It has taken three long years, and my patience and sanity have been tested immensely, but I am officially done with Seminary. I'm sitting in the airport right now, waiting to board my last flight back to CA from Princeton. I meant to post this a lot sooner, but the crazy rush to pack and get everything ready has been more time consuming than I imagined.
I finished my last class yesterday. It was hard to really consider it a class because it was simply attending a forum on Youth Ministry held by Princeton. There were no papers to be written, no requirements other than to be at every session. And it was quite rejuvenating, encouraging, empowering, and relaxing. I got to hear Shane Claiborne, Peter Gomes, and Kenda Dean speak on Youth Ministry. And I left the forum feeling ready to set into any role in the church, including youth ministry, without hesitation. And what more could I ask from my last class at Princeton, feeling ready to be sent out in the world?
So this is in many ways the end but it is also the beginning. I've spent three years trying to figure out my calling, whether the Church is any part of that, and what role I should fit into. After three years, while the edges remain fuzzy, many of those questions have solidified. And if you've been tracking along, you certainly know how those questions have been answered. But much more remains to be learned, discovered, tested, and tried. I don't know what the future holds completely, but I know God will be faithful throughout.
I will most likely continue this blog as I originally intended it when I first started it. Random musings of my theological mishaps will most likely covered the pages of my future blogs. So if you want to hear more about my thoughts and how they're developing, keep reading.
For those who have followed me through the last three years, thank you for your support and prayers over my time in seminary. I look forward to keeping you updated about what happens here at this new beginning...
Showing posts with label Thoughts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Thoughts. Show all posts
Friday, April 30, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Almost the End
I almost should call this the last post before school ends because I don't know if I'll write anything next week, but this chapter will soon be closing. I have three finals left, one due next week on Wednesday, and two on Saturday. All papers. I have already completed two of my finals, so two classes (which includes my independent study) is done.
My independent study being done has given me the greatest relief and joy. I have been studying under a professor who is considered one of the leading (if not the leading) theologian on Missional Theology in the world. I turned in my paper to him last week and was able to sit down with him yesterday to discuss my work, and I was incredibly happy to hear his response. He gave me some good criticism and advice moving forward, but overall he was happy with my work and thought I had made some good contributions not only in general but also to some of the work he has been doing. So I was very happy to hear that and to know that I had received an A for my work. The grade is definitely nice, but it was even better to know that my work has been appreciated.
So now the rest seems pretty easy. It's not going to be too easy, but compared to this research paper, the rest is not as stressful. So I'm working diligently on everything, slowly chipping away at each project one at a time. It's been harder to stay motivated knowing that I'm so close to the end. But I want to finish strong, so that is what I'm pushing toward.
In other news, I have a summer job. I'll be working at Forest Home this summer as a staff dean. That means I'll be the pastoral presence for about 200 young adults (17-26 years of age) who work as program or support staff. So I am pretty excited about that. I wish I could be a little closer to home and church this summer, but this will work for the summer. I can come home in the fall and hopefully find something closer to home and family (and Cathy).
Now it's time for me to get going today, so I'll plan on updating once my finals are over.
My independent study being done has given me the greatest relief and joy. I have been studying under a professor who is considered one of the leading (if not the leading) theologian on Missional Theology in the world. I turned in my paper to him last week and was able to sit down with him yesterday to discuss my work, and I was incredibly happy to hear his response. He gave me some good criticism and advice moving forward, but overall he was happy with my work and thought I had made some good contributions not only in general but also to some of the work he has been doing. So I was very happy to hear that and to know that I had received an A for my work. The grade is definitely nice, but it was even better to know that my work has been appreciated.
So now the rest seems pretty easy. It's not going to be too easy, but compared to this research paper, the rest is not as stressful. So I'm working diligently on everything, slowly chipping away at each project one at a time. It's been harder to stay motivated knowing that I'm so close to the end. But I want to finish strong, so that is what I'm pushing toward.
In other news, I have a summer job. I'll be working at Forest Home this summer as a staff dean. That means I'll be the pastoral presence for about 200 young adults (17-26 years of age) who work as program or support staff. So I am pretty excited about that. I wish I could be a little closer to home and church this summer, but this will work for the summer. I can come home in the fall and hopefully find something closer to home and family (and Cathy).
Now it's time for me to get going today, so I'll plan on updating once my finals are over.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Rewritten Essay
Another update will be coming soon (it has been an insane week and will continue to be insane as it continues) but I wanted to post my rewritten essay for my Issues in the Theology of Scripture class. I can't get the footnotes to post, so you'll have to trust that I've cited things correctly to give credit where it's due and that my points are supported in places. But here is what I wrote after studying the issue for three weeks. Most of the change comes at the end (with completely new paragraphs at the end) but I've made a few wording changes and tweaked things significantly in the interpretation section. Feel free to leave comments!
--
Reading the Bible Faithfully
To say that the Bible is true means that the sacred texts of the Christian community are a trustworthy source of guidance concerning God’s relationship for humanity and what that relationship requires of those who follow God. To interpret the Bible faithfully, one must read it in a way that takes into account the whole story of the Bible, which can include but does not necessitate an understanding of the historical and cultural context from which the Bible was written.
We must begin by asking what the Bible is, which is a complex task. There are at least two different accepted Bibles in the Church: the uniformly accepted 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, and the Old Testament apocryphal books accepted as deutero-canonical by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. This raises the question of why certain books were included in the canon while others were not. We have evidence that there were many gospels circulating in the early centuries of the first millennium. Further, the codices and lists of the canonical books show that the Bible’s texts changed throughout the first three centuries of the Church’s existence. Texts such as the Shepherd of Hermes and the Didache were eventually cut from the canon, while books such as 2 Peter and Jude were contested additions to it. Looking at the criteria for canonical books becomes critical to understanding why some texts were chosen over others, particularly when some of the books seem to be informative and historically useful to the Church (such as the Didache).
One reason the books were selected by Christian communities is that they were written by the Apostles or their close followers. The early church found it important to include books from the apostolic tradition, because their writings best reflected the story of Jesus and the nature of God’s work in the world. While some scholars, such as Bart Ehrman, suggest that the early church fabricated stories about Jesus in order to give him a God-like status, this argument imports modern notions about reality (particularly naturalistic and materialistic perspectives) into the first century world. Importing these philosophical perspectives into a first century worldview which was unaware of sciences like biology and psychology is anachronistic. Regardless of whether their understanding of the world is scientifically accurate or not, the important point is that the writers of the Biblical texts believed that what they were reporting was true (a point we will return to later).
Biblical texts were also chosen because they reflected the traditions of the Church throughout its history, including the history of Israel. This was an important criterion for the early church fathers who argued for the inclusion and exclusion of particular books. One argument by scholars, such as Elaine Pagels, suggests that the early church was politically motivated to pick and change texts that gave Jesus a particular image in order to stamp out competing strands of Christianity, such as Gnosticism. However, the historical evidence shows that Christianity (until the time of Constantine) was in no political or financial position to pursue such an endeavor. By the time of Constantine, most of the canon was well established, making this argument somewhat sketchy. Overall, there is reasonable evidence to believe that the early church was motivated out of a genuine desire to transmit the story of Jesus’ life faithfully rather than to fabricate a story or emphasize particular agendas in order to dominate other visions of Jesus in the first century.
A final consideration for why canonical texts were chosen is the original languages of the texts. The emphasis on the original languages became critically important on two occasions in history. The first occurred when Jerome translated the canon into Latin and chose the Hebrew Old Testament over the Septuagint ( the Greek Old Testament which including the Apocrypha). While Augustine argued that the Greek text had been the scripture used by the Church from its beginning in the first century, Jerome believed the Hebrew texts should be used because they were the original texts of the Old Testament. This argument returned during the Reformation, when Luther chose not to include the Old Testament Apocrypha in his translation on the same grounds. The emphasis on original languages is valid because we know the Greek Old Testament has additions (i.e. the Apocrypha) that were not originally written in Hebrew, meaning they have not been a part of the larger Church tradition (including Israel’s history). Even the sects of Christianity that use the Apocrypha acknowledge that it is deutero-canonical or of a lesser authority than the Old and New Testaments. Does that invalidate the Apocrypha, meaning we should not consult it at all? No, because it still provides important historical and cultural contexts that help us better interpret the Bible (a point to which we will return). However, this does not make it a source for truth, the next point of discussion.
When we say the Bible is true, this does not mean that the Bible is accurate on every historical and scientific point. Some churches do argue for the complete inerrancy of the Bible (i.e. the Bible has no mistakes or discrepancies of any kind), but inerrancy assumes that the writers and original audience of the Bible had the same attitude and approach toward science and history as modern society. The Bible is not always scientifically or historically correct. For example, the Bible’s cosmology assumes the earth is flat and surrounded by water around, above (being held up by the sky, which is a large dome), and below. Modern science clearly shows this to be an inaccurate understanding of the universe. Also, some of the historical facts, particularly pertaining to numbers and dates, seem skewed if not insupportable. Often this is because numbers carry a symbolic meaning rather than a literal one. Numbers like 3, 7, and 12 became important because of their significance to the Israelite community. Sometimes, numbers may have been exaggerated to emphasize or embellish a story, and dates may have been changed to line up with important events. In the Gospel of John, Jesus is crucified on Thursday rather than Friday (as recorded in Matthew, Mark, and Luke) because the Thursday of Passover was the day the sacrificial lamb was slaughtered. These discrepancies do not invalidate the stories; rather, they show that dates and numbers may have been changed for literary and social reasons.
The Bible is true because it is trustworthy account about God’s relationship with humanity and what that relationship requires of humanity. The Bible is not meant to be a history or science book, though the Church should affirm the historical nature of the Bible to an extent. These are not stories fabricated by the early church nor are they metaphors (as some scholars suggest) that have significant meaning. Paul says on a few different occasions – particularly in I Corinthians – that if the death and resurrection of Christ did not happen, then Christianity is a waste. History confirms the accuracy of some of the Bibles stories (such as the crucifixion) while it casts doubt on others, and the Church can be honest about this. But the Bible’s truth transcends history and science while not ignoring them. The truth the Church wants to affirm is that God entered history and acted through the works of Israel and Jesus Christ to reconcile the entire world to God’s self. On those points, the Bible is a trustworthy and valid source to affirm that truth. While every historical detail may not be accurate, history does affirm enough of the Bible to enable the Church to call it true.
To garner the truth of the Bible, the Church must employ good interpretation, which begins with the translation of the texts. One option for good interpretation is to have every Christian learn Greek and Hebrew, and then read the Bible in its original languages. Aside from being impractical, this is unnecessary. A central message of Pentecost is that the Gospel can be translated into any language without losing the core of the message. This does not set the criteria for choosing what texts should be included in the canon. Rather, it opens the possibility that the Church in any culture and context can read the Bible and interpret it well.
There are two layers of interpreting the Bible well. The first layer takes into account the historical, cultural, and literary frameworks of the Bible. These are the tools that modern Biblical scholarship has used to help the Church better understand the texts. These tools help the Church better understand what the Bible meant to its original audience so it can better understand what it means for the contemporary Church. They should be used to construct good translations which take into account the historical and cultural context of the Bible, translating it into the language of the new audience. The NRSV, NIV, NASB, and the Message Bible are examples of good translations or paraphrases, while the KJV or NKJV would represent less reliable translations.
The second layer of interpretation is a critical reading of good translations the Bible. While the contributions of Biblical scholarship are vital, they should not be considered the only valid methods to interpret the Bible. If Biblical scholarship has provided lay readers with the best translations possible (which most good English translations have), the cultural and historical context will come through in the translation, at least in part. A layperson’s reading of the Bible can be a valid interpretation if that layperson is reading a good translation and with an approach that seeks to understand texts within their literary contexts (i.e. looking at an entire text, not proof-texting) and the greater context of the canon. The historical and cultural contexts can help lay readers better understand the Bible, but if they are reading a good translation with a critical eye, these tools should not be necessities to interpreting the Bible well.
There is a third element to interpretation: the church. While it is important for lay readers to be able to read the Bible and interpret it without using the tools of Biblical scholarship, there also need to be accountability to ensure that interpretations do not undermine the truth that the Church seeks to proclaim. The Church takes on this role in Biblical interpretation. Throughout the history of the Church, the interpretation of the Bible has been a communal practice, providing both context and accountability for the interpretation. No interpretation of the Bible is valid if the person or group interpreting it purposely puts themselves outside the community of the Church. Rather, it is through the communal practice of the Church that good interpretations of Scripture are made.
Finally, the Holy Spirit must play a part in good interpretation. While this is a complex issue – discerning where the Spirit is moving, how the Spirit works through the Bible, etc – the fundamental way this happens is through prayer. Asking the Holy Spirit to be a part of the interpretative process and to illuminate the truth in Scripture is foundational to good interpretations of Scripture. The Church also plays a foundational role in discerning the movement and work of the Holy Spirit through the interpretation of Scripture. The accountability of the Church community will always be a central aspect of Biblical interpretation. Finally, if we take the message of Scripture seriously that the central ministry of the Church is the proclamation of the Gospel, then every interpretation of Scripture should ultimately support that ministry. This is not to say that every verse in Scripture specifically has to address the ministry of Proclamation of the Gospel, as there are multiple ministries in the Church. Rather, no interpretation of Scripture should undermine that interpretation, and ultimately our interpretations of Scripture should lead us to proclamation.
--
Reading the Bible Faithfully
To say that the Bible is true means that the sacred texts of the Christian community are a trustworthy source of guidance concerning God’s relationship for humanity and what that relationship requires of those who follow God. To interpret the Bible faithfully, one must read it in a way that takes into account the whole story of the Bible, which can include but does not necessitate an understanding of the historical and cultural context from which the Bible was written.
We must begin by asking what the Bible is, which is a complex task. There are at least two different accepted Bibles in the Church: the uniformly accepted 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, and the Old Testament apocryphal books accepted as deutero-canonical by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. This raises the question of why certain books were included in the canon while others were not. We have evidence that there were many gospels circulating in the early centuries of the first millennium. Further, the codices and lists of the canonical books show that the Bible’s texts changed throughout the first three centuries of the Church’s existence. Texts such as the Shepherd of Hermes and the Didache were eventually cut from the canon, while books such as 2 Peter and Jude were contested additions to it. Looking at the criteria for canonical books becomes critical to understanding why some texts were chosen over others, particularly when some of the books seem to be informative and historically useful to the Church (such as the Didache).
One reason the books were selected by Christian communities is that they were written by the Apostles or their close followers. The early church found it important to include books from the apostolic tradition, because their writings best reflected the story of Jesus and the nature of God’s work in the world. While some scholars, such as Bart Ehrman, suggest that the early church fabricated stories about Jesus in order to give him a God-like status, this argument imports modern notions about reality (particularly naturalistic and materialistic perspectives) into the first century world. Importing these philosophical perspectives into a first century worldview which was unaware of sciences like biology and psychology is anachronistic. Regardless of whether their understanding of the world is scientifically accurate or not, the important point is that the writers of the Biblical texts believed that what they were reporting was true (a point we will return to later).
Biblical texts were also chosen because they reflected the traditions of the Church throughout its history, including the history of Israel. This was an important criterion for the early church fathers who argued for the inclusion and exclusion of particular books. One argument by scholars, such as Elaine Pagels, suggests that the early church was politically motivated to pick and change texts that gave Jesus a particular image in order to stamp out competing strands of Christianity, such as Gnosticism. However, the historical evidence shows that Christianity (until the time of Constantine) was in no political or financial position to pursue such an endeavor. By the time of Constantine, most of the canon was well established, making this argument somewhat sketchy. Overall, there is reasonable evidence to believe that the early church was motivated out of a genuine desire to transmit the story of Jesus’ life faithfully rather than to fabricate a story or emphasize particular agendas in order to dominate other visions of Jesus in the first century.
A final consideration for why canonical texts were chosen is the original languages of the texts. The emphasis on the original languages became critically important on two occasions in history. The first occurred when Jerome translated the canon into Latin and chose the Hebrew Old Testament over the Septuagint ( the Greek Old Testament which including the Apocrypha). While Augustine argued that the Greek text had been the scripture used by the Church from its beginning in the first century, Jerome believed the Hebrew texts should be used because they were the original texts of the Old Testament. This argument returned during the Reformation, when Luther chose not to include the Old Testament Apocrypha in his translation on the same grounds. The emphasis on original languages is valid because we know the Greek Old Testament has additions (i.e. the Apocrypha) that were not originally written in Hebrew, meaning they have not been a part of the larger Church tradition (including Israel’s history). Even the sects of Christianity that use the Apocrypha acknowledge that it is deutero-canonical or of a lesser authority than the Old and New Testaments. Does that invalidate the Apocrypha, meaning we should not consult it at all? No, because it still provides important historical and cultural contexts that help us better interpret the Bible (a point to which we will return). However, this does not make it a source for truth, the next point of discussion.
When we say the Bible is true, this does not mean that the Bible is accurate on every historical and scientific point. Some churches do argue for the complete inerrancy of the Bible (i.e. the Bible has no mistakes or discrepancies of any kind), but inerrancy assumes that the writers and original audience of the Bible had the same attitude and approach toward science and history as modern society. The Bible is not always scientifically or historically correct. For example, the Bible’s cosmology assumes the earth is flat and surrounded by water around, above (being held up by the sky, which is a large dome), and below. Modern science clearly shows this to be an inaccurate understanding of the universe. Also, some of the historical facts, particularly pertaining to numbers and dates, seem skewed if not insupportable. Often this is because numbers carry a symbolic meaning rather than a literal one. Numbers like 3, 7, and 12 became important because of their significance to the Israelite community. Sometimes, numbers may have been exaggerated to emphasize or embellish a story, and dates may have been changed to line up with important events. In the Gospel of John, Jesus is crucified on Thursday rather than Friday (as recorded in Matthew, Mark, and Luke) because the Thursday of Passover was the day the sacrificial lamb was slaughtered. These discrepancies do not invalidate the stories; rather, they show that dates and numbers may have been changed for literary and social reasons.
The Bible is true because it is trustworthy account about God’s relationship with humanity and what that relationship requires of humanity. The Bible is not meant to be a history or science book, though the Church should affirm the historical nature of the Bible to an extent. These are not stories fabricated by the early church nor are they metaphors (as some scholars suggest) that have significant meaning. Paul says on a few different occasions – particularly in I Corinthians – that if the death and resurrection of Christ did not happen, then Christianity is a waste. History confirms the accuracy of some of the Bibles stories (such as the crucifixion) while it casts doubt on others, and the Church can be honest about this. But the Bible’s truth transcends history and science while not ignoring them. The truth the Church wants to affirm is that God entered history and acted through the works of Israel and Jesus Christ to reconcile the entire world to God’s self. On those points, the Bible is a trustworthy and valid source to affirm that truth. While every historical detail may not be accurate, history does affirm enough of the Bible to enable the Church to call it true.
To garner the truth of the Bible, the Church must employ good interpretation, which begins with the translation of the texts. One option for good interpretation is to have every Christian learn Greek and Hebrew, and then read the Bible in its original languages. Aside from being impractical, this is unnecessary. A central message of Pentecost is that the Gospel can be translated into any language without losing the core of the message. This does not set the criteria for choosing what texts should be included in the canon. Rather, it opens the possibility that the Church in any culture and context can read the Bible and interpret it well.
There are two layers of interpreting the Bible well. The first layer takes into account the historical, cultural, and literary frameworks of the Bible. These are the tools that modern Biblical scholarship has used to help the Church better understand the texts. These tools help the Church better understand what the Bible meant to its original audience so it can better understand what it means for the contemporary Church. They should be used to construct good translations which take into account the historical and cultural context of the Bible, translating it into the language of the new audience. The NRSV, NIV, NASB, and the Message Bible are examples of good translations or paraphrases, while the KJV or NKJV would represent less reliable translations.
The second layer of interpretation is a critical reading of good translations the Bible. While the contributions of Biblical scholarship are vital, they should not be considered the only valid methods to interpret the Bible. If Biblical scholarship has provided lay readers with the best translations possible (which most good English translations have), the cultural and historical context will come through in the translation, at least in part. A layperson’s reading of the Bible can be a valid interpretation if that layperson is reading a good translation and with an approach that seeks to understand texts within their literary contexts (i.e. looking at an entire text, not proof-texting) and the greater context of the canon. The historical and cultural contexts can help lay readers better understand the Bible, but if they are reading a good translation with a critical eye, these tools should not be necessities to interpreting the Bible well.
There is a third element to interpretation: the church. While it is important for lay readers to be able to read the Bible and interpret it without using the tools of Biblical scholarship, there also need to be accountability to ensure that interpretations do not undermine the truth that the Church seeks to proclaim. The Church takes on this role in Biblical interpretation. Throughout the history of the Church, the interpretation of the Bible has been a communal practice, providing both context and accountability for the interpretation. No interpretation of the Bible is valid if the person or group interpreting it purposely puts themselves outside the community of the Church. Rather, it is through the communal practice of the Church that good interpretations of Scripture are made.
Finally, the Holy Spirit must play a part in good interpretation. While this is a complex issue – discerning where the Spirit is moving, how the Spirit works through the Bible, etc – the fundamental way this happens is through prayer. Asking the Holy Spirit to be a part of the interpretative process and to illuminate the truth in Scripture is foundational to good interpretations of Scripture. The Church also plays a foundational role in discerning the movement and work of the Holy Spirit through the interpretation of Scripture. The accountability of the Church community will always be a central aspect of Biblical interpretation. Finally, if we take the message of Scripture seriously that the central ministry of the Church is the proclamation of the Gospel, then every interpretation of Scripture should ultimately support that ministry. This is not to say that every verse in Scripture specifically has to address the ministry of Proclamation of the Gospel, as there are multiple ministries in the Church. Rather, no interpretation of Scripture should undermine that interpretation, and ultimately our interpretations of Scripture should lead us to proclamation.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Good Times
I want to try to update this blog more regularly than I have the past couple months. So hopefully you'll see some more posts on her than last semester.
I always enjoy the moments when I can get away from campus and spend time just having a "normal" life (whatever normal can possibly mean in any context let alone a grad school context). Tonight was one of those nights where I was able to get away and have a relaxing time with good friends. Probably seems funny to the friends I was with since the night could been described as stressful rather than relaxing. =) But sometimes those goofy experiences are the ones we treasure more than the ones where everything is perfect. So sitting in traffic became a time to talk about music and talk about places where traffic is less of concern (you can probably tell who dominated that part of the conversation seeing as my friends are from Indiana and Ohio). Waiting at Pizza Hut for an hour just to get drinks and appetizers turned into a time to tell stupid stories (probably more crass than people would expect) and just goof around. And listening to rude complaining from the table next to us reminded us how difficult it is to work in service jobs, particularly when the staff is short-handed; and what it means to show grace, especially when you can tell that someone needs it.
In the sometimes asinine exercises of school, it's a pleasant respite to endure the challenges of regular life.
That's not to say I'm not enjoying my class during January. Quite the opposite in fact. It's nice to have a professor who is willing to be questioned after class about the more interesting points of his lecture. It's nice to sit down with him for lunch and just shoot the breeze. And it's nice to discuss a topic that has material implications for every day life. It sometimes gets lost in the academic ventures around here, and it's nice to see that at least some professors on campus have serious concerns about the way education is traditionally done and trying to find alternatives to address those shortcomings.
Two weeks down, one to go, and then it's a week off before starting my final semester at Princeton. Hard to believe that I'm already there and yet not completely surprising. One of my valued mentors, Michael Bruner, warned me a few weeks before I left for Princeton that my three years would fly by faster than I could imagine. And sure enough, when we had lunch the day I flew back to Princeton, we both reflected on just how quickly that time has gone. It certainly has been an interesting experience, in some ways meeting my expectations, in other ways challenging them. But I feel more confident as time goes on that, for some strange reason, this where God wanted me to be. It will probably take me some time before I truly understand why, but I have the fullest confidence that, despite what has arisen in the last three years that has been negative, this was where I was supposed to be.
It's time to hit the hay, but before I end, I just want to say that I am truly grateful for the things I have and the people God has placed in my life. I have a wonderful family who loves and supports me, an amazing girlfriend who I am looking forward to coming home to hopefully sooner than later, thoughtful mentors who have supported and challenged me as I continue to grow and learn, and wonderful friends both at school and at home who have been a steady support, particularly during the stormiest parts of my life. Thank you to all of you for everything you have done to support me, and I thank God for having you all in my life.
I always enjoy the moments when I can get away from campus and spend time just having a "normal" life (whatever normal can possibly mean in any context let alone a grad school context). Tonight was one of those nights where I was able to get away and have a relaxing time with good friends. Probably seems funny to the friends I was with since the night could been described as stressful rather than relaxing. =) But sometimes those goofy experiences are the ones we treasure more than the ones where everything is perfect. So sitting in traffic became a time to talk about music and talk about places where traffic is less of concern (you can probably tell who dominated that part of the conversation seeing as my friends are from Indiana and Ohio). Waiting at Pizza Hut for an hour just to get drinks and appetizers turned into a time to tell stupid stories (probably more crass than people would expect) and just goof around. And listening to rude complaining from the table next to us reminded us how difficult it is to work in service jobs, particularly when the staff is short-handed; and what it means to show grace, especially when you can tell that someone needs it.
In the sometimes asinine exercises of school, it's a pleasant respite to endure the challenges of regular life.
That's not to say I'm not enjoying my class during January. Quite the opposite in fact. It's nice to have a professor who is willing to be questioned after class about the more interesting points of his lecture. It's nice to sit down with him for lunch and just shoot the breeze. And it's nice to discuss a topic that has material implications for every day life. It sometimes gets lost in the academic ventures around here, and it's nice to see that at least some professors on campus have serious concerns about the way education is traditionally done and trying to find alternatives to address those shortcomings.
Two weeks down, one to go, and then it's a week off before starting my final semester at Princeton. Hard to believe that I'm already there and yet not completely surprising. One of my valued mentors, Michael Bruner, warned me a few weeks before I left for Princeton that my three years would fly by faster than I could imagine. And sure enough, when we had lunch the day I flew back to Princeton, we both reflected on just how quickly that time has gone. It certainly has been an interesting experience, in some ways meeting my expectations, in other ways challenging them. But I feel more confident as time goes on that, for some strange reason, this where God wanted me to be. It will probably take me some time before I truly understand why, but I have the fullest confidence that, despite what has arisen in the last three years that has been negative, this was where I was supposed to be.
It's time to hit the hay, but before I end, I just want to say that I am truly grateful for the things I have and the people God has placed in my life. I have a wonderful family who loves and supports me, an amazing girlfriend who I am looking forward to coming home to hopefully sooner than later, thoughtful mentors who have supported and challenged me as I continue to grow and learn, and wonderful friends both at school and at home who have been a steady support, particularly during the stormiest parts of my life. Thank you to all of you for everything you have done to support me, and I thank God for having you all in my life.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Recent Paper
Occasionally I like to post recent papers I've written so people have an idea of what I've taken away from seminary and the rest of my theological education. This essay was written for "Issues in the Theology of Scripture," and our assignment was to write a 1500-word essay answering these two questions: "What do we mean when we say 'the Bible is true,' and what methods of interpretation help us reveal its truthfulness?" It is an initial essay that we will be revising into a 2000-word essay at the end of our January intensive in a couple weeks, so the goal of the assignment is just to get our cards on the table so that we can see where we have confidence on what we know and what is fuzzy. So here is my initial essay. Feel free to comment if you'd like. I'll post my 2000-word essay at the end of the semester as well so you can see where my thoughts have progressed. I've entitled my paper: "Reading the Bible Faithfully"
*Side note: my footnotes could not be imported, so if it seems like something is unsupported, it's most likely because the footnote didn't make it.*
--
When the Church says the Bible is true, it means that the sacred texts of the Christian community are a trustworthy source of guidance concerning God’s relationship with humanity and what that relationship requires of those who follow God. To interpret the Bible faithfully, one must read it in a way that takes into account the whole story of the Bible, which can include but does not fully necessitate an understanding of the historical and cultural context in which the Bible was written.
We must first ask what the Bible is. This is a complex task at the outset because there are two different accepted Bibles in the Church: the uniformly accepted collection of 66 books from the Old and New Testaments and the collection which includes the Old Testament apocryphal books accepted as deutero-canonical by the Roman Catholic Church. This raises the question of why certain books were included in the canon while others were not. Furthermore, scholars believe there were at least 80 gospels written during the early centuries after Jesus’ life with about 30 of them being preserved at least in part. Of the 30 we have, four are contained in the Gospel. Further, some of the oldest manuscripts and lists of the canonical books show that the sacred texts of the Church changed throughout the first three centuries of the Church’s existence. Texts such as the Letter of Hermes and the Didache were eventually cut from the canon, while others such as 2 Peter and Jude were later additions. Questions about the Bible’s compilation – particularly about which books were included and which were not – are valid and serious questions.
Two historical reasons come to mind as to why the texts we have in the Bible were chosen. One reason why books were selected by Christian communities is because they were written either by the Apostles or close followers of Jesus. From that perspective, the early church found it important to include books that accurately told Jesus’ story or spoke of his life in a way that was theologically sound. Scholars have suggested that the early church was influenced by other motives, suggesting that the church fabricated stories about Jesus in order to boost his image and make him God-like. However, these arguments import modern notions about reality (particularly naturalistic and materialistic perspectives informed by modern science) into the first century world. Some scholars reject the possibility of miracles and other “supernatural” phenomena and assume that the audience of the first century would do the same. While naturalism and materialism could be argued to be flawed foundations, to import them into a first century perspective that was aware of sciences like biology and psychology is inappropriate. Other scholars have suggested that the early church was politically motivated to change Jesus’ image during Constantine’s time. However, historical evidence suggests that the canon was mostly established by the fourth century. Further, most of the Bible’s manuscripts were written before Constantine came to power, making this argument somewhat sketchy. There is enough reasonable evidence to believe that the early church was motivated out of a genuine desire to transmit the story of Jesus’ life faithfully rather than to create an image they knew not to be true.
The second historical reason for books being included in the canon is that only books in their original language should be included. This reason, generated from the Reformation, was used precisely to exclude the Old Testament Apocrypha from Protestant use. The emphasis on original languages is valid since we now know that the Septuagint (the source of the Old Testament Apocrypha in the Bible) had later additions not found in the Hebrew canon. But does that completely invalidate the Apocrypha and mean we should not consult it at all? This leads us to a discussion of what we mean when we say the Bible is true and how we interpret the Bible.
When we say the Bible is true, the Church does not necessarily mean that every detail of the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate. Some Christians do argue for the complete inerrancy of the Bible, but this argument is faulty. It assumes that the writers and audience of the Bible had the same tools for doing scientific and historical research and had the same attitude and approach toward science and history as modern society. Further, the Bible is not always correct when addressing science or history. The Bible’s cosmology is one where the earth is flat, surrounded by water around, above (being held up by the sky, which is a large dome), and below. Concerning the Bible’s reports of history, particularly pertaining to numbers and dates, the history is skewed if not completely unsupportable by historical facts. This is usually the case because numbers hold a symbolic meaning in the text rather than a literal one. Numbers like 3, 7, and 12 are incredibly important because of their significance to the Israelite community.
While historical and scientific perspectives of the Bible are not always correct, does this mean the Bible is not true? No, because the Bible is not meant to be a history or science book. We want to affirm the historical nature of the Bible; these are not simply stories made up by the early church or metaphors (and some scholars suggest) that have significant meaning. Paul says on a few different occasions – particularly I Corinthians – that if the death and resurrection of Christ did not literally happen, then Christianity is a waste of time. Furthermore, the Church needs to affirm the historical accuracy of the Bible to a certain extent. But when the Church says the Bible is true, it means that the Bible is trustworthy for learning about God’s relationship with humanity and what that relationship requires of humanity. This does not mean that nothing reported in the Bible literally happened, nor does it mean the opposite. What matters is that when the Bible speaks about God’s relationship and love for humanity and what that relationship looks like and requires, the Bible is valid and trustworthy. Apocryphal books are useful in that they give greater historical and cultural context to the Bible, but they are not true in the sense that they reveal God’s relationship to humanity or what humanity’s response to God should be.
What does a correct interpretation of the Bible look like? Part of the answer lies in translation. One option is for every Christian to learn Greek and Hebrew and read the Bible in its original languages. Aside from being impractical, this is unnecessary. One message of the Pentecost story is that the Gospel can be translated into any language without losing the core of the message. The Bible can be translated into any languages, but what does a good translation look like? We must look at how the Bible is best interpreted before this question can be fully answered.
There are two layers of interpretation when reading Bible in the best way. The first layer is to take into account the historical, cultural, and literary frameworks of the Bible. These are the tools that modern Biblical scholarship has used to help the Church better understand the texts. By using these tools, we can better understand what the Bible meant to its original hearers in the first century and earlier so that the Church can better understand what the Gospel means for us today. These are the tools we use to construct good translations of the Bible. A good translation of the Bible into any language is one which best tries to capture the meaning of the Bible as its original audience would have heard it – using the best tools and best available manuscripts – into the language of the new audience. This is why the NRSV, NIV, NASB and even the Message Bible would constitute good translations or paraphrases, while the KJV or NKJV would not.
The second layer of interpretation is a critical reading of the Bible as it is presented in good translations. While the contributions of Biblical scholarship are vital, they should not be considered the only valid way to read the Bible. Further, if Biblical scholarship has provided lay readers with the best translations (which most good English translations have), the cultural and historical context will come through in the translation, at least in part. A layperson’s reading of the Bible can be a valid interpretation if that layperson is reading a good translation and reading the Bible with an approach that seeks to understand texts within their literary contexts and the greater context of the canon. If the Bible is for and can be read by everyone, then interpretations from laity should be valid to garner truth from the Bible. The historical and cultural contexts can help lay readers better understand the Bible, but if they are reading a good translation with a critical eye, these tools should not be necessities to interpreting the Bible well.
Thus, the Bible is true in that it reveals to the Church what God has done for the world and what is required of humanity in response to God’s action in the world. A valid interpretation requires that one looks critically at the Bible with the tools available to the person reading it, including reading the Bible in community with the church as a whole.
*Side note: my footnotes could not be imported, so if it seems like something is unsupported, it's most likely because the footnote didn't make it.*
--
When the Church says the Bible is true, it means that the sacred texts of the Christian community are a trustworthy source of guidance concerning God’s relationship with humanity and what that relationship requires of those who follow God. To interpret the Bible faithfully, one must read it in a way that takes into account the whole story of the Bible, which can include but does not fully necessitate an understanding of the historical and cultural context in which the Bible was written.
We must first ask what the Bible is. This is a complex task at the outset because there are two different accepted Bibles in the Church: the uniformly accepted collection of 66 books from the Old and New Testaments and the collection which includes the Old Testament apocryphal books accepted as deutero-canonical by the Roman Catholic Church. This raises the question of why certain books were included in the canon while others were not. Furthermore, scholars believe there were at least 80 gospels written during the early centuries after Jesus’ life with about 30 of them being preserved at least in part. Of the 30 we have, four are contained in the Gospel. Further, some of the oldest manuscripts and lists of the canonical books show that the sacred texts of the Church changed throughout the first three centuries of the Church’s existence. Texts such as the Letter of Hermes and the Didache were eventually cut from the canon, while others such as 2 Peter and Jude were later additions. Questions about the Bible’s compilation – particularly about which books were included and which were not – are valid and serious questions.
Two historical reasons come to mind as to why the texts we have in the Bible were chosen. One reason why books were selected by Christian communities is because they were written either by the Apostles or close followers of Jesus. From that perspective, the early church found it important to include books that accurately told Jesus’ story or spoke of his life in a way that was theologically sound. Scholars have suggested that the early church was influenced by other motives, suggesting that the church fabricated stories about Jesus in order to boost his image and make him God-like. However, these arguments import modern notions about reality (particularly naturalistic and materialistic perspectives informed by modern science) into the first century world. Some scholars reject the possibility of miracles and other “supernatural” phenomena and assume that the audience of the first century would do the same. While naturalism and materialism could be argued to be flawed foundations, to import them into a first century perspective that was aware of sciences like biology and psychology is inappropriate. Other scholars have suggested that the early church was politically motivated to change Jesus’ image during Constantine’s time. However, historical evidence suggests that the canon was mostly established by the fourth century. Further, most of the Bible’s manuscripts were written before Constantine came to power, making this argument somewhat sketchy. There is enough reasonable evidence to believe that the early church was motivated out of a genuine desire to transmit the story of Jesus’ life faithfully rather than to create an image they knew not to be true.
The second historical reason for books being included in the canon is that only books in their original language should be included. This reason, generated from the Reformation, was used precisely to exclude the Old Testament Apocrypha from Protestant use. The emphasis on original languages is valid since we now know that the Septuagint (the source of the Old Testament Apocrypha in the Bible) had later additions not found in the Hebrew canon. But does that completely invalidate the Apocrypha and mean we should not consult it at all? This leads us to a discussion of what we mean when we say the Bible is true and how we interpret the Bible.
When we say the Bible is true, the Church does not necessarily mean that every detail of the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate. Some Christians do argue for the complete inerrancy of the Bible, but this argument is faulty. It assumes that the writers and audience of the Bible had the same tools for doing scientific and historical research and had the same attitude and approach toward science and history as modern society. Further, the Bible is not always correct when addressing science or history. The Bible’s cosmology is one where the earth is flat, surrounded by water around, above (being held up by the sky, which is a large dome), and below. Concerning the Bible’s reports of history, particularly pertaining to numbers and dates, the history is skewed if not completely unsupportable by historical facts. This is usually the case because numbers hold a symbolic meaning in the text rather than a literal one. Numbers like 3, 7, and 12 are incredibly important because of their significance to the Israelite community.
While historical and scientific perspectives of the Bible are not always correct, does this mean the Bible is not true? No, because the Bible is not meant to be a history or science book. We want to affirm the historical nature of the Bible; these are not simply stories made up by the early church or metaphors (and some scholars suggest) that have significant meaning. Paul says on a few different occasions – particularly I Corinthians – that if the death and resurrection of Christ did not literally happen, then Christianity is a waste of time. Furthermore, the Church needs to affirm the historical accuracy of the Bible to a certain extent. But when the Church says the Bible is true, it means that the Bible is trustworthy for learning about God’s relationship with humanity and what that relationship requires of humanity. This does not mean that nothing reported in the Bible literally happened, nor does it mean the opposite. What matters is that when the Bible speaks about God’s relationship and love for humanity and what that relationship looks like and requires, the Bible is valid and trustworthy. Apocryphal books are useful in that they give greater historical and cultural context to the Bible, but they are not true in the sense that they reveal God’s relationship to humanity or what humanity’s response to God should be.
What does a correct interpretation of the Bible look like? Part of the answer lies in translation. One option is for every Christian to learn Greek and Hebrew and read the Bible in its original languages. Aside from being impractical, this is unnecessary. One message of the Pentecost story is that the Gospel can be translated into any language without losing the core of the message. The Bible can be translated into any languages, but what does a good translation look like? We must look at how the Bible is best interpreted before this question can be fully answered.
There are two layers of interpretation when reading Bible in the best way. The first layer is to take into account the historical, cultural, and literary frameworks of the Bible. These are the tools that modern Biblical scholarship has used to help the Church better understand the texts. By using these tools, we can better understand what the Bible meant to its original hearers in the first century and earlier so that the Church can better understand what the Gospel means for us today. These are the tools we use to construct good translations of the Bible. A good translation of the Bible into any language is one which best tries to capture the meaning of the Bible as its original audience would have heard it – using the best tools and best available manuscripts – into the language of the new audience. This is why the NRSV, NIV, NASB and even the Message Bible would constitute good translations or paraphrases, while the KJV or NKJV would not.
The second layer of interpretation is a critical reading of the Bible as it is presented in good translations. While the contributions of Biblical scholarship are vital, they should not be considered the only valid way to read the Bible. Further, if Biblical scholarship has provided lay readers with the best translations (which most good English translations have), the cultural and historical context will come through in the translation, at least in part. A layperson’s reading of the Bible can be a valid interpretation if that layperson is reading a good translation and reading the Bible with an approach that seeks to understand texts within their literary contexts and the greater context of the canon. If the Bible is for and can be read by everyone, then interpretations from laity should be valid to garner truth from the Bible. The historical and cultural contexts can help lay readers better understand the Bible, but if they are reading a good translation with a critical eye, these tools should not be necessities to interpreting the Bible well.
Thus, the Bible is true in that it reveals to the Church what God has done for the world and what is required of humanity in response to God’s action in the world. A valid interpretation requires that one looks critically at the Bible with the tools available to the person reading it, including reading the Bible in community with the church as a whole.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Summer must be over...
It must be getting close to school again if I'm back at the Theological Mishaps blog.
It's been a great summer. I don't know if it was quite as good as last summer considering all of the fun nonsense that happened to me this summer, but I think my heart hurts a little more this year than it did last year about this time. I've definitely changed quite a bit over the last few months, and there are quite a few things that have become clearer this summer, particularly concerning my future. Directions seem to be coming more clear, doors are closing, new ones are opening, and I am feeling better about who I am and where I fit.
It's been quite the ride trying to get there. Probably the most exciting part has been my recurring knee nuisance that became a little more serious this summer. Since I was in swim team, both of my knees stiffen up every now and then. Sometimes it lasts for about a day, other times it lasts for about a week. This time, it lasted for a couple months. And there was shooting nervous pain going up my leg to accompany it. So off to the doctor to get myself checked out, and I went through some scary diagnoses. First, it was a torn meniscus; then, it was possibly lymphoma, lupus, arthritis, gout, and a slew of other possibilities; then finally, simple tendinitis. Two MRIs, plenty of blood tests and x-rays later, and with a bottle of Naprosyn, I am back walking, running, and jumping normally again.
I am feeling a bit more clarity on my vocation, though I will save those thoughts for another post. That has been quite a journey on its own and would fill too much space here. Suffice it to say that I feel much more comfortable about where I am being called and the reasons for it.
I am very sad to be leaving CA. I'm not an East Coast Kid, at least not in the area of the East Coast I've been situated for the last two years. There are things I appreciate about Princeton that I will sorely miss, but I realize I am much more satisfied in my West Coast surroundings. That is not how I envisioned my trip to Princeton at all. I was fairly convinced that the East Coast would be the perfect place for me; two years later and about the only worse fit I can think of is Texas. But I would never trade away the opportunity to be surrounded by so much history, so many new and diverse people, and to (pretty much) a different culture. That has shaped me and changed me in great ways, and given me a perspective that I wouldn't trade. I just don't want to prolong the experience.
By this time next week, I'll be back in Princeton, hopefully excited for this things to come. I already have my light at the end of the tunnel, that being my flight back home for Christmas. I'll give details for that closer to the appropriate date. So until next week, I will enjoy my last few days in CA, and be ready to jet off next Wednesday....
It's been a great summer. I don't know if it was quite as good as last summer considering all of the fun nonsense that happened to me this summer, but I think my heart hurts a little more this year than it did last year about this time. I've definitely changed quite a bit over the last few months, and there are quite a few things that have become clearer this summer, particularly concerning my future. Directions seem to be coming more clear, doors are closing, new ones are opening, and I am feeling better about who I am and where I fit.
It's been quite the ride trying to get there. Probably the most exciting part has been my recurring knee nuisance that became a little more serious this summer. Since I was in swim team, both of my knees stiffen up every now and then. Sometimes it lasts for about a day, other times it lasts for about a week. This time, it lasted for a couple months. And there was shooting nervous pain going up my leg to accompany it. So off to the doctor to get myself checked out, and I went through some scary diagnoses. First, it was a torn meniscus; then, it was possibly lymphoma, lupus, arthritis, gout, and a slew of other possibilities; then finally, simple tendinitis. Two MRIs, plenty of blood tests and x-rays later, and with a bottle of Naprosyn, I am back walking, running, and jumping normally again.
I am feeling a bit more clarity on my vocation, though I will save those thoughts for another post. That has been quite a journey on its own and would fill too much space here. Suffice it to say that I feel much more comfortable about where I am being called and the reasons for it.
I am very sad to be leaving CA. I'm not an East Coast Kid, at least not in the area of the East Coast I've been situated for the last two years. There are things I appreciate about Princeton that I will sorely miss, but I realize I am much more satisfied in my West Coast surroundings. That is not how I envisioned my trip to Princeton at all. I was fairly convinced that the East Coast would be the perfect place for me; two years later and about the only worse fit I can think of is Texas. But I would never trade away the opportunity to be surrounded by so much history, so many new and diverse people, and to (pretty much) a different culture. That has shaped me and changed me in great ways, and given me a perspective that I wouldn't trade. I just don't want to prolong the experience.
By this time next week, I'll be back in Princeton, hopefully excited for this things to come. I already have my light at the end of the tunnel, that being my flight back home for Christmas. I'll give details for that closer to the appropriate date. So until next week, I will enjoy my last few days in CA, and be ready to jet off next Wednesday....
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Some Thoughts on Twilight
I am taking a class called "Children's Fantasy Literature and Moral Formation," and this week we looked at the book Twilight. Now I had attempted to read the book last semester, but due to my thesis and some difficulty getting into the book, I wasn't able to make much progress. I saw the movie when it came out in November and had mixed feelings about. So while I am familiar with the story, this was really my first good look at the book. I thought I'd share some of my thoughts based on my own reaction as well as conversation we have in class on Monday.
I do have to make a quick note about the writing. I wouldn't say that it is atrocious, but Stephenie Meyer will not - or at least should not - be winning any awards any time soon for her grammatical or syntactical prowess. There are some gems in the writing and particular phrases that are quite moving, but for the most part the writing is terrible. As many of us have heard in English classes, it is better to show, not tell. Meyer is a teller through and through. Often her prose is repetitive and detrimentally descriptive. The dialogue is good, but she gives too much away and doesn't allow the reader to interpret her work. For more on this, I'll point you to a friend's website for a prime example of this bad writing: http://marchon2884.blogspot.com/2009/02/theervampireis-in-details.html .
The first thing that almost immediately jumps out and attracts discussion is the relationship between Edward and Bella. This is what most teenage girls are immediately interested in and discuss the most (at least based on the research one of our Ph.D. students did in preparation for class). This, to me, is actually the most disturbing part of the book. Now, it is hard to critique the relationship fully because we have to remember that this is a fantasy world: some of the rules are not the same and not everything is meant to be realistic. But part of the fantasy world is to set up the ideal, the perfect in a certain sense though that term is probably too strong. The relationship between Edward and Bella is anything but ideal; in fact, I would go as far as to say it is dangerous. It is an example of what I like to call "Outlaw Biker Syndrome" (and yes, I did get to use that phrase in class). Their relationship seems to exemplify the idea that the type of man that attracts women are dangerous, mysterious and abusive. Edward fits all these characteristics; what's more is that Meyer seems to idolize this type of man and this type of relationship. He constantly reminds her of his threatening nature, that at any moment he could spring on her, kill her, destroy her, but immediately follows this with words of passion and love. This seems harmless, but as one high school sophomore girl raised with great insight, what if Edward were not a vampire? What if he was an everyday kid? The fact that he stalks her, watches her sleep at night, obsesses over her: these are downright creepy acts. Add on top of this that Edward is at least 100 years old, though he is technically in a 17 year old body, and this becomes a predator-prey situation.
Again, I admit that we have to take into account the fantastical nature of the literature and that some of these elements simply reflect the nature of the story. The problem is that teenage girls idolize Edward. Browse the Pieces of Flair boards on teenage girls' profiles and it is not hard to see. Or watch the movie with a group of teenagers (as I did on opening night) and it is easy to see that there are many girls out there who want to find their Edward. In this way, many critics have characterized the book as "Female Pornography." I have to say that I have a lot of sympathy for that position. If I were a youth director or a parent of a teenage girl, I don't think I would want them to read the book without taking the time to reflect on Edward's true nature and examining whether this really is the ideal relationship and the ideal man. There is really no way to control that since this is, simply put, the most popular book among teenage girls right now, and most of them have read the book. Reflection is needed on these points.
That is not to say that everything about Bella and Edward's relationship is bad. In some ways, it does reflect the model of many high school relationships. I think this is the reason why so many girls connect with the story and the book series: Bella is all too human, reflecting many of the common insecurities of both men and women. And in some ways, Edward is the reflection of the perfect man, even God: he is the omniscient protector, the omnipotent savior of Bella. And I think these are qualities that need to be elevated and discussed. The important part is to read the book critically, which is happening more than I think many of us would expect but also not as much as it should be happening. I think there are many teenage girls who do read the book with a critical awareness, but I think there are just as many, if not more, who read the book without seeing the nature of Bella and Edward's relationship at a deeper level.
I have to say that part of this idealization of this type of relationship is due to Stephenie Meyer's background. While she says (correctly) that this is not a piece of Mormon literature, it is unmistakably marked by her theology. Borrowing from one of the Ph.D. students, there are three "Mormon landmarks" that permeate the book's themes. The first is "Choosing the Right." Throughout the book, especially seen in the Cullen family, there is an emphasis on choosing the right, the morally correct thing to do. Every act that Edward makes reflects this desire to do the right, to act out of love. Deeper into the book, we realize that the Cullens represent a set-apart community that lives among the world but chooses the right. The second point is connected to the first: sacrifice. Choosing the Right often, if not always, requires sacrifice even to the point of giving one's life for the good. Again, Edward reflects this sacrificial love, and even toward the end of the book, Bella begins to exemplify this virtue as well. Finally, the theme of celestial marriage is emphasized, mainly in terms of purity. One should always choose purity over anything else, including life, and especially when it comes to sexual purity. Our preceptor quoted one Mormon theologian who said it is better to die pure than to live impure. Another quote he gave was from Mormon parents who said it would be better if their children did not come home from mission if they were impure. Again, this is reflected in the book, especially through the theme of abstinence as idealized throughout Edward and Bella's relationship. These themes are not necessarily intentionally inserted but they reflect the Mormon theology out of which Meyer is writing. There is much more I could say on that matter but I'll stop there.
Now, I know as I end this, there are many of you who are probably thinking, "Why can't you just read the book without having to get into all this crap?! Just enjoy the book!" To which I respond, I do enjoy the book. In fact, I want to continue the story because I find the mythology fascinating ... plus someone ruined the end for me by telling my what happens in the fourth book, but I want to see how it eventually gets to that point. At the same time, taking a class on the moral formation that happens in children, teenagers, and even adults, I think it's important to see how this literature functions in shaping the moral imagination of kids and adults today. And because of the popularity of this book, it is absolutely essential as Christians and as the Church to know what is interesting our kids and knowing how the church should respond to this type of literature. I personally have no problem with teenagers reading this book so long as there is some sort of critical reflection going on about the relationship between Edward and Bella. I think all the male characters, including Charlie, Bella's father, need to be examined for their good qualities and also their bad qualities, and from there there needs to be discussion about who the ideal man is. Same thing for the female characters in the book for men who read the book.
I do have to make a quick note about the writing. I wouldn't say that it is atrocious, but Stephenie Meyer will not - or at least should not - be winning any awards any time soon for her grammatical or syntactical prowess. There are some gems in the writing and particular phrases that are quite moving, but for the most part the writing is terrible. As many of us have heard in English classes, it is better to show, not tell. Meyer is a teller through and through. Often her prose is repetitive and detrimentally descriptive. The dialogue is good, but she gives too much away and doesn't allow the reader to interpret her work. For more on this, I'll point you to a friend's website for a prime example of this bad writing: http://marchon2884.blogspo
The first thing that almost immediately jumps out and attracts discussion is the relationship between Edward and Bella. This is what most teenage girls are immediately interested in and discuss the most (at least based on the research one of our Ph.D. students did in preparation for class). This, to me, is actually the most disturbing part of the book. Now, it is hard to critique the relationship fully because we have to remember that this is a fantasy world: some of the rules are not the same and not everything is meant to be realistic. But part of the fantasy world is to set up the ideal, the perfect in a certain sense though that term is probably too strong. The relationship between Edward and Bella is anything but ideal; in fact, I would go as far as to say it is dangerous. It is an example of what I like to call "Outlaw Biker Syndrome" (and yes, I did get to use that phrase in class). Their relationship seems to exemplify the idea that the type of man that attracts women are dangerous, mysterious and abusive. Edward fits all these characteristics; what's more is that Meyer seems to idolize this type of man and this type of relationship. He constantly reminds her of his threatening nature, that at any moment he could spring on her, kill her, destroy her, but immediately follows this with words of passion and love. This seems harmless, but as one high school sophomore girl raised with great insight, what if Edward were not a vampire? What if he was an everyday kid? The fact that he stalks her, watches her sleep at night, obsesses over her: these are downright creepy acts. Add on top of this that Edward is at least 100 years old, though he is technically in a 17 year old body, and this becomes a predator-prey situation.
Again, I admit that we have to take into account the fantastical nature of the literature and that some of these elements simply reflect the nature of the story. The problem is that teenage girls idolize Edward. Browse the Pieces of Flair boards on teenage girls' profiles and it is not hard to see. Or watch the movie with a group of teenagers (as I did on opening night) and it is easy to see that there are many girls out there who want to find their Edward. In this way, many critics have characterized the book as "Female Pornography." I have to say that I have a lot of sympathy for that position. If I were a youth director or a parent of a teenage girl, I don't think I would want them to read the book without taking the time to reflect on Edward's true nature and examining whether this really is the ideal relationship and the ideal man. There is really no way to control that since this is, simply put, the most popular book among teenage girls right now, and most of them have read the book. Reflection is needed on these points.
That is not to say that everything about Bella and Edward's relationship is bad. In some ways, it does reflect the model of many high school relationships. I think this is the reason why so many girls connect with the story and the book series: Bella is all too human, reflecting many of the common insecurities of both men and women. And in some ways, Edward is the reflection of the perfect man, even God: he is the omniscient protector, the omnipotent savior of Bella. And I think these are qualities that need to be elevated and discussed. The important part is to read the book critically, which is happening more than I think many of us would expect but also not as much as it should be happening. I think there are many teenage girls who do read the book with a critical awareness, but I think there are just as many, if not more, who read the book without seeing the nature of Bella and Edward's relationship at a deeper level.
I have to say that part of this idealization of this type of relationship is due to Stephenie Meyer's background. While she says (correctly) that this is not a piece of Mormon literature, it is unmistakably marked by her theology. Borrowing from one of the Ph.D. students, there are three "Mormon landmarks" that permeate the book's themes. The first is "Choosing the Right." Throughout the book, especially seen in the Cullen family, there is an emphasis on choosing the right, the morally correct thing to do. Every act that Edward makes reflects this desire to do the right, to act out of love. Deeper into the book, we realize that the Cullens represent a set-apart community that lives among the world but chooses the right. The second point is connected to the first: sacrifice. Choosing the Right often, if not always, requires sacrifice even to the point of giving one's life for the good. Again, Edward reflects this sacrificial love, and even toward the end of the book, Bella begins to exemplify this virtue as well. Finally, the theme of celestial marriage is emphasized, mainly in terms of purity. One should always choose purity over anything else, including life, and especially when it comes to sexual purity. Our preceptor quoted one Mormon theologian who said it is better to die pure than to live impure. Another quote he gave was from Mormon parents who said it would be better if their children did not come home from mission if they were impure. Again, this is reflected in the book, especially through the theme of abstinence as idealized throughout Edward and Bella's relationship. These themes are not necessarily intentionally inserted but they reflect the Mormon theology out of which Meyer is writing. There is much more I could say on that matter but I'll stop there.
Now, I know as I end this, there are many of you who are probably thinking, "Why can't you just read the book without having to get into all this crap?! Just enjoy the book!" To which I respond, I do enjoy the book. In fact, I want to continue the story because I find the mythology fascinating ... plus someone ruined the end for me by telling my what happens in the fourth book, but I want to see how it eventually gets to that point. At the same time, taking a class on the moral formation that happens in children, teenagers, and even adults, I think it's important to see how this literature functions in shaping the moral imagination of kids and adults today. And because of the popularity of this book, it is absolutely essential as Christians and as the Church to know what is interesting our kids and knowing how the church should respond to this type of literature. I personally have no problem with teenagers reading this book so long as there is some sort of critical reflection going on about the relationship between Edward and Bella. I think all the male characters, including Charlie, Bella's father, need to be examined for their good qualities and also their bad qualities, and from there there needs to be discussion about who the ideal man is. Same thing for the female characters in the book for men who read the book.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Closer to a Decision
I'm getting to the point in the semester where the work starts to pile up a little bit, which this year I am actually excited about. I think it will encourage me to structure my time more, a goal I'm already trying to achieve. Plus it will get me more involved in topics I'm interested in, so hopefully my classes will start to pick up a little more.
With that increased work, it also encouraging me to come to decisions which I have been mulling over for the last couple months. I expect to make and follow through on those decisions by the end of the week.
For some reason, I feel like it's going to be a rough week. Nothing tangible really provides evidence for that; just feels like one of those weeks. We'll see.
With that increased work, it also encouraging me to come to decisions which I have been mulling over for the last couple months. I expect to make and follow through on those decisions by the end of the week.
For some reason, I feel like it's going to be a rough week. Nothing tangible really provides evidence for that; just feels like one of those weeks. We'll see.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
And So It Begins
What a summer! Despite having one of the busiest summers that I can remember, it has gone by in a flash. Time flies when one is having fun I suppose, which is probably why it flew by so quickly.
My time at La Crescenta Presbyterian Church was so much more than I could have hoped for. It was great to be plugged into a solid church once again with a strong community and programs. I was glad to have leadership responsibilities once again, restoring some of my lost self-confidence in that area. It was great to be in a supportive community to bounce ideas around and even make some of them come to fruition. But most of all, I was glad to be back in a church that understands its role in the world. I don't say this lightly: LCPC restored my faith in God's church. Though I still struggle with my own experiences in the church, LCPC has shown me that the church can be a light to the world and actually bring God's love to his people.
To give you an idea of what I have been up to this summer, I will give a bullet list of activities and areas that I was involved in:
- Assisted in some function with four memorial services (all occuring within a month)
- Helping to lead a young adult group, including developing a name for the group, designing a logo, and compiling topical studies for two months of lessons
- Leading and organizing a fundraiser for Hurricane Katrina relief, including supporting and housing an acting group from Louisiana, helping to organize a Louisiana-style dinner, and helping to advertise for the event (the event attracted about 125 for dinner and 175 for the show)
- Helping out with a four-day trip to the Eastern Sierras
- Preaching on Revelation
- Going to a session, communications, worship and music, and pastoral care team meeting
- Compiling, analyzing, interpreting, and reporting 300 18-multiple-choice surveys about worship to the worship and music committee
- Helping to organize a paintballing event
Those were the major things I can remember. It was a great experience, and barring any sudden emergencies, I'll be returning to the church again next summer.
Despite that great experience, I am still unsure of my vocational direction. I wasn't expecting to come to a clear conclusion at the end of summer, nor am I disappointed that I still am at a crossroads. I am ok with the tension that I find myself in and am willing to keep it there until God shows me a clear direction. I feel sure that I am capable of going either direction, either ministry or academics, so for me, that's all that really matters at this point.
I return to Princeton on September 13 reluctantly. The reasons why are too complicated to explain; suffice it to say that there are aspects of Princeton that I love and many that I would rather do without. More than anything it is the friendships that I have made and want to develop that ultimately drives me back to the East. I am looking forward to see my classmates again and hopefully to spend some more time with my married friends.
So in many ways I feel I am beginning anew. It will be an exciting year with a new internship in Allentown, hopefully more powerful transportation around New Jersey, and a little more familiarity. I will have a couple friends coming in new this year and an excuse to get off campus with some newly married friends. So we shall see what God brings this year. I will be trying to update this site more frequently with the school year starting. So stay tuned in for more updates.
My time at La Crescenta Presbyterian Church was so much more than I could have hoped for. It was great to be plugged into a solid church once again with a strong community and programs. I was glad to have leadership responsibilities once again, restoring some of my lost self-confidence in that area. It was great to be in a supportive community to bounce ideas around and even make some of them come to fruition. But most of all, I was glad to be back in a church that understands its role in the world. I don't say this lightly: LCPC restored my faith in God's church. Though I still struggle with my own experiences in the church, LCPC has shown me that the church can be a light to the world and actually bring God's love to his people.
To give you an idea of what I have been up to this summer, I will give a bullet list of activities and areas that I was involved in:
- Assisted in some function with four memorial services (all occuring within a month)
- Helping to lead a young adult group, including developing a name for the group, designing a logo, and compiling topical studies for two months of lessons
- Leading and organizing a fundraiser for Hurricane Katrina relief, including supporting and housing an acting group from Louisiana, helping to organize a Louisiana-style dinner, and helping to advertise for the event (the event attracted about 125 for dinner and 175 for the show)
- Helping out with a four-day trip to the Eastern Sierras
- Preaching on Revelation
- Going to a session, communications, worship and music, and pastoral care team meeting
- Compiling, analyzing, interpreting, and reporting 300 18-multiple-choice surveys about worship to the worship and music committee
- Helping to organize a paintballing event
Those were the major things I can remember. It was a great experience, and barring any sudden emergencies, I'll be returning to the church again next summer.
Despite that great experience, I am still unsure of my vocational direction. I wasn't expecting to come to a clear conclusion at the end of summer, nor am I disappointed that I still am at a crossroads. I am ok with the tension that I find myself in and am willing to keep it there until God shows me a clear direction. I feel sure that I am capable of going either direction, either ministry or academics, so for me, that's all that really matters at this point.
I return to Princeton on September 13 reluctantly. The reasons why are too complicated to explain; suffice it to say that there are aspects of Princeton that I love and many that I would rather do without. More than anything it is the friendships that I have made and want to develop that ultimately drives me back to the East. I am looking forward to see my classmates again and hopefully to spend some more time with my married friends.
So in many ways I feel I am beginning anew. It will be an exciting year with a new internship in Allentown, hopefully more powerful transportation around New Jersey, and a little more familiarity. I will have a couple friends coming in new this year and an excuse to get off campus with some newly married friends. So we shall see what God brings this year. I will be trying to update this site more frequently with the school year starting. So stay tuned in for more updates.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Into the Routine, Discerning the Call
I am starting to feel comfortable with the routine of this semester now. My schedule is a bit odd since I am finished with classes by 10:00 am on Tuesday and have no class on Wednesday, so having that large chunk of time unoccupied has stretched me in terms of keeping on top of work rather than resting and relaxing, a difficult temptation to beat. But as time is moving along quickly I am readjusting my patterns to keep moving ahead.
With less credits this semester I'm also finding more time to stop and reflect on why I'm here and what I am working toward. One of the struggles last semester was losing sight of my purpose for studying here and what I was striving for. Part of it was some of the shock of being back in school and the level of intensity required to stay on top of work and do my work well, but part of it was in worrying about how to balance everything that I was unable to remember why I wanted to come to Seminary and accomplish here. With more time to reflect, I have been able to keep focused, and that has helped immensely in keeping my spirits up and continue to push through difficult classes.
I have been also thinking about where God is directing me in terms of my call and how that fits in with my passions, gifts, and talents. The waters are still very murky and little has happened still to clear them. On the one hand, I can see those traits that would serve well in a pastoral role. I am relational person and thrive in situations where I can develop connections that enable me to counsel, listen, and advise those who I care about. I still believe I have a gift for teaching and motivating change in people's lives. I have also witnessed how I've been used to point people to God, even when I feel distant from God; that was especially the case during the middle years of college. I know that for many I have been a person that people can trust to share concerns and doubts in different aspects of life. And God has put me in positions of leadership and responsibility in the past that have prepared me for future placements in leadership.
At the same time, I know that I also have a strong "intellectual" side; I think about problems analytically and often times I'd rather not come down on one side or another of particular issues because I realize that there is no clear cut answer. I enjoy teaching in a way that stimulates further reflection that may or may not result in change. I tend to have a critical side that would rather point out weaknesses rather than strengths so that those weaknesses can be strengthened. I think perhaps most "problematic" is that I'm very willing to ask difficult questions that aren't necessarily welcome. And in my experience so far, those who want to ask difficult questions and not always wanting to come down on solid answers aren't always most appreciated in church settings (except for some, but those tend to be churches that fall on a far more "liberal" stance than I'm comfortable with). Moreover I'm also afraid to a certain extent of being put in a position of nurturing personal growth when my approach is to introduce ideas rather than suggest a particular line of thinking. And I wonder whether I would be better fit in an environment where my goal is to introduce ideas rather than push someone to make a particular decision.
I realize that I'm still early in this process of reflection. The differences between teaching academically and pastorally are not that clearly defined. There's a lot of overlap, and there are also aspects of both that I simply don't know about yet. At this point, when it comes to it, I really have no clear direction to go on either path. With academic teaching, though I would enjoy classes and developing academic relationships with students, I'm not sure I want to be involved in the academic community (being at Princeton has shown me some of the ugly side of the academic world). With pastoral teaching, the major obstacle is that I lack a clear sense of call. My fear is that it's my decision to be a pastor, not God's leading me to that position, and if the Bible has taught me anything, it's those that who desire to be in positions of leadership are often the ones who fail while those who become leaders reluctantly, sometimes even against their desire, are most effective because they have been called. I can't help but feel right now that my desire to be a leader is what is driving me toward the pastorate, not the sense that God has called me to lead in His community.
The wrestling continues. I trust that a way will eventually be cleared in one direction or another. Probably not in the timing I want, but things never go as quickly as I'd like them to, which is better anyway. For now, it's time to hit the books again.
With less credits this semester I'm also finding more time to stop and reflect on why I'm here and what I am working toward. One of the struggles last semester was losing sight of my purpose for studying here and what I was striving for. Part of it was some of the shock of being back in school and the level of intensity required to stay on top of work and do my work well, but part of it was in worrying about how to balance everything that I was unable to remember why I wanted to come to Seminary and accomplish here. With more time to reflect, I have been able to keep focused, and that has helped immensely in keeping my spirits up and continue to push through difficult classes.
I have been also thinking about where God is directing me in terms of my call and how that fits in with my passions, gifts, and talents. The waters are still very murky and little has happened still to clear them. On the one hand, I can see those traits that would serve well in a pastoral role. I am relational person and thrive in situations where I can develop connections that enable me to counsel, listen, and advise those who I care about. I still believe I have a gift for teaching and motivating change in people's lives. I have also witnessed how I've been used to point people to God, even when I feel distant from God; that was especially the case during the middle years of college. I know that for many I have been a person that people can trust to share concerns and doubts in different aspects of life. And God has put me in positions of leadership and responsibility in the past that have prepared me for future placements in leadership.
At the same time, I know that I also have a strong "intellectual" side; I think about problems analytically and often times I'd rather not come down on one side or another of particular issues because I realize that there is no clear cut answer. I enjoy teaching in a way that stimulates further reflection that may or may not result in change. I tend to have a critical side that would rather point out weaknesses rather than strengths so that those weaknesses can be strengthened. I think perhaps most "problematic" is that I'm very willing to ask difficult questions that aren't necessarily welcome. And in my experience so far, those who want to ask difficult questions and not always wanting to come down on solid answers aren't always most appreciated in church settings (except for some, but those tend to be churches that fall on a far more "liberal" stance than I'm comfortable with). Moreover I'm also afraid to a certain extent of being put in a position of nurturing personal growth when my approach is to introduce ideas rather than suggest a particular line of thinking. And I wonder whether I would be better fit in an environment where my goal is to introduce ideas rather than push someone to make a particular decision.
I realize that I'm still early in this process of reflection. The differences between teaching academically and pastorally are not that clearly defined. There's a lot of overlap, and there are also aspects of both that I simply don't know about yet. At this point, when it comes to it, I really have no clear direction to go on either path. With academic teaching, though I would enjoy classes and developing academic relationships with students, I'm not sure I want to be involved in the academic community (being at Princeton has shown me some of the ugly side of the academic world). With pastoral teaching, the major obstacle is that I lack a clear sense of call. My fear is that it's my decision to be a pastor, not God's leading me to that position, and if the Bible has taught me anything, it's those that who desire to be in positions of leadership are often the ones who fail while those who become leaders reluctantly, sometimes even against their desire, are most effective because they have been called. I can't help but feel right now that my desire to be a leader is what is driving me toward the pastorate, not the sense that God has called me to lead in His community.
The wrestling continues. I trust that a way will eventually be cleared in one direction or another. Probably not in the timing I want, but things never go as quickly as I'd like them to, which is better anyway. For now, it's time to hit the books again.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Passing Comments
Just a few simple words that float by typically unnoticed at the time have a knack at sticking to one's mind. Walking between classes with a former professor, it managed to sneak in and I barely caught it at the time. This could be the last 8 months I ever spend this close to my family. It's a notion that had not crossed my thinking in the past week, and it was only a passing comment, but little things are just the right size to creep into the back of person's head and grow for awhile.
I wish I had the mettle to be more open and honest with those that I care about. I wish I had the strength to risk even when the odds are against me. And wishful thinking can lead to despair, but sometimes it's the catalyst to start change. Timing is also important; that is harder to discern. Part of me wants to risk it all while the rest isn't ready to give that up yet. Familiar territory being explored again.
I wish I had the mettle to be more open and honest with those that I care about. I wish I had the strength to risk even when the odds are against me. And wishful thinking can lead to despair, but sometimes it's the catalyst to start change. Timing is also important; that is harder to discern. Part of me wants to risk it all while the rest isn't ready to give that up yet. Familiar territory being explored again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)