partsofspeaking

I know these songs are traditional, but they really aren't biblical.  "There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Immanuels' veins."  What an odd, grotesque song, like "I am washed in the blood."  The reference is to Revelation 1:5, but I think closer study would free us from these songs.  Blood stands for violent death.  The blood is not magical. Please. Gullibility.  I don't know if this is true, but my Christian friends seem to be the first to share conspiratorial Facebook posts as long as they make Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton look bad.  Those two don't really need false conspiratorial posts to look bad to a lot of people. Speaking of which, polls have HRC's support at about 40-42%.  Not exactly rousing victory, but her husband didn't have anything near a majority either. I'll add a couple more:  smoke in worship services.  Unresearched sermon illustrations.

Our pastor preached on James 2 today, a direct, no-holds-barred passage.  This post is related to questions my "Life" group had in response to it. How far does love go?  I think the problem comes here because we think the command to love has some promise attached to it, a promise about the response to the loving actions.  I am not aware of any of those.  Scripture doesn't say, "Love your neighbor so that . . . ." some result will come.  It just says "Love your neighbor."  Somewhere in Christian teaching we were given the sense that love for another will get an outcome such as a perfect relationship with them, no more conflict, no more snarkiness and hurt feelings, the other person's conversion, the other person's repentance from sin, the other person's breaking of a bad habit that just happens to make us crazy. The commandment is absolute; no strings attached, so to speak, either before or after.  But love does not mean living someone

I read some starting information about one of the big bestsellers in the Christian publishing world, something with the name "Jesus" and the word "calling" in it. It's something like #57 on Amazon. Sigh. Double sigh. The Church has overcome great persecution, the Middle Ages, the Black Death, and so much more.  I hope we can endure this book. But the whole thing, like T he Shack , is disturbing and concerning. Let me first say that I hope there isn't, and I don't believe there is, any envy of someone's publishing success that I have not achieved.  It's really about something deeper, three things in particular. First, the gullibility of the church today.  Why buy a book based on supposed messages a middle-aged woman got from God?  How is this different from Ellen G. White or Joseph Smith? In addition, there is no understanding of how we got our Bible in the first place, that they were not tablets found in a cave or delivered to the apo

The Beatitudes bear much reflection.   Does verse 1 of chapter 5 say the multitude heard him or just disciples?   That is key.   It’s not necessarily a large crowd.   The first one, verse 2, is a mystery.   Poor in spirit?   In another context, in Luke, it is only “poor.”   What does it mean?   Downtrodden?   Sad?   Those who lack self-will and self-reliance?   Andy why the kingdom of heaven?   What is the connection with mourning and the meek?   Perhaps the whole passage is saying, “God’s values are not those of the kingdoms of this world, which honors and privileges ruthlessness, self-seeking, ambition for power, and false happiness at the risk of ignoring real pain.”   This is starting to make sense.   This is why I cannot be all about my career and power, and leadership must come from a different mindset.   I read the “servant leadership” book but people misunderstand the concept.   The core is not what one does specifically. but the overall goal of being a l

As I’ve said before you learn a lot about a religious faith by what its founder did.   In Jesus’s case it was healing, teaching, feeding, moving among the poor.   He also, which causes the problems for secularists who at least acknowledge that he did good works, take worship and claim to be deity, without any “disclaimers.” Now in the text he is popular but later will make it more difficult when the opposition to him comes from religious leaders.   The powerful are always worried by righteousness and social movements, and they are worried when they cannot control religious movements. The powerful's primary motivation is to retain power. What did Mohammed do?   Conquer by the sword and amass wealth and wives, present the Q'ran but claim it was given him despite his being illiterate.   Buddha?   Denied suffering, sat under a tree; he did give up his inheritance to live poor, the opposite of Mohammed. On that basis alone, I'll stick with Jesus, but there are t

Matthew 4:23-25 summarizes a great deal of activity.   Jesus healed and taught, the two things the church still does pretty well today and the world doesn’t recognize.   One might wonder, why stop there, geographically?   Why not go on further to other lands and to more people.   Perhaps because that’s our job.   Perhaps because the healing was to show compassion and to verify Messiahship.   Perhaps because he was to go to the Jews first.   Perhaps because he would never have died for our sins if he kept healing and traveling and teaching and healing and traveling.   What strikes me is that there is no sense of judgment, no sense of the spectacular. No money changes hands. There is no distinction of classes, poor are healed and rich are healed, and one is not counted more worthy than the other.   If they came, they came in faith, and therefore he healed them.   Returning to this passage, which we overlook in the whole narrative.   What would these diseases be c

--> One has to wonder about Matthew 4:18-22.   Jesus makes claims on these fishermen above their father and their father’s profession, the family livelihood.   In other passages, though, it appears they still were doing this kind of work.   Whether this calling is normative is the question.   Perhaps this was for a season to learn.   Perhaps it was an issue of priority. They did they leave their nets?   Wy was Jesus’ pull stronger than family and a job?   We know Peter was married.   This is not the first time they had seen him or heard of him.   But they went. Perhaps the point is that when we follow Christ our work is transformed into something more externally significant.   I don’t think this can be taken that physical labor is to be denied, since Jesus did physical labor with his fathers and brothers (we have to assume that a healthy Jewish male would be working).   Jesus didn’t just float around on a cloud for the first thirty years.

Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.   This is one of the mysterious, hard-to-figure out concepts in the New Testament.   This phrase was the same as John the Baptist’s (3:2) “Kingdom of God” is used elsewhere in Jesus’ teaching but Matthew uses “Kingdom of heaven.” It has “drawn near” but how near? What is the kingdom of heaven?   The king has drawn near in this context, so is that it?   This simply does not fit our neat theologies.   Two things:   This is the announcement of extreme importance and it calls for repentance.   Why?   Because we are not worthy to enter it without a change of mind and being.   We give such a prominent part of the gospels so little attention.   Ultimately something new has arrived, something requiring a turning of wants to fit into it.   Repentance is not a work, but resting from works and work to please God, and from works of unrighteousness

I got a link in one of my seven email accounts to a survey by Gallup.  I had gotten it before and discarded it, but it came back so I took the survey.  I hope it was legit and not a scam. Along with the typical questions about self-identification and demographics, there was one about practices, something like this:  Do you regularly Shop at Walmart Watch Nascar Go to church every week OK.  I can hit two of these.  So I guess they know all they need to know about me.  But it doesn't ask me if I visit art museums, go to the theatre, study film, or listen to NPR every day.  I have three graduate degrees from state universities.  All those things would put me in a different box than the Walmart/NASCAR/church attender box. No wonder we are in the shape we are.

Sometimes I come across something that just plain resonates and makes me wish I wrote it.  Here it is. http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2016/september/save-your-soul-stop-writing.html?start=1 The title of this blog is meant to be funny, because I have posts on the writing life frequently.  As compelled as I am to write, the world really doesn't need most of what I write.  I hope some of it finds an audience and blesses, edifies, educates, entertains someone, and blogging does allow that.  At the same time, there is a great danger in blogging, in thinking that my words need public attention just because the technology allows it and I'm glib and educated. I especially am uncomfortable with all this self-revelation. To reveal much about myself is to reveal too much about those around me, in my circle, who deserve privacy. I will still continue my reflections on Matthew and occasional reflections and will devote my energy to writing that requires more thought than a fli

A haunting question for Matthew 4:1-10 is whether these temptations are specific to Jesus or do they apply to us, too?   Well, yes and no.   Satan prefaces the first two with the phrase “If you are the Son of God” and hen asks for a magic trick, transforming rocks of loaves of bread and surviving a fall from the high point of the temple.   Jesus’ answer is particular to us, though:   we truly need more than bread and we don’t test God with stupid stunts to see if He will protect us.   Perhaps frustrated, Satan’s third appeal is “I’ll give you all the world’s kingdoms if you will bow down and worship me.   Were they Satan’s to give and would he deliver on his promise?   Of course not, and that is the point.   He is the liar and father of it.   The kingdoms are the world are God’s, no matter how much they appear to be under Satan’s control.   It is that third temptation that applies most to us, false promises, deals Satan tries to make with us without warrant.

  This is a seminal passage in terms of doctrine and practice but does not tell of the only time Jesus was tempted.   There are many instances of temptations of Jesus in the gospel; this one and the Garden of Gethsemane are perhaps the most intense or dramatic from our perspective, but Jesus was tempted in more mundane ways “like as we are” probably every day. As, I believe C.S. Lewis said, he was tempted more than we because he knew sinlessness.   I find this passage raises as many questions as it answers; in fact, I am not sure it answers very many, and that is good.   We are too enamored of easy answers anyway.   I used to believe and teach that Jesus could not have sinned, but I would not be so adamant now. It is at least up for debate, although I can’t get my head around a Jesus who would sin.   He wouldn’t, of course, but could he?   Hebrews seems to disagree with my former position; logically, it would not have been a real temptation if nothing was at stak

--> Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.  The key behind it is that we will be comforted.   We are not blessed because we mourn (although maybe sometimes we are) but because we will be comforted.   The blessing is not inherent in mourning, but in what living with Jesus as king of one’s life provides in mourning. We might, however, be blessed in mourning.   First it means we have someone close enough to mourn over when we lose them. We have enough sensitivity of spirit to do so, a sensitivity I fear is being lost with an increasingly narcissistic generation (and I don’t mean millenials) and the everyday presence of news reports of mass killings somewhere at home and abroad.   For Jesus’ audience, mourning was a common experience because people were likely to die from medical conditions or die younger or even from political reasons.   They also had a stronger sense of community and family and a weaker sense of (if any) individualism and isolation.  

I finished the first on Sunday, and went to see the movie the same afternoon. For me to have read the whole book shows I liked it, because I am not above setting aside novels I am half-way through because I just don't want to spend the time on them anymore.  My time is precious, and reading a novel takes me days. So that is a plus for Geraldine Brooks' book, the first of hers I have read.  On the other hand, it was anachronistic in a lot of ways. By that, the characters of the past were just too modern in their thinking and speech and actions.  There was the obligatory lesbian affair, lots of inconsistencies on religious practice, and some places where I raised my eyebrows.  It wasn't deep, but I couldn't put it down.  Would I recommend it?  I stopped recommending things a long time ago. But I thought the historical details about art, if not pure history, were fascinating. As far as the movie goes, it was slow and contrived.  I got tired of its pace half way through

John the “Baptizer.”   It seems that theologians and scholars abstractize very human and particular experiences that are laden with cultural meanings.   John is truly one.   His message to the religious leaders is woe to those who fashion themselves as anything but pastors.   God expects certain behaviors and attitudes of care for the people from leaders.   A leader is not to put the burden of legalism on people.   These leaders were the worst offenders, according to John the Baptist and Jesus.   To abuse spiritual authority is a grievous sin.   So is using the scripture to make your own points and support your own causes.

Matthew 2:3 verse says “all Jerusalem with him” in regard to Herod’s knowledge of the birth of Messiah.   This leads me to wonder if Jesus’ appearance and ministry were not as obscure as we assume it was.   My notes say there was expectation of a Messiah at that time.   If all Jerusalem was aware that the Magi were reporting the birthd of a Messiah, (a) were they were ok with the infanticide? And (b) why were they troubled instead of glad, unless they were troubled by Jerod’s being troubled. “Divinely warned in a dream” seems to have been a shared dream. Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt, which seems to symbolize a secular but prepared place of refuge when there is persecution or exile at “home.” We are called out of it to go home but it is not a bad place, not always.   It has its value in preserving and protecting, even if it is not home.   The end of Matthew 2 makes it sound as if Nazareth was a new town for Joseph, but Luke 2 says that’s where they were from.

It is interesting how each gospel takes the facts to meld and mold a different story. Matthew 2 starts with the story of a fake king versus the real king.   I’m sure there was some sardonic humor felt by the early Jews who read this and remembered the mistake that was Herod and their antipathy toward him.   These twelve verses were interpreted in various ways pictorially, but we know they weren’t in the barn (v. 11).     Herod’s political duplicity is pretty stark.   This is probably the root of later fairy tales of evil kings trying to find children who would threaten their power.   Politically powerful people then were to be feared.   The incident is based on the prophecy that Bethlehem, house of bread and David’s birthplace, was a sacred birthplace.   Of course, who were the Magi?   Lots have been written, but they were Gentiles, the first to believe.   Herod doesn’t know the prophecies or Jewish teaching; he has to get some advisors to figure it out.   His on

Catholics ignore the Bible about Mary.   It clearly says they consummated their marriage.   Matthew gives Joseph’s side of the story since it’s focusing on kingship through an earthly heirship. The virgin birth was part of Jewish expectation.   Mary and Joseph were obedient and really didn’t get much say in the matter, although I’m sure they had plenty to talk about and complain to God over in their hearts.   It wasn’t going to be easy.   We are so whiny, so entitled, so unwilling to go through any inconvenience, and they went through a huge one.   IT was a form of suffering and shame, but at least the Jewish expectation of a miraculous birth was on their side—although probably from a wealthy family.  

The Bible consistently places amazing and miraculous elements into the ordinary.   But maybe we have it backward.   The ordinary is pretty miraculous and amazing, too.   We might be the ones who separate them into distinct categories when there is no such thing as a strict separation between ordinary and miraculous. There are two “miracles” here—the virgin conception (In Luke we get Mary’s version and she is of course more scared about it) and a revelatory dream.   The human elements:   shame, divorce, bodies, sexuality, poverty, culture, pregnancy, birth, marriage, and consummation.   Is the spiritual the backdrop of the human? No, the human took place because of God’s plans and the spiritual was fulfilled in the human and physical, which are good if the tools God uses.

Matthew 1 We are told there are five women mentioned in the Matthew genealogy of Christ who were all Gentiles.   Only four were; Bathsheba is not mentioned by name, probably because of her sin, and we don’t really know if she was Jewish or Gentile, only that she was married to a Gentile. Bathsheba lost a child, too.   Is it important that there are 3 14-generation phases?   Is this a literary device?   I would think so, as it is too neat   and likely some generations are skipped.

I decided in June to begin to study the New Testament with fresh eyes, without assuming. I have a series of posts that I am going to start updating now.  Matthew 1:1-17 Some scholars say that the rejection by the Jews caused Messiah to go to the Gentiles.   I reject that idea. From Genesis 3 on the promise was of a savior for all people, and in Genesis 12 Abraham was told that all the world would be blessed by his seed.   The Gentiles were included from the beginning; they were not second string, and God didn’t change the plan.   So, even if Jews had accepted Christ at the beginning, even though it was foreknown that they wouldn’t, he still would have had to die.   This is somewhat paradoxical on the surface, but I think because of certain presuppositions we have and erroneous teachings.   I was taught by premillenialists that the center of it all is Matthew 12-14, that the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit there by Jewish religious leaders mean that he no