gone "fish"ing

This summer may be the fullest one yet for us.  Between schoolwork (lots!), summer day camp, swimming lessons (x2), and a major project under the house, there just hasn't been much time to write new posts.  You may have wondered if I was gone fishing ... and in a sense, I was! 

Emma graduated from swimming lessons today and went from being pretty nervous in the water to swimming like a fish!  Yeah, Emma!

This week was vacation Bible school at church.  The theme was 'Backstage with the Bible' and worship was led by the 'Go Fish! Guys'.  The girls loved the music and had a lot of fun.

Another summer project has been getting ready for my grandma's 90th birthday.  We made her a photo book on Snapfish that turned out great.  There's something really cool about retelling the family story.  God has been so faithful through the years!

For school, I just finished a major read, Michael Fishbane's Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel.  The kids cheered me on through all 543 pages of it. :)  It's about the ways biblical authors quote each other.  While intertextuality (the fancy name for it) is one of my all-time favorite topics, this will not make it into my top 10 book list (though I suspect I'll be consulting it for years to come).  I did learn a whole lot, but Fishbane and I do not exactly see eye to eye!  He finds evidence here, there, and everywhere for occasions where a later author supposedly changed the text, and he sees lots of contradictions in the Bible.  Identifying those 'changes' is a rather subjective enterprise, though.  Here's one example:  Prophecy, according to Fishbane, is by definition vague and open-ended.  Therefore, any time there is something specific in a prophecy (such as a name of a person or place), it can be attributed to somebody else, years later, who added it in.  Laws, on the other hand, usually start very specific.  So if you come across a law that is based on a general principle, then it must have been added later.  In one case specificity is evidence of originality, in the other case it proves editorial activity.  Hmmm.... does this sound fishy?

I don't argue with his idea that the Bible was 'edited' or 'compiled' by later authors, but he takes it all much farther than I'm willing to go.  Thankfully, I don't have to fully agree with him to benefit from all his hard work.  I'm ready to head back to the Bible and read more carefully than ever before.

text and canon for 4-year-olds

I've spent nearly a year teaching the young four-year-old Sunday School class at our church.  They are a precious group of kids.  It's such a privilege to help lay a biblical foundation in these little ones.  I love to tell Bible stories in such a way that they are alive and interesting to the kids.  One idea has gone over particularly well.  It wasn't premeditated, I just realized when I saw blank looks that they needed more info!

Whenever I tell the story I have a Bible in front of me, even though I'm telling the story without reading it.  I like to tell them where in the Bible the story comes from.  Here's an example of the kind of thing I've been telling them throughout the year:

"Today I'm going to tell you a true story from the Bible.  It's found in the book of the Bible called John.  Why do you think it's called John? (this is a rhetorical question, by the way, and I don't wait for an answer!)  Because a man named John wrote it!  John was one of Jesus' disciples.  He followed Jesus around and watched what he did.  John listened to what Jesus said.  And it was really amazing stuff!  After Jesus died and rose again and went to heaven John thought to himself, 'People really need to hear about Jesus!'  So God helped him remember all those things that he heard Jesus say and saw Jesus do so that we could read about it and know Jesus, too!"

The kids seem to really get it.  And I hope it's sinking in for the long haul.  Because even more than the specific lesson I have to teach in a given week, I want them to know that the Bible is living and true, and the only reliable way to find out who God is!

when I run...

It's been years since I've seen the movie Chariots of Fire. But one scene sticks with me. Eric Liddell is explaining why he wants to keep running. "God made me fast," he said. "And when I run I feel God's pleasure."

Why study when I could have a less intense hobby? It's simple. When I study, I feel God's pleasure.

What has God made you to do? What do you do that makes him smile?

verbatim

Well, we made it through tree pollen season, had a short respite, and now its time for grass pollen.  I don't think it's affected me at all, but poor little Emma (age 4-3/4) is sneezing her head off.  Here's what she said to me the other day:

"Mom, I am not feeling well today.  My consequence is going to be to have no sugar for a whole week!"

Gotta love this girl!

And later she came to ask me, "Mom, am I unique?"

Yes, I would say so!

do we live in a Christian nation?

On this most patriotic of holidays, it's worth asking the question, "What should the relationship between church and state look like?"  Consider this quote from German scholar, Theo Sorg,

"The New Testament knows nothing of a Christian state, but it knows of Christians who profess their Lord in public life and in their political responsibility, and who make every effort to realize symbolically something of his good rule.  It is not they themselves who create the coming reign of peace; God alone will bring it about.  But they have this goal before them and can therefore seek to bring about peace wherever and however that is possible, in every weakness and fallibility, but nevertheless with the breath of Christian patience."

From Theo Sorg, "Die Bibel zum Thema Frieden," Theologische Beitrage (1982): 264-265. Quoted by Helmut W. Ziefle in Modern Theological German: A Reader and Dictionary (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997), 243.  My translation.

was Paul a hypocrite?

This past Sunday's sermon was a unique one.  Rather than preparing ahead of time, Pastor Talbot was 'on the spot', ready to answer questions from the congregation about the Bible.  The series we're in is called 'Text Message', a series all about the text of Scripture and what it has to say.  Appropriately, we were asked to text our questions to Talbot during the service.

Someone texted this fascinating question:  Why does Paul tell the Judaizers that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised to join the faith, but then he makes Timothy get circumcised?

The story is found in Acts 16:1-3, directly on the heels of the biggest doctrinal showdown in the early church.  Acts 15 records a debate that arose between those who taught that Gentiles must first be circumcised to be saved (the Judaizers) and those who strongly disagreed (including Paul).  All the big wigs gathered in Jerusalem to duke talk it out.  Peter gave a testimony about how God had poured out the Holy Spirit on uncircumcised Gentiles (Acts 15:7-11).  This in itself would have been a strong indication that Gentiles were "in" because the Old Testament never predicts the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Gentiles, only on the restored people of Israel.  Then Paul added his two cents (Acts 15:12).  James followed this with a knockout punch by using Old Testament Scripture to demonstrate that Gentile inclusion was envisioned by the prophets long ago (Acts 15:13-29).  His quotation from Amos 9 is bolstered by allusions to as many as 5 other prophetic passages, each of them contributing to the overall message that Gentiles can be included in the faith community as Gentiles, that is, without converting first to Judaism.* 

Why then, just a few verses later, does Paul require Timothy to undergo this most unpleasant surgery?  Acts 16:1 tells us that Timothy's father was Greek (apparently his Jewish mother had been unable to convince her husband of the value of such painful mutilation).  Timothy had a good reputation among the believers, and Paul wanted to take him along on a missionary journey.  Acts 16:3 tells us why circumcision was part of the orientation process for him: "because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek."  Timothy's circumcision had nothing to do with his standing before God.  It was not part of "being saved." It was for the sake of those to whom they hoped to preach.  Paul didn't want anything to stand in the way of the important message they had to share about the coming of the Messiah, Jesus.  If anyone asked Timothy, "Why should I listen to an uncircumcised scumbag like you?" He could honestly tell them, "Oh, but I am circumcised."  The door would open once again for their message.

Paul was no schizophrenic.  He was an outstanding theologian, and what's more, an apostle sent to bring the good news far and wide.  And his modus operandi was this: "I have become all things to all people, so that by all means I may save some." (1 Cor 9:22) This doesn't mean that Paul led a double life.  He lived by his convictions.  But he was willing to make sacrifices if it meant that the gospel would gain a wider hearing.  And so was Timothy.  Listen to what Paul said about him later to the church in Philippi:

"I hope to send Timothy to you soon, so that I too may be encouraged by hearing news about you. For there is no one here like him who will readily demonstrate his deep concern for you. [no kidding!] Others are busy with their own concerns, not those of Jesus Christ. But you know his qualifications, that like a son working with his father, he served with me in advancing the gospel."  (Phil 2:19-22)

----------

*If you want to dig more deeply into James' sermon, I recommend an absolutely brilliant article by Richard Bauckham.  Fair warning: It's rather scholarly, but so impressed me that I nearly framed it for my bedroom wall! [“James and the Gentiles (Acts 15:13-21).” Pages 154-184 in History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts. Edited by Ben Witherington. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.]

rules or romance?

A lot of you have read and responded to yesterday's post, and I want to add a couple more thoughts.  First of all, a post on "rules" doesn't sound very romantic.  After all, wouldn't it be a better time to talk about passion?  But I'm convinced that having solid boundaries such as these makes it possible to have a passionate marriage.  We both have the settled security of knowing that our spouse is not out there flirting with someone else or griping about us.  So we have total freedom with each other.

And I thought of two more "rules" - one that has been great, and the other that has not been practical.

For years and years now we have shared an email inbox.  Danny set up the computer so that all of our email accounts - work, school, and personal - empty into one inbox on Outlook.  For some professions (pastors, counselors, etc) I suppose that would not be possible because of confidentiality issues.  But it's been great for us.  I see all his emails with co-workers and he sees all of mine with classmates.  It's great accountability to ask myself, "How would Danny feel reading this?"  And it's also nice to have the inside scoop on each other's world.

Another rule hasn't worked out as well.  Someone suggested years ago, perhaps in pre-marital counseling, that if either of us have an acquaintance with a member of the opposite sex we should make a point to know their spouse even better than we know them.  We thought that was a great idea, but there are a few hang-ups.  If I have class for 30 hours in a semester with a professor or a male classmate and I collaborate on a school project, when will I have an opportunity to spend time with their wives?  What about Danny's co-workers who are single females?  There is no spouse to get to know!  And there's no way I will be able to see them as much as he does.  So this one hasn't worked out in practice, but it has been a good ideal to hold out there in our minds.  Whenever possible, I like to meet and get to know my professors' wives.  And I often ask my male classmates about their wives and kids, or talk about Danny.  It's helpful to keep the whole family in view (when possible).  And with single friends of the opposite sex it's important not to become a confidant or relational counselor unless you can do it together as a couple.  It's different, of course, if you are a professional counselor or on pastoral staff, but the same caution holds true.

The Right Rules => The Right Romance (i.e. with your spouse, not someone else!)