I have been tagged…I guess I am it…

Like C. Jay, (or should I say thanks to C. Jay, over at Mu-Pa’d-da) I have just been officially inducted into the great wide blog-o-sphere. I haven’t really participated much in the social aspects of blogging, being that I am relatively new to the practice. But this seems like a fun little game of “tag”.  The game was started at Lingamish, which is a blog created by David Ker.

Here’s the task:

1. Tag five people
2. Invent fictional posts that they might have written over the last month
3. Link to this post

Random Bloggings “Why I Hate Sermons: Poor Pedagogical Practices That Destroy the Foundations of Biblical Languages While Making Dobson Chortle”

אליענה “How Scrabble Destroyed My Computer”

Ancient Hebrew Poetry: “The Talmudic Prayers of Rabbinic Rappers, as a Guide for More Faithful Translations, and How Robert Alter Has Missed the Mark”

Biblical Studies and Technological Tools: “FREE computer software.”

Old In The New: A Lego Vignette Featuring James and Elijah In My Favorite Library

Seminaries, Biblical Languages, and Bible Software

I have been giving thought lately to the requirement of languages at seminaries.  At Gordon Conwell, an M.Div student must take a year of Greek and Hebrew, an MA in Old Testament student must take a singular year of Hebrew (and that is it).  This is not really unique to GCTS; many schools have a one year (two semesters) language policy.  I know several seminary grads who are now veterans within ministry (10+ years), and not a single pastor that I personally know of uses both Hebrew and Greek in their ministry in a real way[1].  The Pastor of my church is a “Gospels” guy, and he does use his Greek every week.  He translates a passage before he ever writes a sermon, but he is the only person I know that actively uses a language that he learned in seminary to enrich his ministry.  When our colleagues find out that he uses Greek that frequently, they are usually shocked.  A seminary graduate rarely uses the Biblical Languages once they leave the academic environment of the seminary, and this is the trend that seems to be on the rise.

Unfortunately I don’t see a way of correcting this trend.  Keeping up with your languages or even working with the languages is the only way one is going to be able to retain their skill set.  However “keeping up” with your languages takes time, and that is a precious commodity in the Pastorate.  More and more pastors have taken on extra roles, which also can include being bi-vocational.  In the context of a smaller church, pastors often become psychologists, worship leaders, chairs of the various administrative boards, cheerleaders at various sporting activities, lunch dates, heads of hospitality, civil servants providing religious pageantry to the masses, etc.  But these are just one set of demands that are placed on those in the ministry, don’t forget the familial obligations of those in this profession.  All of these obligations, self imposed or otherwise, leave little room for habitual use of the biblical languages, so eventually the grammatical chops that were acquired begin to atrophy until all that remains is a haunting paradigm chart that has been etched into your mind, but disconnected from any remembered meaning.

Seminaries could add more language requirements to their degree tracts, but I don’t see that being the answer.  More stringent requirements do not address the problem of the appropriation of time within that Pastorate once their degree becomes nothing more than another piece of “art” or “memorabilia” that adorns their office walls.  Higher expectations sadly do not change the future priorities of anyone, especially in the face of such a fragmented profession.

As someone who has hurled himself head long into the academic waters, this trend does sadden me.  I obviously see the benefits of knowing the Biblical languages.  I see how the use of biblical languages can enrich congregations.  I would like all pastors to use the languages, but I am a realist and see this as a trend that will most likely not be bucked.

The above thoughts bring me back to my initial consideration of language requirements in seminaries.  I DON’T think seminaries should drop their language requirements.  So what could realistically help the situation?  I don’t know, but maybe if language professors could integrate the use of computer aided software such as a Logos or BibleWorks into the mix, maybe then we might be able to show how pastors can easily incorporate the original languages into their devotional/preparatory time.

Now before everyone who reads this freaks out, hear me out first.  Pastors are not using the languages anyways, so it’s not like this suggestion could make matters any worse, right?  The ones that do use the languages, often abuse them horribly by doing awful word studies[2].  However, if a course is offered that integrates language theory (which is essential), basic conceptions of the particular language, and computer aided software; then maybe these future pastors will use this kind of knowledge in their future ministries?  Who knows, maybe with frequency some of the language will “rub off” on these pastors by their constant use of these programs?  I am completely aware that Logos and BibleWorks can be an awful crutch, and using them, often makes students lazy because they won’t have to remember things that students of an earlier age did remember, but is this any worse than the current state of affairs?  You be the judge.

---

[1] I am not counting the pastor who will occasionally flip through their strong’s concordance to give their sermon the air of being well prepared, while completely raping a word by not limiting the semantic range of a word, by context, and forcing every usage as operative simultaneously in their passage.

[2] Think of all of the examples in D.A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies.

What is this in Wright’s Study?

I was looking at the blogs that I usually frequent, and I found a great picture of N.T. Wright at work in his study (I love seeing people’s work spaces) on Ben Witherington’s blog.    The reason I am reposting this picture is because I want to know about the device that Wright is using to prop up his books.  I would have completely missed it, but my wife, looking over my shoulder, called my attention to this glorious piece of furniture.  It appears to be a five sided book holder (which I presume is resting on a lazy-susan mechanism of some sort, so that it can spin).  Does anyone know what this is called? Where one can purchase it? Where one can find the plans to build it (or something similar to it)?  I may be taking a trip to home depot soon to buy some brass hinges, a lazy susan, molding, and some lumber to see if I can build something comparable (I keep thinking of Homer Simpson building his outdoor grill and the monstrosity which was the final product).

Is It Ok to Curse? And Who is My Enemy Anyways?

In my former days, I was far more cantankerous than I am today. I often enjoyed stirring the theological pot quite a bit, especially during my time in undergrad. I am not sure why this was the case, but it was. I went to a small denominationally run Bible college and would often challenge the hallowed distinctives of the school as well as the denomination, but the many details of these challenges may be better saved for future posts.

However the following is an earnest question that I struggled with during my Bible college days, I remember asking out loud, “why don’t Christians curse[1]?”, and never getting a satisfactory response. I remember a professor saying that, “because we were under grace, we return grace for grace against those who persecute us. Remember the modeling of Christ on the cross. He could have cursed those who crucified him (his physical enemies), but instead he prayed that they experience forgiveness. This should be our practice”, so he explained. On one level this response made sense, but still it seemed to ignore a common practice from the largest book in the Bible, the Psalms. Also I no longer allow a bifurcation of the Canon into two dispensations (grace and law); meaning I believe that the people of the 1^st Testament are clearly portrayed as individuals who are thoroughly under the grace of God, just as those portrayed in the 2^nd Testament. “The grace for grace” comment doesn’t’ hold much sway over me.

John Calvin once wrote of the Psalms, “In a word, whatever may serve to encourage us when we are about to pray to God, is taught us in this book”[2]. It seems that the Psalmists were often encouraged by the notion of God giving the “enemy” their just desserts. These poets wanted divine retribution, and their prayers expressed such intent. Is this not a biblical lesson? Why are Christians hesitant to pray for God’s condemnation on their enemies?

Tremper Longman III notes a fundamental difference between the 1^st and 2^nd Testament and that is that the people of God enjoy a different relationship with those who are outside of the community of God[3]. The people of God are no longer defined by ethnic lines as Paul notes in Galatians 3:28-29. In the 1^st Testament, the enemy was seeking to destroy the theocracy established by God (thus by extension, the enemies mentioned in the Psalms, that are being cursed, are really the enemies of God and His anointed ones), while in the 2^nd Testament there is no longer a theocracy in place governing over Israel. Longman then appropriates the conflict (and then I would assume the prayer) into a supernatural realm as the 2^nd Testament’s contextual basis for praying these imprecatory Psalms. The enemy that we pray against is the “evil one”, according to Longman. While I am more comfortable with this approach (because there is no arbitrary distinctions drawn between the Covenants in regards to Law vs. Grace), this view seems like a convenient cop out, that limits the application of these texts in a way that seems to violate the original sitz em liben, which was written out of a desire to see God’s just vindication fall.

Roland Murphy takes another perspective when he treats the enemy as the “personification of evil. This is not to deny that enemies can refer in some cases to actual human beings. But the characterizations are driven by a greater reality: evil is at work, and the suffering psalmist is beleaguered and driven to the broad and bold representations found in the laments. These are types that gradually became stylized in the language of the lament”.[4] This exegetical approach is very interesting, because it resists tying the enemy to any particular evil, but evil at large. This approach then makes praying these psalms accessible to the church, because we witness evil everyday. To be honest, I need to chew on Murphy’s approach more. I am not certain that the presence of enemies is the result of stylized language, but I do appreciate his whole-Psalter approach for the life and vitality of the church.

John Hobbins (whose post served as the inspiration for this post) seems to think it is appropriate for Christians to curse, and in fact strings several relevant biblical quotations to make his point. Hobbins states the following, “If Christianity amounts to nothing more than knowing that I am a turd no less than the next guy, and therefore I cannot call God’s judgment down upon the one who seeks to harm me, or seeks to harm another, something, I think, has gone horribly wrong. The psalmists call judgment down upon those who harm the contextually innocent, including themselves, knowing full well that they would be judged by the same standard. Context, of course, is important. In the process, they knowingly expose themselves to great risk even as they sought salvation from God’s hand. It is also the practice of the psalmists to engage in auto-imprecation: “May God do so-and-so to me, if I am lying.”

Hobbins may be on to something (I need to chew on his perspective for a bit as well), but my questions are: who and what is the enemy? Is the enemy any transgressor of God? And how exactly does the call for grace fit into the problem of the enemy? Would it be better to pray for God’s deliverance of my enemy?

My earnest questions still remain as I attempt to take a whole-Psalter approach to prayer.

---

[1] I don’t mean the act of cussing, but the act of asking God to bring condemnation on an object (human or otherwise).

[2] John Calvin, “The Pfalmes of David and others with M. Iohn,” in Joshua and Psalms 1-35 (vol. IV, reprinted.; Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Academic, 1999), xxxvii

[3] Tremper Longman III., How to Read the Psalms (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 139

[4] Roland Edmund Murphy, The Gift of Psalms (Peabody, Ma.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000), 46-47.

Happy I found, Latin for Beginners

A while back, my wife took me to Ithaca, NY. to celebrate my 30^th birthday.  One of the main reasons for going was to purchase many books very cheaply (a book lover’s utopia).  One of the books that I purchased was a book called Latin for Beginners by Benjamin Leonard D’Ooge.  This book is almost a hundred years old (mine is a 2^nd Edition, printed in 1911).  I bought this book on a complete whim (when books are $.10 a piece, it makes one’s whim absolutely guilt free).  I have been meaning to brush up on my Latin, since my skills (vocabulary and grammar) have completely diminished in 14 long years of inactivity.  However, I do remember a series of verbal conjugation paradigms (not sure what they mean anymore, but boy can I recite them).

I am so glad that I bought this book.  It seems to have nice blend of inductive and deductive methods, which for a Latin grammar is quite amazing (classical languages are usually taught classically).  There are isolated lists of vocabulary at the end of the book, but at the same time the reader is not overwhelmed with paradigm charts from the start (though there are paradigm charts offered throughout the book), but are quickly eased into inflectional endings (such as the common 3^rd person singular and plural verb ending, “t” and “nt”), thus giving a student some mastery over simple sentences within the first couple chapters of the book.  This book seems very promising as I try to (re)acquire Latin, and for $.10 I think that this was a great investment.

If anyone has any other helpful Latin grammar suggestions (esp. for Ecclesiastical Latin) let me know.

My Organic Garden

This particular blog post has nothing to do with theology or biblical studies, but its subject has become a passion of mine recently.  This spring, along with the help from someone in my church, I started a raised bed organic garden.  My wife and I have resolved to eat more organically this year and our garden has made that task easier to do financially.  I thought that I would share the product of my green thumbs with the readers of this blog.

Head of Romain

My Curled Parsley and Romain Patch

Lemon Thyme

First Tomato of the Season

(For some reason my google reader is not displaying all of the pictures)

Like a thief in the night, Firefox 3.0 is coming. (I am not sure that title even makes sense)

I am a huge fan of Mozilla’s web browser, Firefox.  After a couple years of development Firefox 3 is about to be launched.  Supposedly this new edition will have better security features, along with a host of other goodies.  In honor of this new launch, Mozilla is trying to secure a place in the Guinness Book of World Records for most downloads.  Here is their new launch site.  At 10:00am (PST) the new edition will be ready for downloading.  Head over to the official launching page to get on board.

Side note:

I read yesterday that Mozilla has captured roughly 18% of the web browsing market, which may not sound like a lot, but if you consider that IE and Safari are backed by their own operating system (Windows and Mac), then this figure is pretty impressive.  That means people had to actually go out and download the software onto their p.c.

The Search is over…

Well the search is over. Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary has finally found a permanent replacement for Dr. Walter Kaiser. Dr. Robinson did a wonderful job as the interim-president of the school holding the fort down until a new candidate was hired. The sixth president of GCTS will be Dennis P. Hollinger. Sadly I have never heard of Dr. Hollinger (this probably has more to do with my lack of knowledge in his field of study), but he sounds like an interesting hire. It seems that his bailiwick is ethics (bioethics in particular). See the GCTS link here.

Hermeneutics: Interpretation, Community of Faith, and Roland Murphy

I recently have been reading a festschrift entitled Master of the Sacred Page: Essays and Articles in Honor of Roland E. Murphy, O.Car., On The Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday. There is a quote from an interview by Roland Murphy that I thought was just brilliant, so I would like to share it with the readers of this blog.

“The first is the fact that any text comes to have more meaning tha[n] the literal historical sense given to it by the author(s). This is true of all literary texts, and the Bible is no exception. The text comes to have a life of its own within the community that preserves it, and thus requires a surplus meaning. This is an inevitable hermeneutical process: as time passes, new horizons emerge.”[1]

Scripture has been preserved by a particular community, which has regarded the biblical texts as sacred (thus the reason for its preservation). With the presence of textual preservation comes a layer of existential reality that resides with that text for those who are apart of that community.

Can that “surplus” be understood by those who are outside of the community? I do think that those outside of the community can understand the text and elements of this new surplus forged by the confessional community; however, I am unconvinced that the existential experience residing between the community and the text can be fully grasped by those outside of that community. This is not to say that those outside of the community can’t grasp the literal historical sense better than those within the community, but the “surplus” is not embodied in the individual who is not in union with that community.

What do you think?

---

[1] Roland Edmund Murphy, Keith J. Egan, and Craig E. Morrison, Master of the Sacred Page: Essays in Honor of Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm., on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday (Carmelite Institute, 1997), 101

A Blog Post Worth Reading.

I came across this blog by Steve Holmes the other day (I believe my google blog feeder recommended it, but I can’t quite remember). His post On The Christian Duty to Find Error Attractive resonated with me. I continually read papers or hear lectures where it is more than obvious the presenter is offering a half baked critique of an individual’s point of view without clearly understanding what the original individual was intending to say. His post addresses such an issue. I highly recommend reading it.