I could not help myself. I must re-post. These are some of the most entertaining cakes I have seen in years! Happy Halloween!

Visit Cake Wrecks, Sunday Sweets.

Dangerous Reflections

Today is Reformation Sunday. Somehow, this snuck up on me. I found myself sitting in worship listening to the words of hope and glory from Paul's letter to the Romans 8:18-30 and thinking of nothing but the prophets. Paul writes, "24 For in hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what is seen? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience."

Despite being a wonderful reading for a friend seeking his place in the world, Paul's words of hope echoed to me the assurance delivered by Hosea in chapter 14 to the Israelites of the Northern Kingdom. "7 They shall again live beneath my shadow, they shall flourish as a garden; they shall blossom like the vine, their fragrance shall be like the wine of Lebanon." Despite their nation's sin of breaking the covenant with God, Yahweh chooses to love and restore them. They too, one day, will be whole."

Many people struggle with Hosea. The metaphor he embraces can be painful to hear by those who have suffered certain pains in this world and who have not yet healed from them. Getting past the imagery is a daunting task for some as it may reopen wounds, perhaps even rubbing salt into them. Yet the message of redemption that sits beneath the surface is one so powerful that it could bring healing if understood. I am reminded of the old adage, "What does the devil use for evil? Everything. What does God use for good? Everything." Hosea's words could, when not carefully delivered, be quite damaging to others. Yet, when delivered in the right spirit, could set people free.

We often wonder why we must go through so much work to study the Scriptures. I was recently told by someone that understanding more of the context made "the whole thing" more meaningful, not to mention "make sense". Our clergy should not shy away from passages simply because of the seemingly "dangerous" nature of their message. However, we must absolutely consider the ethics and pastoral care responsibilities to our congregants and the wider society when preaching on all matters, difficult and seemingly simple.

All too often we dismiss these things simply because we know it will take work. We are so busy as it is - congregants in the hospital, youth retreat, fall church dinner, missions, even visiting the "Greens". Yet, sometimes sitting down with a cup of warm goodness and pounding out a difficult text takes you on a much needed spiritual journey that can refine you as a minister regardless of whether or not you chose to use a passage publicly. You never know what windows the Lord may open to you.

Let us all remember that it is His, not ours, (as any good Calvinist would say) on this Reformation Sunday.

Image from City of God's Weekend Fun.

Grammar Nerd

Grammar Geeks unite! Grab the stickers and head off to make this world a more articulate place.

Dig it.

History Repeats Hashbrowns

I am struggling. I am in need of a blog entry for Old Testament and nothing comes to mind other than the fact that I'm lost in the Exile. How many times must I ask myself if Jerusalem is north or south? How often must I double check the geography of the Northern Kingdom? Is it the travesty it seems that I have no clue who Gedaliah is, why he is important? I'm swimming in a pool of acrostic poetry, doggy paddling in lament, and about to be taken under in a dirge.

We have attempted in class to set the time frame in order. More than once. Several times actually. My notes resemble smothered and scattered fries at the Waffle House. The triple order. Smothered. Covered. Chunked. Diced. Peppered. Capped. Topped. In other words, "All the Way" with a sweet tea chaser.

To date, this is the best I can offer...

• Once upon a time there was a kingdom named Israel
• The Assyrians take Israel. (722)
• Then there were two parts (why?) - North and South; Israel and Judah; Samaria and Jerusalem.
• Judah was initially left alone. The Assyrians eventually take Judah, and look towards Jerusalem.
• Jerusalem stood (with water); Hezekiah gave tribute and was left to stand alone.
• Along came Babylon who took Assyria, thereby taking Nineveh. (612)
• People rejoiced! People breathed. There was hope.
  
• Josiah comes along... And does what exactly?
  

David is in there too somewhere, wearing a nice little proverbial crown around 1000. Some sources with nice round capital letters begin to appear somewhere around Josiah. THEN I am ok. The rest looks like this:

• 586/7 Babylonians take Assyrians & Jerusalem; Enter The Exile
• 539 Persia takes Babylon (Cyrus); End of The Exile
• 515 Jews rebuild the second temple
• 332 Enter the Greeks who take Persia (Alexander the Great); Antiochus IV succeeds him
• 167 Antiocus IV desecrates the second temple (and sells off the priest seat); Rumour of his death leads to Maccabean revolt; hellenism instituted
• 164 Antiocus IV kicks the bucket; end of the Maccabean revolt; BIG party in the temple (okay, maybe not IN the temple...)
  

To remember who took whom and when, I created the Gas-Movie System aka B(P)G. Babylon - Persia - Greeks. (BP-PG essentially.) This is a good thing as history repeats itself. At least I can stock up on Craftsman tools for the next temple rebuilding, should my assistance be requested.

But the rest of this - what a mess. Feel free to pass along your two cents. There might just be some hashbrowns in it for you!

Under Fire: Church History in 4 Minutes

I couldn't resist. A child of the '80s (that would be the 1980s), I truly appreciate anything Billy Joel. I mean honestly, the man was a missionary of his musical time. Granted some things were a bit, well, unorthodox... But look what he's inspired!


A big thank you to Hacking Christianity for this one!

Kiwis and Haka

Everyone is excited about football. I dig football. But I also dig rugby. And I really love our Kiwi brothers. ;)

Rugby, Seeing Jesus and the Marines

"Exegesis. It's what we get out of the text."

It wasn't long before students were asking the question "What's up with exegesis? Is it another form of criticism?" A swell of giddiness overcame me because that is the ONE thing I walked away from hermeneutics having learned and learned well (I did this while proudly wearing my I survived Hermeneutics tee). "Wait! I know this one!"

Let me begin by defining Hermeneutics. This is another word I often misspell as I pronounce the word HerMAN-new-tiks. It's probably properly pronounced her-men-ewe-tiks. I claim an accent and declare that no one may criticize (ok, make fun of) me. Hermeneutics is the process of interpreting the Bible. Drs. Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, authors of Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (a book I do NOT recommend unless you enjoy feeling as if someone whopped off your head and used it for a riling game of rugby) describe it this way:

Interpretation is neither an art nor a science; it is both a science and an art... interpreters seek to bridge the vast linguistic, historical, social, and cultural gaps that exist between the ancient and modern worlds so that they may understand what texts mean... Hermeneutics provides a strategy that will enable us to understand what an author or speaker intended to communicate.

Doc Lester has plopped into our heads many ways to accomplish this - also known as "approaches" or rather, "forms." He seems to prefer (although not exclusively) the Diachronic Methods (across time) [textual and form criticism, historical linguistics and tradition criticism (which we have not yet covered), source, redaction and historical criticisms]. The other goodies he has brought up fall into the synchronic (close reading) or existential methods (concerning real life; such as literary and narrative criticisms, genre and form analysis, and theological exegesis). Enter exegesis.

It is perhaps easier to understand the importance -- and place -- of exegesis when taken in relation to eisegesis. The "eis" of eisegesis comes from a lovely Greek word meaning "into." We all know that "ex" as in "exit" means "to leave" or "get out of." Given the Doc's definition of exegesis "what we get out of the text" it is a simple jump to eisegesis as in "what we put into the text" or "what we want to see in the text." Most students of hermeneutics remember it this way: "I see Jesus" (because I want to).

So here is the trick: ex- and eis- egesiseseseseses are not criticisms. They are exegetical methods or approaches to criticism. In the words of Michel J. Gorman, author of Elements of Biblical Exegesis (a book worth the read especially as you continue to write exegetical papers throughout your seminary career), "...there are necessary safeguards to ensure that one's exegesis of the Bible is not really eisegesis - reading into the text... A sound exegetical method is one such safeguard." This is why the Doc has us studying all of these seemingly complicated methods and forms. He wants us to get it. And I mean really get it.

We recently read Hosea 2 and broke into small groups to discuss the nature of the text. The exercise was to produce a good habit of studying the text as closely as possible to seek its meaning with a magnifying glass before chickening out and pulling back to look at it with a telescope. Eventually, when done properly (in my opinion) one focuses in at an appropriate distance and finds the real meaning. This is the "art" part of hermeneutics the triad of docs above mentioned in the rugby book. The science part is in the focus. Here is an illustration of exegesis and eisegesis.

Exegesis: The 2nd book of Hosea speaks to a cultural understanding of marriage and the role of women in the 8th century. Additionally, the text speaks to Israel's relationship with God. (Insert details here.)

Eisegesis: The 2nd book of Hosea says that a husband is to control his wife, even going to the extent of stripping her naked and parading her in public or starving her in the wilderness until she obeys him. A good wife would obey her husband under all circumstances and the consequences of not doing so are left to the husband to determine as he sees fit.

Of course, that is an eisegetical reading by a pretty nasty jerk. But, you get my point. He has looked into the text with a preconceived belief and brought with him an understanding of what it means paying no attention to form, content, historical place and time, culture, etc., let alone the author's intended meaning.

Generally this gives students a headache. I have found over the years that most clergy get lazy in their exegesis, mostly because it is hard work and because they fall into patterns of comfortable styles of interpretation which may or may not always be appropriate to the text. However, the skills become second nature if you are able to discipline yourself. It is like running. You start with a block. Then you go around the block. Pretty soon you are running the Marine Corp Marathon and keeping up. Next time, you might even win.