The last couple weeks have been an interesting up and down journey. The snow had quite a bit to do with that, which surprisingly ended up being more stressful than restful. All of my classes on Thursday were canceled along with my usual commitment to the children's ministry program at Allentown Pres. It did give me a good opportunity to spend time with Caleb and Rachel, who I hadn't been able to spend much time with due to my workload. Always nice to get off of campus to spend time with friends (especially when they cook good food for you ;-) )
This semester has actually been much more difficult than I was anticipating, and it doesn't necessarily have to do with the work that is expected of me. My class load is actually the smallest I've had since I've been in seminary, and overall the demands being put on me are not that great. The psychological aspect is what is killing me. Being on the homestretch has been a pretty big obstacle to overcome ("senioritis" for those who prefer that term). I'm struggling to finish strong, something I wasn't expecting to be a challenge. I typically end well in most things I do, but when the reward for finishing is physically more distant than before, it affects my motivation. Certainly I'll leave with a degree from a prestigious school, and I want to be able to say that I left on a high note rather than sour note. But I also want to be home. The pain of the distance away from my family, friends, and church has been more palpable precisely because it's so close now. In just over three months, I'll be on a train making my way back across the country where I'm hoping I can settle for the foreseeable future. I'm chomping at the bit to start working, to be involved in ministry, hopefully teaching as well. So I feel something akin to a caged animal, ready to burst through its bars an unleashed. And the feeling of being constrained is pulling me away from focusing on my work.
Yet I don't want to get sucked into an attitude I've seen so many others succumb to, an attitude that chooses to forsake the present in pursuit of the future. I don't want these last three months at Princeton to pass me by, leaving me sorrowful that I didn't take advantage of everything possible while I was here. I am surrounded by so many intelligent people that I want to be able to soak everything in as much as possible before leaving.
So I'm left with this tension between longing for the future and desire to be fully present in the moment. And it's that pulling that I think is causing the most pain. It's the pain that knowing when I forsake the present for the future I'm hurting myself and making myself less useful to the people who want me to do well out here (both in school and at the churches where I serve), and when I focus too strongly on the present, I risk shutting out the relationships I long for back home.
Despite the tension, I am striving to press onward. I have had to rely constantly on the power of prayer over the last three weeks. And I've felt those prayers very powerfully over these last weeks. I've been sustained by the support of friends and loved ones, and all of this through the power of the Spirit. And having that support has made it much easier to bear getting through this last semester.
Cathy has been especially wonderful in helping me, and I am so thankful for her support and love. I'm really thankful to have a girlfriend who knows me so well and can speak the right encouraging words that I need to hear. I was particularly happy when I received my Valentine's Day present from her, which I think captures how well she knows me. I was very happy when I opened my mailbox to find a copy of "The Familiar Letters of John and Abigail Adams." =) The perfect gift for Valentine's Day for a history geek like me. Even though the distance has been a bit harder because we're apart, in a strange way it's actually made it easier to get through the tension of this semester because I know she's supporting me just as I'm trying to support her.
More to come as the semester continues on. I'll be back in CA from March 7 - 14, and I'm looking forward to seeing family and friends when I'm back. After that, it's two more months of school until I can finally say that I have made it and reached the culmination. Until then, I continue to trudge through the tension, knowing that it will be worth it in the end.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
A New Semester, The Beginning of the End
It's officially the beginning of the end, at least for this part of my school career anyway. I have 15 more credits to work through before I finish out my M.Div. and fly back to CA to begin my post-Masters life. It's not as scary as I was anticipating, though there is still that fear of uncertainty, walking into the unknown. Thankfully I have three more months before I really have to take that leap of faith, and hopefully things will work out so I will have a clear idea of where I'm headed and what my job will look like.
As is my custom (unintentionally), my last semester ended up being one of my most intense. I'm not really sure why it ends up that way. I'm taking seven classes, though three of them are only one unit, leaving four that are full 3-credit classes. Two of them are language translation classes, one in Greek and the other in Hebrew. I am taking a couple of the classes pass-fail, which will make the work load a little more bearable so that I can experiment and try some new things I wouldn't necessarily do otherwise. So I'm in for a bit of a crazy semester, but I'm excited about all of my classes. There aren't any of them that I'm particularly dreading or nervous about. It should work out to be a pretty great semester to end out my time at Princeton.
Michael Bruner told me when I left for Princeton in 2007 that my time would go by quickly and that I would walk away from Princeton wishing there was more that I had taken advantage of. When I met with him again over Christmas break, we both sat in wonder and shock at how quickly that time had gone by. It has been an intense, trying, surprising, uplifting, and encouraging three years. So many things about Princeton fell short of my expectations yet so many met them and even exceeded them. It has been very easy to knock on Princeton during my time here (often for different reasons than others might expect) but when it is all said and done, I have come away from this place with a pretty stellar education. I can't say that lightly or flippantly either. There were many points when I wished I had gone to Fuller instead, that I should transfer, even just putting my M.Div on the shelf and pursuing something else. But the perseverance and struggling and wrestling has paid off in ways that I can't really describe. I hope when I have had time to debrief from my time here that I will be able to put my experience into words more clearly. I'm not sure I would want to go through this particular experience again, but I'm grateful that I went through it and came out standing on the other side.
Of course, this talk is all premature. I still have three tough months ahead of me, probably the three toughest months of my entire educational career. I still have a research paper to finish, two books to translate and exegete, 11 films to watch and critique theologically, an entire genre of Biblical literature (Israelite wisdom) that I have to try to comprehend, and a workshop on worship leading to complete. And in case you want to know what classes those correspond to, here is my class schedule for this semester:
Greek Exegesis of Ephesians
Hebrew Exegesis of Samuel
Israel's Wisdom Literature
Faith, Film, and Spiritual Formation in Young Adults
Word and Act: Service in the Lord's Day
Field Education: Teaching Ministry
I am also attending a forum on youth ministry in April (through Princeton's Institute for Youth Ministry), and while that's a class, it's not until April and after I have completed the work for my other classes.
So there is plenty to do and much left to learn (that process never ends) but I'm excited to begin thinking about life after seminary, and all that that entails.
More to come in the coming weeks...
As is my custom (unintentionally), my last semester ended up being one of my most intense. I'm not really sure why it ends up that way. I'm taking seven classes, though three of them are only one unit, leaving four that are full 3-credit classes. Two of them are language translation classes, one in Greek and the other in Hebrew. I am taking a couple of the classes pass-fail, which will make the work load a little more bearable so that I can experiment and try some new things I wouldn't necessarily do otherwise. So I'm in for a bit of a crazy semester, but I'm excited about all of my classes. There aren't any of them that I'm particularly dreading or nervous about. It should work out to be a pretty great semester to end out my time at Princeton.
Michael Bruner told me when I left for Princeton in 2007 that my time would go by quickly and that I would walk away from Princeton wishing there was more that I had taken advantage of. When I met with him again over Christmas break, we both sat in wonder and shock at how quickly that time had gone by. It has been an intense, trying, surprising, uplifting, and encouraging three years. So many things about Princeton fell short of my expectations yet so many met them and even exceeded them. It has been very easy to knock on Princeton during my time here (often for different reasons than others might expect) but when it is all said and done, I have come away from this place with a pretty stellar education. I can't say that lightly or flippantly either. There were many points when I wished I had gone to Fuller instead, that I should transfer, even just putting my M.Div on the shelf and pursuing something else. But the perseverance and struggling and wrestling has paid off in ways that I can't really describe. I hope when I have had time to debrief from my time here that I will be able to put my experience into words more clearly. I'm not sure I would want to go through this particular experience again, but I'm grateful that I went through it and came out standing on the other side.
Of course, this talk is all premature. I still have three tough months ahead of me, probably the three toughest months of my entire educational career. I still have a research paper to finish, two books to translate and exegete, 11 films to watch and critique theologically, an entire genre of Biblical literature (Israelite wisdom) that I have to try to comprehend, and a workshop on worship leading to complete. And in case you want to know what classes those correspond to, here is my class schedule for this semester:
Greek Exegesis of Ephesians
Hebrew Exegesis of Samuel
Israel's Wisdom Literature
Faith, Film, and Spiritual Formation in Young Adults
Word and Act: Service in the Lord's Day
Field Education: Teaching Ministry
I am also attending a forum on youth ministry in April (through Princeton's Institute for Youth Ministry), and while that's a class, it's not until April and after I have completed the work for my other classes.
So there is plenty to do and much left to learn (that process never ends) but I'm excited to begin thinking about life after seminary, and all that that entails.
More to come in the coming weeks...
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, January 1, 2010
Only Five More Months
I'm back in Princeton after another trip home. Every time it gets harder to come back to school after being at home. And especially after this break, it has been even harder. I think most of the readers of my blog know this already, but just in case you hadn't heard, I am no longer single. My girlfriend is Cathy Hansen. We've been dating for almost four weeks now. We met about five years ago, and have been good friends for about four years. After being in denial about it for a long time, I finally admitted that I had feelings for her. And there you have it. :-) So it probably shouldn't take too much to guess why going back to school was little harder this time around.
Alas, I am back at school, ready to get started on my work so I can finish it quickly. I only have five months left until I am done with school, graduated, and on to the next great adventure of my life. What that adventure will be is up in the air once again. I have decided to put my Ph.D. aspirations on hold for the near future. The more I have thought about it, the more I feel getting "life experience" under my belt would be more useful for me at this point. That's not to say that school isn't a life experience in itself, but I want my learning to stop being theoretical for the time being. There were some other considerations in there as well, but that was a major influence on my decision.
So I am going to try to power through this semester and make the most of my last semester here at Princeton. It has been a struggle to fully appreciate my time here, but, as Simone Weil put it, the importance of education is not necessarily what you learn, but simply the fact that you challenged yourself to go beyond what you thought possible. And sometimes it has felt like pushing against a brick wall, but even if I moved that wall an inch, I'll consider these three years a success. I am slowly beginning to see the progress I've made even though I feel like I've hardly gone anywhere. I imagine that as I continue to process these last three years, I'll see that I've come a lot farther than I thought.
For those who are curious what I'm taking this year, here is my class schedule:
Exegesis of Ephesians - Shane Berg
Israel's Wisdom Literature - Choon-Leong Seow
Film, Faith, and Spiritual Formation in Young Adults - Kenda Dean
Word and Act: Service in the Lord's Day - Nancy Lamers-Gross
I'm still working on my Lesslie Newbigin research paper.
Now, it's late, I'm jet-lagged and I should sleep. So until next time...
Alas, I am back at school, ready to get started on my work so I can finish it quickly. I only have five months left until I am done with school, graduated, and on to the next great adventure of my life. What that adventure will be is up in the air once again. I have decided to put my Ph.D. aspirations on hold for the near future. The more I have thought about it, the more I feel getting "life experience" under my belt would be more useful for me at this point. That's not to say that school isn't a life experience in itself, but I want my learning to stop being theoretical for the time being. There were some other considerations in there as well, but that was a major influence on my decision.
So I am going to try to power through this semester and make the most of my last semester here at Princeton. It has been a struggle to fully appreciate my time here, but, as Simone Weil put it, the importance of education is not necessarily what you learn, but simply the fact that you challenged yourself to go beyond what you thought possible. And sometimes it has felt like pushing against a brick wall, but even if I moved that wall an inch, I'll consider these three years a success. I am slowly beginning to see the progress I've made even though I feel like I've hardly gone anywhere. I imagine that as I continue to process these last three years, I'll see that I've come a lot farther than I thought.
For those who are curious what I'm taking this year, here is my class schedule:
Exegesis of Ephesians - Shane Berg
Israel's Wisdom Literature - Choon-Leong Seow
Film, Faith, and Spiritual Formation in Young Adults - Kenda Dean
Word and Act: Service in the Lord's Day - Nancy Lamers-Gross
I'm still working on my Lesslie Newbigin research paper.
Now, it's late, I'm jet-lagged and I should sleep. So until next time...
Sunday, November 29, 2009
An Update At Last
Well, it's taken almost a month and a half to write again, but it's been quite a month and a half. There has been a lot happening, a lot to process, and a lot to struggle with. Now I find myself way behind and most likely needing to request extensions for deadlines and classes.
So where to begin? My sister visited me back in October, and that was a lot of fun. The third family member to come to visit in Princeton (after Paul and uncle John), and it's always exciting to show new people around. Unfortunately, I broke her camera while we were in New York, but thankfully she had mine to use to take pictures. She got to see the fall colors, the Princeton University museum, and most of the city. Pretty exciting.
Then my friend, Cathy, came out to visit. Before that, through numerous phone conversations, I found out that my grandmother was beginning to decline fairly quickly, and probably didn't have much more than three weeks left. That was when my schedule came to a screeching halt. My thoughts and feelings were all at home at that point, and I was just waiting for the point when I could come home physically. Still, I tried to push on (unsuccessfully), and having Cathy come out was definitely uplifting.
We went to New Hope, which is a location I was told I had to see. I can see why it is, but it's definitely a Fall/Spring place. The outdoor entertainment is the draw, but when it's 40* outside, there's not much outdoor entertainment to be had. But, believe it or not, I actually found a decent Mexican restaurant in New Hope. It's still only good by East Coast standards, but still good. Her visit was enjoyable, but unfortunately cut short.
While Cathy was visiting, I received the phone call that my grandmother had passed away. It was right after we had gotten back from New Hope. I was shellshocked from the news, but I had alerted my professors to what was going on, so I was able to leave quickly. Being at home was good, though hard under the circumstances. I was happy to be able to see family and church friends. But my grandmother is also the closest person I've known who has passed away, and dealing with that first close loss is always difficult.
It didn't hit me until the day of the funeral, and a lot of the emotional outpouring happened on that day. It has been difficult since then as well. Being back at school as been a struggle. My mentally and emotionally I'm not here even though I physically am. It's only two weeks until I am back at home again, which sometimes makes me wonder why I came back out here at all. But with final papers due and other obligations, I suppose there's no way it could be avoided. For now, I have to try to focus on what's going on out here, and deal with the rest as it comes.
It's moving toward winter here, though it's still pretty warm (mid 50s most days, down into the high 30s at night). And registration for Spring classes begins on Wednesday. I have no idea what I'm going to take; its been the hardest semester to try to figure it out because none of the classes look all that appealing. No doubt my current emotional state is partly to blame for that.
I'll be home again on December 15. Seems so far away, even though it's only two weeks. Hopefully when I update again, things will be a bit cheerier than they are now.
So where to begin? My sister visited me back in October, and that was a lot of fun. The third family member to come to visit in Princeton (after Paul and uncle John), and it's always exciting to show new people around. Unfortunately, I broke her camera while we were in New York, but thankfully she had mine to use to take pictures. She got to see the fall colors, the Princeton University museum, and most of the city. Pretty exciting.
Then my friend, Cathy, came out to visit. Before that, through numerous phone conversations, I found out that my grandmother was beginning to decline fairly quickly, and probably didn't have much more than three weeks left. That was when my schedule came to a screeching halt. My thoughts and feelings were all at home at that point, and I was just waiting for the point when I could come home physically. Still, I tried to push on (unsuccessfully), and having Cathy come out was definitely uplifting.
We went to New Hope, which is a location I was told I had to see. I can see why it is, but it's definitely a Fall/Spring place. The outdoor entertainment is the draw, but when it's 40* outside, there's not much outdoor entertainment to be had. But, believe it or not, I actually found a decent Mexican restaurant in New Hope. It's still only good by East Coast standards, but still good. Her visit was enjoyable, but unfortunately cut short.
While Cathy was visiting, I received the phone call that my grandmother had passed away. It was right after we had gotten back from New Hope. I was shellshocked from the news, but I had alerted my professors to what was going on, so I was able to leave quickly. Being at home was good, though hard under the circumstances. I was happy to be able to see family and church friends. But my grandmother is also the closest person I've known who has passed away, and dealing with that first close loss is always difficult.
It didn't hit me until the day of the funeral, and a lot of the emotional outpouring happened on that day. It has been difficult since then as well. Being back at school as been a struggle. My mentally and emotionally I'm not here even though I physically am. It's only two weeks until I am back at home again, which sometimes makes me wonder why I came back out here at all. But with final papers due and other obligations, I suppose there's no way it could be avoided. For now, I have to try to focus on what's going on out here, and deal with the rest as it comes.
It's moving toward winter here, though it's still pretty warm (mid 50s most days, down into the high 30s at night). And registration for Spring classes begins on Wednesday. I have no idea what I'm going to take; its been the hardest semester to try to figure it out because none of the classes look all that appealing. No doubt my current emotional state is partly to blame for that.
I'll be home again on December 15. Seems so far away, even though it's only two weeks. Hopefully when I update again, things will be a bit cheerier than they are now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)