reading response

the story of purim

2009-02-22T03:45:00.000-08:00

today i read about the salvation of the jews from their mortal enemy, haman. this plot involved a woman of peerless beauty, wisdom, and courage - queen esther, her cousin, mordecai, and the benevolent king xerxes, who was leader of the entire persian empire at this point. as the story goes, haman wanted to exterminat all the jews within the kingdom. he was about to see his plan carried out too, until esther told the king about it and all of haman's schemes were foiled.

all this occurred sometime in the 6th century BC and ever since then, jews worldwide have celebrated purim in a festival of remembrance and national unity. i think it sounds pretty cool, and although i am not jewish i might like to also somehow celebrate purim this march as a holiday dedicated to god's provision.

one question: it is widely known that esther is the only book of the bible that does not include the word god. i think this is interesting. i know that an instance of omission never proves anything, but i am curious as to the level of dependency placed on or recognition received by god during this extremely difficult-then-joyous experience. i wonder what kind of relationship esther and mordecai had with god.

later.

1 peter - christian behavior in relationships and duress

2008-12-14T05:44:00.001-08:00

(i actually wrote this a long time ago with the intent to edit it and refine it, but it has become clear to me that neither will happen, so i will just post it as is).

today i read 1 peter 3 and it was interesting so i kept on reading through the end of the book (two more chapters). having read those chapters, in particular, chapter 3, i think i have two questions and perhaps one comment.

it is made pretty clear by reading the book, that the recipients of peter's note are undergoing some stressful times. from the text i take that they are enduring some physical and emotional persecution for their beliefs and actions. anyway, given that context, i enjoy the instructions peter has for them regarding their interactions with not only those who are persecuting them, but also their interactions with each other - believers in the same church and families.

he starts off chapter 3 by advising the women of the group to be submissive to their husbands. this instruction is repeated several times throughout the new testament by different authors but what i took away from this particular instance is the difference in the reasoning behind the recommendation. often in the bible, women are told to submit to their husbands as a way of demonstrating order in the family and providing a way of hierarchical decision-making. this reasoning often draws similarities to the body of christ and the church and so on. and same with the men; often in the new testament men are told to respect their wives and to love them. but again, the logic behind this is often related to serve as an example of christ's love for the church, etc., etc. in 1 peter 3, the rationale seems to be for a more asthetic and example-setting reason. women are encouraged to submit to their husbands so that if their husbands are not believers they can be brought to christ through the "others-focused" interest displayed by the wife. i love the descriptions that peter chooses to describe the lifestyle of a woman who is submissive to her husband for the purpose of showing him christ: "purity," "reverence," "inner self," "unfading beauty," "gentle and quiet spirit." i like these descriptions because they go against what we are constantly shown in the world. and i guess this remains in step with what a revolutionary christ was and how non-traditional christianity is. who/what else out there strongly advises people to be pure, reverant, focused on inner self, and possessive of inner beauty and a gentle and quiet spirit?

now my question about the passage on women has to do with the last verse in the section (v. 6). peter closes his admonition (is that the right word?) to the women with, "you are (like sarah, the amazing wife of abraham) if you do what is right and do not give way to fear." i can understand the "do right" part, but i fail to see the connection between all peter's instructions and the "give way to fear" part. what does fear have to do with anything? what are the women fearing and what does that have to do with submission? is there a negative physical consequence to their being submissive to their husbands? i can see submission as an annoyance or too much work or something like that, but i usually don't fear too much work, i just strongly dislike it. i read a bit and it has been speculated that peter was directing this comment to one specific woman that had become a christian and had turned from her previous lifestyle even though her husband had not. having now a fundamentally different way of life than his wife, it is possible that he was persecuting and/or physically abusing her because of their growing differences. in that case, i guess it makes sense that peter was using the ideas of submission and fear in the same sentence.

now for the men. peter encourages men to be considerate to women and treat them with respect as the "weaker partner" and co-heirs of the gracious gift of life. he concludes his advice to them in this way "so that nothing will hinder (their) prayers." i like this because prayers are our way of communicating with god. prayers are the reinforcement and strengthening of a relationship. in other words, peter is asking how can your relationship with god be proper if your relationship with other human beings is not in order?

i have more thoughts on peter's words but i will have to save that for a different post as this one is getting too long.

later.

capital punishment for deceit - ananias and sapphira

2008-06-29T07:47:00.000-07:00

In the first eleven verses of acts 5, i am told the story of ananias and sapphira, who fell dead when it was discovered that they did not turn in all of their money after selling their land. i guess i should clarify that i know it was not because they withheld some money that they died, but because they were deceitful. but still, i have some questions:

1. was there a rule that said one had to give all their money from the sale of property?
2. why was death the consequence?
3. how did the church continue to exist after this instance? verse 11 says that "great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events." would i have been running for the hills?
4. who were ananias and sapphira? what was their background?
5. wasn't capital punishment more a characteristic of the god of the old testament?

i read some online commentary that said the story of ananias and sapphira is analogous to the story of achan after the battle of jericho for two reasons: 1. both situations impeded the progress that god was trying to make with his people, and 2. both dealt in dishonesty that made a mockery of the holy spirit and god's omniscience. i can certainly see both those angles, but don't humans do that daily? (i mean, i don't, but i assume everyone else must :-) where is the consistency? dare i ask for consistency?

acts 5 is really cool and there are so many more things i could comment on aside from ananias and sapphira. what a great collection of statements, characters, and events.

abuch out.

food for thought

2008-05-18T08:21:00.000-07:00

hola blog amigo. i know it's been a long time since i rapped at ya, but for some reason, i just haven't had the capability to write for a long time. i've been reading but no questions or thoughts have come up and i hate the thought of forcing thought. but alas, today i have come up with some stuff. i read three different passages today in preparation for a special church service we have tonight and i came up with some discussion questions for each of the three passages. since these discussion questions have to pass the litmus test of being presentable to a church congregation, i think they are more than suitable for a personal, online blog. they are honest questions and, although they very well may not inspire any discussion or stimulated brain activity - "higher-order thought" those in the world of education might say - at church, they are certainly topics with which i deal and wish to get some legitimate answers to on my own or through the participation of others.

psalm 4:2
"how long, oh men, will you turn my glory into shame?"
1. what is god's glory?
2. god is accusing men of turning his glory into shame by loving delusions and seeking false gods - how are we doing this?
3. what are some specific ways we can fix the problem on our end?

matthew 5:16
". . . let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your father in heaven."
1. what does this mean to you?
- how are the good deeds of a christian any more likely to bring glory to christ than the good deeds of a non-christian? (in other words, christians and non-christians alike do things like ring the salvation army bell and act politely to their neighbor)
2. _agree or disagree:_ we may never know if people praise our "father in heaven" as a result of seeing our good deeds, but that should not stop us from just letting our light shine before men anyway; all we have to worry about is letting our light shine through good deeds.

philipians 2:15
"do everything without complaining or arguing so that you may become blameless and pure, children of god without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe . . ."
1. what does verse this mean to you?
2. certainly, we can pick up the newspaper and find a very clear rationale for labeling this world and our generation "crooked and depraved" but many times the world seems normal to us, such as at work, school, out and about, etc. how can we shine like stars in the universe and live such a contrasting life when our neighbors and coworkers can seem so regular and in pursuit of the same reasonable things we are? (e.g. safety, some property, stability, etc.)
3. _slightly-off-topic-but-suddenly-pertinent-question:_ do you think the devil works to convolute the potential messages in this passages (and the others) or otherwise make it less effective? if so, how? does he play with our emotions, our thought-process, our situations? what do you think about this?

what do miracles say about people?

2008-04-06T06:45:00.000-07:00

John 2:1-11

in these verses, the story is told of jesus turning water into wine. i think it is interesting the way jesus' mom approaches him. it is almost as if she is expecting him to do something or wants him to do something. even though jesus is reluctant to get involved, she even readies the servants by telling them, "do whatever (jesus) tells you" as though she knows something cool could happen at any time. my question is, how does she know this? granted, she has lived with jesus or known him like a mother for the past 30 years, but the bible tells us that jesus had never performed any miraculous signs before this event. a couple of ideas come to mind: perhaps jesus had done some small supernatural things around the house while growing up, or maybe his mom was very aware of his potential given her experience with a virgin birth and knew that he had it in him. or, maybe she hassled him all the time to perform a miracle and this is just the first time it is recorded. i sometimes wonder if mary had been growing impatient waiting for jesus to start living up to his miraculous birth and justifying all the trouble and ridicule she had undertaken in order to participate in his birth. now that i think about it, the three situations that come to mind involving mary and jesus up to this point (the virgin birth, his getting lost in the temple, and this water-into-wine miracle) all seem to place some real stress on mary. maybe this miracle is a real lesson about mary and her position. anyway, this is all speculation, but i suppose it's worth at least a brief chat.

what i really enjoy is the insight of dave/the apostle john (usefulbreath). john concludes the testimony by saying that, in doing this miracle, jesus revealed his glory and his disciples put their faith in him. nobody knew that a miracle had occurred except for jesus, mary, the servants, and jesus' disciples. this was an important step to jesus' ministry. it also serves as a good guideline for following other miracles. when reading and thinking on them, i can ask myself, "what does this miracle reveal to me about jesus' glory?" and "what is this miracle causing me to believe about jesus?" hmmmm, it is tough to find answers to these questions on the spot, so i asked my wife, and now i agree with her. she says that this story emphasizes jesus' love for people. they were participating in a big celebration and the lack of wine meant imminent doom for the party host. in turning water into wine, jesus let the good times roll. very few people knew that a miracle had occurred, but everyone knew they were still having a good time and drinking very good wine.

finally, one slightly off-topic question. the gospel of john records jesus' recruitment of the disciples a bit differently than do the other three gospels. specifically, i suppose i am referring to peter. in john, we are told that andrew meets jesus and then introduces peter to jesus, but in the other three gospels we are told that jesus calls out to peter in the fishing boat and peter drops what he is doing to follow jesus. this variation of meetings confuses me with regard to the timeline of jesus' miracles. if there were disciples present at the wedding where jesus turned water into wine, then it doesn't seem like this could have been his first miracle, because the book of luke tells of situations where jesus performs miracles prior to the calling of his first disciples. what is the straight story here?

later.

How did we not see this coming?

2008-03-02T12:53:00.000-08:00

i started reading daniel 2 today, which I know is an important one for end-times gurus and prophecy buffs, but while i was reading it, i got concerned about a quirk i noticed in nebuchadnezzar's behavior. namely, in one minute he goes from executing his closest advisers because they aren't doing a good job of interpreting his dreams (which i can understand, because, really what dictator doesn't go through worry like that?) to all of a sudden deciding to hear out one last wise man (daniel) and subsequently praising daniel's god and promoting daniel and his friends. when i read this, i suspected that this type of behavior swing might be a little extreme. the king doesn't seem to take moderate action.

so, i read a bit more. i don't know how long it was after nebuchadnezzar had praised god in 2:47, and promoted shadrach, meshach, and abednego, but starting chapter 3, he decides to build an image and throw in a fiery furnace those who would not bow to it. again, to me it sounds like this guy is on the edge of insanity - no, not on the edge, but completely ensconced. why such extreme measures? so he ends up throwing shadrach, meshach, and abednego into the furnace. of course, they don't die and in 3:28, nebuchadnezzar is once again praising their god (the same one he was praising in chapter 2). he then decrees that anyone who says anything against their god will face death. i also read in some jewish literature that nebuchadnezzar then executed the 600,000 jews who were not pious like shadrach, meshach, and abednego and actually did bow down to the statue. what makes people behave this way? he then promotes the three friends again.

in chapter 4, daniel clarifies yet another dream for the king. this one is not good news, and, in fact, it indicates that nebuchadnezzar will indeed go insane if he doesn't change his ways and "be kind to the oppressed." one year later, nebuchadnezzar is out walking on his palace roof when the lord tells him he will be exiled from his kingdom out to the wilderness where he will eat grass cattle and his hair and nails will grow long. for seven years, he lives like this (lycanthropy) before his sanity is restored and he comes back glorifying the god of daniel.

while it is amusing to plot the behavioral antics of a crazed killer, it also seems like nebuchadnezzar forgot things a lot. i was reading "the screwtape letters" recently and among the amazing dialogue in that book is a portion in the very beginning where screwtape tells his nephew to always keep his subjects focused on the "stream of immediate sense experiences," and all the distractions of "real life" such as a passing bus or the shouting paper boy on the corner in order to keep the subject from thinking on further things like reality and truth and answers. something like this must be what keeps nebuchadnezzar so forgetful of the way he praises the lord after a miracle occurs. i imagine that people in power are some of the most susceptible to this "screwtape letters" way of thinking because they have so much going on, but i wonder about the times in my life when i forget how much i was just in love with the lord. when am i too preoccupied with the ordinariness of things to remember my commitment to christ? i don't have power over much, but i'm sure i still exhibit some of the habitual forgetfulness of nebuchadnezzar. i reckon i should probably quit this blog right now and pray.

later.

ezekiel and babylonian exile

2008-02-24T13:09:00.000-08:00

Today, in line with useful breath, i read ezekiel 1. actually, i read the first 5 chapters of ezekiel and i gotta say - i'm not too moved. the section is pretty weird. ezekiel the prophet is called to do a lot of strange things . god has him lying on his left side for 390 days, on his right side for 40 days, laying symbolic siege against the city of jerusalem, baking cakes using the heat of burning excrement, cutting off the hair from his head and dividing it into fractions . . . all sorts of odd, cryptic stuff. ezekiel sounds a crazy homeless guyand i'm sure i'll be surprised if the israelites end up taking him seriously enough to change their ways.

the thing that strikes me in all this, though, is how god has a lot of disdain for the children of israel. he describes them with terms such as "hardened," "obstinate," various forms of the word "rebellious," "stubborn," and "in revolt." god classifies them as a "rebellious house" or "rebellious nation" seven times in the first 3 chapters alone! the part where god's displeasure with israel really seems to hit a high note is in 5:6-17. he says that israel has achieved lower standards than even the evil nations around her. that sounds pretty bad; what could they have done that was so bad that even the pagan neighboring nations were better-behaved? the lord goes on to say that he will bring death to israel through many means: famine, plague, sword, wild beasts, etc. israel has definitely fallen out of favor with god by the time ezekiel comes on the scene.

anyway, like i said, i don't really have much to comment on or question in these 5 chapters of ezekiel. it seems pretty straightforward: israel has sunk to new lows, god is pretty upset, am i stubborn like the israelites, and so on. but reading this and other old testament material raises one question that pertains more generically to the people of that time -- were there ever people who just weren't that spiritual back then? it seems like whether or not people were following yahweh, they were still extremely spiritual or superstitious or religious or whatever you want to call it. today we have a lot of people that just aren't too concerned about things like faith and spirituality. many people today are pretty bland about things spiritual things even to the extent that they who wouldn't even bother to take on the initiative or formality of calling themselves an agnostic or atheist. (even an atheist has staked his claim, right?). reading the old testament, it seems like everybody held some sort of faith in the spiritual realm, but i really wonder if there were people back then who were just like a lot of people out there today: blithely ambivalent about a spiritual element. hmmmmmmm.

later.

You got my back, huh?

2008-02-17T11:54:00.000-08:00

recently, i've been watching episodes of this show "the wire" and there are numerous occasions in it where the cops fall through on their end of a bargain to help out informants, little kids, and other people they pledge to support. the last episode i watched ended with this one kid - an arson victim in a hospital - shouting sarcastically down the hall to the cop, "you got my back, huh? you got my back, right?" (or something to that effect. i reference urbandictionary.com a lot when i watch that show). so, today i read this particular chapter in deuteronomy that features a loosely-drawn tie to the theme and, subsequently, have aptly titled this journal entry with a line from last night's wire. the first chapter of deuteronomy is 46 verses long and it is a historical retelling of the struggles of the israelites to take the lands that god had set aside for them under the direction of moses. this is one of the classic stories where israel is intimidated by their much larger, more numerous enemies and they shy away from battle rather than place their confidence in god.

my favorite portion of the chapter is verses 29-30: "then i said to you, 'do not be terrified; do not be afraid of them. the lord your god, who is going before you, will fight for you . . .'" i think that's really cool to hear coming from god, because it is kind of the opposite of the way he is so often construed to be: a rule-dispensing/kill-joy/stay-put-until-the-light-is-green kind of supernatural being. i have always been glad that my parents taught me not to view god that way and this verse kind of reinforces the image of god that i've been brought up to appreciate. i know that i am not the only one who faces obstacles of an intimidating nature, but my life is the only one i can speak for and, that said, i know that i am often my own worst enemy. the israelites had plenty of legitimate reasons to not go forward and many people will tell you that it is one can always find reasons to not do something. it is comforting to know that god is supportive of me and that when i am following him he will be going before me and that i have nothing to fear.

i've never really taken seriously that custom people have of making new year's resolutions and i've never felt the need to do it myself. maybe it's because i've worked at too many downtown bars and restaurants on new years eve or because i'm absolutely bemused by the longevity of dick clark (click here or here) and the uselessness of ryan seacrest. maybe it's because i've never had any big dreams, or - more subtly - if i've not wanted to fail. but for some reason, lately i've been seeing the idea of setting goals as a real big first step to accomplishing certain things that i might have otherwise found out of range. so, i've made a few small goals that mostly deal in the short-term (1 year or less) and occupy places in a variety of aspects of my life. this encouragement from the lord found in deuteronomy 1 is a cool affirmation to to go for it. i suppose we'll see what happens.

abuch out.

The Situation Room

2008-02-11T13:28:00.000-08:00

Hola amigo blog. I know it's been a long time since i rapped at ya, but the crashing waves have been fast and furious on lake andy (what does that even mean?). Anyway, in my previous post, i mentioned an interest in exploring the story of the children of israel. my interest has not waned, nor have i totally neglected reading the old testament, it's just that to combine the reading i have done with supplemental research of rabbinical and historical commentary has proven to be more time-consuming than i had planned. in short, i have not been reading like i had wanted, either from the old testament or from complementary material that's out there. today, i'm going to try and put something down.

I read II Chronicles 32, the story of Hezekiah's resistance to the Assyrian Empire. It is an interesting story for a number of reasons. first, i have read about the assyrian empire before and they were one of six major empires of the land between the rule of the Egyptians and the rule of the Romans. (Egyptians, assyrians, babylonians, persians, greeks, romans [mnemonic device: Eat At Bob's, Pasadena's Great Restaurant]). They dominated the region at the decline of the egyptians during the years between the 9th and 7th centuries bc. so, to me it is interesting to read about a king of a lowly, little group of people who stood up to a dynasty with power probably equivalent to that of the romans, greeks or egyptians.

second, hezekiah was a very close follower of god. i read that his name means either "strengthened by yaweh" or "he who made a firm alliance between the israelites and yaweh." when the general of the assyrian army (sennacherib) sent the israelites a letter proposing either the surrender of jerusalem or its hostile takeover, while also pointing out that the gods of other peoples had not protected them, hezekiah, for some reason, declined the general's offer and instead consulted the lord. what confidence this must have taken! i particularly enjoy verses 7-8 where hezekiah tells the people of jerusalem, "be strong and courageous. do not be afraid or discouraged because of the king of assyria and the vast army with him, for there is a greater power with us than with him. with him is only the arm of flesh, but with us is the lord our god to help us and to fight our battles."

i wonder if, as a leader, hezekiah was faking it a bit. in other words, leaders of companies, or nations, or households often have to be the ones to be excited about certain policies in order to encourage others (e.g. steve jobs and the macbook air). i imagine that sometimes this takes some fake enthusiasm. despite his proclamation to the children of israel, i'm sure hezekiah must have been plagued with doubts, as we all are, and was fearful for his own survival and for that of his people at the hands of an infinitely greater army. i also wonder how many citizens of jerusalem were outwardly critical of hezekiah's choices once they heard the rationale (see: propaganda) of sennacherib. i wonder how often my skepticism gets in the way of trusting god to guide me through various choices i have to make.

some verses that this passage helps me to recall:
- "seek ye first the kingdom of god and his righteousness and all these things will be added unto you." - matthew 6:33
- "trust in the lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. in all your ways acknowledge him and he will make your paths straight" - proverbs 3:5-6

abuch out.

my jewish odyssey

2007-10-07T11:03:00.000-07:00

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

2007-08-23T09:56:00.000-07:00

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

2007-07-16T08:17:00.000-07:00

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"

2007-07-08T10:40:00.000-07:00

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?

2007-07-08T10:21:00.000-07:00

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:

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?
can god’s chastisement come through the earthly authorities like police and judges?
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?
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).
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

2007-05-20T10:41:00.000-07:00

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)

2007-04-15T09:25:00.000-07:00

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

2007-04-14T14:15:00.001-07:00

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

2007-03-18T08:37:00.000-07:00

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

2007-03-11T09:53:00.000-07:00

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

2007-03-04T12:12:00.000-08:00

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)

2007-03-04T11:44:00.000-08:00

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)

2007-02-25T08:52:00.000-08:00

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

2007-02-25T08:28:00.000-08:00

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.