There is an old joke about a guy who murdered both his parents, then threw himself on the mercy of the court because he was an orphan. The following news item reminds me of that joke and makes me wonder how people can be capable of doing horrible things to others, all the while maintaining that they hold the moral high ground. Here's the news item as posted on ananova:
A Bosnian couple are getting divorced after finding out they had been secretly chatting each other up online under fake names.
Sana Klaric, 27, and husband Adnan, 32, from Zenica, poured out their hearts to each other over their marriage troubles, and both felt they had found their real soul mate. The couple met on an online chat forum while he was at work and she in an internet cafe, and started chatting under the names Sweetie and Prince of Joy. They eventually decided to meet up - but there was no happy ending when they realised what had happened. Now they are both filing for divorce - with each accusing the other of being unfaithful.
Sana said: "I thought I had found the love of my life. The way this Prince of Joy spoke to me, the things he wrote, the tenderness in every expression was something I had never had in my marriage. It was amazing, we seemed to be stuck in the same kind of miserable marriages - and how right that turned out to be. We arranged to meet outside a shop and both of us would be carrying a single rose so we would know the other. When I saw my husband there with the rose and it dawned on me what had happened I was shattered. I felt so betrayed. I was so angry."
Adnan said: "I was so happy to have found a woman who finally understood me. Then it turned out that I hadn't found anyone new at all. To be honest I still find it hard to believe that the person, Sweetie, who wrote such wonderful things to me on the internet, is actually the same woman I married and who has not said a nice word to me for years."
(ananova.com)
Monday, November 12, 2007
Monday, October 8, 2007
Lifehouse "Everything" video
Here is the video that I shared in worship on World Communion weekend at the close of my message called "Why I Give."
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Death of a Mentor
I just learned about the death this past Saturday of my Old Testament professor, academic advisor, and mentor Brevard Childs.
"I can think of no person who made a greater contribution to the work of unifying the Bible, theology and church life together in a very serious way," said Christopher Seitz, a Biblical scholar at the University of Toronto who was Childs's student, colleague and friend. "I think of him as a sort of Isaiah figure who was given a very hard job to preach and teach but never complained. He just went about his business in a hopeful way."
Studying with Dr. Childs (along with his colleague Henri Nouwen) was a highlight of my experience at Yale Divinity School. Dr. Childs' lectures were always inspiring, and the prayers with which he began each class were meaningful and moving. As a student I would sit in the front row of the lecture hall, taping Dr. Child's lectures with a Radio Shack cassette recorder. I still have the tapes and I still listen to them from time to time. I learned to know and to love the Old Testament through Dr. Childs' teaching and I thank God that I had the opportunity to study with a man of such profound faith and intellect.
"Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart." (Hebrews 12.1-3)
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Source Critical Analysis of The Lord of the Rings
Anyone who has taken an Introduction to the Old Testament class has probably been exposed to Source Criticism. It is a method of literary interpretation that attempts to discover the sources used by an author, authors, or editor(s) in the final construction (or redaction) of a biblical text. I came across a piece written by Mark Shea that applies the Source Critical Method to J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, to great effect. Check it out:
"Experts in source-criticism now know that The Lord of the Rings is a redaction of sources ranging from the Red Book of Westmarch (W) to Elvish Chronicles (E) to Gondorian records (G) to orally transmitted tales of the Rohirrim (R). The conflicting ethnic, social and religious groups which preserved these stories all had their own agendas, as did the 'Tolkien' (T) and 'Peter Jackson' (PJ) redactors, who are often in conflict with each other as well but whose conflicting accounts of the same events reveals a great deal about the political and religious situations which helped to form our popular notions about Middle Earth and the so-called 'War of the Ring'. Into this mix are also thrown a great deal of folk materials about a supposed magic 'ring' and some obscure figures named 'Frodo' and 'Sam'. In all likelihood, these latter figures are totems meant to personify the popularity of Aragorn with the rural classes.
"Because The Lord of the Rings is a composite of sources, we may be quite certain that 'Tolkien' (if he ever existed) did not 'write' this work in the conventional sense, but that it was assembled over a long period of time by someone else of the same name. We know this because a work of the range, depth, and detail of The Lord of the Rings is far beyond the capacity of any modern expert in source-criticism to ever imagine creating themselves."
You can read the entire piece online at the link posted in the links section of this blog.
"Experts in source-criticism now know that The Lord of the Rings is a redaction of sources ranging from the Red Book of Westmarch (W) to Elvish Chronicles (E) to Gondorian records (G) to orally transmitted tales of the Rohirrim (R). The conflicting ethnic, social and religious groups which preserved these stories all had their own agendas, as did the 'Tolkien' (T) and 'Peter Jackson' (PJ) redactors, who are often in conflict with each other as well but whose conflicting accounts of the same events reveals a great deal about the political and religious situations which helped to form our popular notions about Middle Earth and the so-called 'War of the Ring'. Into this mix are also thrown a great deal of folk materials about a supposed magic 'ring' and some obscure figures named 'Frodo' and 'Sam'. In all likelihood, these latter figures are totems meant to personify the popularity of Aragorn with the rural classes.
"Because The Lord of the Rings is a composite of sources, we may be quite certain that 'Tolkien' (if he ever existed) did not 'write' this work in the conventional sense, but that it was assembled over a long period of time by someone else of the same name. We know this because a work of the range, depth, and detail of The Lord of the Rings is far beyond the capacity of any modern expert in source-criticism to ever imagine creating themselves."
You can read the entire piece online at the link posted in the links section of this blog.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
How to Know God's Will
Last week Pastor Bob and I were having lunch at the In 'N Out burger. We got to talking about how a person goes about discerning God's will for their lives. A lot of people imagine that the circumstances they find themselves in are a sign that God is blessing or not blessing them, opening or closing doors, etc. In fact, our circumstances are a notoriously sketchy guide to God's will. In Nicky Gumbel's excellent ALPHA Course, he outlines five specific ways God guides us. I list them below in their order of importance.
(1) Commanding Scripture: Nicky is, of course, not talking about the "flip and dip" method of opening the Bible randomly and assuming that the verse you land on contains a message from God (see #3 below). It means that believers are to be informed by the worldview and values contained in God's Word. God will never guide us to do things that contradict His Word.
(2) Compelling Spirit: This implies that we have sufficient spiritual maturity to be able to discern the difference between the guidance or prompting of God's Holy Spirit and our personal feelings. Just because we feel something doesn't mean that God is behind it or in it.
(3) Common Sense: a reminder of the important difference between authentic faith and naive credulity. God gaves us common sense for a reason. It's important that we make good use of it. How's that for a refreshing perspective!
(4) Counsel of the Saints: Like it says in Proverbs 15.22, "Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed." It's never a bad idea to seek the wisdom of mature believers when we're considering a course of action.
(5) Circumstantial Signs: I can hear American Idol's Randy Jackson saying, "Yo, dawg, check it out." A lot of folks seem to think that the main way God speaks to us is through circumstantial signs. In fact, it's number five, at the bottom of the list, for a reason. Our circumstances can sometimes flat out contradict God's will for our lives. Remember how in the psalms David wonders why the wicked prosper, while Job wonders why he's suffering despite his having lived an upright life? We live in a fallen world and life isn't always fair. So while circumstantial signs sometimes may be be a way God guides us, they are not necessarily the chief or most important way. Rather than focusing on signs, really get to know your Bible, be open to the guidance of God's Holy Spirit, use your common sense, and seek the counsel of the saints.
One last thought. A lot of folks seem to believe that God's will always comes in the form of a single option. In fact, there may be many things that might be God's permissive will for your life. God, in His mercy and grace, may have given you the option of choosing among a number of perfectly acceptable possibilities. Among those good things, you get to choose. I think back to the story of the Garden of Eden where God says, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” (Genesis 2.16-17) There are innumerable options, all of which fall within God's will ("You may freely eat of every tree of the garden," God says). What a great God, to give us the freedom to choose among any number of good things He has created for our blessings and enjoyment. And what a great God, to warn us away from those things that would harm us, injure others, and break our fellowship with Him.
(1) Commanding Scripture: Nicky is, of course, not talking about the "flip and dip" method of opening the Bible randomly and assuming that the verse you land on contains a message from God (see #3 below). It means that believers are to be informed by the worldview and values contained in God's Word. God will never guide us to do things that contradict His Word.
(2) Compelling Spirit: This implies that we have sufficient spiritual maturity to be able to discern the difference between the guidance or prompting of God's Holy Spirit and our personal feelings. Just because we feel something doesn't mean that God is behind it or in it.
(3) Common Sense: a reminder of the important difference between authentic faith and naive credulity. God gaves us common sense for a reason. It's important that we make good use of it. How's that for a refreshing perspective!
(4) Counsel of the Saints: Like it says in Proverbs 15.22, "Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with many advisers they succeed." It's never a bad idea to seek the wisdom of mature believers when we're considering a course of action.
(5) Circumstantial Signs: I can hear American Idol's Randy Jackson saying, "Yo, dawg, check it out." A lot of folks seem to think that the main way God speaks to us is through circumstantial signs. In fact, it's number five, at the bottom of the list, for a reason. Our circumstances can sometimes flat out contradict God's will for our lives. Remember how in the psalms David wonders why the wicked prosper, while Job wonders why he's suffering despite his having lived an upright life? We live in a fallen world and life isn't always fair. So while circumstantial signs sometimes may be be a way God guides us, they are not necessarily the chief or most important way. Rather than focusing on signs, really get to know your Bible, be open to the guidance of God's Holy Spirit, use your common sense, and seek the counsel of the saints.
One last thought. A lot of folks seem to believe that God's will always comes in the form of a single option. In fact, there may be many things that might be God's permissive will for your life. God, in His mercy and grace, may have given you the option of choosing among a number of perfectly acceptable possibilities. Among those good things, you get to choose. I think back to the story of the Garden of Eden where God says, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” (Genesis 2.16-17) There are innumerable options, all of which fall within God's will ("You may freely eat of every tree of the garden," God says). What a great God, to give us the freedom to choose among any number of good things He has created for our blessings and enjoyment. And what a great God, to warn us away from those things that would harm us, injure others, and break our fellowship with Him.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Bones of Contention
There's this dumb joke. "Did you hear that they've decided to cancel Easter this year? They found the body." If we're to believe James Cameron's latest documentary "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" they've not only found Jesus' remains, but that of his wife (guess who) and his son as well. Last year it was the National Geographic channel with its "Gospel of Judas" documentary. This year it's the Discovery channel's turn to cash in on Jesus.
Scholars have been quick to dismiss the claims put forth in the Cameron film. Israeli archaeologist Amos Kloner– who actually discovered the tomb and the ossuaries (some 27 years ago!)– said that they are "of no particular archaeological importance." Speaking to The Jerusalem Post Kloner stated, "It makes a great story for a TV film. But it's impossible. It's nonsense." Dr. Gary Burge characterized the film and book as "a brilliant example of archaeological sensationalism." Biblical anthropologist Joe Zia noted, "What they've done here is they've simply tried in a very, very dishonest way to try to con the public into believing that this is the tomb of Jesus or Jesus' family. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus."
The Washington Post quotes Dr. William G. Dever, professor of Near Eastern Archaeology at the University of Arizona and a fifty year veteran of archaeological excavation whom scholars have referred to as the dean of biblical archaeology: "It's a publicity stunt, and it will make these guys very rich, and it will upset millions of innocent people because they don't know enough to separate fact from fiction." The Post article continues, "Jodi Magness, an archaeologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, expressed irritation that the claims were made at a news conference rather than in a peer-reviewed scientific article. By going directly to the media, she said, the filmmakers have set it up as if it's a legitimate academic debate, when the vast majority of scholars who specialize in archaeology of this period have flatly rejected this."
You may wonder how these scholars have come to their conclusions. Check out Ben Witherington's multifaceted critique by following the links in the upper right hand column. It will give you a sense of some of the issues that are involved.
Scholars have been quick to dismiss the claims put forth in the Cameron film. Israeli archaeologist Amos Kloner– who actually discovered the tomb and the ossuaries (some 27 years ago!)– said that they are "of no particular archaeological importance." Speaking to The Jerusalem Post Kloner stated, "It makes a great story for a TV film. But it's impossible. It's nonsense." Dr. Gary Burge characterized the film and book as "a brilliant example of archaeological sensationalism." Biblical anthropologist Joe Zia noted, "What they've done here is they've simply tried in a very, very dishonest way to try to con the public into believing that this is the tomb of Jesus or Jesus' family. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus."
The Washington Post quotes Dr. William G. Dever, professor of Near Eastern Archaeology at the University of Arizona and a fifty year veteran of archaeological excavation whom scholars have referred to as the dean of biblical archaeology: "It's a publicity stunt, and it will make these guys very rich, and it will upset millions of innocent people because they don't know enough to separate fact from fiction." The Post article continues, "Jodi Magness, an archaeologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, expressed irritation that the claims were made at a news conference rather than in a peer-reviewed scientific article. By going directly to the media, she said, the filmmakers have set it up as if it's a legitimate academic debate, when the vast majority of scholars who specialize in archaeology of this period have flatly rejected this."
You may wonder how these scholars have come to their conclusions. Check out Ben Witherington's multifaceted critique by following the links in the upper right hand column. It will give you a sense of some of the issues that are involved.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Why Detritus?
The American Heritage Dictionary (online version) defines detritus as:
1. Loose fragments or grains that have been worn away from rock. 2a. Disintegrated or eroded matter: the detritus of past civilizations. b. Accumulated material; debris: “Poems, engravings, press releases—he eagerly scrutinizes the detritus of fame” (Carlin Romano).
ETYMOLOGY: French (sorry, Gene) détritus, from Latin dtrtus, from past participle of dterere, to lessen, wear away.
Why Detritus? Most weeks I have the opportunity to pray about, research, write and deliver messages to an amazing group of people at Simi Prez. But those weekly messages barely scratch the surface of what I'm learning, thinking about, talking over, praying through, reading, etc. This blog is an effort to share those 'loose fragments, accumulated material and debris' (see above) that don't fit the weekly message format but which are nonetheless interesting, inspiring, faith-building, funny/weird, or otherwise noteworthy.
For those of you not familiar with the term 'blog' it's short for 'web log'. My guess is that a guy came up with the name because guys keep track of stuff in logs, not diaries. Besides, 'bdiary' involves an unpronouncable bdipthong.
I was motivated to do this after reading Brian Bailey's book The Blogging Church which argues that blogs are an excellent way for a pastor to communicate on a personal level with a large congregation. Sounds like a plan to me, so here we are.
1. Loose fragments or grains that have been worn away from rock. 2a. Disintegrated or eroded matter: the detritus of past civilizations. b. Accumulated material; debris: “Poems, engravings, press releases—he eagerly scrutinizes the detritus of fame” (Carlin Romano).
ETYMOLOGY: French (sorry, Gene) détritus, from Latin dtrtus, from past participle of dterere, to lessen, wear away.
Why Detritus? Most weeks I have the opportunity to pray about, research, write and deliver messages to an amazing group of people at Simi Prez. But those weekly messages barely scratch the surface of what I'm learning, thinking about, talking over, praying through, reading, etc. This blog is an effort to share those 'loose fragments, accumulated material and debris' (see above) that don't fit the weekly message format but which are nonetheless interesting, inspiring, faith-building, funny/weird, or otherwise noteworthy.
For those of you not familiar with the term 'blog' it's short for 'web log'. My guess is that a guy came up with the name because guys keep track of stuff in logs, not diaries. Besides, 'bdiary' involves an unpronouncable bdipthong.
I was motivated to do this after reading Brian Bailey's book The Blogging Church which argues that blogs are an excellent way for a pastor to communicate on a personal level with a large congregation. Sounds like a plan to me, so here we are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
