By Sean McDonough, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament
My tub, like my mind, sometimes doesn’t work as quickly as it ought. So once a year or so, I need to tackle the dirty, but oddly satisfying, job of getting rid of the sludge that keeps the water from draining. I lay down some newspaper, get down on the floor, remove the massive cover of the drum trap, insert the coiled snake as far into the pipe as I can, and start to twist the snake. After a few minutes, I pull it back up to see what I have caught. The result, if I am lucky, is not pretty. [CAUTION: THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE CONTAINS MATERIAL OF A GRAPHIC NATURE.] If I have snaked successfully, I will pull up a tangled black mass of sludge and hair, like a hunk of muddy wild boar flesh – the bigger and badder the better, because it means more room for the water to flow out. I clean up my tools and myself, replace the cover, and walk away a more contented man.
Alert readers who have read the title of this piece, and have managed to weather the storm of disturbing imagery in the previous paragraph, may sense where this is headed. Dirty bath water is not the only thing we need drained from our lives. Day by day, week by week, we face temptations, insults, resentments, confusion – and if all is going well we slough it off and keep moving on. But as all those little things can begin to accumulate in our soul, we can find it harder to keep the debris moving downstream. “Why do I always get stuck with the worst committee assignments?” “Why do my babies have to scream on the plane when no one else's do?” “I can’t believe my roommate borrowed my iPod again without asking!”
It’s not the big things I am talking about here. Occasionally, we have had to extricate a Playmobil helmet or some such thing from the plumbing, and that requires bringing in the heavy hitters of the pipe cleaning world. But the real problem is the gradual build-up of hair and dirt that slip past the screen and set up their secret and growing fraternity somewhere beyond the drum trap. I suspect that for most of us, the same holds true for our spiritual lives: we might not commit egregious sins that block us up all at once; we just grow ever more sclerotic from trivial grudges and petty distractions.
Snaking your soul sludge could take any number of forms, and my main purpose here is to identify the problem rather than to detail the solutions. You might find deliverance by going on a weekend retreat, or joining a small group, or committing to a new prayer regimen. The key is to realize that even the best-intentioned believer can find his or her spiritual progress blocked by the detritus of everyday life, and to seek by God’s grace to get rid of the blockage.
And if your time of reflection dredges up some things that are a bit unpleasant to look at, don’t be discouraged. Awareness can lead to repentance, and repentance leads to a healthier relationship with God. However you do it, start snaking your soul sludge.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
A Wicked Experience in the Big Apple
By Roy Ciampa, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament
I just passed through one of those milestone birthdays. Let’s just say I can no longer say I’m in my 40’s…. For this special birthday my wonderful wife, Marcelle, planned a trip to New York City with a couple of our best friends. I had been to NYC a couple times before but never as a tourist. We were there for three beautiful days and filled our time with interesting and perhaps life-shaping events (it’s a bit too soon to say for certain…). We stayed in a hotel just off of Times Square and we were able to walk to just about everything we saw. I confess I experienced some sensory overload, but the experience was one I will never forget and one for which I am extremely grateful. What a great weekend!
The highlights included two Broadway musicals. We saw Hairspray and Wicked. Although they are very different stories they both address issues of prejudice. Hairspray is the more conventional (less thought-provoking) of the two, with its black-and-white characters (n.b. the double entendre) and the happy-ever-after ending. It was full of fun, energy and terrific music. Wicked is more brooding. It calls into question the overly simplistic application of terms like good and evil in a revisionist prequel to The Wizard of Oz which shows that Elphaba (the Witch of the West) was not so evil after all, while those who demonized her were acting duplicitously either out of prejudice or self-interest.
Some of the first lyrics include:
Let us be glad, Let us be grateful,
Let us rejoicify that goodness could subdue
The wicked workings of you know who!
Isn't it nice to know that good will conquer evil?
The truth we all believe'll by and by outlive a lie
This sounds very much like traditional Christian teaching (see, e.g. 1 Corinthians 15 on Christ’s victory over death, etc.), but it is subverted by the (about to be revealed) knowledge that the moral categories were being wrongly applied. The story would end up revealing that “the truth we all believe” would not outlive a lie, but rather was the lie!
Other lyrics almost sound as though they were taken from the book of Proverbs or other Old Testament wisdom literature. For instance:
No one mourns the wicked!
No one cries they won't return!
No one lays a lily on their grave!
The good man scorns the wicked!
Through their lives our children learn! What we miss when we misbehave!
Again, this traditional moral teaching is undermined by the knowledge that the terms good and wicked were being wrongly and simplistically applied thanks to the manipulation of perceptions by those who held power and influence in Ozian society.
I’ll share just one final bit of lyrics. This one ends with a paraphrase of Galatians 6:7:
Goodness knows
The wicked cry alone
Nothing grows for the wicked
They reap only what they've sown
I’m sure some will see all of this as merely an attempt to undermine traditional Christian moral categories but there is no real moral relativism here. We see both good and evil in the main characters and are shocked by the hypocrisy and wicked manipulation of society’s application of the categories of good and evil. Such a manipulation has been an often observed part of the modern and postmodern experience and not just something prevalent in story books or ancient times. Like the books of Job and Ecclesiastes, Wicked warns against the simplistic, naïve or socially convenient application of powerful terms like good and evil in a world filled with complex characters, mixed motives, deceitful hearts, hypocrisy and politics marked by self-interest. There is a certain shocking, Nathan-confronts-David nature to the message (see 2 Samuel 12:1-7) which is a healthy and important challenge for us to hear.
One of the other highlights of the weekend was an audio tour of Ground Zero. What a moving and highly recommended experience! A place marked by both human wickedness and human goodness and an event which has also been manipulated at times to advance simplistic views of good and evil in the world…. As the American presidential campaign approaches its end the American population finds itself occasionally being fed a diet of rhetoric in which the opposing candidates (all well-respected people before the campaigns began) are demonized for the sake of the advantage gained by the candidacy of the other. Sometimes this is done to the applause of those most clearly identified as “Christians.” We all know “The good man scorns the wicked!” Sometimes people are all too eager to let a strong voice tell them which is “the good” man and which “the wicked” so they can pour their scorn on the right one. May God give us all greater wisdom than that, for the sake of this nation and those affected by its leadership.
Back to our trip to NYC. Did I make any special contribution to the betterment of society while visiting the Big Apple? Well, we visited the Hard Rock Café and I bought a cap that says “Save the Planet” on the front and “Love all, serve all” on the back. I rejoicify (sic) in the knowledge that with a simple $20 purchase I have advanced such a wonderful agenda, promoting good and the overthrow of evil through one little act of consumerism. What a comfort it would be, I suppose, if we actually lived in such a morally simple universe…. My birthday trip is now over, however, and I hope that in remaining years that God gives me I might, by his grace and mercy, make a greater difference in this complex, broken and hurting world than I have in the years I have lived so far. “Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever! Amen” (Ephesians 3:20-21, NIV).
Associate Professor of New Testament
I just passed through one of those milestone birthdays. Let’s just say I can no longer say I’m in my 40’s…. For this special birthday my wonderful wife, Marcelle, planned a trip to New York City with a couple of our best friends. I had been to NYC a couple times before but never as a tourist. We were there for three beautiful days and filled our time with interesting and perhaps life-shaping events (it’s a bit too soon to say for certain…). We stayed in a hotel just off of Times Square and we were able to walk to just about everything we saw. I confess I experienced some sensory overload, but the experience was one I will never forget and one for which I am extremely grateful. What a great weekend!
The highlights included two Broadway musicals. We saw Hairspray and Wicked. Although they are very different stories they both address issues of prejudice. Hairspray is the more conventional (less thought-provoking) of the two, with its black-and-white characters (n.b. the double entendre) and the happy-ever-after ending. It was full of fun, energy and terrific music. Wicked is more brooding. It calls into question the overly simplistic application of terms like good and evil in a revisionist prequel to The Wizard of Oz which shows that Elphaba (the Witch of the West) was not so evil after all, while those who demonized her were acting duplicitously either out of prejudice or self-interest.
Some of the first lyrics include:
Let us be glad, Let us be grateful,
Let us rejoicify that goodness could subdue
The wicked workings of you know who!
Isn't it nice to know that good will conquer evil?
The truth we all believe'll by and by outlive a lie
This sounds very much like traditional Christian teaching (see, e.g. 1 Corinthians 15 on Christ’s victory over death, etc.), but it is subverted by the (about to be revealed) knowledge that the moral categories were being wrongly applied. The story would end up revealing that “the truth we all believe” would not outlive a lie, but rather was the lie!
Other lyrics almost sound as though they were taken from the book of Proverbs or other Old Testament wisdom literature. For instance:
No one mourns the wicked!
No one cries they won't return!
No one lays a lily on their grave!
The good man scorns the wicked!
Through their lives our children learn! What we miss when we misbehave!
Again, this traditional moral teaching is undermined by the knowledge that the terms good and wicked were being wrongly and simplistically applied thanks to the manipulation of perceptions by those who held power and influence in Ozian society.
I’ll share just one final bit of lyrics. This one ends with a paraphrase of Galatians 6:7:
Goodness knows
The wicked cry alone
Nothing grows for the wicked
They reap only what they've sown
I’m sure some will see all of this as merely an attempt to undermine traditional Christian moral categories but there is no real moral relativism here. We see both good and evil in the main characters and are shocked by the hypocrisy and wicked manipulation of society’s application of the categories of good and evil. Such a manipulation has been an often observed part of the modern and postmodern experience and not just something prevalent in story books or ancient times. Like the books of Job and Ecclesiastes, Wicked warns against the simplistic, naïve or socially convenient application of powerful terms like good and evil in a world filled with complex characters, mixed motives, deceitful hearts, hypocrisy and politics marked by self-interest. There is a certain shocking, Nathan-confronts-David nature to the message (see 2 Samuel 12:1-7) which is a healthy and important challenge for us to hear.
One of the other highlights of the weekend was an audio tour of Ground Zero. What a moving and highly recommended experience! A place marked by both human wickedness and human goodness and an event which has also been manipulated at times to advance simplistic views of good and evil in the world…. As the American presidential campaign approaches its end the American population finds itself occasionally being fed a diet of rhetoric in which the opposing candidates (all well-respected people before the campaigns began) are demonized for the sake of the advantage gained by the candidacy of the other. Sometimes this is done to the applause of those most clearly identified as “Christians.” We all know “The good man scorns the wicked!” Sometimes people are all too eager to let a strong voice tell them which is “the good” man and which “the wicked” so they can pour their scorn on the right one. May God give us all greater wisdom than that, for the sake of this nation and those affected by its leadership.
Back to our trip to NYC. Did I make any special contribution to the betterment of society while visiting the Big Apple? Well, we visited the Hard Rock Café and I bought a cap that says “Save the Planet” on the front and “Love all, serve all” on the back. I rejoicify (sic) in the knowledge that with a simple $20 purchase I have advanced such a wonderful agenda, promoting good and the overthrow of evil through one little act of consumerism. What a comfort it would be, I suppose, if we actually lived in such a morally simple universe…. My birthday trip is now over, however, and I hope that in remaining years that God gives me I might, by his grace and mercy, make a greater difference in this complex, broken and hurting world than I have in the years I have lived so far. “Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever! Amen” (Ephesians 3:20-21, NIV).
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Hope and Suffering
By Maria Boccia, PhD
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology and
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling at the Charlotte campus
When I used to think of Hannah, I used to think of God’s blessing in her life, the provision of the son, Samuel, for whom she had begged God. I used to think of the other sons and daughters he gave her to give her joy in her life. But I have a new perspective.
It started with revisiting the book of Ruth and seeing Naomi. She had many years of grief and suffering before she saw the blessing of God. She and her family were devastated by a famine. So devastated that her husband uprooted the family and moved them to a foreign country outside Israel who worshiped false gods. She must have been devastated watching her husband try to survive the drought, planting only to see it shrivel up and die. Finally, to move, to leave all her family and friends, her home and neighbors, and move to a country where she would be a stranger and would be surrounded by those who do not know the God of Israel. After uprooting her and moving her and her sons to Moab, he dies, leaving her alone. Her only resource was her two sons. While there, her sons married Moabite women. Did this bring her joy? Unlikely - they married women from outside Israel who did not worship God. They would be a temptation to her sons to lead them away from the one true God. In the ten years they were married to these women, they did not produce children. Both sons were childless! Then both her sons died. She felt worse than abandoned by God. She felt that God had dealt with her bitterly. When she returned to Israel, she urged her daughters-in-law to return to their families and not stay with her. Naomi had lost all hope. "Don’t come with me. You can expect nothing from me. My life is pretty much over and I have nothing left to offer." Orpah left. Ruth refused to leave her. She had become a believer in the God of Israel - how? Naomi? Her sons? When she returns to Israel, she is still impoverished. Her only means of survival is the grain that Ruth was able to glean in the fields - was Naomi so old at this point that she couldn’t even glean? It is at this low point that God turns things around. Boaz comes into the picture, marries Ruth and produces the grandson for Naomi that her own sons did not. And, she and Ruth are a part of the story of the coming of Jesus.
What did Naomi gain from all the misery in her life, before God turned it around? Naomi was so focused on what she lost that she failed to see what she had: God had blessed her and provided for her in Ruth, who loved her and cared for her so that she did not die nor have to beg to survive.
When I used to read Hannah’s story, I read either about how she dealt with her depression by having faith in God’s promise, or I saw the promise of God in that he blessed her with a child in her old age. But, I looked again after reading about Naomi and seeing her story in a new way. Hannah suffered unbearably for many years before she received God’s blessing. She was childless, so her husband took a second wife to produce heirs. She produced "sons and daughters." Hannah was more beloved of Elkanah than Peninnah, but this served only to embitter Peninnah against Hannah. Peninnah tormented Hannah - probably over her childlessness. This had to go on for years: If Peninnah had only 2 boys and 2 girls, and weaned them at 3 years old, she would have had to been Elkanah’s second wife for at least 12 years! It was in all likelihood much more than that. All the while tormenting Hannah. No wonder she was depressed!
She was depressed because her expectations for marriage had failed - she had not had the children her culture had taught her were a blessing to women. She believed the lie that barrenness was a sign from God of judgement. She had not been able to fulfill her responsibility to produce heirs for her husband, who loved her. She experienced the bitterness of the disruption of her marriage by the addition of a second wife, which she probably blamed on herself for being childless. Peninnah’s fruitfulness made her believe that it was "her fault" that she was childless. Something was wrong with her . . . God had closed her womb because of something in her.
To add insult to injury, Eli accused her of being drunk when she was in the Tabernacle praying to God for deliverance from this tormented life through provision of a son.
When Eli offered a blessing, however vague his understanding was, something changed in Hannah - she was no longer depressed by the circumstances of her life. She had not yet conceived, Peninnah still tormented her, but she was no longer depressed.
What happened? What did Hannah learn?
In her prayer she expressed the following truths:
The Lord God is holy and He is the only God
She learned to rely on God alone
God is the one who gives or takes away anything we have in life
God is the one who gives children
God’s favor is what brings joy, not the things of this life that society tells us we must have
God has the power of life and death, to give wealth and poverty, children and barrenness
Those who oppose God will be overthrown and judged
What had she learned before she conceived that enabled to overcome her depression, even before God gave her the son? Were these truths expressed in her song the things she learned? God brought Hannah to the place where she was able to give her son to God. If she had had children in the normal course of life, she would probably have not given Samuel to God. But she became willing to do so.
Did God give these difficult years to these two women to build character? What kind of women did they become? They were dependent on God for their comfort and sense of worth. They developed patience, no doubt. They became the kind of women who could raise sons like Obed, the grandfather of David, and Samuel, the prophet of God. They became Chayil women.
Professor of Pastoral Counseling and Psychology and
Director of Graduate Programs in Counseling at the Charlotte campus
When I used to think of Hannah, I used to think of God’s blessing in her life, the provision of the son, Samuel, for whom she had begged God. I used to think of the other sons and daughters he gave her to give her joy in her life. But I have a new perspective.
It started with revisiting the book of Ruth and seeing Naomi. She had many years of grief and suffering before she saw the blessing of God. She and her family were devastated by a famine. So devastated that her husband uprooted the family and moved them to a foreign country outside Israel who worshiped false gods. She must have been devastated watching her husband try to survive the drought, planting only to see it shrivel up and die. Finally, to move, to leave all her family and friends, her home and neighbors, and move to a country where she would be a stranger and would be surrounded by those who do not know the God of Israel. After uprooting her and moving her and her sons to Moab, he dies, leaving her alone. Her only resource was her two sons. While there, her sons married Moabite women. Did this bring her joy? Unlikely - they married women from outside Israel who did not worship God. They would be a temptation to her sons to lead them away from the one true God. In the ten years they were married to these women, they did not produce children. Both sons were childless! Then both her sons died. She felt worse than abandoned by God. She felt that God had dealt with her bitterly. When she returned to Israel, she urged her daughters-in-law to return to their families and not stay with her. Naomi had lost all hope. "Don’t come with me. You can expect nothing from me. My life is pretty much over and I have nothing left to offer." Orpah left. Ruth refused to leave her. She had become a believer in the God of Israel - how? Naomi? Her sons? When she returns to Israel, she is still impoverished. Her only means of survival is the grain that Ruth was able to glean in the fields - was Naomi so old at this point that she couldn’t even glean? It is at this low point that God turns things around. Boaz comes into the picture, marries Ruth and produces the grandson for Naomi that her own sons did not. And, she and Ruth are a part of the story of the coming of Jesus.
What did Naomi gain from all the misery in her life, before God turned it around? Naomi was so focused on what she lost that she failed to see what she had: God had blessed her and provided for her in Ruth, who loved her and cared for her so that she did not die nor have to beg to survive.
When I used to read Hannah’s story, I read either about how she dealt with her depression by having faith in God’s promise, or I saw the promise of God in that he blessed her with a child in her old age. But, I looked again after reading about Naomi and seeing her story in a new way. Hannah suffered unbearably for many years before she received God’s blessing. She was childless, so her husband took a second wife to produce heirs. She produced "sons and daughters." Hannah was more beloved of Elkanah than Peninnah, but this served only to embitter Peninnah against Hannah. Peninnah tormented Hannah - probably over her childlessness. This had to go on for years: If Peninnah had only 2 boys and 2 girls, and weaned them at 3 years old, she would have had to been Elkanah’s second wife for at least 12 years! It was in all likelihood much more than that. All the while tormenting Hannah. No wonder she was depressed!
She was depressed because her expectations for marriage had failed - she had not had the children her culture had taught her were a blessing to women. She believed the lie that barrenness was a sign from God of judgement. She had not been able to fulfill her responsibility to produce heirs for her husband, who loved her. She experienced the bitterness of the disruption of her marriage by the addition of a second wife, which she probably blamed on herself for being childless. Peninnah’s fruitfulness made her believe that it was "her fault" that she was childless. Something was wrong with her . . . God had closed her womb because of something in her.
To add insult to injury, Eli accused her of being drunk when she was in the Tabernacle praying to God for deliverance from this tormented life through provision of a son.
When Eli offered a blessing, however vague his understanding was, something changed in Hannah - she was no longer depressed by the circumstances of her life. She had not yet conceived, Peninnah still tormented her, but she was no longer depressed.
What happened? What did Hannah learn?
In her prayer she expressed the following truths:
The Lord God is holy and He is the only God
She learned to rely on God alone
God is the one who gives or takes away anything we have in life
God is the one who gives children
God’s favor is what brings joy, not the things of this life that society tells us we must have
God has the power of life and death, to give wealth and poverty, children and barrenness
Those who oppose God will be overthrown and judged
What had she learned before she conceived that enabled to overcome her depression, even before God gave her the son? Were these truths expressed in her song the things she learned? God brought Hannah to the place where she was able to give her son to God. If she had had children in the normal course of life, she would probably have not given Samuel to God. But she became willing to do so.
Did God give these difficult years to these two women to build character? What kind of women did they become? They were dependent on God for their comfort and sense of worth. They developed patience, no doubt. They became the kind of women who could raise sons like Obed, the grandfather of David, and Samuel, the prophet of God. They became Chayil women.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Spiritual Formation
By John Jefferson Davis
Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics
At a recent coffee hour in the seminary cafeteria our new president, Dr. Dennis Hollinger, gave an update on current happenings at the school and responded to student questions. The final question came from a student who asked, “Can you share with us some of your own experiences as a seminary student? What were some of the ‘highlights’ and ‘lowlights’?”
Dr. Hollinger paused for a moment, and then said the big highlights were the mind-stretching new studies and insights from scripture, theology, apologetics and other theological topics, and secondly, the friendships that he formed in seminary that have continued down to the present day. In terms of ‘lowlights’ or less than satisfactory aspects of his seminary days, he pointed to spiritual formation as an area that was not what it could or should have been: the “head” far outstripped the “heart” as a focus of growth during those years (though, he noted, the school in question has since tried to address this area in its curriculum).
The president’s remarks caught my attention, because I know that as a point of faculty discussion and concern spiritual formation is a topic that we need to address – and hear from you about. As a current student, or alum, are there observations that you can share with us as faculty that can help us to do a better job of training future leaders in the church in this area? How did you or do you find that classroom teaching, the chapel program, campus Bible studies, the Pierce Center, local churches, and other campus activities contributed to your spiritual growth? We need to hear from you and learn from your experience at Gordon-Conwell.
I am currently trying to integrate more fully into my theology courses practical applications that relate to spirituality, prayer, meditation, and worship. My current book manuscript, The Ontology of Worship, addresses the connection between worship as the high priority of the church and the spiritual formation of its members.
I would also like to make available to you, if you are interested in these matters, two annotated bibliographies that may help your own study and reading in the areas of spiritual formation and Christian spirituality: “Devotional Classics,” my list of all-time favorites in the history of Christian devotional writings; and “Testing the Spirits,” a resource for spiritual discernment and testing the phenomena of revival movements, based on principles gleaned from the early church, the Great Awakening, and the history of spiritual direction. You can access these bibliographies by clicking on the "Download File" link below.
May God continue to bless you as you seek to grow in Christ.
Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics
At a recent coffee hour in the seminary cafeteria our new president, Dr. Dennis Hollinger, gave an update on current happenings at the school and responded to student questions. The final question came from a student who asked, “Can you share with us some of your own experiences as a seminary student? What were some of the ‘highlights’ and ‘lowlights’?”
Dr. Hollinger paused for a moment, and then said the big highlights were the mind-stretching new studies and insights from scripture, theology, apologetics and other theological topics, and secondly, the friendships that he formed in seminary that have continued down to the present day. In terms of ‘lowlights’ or less than satisfactory aspects of his seminary days, he pointed to spiritual formation as an area that was not what it could or should have been: the “head” far outstripped the “heart” as a focus of growth during those years (though, he noted, the school in question has since tried to address this area in its curriculum).
The president’s remarks caught my attention, because I know that as a point of faculty discussion and concern spiritual formation is a topic that we need to address – and hear from you about. As a current student, or alum, are there observations that you can share with us as faculty that can help us to do a better job of training future leaders in the church in this area? How did you or do you find that classroom teaching, the chapel program, campus Bible studies, the Pierce Center, local churches, and other campus activities contributed to your spiritual growth? We need to hear from you and learn from your experience at Gordon-Conwell.
I am currently trying to integrate more fully into my theology courses practical applications that relate to spirituality, prayer, meditation, and worship. My current book manuscript, The Ontology of Worship, addresses the connection between worship as the high priority of the church and the spiritual formation of its members.
I would also like to make available to you, if you are interested in these matters, two annotated bibliographies that may help your own study and reading in the areas of spiritual formation and Christian spirituality: “Devotional Classics,” my list of all-time favorites in the history of Christian devotional writings; and “Testing the Spirits,” a resource for spiritual discernment and testing the phenomena of revival movements, based on principles gleaned from the early church, the Great Awakening, and the history of spiritual direction. You can access these bibliographies by clicking on the "Download File" link below.
May God continue to bless you as you seek to grow in Christ.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Doing Your Job
By Sean McDonough, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament
Last month I had the opportunity to speak to a group of relief workers who labor in some of the most forbidding places in the world: Darfur, Afghanistan, the Congo. As a young Christian, I had visions of doing this sort of thing, replete with half-formed, misty-eyed images of myself serving food to the wretched of the earth. But as I have spent time talking with the leaders of this organization, one truth has been hammered home: I am about the last person in the world who would be any good at the sorts of things relief agencies actually do. Warm feelings and an openness to new experiences do not qualify you to locate potable water sources or manage local contractors or ensure that new homes can withstand earthquakes. As much as I might have imagined love was spurring me on to get into this work, in the context of disaster relief, love boils down to…doing your job. And doing your job usually has little to do with sentiment, and everything to do with getting down to using the gifts God has given you.
Now, the timing of my next illustration is embarrassingly bad, given that the New England Patriots were just thrashed by the lowly Miami Dolphins. But over the last few years, the Patriots have been wildly successful while embracing two apparently contradictory principles: on the one hand, a submission of individual goals to team goals; and on the other hand, a remarkable creativity in the overall game plan. Linebacker Mike Vrabel may find his sack totals are down sometimes because the defensive scheme requires him to stay back more in pass coverage…but he then finds himself catching touchdown passes in the Super Bowl when he is inserted into the offense. What makes it work? A brilliant coach, and players who are willing to do their job.
It isn't hard to see the analogies with our service to God: as part of his surpassingly brilliant plan to get his creation project back on track, God has given each of us particular gifts (see especially 1 Corinthians 12-14); we are good at some things, and not at others, and as we bumble our way through life our strengths and weaknesses become pretty evident. But there is something which is sometimes hard for pastors and teachers to see: the need to let other people do their job. It's a natural human tendency to place the highest value on things we happen to be good at, and so we in the teaching profession put great stock in Ideas, which is fine…except that we sometimes make people feel as if ideas are the only things that matter.
I am reminded of one of my favorite scenes in Garrison Keillor's Lake Woebegon Days (Viking, 1985), where the crusty maintenance man Bud is recalling the night in 1965 when the water main froze: “Thirty feet of pipe he uncovered and laid hot coals on, and then it was two in the morning and hardly a soul around. Gone to bed so they could get up for church. Oh yeah. Go to church. Real good. But they hadn't called Father Emil or Pastor Inqvist when the water went out, now did they? No sir.” Bud's a little bitter, and a little too focused on plumbing as the centerpiece of life. But he has a point. I love teaching, and I believe it's an important job. But it's not the only job. Because if your pipes burst at two in the morning, you don't want to call me.
Call Bud.
Associate Professor of New Testament
Last month I had the opportunity to speak to a group of relief workers who labor in some of the most forbidding places in the world: Darfur, Afghanistan, the Congo. As a young Christian, I had visions of doing this sort of thing, replete with half-formed, misty-eyed images of myself serving food to the wretched of the earth. But as I have spent time talking with the leaders of this organization, one truth has been hammered home: I am about the last person in the world who would be any good at the sorts of things relief agencies actually do. Warm feelings and an openness to new experiences do not qualify you to locate potable water sources or manage local contractors or ensure that new homes can withstand earthquakes. As much as I might have imagined love was spurring me on to get into this work, in the context of disaster relief, love boils down to…doing your job. And doing your job usually has little to do with sentiment, and everything to do with getting down to using the gifts God has given you.
Now, the timing of my next illustration is embarrassingly bad, given that the New England Patriots were just thrashed by the lowly Miami Dolphins. But over the last few years, the Patriots have been wildly successful while embracing two apparently contradictory principles: on the one hand, a submission of individual goals to team goals; and on the other hand, a remarkable creativity in the overall game plan. Linebacker Mike Vrabel may find his sack totals are down sometimes because the defensive scheme requires him to stay back more in pass coverage…but he then finds himself catching touchdown passes in the Super Bowl when he is inserted into the offense. What makes it work? A brilliant coach, and players who are willing to do their job.
It isn't hard to see the analogies with our service to God: as part of his surpassingly brilliant plan to get his creation project back on track, God has given each of us particular gifts (see especially 1 Corinthians 12-14); we are good at some things, and not at others, and as we bumble our way through life our strengths and weaknesses become pretty evident. But there is something which is sometimes hard for pastors and teachers to see: the need to let other people do their job. It's a natural human tendency to place the highest value on things we happen to be good at, and so we in the teaching profession put great stock in Ideas, which is fine…except that we sometimes make people feel as if ideas are the only things that matter.
I am reminded of one of my favorite scenes in Garrison Keillor's Lake Woebegon Days (Viking, 1985), where the crusty maintenance man Bud is recalling the night in 1965 when the water main froze: “Thirty feet of pipe he uncovered and laid hot coals on, and then it was two in the morning and hardly a soul around. Gone to bed so they could get up for church. Oh yeah. Go to church. Real good. But they hadn't called Father Emil or Pastor Inqvist when the water went out, now did they? No sir.” Bud's a little bitter, and a little too focused on plumbing as the centerpiece of life. But he has a point. I love teaching, and I believe it's an important job. But it's not the only job. Because if your pipes burst at two in the morning, you don't want to call me.
Call Bud.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Confronting the Bible's Double Life
By Roy Ciampa, PhD
Associate Professor of New Testament
Karen Armstrong’s recent book, The Bible: A Biography (New York: Atlantic Monthly, 2007), provides an interesting discussion of some of the main emphases in biblical interpretation through the centuries. It is very narrow type of biography which, kindly, only occasionally mentions some of the dark sides or moments in interpretation of the Bible. One could write much more about many aspects of the history of the interpretation of the Bible, and much more about the dark side to the Bible’s biography. In Romans 7:12 Paul says “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good” (NIV). The same (and more) may be said about the Bible as a whole. But just as Paul points out that the holy, righteous and good law has been used by sin to produce evil and death, the Bible has continued to be abused by some people throughout church history.
I love the Bible. I have spent a good part of my adult life studying it and teaching others about it. Most semesters I teach a course called Interpreting the New Testament and I confess that it is an incredible privilege to help committed Christian men and women grow in their abilities as interpreters of Scripture. I am constantly reminded of the crucial role of engaging Scripture for the health of churches and believers. But I am also constantly reminded of the horrible damage that can be done and that has been done when Scripture has been wrongly interpreted and used as a weapon to oppress or abuse others.
Throughout history the Bible has been used to justify all kinds of injustice and to empower people with oppressive agendas. At different times and in different places, the Bible has been used to justify slavery, wife abuse, child abuse, the crusades, the inquisition, anti-Semitism, racism, apartheid, the use of violence (including deadly force) against those who were accused of not following its teachings, etc. In Armstrong’s view “A thread of hatred runs through the New Testament” (76). I would dispute that, but there is little dispute that a thread of hatred has appeared here and there throughout the history of its interpretation.
Ideological criticism needs to be added to the toolbox of evangelical pastors and leaders. Even those of us who have difficulty applying ideological criticism to the biblical texts themselves should not hesitate for a moment to apply it to the ways that people (including pastors) interpret the Scriptures. Christians need to be the first and the loudest to speak out against the use of Scripture to oppress and abuse others. Since there is such a history of people who consider themselves Christians supporting abusive and oppressive interpretations of Scripture, it might be a good thing for us to be slightly over-sensitive and to be on the alert for interpretations that empower the powerful rather than holding them accountable for the ways they use their power.
In the Old Testament, one of the differences between true and false prophets was that true prophets confronted the powerful people in society – including the king – while false prophets could be bought off or pressured to preach things that would empower the king to permit or sponsor injustice. Jesus said the two greatest commandments were to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” and to “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-39, quoting Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18). If these are the greatest commandments our teaching and preaching of Scripture should certainly be evaluated in terms of whether or not we are empowering people to abuse and/or oppress others rather than helping them grow in loving God and others. Jesus Christ used his power to liberate and redeem those who were under the power of sin. He sacrificed himself for those who were weak and who were powerless to help themselves.
As practitioners of the ideological criticism of biblical interpretations we need to ask ourselves some difficult questions: Is this biblical text being interpreted in such as way that it would empower some people (or person) to abuse others? Is this text being preached in a distorted way that serves the interests of some people at the expense of others? Is this text being taught or preached in a way that is consistent with Christ’s own loving and self-sacrificing commitment to the good of others, especially the weak and powerless?
Ideology often enters into biblical interpretation apart from any conscious intention on the part of the interpreter. Early on in my missionary career I taught some preaching courses. One of the first classroom sermons I ever heard was one in which a pastor’s son (a fine Christian and a good friend) took a text about the pastor’s sober responsibilities to shepherd a flock with love, wisdom and integrity and turned it into a message about the need for church members to obediently submit themselves to the authority of God’s anointed leader. The student was a fine Christian with a good heart, but his reading of Scripture was evidently being distorted by some of the difficult politics going on in his father’s church. He had taken a text that spoke of the pastor’s responsibilities to God and the flock and had unconsciously turned it into a hammer to beat his father’s flock into submission.
A few months ago I was chatting with a friend who had attended a conference of Bible translators in Kenya. One of the things that he heard while there was about the need for teaching on biblical interpretation to be given along with the preparations of Bible translations so that those translations are not interpreted in abusive ways. For example, he heard about men (pastors, if I recall correctly) with HIV/AIDS who were insisting that their wives submit to them by having unprotected sex with them because they did not want to use any protection. Their wives were supposed to just trust God not to let them become infected as their husbands were!
Of course in this country one may witness people using the Bible to teach warped views of God and of the gospel message through materialistic and egocentric “prosperity gospels” by turning to any number of “Christian” TV stations at virtually any time of day. These teachings lead their followers down destructive paths and pervert the good news into something perverse. Many passages of the Bible warn about those who would twist Scripture to teach dangerous things (e.g., 2 Peter 3:15-16; Acts 20:29-30; Jude 4; 1 Timothy 1:5-7; 2 Timothy 2:16-18; 2 Peter 2:1-2).
We are all grateful for tremendous good has been done out of obedience to the teachings of Scripture. But we must not shrink back from admitting that much harm has also been done and we must never stop speaking out against those who would use the Bible in abusive ways. I’m curious about ways in which you might have observed the Bible being used to the detriment of those exposed to the teaching (without naming names or places...). Do you have any suggestions about how we might all guard more effectively against adding to the dark side of the Bible’s biography?
Associate Professor of New Testament
Karen Armstrong’s recent book, The Bible: A Biography (New York: Atlantic Monthly, 2007), provides an interesting discussion of some of the main emphases in biblical interpretation through the centuries. It is very narrow type of biography which, kindly, only occasionally mentions some of the dark sides or moments in interpretation of the Bible. One could write much more about many aspects of the history of the interpretation of the Bible, and much more about the dark side to the Bible’s biography. In Romans 7:12 Paul says “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good” (NIV). The same (and more) may be said about the Bible as a whole. But just as Paul points out that the holy, righteous and good law has been used by sin to produce evil and death, the Bible has continued to be abused by some people throughout church history.
I love the Bible. I have spent a good part of my adult life studying it and teaching others about it. Most semesters I teach a course called Interpreting the New Testament and I confess that it is an incredible privilege to help committed Christian men and women grow in their abilities as interpreters of Scripture. I am constantly reminded of the crucial role of engaging Scripture for the health of churches and believers. But I am also constantly reminded of the horrible damage that can be done and that has been done when Scripture has been wrongly interpreted and used as a weapon to oppress or abuse others.
Throughout history the Bible has been used to justify all kinds of injustice and to empower people with oppressive agendas. At different times and in different places, the Bible has been used to justify slavery, wife abuse, child abuse, the crusades, the inquisition, anti-Semitism, racism, apartheid, the use of violence (including deadly force) against those who were accused of not following its teachings, etc. In Armstrong’s view “A thread of hatred runs through the New Testament” (76). I would dispute that, but there is little dispute that a thread of hatred has appeared here and there throughout the history of its interpretation.
Ideological criticism needs to be added to the toolbox of evangelical pastors and leaders. Even those of us who have difficulty applying ideological criticism to the biblical texts themselves should not hesitate for a moment to apply it to the ways that people (including pastors) interpret the Scriptures. Christians need to be the first and the loudest to speak out against the use of Scripture to oppress and abuse others. Since there is such a history of people who consider themselves Christians supporting abusive and oppressive interpretations of Scripture, it might be a good thing for us to be slightly over-sensitive and to be on the alert for interpretations that empower the powerful rather than holding them accountable for the ways they use their power.
In the Old Testament, one of the differences between true and false prophets was that true prophets confronted the powerful people in society – including the king – while false prophets could be bought off or pressured to preach things that would empower the king to permit or sponsor injustice. Jesus said the two greatest commandments were to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” and to “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-39, quoting Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18). If these are the greatest commandments our teaching and preaching of Scripture should certainly be evaluated in terms of whether or not we are empowering people to abuse and/or oppress others rather than helping them grow in loving God and others. Jesus Christ used his power to liberate and redeem those who were under the power of sin. He sacrificed himself for those who were weak and who were powerless to help themselves.
As practitioners of the ideological criticism of biblical interpretations we need to ask ourselves some difficult questions: Is this biblical text being interpreted in such as way that it would empower some people (or person) to abuse others? Is this text being preached in a distorted way that serves the interests of some people at the expense of others? Is this text being taught or preached in a way that is consistent with Christ’s own loving and self-sacrificing commitment to the good of others, especially the weak and powerless?
Ideology often enters into biblical interpretation apart from any conscious intention on the part of the interpreter. Early on in my missionary career I taught some preaching courses. One of the first classroom sermons I ever heard was one in which a pastor’s son (a fine Christian and a good friend) took a text about the pastor’s sober responsibilities to shepherd a flock with love, wisdom and integrity and turned it into a message about the need for church members to obediently submit themselves to the authority of God’s anointed leader. The student was a fine Christian with a good heart, but his reading of Scripture was evidently being distorted by some of the difficult politics going on in his father’s church. He had taken a text that spoke of the pastor’s responsibilities to God and the flock and had unconsciously turned it into a hammer to beat his father’s flock into submission.
A few months ago I was chatting with a friend who had attended a conference of Bible translators in Kenya. One of the things that he heard while there was about the need for teaching on biblical interpretation to be given along with the preparations of Bible translations so that those translations are not interpreted in abusive ways. For example, he heard about men (pastors, if I recall correctly) with HIV/AIDS who were insisting that their wives submit to them by having unprotected sex with them because they did not want to use any protection. Their wives were supposed to just trust God not to let them become infected as their husbands were!
Of course in this country one may witness people using the Bible to teach warped views of God and of the gospel message through materialistic and egocentric “prosperity gospels” by turning to any number of “Christian” TV stations at virtually any time of day. These teachings lead their followers down destructive paths and pervert the good news into something perverse. Many passages of the Bible warn about those who would twist Scripture to teach dangerous things (e.g., 2 Peter 3:15-16; Acts 20:29-30; Jude 4; 1 Timothy 1:5-7; 2 Timothy 2:16-18; 2 Peter 2:1-2).
We are all grateful for tremendous good has been done out of obedience to the teachings of Scripture. But we must not shrink back from admitting that much harm has also been done and we must never stop speaking out against those who would use the Bible in abusive ways. I’m curious about ways in which you might have observed the Bible being used to the detriment of those exposed to the teaching (without naming names or places...). Do you have any suggestions about how we might all guard more effectively against adding to the dark side of the Bible’s biography?
Monday, September 15, 2008
Falling In Love
By David Horn, ThD
Director, The Ockenga Institute
This column originally appeared in the Summer 2006 edition of the Ockenga Connections.
Let’s call her Martha Kavinski. She was my first secretary at the first church I served as pastor just out of seminary. When they invented New Englanders, they carved her in New Hampshire granite and pointed to her thereafter as the model for the rest of us. She was tough as nails, she was utterly undiplomatic, and most of all, she did not like me. She met me at the stairways leading up to my office at the church on my first day, and right then and there, I felt like a first grader on the first day of class looking up at raw authority.
It did not take me long to realize that Martha was not the only one not immediately enthralled with my presence. The congregation was peppered with individuals who had been at the church a long, long time, and they wanted to make it clear to me early on that life had gone on reasonably well before I arrived and probably would go on just as well after I departed.
My experience, I am sure, is not unusual to most of you in ministry. Although my first years were not a disaster, they were not easy. Who would have thought that moving the church library to a more public location so that it actually could be used by the children of the congregation would provoke three meetings and an act of the full board of the church?
In hindsight, perhaps the only thing that saved me was what many would consider a grave liability on my part. I entered into the world of this three hundred year old church without a clear set of ambitions for the congregation. Perhaps too naïve for a clear plan, I fell back on something far more basic: Gradually, unconsciously, seemingly against my will, I found that I began to fall in love with this congregation, Martha and all.
In working with students and young pastors these past years at the seminary, I have noticed a growing trend that hints at good news and bad news. Perhaps buoyed by a cottage industry of church resources, pastors are entering their ministries with a growing awareness of the envisioning process required for healthy congregational life. That’s the good news. The bad news is that often time these well-intended visions of what a congregation should become comes with airtight, tone-death agendas.
A look at these agenda-driven processes from the inside looking out bears reflection. As a person who is now facing his mid-fifties, I can more readily fit into the skin of the long-time parishioner who has committed years of labor and well-intended, if often misguided, leadership in a church. The parishioner’s kids may have been born and nurtured in the church; he or she may have helped to develop and taken ownership of a program that at one time clearly met the needs of the congregation; he or she may have spent countless Saturday mornings toiling over the church lawn.
What does that parishioner see and feel when a pastor enters into the life of a church with a satchel full of good ideas on how his or her church needs to change. Change the worship service. Eliminate the hymnal. Get rid of a timeworn program. Re-organize the committee structure of the church. No doubt many of these things might benefit the church greatly and might be essential for new growth, both spiritually and numerically. But, on the face of it, what do these things say to those who, apparently, are in need of change?
I am convinced that churches are less in need of pastors’ well-designed agendas than their love. Falling in love with a congregation is an amazing legacy to give to a church. The measure of that love, like marriage, involves loving churches exactly as they are, with all their imperfections, before seeking more of them.
Martha died at 75 and I count one of the high moments of my ministry at that church the eulogizing of her at her funeral. We became fast friends in Christ. In the end, she saw what I saw in the subsequent six years of our ministry together. That creaky old church grew ten fold. I am convinced it changed and grew in large measure because the congregation genuinely felt loved by its pastoral staff. It is amazing what love can do when love comes without strings attached.
Director, The Ockenga Institute
This column originally appeared in the Summer 2006 edition of the Ockenga Connections.
Let’s call her Martha Kavinski. She was my first secretary at the first church I served as pastor just out of seminary. When they invented New Englanders, they carved her in New Hampshire granite and pointed to her thereafter as the model for the rest of us. She was tough as nails, she was utterly undiplomatic, and most of all, she did not like me. She met me at the stairways leading up to my office at the church on my first day, and right then and there, I felt like a first grader on the first day of class looking up at raw authority.
It did not take me long to realize that Martha was not the only one not immediately enthralled with my presence. The congregation was peppered with individuals who had been at the church a long, long time, and they wanted to make it clear to me early on that life had gone on reasonably well before I arrived and probably would go on just as well after I departed.
My experience, I am sure, is not unusual to most of you in ministry. Although my first years were not a disaster, they were not easy. Who would have thought that moving the church library to a more public location so that it actually could be used by the children of the congregation would provoke three meetings and an act of the full board of the church?
In hindsight, perhaps the only thing that saved me was what many would consider a grave liability on my part. I entered into the world of this three hundred year old church without a clear set of ambitions for the congregation. Perhaps too naïve for a clear plan, I fell back on something far more basic: Gradually, unconsciously, seemingly against my will, I found that I began to fall in love with this congregation, Martha and all.
In working with students and young pastors these past years at the seminary, I have noticed a growing trend that hints at good news and bad news. Perhaps buoyed by a cottage industry of church resources, pastors are entering their ministries with a growing awareness of the envisioning process required for healthy congregational life. That’s the good news. The bad news is that often time these well-intended visions of what a congregation should become comes with airtight, tone-death agendas.
A look at these agenda-driven processes from the inside looking out bears reflection. As a person who is now facing his mid-fifties, I can more readily fit into the skin of the long-time parishioner who has committed years of labor and well-intended, if often misguided, leadership in a church. The parishioner’s kids may have been born and nurtured in the church; he or she may have helped to develop and taken ownership of a program that at one time clearly met the needs of the congregation; he or she may have spent countless Saturday mornings toiling over the church lawn.
What does that parishioner see and feel when a pastor enters into the life of a church with a satchel full of good ideas on how his or her church needs to change. Change the worship service. Eliminate the hymnal. Get rid of a timeworn program. Re-organize the committee structure of the church. No doubt many of these things might benefit the church greatly and might be essential for new growth, both spiritually and numerically. But, on the face of it, what do these things say to those who, apparently, are in need of change?
I am convinced that churches are less in need of pastors’ well-designed agendas than their love. Falling in love with a congregation is an amazing legacy to give to a church. The measure of that love, like marriage, involves loving churches exactly as they are, with all their imperfections, before seeking more of them.
Martha died at 75 and I count one of the high moments of my ministry at that church the eulogizing of her at her funeral. We became fast friends in Christ. In the end, she saw what I saw in the subsequent six years of our ministry together. That creaky old church grew ten fold. I am convinced it changed and grew in large measure because the congregation genuinely felt loved by its pastoral staff. It is amazing what love can do when love comes without strings attached.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)