Modern-day Cynic Philosophers?

This week in my online class we studied Paul's letters to Thessalonica. I'll spare you the intricacies of controversies over the dating, authorship, provence and literary style of the books. Yawn. Give me content over style any time. Well... maybe most of the time. Style can be pretty compelling, too - but it has to be really great to overcome mediocre substance. It's the reason I always judge a good song not just by the rhythm and vocal performance, but by the quality of the melody, the substance of the lyrics and the appropriateness of the chord structure and arrangement to set off both.

Wow. Half a dozen sentences and I'm already off subject. And this is just the intro... Do I never NOT have an opinion on something? Hmm. Don't answer that.

So, in 1 Thessalonians (which I think was written second, but never mind) Paul goes into this lengthy defence of his ministry, showing how he worked hard for his living, didn't live off the charity of his listeners, conducted himself respectfully and was circumspect in his speech, etc. But... who said he wasn't? Who's criticizng him that he has to make such a defence? It's one of the mysteries of these letters - who was opposing Paul? He refers to false teachers coming in, and people claiming to have letters from him that he didn't write, but... who?

The commentators make a pretty good case that it was the itinerant philosophers of the day who made the rounds of the Greek city-states (and Thessalonica was pretty big for its day - 100,000 people) and made their living by either renting lecture halls and speaking there (the Sophists) or setting up on street corners or in the marketplace and spouting off to whomever would listen, *and* contribute (the Cynics). Since Paul didn't stay in town long, people may have been saying "ahh, he's just another one of those philosophers looking for an audience and never seeing anything through." So he defends himself and his motives, and reminds people how he behaved (honorably) and why he didn't stay (driven out of town by a mob of opposition.)

Alright. With that as background - here's the point of the post today. A contemporary of Paul, a Roman author and social critic named Lucius, in his dialogue "The Runaways", wrote about Sophists as lecture-circuit philosophers (like todays seminar leaders), with a critical eye toward their tendency to not live lives that matched their message. The Sophists were orators (motivational speakers?) who developed followings of paying disciples who wanted to learn the secrets of moving up in civic life. Cynics on the other hand, tended to preach austerity and detaching oneself from the social structures of the day (anarchists?) to live more simply, even sponging off others if necessary (I have an interesting pamphlet from some anarchists on "freecycling" that actually advocates shoplifting to live more simply!). Lucian zeroed in on the Cynics as being particularly hypocritical, saying this of them:

"There was a tendency of common laborers to leave their workbenches and pursue the luxury of life as a fake philosopher. Anyone could gain a following by donning the short tunic, wallet and staff of the Cynic philosopher and spouting a torrent of abusive language about humanity in general. With a group of paying disciples in place, it was then a short step to a life of public austerity but private luxury - a purse full of gold, a table full of delicacies, and a life full of promiscuous sex."

Hm. Sounds like the Punk rockers and Rap stars of our day. You don't need a ton of talent - that's not how you gain a following. You only need the brass to step up on a platform and spout abusive language, set rhythmically to something vaguely resembling music, scream wildly or perhaps move suggestively, oh and be sure to wear the "uniform". Black studded leather, piercings, black/red dyed hair and makeup, work boots, chains, etc. for the Punk, and basketball jersey, baseball cap with flat brim off center, lots of gold chains, baggy pants low on hips, etc. for the Rapper. You look the part, you pepper your lyrics with cursing invective, scream against the system or praise a life of crime and exploitation, break things in a rage or grab crotch in a frenzy, etc. - and you'll get a following. And eventually... some degree of wealth, fame, sex and a comfortable lifestyle.

So, are the Punkers and Rappers the fake philosophers, the dime-a-dozen sidewalk Cynics of our day, fooling the young mob into thinking they're sincere when all they want is the comfortable lifestyle that having a following promises? Maybe I have less of a problem with rap stars since they at least aren't hypocritical - they preach the lifestyle, AND live it. It's degrading and brutally hedonistic, but - they're honest about it. But the successful punk rocker lives a very different lifestyle from what their followers live, very inconsistent with the earth-friendly, simple-living, liberal, or anarchist literature you find available at their tables. (see post of 11/28 "Anarchists Knitting Mittens") They rail at the very system that helps them become wealthy and allows them to privately live the life of conspicuous consumption which they publicly condemn.

I think I prefer the alternative non-Punk semi-folky or ethereal music of the day right now (either that or dance/house/electronica with no lyrics to interfere with the fun.) Better musicianship, and kinder, gentler lyrics that connect across generations (timeless stuff about love & loss, dreams & hurts, you know?) Why pay money to listen to either fake rage or unabashed self-indulgence?

You go, Lucius. You had it right 2000 years ago. Anybody with enough guts and little or no shame can get himself a following. There's always someone to fool. And so did Solomon have it right 3000 years ago: There *is* nothing new under the sun.

Caution! Narrow on the right...

The left has accused the right, especially the religious right, of being narrow-minded and focused on a few lightning-rod issues that they use as a litmus test for political candidates. They've also accused the religious right of co-opting the terms "family values" and "moral issues", using them as code words for their two big hot buttons of homosexuality and abortion (which, in their opinion, the right cannot see past.)

Now while the left is not at all immune from focusing on single issues (often the very same ones, just seen from the other side), and is full of fring-ey groups which certainly have their own set of litmus tests for politicians and which they apply, shall we say, religiously... they do raise a point which has troubled me more and more over the last 2+ years.

Why is it that, as Evangelicals, we are often every bit as narrowly focused as they say?

(note the use of we - I haven't left the camp, though I'm certainly out on the perimeter of it, looking around at things and thinking...)

We seem to focus on issues that relate to *individual* moral choices, rather than *collective* moral choices made by the community (be it society, government, the marketplace, etc.)

Why? Are the choices we make as groups of any less moral import?

We seem to focus on issues that impinge on a "traditional" definition of family (Dad, Mom, 2.3 kids, dog, white picket fence, suburbs...) and marriage (one man, one woman, for life, hearts and flowers, pipe and slippers, single breadwinner), even though these things are decidedly Western and Northern in flavor, and don't align with either urban post-modern or poor third-world or Eastern (Middle- or Far-) cultural realities.

Why? Do those definitions of marriage and family encompass the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or the Hebrews wandering the desert, or David, or Solomon, or Jesus, or Paul, or the Greek and Roman cultures in which he evangelised? Or are we really only interested in a North American pre-1960's marriage/family culture?

Are we that insular, that parochial? Are we that uncomfortable with people who disagree with us, and that disinterested in cultures different from ours?

Thinking back to the examples of both Jesus and Paul, there is ample teaching and precedent for us to be both open to and interested in mingling with those decidedly UNlike us, even hostile to us. Not to mention reaching out to those in the worst of conditions, regardless of the state of their hearts.

What's happened to change that? Why don't we reach out as God commanded?

What did Jesus say? Something about "what you do to the least of these, you do to Me"?

Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, James all talked about clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, tending the sick and imprisioned, as being tangible ways that we express our faith. And these are only some among many such social causes listed in Isaiah 58, which we often associate with Liberalism today.

Where is the Evangelical community on the long list of so-called "liberal issues", such as care for the environment, easing poverty and hunger, curing disease (esp. AIDS), restraining corporate greed and political corruption, giving the disenfranchised (of every stripe) a level playing field, and so on and so on?

Too often we are conspicuous in our absence, whether it's because we are hiding fearfully in our cloisters, working overtime manufacturing gospel literature, or carrying signs reminding everyone of what God hates.

I'm embarrassed sometimes to wear the Evangelical label, and am tempted to take off the red/white/blue logo-ed blazer altogether. (except that it's tradition, and goes so nicely with my white belt and deck shoes...)

And, if one happens to be (gasp!) a Calvinist, the predicament is even worse. Because, really - shouldn't the dyed-in-the-wool Calvinists be the most compassionate people on the face of the earth, to one and all, regardless of spiritual condition? Yet, we're not.

I mean, if you truly believe that salvation is a combination of God's sovereign unconditional election, His irresistable grace and ability to preserve His saints, why then... whom do we have to fear? Or convert, for that matter?

We can trust that God *will* save those he has marked ahead of time, and we can then indiscriminately shower His love and compassion on anybody and everybody without having to "target" people who might be salvation material, and avoid those who are obviously too hostile or contagious to attempt rescue.

We can simply love as God loves, and do as Jesus said: "love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?"

And dare I add, "do not even liberals do the same?"

So why don't we, who more than anyone understand the concepts of mercy and grace, exercise them toward others as God does to us, even when we are so terribly ungrateful and undeserving?

It's about time I got around to it myself.

Suffering for God's purpose?

This week's assignments in my online seminary class (NT102 Emergence of the Church) were the books of James and Galatians, both favorites of mine.

The book of Galatians has long been one in large part because of Paul’s unusual candor and the urgency with which he writes. He seems to drop all letter-writing convention and the niceties of personal interaction in a frenzied attempt to get his point across to the Galatians – and fast! It has much the same tone that I have found myself using when correcting some particularly foolish behavior in a child of mine. “Honestly! What were you thinking?” I might say. “Don’t you understand that you could have gotten hurt or killed? I can’t believe you did this! What friends were you with? Whose idea was it?” It’s that tone that Paul uses with the Galatians. He can’t believe that any child of his would be so foolish. It’s no wonder that his harshest criticism and most blunt language is reserved for those who were leading his “children in the faith”, as it were, astray.

But what is he so upset over? What is so great a threat to their faith? Nothing other than a teaching that, if true, would render his own faith in vain, not to mention all his work. Namely, that Christ’s sacrifice was for nothing. (2:21, 4:11)

Note: those of you not interested in the theological details... skip the next two paragraphs. :)

Some people, likely outsiders to the local churches, had come and were preaching the need for Gentiles to come under the requirements of the Torah to be saved, to become in essence Jewish proselytes – observant and under the law. And Paul’s harsh reaction to that is because it implies that the work of Christ is not, in and of itself, sufficient for salvation. And for the law to continue to be necessary, also implies that Christ did not in fact fulfill the law as He said He would. (Matt. 5:17-18) For if Christ fulfilled the law, as no other man could, then it no longer is a necessary means to communion with God, but Jesus Christ now stands in that place of atonement and reconciliation with God for us, and communion with God comes through Jesus. To add any requirement to that is to detract from the work of Christ, to render it incomplete and imperfect.

Carson & Moo, Thielman, and Polhill all go into depth on this issue, and cover essentially the same ground, including discussions of contemporary scholarship on Paul that emphasize the idea of “covenant nomism” rather than harsh Pharisaical legalism as the characteristic form of Judaism in Paul’s day. This school of thought on Paul does a better job of reconciling the OT’s emphasis on grace in His covenant relationship with Abraham & Israel to the grace now being shown to the Gentiles in the NT, and is consistent with Paul’s references to the Abrahamic covenant in 3:5-18. The law is seen not as a mechanism of salvation, but as a means of informing us of both our sin and our need for a Messiah to fulfill the law for us.

Whew! That was a lot to squeeze into two paragraphs. And there's almost as much in the next bunch, so if you want to just jump to the conclusion - skip three this time. :)

While this is all interesting, what gripped me personally the most about my reading of Galatians was not covered anywhere in the companion texts. Yet it points to Paul’s high view of God’s sovereignty in the exercise of His grace toward us. In Galatians 1:13-17, Paul is discussing his call to ministry and says several interesting things that I had not noticed before, or at least had not connected in the same way before this. One is that he was set apart by God for his ministry to the Gentiles “from the womb”. Another is that he was called (by revelation on the Damascus road) “when it pleased God” to do so. Putting these two together, it seems clear that God allowed Paul to be steeped in Pharisaical Judaism for years before being called, and even allowed Paul to spend time persecuting the church, which persecution presumably included sending believers to prison and death. He allowed Paul to make martyrs of His people for a time. Why?

Could not God have chosen to intervene in Paul’s life before he martyred God’s people? Imagine the impact that spending time with Jesus, while still in His earthly ministry, might have had on Paul. He could have been a secret follower of Christ as was Joseph of Arimathaea. And yet, God, always zealous for the glory of His name, had other things in mind. For in 1: 23-24, we see the result of Paul’s conversion coming when it did, after he persecuted the church. It resulted in glorifying God. And would it have resulted in that same degree of glory to God if God had not allowed Paul to establish his reputation as one who persecuted the church? Look at how many times Paul went back to that concept in his public testimonies and private correspondence. God definitely used the time of Paul persecuting the church to increase the wonder and praise given to Him as a result of Paul’s conversion, not to mention the added authenticity lent to Paul’s testimony before men.

While we know God does not do evil, or initiate it (James 1:13-15), He definitely allows it for His own purposes. And in this case it seems that He allowed Paul to be trained as a Pharisee, which, coupled with his naturally zealous personality (which God also gave him), resulted in harsh treatment of God’s people. So the suffering of God’s people under the hand of Paul was for a greater purpose than no doubt any of them could see. Certainly at the time Paul’s hand was striking, it could never be guessed that God’s purpose in their suffering was to exalt His name through the later conversion of he who was persecuting them.

So... the point?

This serves as a reminder to us that we can never really know the purposes behind our suffering, and it calls us to faith in God’s greater plan for both us, and others who may benefit because we suffered. This is faith – that God’s intentions for His people are always good, even if He permits our suffering to accomplish that good. It also proves in Paul’s own life (by both the suffering he caused others and, ironically, what he suffered for the Gospel himself) the thing that Paul so often stressed – that God is sovereign in the application of His grace, and we are not to question the hand of the potter in how he molds the clay – or even how he destroys it.

Let the author of this post pay attention.

A mistake?

Just as I thought the edge was dulling on the tension I felt at work, here comes more. PeBo is suggesting now that I should impose time tracking on my staff to see what they're doing all day. And my peers on PeBo's staff are suggesting that my people don't have the skills or desire needed to do their jobs, which would explain why they might be working on the wrong things. And after 6 months of working with them and observing, I think they're right. So our next staff meeting will be spent talking about how we can work around my folks to get things done faster!

And here I thought I had come here to be a consultant to my part of the company, build a staff of consultants to help them understand the financial impacts of their actions, and communicate it with the rest of the place. Instead, for the last several months we've been neck deep in reengineering the business process of handling data and reports, and it looks like for the *next* several months I'll be doing little else but trying to either retrain or get rid of my staff, most of which were handed to me by other managers, including my two bosses!

Somehow this is a different job than the one I was hired to do a year ago. Feels like a big mistake. But then, maybe all it's only what Solomon was talking about in Ecclesiastes 9:11, when he said: "... The race is not to the swift, Nor the battle to the strong, Nor bread to the wise, Nor riches to men of understanding, Nor favor to men of skill; But time and chance happen to them all."

At least time seems to be flying by. All the studying for grad school (or seminary - however you want to refer to it) is forcing me to concentrate on something else for a significant chunk of my spare time, so I don't dwell on the office overmuch. It's the 3rd week of class tonight. Already!

This week the topic was the run up of Saul's kingship, and all his boneheaded mistakes. What poor judgment! Or maybe they were mistakes, not of judgment, but of a rebellious heart. Or maybe they were motivated by personal greed or false pride or poor self-image. Or maybe they were results of a general carelessness caused by simply not taking God seriously. And as a consequence - he loses all he gained, and winds up worse off than before God called him.

Gee... I'm intimately familiar with all those types of mistakes. Does that mean I'm wired like Saul? I always thought I was wired more like David, or like Solomon. Hm. I wonder if they were INTJs/ENTJs. :)

Of course, David made all those same kinds of mistakes, too - and *he* was a man after God's own heart. While those mistakes cost him, the setbacks were temporary, and he continued to have God's favor. What was the difference? One obvious difference was that Saul was never broken in spirit before God like David was, crying out with all his heart for God's mercy. The one time Saul asked for God's forgiveness, it was so that he could continue to look good in the eyes of the people. That was never David's motivation - David's heart broke over his own wretchedness.

As does mine.

And like David, I know that God's mercy is my only hope and my greatest need, in this life - and the next.

Who is my neighbor?

Yesterday I finished watching an interview of U2's Bono by Bill Hybels of Willow Creek Church (Barrington Heights, IL). They were talking about the effects of poverty and the AIDS pandemic on Africa. It was fascinating on several levels, but one in particular, given a conversation I also had over coffee with someone about cell phone, internet and GPS technology. The sum of the two gave a new meaning to Jesus's parable of the Good Samaritan.

What's the connection?

It's this: the definition of "my neighbor" has changed in the last 20 years. And I almost missed it.

Willow Creek Church is a mega-church in an affluent Chicago suburb. They have leadership training programs for Evangelical (and other) pastors from all over the country. At a 2006 conference, which 70,000 pastors and church leaders attended, Hybels presented an interview he did with Bono to make these leaders aware of, as he put it, "the single greatest humanitarian challenge of our time." Bono is devoting his considerable star power (which he calls "currency") to make people aware of the need in Africa, and with the help of internet technology, he's succeeding.

See www.one.org for details.

At one point in the interview, Hybels asked Bono "why are the churches late to the party when it comes to helping?" One of the charges Bono leveled against the Evangelical church in particular was their tendency to take a "hands-off" approach to AIDS because of the moral implications of the disease. Maybe they have it coming, you know? Actions have consequences. But he used a powerful analogy to defuse this argument. Let's assume that you were the only car driving along a rural road and you come upon an accident. You stop and find the driver, alone, half out of the car, very seriously injured, smell a strong scent of alcohol, and see an empty whisky bottle on the seat. Do you say "tsk, tsk, he had it coming", and drive off, leaving him to suffer what were very likely the direct consequences of his actions? Of course not! You stop and help, you call 911, you stay there until someone comes. It doesn't matter if he was at fault - he needs help. So with the AIDS crisis. Those people need help, too.

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus expects us to help when we see our neighbor in need. But who is our neighbor? I always thought of it as "the people God sends across my path" or "people in need, who 1) I'm aware of, and 2) whose need I can actually do something about." Either way - when a person with a need crosses my field of vision, and I can do something - Jesus expects that I will. But, what if that someone is... waaaaaay over *there*? It's a big world out there, you know.

Well, guess what? The world is smaller than it used to be. This next example drove that point home.

A woman from my church was telling me over coffee how much she loves her GPS device in her car - wherever she is it will point her toward home. She raves about it to all her friends, and she never has to ask for directions. She told me that one time a friend of hers in Texas called her on her cell phone from her car, and begged her for help. She was lost, and needed directions and had no GPS device. Awww... :) Well, this lady sat down at her PC, pulled up Google maps, entered the friend's cross streets from where she was calling, and the destination address. She told her "I've got you! Drive straight for half a mile, then turn left and then take your next right..."

So, from 1500 miles away, thanks to cellular phone, internet and GPS mapping technology, one person could reach out and help another in need. Hi neighbor! Small world... If they both had the newest in video-capable phones, one could even see the other waving. ;)

Now, extend the example to YouTube, cellphones with video capability, instant transfer of information over email, instant transfer of funds via PayPal, anywhere in the world. All of a sudden, a poor local church in Uganda can work with a rich local church in Barrington Heights and can 1) let them see and hear, in near-real time, the faces and voices of children orphaned by AIDS, describe their needs in detail with an virtually instant email transmission, and receive from the rich church funds transferred electronically the same day.

NONE of this was possible 20 years ago, 15 years ago. Much of it has become possible only in the last 3-4 years. The world is shrinking before our eyes.

And all of a sudden...

who exactly IS my neighbor?

The Rabbi's Study

Note to all those faithful readers who are seeing a trend in this blog toward all things theological: you're right. Like any sensualist (hopefully in a positive sense, as in:),

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=325730

I react to stimuli around me, until it becomes routine and I don't notice it anymore. But for the time being, since I'm pouring myself into this new grad school routine... it's definitely generating new stimuli. This, too, shall pass. :)

What hasn't passed is a long-standing romantic notion that I would love to be a Rabbi. Not in a pastoral sense - I don't have a shepherd's heart. Dumb sheep. Fend for yourselves. :) But I do have a teacher's heart. Give me eager faces, willing minds, and I'll gladly impart what I know (and even make up some stuff I don't know, right on the spot!)

The picture at the top is of one of the shelves in my study (read: 3rd bedroom that is not set aside for the kids when they come visit.) There's the replica of the Ark of the Covenant, the shofar which I blow at the holy days (and now and then to scare a small child), the books of Josephus, and Edersheim's classic treatise, plus a variety of devotional and topical books... just a small sampling of the haphazard mingling of content and clutter that is my space.

I have been so nervous about this grad school thing - am I over my head with all these scholars? But last night in class, I got my second "atta boy" from the prof. :) We were going through the text and commentaries, and I remembered an insight I picked up during study earlier this week about something in I Samuel 4 vis-a-vis a reference the professor made to ch. 3.

I cleared my throat and dove in, and the prof made me repeat myself - twice! I was nervous and thought he was going to criticize me for having such a dumb idea, but he said with a tone of wonder: "I've never seen that before! All the years of studying this book and it never occurred to me... how do you spell your last name again? You are getting credit in a footnote in the commentary I'm writing on this. Remarkable..." he said, shaking his head.

Woohoo! I felt so much better after that about fitting in to the class (and the program) here. Me, a footnote in a commentary after only my second class! Maybe he meant it was remarkable that an insight like that would come from such an uneducated rube as me. :)

Mmmm, I can hear it now: "Excuse me Rabbi, can you tell me... is there a proper blessing for the government?" And all of you who have seen "Fiddler On The Roof" know the answer to that one. :)

A Benevolent God?

Last fall, a USA Today Survey showed that one's view of God influences their political leanings and ideology more than any other factor, including party affiliation or even denominational one.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-09-11-religion-survey_x.htm?csp=34

The views are titled A, B, C and D, standing for Authoritarian, Benevolent, Critical and Distant. The third one is a little confusing. It's not actively critical, as in identifying and intervening into unacceptable behhavior, but more like an art or literary or drama or music critic - observing human behavior (and having known opinions), just passively. But it makes for a nice C-word to continue the labeling scheme. :)

I remember having discussions with people about this article when it came out, including one person whose view of God was "some of both of the first two" - Authoritarian and Benevolent. That person happened to be Catholic, and since then I've talked to other Catholics who seem to see things the same way. Not coming from that background, I don't follow how this comes about, but it seems to be even within the Trinity itself that this dichotomy exists.

This week, at seminary, there was a guest speaker who came in to talk with "the kids" (read the students - most of whom are north of 35...) on the occasion of a new quarter starting. She spent some time talking about her Catholic upbringing, and put it this way: "I was scared of God The Father, always feeling He was angry with me. He never seemed either loving or approachable. Jesus on the other hand was always approachable, loving and merciful. I had no problem praying to Him, meditating on His words. The Holy Spirit? He was just smoke and mirrors to me. Mostly smoke. You know, all that incense and so forth. He was in there somewhere, in that smoke, that much I knew." It was kind of humorous to listen to her, but I knew hers wasn't an isolated experience. Others have said similar things. Hm.

Me, I'm squarely in the B camp. I get my idea of an essentially benevolent God the Father, one characterized by lovingkindness and mercy (yet not without concern for satisfying the needs of justice), from both Old Testament AND the New. Even in the Torah, in the books of the law, it's clear how God describes himself to Moses, here in Exodus 34:6-7, from the NKJV:

And the LORD passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.”

This Sunday the key verse for the day in church was Titus 3:4-7, which is, interestingly, also one of the few passages in Scripture that explicitly gives us a look at the concept of the Trinity, here from the NIV:

But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

The kindness and love of God (the Father) is poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ (the Son), by the Holy Spirit (who facilitates the rebirth and renewal that happens with that forgiveness). Even the demands of justice were also satisfied through the death of Jesus, which God the Father ordained - for our benefit. Sure sounds benevolent to me (benevolent toward mankind, anyway). And I didn't have to do a darned thing to merit that benevolence; couldn't, even if I wanted to. It's all by His grace.

Reminds me of a little song I sang for years at Bible camp. (Not the Jesus Camp of the recent film with the same title, by the way - nothing nearly that militant). It went like this:



He paid a debt he did not owe.
I owed a debt I could not pay.
I needed someone to wash my sins away.

doo bee doo bee doo
(yes, we really sang that part)

And now I sing a brand new song:
"Amazing Grace", the whole day long.
Christ Jesus paid the debt that I could never pay.


So...

what?

Well, a lot, that's what! It's the main reason I go through life making mistakes and failing routinely, but don't get crippled by guilt. God knows I'm not worthy of forgiveness, not even close. But I don't have to be, either. He's merciful and gracious. He forgives, not because of who I am, but because of who He is.

Hang the sense of it

Wrapping up the last of my Sr. High class on Wisdom this weekend and next, I've had a heightened awareness of ancient wisdom showing up in modern culture. The latest example of this was last night, sitting on the couch, eating pizza (meat lovers... mmmm), and watching "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". Not exactly where you'd expect to see wisdom show up. It's a fun movie, so very droll and British. Plus, yet another example of a rapper turned movie actor, this time "Mos Def". They all seem, to a person, very approachable on screen, and quite unlike their persona on the rap stage. That would make a good feature article in People or even Time...

Now where was I?

Oh. Right. There's this scene where Arthur Dent, the male lead, the clueless and cowardly rural Brit, is being given a tour of the universe's "factory floor" by some guy who helps build planets to spec for whoever it is that orders these things. Oh, yeah - it's mice. That's right. Mice run the universe. Well, anyway, our hero is trying to make sense of all this, and the planet builder guy says to him:

"The chances of finding out what's really going on are so absurdly remote that the only thing to do is say 'Hang the sense of it!' and keep yourself busy. Besides, I'd rather be happy than right, wouldn't you?"

Gosh, that sounds like Ecclesiastes to me, especially chapter 3:11-12 and 5:18-20, which are kind of the "don't worry, be happy" passages of the Old Testament, just as Matthew 6:25-34 are the New Testament's version of the same. I love to see ancient wisdom sprinkled, even haphazardly, into pop culture. It's a testimony to the staying power of a really good concept. And it should endure, right? It's God's concept, after all.

Ha - and you thought it was original with Bobby McFerrin.

Hit the books, boy...

Reading, reading, reading...

3 hours a night so far and nowhere near done with this week's assignments yet. Oof. It's been a while since I've read dense material like this, not to mention reading other than for recreation.

Some of the commentaries on and scholarly treatments of these sections of the Bible have stuff in them that I would put in the category of "angels dancing on the head of a pin" - nits to pick. What difference does it really make if Paul got his orientation to Pharisee-ism at home in Tarsus or under Gamaliel's teaching in Jerusalem. He eventually repudiated it, so... who cares? But scholars love to debate this stuff. Oy Gevalt! God forbid I should be that kind of scholar!

On the other hand, some of the information is pretty interesting, like the Greek authors Paul quotes from in his arguments, and the military structures, politial systems, or the sporting events of the day which Paul often uses as examples and analogies. That stuff I like, and find interesting and useful to add texture to what he taught. Hopefully there will be enough of the latter to keep me reading faithfully, because the course outcome appears to be dependent on it. I repeat... oof!

First on site class tomorrow night, plus an orientation & welcome dinner. I'm nervous and excited, and determined not to think at all about fitting in. Not me. :) But, what should I wear? ;)