Anonymous Academic Intimacy?

As many know I am assisting in an OT class this summer. I have always felt very fortunate to have this opportunity but I really do not think I appreciated it in its entirety.

The professor recently posed an assignment for the students to write letters home, reflecting on the course to date and the most challenging "what I've learned from this" or "what I'm still struggling with" bits and pieces. Their honesty and depth of sharing is remarkable. I have witnessed students move from "What is this silly blog thing?" to commenting on very deep thoughts of one another about everything from an understanding of God to domestic violence to "wait, you mean that isn't historical? But I've been quoting that as fact for years!".

One of the students commented on how they preferred learning in a live classroom setting. This initially brought much agreement. As such, I composed a short response that offered a different view. In a classroom, not everyone is heard. Sometimes it is a matter of time. Not all students are great orators. Some produce better stuff once they have had a chance to digest the material. And some just get distracted by Facebook. You might get to know a person by their attire, their ability to orate well, their loudness or meekness, their body language, or even by their intellectual contributions. But do you really get to know them well? Do they know you? What have you really learned from one another? In a class I took this past spring, I really only learned from two other students. Most of what I obtained was from the professor, the assignments and from processing discussions with non class members over "Margarita Mondays" - a weekly discipleship group so dubbed by a table top weekly promotion card at our local gathering spot.

On line learning allows for everyone to participate and in fact, requires it. Everyone has a voice and every voice is considered. I have found them all to be valuable, especially when they interact as many interesting things surface that would never come to be in a classroom of 25 or 30 (or even 12-15). The time given the reflections and contributions makes them more thoughtful and deep. A certain level of intimacy develops. I may not know these people by their body language but I know what is important to them. I know where they are on their journey to understand certain texts. I know how the information is going to influence their ministries and how they personally interact with others who are important to them. I have learned about many of their passions. I know more about how they understand God and what they think God knows about them. And I have learned this about every single one of them.

It is indeed humbling and I thank God as I am privileged to witness it.

Computers are Like Old Testament Gods

'Tis not every day this student is invited to serve as an aid for an Old Testament class. Perhaps that is why I am enjoying the work so very much despite the technical issues for some students who are learning to master the servant of software in the battlefield of ones and zeros. For them, I offer these thoughts from great thinkers of our time.

Computers are like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy. ~Joseph Campbell

Home computers are being called upon to perform many new functions, including the consumption of homework formerly eaten by the dog. ~Doug Larson

The problem with troubleshooting is that trouble shoots back. ~Author Unknown

But they are useless. They can only give you answers. ~Pablo Picasso, about computers

In God we trust, all others we virus scan. ~Author Unknown

Rebooting is a wonder drug - it fixes almost everything. ~Garrett Hazel, "Help Desk Blues," 2002

Jesus saves! The rest of us better make backups. ~Author Unknown

There are three kinds of death in this world. There's heart death, there's brain death, and there's being off the network. ~Guy Almes


And a little poetry...

Chaos reigns within.
Reflect, repent, and reboot.
Order shall return.
~Suzie Wagner, 1998

Three things are certain:
Death, taxes, and lost data.
Guess which has occurred.
~David Dixon, 1998, winning entry of the Haiku Error Messages 21st Challenge by Charlie Varon and Jim Rosenau, sponsored by Salon.com

Yesterday it worked
Today it is not working
Windows is like that
~Margaret Segall, 1998

Windows NT crashed.
I am the Blue Screen of Death.
No one hears your screams.
~Peter Rothman, 1998

A file that big?
It might be very useful.
But now it is gone.
~David J. Liszewski, 1998

Lastly, "If you have any trouble sounding condescending, find a Unix user to show you how it's done." ~Scott Adams. *snicker*

A "Thank you!" to QuoteGarden!

It's Official! I'm a TANAK Techno Geek!

As I dig through the pile of texts on atrocity and human agency (not to mention free will and doctrine of humanity), I received a spiffy little email from one Dr. Brooke Lester informing me that I have been selected by the faculty committee of OT distance learning (consisting only of said Lester) to serve as assistant to a summer course. This is exciting news especially as all I have really ever wanted to do was teach. Okay, and maybe bring about world peace. But now really is not the time to discuss it. Popcorn?

That all said, we should be seeing some newbies pop in here in a bit. Those brave enough to wander by the Blogfire of the Vanities, I welcome you. May the links on the right be helpful in your quest to make sense of Coogan and to order your time line. If it helps, this photo depicts my time line and is the result of a semester of work that now hangs in my dining room. My boyfriend attempted to touch a sticky once... he now is without two fingers. Meanwhile, my adviser tells me that The Sticky should not be allowed in a graduate student's life. I have since made arrangements for an armed guard to stand watch in the event of any funny business. (Even the critter walks to the other side of the dining room table now. Wise critter.)

Rabbi Herman Schaalman once commented that one cannot be a Christian without first being a Jew. With my deep appreciation for the Hebrew Bible, I cannot agree more. For it is in understanding the Old Testament that we come to appreciate the depth and richness of Christ's life and resurrection. My hope for all new OT students is that you will come to love our origins and find inspiration in our Christian story, driving you closer to the fullness of Christ. May you all be blessed!

Wandering

So there were these a people who wandered. They wandered a lot. In the desert. It was hot. Really hot. And dusty. They carried around this big box marked by winged creatures. It had a few stuffs inside. These people wandered around the hot, dusty, desert carrying a few stuffs in a box. (Who are these crazy people?)

These are our ancestors of faith.

You may be wondering a lot of things, among them why the heck we Christians consider a bunch of wandering people who carry a box through the desert our ancestors or maybe why they bother to put braille menus on some drive through windows, but more specifically, what was in the box.

Everyone always wants to know what's in the box. Ask Pandora.

The box was special. In fact, it was so special that the people who carried this thing around raised tents to host the thing. So as they went, they carried the box and when they rested, they built a tent that held the box. (You're kidding me, right?)

No, really! These are our ancestors!

When they raised these tents, they built out special places in them to hold this box. And, since it was special, special people were chosen to wear special clothes and do special things to the special box in the special room. The special clothing included an apron adorned with ornamental pomegranates and golden bells along the hem and semiprecious stones at the shoulders with a bunch of names engraved on them. They also got to wear cool hats. Oh! And they got to bathe frequently because they had to be clean. (Bathe, really?)

Yes, really.

And they did it all because God told them to.

(I'm not gonna ask.)

Seriously.

These are the people who God chose as his own. These are the fore fathers of David, and as such Christ. These are the dudes and babes who will inherit the land. And they did it simply because God told them to.

Yet sin crept behind. It doesn't take much to mess it up (just ask Eve). After all the lallygagging in the desert (okay, so it wasn't really lallygagging), the ancients settled and built a temple in the same style as the tent. They placed the arc of the covenant in the temple in a sacred space. And thy purified and anointed the priests who wore pomegranates to protect and serve Yahweh. Then, Moses departs for forty days. Like a child whose babysitter falls asleep and then gets into trouble, so did the ancients. And what do they do? They make golden calves fully breaking the commandment. This ticks Moses off and, coincidentally, begins the path of the sin of Jeroboam. Nice kick off for the DtrH. Idol worship!

Family Ties, Ancient Style

First off, I think I need this tee to wear to my OT class every Tuesday. (It's available at Think Geek.)

Now, some thoughts on the ancestors of Israel...

1. For years I have expressed the following motto to various Christians as a means to keep in check their spiritual commitment to their vow: Are you willing to give up Isaac? It's a beautiful example of the sacrifices we all have to make when being loyal to God. No doubt Abraham had regrets. I'm not sure it's possible to be human and not. Michael Coogan makes the point that "Abraham and Isaac never speak to each other again, and immediately after it Sarah, who has been absent from the narrative, dies." Abraham, in his immediate state, has been left by his wife, seemingly abandoned by his son, and is left alone because of his faithfulness. From a 21st century perspective, heck yeah I want some of that kind of treatment from my God! Yet, that's exactly what may be required of us: loosing those close to us in service to Him.

2. Circumcision. It seems like the Israelites were circumcised, in part, to distinguish themselves from the Babylonians while in Exile. Course, circumcision was also a right of passage not to mention a preparation for marriage in some cultures. But my 20th century mind cannot help but to get hooked on the idea that our ancients really dug the fact that they were circumcised and their Babylonian captors were not. This leaves me to imagine a number of smirks and chuckles not to mention innuendos that were likely to be available. What? Oh come on! You cannot tell me that our forefathers had no sense of humour!

3. One of the annoying things about a reading assignment when you are in 8th grade is when you get stuck with a book of the Bible that seems to contain nothing but genealogies. So and so begot so and so. Ya-a-a-wn. Any good 8th grader knows to read the first two lines of the list and the last two lines to realize that somehow, David and Jesus were actually connected. What they don't tell the average 12 year old is that these ancestral narratives are endogamy. (Yeah, I didn't get the term either.) Think of it as intermarriage for the purpose of preserving one's community, or more specifically, their identity and property. This is why later on, the people are going to look at Moses and wonder what the heck he was thinking marrying a Midian (never mind the fact that Abraham hooked up with an Egyptian and Esau got cozy with the Canaanites). In fact, it's something that kind of haunts his story among Jews even today as some Jews find it important that they marry other Jews simply to maintain the bloodline. "But Moooooom! Moses did it!" probably isn't a sound case for the average 20 something Jewish female.

4. Lastly, one of the most emotional things for me to come to understand about the Hebrew Bible is that God made some promises to the old folks, and he kept them, however, the old folks all had to die for the promises to be fulfilled. Granted, they brought it on themselves. Honestly, how often must God say, "Do it THIS way. No other way. Not that way. THIS way. Over here. Look. Right THERE. Yes, THIS way!" before we people get it? God promised land, descendants and blessings.

Abraham got land, but it was to bury his wife. Granted it was the right land. And God did eventually provide a lot more land to his descendants, but to Abraham, that's serious faith to stick with a God with not a whole lot of demonstration of fulfillment of his promise. Especially after the whole Isaac episode.

As for descendants, yes, there are some. Plenty actually. But a lot of the women were barren and had to hook up with God so that their wombs would kick in to service.

Lastly, the promise of blessing. Abraham was under the impression that other people out there would long for the kind of blessings he had. You can almost imagine Abraham, at some point in his life saying, "Riiiigggghhhhht." He experiences turmoil for Lot, watches cities rise and fall, has his wife taken into a harem, has turmoil in his house between his wife and household staff, is expected to obey God in sacrificing his own son, his wife dies, his son seemingly doesn't speak to him again, then takes a new wife and apparently concubines, only to die. And those are just the highlights. People did hope for blessings like his and continue to do so to this day. They hope for success for their children. They hope for God's favour. They hope for a better life. And it's God who provides that for them.

Before I go, I say forget the blogging tee. I want this one instead. And yes, it really does glow.

Kicking the Tree of Life

The sexualization of our young people is a constant worry for the elders of our society. The Hip Hop generation, Britney Spears, even good girl Miley Cyrus all draw comments - some good and some bad - about their sexuality. Our society is preoccupied with sex. And no one really knows how much is too much let alone where the line should be drawn for "appropriate" behavior. This is not only an issue in the US, but in various countries (for instance, compare and contrast nudity in Brazil and China).

While I always knew that there elements of sex in Genesis, I am still surprised to see the struggle of the Hebrews to make sense of sexuality. The nature of the creation story seems inspired to reflect themes common to the people of the times. It's not too a far leap to understand why the ancients may have included language reflective of sexual themes. Honestly, there wasn't much to do back in the day for recreation. They didn't have the internet. And what's life without the internet?

It was probably only a matter of time before they started to wonder who (or what) thought up the idea of intercourse. Humanity seems to always want to know "why" as evidenced in the story of Eve and the serpent, for by eating the fruit one will "become like God, knowing good and evil". Which brings us to the word "know". "Knowing" always gets us into trouble. To know the difference between good and evil put Adam and Eve into a pretty bad spot. To know one another suggests a level of sexual intimacy that could be problematic in terms of survival if not committed between one another. Needing to "know" can lead us down unhealthy paths that lead to other sinful behaviors both of commission and omission.

So, does having sex make you knowledgeable? And do we, when having sex (outside the confines of marriage), insult God by seeking knowledge we are not yet meant to have? Do we commit sacrilege by seeking to be God-like in arrogant ways? When we act sinfully do we kick the tree of life and stick out our tongues at God?

E Plus E plus Jezabel plus Ben plus E plus oh wait...

The end of First Kings (and beginning of Second Kings) is filled with stories only a political scientist or adventurer at heart would love. Rise to power, miracles, some Baal worship for fun, bonfire of the bulls, a little slaughter of priests, party at Jezreel and a nice rain shower, greed in the vinyard, political assassination that leads to public death, yeay! Wine!, some more prophecy, all ending in one big circus of war where kings die, kings ascend to power, prophets prophesy, and one old trollop lady gets trompled by horses then eaten by dogs. And that's just Elijah's story.

Who wouldn't love the old testament?

I am constantly amazed at the continual disobedience of the people of Israel. Granted, the warnings were probably not always eminent. But truly, how can a people, chosen by God himself, blessed with promises by covenant with David, who are ensured land for all eternity, forget, especially given everything these people had suffered over the generations. Was the message of God not before them in daily life? If not, why not? And if so, how could one so easily choose to disregard what was known to be true?

Today the message of Christ's love is drowned out by Jay-Z, 50 Cent and Britney Spears (the top three videos on MTV's website as of this moment). Middle aged adults huddle around their brand new HDTVs purchased not for gaming but so that Lou Dobbs or O'Rieley come in crystal clear. Tweens stumble upon themselves to get the newest gear that makes them appear to be the closest thing to a rock star. Young adults wander around bumping into things, their i phones in hand, emailing, tweeting, plurking, surfing, wiki-ing, playing with their dashboard and Djing from their hand held devices. In all the noise, where is God? Were the Ancients like this too? Distracted? Was Baal their version of Apple?

Haoles, Locals, and the Big Kahuna

I have spent several weeks attempting to make some sense of the nature of ancient history of the prophets. Seeing the invasions move across a whiteboard in a counterclockwise motion brought meaning to the purpose of the prophets. Finally I was able to put two and two together: the prophets were commentators, orators, messengers, criers and guardians of the people who would suffer attack, loss of lands, homes, family and possessions, time after time, oppressor after oppressor. These prophets helped to interpret what was to happen, why, by whom and how. As such, they seem to me to be comforters. Understanding why a tragedy happens somehow makes it easier to accept, even if you do not accept the causer's motivation of the action.

I suppose this is why I find some ease (finally) in the DtrH history. Like Poland, the territories of Israel expand, shrink, expand, move, return, unsettle and resettle. Isaiah's concerns about the identity of the people make much more sense now. Humans tend to nest and find identity in place. For example, Stephen Fry recently completed a travel documentary entitled Fry in America during which he toured America sharing his British perspective. After a brutally cold hunting expedition for bowhead whales with the Inuits in the most northern part of Alaska, Fry concluded his mini series in Hawaii where he met a man who was a long term ancestral local and resident of Kaua'i as well as a world renowned champion surfer named Titus Kinimaka. They discuss development and haole tourism, and when asked if he considers himself "American", Titus responds, "I am Hawaiian". He speaks not with resentment but with reverence to his heritage which could very easily be pushed out by eminent domain in his lifetime.

The Israelites were a people who laid divine claim to their land, somewhat (but likely without divine compact) like Titus and his family lay claim to theirs. It is no surprise that Isaiah is worried about them getting too cushy in Babylon. Those who treated the Exile as resettlement would find new identity in place. They needed a reminder of their covenant, purpose and home.

Understanding this makes understanding previous eras much more simple. The centralization of worship of the Yahwehists to protect them from the potential Assyrian onslaught may not have been simply a matter of protection. It may have proved to have several uses including an attempt to solidify a "national" identity before the anticipated "punishment" as well as a way to ensure that Yahweh was being worshiped in an appropriate way that would be pleasing to God and not bring further punishment upon their heads.

I can only imagine the sense of desperation Josiah could have felt having this knowledge and being able to only do so much within his earthly confines. Much like Jeremiah, I can imagine him feeling as if he wanted to scream, "Listen to me! The day of the Lord will come! Join us here, worship Him properly, give him due honor! Turn from your sinful ways! Obey the Great Commandment! There are consequences for your actions!!!" Additionally, you can imagine him saying, "Golden calves, really?" The sin of Jeroboam would bring ruin to his people and there wasn't much else he could do about it. Give the Big Hahuna the worship he deserves or we're all going to suffer!

I wonder what others see and feel in Kings. The stories are so rich! I mean honestly, apart from the Lady of the Lake, where else do we see metal float in the written word other than in 2Kings 6:1-7?

By the way, had I read Coogan's chapter on Kings before the last exam I would probably have been much further along in my understanding. I am not sure one can truly appreciate the prophets without having studied the United Monarchy first. It is a matter of context in significance - if one does not understand the significance, the context is jumbled. No wonder I ate it. The lip of the gnarly bomb really axed me. I totally barnwalled the line. Let us hope next time I ride the party wave without a serious wipe out.

For surfing lessons with world champion surfer Titus Kinimaka, visit trykauai.com.

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.

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!

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.

Infallible Friends

Job. Poor guy.

One of the remarkable things about his story is the treatment he receives from his so called "friends". His friends are essentially guilty of judgment. I often misspell this word when I first type it because I tend to place the e after the g for that is what it is - the act of being a judge. The problem with that is that without a court (or for that matter, for those who are not omniscient), who can rightly judge all the issues surrounding any given situation? Even our own American court systems are not infallible. They are comprised of unknowing, sinful creatures, sometimes of questionable intention, who (we hope) try to do their best to seek and find justice.

Job didn't really stand a chance. With divine beings and members of the Divine Council playing tiddlywinks with his life, friends who judge, cutting him down and breaking his faithful spirit, it's no wonder he cries for a redeemer. But here is where he went wrong: the Law of Fairness does not supersede God. God himself is the standard of justice. He rules by his own morality, perfect in every way. His actions are always fair, even if we don't understand them. Why? Because on the chess board of life, we can only see our square. We have no idea what's transpiring in C6 when we are hanging out in F2. God sees the whole picture. We see our closest enemies, and sometimes allies.

Unfortunately, the sinfulness of Job's friends - their judgmental attitude - make Job's suffering all the worse. He moves from faithfulness in God (c6-7) to self pity (c9-10) to disbelief (c12-14) to a sense of abandonment and a plea for justice (c16-17) to a cry for a redeemer and a lashing to his friends reminding them that they too will be judged (c19) to a final plea of innocence that is peppered with a sort of clarity recognizing something his friends do not: sometimes the innocent do suffer (21). That last bit I imagine made the isolation worse because it seems Job feels as if no one else understands that tidbit of theology. And that's just the first two cycles of abuse he takes from these so called "friends".

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Clergy should spend time with Job every few months to be reminded of the consequences of a judgmental attitude towards others. I have witnessed in my decade plus of ministry hearts broken, spirits crushed, careers destroyed and even lives ended because of judgment by others. In some cases, had the person simply had one person in their life who refrained from judgment, they may be alive today.

When in grade school we were given the extraordinary task of reading two books of the bible. This was a risqué assignment as Catholics were not encouraged to do such reading without the close supervision of a trained priest. We spent over two months - two hours every day - studying Job. It was one of the most grueling, depressing activities I recall from 8th grade. It was also one of the activities I appreciate most in my adult life.

Without a deep appreciation for suffering without a seemingly just cause I may not be able to compose this entry today. For I too have been subject to unfair judgment and if it were not for the care and compassion of three clergy who spent much time with Job, I may not be standing here today.

With friends like those, I have no enemies.

Tee shirt is available at Zazzle.

Honkytonks, Origami and the Bible

“I very much hope you’ve enjoyed listening to this episode, Narrative Criticism. If you have I hope you’ll listen to other episodes in the series, Introducing the Tanak.”

Then, guitar rifts so distinct that they could only be of Brooks and Dunn, confirmed by the lyrics, “She blew through the door like TNT. Put her hand on her hip and point a finger at me. Said: I’m a whiskey drinkin’, cowboy chasin’, helluva time. I like Kenny, Keith, Allan and Patsy Cline. I’m a full grown, queen bee, lookin’ for honey. Ha-ooh-hoo! aw, play somethin’ country!”

Thus the results of arranging your iTunes catalog by artist when your professor’s name begins with “Bro”.

Most are wondering what the heck Brooks & Dunn has to do with the nature of Narrative Criticism. And some of you are just wondering why the heck I have a country song mixed into my playlist. They really do have something to do with each other. No, really! This is not just a bad excuse for twang mixed in with Brownie Mary, Morcheeba, Jack Johnson, Depeche Mode, Bud Powell and the Dub Pistols.

One of the many components of narrative criticism is the concept of various narrative bits having purpose in some composed bit of literature. In other words, the plot actually means something and it is placed there, right there, specifically, with purpose. The characters are there for a reason, just as they are presented. The woman sits, spinning in the corner, right when she does, right where she does, just because she is meant to do so in that time, place and part of the story. Same could be said of the whiskey drinking, cowboy chasing, hell of a time so gracefully described with such eloquence by B&D.

Now, who decides all of that can be rather difficult to understand – a bit like holding wet, melting jello. Is it the author who decides the meaning? How about the deliverer of the story – the narrator? Or maybe the hearer gets to throw his or her two cents in, bringing experience and preconceptions and all of humanity to his or her understanding? Certainly the Queen Bees of Country have an appreciation for storming a bar that I would not (although I may be able to draw some parallel to arriving at a retro rewind dance party but it may depend on the musical sub genre and the tightness of my vinyl pants…).

Complicate matters by the literary breakdown of such things as plot (a woman who loves country?), theme (the honkytonk lifestyle?), style (impassioned), figures of speech (yes, “hell of a time” does get around), symbolism (Queen Bee), motifs (best I can do here is neon beer lights… sorry), characterizations (yes, big hair), repetition (I think she wants them to play something country but I cannot be sure), point of view (honestly, you have to ask?), foreshadowing (depending on preconceptions and or theme I might suggest…), speed of time in narrative (they did say TNT…) and all the rest of the goodies that make the literary types do a happy dance in their dreams, their pencils twirling across multi coloured pieces of paper that miraculously turn into origami birds flying across a sea to depict the freedom of the written word. (Somewhere MC Echer is delighted.)

All this is delightful when deconstructing some meaning in The Notebook. But when it comes to a text so great as The Word, we run the risk of getting it all wrong. And everyone knows when we get it wrong in religion. It leads to war.

Not to add any undue pressure to my already confused, stressed out and hazy classmates, but get the interpretation of the Bible wrong and you will start a war. As Christians, we generally consider this to be a bad thing.

Machiavelli would be so disappointed.

After years of batting Hermeneutics around like a cat toy, because, you know, playing with toys is grounds for sound academic conclusions, I have decided that the best approach is to tear apart the Bible in a way that considers ALL appropriate criticisms to that given bit of text; consider the genres, the history, the socio economic influences, purposes, intentions, messages, meanings, symbolism and all the rest as appropriate to what you have at hand (or in this case, eye).

In other words, read it.

Image by Roman Diaz

I shall write, but only cause he made me

When you are a blogger, as in, one who blogs for fun (in my case, under several pseudonyms), what happens when a professor of yours turns to you and says “You will be graded upon your weekly blog"?

Sorry Doc, but you just took the fun out of my fun palace!

This little number will probably not count as it covers not the topic at hand. For this I am grateful as I suspect he is an articulate man of grammar, language and precision. Of course, these said skills are in Hebrew. But I imagine some of that seeps out into the English language as well.

I must however admit that I was not looking forward to this gentleman’s class. Let me be clear that I am excited about the class content. I simply was not excited about him. I know you are dying to know exactly why.

Okay fine, I will tell you.

But only because you begged.

Preconceptions are lame things, especially in Biblical interpretation. When we bring something to the text and read into it what may or may not be there, we kinda risk missing the whole point of the author. I admit that I did this with his syllabus. The thing reads like a legal contract, establishing the grounds upon which we will proceed academically in the classroom, the agreements made between professor and student in this arrangement we call a learning atmosphere. This approach made me think this man was either a lawyer (or of a family of them) or a guy with a chip on his shoulder so big that it made him angry and forced him to take out his insecurities on the rest of us poor grad students with broken tipped pencils and loose leaf paper as spiral notebooks are a splurge on a grad-student budget.

I am not sure which is worse, lawyer or angry lawyer-like guy.

This is why I was so surprised to hear at lunch that this guy is actually liked. Really really liked.

This is also why I was absolutely not surprised to hear that I just entered into the most difficult class available but that I should be fine so long as I do what I am told. *staring blankly* Me. Do what I am told. That’s a funny one. This was obviously said by one who does no know me very well.

That all said, the Doc has a great sense of humour, appears to either have some theatrical passions or is the youngest in his family, is indeed articulate, thorough and most certainly passionate. All these traits I admire and I have a positive attitude towards my future learning experience with him. For the record, I say this earnestly and not just because he will likely read this within the next couple of days.

You know, just so long as he isn’t REALLY a lawyer.