“I believe that many who find that 'nothing happens' when they sit down, or kneel down, to a book of devotion, would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their hand.”
C.S. Lewis - Introduction to "On the Incarnation" by St. Athanasius
11.19.08
Posted in Reflections at 4:28 pm by Adam B.
Imagine a world with no reprieve. A world without love, without the light of the church, a world with no hope. From birth children are raised on hatred and all they know is a life of abuse and malice. Those who survive this family torment bare deep and incurable scars on body and soul. As adults they enter the world of enterprise only to find greed, dishonesty and thievery at every turn. Maturity knows nothing of the increase of virtue but only an enlarged capacity to discover more vile and creative forms of deception and injury. The hunger for genuine love is never satisfied while instead they feed upon the poisonous love of self-interest and manipulation.
And nowhere can they find reprieve.
Imagine a world where there is no justice for the weak, no hope for the mistreated. Power is on the side of the oppressor. The strong wield their power like a scourge against any who cannot stand against them. Violence is the final arbiter, the judge who cannot be denied. Violence is the universal language all must speak to survive. Men of renown speak it with destructive eloquence, all who cannot master it are quickly silenced. The tears of the oppressed are ceaseless and bitter, and they have not comforter.
Imagine with me this world without hope; a world where the wise, if they could be found, have fled to the corners of the earth as if to jump off to escape this calamity. Every movement of the hearts of men are fear, lust and the longing for domination. Every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts are evil continually. There is no escape. There is no reprieve.
Imagine with me a world ripe for destruction. Imagine the world of Noah.
Permalink
11.17.08
Posted in Reflections at 4:47 pm by Adam B.
When I first started doing yo-yo shows in high school people would often ask, “Do you get nervous?” I would answer with an honest and definite “No” and I truly believed that was the case. People who have stage fright get antsy at the mere thought of people looking at them. “What if I screw up? What if I forget my lines? What if my breath smells?” When I answered “no” it was because I experienced no such anxiety. I still don’t. And yet…
Kevin and I started doing yo-yo programs in 10th grade. At the time there was no need to be nervous before a program because we were “the studs,” as we liked to call ourselves. In high school I was delightfully surprised by the positive response my peers brought to the yo-yo so I had confidence that our programs would be enjoyed as well. From every indication they were. And yet I consistantly got ill the week of any performance. At the time I didn’t even notice. We only had shows about once a month and whenever it happened I could never place the source of my anxiety, I would just get generally uneasy. I doubt I would have ever seen the correlation if my mother had not pointed it out. As I watched myself over time I saw the truth of her observation. If I had a show coming Wednesday I would have signifigant bowel discomfort Monday and Tuesday.
As I took note of this strange coincidence I tried to locate the source. Was I afraid of messing up? I didn’t think so. After all, I was the best yo-yoer I had ever seen. (I didn’t have this bubble burst for at least two more years). Was I afraid of being in front of people? Considering that I often went out of my way to be in front of people even without yo-in-hand I quickly disregarded the thought. But what could it be?
I recall these feelings now because, well, I still get nervous. After Roland joined the Yomen we streamlined and simplified our program to make it as good as possible with almost no preparation or setup at all. We increased our shows from once a month to a little over once a week. Our shows were no longer a novel experience for me. If there had been any subconscious fear of messing up or forgetting what I was doing this development took that possibility off the table. So why? I have now been doing these programs for almost 15 years. What is there to be anxious about?
I brought this up to my friend and neighbor Tarver during one of our regular “smoke chats”. (If he stays true to form he will never get to this part of the blog, having a rather rigorous personal blog-word-limit, so I can say anything about him I want.) Well this fool decided that it might be because I am a perfectionist. I told him he was wrong because I often deliberately leave small mistakes in things (mistakes no one else will notice) to prove to myself that I am not a perfectionist. His look told me, “you just incriminated yourself.” Upon further reflection I decided that if I had more discipline I would be a true perfectionist. I then decided I needed to be more disciplined. Even still, concerning our topic at hand, the show is already “perfect,” meaning, I am satisfied with its current state and am routinely happy with its results. Is it truly this longing for a better “perfect” that is causing me such grief? My internal jury is still out on this one.
So what is it? In the midst of my aguish I search my heart for a clue, but none is forthcoming. Sometimes, the day of a program, the weight is unbearable. As soon as it is over, as soon as it starts, I am light as a feather. Why? Is this an ungodly worry or a healthy fear before I address people in the name of the Holy One? Are those questions even relevant? Half my life I have had this unanswered question before me. In some ways it is very small thing, but the mystery is profound. It begs the question, how well does any man know himself. Even after a half-life of searching my soul, a mystery remains. How great is the mystery that is man, and how much greater is he who can pierce and divide the thought and intentions of the heart?
Permalink
04.23.07
Posted in Reflections at 8:17 am by Adam B.
This week I translated sections of wisdom literature. The professor gave us a paper with all the uses of the word normally translated “meaningless” or “vanity” in Ecclesiastes. Often the word could be translated “nothing” but it was also used to refer to idols. “Why do you worship those nothings?” Solomon says all things are “nothing” but that word doesn’t give the full sense of his meaning to us. There is a repetition of the word in the first verse and it is in construct so it should be read, “nothing of nothings” or as some translate it “vanity of vanities”. Of all the things that are vain or meaningless in this world what he is writing about is the most vain, the most meaningless, the most nothing. His main point is that nothing lasts forever so ultimately nothing is ever accomplished. “All rivers flow into the sea but it is never full.” How much work does it take to move all that water into the sea and yet it is never finished but will go on forever. So it is with our lives that everything we pour our time and hearts into only feed bellies that get hungry again. Even if we create something wonderful we will soon pass away and eventually all we have labored for will be overturned. It is inevitable, even more, it is built into the system. “The eye is never satisfied with seeing and the ear is never full of hearing.” In the end, no matter what we do, we will gain as much as if we spent our whole lives chasing wind.
Proverbs was more inspiring. Several verses I translated had no verbs, which made it all the more inspiring because it was easier to read. “Wisdom weighty jewels” or “she tree of life to those firm in her”. The reader must supply the linking verb “is”. She is a tree of life, wisdom is more weighty than jewels, etc. Any time a verse is easy to translate it seems more meaningful.
Permalink
03.20.07
Posted in Reflections at 9:05 am by Adam B.
In my Greek class our teacher gives us important and controversial passages to translate. Consequently, we have read several portions about women’s role in church. My teacher believes these passages do not apply to our situation in the US, but could apply to a modern day situation where women are still culturally under the authority of men. He believes that Paul follows culture concerning the role of women to keep the church from offending culture so that the gospel can be heard without offense. He says the church should always keep in step with the cultures views on women (in this regard) and those views should be reflected in the church, whether women are considered equal with men in terms of authority or not.
Personally this view makes me nervous because I find it troubling that Paul would leave something so important to the whim of culture. What I appreciate about this view is that it acknowledges the weaknesses of the other views that try to remain biblical but still reject what Paul teaches for today.
One view on women that I think cannot be sustained is that the role of women described in 1 Timothy 2 is limited to the very specific situation in that church at the time. Some have argued that something weird was happening there that made Paul write what he did. Usually this abnormality is described as a group of women in the church were teaching false doctrine. In response to this Paul says, “I will not allow a woman to teach.” What he really meant, in this view, is, “I would not allow any of these women to teach.” This view cannot be sustained because just before these verses Paul says (in the imperative or command form) “Let women learn in silence”. He cannot mean “these women” because he says the exact same thing in 1 Corinthians. In fact, Paul’s view on women is consistent wherever he brings them up. No matter where they are discussed they are always under the authority of men. This was not a specific instance in Timothy but at least a broader cultural dynamic, and possibly more.
Interestingly enough our professor also grouped Romans 5 in with this reading. This passage compares Adam to Christ. I had a talk with our youth group about this passage once. The question I posed was, “Why did God make one man first and then make woman from the man?” They came up with a host of answers, some typical, some not. “It was so that man would know he needed women.” “It was to show his distinction from the animals.” “Woman was an after-thought.” “It was to show man’s inheirent authority over women.” “It was so the woman wouldn’t give the animals lame names.”
Paul makes the argument in Romans 5 that man was created as one so that sin could be traced to a single person. God did not create male and female in the beginning, he made Adam and all humanity came from him. Consequently he is responsible for the sin and judgment on all mankind. “For through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.” Even though Eve ate first Adam is the one responsible as the fountain head of the entire human race. You can see this in Genesis and you can see it here in Romans 5. It is good that sin came through one man because that opened the door for salvation to come through one man as well. Some have said that it does not make sense that Christ can die for the sin of all since he is only one man. Paul argues that this makes perfect sense because it is the result of one man’s sin that we are in this mess to begin with. In the economy and justice of God He had planned from the start our redemption and so ordered the world that redemption could be made through one man, Jesus Christ.
I am not sure how much we should make of this when we consider the role of women. Paul brings up this point in 1 Timothy 2 when he says, “Adam was made first, then Eve.” In his mind the fact that Adam was made first applies directly to the role of women in the Church. This is rarely discussed today, but I think the discussion should be renewed. If it concerns our salvation perhaps it concerns the way we live as well.
Permalink
03.19.07
Posted in Reflections at 8:24 am by Adam B.
Jonah 2:1 Jonah prayed to the LORD his God from the stomach of the fish.
It’s not exactly a closet, but at least its private.
It seems from this passage that Jonah could not swim. He continually talks of his distress, but this distress is not being swallowed by a fish but that of drowning.
Jonah 2:5-6 Seaweed was wrapped around my head. I went down to the very bottoms of the mountains;
It is in the despair of drowning that he calls out to God. It is interesting that there is no confession. Even still, it is never a good idea to make too much out of the absence of any expected device in a story, although it can make for a great sermon. “What are the three things Jonah, the lazy prophet, didn’t do in the whale? Confess his sin, raise his hands when he prayed, give his tithe. Since we don’t want to be like Jonah we should do these things.” In a certain way Jonah confessed his sin before the sailors in the previous chapter and accepted responsibility for that sin by being cast overboard. A dangerous proposition for a man who apparently couldn’t swim.
My favorite verse is 7
When my life was ebbing away, I called out to the LORD, and my prayer came to your holy temple.
On the brink of suffocation he called out to God. I wonder what kind of hope a man can have when he has sunk like a rock to the bottom of the ocean? Is true faith acting here, or desperation? Is there any difference when one cries out to God for mercy?
In God’s mercy he heard Jonah’s prayer all the way from the temple. Not even Solomon believed that God lived in the temple, but it is normal for an OT believer to address his prayers to God either in the temple or toward the temple (or toward the Holy City when the temple was destroyed). On one hand they believed that God is everywhere and at the same time they saw that he gave special attention to those who prayed in/toward his temple. Considering that God has taken up residence in us (he has tabernacled in us) that gives us special privilege to appeal to God on our own behalf and for others.
The Lord answered Jonah by having him swallowed by a fish. Salvation belongs to our God, but it is not always pretty.
Permalink
03.12.07
Posted in Reflections at 8:29 am by Adam B.
The book of Jonah does not look favorably on its namesake. It seems like everyone in the story is better at listening to God than he, even the pagans manning the ship he is using to sail away from the command of God. Few preachers, I’m sure, have made much of the parallel of Jonah and Jesus sleeping in the bottom of a boat. Jesus does say that the people will receive the sign of Jonah, but I am sure that’s not what he meant.
You have to love the sailors in this story. They know a god has caused the violent storm they are in and they do everything in their power to appease this god. They also do everything humanly speaking to conquer the storm. They lighten the ship and they try to row for shore, but nothing works. You cannot resist the Lord, or as the sailors say, “After all, you, LORD, have done just as you pleased.” This is a major theme in Jonah, the freedom of God and the futility of resistance. When they threw Jonah overboard and the storm subsided they were gripped with a terrible fear (fearing they feared, literally) and they made vows to the Lord. Don’t think these are wimpy modern worship vows either (I will give you everything… until I walk out the door), these people truly feared God for they had seen his destructive power. I am sure they lived up to their vows.
The sailors made me laugh when they spoke to Jonah. They knew when he got on board that he had fled from the presence of the Lord. No big deal. Who cares what conflicts one man has with his own God. However, when the lot falls to Jonah they ask him, “who do you worship?” Jonah tells them that his God is the Lord of the land and the sea. Their response is classic, “What have you done?” Sure, when this was just some normal wimpy personal god it was no big deal, but his god is causing a violent storm that is about to destroy them. He is not just Jonah’s personal god/servant, he is the God of the land and the sea. Idiot! You don’t flee from a sea god on a boat! What was he thinking? In fact, Jonah had no where to go. Even if they had made it to shore they would not have saved their lives. His god was the god of the land as well. Jonah, you fool, did you not know whom you serve?
Is there a lesson here for us?
Permalink
01.25.07
Posted in Reflections at 9:28 am by Adam B.
Both Greek and Hebrew classes have assigned reflective interactions with the text that I translate each week. I may occasionally reflect through the blog, as now.
Thus far Hebrew has been much more difficult than Greek. I am at the point in both languages where I am supposed to be translating, albeit inaccurately, texts from Scripture. I am still heavily tied to Bible Works for help, but that is mostly because we have not learned all the tools that are required for basic reading. This is my first actual translation work in Hebrew and, despite the suffering it has caused me egotistically and emotionally, I think I am really going to love reading in Hebrew.
For one thing the Hebrew scriptures are much more poetic and subtle than the New Testament writers. The only one who comes close to the subtlety and beauty of communication in the New Testament is Jesus himself. I have to admit that sometimes he is so subtle that I don’t get him. Some of the word plays that come through the Hebrew text, however, are already open to me and I can enjoy what the writer of the book was doing. In the beginning of Ruth, for example, the author explains that there was a famine in Bethlehem. We know of Bethlehem as the City of David, or the place where Christ was born, but during this time there was no David and no Christ. Bethlehem is actually two words in Hebrew, “house” and “bread”. If you did not know that Bethlehem was a city the text would read, “there was a famine in the house of bread.” Ironic. Later, God visits the people by giving them food. The text reads, “by giving to them food.” The word “to them” is the same as the word for “bread” with the exception of a vowel sound, and vowel were not written in the original text. It looks like a repetition of the same word, but it is simply a device that adds color to the text and reminds the reader that the house of bread has been replenished by the Lord.
These are not reflections on the text, per se, but my enjoyment of the literature that I am working with. This text is actually about the woman Naomi. The story begins with a man, his wife (Naomi) and their two sons. They are forced out of the land of Judah by a famine and they go to live in Moab. While there the sons take wives, one of whom is Ruth (pronounced Root:). They are there nearly 10 years and the husband and the two sons die. Naomi speaks to her daughter’s in law and tells them to go live with their families and take new husbands. They refuse. Naomi explains that she has nothing to offer them, “are there still sons in my womb for you?”
To understand what she meant by this it is important to not that in that day men were important to women. Women needed men to provide for them, protect them, and to give their life meaning by giving them someone to serve and by impregnating them. Now you may or may not be thankful that our lives are so different from theirs, but my description of that time is not inaccurate. Jobs were not open to women the way they are today so without a man they could not support themselves or their families. A woman’s value was found in bearing and raising children and in seeing their children become successful enough to support them when they were old. At the beginning of this story we find Naomi in a desperate situation. All of her men have died. Her daughter’s in law feel that they should stay with her but she says no. In effect she is saying, “your whole lives are ahead of you. If you stick with me you will be manless for the rest of your lives. Why live a meaningless and purposeless existence with me when you could go and marry someone else and bear children?” That is what she meant by saying, “are there still sons in my womb for you?”
Ruth’s sister agrees with Naomi and they all cry and she leaves. Ruth, on the other hand, refuses to leave. The rest of Ruth will be an account of her godliness and the blessings given to her by the Lord. This point cannot be missed, when Ruth stayed with her mother in law she was giving up any hope of a meaningful life. This was not an obligation on her, but she did it out of love for Naomi. “Where you go, I will go. Your people will be my people, and your God my God.” It may not sound “spiritual” to follow God for the sake of someone else, but that is not the point here. Ruth shows character in every way, and she fulfills the law by honoring her mother and sticking with her. No matter why she became a follower of God she was devoted to him none the less. Such nobility earned her a spot in the canon of God.
When I began to reflect on this passage I realized the terror that must have gripped Naomi when her men died. She said her life was bitter because the hand of the Lord was against her. What else is she supposed to think? All meaning, all purpose had been stripped away from her. If it had not been for Ruth she would have had nothing. It made me think of how fragile life can be. A small thing can change your life forever. She had it all one day, and the next her life, for all practical purposes, was over. She gave up hope.
How easy is it to destroy a life? I was reading a book the other day, A Tale of Two Cities in fact, and I could not understand a sentence on the page. I read it over and over again and I could not grasp any meaning from the text. I continued to read thinking it would become easier, but it didn’t. I got so frustrated I set it down and found something easier to understand, Five Views on the Law and Gospel. After a few pages I comforted myself that I could still read. A few days later I resumed A Tale of Two Cities happily surprised that I could now understand it. What happened? Did I have a concentration lapse? Maybe. It got me thinking about my life. What if I could no longer read. What would become of all the work I have done, of everything I have poured myself into? I would have to pursue different ends, a different career, who knows. That might have been a little of how Naomi felt, except she was not young enough to truly start over.
How much do we need God. Such a small thing can make or break us. Without his hand to guide us where would we be, who would we be? With out his power protecting us how could we avoid disastrous calamity? And yet, how often do we thank God that he has sustained us unscathed one more day? How often do we ask for daily bread truly believing that he is the Provider and without him we could come to ruin in one day?
Lord, bless you for not turning away from us despite our thankless hearts. Thank you for not destroying us despite our pride. Thank you for taking on our weakness and sticking around.
Permalink