my jewish odyssey

one of the kids that i tutor comes from a jewish family. recently, as his tutor i have had the privilege of being somewhat involved with the family during the jewish holiday season of rosh hashanah and yom kippur. it has been really interesting to learn more about these holy occasions from the mom and the dad and to ask them questions about the jewish tradition. one of the highlights for me was taking a look at a sukkot constructed by the family. before doing this tutoring gig, i would have never known that a sukkot most closely represents a tent or tabernacle (not the one carried around by the children of israel before the temple), and that it's use dates back to a command to the israelites found in leviticus 23:42. i also discovered that the 12 year old boy that i tutor is required to memorize parts or all (not sure which) of the torah. in order to do this, he needs the ability to understand and speak hebrew! so, in light of all this i figured to myself, "hey, i believe in the old testament. it's part of the holy book i read." if a 12-year old jewish boy can learn it so well and understand the laws and the relationship the israelites had with god (in hebrew, mind you), maybe it's time for me to start investigating the old testament i've been largely avoiding for years. so i will be diving into the torah, or, the first five books of the old testament. my goal is to discover what i can learn about old testament law and why jewish people put so much emphasis on it, and if i would do well to begin placing some more on it myself. i have checked out a few books from the library so i will probably be supplementing my blog posts with those as well as the obvious text from the old testament itself. hopefully this will be cool and my ambition will not get waylaid by the minutia of leviticus and so forth.

abuch out.

First Communion

i have been away for a while. i feel bad. i have not stopped thinking and reading about things, but for some reason i haven't been writing them down on the internet. anyway, lately i have been trying to better understand the instructions behind communion. in certain circles, it might be better known as "the lord's supper," "the breaking of bread," the "eucharist," "divine liturgy," or "mass," among other titles. i have been reading passages in matthew (chpt 26), 1 corinthians (chpts 10-11), and jude (v. 12) all to find answers to a question or two. naturally, i have discovered more questions than answers along the way. i will list them below.

1. what scripture do we have that tells us communion is an identification or association with other believers? i believe 1 cor 10:17-18 might give a possible answer to that: "for we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread. observe israel after the flesh: are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?" are there any other scripture references that are more concrete in this assertion?

2. but if those verses do, in fact, support the notion that we are identifying with other people , should christians place more emphasis on identifying with other believers than they would on remembering christ? in other words, should we withdraw from any particular instance of remembering our savior if we don't have full confidence in someone within the same four walls?

3. what about people remembering the lord outside of our particular church? people across town? people in another denomination? people in a different time zone that may have already taken communion before us?!

4. what is the responsibility of a group of believers (connected at any level: locally-to-world-wide) to make sure that all those who are identifying with the group through the simple practice of communion (again, locally-to-world-wide) are not also partaking of the "table of demons" (1 cor 10:21)?

5. if we should be vigilant against those with whom we should not be associated in communion, where do we draw the line? 1 corinthians 10 mentions idolatry and fellowship with demons -- how do we interpret those things? in some churches i know that billy graham and francis schaeffer would be prohibited from taking communion for some reason(s) i do not know. is this smart or is this just stupid?

6. ultimately, is it enough that i take communion because i am a christian who remembers what jesus has done for me? or do i have to worry about associating with the guy next to me?

i'd like more scripture references that may give credence to any of the views mentioned in here, so if you have any please note them in your comment.

abuch out.

Matthew 9: Fasting, Wineskins, and Garments

Well, today I read Matthew 9. This chapter contains what has got to be my favorite Jesus story. It’s the one where he calls the bluff of the Pharisees who tell him that anyone can just go around forgiving people.

Anyway, I’m not here to talk about that one – although I could. I’m writing because I have some questions about the way jesus approaches a question about fasting. The disciples of john the Baptist come to him at dinner and mention that while they and the super-religious Pharisees fast regularly, they have noticed that jesus and his disciples do not. Jesus responds with three analogies: one about a bridegroom who is still hanging out with his buddies before the wedding, one about new wine in old wineskins, and one about a new patch on old clothing (“no one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment for the patch pulls away from the garment and the tear is made worse”). Immediately after this interaction, jairus, a temple official come to jesus with a pressing need concerning his dead daughter and very quickly the context surrounding fasting seems, to me, to come to an end. What I don’t get is how a few comments about wineskins and garment patches relate to the initial question about fasting. I resisted the urge as best I could to peek at the footnotes and see if they had any wisdom to offer. I generally dislike footnotes in my bible because I don’t trust them and I’ve been in too many bible studies where people just contribute to discussion by reading the footnotes everyone has in their own bible. Also, footnotes are typically very brief and I’d like to entertain the possibility that more explanations are open for debate. I’d much rather take the opinion of a person I know; someone I trust and respect when it comes to biblical matters. Unfortunately, against all my better judgment, I read the footnote and the explanation was quite simple: jesus was alluding to the fact that his kingdom was new and differed greatly to the one understood by john the Baptist and the Pharisees. Ok, easy enough. I consulted my friend, ken, and he corroborated the story so I guess I’m satisfied with the insight provided by the editors, but he also added a bit. Ken placed the passage in the context of an earlier statement jesus makes in chapter 6 where he says, “I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill.” That’s what the wineskins and patches were! The disciples could not attach the ministry of jesus to the old mosaic law because the two were incompatible. Jesus had no intention of wrecking the older system and that could only be done by not trying to fit the his with old. In fact, this whole idea is unveiled very clearly in chapters 5-7 where jesus tells the masses tons of stuff like, “you have heard (this) before, but I tell you (that).” This little dialogue with some john-the-Baptist cronies was just an extension of his earlier sermon on the mount, ultimately reiterating the revolutionary concept behind his whole mission. Jesus was ground-breaking and he was here to bring a whole new way of life.

Personal application? Well, I never knew the old way of doing things. I think I may have fasted two times in my life, once for sure. In fact, I wasn’t even there when jesus was describing his “new” and “revolutionary” way of doing things so I wouldn’t be very good at contrasting the two, but I love realizing how radical jesus was and because of that I think this section of the bible is very important. I don’t need to know about fasting and about the way things used to be to know that jesus’ way still holds appeal in a human culture that gets bogged down in patterns of self-interest and trendiness (at least in my neck of the woods). The fact of the matter is that I am still bombarded with stimuli that tell me to look out for myself and my agenda or to side with someone who will. No matter what the issue, people in my culture are drawing lines in the sand and giving me two options for everything: agree or disagree. And it’s always set up so that I am petitioning to fall into favor with someone. No one ever tells me to turn the other cheek or to love my enemy; that the meek, the merciful, and the pure in heart are blessed ; and certainly no one has ever dared to tell me that I am a sinner, incapable of making it by myself. This is not one of those passages that make me want to go out and tell people about jesus and it’s not illustrating some huge theological or philosophical principle. but it does, however, make me want to get to know jesus and his ideas more and try to approach my friends, my circles, and my culture with the same sort of revolutionary attitude that he had. I like it.

Matthew 7:7-29 "Measuring Up"

The portion about the tree and its fruit is a tough passage for me. I think my first impulse has always been to use it as a measuring stick for judging other christians, but i know that i should probably focus it more on myself than on anyone. i know it's not proper to judge other people, but why does the passage read, "by their fruit you will recognize them"? anyway, i guess that's all i have to comment on. i need to spend more time making sure that i bear good fruit and not worry so much about others. but that response reeks of catholic guilt syndrome; i shouldn't be walking around feeling guilty in my christianity -- i've been made okay by christ! so what's a brother to do? maybe i don't need to worry about rules and lists and measuring sticks for being a decent christian. a friend of mine says that the basis for his whole ministry - in fact, his whole life - is founded upon two principles: "loving the lord, my god with all my heart, soul, and strength" and possessing a christ-centered love for others. those two attitudes of love should be the fruit i try and produce in my life. i think that other incidental decisions will flow as biproducts of my interest in loving god and others. lord, help me to love you and to love others with the love you have given me.

Hebrews 12 -- Chastisement?

HEBREWS 12: CHASTISEMENT, ESAU, AND CONSUMING FIRE

This portion of the New Testament spends the first 11 verses discussing “chastisement.” It speaks of the love associated with being chastised and how punishment doesn’t feel good in the immediate, but is looked back upon with at least mild gratitude.

Several questions arise:

1. how does god chastise us today? Was Katrina a form of divine chastisement? Can an unplanned pregnancy or the loss of a job be god’s way of telling us we are need of more faith in him? When exactly are we chastised by him?
2. can god’s chastisement come through the earthly authorities like police and judges?
3. if we don’t detect any chastisement, does that mean we are not being chastised? If so, does that mean that we are not loved/sons of god?
4. verses 12-17 list several examples of personalities that call for change: those who hold bitterness between friends, those who do not keep peace, the profane (like Esau), and fornicators. So my question is: are there benchmarks to be reached? When have we had enough chastisement to cure any bitterness or profanity we may possess? I suppose this could be my biggest question about the bible, period – when do we reach “good enough”? (secretly, I don’t think there is a good enough, but without a goal to shoot for sometimes I get the impression that god is playing with a stacked deck).
5. I reckon the first 11 verses on chastisement are pretty straightforward, but after that, it seems that author drops the whole subject and moves on to talk about Moses and the things that can be shaken on earth. Maybe it’s just the KJ translation, but I could not make hide nor hair of the last half of chapter 12.

Conclusions?

Casi: Maybe it is that God lets things run their natural course in the way of chastisement. I have noticed that he seems to do this in many other areas (healing, for example), why wouldn’t it be the same for this particular action. Perhaps it is that God simply uses our authorities - the government, our parents - as an extension of his authority instead of raining down fire on us like he did in the days of Sodom and Gomorra. Perhaps God lets us suffer the consequences of our own actions, getting an STD for promiscuity, or going to jail for theft, instead of appearing to us personally to punish us. Maybe Hurricane Katrina happened because of the change in weather patterns, and maybe my uncle lost his job because the company had to downsize and God can use those things for his purposes, but that’s it. And maybe I do lose my job because I lied to my boss and I need to grow up and learn to face the consequences of my actions like a son faces the discipline of his father.

Andy: But if this is the case, how does this address those of us who are not promiscuous thieves? Are not people who make fewer rash decisions still in need of frequent character realignment? Just because I don’t overtly steal from others or break god’s commands when it comes to promiscuity does not mean that I have a righteous character. furthermore, for every individual who does get arrested or afflicted with an std, there are many more who continue with similar behavior consequence-free. No, this theory definitely has holes and I’m still left wondering how and why the lord will chastise me. I reckon I’m missing something crucial.

Casi: However, because the Bible does say that god punishes his sons, maybe bad guys get away with doing bad things because God is more concerned with making sure that his loved ones get punished for their misbehavior. Another important point for consideration is that you or I cannot possibly know all the consequences Joe might be facing for his promiscuity or whatever other sin if he does not show it on the outside: guilt and remorse, conflict in future relationships, destruction of past relationships, emotional baggage, transference of the std (sorry, a little stuck on this one), etc. etc. All I’m saying is that I don’t think God causes cancer to punish you for cheating on your income taxes. He’s a logical God and he made the universe to follow his rules.

Andy: I don’t think god is logical. He’s operating on a whole different plane. His thoughts are not our thoughts. The phrase “god-thing” comes to mind as does, “god works in mysterious ways.” I suspect that god seems logical when our ends appear to align with his but beyond earthly wisdom when we cannot figure out the how or why.

wallowing in the mire of my own self-sufficiency

i like verse 3 in proverbs 20: "it is honorable for a man to stop striving, since any fool can start a quarrel." lately, i've been thinking a lot about defeating meanness in people via love and not by being better at being mean. this verse talks about confronting hatred, but not on hatred's terms.

one verse i don't understand is verse 16: "take the garment of one who is surety for a stranger, and hold it as a pledge when it is for a seductress." what does that mean?

verse 24, i may have a thought on; "a man's steps are of the lord; how then can a man understand his own way?" perhaps this is a comment to help us recognize that we aren't expected to know all the answers or reasoning for why things go the way they go. in fact, maybe we should expect to have even less of an idea of the direction our lives are taking when we have a relationship with God, because our faith in his judgment is all that we should have. proverbs 3:5-6 tells us, "trust in the lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. in all your ways acknowledge him and he will direct your paths." this is quite a powerful statement. my job is a good example of this in my own life -- do i like my job or not? can i even fairly evaluate it since this is my first year at this sort of work? is this what i should expect for the rest of my career? am i really ready to make a career out of this or should i get into something else why i'm still young and low on the payscale? i have no idea about any of this stuff. i think what i need to do is focus on developing my relationship with christ. the bible says that when i acknowledge God, he will direct my paths. i should spend more time seeking christ and less time worrying about my schedule and my future.

Down with Babylon! (Psalm 79 & Revelation 18)

alright, i think at least one of these passages is pretty straightforward: psalm 79 is a plea for mercy from god after the israelites had been taken captive by the babylonians in 586 BC. revelation (written hundreds of years later, around 100 AD) makes references to babylon falling and i imagine this would have to do with persian conquest around 539 BC. so israel gets taken captive by babylon in 586 BC and has to wait 47 years before persia destroys babylon and sets the jews free. somehow, i suspect that the babylon referred to in revelation is a much more metaphorical reference than simply the fall of the babylonian empire that took place 630 years previous.

anyway, there are a lot of references to mercy and judgement in these two portions of the bible. i guess mercy and judgement often go together. who doesn't want mercy when it comes to being judged? the thing is, mercy is colloquially defined as being exempted from something harsh that we deserve, so to ask for mercy is to recognize what we have done wrong, acknowledge a fair judgment, and subsequently ask for that judgment to be reduced or eliminated altogether. so if i believe in the bible, how can i take this? moreover, how can we ask for a just god without recalling that in doing so, we are asking god to administer a fair judgment on us, not just everyone else? a lot of these people in psalms and revelations talk about the judgment of god -- well, it's easy to forget that i am part of the problem. (if only i could be more like g.k. chesterton). so how can this cognitive dissonance of fair judgment and mercy be reconciled? i think the only thing i can do is turn to christ. he's the only one who has willingly taken on the effects of sin but hasn't actually participated in the behavior. i have done stuff that wrongs others; i have been wronged by others. christ is the only one who has been wronged by me but has never wronged anyone else. i think this theology is what makes christ so unique in a world full of religious options. he's the only true form of consistency. in conclusion, i need to recognize the judgment for my sinful behavior before i ask for mercy, and upon discovering that fair judgment includes me, i need to appeal to christ for mercy. i believe this is the real process of repentance and atonement.

Education and the Manipulative Effects of Grading

Today is saturday and my topic is a brief deviation from the bible to other stuff i have been reading most recently. today i cover "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and the worthiness of letter grades in school. i read chapter 16 of this book per the suggestion of one of my history students. she suckered me into it by first asking me what i think of grading and the "institution of education." i gave her a quick, two-fold response: 1. grades should inspire fear/motivation for the student to improve their work, and 2. grades also provide the "system" with a way of evaluating performance; standards, in other words. well, Student then asked me to read chapter 16 in the book and see what i think. below are my thoughts.

phaedrus seems to be the main subject of the text and chpt 16 deals with his frustration with his students, or, more acutely, the academic environment in which his students have been placed. he struggles with the notion that grades create an achievement-based pursuit. this endeavor is artificial, says phaedrus, because it conditions students (people) to "work for the grade rather than for the knowledge the grade was supposed to represent." so he teaches for an entire quarter and completely does away with grades. he hypothesizes that we go through the system trying to keep our head above water, we get spit out into some job we're capable of doing but is kind of stifling and personally unchallenging (e.g. auto mechanic), work like a cog for about 5 years before discovering how much we enjoy the thought of actually creating better engines instead of just working on the same problematic pistons of the current model, and finally return to the educational institution to learn about mechanical engineering. but this time we return because we truly want to learn. we pay good money, we demand much from our teachers, and we get good grades by default, but they don't matter anyway because our learning justifies our attendance. in fact, we are so excited about the subject that we take electrical engineering and physics as well just so we can keep ahead of the competition. so phaedrus tries this concept on his classes for one quarter. as you can imagine, the A students are ticked and the low C through F students are confused as to what's going on and don't really trust the idea or phaedrus. well, that's about the summary of it. for more specifics, you'll just have to read the chapter.

anyway, brilliant. i love it. i think it's a great idea and i don't think it's idealistic. i also don't think it's anything too original. grades have been a controversy for ages. also, statements before that talk about how originality occurs in spite of instruction, not because of it ring familiar. there are, however, a couple of points that need to be clarified though, in my opinion. first, it's important to note that this story takes place in college. grades are a much more malleable item in college because the only entity the student is accountable to is herself. professors do not have to deal with state standards, no-child-left-behind standards, parents, or the myriad other bureaucratic masters to which lower education must succumb. universities certainly have their standards, to be sure, but there is no doubt that high school is a much different story. i rack my brain trying to think of a scenario in which no grades in high school would work out, but any idea keeps getting crushed by the reality that all 14-year olds and most 18-year olds (in fact many 20-year olds) aren't ready to accept the responsibility of earning -- and i mean truly earning -- their education. phaedrus' solution to that question is to "outwait them." that is probably my favorite part of the text, but as an inexperienced high school teacher, i have yet to be convinced that waiting 9 weeks, or 18 weeks, or even a full 36 weeks is long enough for a high school student to flail around without a goal before designing their own and succeeding. perhaps i could find a retired high school teacher who has seen it happen before. i also like it when phaedrus says that the purpose of abolishing grades is to turn the mule into a free man. how great would it be to spend your life doing something you really enjoyed and wanted to continue to learn more about, like the earlier example of the auto-mechanic-turned-mechanical-engineer? that sounds freeing to me. the bottom line (you know a cynical statement always follows the words "bottom line") however, is that as much as it would be great to treat everyone like an adult searching for their purpose in life, high school students by and large are not adults. no offense. if it's any consolation, neither are a lot of 26-year olds.

my second reservation about this theory is that it doesn't fully appreciate the many other things that factor into our lives. to be fair, phaedrus does acknowledge this in a couple of areas: primarily on page 246 and again at the end of the chapter where he admits that his results are not scientific because there are too many uncontrollable variables. more simply put, the facts of life often supersede an interest in pursuing what we really want to pursue academically, intellectually, or vocationally. in other words, we often make decisions that place more value on things like paying rent, providing for our families, deciding to become a parent, taking a vacation, pursuing spiritual matters, developing relationships, and things like that. our abilities, time, and resources are scarce and we can only devote so much of them to all the things that we like. do you think people enjoy working in a stupid job? no, but circumstances require it; and some circumstances even require working at a stupid job through age 65. other things are held to a greater value than finding one's life-work.

my third and final thought about the idea of knowledge-motivation vs. grade-motivation stems from my belief that there are people out there that just want to get by. sometimes working at a factory unloading packages sounds great to me so long as it means it pays my bills and allows me to sit on my couch and read or watch tv when i come home. i honestly believe there are people out there who aren't out to develop a better engine, write a good song, discover the cure for cancer, or resolve the federal deficit. maybe that's called contentment. at this point i would like to insert an Office Space quote, but there are just too many that apply.

well, that's about all i have to say about chapter 16 of "zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance." for a fascinating-but-quick look at alternative education styles, i highly recommend out this article. oddly enough, it's a nice day out and i am planning on doing some maintenance on my own motorcycle. i also have an inclination to go out and buy Office Space. i need to see that again. what a great movie. and the reference on the last page to Reed College makes me want to reread "blue like jazz." ah, donald miller.

abuch out.

2 Peter 2 . . . on being sharp

this passage is about watching out for people who lead others astray spiritually and morally. the biggest lesson i take from this is to be one who's not a sucker. i hate being had. so i guess the burden that this passage places on me is one of dedication to knowing christ and his character. i should read the bible more and be engaged in more discussions to find out what christ is truly like. that way i will have a less difficult time discerning what things are not proper or righteous from a christ-like perspective. man, all the conviction i'm getting from reading the bible is really becoming overbearing! a couple of weeks ago it was giving more generously, last week it's thinking of/caring for people, this week it's more bible reading . . . what am i gonna do with all this responsibility?? i guess i just have to weigh these items to find out what i dislike more: 1. being taken for a sucker, or 2. spending more time in the bible. i guess it perturbs me more when i've been taken. the verdict? i definitely need to be more involved in figuring out the character of christ.

abuch out.

James 5: God vs. Adam Smith -- An Economic Cagematch

there are a few cool/traditional portions brought up in this chapter. Briefly, there is v. 15-16, "the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the lord will raise him up. if he has sinned, he will be forgiven. therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. THE PRAYER OF A RIGHTEOUS MAN IS POWERFUL AND EFFECTIVE. i think this is a good bit of advice to heed. i've been trying to be less timid of seeking out righteous people and have them pray for me. i think it's a good idea.

alright, on to the socialist challenge for the day: v. 1-6. i'm not sure how i interpret these verses. i'm slightly afraid that these verses mildly implicate me in a case of conspicuous consumerism. these are tricky verses because my first impulse is to think about what purchases i make and what specific firms are rumored to oppress people in developing countries. i believe that is an incorrect way of looking at things because i then begin to miss the forest for the trees. instead of thinking about my purchasing power and political agendas and economic policies, i should really be focusing my energy and thought processes on exploited people and ways that i can help them. sort of like how fasting doesn't make someone more spiritual and pious in and of itself, but in the grander scheme it is intended to focus one's attention on god and therefore the biproduct of not eating often (and should) become the main purpose. fasting without remembering god defeats the purpose and making prudent consumer decisions without remembering that people just like me are suffering for my cup of coffee or my bananas and not doing anything to help them likewise defeats the purpose. perhaps i can tie this into my faith/tithing rant from last week and research some good charities that will help to neutralize the devastating effects of worker exploitation. in conclusion, all this makes me fantasize about a discussion between james, marx, and adam smith.

abuch out.

Hebrews 11

This is a famous passage in the bible. it talks about all the faith of the old testament heroes. a lot of times people like to reference the verse about faith being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. i like those words and i think it is a great definition of faith. i like it. my favorite verse in this portion of scripture is verse 13, "All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance." what a depressing, but extremely encouraging comment. any time i'm worried about things working out, i have these people to look back on and glean some perspective from. recently i was involved in a conversation about tithing. i would have to say that i'm not faced with faith-breaking decisions like a 90-year old barren wife or the sacrifice of my son or walking on water or anything like that. i'm not even that worried about things like finding a job or paying bills or staying safe or trusting that it will be beautiful weather for my outdoor wedding or things like that. (i'm not getting married outdoors, by the way [maybe for that reason?!]). maybe i should be, but i'm not. anyway, i was in this conversation about tithing yesterday and it came to me that perhaps tithing is the most tangible way i can practice faith. i really think it is. real faith would be giving money when i can't afford it. real faith would be giving my money before i budget everything else, not afterward. real faith would be accepting of the possibility that i might have to sacrifice something dear to me like a regular meal or filling up my car with gas one time in order to make giving a priority. god promises he will take care of me. those people in the old testament died before the things promised them even came to fruition. i'm no abraham, but i reckon i can have more faith in the area of giving. having faith means that i make decisions on a daily basis confident that god will still take care of me -- that i don't have to worry about myself. i think i can do that and i can start by being more ready to give.

Hebrews 5:13-6:3 (3.4.07)

today i read about taking steps to becoming a mature christian. the author of hebrews uses the analogies of milk vs. solid food to illustrate a scale of maturity. there were a couple of things i found interesting about this brief passage:

1. the author says that immature believers are characterized by their inability to distinguish good from evil, while mature believers have trained themselves to have quite an eye for the two. i think that's interesting . . . mature believers are quite discerning. i agree with that, but it does raise some questions. how discerning am i? how discerning could i be? can i somehow come up with a "discernment goal"? i hate never knowing where i am along the paradigm about anything. i guess i could quantify all this by saying I don't think mature christians can really afford to be lax at all. mature christians are wise and they are also confident in their decisions about right or wrong actions. maybe a mature christians doesn't really say things like, "i guess it's okay" or "i can't see why not" or "why shouldn't i choose this action?" and stuff like that.

2. the second thing that the bible instructs about the transition from immaturity to maturity starts in chapter 6. the author suggests that we should move on from the issues of sin and repentance, faith in god, laying on of hands, baptism, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. i don't know very much about very many of those issues. hebrews calls mature believers to move on from those topics. is the author saying this because we should have those objectives met, like a basic standards test, or is it because those debates and conversations permeate the thoughts of immature believers? are we expected to have those items covered? i reckon that is not the case because the chapter doesn't really go on to say what we should be thinking about after having accomplished those initial tasks. i think that maybe many of the conversations that come up surrounding those talking points generally just end up being pointless, redundant, and unproductive. on the other hand, mature believers are good at discerning right from wrong. maybe mature believers get together at the coffee shop and when these items come up they all just know where in the bible their answer comes from and they all agree with each other or agree to disagree with each other in a matter of minutes before moving on to figuring out the road to peace in the middle east and an end to global warming (which they can also do very succinctly). anyway, i need to be smarter and maybe a good first step for me would be to read up on those biblical issues and then be able to justify my answers with quick references to scripture. and then never talk with anyone about it again, but if i do, i should begin and end the conversation inside of 5 minutes.

Hebrews 4:1-12 (2.25.07)

well, all but 2 of these verses seem to be about something other than the discerning nature of the word of god and god himself. i've heard 4:12 ("For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.") a million times before and i think it is a great verse, but i'm not sure what it has to do with the 11 verses on rest that precede it. that's my question. the verse by itself is great but does its context enhance, diminish, or change its meaning at all?

abuch out.

Titus 1

Wow, Paul has got a lot to say here. He lays out some pretty thorough definitions and qualifications for being a leader/elder. Those are some pretty high standards.

In another section that caught my attention, Paul really goes off on the Cretes. He calls them "always liars," "evil brutes," and "lazy gluttons." He also instructs Titus to rebuke them sharply. I wonder if rebuking them sharply will reign them back in. That seems to imply that the Cretes really do care about the thoughts of Paul and Titus.

One last curious portion to me comes in verse 15 where Paul states that to those who are pure all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted nothing is pure. Personally, i do not find anything that is pure in life. not even nature. should i be defensive about this proclamation of paul's? is it cynical of me? am i corrupted because i can't find purity in the world? if that is the case and if i should indeed be getting defensive, i would like to borrow a thought from george bernard shaw: "the power of acute observation is often called cynicism by those who have not got it." (i know that shaw is no apostle paul and his nobel prize work is no bible, but hey -- at least he was good friends with g.k. chesterton).

abuch out.