decide on the spur of the moment to make one's thoughts open to the world, but the blogging bug has bitten, and I'm too tired to fend it off.

Really, thesis research is just daunting--a lot of work with not so much to show for it--and I'm badly in need of feeling that I've accomplished something today, not to mention hoping that a little stream-of-consciousness might jar some itty bit of brilliance loose from a rather sticky corner somewhere. Too much Chilton, Schweitzer, and Dodd will do that to you, not to mention trying to put together a syllabus for a new class. Urgh! Writing lesson objectives and course rationales have always given me hives, and never more so than this weekend!

Reality has struck hard, though, and convinces my procrastination to take a hike. What's not done now must be done later, and I've no guarantee I'll have the buckets of time later, or that my toddler will compliantly take her nap on deadline day. But my mind is fuzzing over now, and some bit of conscious thought remaining reminds me I'll regret staying up tonight.

Ah, well. I suppose it's too much to hope for that piece of brilliance to shake loose while I sleep and present me with an Einstein-ian solution to a very knotty introduction? Yeah . . . I was afraid so.