My Thesis has Begun

So on Wednesday night I got most of the first chapter of my Thesis completed. It was an amazing feeling to get 10 solid pages out, and work out the formatting of all that geeky stuff that goes into a Old Testament Masters thesis: Abbreviations Page, Table of Contents, Bibliography. It really gave me a good feelinging - like I will be able to actually write a 50-80 page paper by April 1st.

Well, incase you are wondering, my thesis is on the 31st chapter of Job:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=job%2031&version=47

So I am comparing the ethical issues that Job speaks about in this chapter with the way other Old Testament writers talk about ethics, and then looking at the Gospel of Matthew and what Jesus says about ethics there. 40 to 70 pages left.

Vacation

So Lauren and I are going on our first real vacation since our honey moon - one that lasts more than 2 nights.

Here is the view from our Pelapa:


There are some more pictures here:
http://www.palapainyelapa.com/pages/lbds.html

Any ways - it is a remote village near Puerta Vallarta - only accessible by boat. We are leaving right after my thesis is due. I can't wait. 7 nights in a tropical paradise. Ahhh is all I can say.

Scripture and Tradition

So what is the difference between scripture and tradition?

I am asking it, because it has come up in my own mind in my "Comparative Confessions" class.

The Bible wasn't the Bible until 324 AD, at the earliest. That is when the
canon was decided on by the early church fathers. Books were in, and books were out.

This group of books was unchanged until the 15th Century - when Luther said
that the Apocrypha was not part of the Bible. Calvin, and other reformers
accepted this move. So Calvin, and Luther demoted/threw out a few books of the Bible, after they had been part of the canon for almost 1200 years. How come they get to do that?

This article on Wikipedia on the Apocrypha is very interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha
It talks about how Origen believed that Song of Songs should be tossed out of the canon.

My main question is, isn't it tradition (inspired by the Holy Spirit) that created the canon as we had it in 324? How can we throw out 14 books and fragments of books that have been part of our cannon for 1150 years and say that we are "Sola Scriptura"?

Seems that scripture came out of (Holy Spirit lead) tradition. We say that the early church fathers lead us, but we don't even read the same Bible. Any move to change the current scripture would be thrown out by fundamentalists who have in their hands the truncated Bible. Some might say that the "dubious origin" of the Apocryphal books justifies the removal, but many modern scholars would point to the dubious origin of many of Paul's letters (1&2 Timothy, Titus, etc.)

At the end of the day, I don't understand why people can throw out a good portion of the Bible and still say that they live by scripture alone - without tradion.

Not much Theology

I know I have been doing a lot of video posts lately, and haven't babbled on and on about theology. Don't know if any one misses that, but I have been conversing with a friend of a bit more SBC persuasion about a video on the web of my church, Solomon's Porch. If you are thirsting for something a little more heavy and insightful, take a look:

http://caneday.blogspot.com/2007/02/solomons-porch-video.html

The video is right there on his sight, it was done by Allen Keating-Moore, a member of the community - and it looks like he talked to a bunch of people in our congregation about why they are part of our "holistic, missional, Christian community", and not a more traditional church.

Mr Deity

This is funny stuff. Found it on Doug's Blog, and I finally watched it.

They have their own website also:
http://www.mrdeity.com/

Here are some of my favorite episodes:







Hope you get a laugh out of it...

Mr/Ms. Garrison Explains Evolution

You know, I have had some trouble understanding evolution before this, but South Park makes it pretty understandable how the theory of evolution works:

Four Star Soup Kitchen

I saw this really fun article in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/dining/20soup.html?ex=1167282000&en=932f514269d373d0&ei=5070&emc=eta1

It made me think about a few things. I don't know if any of you have read some of Mother Theresa's thoughts on caring for the poor, but this really made me think about it. She stresses that giving people your left overs isn't what we (as Christians) are called to do.

We are called to give them what we would have. If we have two coats, we are to give one away. We are not called to give them the one we don't want any more. Just like the way so many soup kitchens serve peanut butter and jelly. Don't get me wrong, I love PB&J, but most of the people running the soup kitchen aren't going to eat that for dinner. This creates a little problem - how far do we go with this? Mother Theresa never gave up her bed - she had a _very_ modest room with a bed and a desk - but for the most part, she lived the same as those she served.

What does it tell some one when we give them our left overs and rejects? This soup kitchen may use left overs - but there is nothing wrong with being frugal. It seems like there is something wrong when we are expecting others to live in a way that we would never.

I know I am saying something very radical, but I am only saying it because Jesus did... so don't get mad at me.

One last thought, that I got when I was listening to a program on poverty on my favorite radio program: Speaking of Faith. A man on the program who lives with and serves AIDs patients in D.C. talked about the difference between charity and justice. Charity is giving people thing on our terms - you can sleep here if you show up by 8pm and don't do drugs. Justice is the quest to change the social structures that keep some people up and others down - it would require us giving up our priveledge. There is nothing wrong with charity, but as it says in Isaiah 42: "I have called you for justice."

My Niece - Maggie

So I know I don't brag about my niece so often - but I got this picture of her in her Holloween Costume (I know it is a little late) and it is painfully cute - so I thought it might put a smile on a few more faces. She can't really stand on her own, that is why her Mom is holding her up:

More Lutheran Ethics Discussions

This one was definitely not as painful as the last one - it was good. We talked about what a youth minister should do if he caught Harold (senior pastor) with a woman in the church library who was not his wife. The exact phrasing was: "locked in a clearly sexual embrace with a divorced and unmarried parishioner" I struggled a lot with what restoration could/should look like for a church leader who screws up like this...

I was writing my final thoughts and thought they sounded pretty darn good - so I should show them off publicly.

[Classmate], you say something interesting: "Are people turning away from Christianity because they see blatant hypocrisy in their ministers? If we got rid of the immoral ministers and kept the upright (although still sinners) who walked their talk, would our churches grow and would faith deepen?"
I believe strongly that a church having convictions and holding to them - popular or not - shows an integrity that is attractive. I am not sure how I feel about celibate clergy, but the Roman Catholic unapologetic stance on what they feel is a matter of faith/obedience is inspiring. But what I see as a problem is the conflict in your statement - "upright (although still sinners)" is that all will fall short to varying degrees. Now we have to create a scale: so if we find out the pastor lusted after the cute girl in the third row during his sermon - should we relieve him of his position because Jesus said that looking/thinking is as bad as doing. It is a slippery slope for sure. Where does a sin require a public confession and public restoration/penance? Where is a sin something we only need to confess to our brother and move on? Where does pornography fit in on this scale of sexual sin?

I would say that the hypocrisy that people see in Christian ministry comes more from a Christian's inability to admit and address their own sins and failings than from the fact that they have them. Ted Haggard preaching against homosexuality is disgusting in light of the truth - Ted Haggard sharing his struggle with lust for sex outside of marriage is a testament to boasting about weakness and allowing God to work through our struggles and sufferings. In Christ all things are possible, if we only worry about our public face and our higher moral ground, then we will be put low over and over again.

Ted Haggard again

Another New York Times article about the removal of Ted Haggard, and how his board decided to remove him. At the end of the article there are interesting comments on whether the oversight board was a success or not.


New York Times Article


I would lean towards his accountability board not quite effective - if they only get involved as everything is melting down, they there wasn't something in place for accountability in the actual day to day. If Haggard wouldn't have been pushing an anti-gay marriage ban, his accuser may never have come forward, and he may have kept living this lie for many years.

So much pain is caused by our sin - our desires to satisfy our own carnal desires. Then the shame piles on top of us, on top of our sin, and we bury it and bury it. How can our churches work to interrupt this process? How can we make honesty a healing process?