What works best for you?

If you are into blogging I'd like to know what works best for you, pre-written posts and scheduled posts or a daily post? You can read a better description on this matter here.

I have written and published some 200+ posts already but I have not tried doing pre-written and scheduled blog posts fully yet. I've done it a few times (by that mean a couple of times, say less then ten tries) but I haven't gotten the hang of it yet. I go through the writing process of blogging on a more daily approach at the moment. Something comes up in my mind and that somehow is constructed into a post. But for regularity sake, it would not be a good idea to stick to this routine to expand my blog in the long run. Especially when i'll be in seminary soon. So i'll see how blogging works out with studies. Here is to a new beginning!

Books for the Journey

I need some help in deciding this, so i would value your comments. I'm 95% certain that I'll be attending seminary to pursue my theological studies in the coming weeks. Why 95% you may ask? I still have to turn up for an interview with a seminary representative nextweek so I guess that accounts for the other 5% ammount of 'I might not make it'. But nontheless I'm positive I'll be accepted.

So here is my question. I am a book lover and to part with my books, that's like taking me off life support. Because I wont get the luxury of bringing my collection of books with me, I'm wondering what type of books would be helpful to add in my suitcase if I go? Knowing that you might not know what books I have on my shelf I'll ask the question in a general note, "If you wre packing to another place to study theology and have to decide on the right books for the journey what books would you pack with you based on your book collection?"

Not Even God...when Disappointed

I keep coming back to the chapter "Bonhoeffer on Disappointment" in a book edited by Brian Rosner entitled "Consolations of Theology". That particular chapter (the one i noted above) is the one that Rosner wrote and it was brilliantly done as he writes how Bonhoeffer dealt with disappointment. I'll probably do a post on that chapter as a whole somewhere in the distant or near future but I'd like to draw our attention on this particular passage from the book.

On a subheading that reads "Popular Strategies" on dealing with disappointment Rosner mentions four ways in which people in general deal with it. The first being 'wallowing in regret' followed by 'seeking to curb desire', the third 'seeking a substitute' and the last being 'giving up hope for the thought of hope in the afterlife'. But as Rosner writes, Bonhoeffer never resorted to these popular ways in dealing with disappointment.

On the third popular startegies on dealing with disappointment, as i mentioned above, Bonhoeffer did not cave in and followed the popular way on dealing with disappointment, in that he did not seek a substitute to find momentary happiness as a consolation for unattained or unfulfilled desire or longings. Rosner writes "Seeking compensation elsewhere when our desires are frustrated also seems logical enough."(116) I find this true of how we ussually deal with disappointment, we might have a compulsion to buy things, fill ourselves with activities that are filled with 'fun', in a temporary way to combat a wounded heart. Read the following exerp from Rosner here which blew me away on what Bonhoeffer thought about this:

"With respect to seperation from love ones, aware of the pain that he may be prolonging, Bonhoeffer nontheless avers: "Some people...find compensation in short-lived pleasures that offer redier satisfactions...When we are forcibly seperated for any considarable length of time from those we love, we simply cannot, as most can, get some cheap substitute through other people- I don't mean because of moral considerations...we have to suffer unspeakably from the seperation, and feel the longing till it almost makes us ill. That is the only way...in which we can preserve unimpaired our relationship with our loved ones." He insists that "nothing can make up for the absence of someone whom we love." Not even God: "It is nonsense to say that God fills the gap; he doesn't fill it, but on the contrary, he keeps it empty and so help us to keep alive our former communion with each other, even in the cost of pain."" (116)

I wrote this in the margins of my book after reading this passage, a spur in the moment kind of thing: This third point embraces pain (longing) to the fullest/ at it's fullest level. There is absolutely no compensation for our longings...in the end they (our longings) become a drive in us (in a way that it pushes us).

What do you think of the exerpt above from the book? Or particularly the statement that said "It is nonsense to say that God fills the gap; he doesn't fill it, but on the contrary, he keeps it empty and so help us to keep alive our former communion with each other, even in the cost of pain."

Deciding at the crossroads

Life would turn to some new transition soon in the coming weeks or months it seems and it feels like many things are still left unanswered at the moment. It makes me want to scream with motions of pulling my hair out of my scalp if i could or would. But I'd pass up the opportunity of the hair pulling for now. I still love my hair so I'd leave that to my imagination instead. Right now I need to make some decisions and with any step I would choose to take there would be some kind of sacrifice and losing to be experienced.

At the juncture of uncertainty, how does one know God's will in terms of making decisions? What is God's will and how do we know which is God's will. Some say that we wait and pray and if we have peace on the matter of choosing a path that would be validated as God's will. There might be some truth in this. But others advise to just do something and God will guide. Like something I read from Erwin McManus. There is truth in this way as well.

But i would like to know how do you make decisions and know that if it is God's will for you?

S. F. R. J. (Thoughts & Reflections) Chp 1: Joining Mary at the Feet of Jesus

Just so you know, the initials S.F.R.J stands for 'Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus'. So the time you see these initials you will know that these particular posts are ongoing discussions, reflections and thoughts on that particular book.

This chapter sets the frame on two Jewish understandings on the use of these sentences ‘sitting at his feet’ as well as ‘anointing’ (in this case Mary anointing Jesus). Using these two examples, the authors are communicating to us the importance of studying Jesus in his Jewish context. It is interesting for them to use Mary to open up the pathway of following this rabbi named Jesus and subsequently framing the depiction of discipleship to Jesus the Messiah in the two sentences I mentioned above.

Take ‘sitting at his feet’ for example:

“If we were first-century visitors, we would have recognized the significance of something else in that story. It was customary for rabbis to sit on low pillows or chairs while they were teaching. Their disciples would sit on the ground or on mats around them. That’s how the phrase “sit at his feet” became and idiom of for learning from a rabbi…So when Mary was described as “sitting at Jesus’ feet”, she was being described as a disciple.” (14)

Without the Jewish understanding of this particular sentence 'sit at his feet' we miss something profound and essential. A simple understanding would just depict Mary as an avid listener or willing to hear Jesus teach. These understandings might be right but coupled with Jewish eyes, the words that were once simplistic and had some sort of mundane imagery turns into a rather enlightened portrayal; discipleship.

...as well as ‘anointing’:
“By anointing him (Jesus) with expensive fragrances, Mary may well have been making a statement about who she believed Jesus was, proclaiming him as Messiah.” (16)

Anointing was clearly framed to Jews on occasions where kings and priest were put into office. It is interesting to observe that the authors link Jesus’ riding the donkey and his anointing in parallel with Solomon’s episode in 1 Kings 1:38-40. It is explained that the fragrance of Jesus being anointed by Mary would have lasted for days and that his fragrance was surely evident wherever he went. Jesus smelled like royalty. (18)

These depictions are fascinating because without cultural background of first-century Judaism, these insights would never have popped up to the imagination. Something that the authors were able to convince us at the beginning of the chapter is that there is a growing need of reading and understanding scripture in the light of its first-century background. Thinking through this chapter arouses my curiosity back again to the gospels and the deconstruction of what we have always thought certain passages meant.

There is a list of the online conversation discussing the book. Click here to see the other blogs that are discussing about the book!

How much embodying do you do after reading?

I've done my share of reading for quite a while now and a thought just occurred to me. Not that it had never popped up but this time around it jolted my senses. Books has this kind of capacity to introduce us to new vistas, ideas and they can mess with our minds in a good way as well as in a negative manner also.

But after finishing a book, fiction or non fiction, how does the ideas or proposals effect us enough to implement some sort of change in how we live? I stress much on how it effects how we live because our changed thinking leads to that ultimately as well. I mean, do you ever pick up a book and think "I wonder how this book will change how I will live".

Take motivational books for example, they share with us a whole hosts of steps to get things working, to get things moving, to make us into a success only if we follow the step by step procedures. In actual fact these writers are telling us that if you embody these ideas or steps your life will change. Some might say that fictional books are just stories but I think fictional writers have a framework of thought behind the stories they are presenting. Sometimes it makes me wonder, fictional writers grips us, our minds, in a more subtler manned. Sort of like how songs effect us. Take the "The Da Vinci Code" for that matter, a fictional tale with an intent.

Books are thought as for for the mind but they do have a capacity to change how we think and how we live, ultimately I should say. So, "How much embodying do you do after reading?"

How important is the Virgin Birth? (2)

This is a reflection of N. T. Wright's explanation of the Virgin Birth in the book he co-authored with Marcus J. Borg entitled "The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions", found in chapter 11 (pg 171-178).

Far too much attention is given towards Jesus' birth than "it's role in the New Testament warrants". A song noted by Wright simply says "Man will live forevermore because of Christmas Day", a song popularized by Bony M (if I am not mistaken), further enhances Wright's argument. According to the NT however it is the explanation of "Calvary, Easter and Pentecost" which looms as the highlight of New Testament theology. It is not possible to construct a meaningful NT theology minus the death and resurrection.

In the NT, the virgin birth account can only be found in Matthew and Luke but nowhere in Mark and John. The rest of the NT writers did not bother to mention it to support the understanding that Jesus is divine or is the Messiah who is to come. As Wright notes, "One can be justified by faith with no knowledge of it."

According to Wright "it has become a test case in various controversies" noting arguments such as accepting miracles, biblical truth, views of sexuality and incarnation being cases made for the authoritative case for the virgin birth. Wright being ever so right, nails these test cases of their freedom to fly by stating, "None of these arguments bears much relation to what either Matthew or Luke actually say."

It seems like these test cases are just vain reflections of authoritative fallacy. Which brings us to the question of 'what does Matthew and Luke actually say?'. The next post will deal on this issue.

How important is the Virgin Birth?

In Mark Driscoll's book 'Vintage Jesus' he has a chapter on the virgin birth entitled "Why Jesus' Mom Needs to be a Virgin". Here is a quote that I'd like us to look at:

"...can a true Christian deny the virgin birth? Dr.Al Mohler has said: "The answer to that question must be a decisive No....Christians must face the fact that a denial of the virgin birth is a denial of Jesus as the Christ. The Savior who died for our sins was none other than the baby who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and born of a virgin. The virgin birth does not stand alone as a biblical doctrine [;] it is an irreducible part of the biblical revelation about the person and work of Jesus Christ. With it the Gospel stands or falls." (97)

Slightly taking this doctrine on different end is Rob Bell which Driscoll takes a quote form his book "Velvet Elvis" :

"...Rob Bell speculates that if "Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archaeologists find Larry's tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that that virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time," we would essentially not loose any significant part of our faith because it is more about how we live. To be fair, Bell does not deny that virgin conception of Jesus, but rather he does deny that it is of any notable theological importance." (97)

Based on the quotes above two ideas are being projected:
1) The Virgin Birth is important; with it the Gospel stands or falls.
2) The Virgin birth is not so much an essential in the sense that the Gospel stands and falls.

What do you think about the quotes? And with that how important is the virgin conception to our faith? I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

I will post N. T. Wright's take on this tomorrow because I'm too tired to think at the moment. I need sleep.

The Old Testament and its Interpretation in the New Teatament 2

As promised I want to discuss about Chapter 4 of Peter Enns controversial/brilliant (it lands on at both extremes, but from my opinion the book is great and refreshing!) book "Inspiration and Incarnation". I think I might blog about the whole book in its entirety after finishing this series. Why I start with chapter 4, that I cannot give you a specific reason except that it is this chapter that really struck a cord in me.

For a long time now, I have had difficulties in understanding how the NT authors interpret the OT. We study that a proper interpretation deals with the original language(I have no training in this area yet) and also the historical context, taking into consideration an authors intent towards who he was writing to. But counter to this interpretive method, NT authors always seem to break the rules. Enns states here,

"To observe how the New Testament authors handle the Old Testament is to conclude that their notions of what constitutes a proper handling of the Old Testament do not always square with our own instincts-in fact, quite often, the differences are striking." (114)

Enns gives an example of this from this passage; Luke 20:27-40 (Matt 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27). We find here Jesus debating with the Sadducee concerning the reality of resurrection from the dead. Jesus' main text that he uses to enforce his argument is Exodus 3:6

“I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” (Exodus 3:6; Luke 20:37)

If we were to take the Exodus passage in it's context Enns says "No one reading Exodus and coming across 3:6 would think that the resurrection was suddenly the topic of the conversation." (114) But as unappealing this method is to us it served it's purpose well for the people during that particular time period as Enns tells us, "That they found Jesus' use of the Old Testament to be persuasive is an indication to us that our first order of business is to understand the hermeneutical (i.e., interpretive) conventions of their time before we pass judgment." (115)

Enns points us then to three ways in which evangelical scholarship have used try to explain how NT authors used the OT.

1. They respected the context of the OT text despite the oddities in their methods. Careful examination will reveal this as no NT writer would handle the OT text responsively.
2. The NT authors did not interpret the text but rather only apply it.
3. Since the apostles were given authority then their authority explains their hermeneutical method in that they could "do as they pleased" (115). There was also some variants of 2 mixed in here.

Have you come across these explanations of how NT writers used the OT? 1 & 2 are somewhat helpful but I would have to pass on 3 because the logic to this is simply unacceptable. According to Enns though these three ways of understanding NT use of OT falls short in giving a solid way of understanding this issue in the way that "these three evangelical approaches...do not engage the New Testament in the context of the hermeneutical world in which the New Testament writers lived." (116)

Here are Enns views up front on NT use of OT: (i)It was not the intention of the NT writers to engage the OT "in an effort to remain consistent with the original context and intention of the Old Testament author", (ii) they were as Enns explains "commenting on what the text meant" and (iii) the "hermeneutical attitude they embodied should be embraced and followed by the church today". In brief "the New Testament authors were explaining what the Old Testament means in light of the Christ's coming." (116) I hear echoes of Christopher and N. T. Wright here.

Enns' proposal to this issue is

"...we must begin our understanding of apostolic heremeneutics by first understanding, as best we can, the interpretive world in which the New Testament was written. Such an investigation will not tell the whole story, but it is an absolute vital component." (116)

To me Enns' proposal on understanding how the NT authors used the OT is a fresh undertaking on explaining the difficulties. As much as I agree with Enns there are questions forming in my mind as I reflect on this. One that I would like to put to the front is, if we do take into consideration this particular explanation (the one Enns proposes):

1. How have you understood the NT use of OT?
2. Based on a first impression of Enns' proposal, is looking at the hermeneutical/interpretive context of the NT writers convincing enough to explain the NT writers use of OT?
3. Does Enns gives us a balanced description of how evangelical scholarship have addressed this?
4. How would it affect how we use the OT, since the possibilities of "explaining what the Old Testament means in light of the Christ's coming" is actually boundless?
5. Any thoughts?

The next post will be on the hermeneutical context that the NT authors were part of; the Second Temple Period.

What do you think about tithing?

What do you think about tithing? I take this quote from Scot McKnight's book "The Blue Parakeet"; a book on how to read the bible (you can see my review on this post). The quote below is not an exhaustive study on tithing in the bible by McKnight. They we just conversation points that made up a chapter of the book.

I'd like to use it as a conversation starter for us in this post.

"The bible I read taught about tithing, but the Bible does not insist that all of the tithe must go to a local church. Truth be told, the New Testament doesn't even bring up the tithe. In the bible the tithe is a combination of spiritual support (for the temple) and social service (for the poor). Moses says tithes are to be given not only to the Levites (roughly the temple servants) but also to the alien, to the fatherless, and to the widow (Deuteronomy 26:12). The churches I was attending had nothing to do with immigrants, did little to help orphans, and so far as I knew did little to strengthen widows." (14)

McKnight continues...

"What was more, the tithe we were hearing about was something we were to give to our local church for buildings, maintenance, pastoral salaries, missionaries, and the like. But the bible said that I-as a tither- was to give some of my tithe to the Levite and also to those who were marginalized and suffering. This was something neither I nor anyone knew was doing. I was learning that we sometimes live out the Bible, rightly or wrongly, by morphing one thing into another, that is, by taking a tithe for temple assistants and also for the poor and turning it into a tithe for the local church. It might be fine to read the Bible like this, but we should at least admit what we are doing: in a word, we are morphing." (14-15)

The quotations above are not McKnight's position on tithing just to make things clear. I am simply using this quotation from the book as a discussion starter.

These are some of the questions I would like to ask, feel free to answer any one of them:

1. If the New Testament doesn't have anything to say about tithing is it still applicable now?
2. Has the church , in following the directive of collecting the tithe, ascribe to one part of what the bible tells us about tithing and neglect what the tithe is for?
3. Your thought about the quotation.