.
I am now blogging at a new location. Go there!
.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Monday, September 18, 2006
Blog Direction
I've been thinking recently about my blog and how it should function. I want my posts to be original and of high quality, which means spending some time thinking through, researching, and editing posts. And I also want to post on a regular basis, more so as a practice of discipline than anything else. I've realized I'm a pretty lazy person and need to do some things about that. So, this blog will hopefully be an exercise in discipline.
So, starting this week, I am going to try and post a quality blog post every Friday, usually relating to emerging church, theology, youth ministry, or something exciting like that. I may post random things in between my Friday posts that are not exactly "substantial" posts, but will keep things fresh.
We'll see how this goes.
So, starting this week, I am going to try and post a quality blog post every Friday, usually relating to emerging church, theology, youth ministry, or something exciting like that. I may post random things in between my Friday posts that are not exactly "substantial" posts, but will keep things fresh.
We'll see how this goes.
Friday, September 01, 2006
3108: Blog Day
I've been trying to come up with a good day to start posting again (in addition to finding the proper motivation). Since graduating in May, I haven't had a chance to do much writing, and I've been missing it noticeably. So, blogging is a good avenue for me to hopefully keep my writing skills sharp. I guess there is no better day to begin posting than on "Blog Day." From Jason Clark:
"Sometime in June 2005 Israeli blogger Nir Ofir had a realization: the date 3108 (or August 31st) looks suspiciously like the word “Blog.” He also wanted to do something about the fact that despite the notion of blogging being something available to so many, what happens is a few people link to the same blogs, all the time, and most new blogs never get an audience.
Just as church circles are self referencing, blogging is largely the same. So Nir started Blog Day on 31st August 2005."
So, here are my five blogs to reference (a day late), even though no one will likely read this post:
David Fitch: The Great Giveaway
Dixson Kinser: So Indie It's Embarassing
A Youth Pastor
alastair.adversaria
Dan Edelen: Cerulean Sanctum
Tags: blogday
"Sometime in June 2005 Israeli blogger Nir Ofir had a realization: the date 3108 (or August 31st) looks suspiciously like the word “Blog.” He also wanted to do something about the fact that despite the notion of blogging being something available to so many, what happens is a few people link to the same blogs, all the time, and most new blogs never get an audience.
Just as church circles are self referencing, blogging is largely the same. So Nir started Blog Day on 31st August 2005."
So, here are my five blogs to reference (a day late), even though no one will likely read this post:
David Fitch: The Great Giveaway
Dixson Kinser: So Indie It's Embarassing
A Youth Pastor
alastair.adversaria
Dan Edelen: Cerulean Sanctum
Tags: blogday
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Galatians a la ESV
I decided I wanted to use the ESV version next to read through Galatians and found a website that had the ESV in audio format, so I listened to the book of Galatians today. It was nice to hear the word out loud and not be distracted by footnotes, verse numbers, and section heading. Since this was the way most people originally heard the letter to the Galatians, I think it was a worthwhile exercise. I may go back and do some of the other versions over again in audio format if I can find them online. A few things that stuck out to me while listening to Galatians in the ESV:
1:16 - The ESV talks about God revealing Christ to Paul, not in Paul, as the HCSB did. Quite a significant difference.
Chapter 3 - For some reason I never noticed what Paul was saying here. It appears that he is saying that grace preceded law in God’s promise to Abraham and was not nullified when the law was given. Indeed, God did fulfill his promise to Abraham through Jesus. So, the inheritance is still by the promise given to Abraham, not by the keeping of the law. Paul says the law was “added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary” (3:19).
Chapter four still seems to be saying that we were children of God and under “guardians and managers” until the date set by the Father, even though there was no difference in between us as children and a slave.
1:16 - The ESV talks about God revealing Christ to Paul, not in Paul, as the HCSB did. Quite a significant difference.
Chapter 3 - For some reason I never noticed what Paul was saying here. It appears that he is saying that grace preceded law in God’s promise to Abraham and was not nullified when the law was given. Indeed, God did fulfill his promise to Abraham through Jesus. So, the inheritance is still by the promise given to Abraham, not by the keeping of the law. Paul says the law was “added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary” (3:19).
Chapter four still seems to be saying that we were children of God and under “guardians and managers” until the date set by the Father, even though there was no difference in between us as children and a slave.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Galatians a la HCSB
A few random observations as I read through Galatians using the Holman Christian Standard Bible:
1:1 - Paul is an apostle not ordained by men, but by God. In fact, later in chapter 1 he goes on to mention that he did not seek out the other apostles after Christ reveals himself to Paul. I wonder if this tells us anything about the ordination of people and how this differs from other NT passages that seem to support the ordination of elders through the laying on of hands. Perhaps here the emphasis is that ordination is a community affirming and recognizing that a person has been called an apostle by God and is thus putting their “seal of approval” upon him or her.
1:6ff - No other “gospel.” The key to really understanding this whole book seems to lie in figuring out what a.) the original gospel Paul preached was and b.) what the new “gospel” involved. More research will be necessary here.
1:15 - Paul was set apart in the womb. Clearly Paul was not what we would consider a Christian until after his conversion, yet he was set apart from birth. Again, interesting implications for the doctrine of election. The same can be said for v. 16 where Paul talks about how God decided in his own time to reveal his Son in Paul, not to Paul, as if Christ was always in Paul, he just hadn’t been revealed yet. It’s amazing how much predestination can be found in the language of Paul that I had not noticed for the majority of my life simply because I was raised a good Pelagian.
Chapter 4 - I’m still getting the feeling that Paul is saying on one hand that we were children of God, but were no different than a slave, but then he says we were both slaves and children. A closer look at the words used might clarify this some more. Based off of Paul’s language in chapter 1, it appears that my initial hypothesis might still be correct.
5:12 - The HCSB is the only one to translate “castration” so far. The NIV and NASB both say circumcision, I believe.
5:23 - “Against such things there is no law.” Put into the context of the whole book, this phrase has new meaning compared to most decontextualized references to the verse.
1:1 - Paul is an apostle not ordained by men, but by God. In fact, later in chapter 1 he goes on to mention that he did not seek out the other apostles after Christ reveals himself to Paul. I wonder if this tells us anything about the ordination of people and how this differs from other NT passages that seem to support the ordination of elders through the laying on of hands. Perhaps here the emphasis is that ordination is a community affirming and recognizing that a person has been called an apostle by God and is thus putting their “seal of approval” upon him or her.
1:6ff - No other “gospel.” The key to really understanding this whole book seems to lie in figuring out what a.) the original gospel Paul preached was and b.) what the new “gospel” involved. More research will be necessary here.
1:15 - Paul was set apart in the womb. Clearly Paul was not what we would consider a Christian until after his conversion, yet he was set apart from birth. Again, interesting implications for the doctrine of election. The same can be said for v. 16 where Paul talks about how God decided in his own time to reveal his Son in Paul, not to Paul, as if Christ was always in Paul, he just hadn’t been revealed yet. It’s amazing how much predestination can be found in the language of Paul that I had not noticed for the majority of my life simply because I was raised a good Pelagian.
Chapter 4 - I’m still getting the feeling that Paul is saying on one hand that we were children of God, but were no different than a slave, but then he says we were both slaves and children. A closer look at the words used might clarify this some more. Based off of Paul’s language in chapter 1, it appears that my initial hypothesis might still be correct.
5:12 - The HCSB is the only one to translate “castration” so far. The NIV and NASB both say circumcision, I believe.
5:23 - “Against such things there is no law.” Put into the context of the whole book, this phrase has new meaning compared to most decontextualized references to the verse.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Academics vs. Practitioners
In addition to all of my Galatians writing, I plan on doing some general writing as well, so this post falls into this category.
I was sitting in class today wondering why it is that academia has such an influential role in the church when I realized that your average pastor doesn’t have close to the amount of time necessary to do what most academics do. Most pastors can’t just spend hours researching and writing except what is necessary to preach on Sunday morning and keep their heads above water. It is the academic who is often able to sit back, make observations, research information, and then synthesize that information in order to write a highly influential book.
The problem with that is that they are academics and not practitioners, and oftentimes their audience of influence is that of the practitioner, a.k.a. the pastor. So, while a lot of their input might be theologically grounded, I wonder how often they are in touch with reality. How can someone who has never been a pastor tell a pastor how to better and more theologically consistently use his office for the benefit of the body of Christ? I would bet that many academics miss the mark.
It was in thinking about this dilemma that I came up with a great solution: the retired pastor who has “retired” to academia. Hopefully these men are immersed in scripture, after preaching sermon after sermon after sermon for many years. Undoubtedly, they have done much research and study to prepare those sermons. And of course, they have actually been there, done that, and know what it is like to be a pastor. But, after they retire, they are able to take a step back from the pastor’s office and think about the lessons learned and the things that could be done differently.
With this in mind, it is hard to describe the anticipation with which I look forward to reading Eugene Peterson’s new six-part (or is it five? I don’t remember) magnum opus on spiritual theology. I have the first book in the series on my shelf, waiting for me to dig into it. Unfortunately, I have 2 books I am currently reading for pleasure that I am forcing myself to finish before I pick up Peterson’s book. On top of that, I have a ton of reading that I must do simply for classes, which means it is quite possible that I won’t get to read Peterson’s book until after graduation. I found out that the second book of the series came out recently, which means that I’m quite behind. I’d like to get the first two read before the third comes out.
I have a deep respect for Peterson having read Working the Angles a few years ago and then more recently reading an interview with him in Christianity Today. I also know that he had a successful pastorate that was immersed in the study of scripture (hello, The Message?). I can’t wait to see what this wise man has to say. I hope there are many more like him.
I was sitting in class today wondering why it is that academia has such an influential role in the church when I realized that your average pastor doesn’t have close to the amount of time necessary to do what most academics do. Most pastors can’t just spend hours researching and writing except what is necessary to preach on Sunday morning and keep their heads above water. It is the academic who is often able to sit back, make observations, research information, and then synthesize that information in order to write a highly influential book.
The problem with that is that they are academics and not practitioners, and oftentimes their audience of influence is that of the practitioner, a.k.a. the pastor. So, while a lot of their input might be theologically grounded, I wonder how often they are in touch with reality. How can someone who has never been a pastor tell a pastor how to better and more theologically consistently use his office for the benefit of the body of Christ? I would bet that many academics miss the mark.
It was in thinking about this dilemma that I came up with a great solution: the retired pastor who has “retired” to academia. Hopefully these men are immersed in scripture, after preaching sermon after sermon after sermon for many years. Undoubtedly, they have done much research and study to prepare those sermons. And of course, they have actually been there, done that, and know what it is like to be a pastor. But, after they retire, they are able to take a step back from the pastor’s office and think about the lessons learned and the things that could be done differently.
With this in mind, it is hard to describe the anticipation with which I look forward to reading Eugene Peterson’s new six-part (or is it five? I don’t remember) magnum opus on spiritual theology. I have the first book in the series on my shelf, waiting for me to dig into it. Unfortunately, I have 2 books I am currently reading for pleasure that I am forcing myself to finish before I pick up Peterson’s book. On top of that, I have a ton of reading that I must do simply for classes, which means it is quite possible that I won’t get to read Peterson’s book until after graduation. I found out that the second book of the series came out recently, which means that I’m quite behind. I’d like to get the first two read before the third comes out.
I have a deep respect for Peterson having read Working the Angles a few years ago and then more recently reading an interview with him in Christianity Today. I also know that he had a successful pastorate that was immersed in the study of scripture (hello, The Message?). I can’t wait to see what this wise man has to say. I hope there are many more like him.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Galatians a la NASB
The style of the NASB, which I appreciate for intense study and exegesis, doesn’t make for good reading when consuming mass quantities of scripture. I found myself having to go back and reread a lot of verses because of the odd wording of some sentences. Nevertheless, it was a good experience, and I will try to read some more “literal” translations as I complete my practice of reading through the entire book of Galatians multiple times.
What stood out to me today were two things. The first occurred in 1:12 - “For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” How often is it that we become proud when imparting the gospel to someone? How often do we heed the words of the preacher? How often are we impressed by the influence a preacher may have? Here Paul tells us that we are mistaken when we give credit to anyone other than Jesus Christ. It is Christ who reveals the gospel. We do not reveal it, nor can we teach it, but it is Christ who reveals. This verse also seems to be a basis for Barth’s approach to scripture, that it is a revelation that ultimately points to Jesus Christ who Himself is the most perfect and ultimate revelation of God. Even though the Bible is useful for telling the story of the Christian faith, it most importantly is the revelation of Jesus Christ, available only to those who are willing to receive it.
Secondly, I was struck by chapter 4. It appears to me that Paul is saying that those who are in Christ were sons of Christ, while those who were not were slaves. However, we could not tell ourselves apart because there is no difference, except for our inheritance. When Christ came, he claimed us as sons and gave us our inheritance, which is what sets us apart from those who are not in Christ. This is from a cursory reading and not from close examination, so my thoughts might need to be clarified, but that’s the overall point it seems like Paul is trying to make. It reminds me of the quote in the Torrance book I read that when asked when he was converted to Christianity, a minister replied, “Nineteen hundred years ago.” If this is indeed what Paul is saying in this passage, then this is a key passage in support of a doctrine of election and predestination. More reading and study will hopefully bring out the true emphasis of the passage.
What stood out to me today were two things. The first occurred in 1:12 - “For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” How often is it that we become proud when imparting the gospel to someone? How often do we heed the words of the preacher? How often are we impressed by the influence a preacher may have? Here Paul tells us that we are mistaken when we give credit to anyone other than Jesus Christ. It is Christ who reveals the gospel. We do not reveal it, nor can we teach it, but it is Christ who reveals. This verse also seems to be a basis for Barth’s approach to scripture, that it is a revelation that ultimately points to Jesus Christ who Himself is the most perfect and ultimate revelation of God. Even though the Bible is useful for telling the story of the Christian faith, it most importantly is the revelation of Jesus Christ, available only to those who are willing to receive it.
Secondly, I was struck by chapter 4. It appears to me that Paul is saying that those who are in Christ were sons of Christ, while those who were not were slaves. However, we could not tell ourselves apart because there is no difference, except for our inheritance. When Christ came, he claimed us as sons and gave us our inheritance, which is what sets us apart from those who are not in Christ. This is from a cursory reading and not from close examination, so my thoughts might need to be clarified, but that’s the overall point it seems like Paul is trying to make. It reminds me of the quote in the Torrance book I read that when asked when he was converted to Christianity, a minister replied, “Nineteen hundred years ago.” If this is indeed what Paul is saying in this passage, then this is a key passage in support of a doctrine of election and predestination. More reading and study will hopefully bring out the true emphasis of the passage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
