Monday, January 31, 2011

New Location: Same Blog

Hello Friends,

I wanted to let you know that I have changed blogging platforms and will be posting at a new location.  If you're interested, the new location is:

onetofallinlove.wordpress.com

I find this to be a more accessible (iPhone app) platform and would love for you to continue this journey with me!!

otfil

Saturday, January 22, 2011

I’m Just Sayin’

"He's cute and all, I'm just surprised you actually went out with him… I'm just sayin'."

"Could you stand that band last night? I know they're your friends… I mean… I'm just sayin'."

Somehow, this phrase is making powerful inroads in many contemporary American (at least Midwestern) conversations. This phrase could be terribly old, but I feel that it has increased in usage over the last few years and I hope to understand why. A handful of weeks ago as I was listening to NPR (don't remember which show or host), I heard a brief, yet brilliant exposition about these three words. To play all my cards at once, I, like the host of the radio show, don't enjoy the way these words are usually employed, and here's why. As in the examples above, when we say "I'm just sayin'" it is to take an objective stance on something very subjective. They are generally used when one is being critical; critical of another person's dress, a person's opinion, etc. We can be critical, but as long as we qualify our criticism with "I'm just sayin'" we should not be held responsible. This gives us freedom to express our opinion without ramifications. We could be potentially offensive without having to worry about damaging any relationship. It somehow distances ourselves from the words just spoken, as if they do not belong to us.

That is more, when one employs this phrase they are giving their words an ontological existence apart from themselves. We treat our words as if they did not come from our lips. Some critical phrase just happened to be produced ex nihilo for which we should not be held responsible. I find this problematic because if it is possible to say something yet not be held responsible for it, could this same principle be held for things less critical, even complimentary. "You look really nice tonight! …I'm just sayin'." (Which might happen when one is accidentally vulnerable and attempts to cover that vulnerability.) "I love you, I'm just sayin'." In this case, the "just sayin'" wall we are trying to hide behind actually has potential to harm. That which could have been used for good is now employed for harm.

As I study people like Michael Polanyi (check him out!), I am realizing that the objective and subjective walls are coming down and what is more important in our 'knowing' (epistemology) is the distinction between personal and impersonal. For example, I have a personal relationship with my chair, I 'know' my chair, but my chair does not have a personal relationship with me, it does not 'know' me. All 'knowing' must be personal. (No two impersonal objects have 'knowledge' of one another. Even though my desk and the floor may have a relationship, they do not 'know' one another.) So, I am subjective, the chair is objective. When talking to another person, however, both parties are personal, and therefore subjective. Both parties interact and react in ways that do not happen when one party is objective. While I sit in my chair, my actions manipulate the chair's reactions. When I dialogue with my fiancé, I do not determine her reactions, but am often surprised.

So when we say "I'm just sayin'," we understand that the other party we are in relationship with is personal, yet try to speak as if we are objective members of the relationship, which is impossible as personal beings.

As we move from modernity to post-modernity, perhaps we are not yet ready to throw out the objective dimension (that which modernity held with a death grip) of relationships and 'knowing,' therefore, while acknowledging the other member as personal, we are left with no other option than to make ourselves the objective party. We do so by saying, "I'm just sayin'." Or, perhaps we just find this to be a more polite, and incredibly less imaginative, way of expressing an opinion that has potential to offend; therefore we hide behind these three words. Maybe it is some combination of these… I'm just sayin'.


 

otfil

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

“Jesus the Sinner”

I've been contemplating this post for about a day and a half. Not too long, but long enough to realize I really do want to post it. You may know where I want to take this post, but hopefully not completely.

My brother Ryan gave me a text he was reading for one of his classes at Duke Div school, Transforming Atonement: A Political Theology of the Cross, by Theodore W. Jennings Jr. He gave me this book for my birthday back in April, but didn't have time to really dive into it. I read the intro and first chapter, but that was it. Looking at my class schedule this semester, I realized I'd be discussing atonement so I decided it'd be a good time to pick it up. Now, this post isn't explicitly about Christ's atoning activity, but the text discusses Jesus as a "sinner." (Those are my words) Perhaps this is not the most revolutionary statement about Jesus, indeed I imagine that Jesus' contemporaries would have said it right to his face.

In his third chapter, "Cross and Division," Jennings discusses activity that would have given Jesus (and Paul in a similar vein) the identity of a sinner. Lets be serious now, he hung out with some sketchy folks! Adulteress women, tax collectors, whores, prostitutes, and the list goes on! Who wouldn't think Jesus was a sinner? He didn't obey the Torah, he healed on the Sabbath; he shared meals and stayed the night with the dregs of society. How on earth could one call him 'teacher?' This is not only limited to Jesus, but also his followers, especially Paul. "Paul acts as a traitor to his own ethnic, cultural, and religious privilege in order to be in solidarity with the outsiders, just as Christ, especially the crucified Christ, was in solidarity with the outsider, the despised, the excluded, the profane, and the godforsaken." (Jennings, 73)

Let's get this straight, Jesus (and those would follow after him) is labeled as a "sinner" by his contemporaries for his association with the outsider. We might think that this is ridiculous, but how different are we than Jesus contemporaries? How would we react to someone walking out of a drag bar with a group of people at 3AM? What would we think of someone who dined with an owner of a Check Into Cash or Payday Loans? Do we really think of the "cross of Jesus as entailing the abolition of the distinction between the chosen people and all others?" (72)

This is dirty, and I imagine that if we were to hang out with these members of society we too would be labeled as "sinners." What if the church spent a good portion of our time with the homosexual community? What if we grabbed some coffee with strippers after their shift? I'm not saying that we go hang out with others as some sort of mission trip or witness organization. What if we went just to BE with them, what if we really really enjoyed their company? (It should be noted that of all Jesus' encounters with the dregs of society he only tells the woman caught in adultery about to be stoned to stop sinning. Everyone else he demands no repentance.) How would the "in" crowd respond?

Maybe this isn't the best post I've had, maybe I'm being intentionally "inflammatory," and maybe the title was just to get you to read this… But maybe, just maybe, Jesus' death (not as a Judean, not as a member of the "in" crown, but death as a bandit, death as an outsider, death according to the Roman, not Jewish courts) is literal solidarity with these people. If he asks that, if we choose to follow him, we also carry our cross; carry our cross as a non-member, an outsider, a dreg.


 

otfil

Monday, January 17, 2011

music

I have always been drawn to music. I can remember being in every children's musical at church and playing snoopy as a 4th grader in our schools production of the musical "Snoopy." I don't ever remember not enjoying music, especially singing. I picked up the guitar at 16, but that has always been a supplemental tool, singing has been the main objective. Now, I don't have a degree in music nor am I a writer about music, but it still plays an integral role in my life.

As someone who enjoys singing, when it comes to music, I find myself drawn to the language of the song. Don't get me wrong, I love instrumental music (Rodrigo y Gabriela was one of the best shows I've been to), but there's something about singing, something about the story told within the lyrics that is so moving. As a student of theology and a lover of music, drawn to lyrics, I find the Christian music scene quite interesting… Honestly, I probably wouldn't pay attention to it besides the songs sung on Sunday morning were it not for my role as leader of music for college students as part of my intern pastor role and the few times I lead music at Seminary's chapels. This is beginning of a new semester and students are coming back to school, so we are gearing up our Wednesday night services (which are going to be a lot of fun this semester) and I'm feeling challenged about leading music. (A little rant… I can't stand it when those who lead music in a church are called "Worship Pastors." Does that mean that pastors who don't lead music fail to lead worship? Worship is never limited to (but often may be hindered by) music!)

Here is a section of an email I sent to all of the students who help lead music on Wednesday nights. "Music is an inspiring and emotive tool.  It helps us express things words might not be able to, it can draw emotions deeply hidden, it can often be used to manipulate, and it also has the potential to teach.  This last use is what I've become interested in mostly.  We teach children stories through song, often students will put something they have to memorize to a tune (the 50 states, the alphabet).  If this is true of the way children learn, it is also true of the way we learn about Christ.  The lyrics of songs penetrate our understanding of God and Christ, and I feel challenged to teach GOOD lessons about Christ.  (something not always done in music.....)" This is a challenge I want to take seriously and here's why…

In one of my classes last semester we discussed one of the reasons the Nicene Creed was written. The Apostles Creed had already been written and was recited throughout much of the church, but a problem was realized when one could recite the Apostles Creed and participate in one of many Christian heresies, specifically Docetism, with no disconnect. The Docetists believed that Jesus' body was an illusion, and Jesus was merely the spirit of God. There was no "God-man," only God who looked like a man. (There were others who thought Jesus was a really good guy, but not in essence divine.) These folks could recite the Apostles Creed because there is not mention of Christ being both God and man. The Nicene Creed intends to remedy this.

In thinking about how non-Christians could recite the Apostles creed with no qualms, I started wondering about our "worship" music. How often do we affirm Christ's existence as human and divine? How seriously does our "worship" music reflect the prologue to John's gospel where God became one of us, pitching his tent among us? Or Paul's letter to the church at Philippi where we see that Jesus, being in exact nature God, did not consider equality with God something to possess, but made himself nothing, taking the very form of a slave?

What's further? How often does our "worship" music even say the name of Christ?! Granted, I believe it is ok that not every song we sing reflect the dual nature of God's incarnation (as there are other reasons to sing), but maybe it would be nice to see it every once in a while…

With that inspiration, I wrote this song. The title is "Word Made Flesh" and I'm going to see about recording it in the near future.


 

You're God and man. Beautifully combined
Two natures joined. Humanity Divine.
The eternal died. The tree you chose to climb.
A love we share as we're daily crucified.

The rain falls on sinner and the saint.
Our hearts fall weary and faint
We witness your beautiful campaign
That led you to the cross where you know our every pain

You are God. Wildly true.
You are Love. Love that won't refuse
You are Lord Mercifully just
You are here. Your Kingdom come to us

Pain will not be our last breath
For life, victory over death,
Will reign when You resurrect
As known by the Word made flesh
Your love came as Word made flesh
You are our God in flesh.


 


 

OTFIL

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Sunday School Lesson, 1/16/11

This may be cheating, but I thought I'd share anyway.  In the future I think I'll be posting my Sunday School lessons every Sunday, either right before or after church.  The style is that of a combination of manuscript and transcript.  A manscript, if you will.  Let me know what you think.


1/16/11
Galatians 4:21-5:1 (NRSV)
The Allegory of Hagar and Sarah
21 Tell me, you who desire to be subject to the law, will you not listen to the law? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman. 23One, the child of the slave, was born according to the flesh; the other, the child of the free woman, was born through the promise. 24Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One woman, in fact, is Hagar, from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery. 25Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabiaand corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother. 27For it is written,
‘Rejoice, you childless one, you who bear no children,
   burst into song and shout, you who endure no birth pangs;
for the children of the desolate woman are more numerous
   than the children of the one who is married.’
28Now you, my friends, are children of the promise, like Isaac. 29But just as at that time the child who was born according to the flesh persecuted the child who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. 30But what does the scripture say? ‘Drive out the slave and her child; for the child of the slave will not share the inheritance with the child of the free woman.’ 31So then, friends, we are children, not of the slave but of the free woman. 51For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
Initial thoughts.  Words/phrases that stand out.
Verses 21-23: Tell me, you who desire to be subject to the law, will you not listen to the law? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and the other by a free woman. 23One, the child of the slave, was born according to the flesh; the other, the child of the free woman, was born through the promise. 
-          While Paul may have been defending some argument previously, here he goes on the offensive. These verses are setting up his offense.
-          He tells the Galatians, “OK, you want to follow the law, let’s go ahead and listen to what it says.”
o   The second part of the verse may literally be translated, “Do you not hear the law?”
o   Paul, a former Pharisee, would have incredible authority on matters regarding scripture and the Law and the Galatians would be aware of this.  His authority on these matters would likely have passed that of the Jewish Missionaries.
-          In verse 22 he is reminding them of a story they are probably familiar with (from his own ministry and/or the Jewish Missionaries), that of Abraham and the promise of a child. 
o   The Jewish Missionaries would probably have used this story to illustrate why they needed to become circumcised. 
o   The slave woman was Hagar, the free woman was Sarai (Sarah)
-          For Paul’s offense, he gives his thesis in verse 23. 
o   Ishmael, the child of Hagar, the slave woman, is a child of the flesh
o   Isaac, the child of Sarai, the free woman, is a child of the promise. 
§  Paul has spent a lot of time talking about the significance of the promise so his readers anticipate where he might be going with this, but he puts his own personal spin on the story. 
Verses 24-27: Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One woman, in fact, is Hagar, from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery. 25Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26But the other woman corresponds to the Jerusalem above; she is free, and she is our mother. 27For it is written,
‘Rejoice, you childless one, you who bear no children,
   burst into song and shout, you who endure no birth pangs;
for the children of the desolate woman are more numerous
   than the children of the one who is married.’ 
-          Paul wants to speak figuratively concerning both mothers, both represent two different covenants. 
o   We must not understand these two different covenants as Judaism and Christianity, but two separate understanding Israel’s heritage. 
§  Paul is saying that the Jewish Missionaries interpret the heritage one way, while I am telling you the correct interpretation. 
-          Paul begins by talking about Hagar.  Hagar was herself a slave.
o   Paul’s likening her to Mt. Sinai is a recognition of the giving of the law to Moses, saying that the law (separate from promise) causes slavery.
§  The image of the “present Jerusalem” can reference that Jerusalem was literally enslaved by Roman authorities. 
-          Sarai is not likened to any geography, but bears children according to God’s promise. 
o   The promise was given to Abraham through Sarai way before Mt. Sinai. 
o   The Jerusalem above is a symbol for the Kingdom of God, or heaven. 
o   Paul says that she is ‘our’ mother.  Both his and the Galatians
§  She is the Galatians (gentiles) mother because she was herself a Gentile.  The Jewish identity was formed from her family, but she herself was not a Jew
Verses 28-30: Now you, my friends, are children of the promise, like Isaac. 29But just as at that time the child who was born according to the flesh persecuted the child who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also. 30But what does the scripture say? ‘Drive out the slave and her child; for the child of the slave will not share the inheritance with the child of the free woman.’ 
-          As above, Paul says that the Galatians are like Isaac, who came not from natural descent, but a promise. 
o   The Galatians, gentiles not Jews, receive entrance into God’s kingdom not because of family heritage, but because of God’s promises
-          Ishmael persecuted Isaac for being the child of the promise, and Paul likens that to the Jewish missionaries in Galatia.  They are being persecuted for receiving the Spirit apart from Jewish feasts, festivals, and most importantly, circumcision
-          In verse 30 Paul proof texts the Torah to tell the Galatians they need to get rid of the missionaries in Galatia.  If the missionaries are trying to force Jewish holidays and circumcision upon the Galatians (who have already received the Spirit through promise), they forfeit the grace they once received.
Verses 31-5:1 So then, friends, we are children, not of the slave but of the free woman. 51For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
-          Paul is a bit redundant, but wants to drive home his point.  As those who have received the Spirit through promise, the Galatians should not attempt to return to any law. 
-          He says that the whole point of Christ’s freeing us is freedom, not slavery. 
o   In trying to live according to the Jewish calendar, holidays, and circumcision the Galatians use the freedom they have received from Christ in order to become slaves.  This is ridiculous. 

Scripture: these verses speak to the centrality of Scripture.  Paul could have easily told the Galatians to abandon the Torah and other Israeli texts, but doesn’t insisting that they have relevance for the Gentile community.  This is one of the main reasons this class was set up as it is. 
As a demographic that has more opportunity than ever to understand scripture, do we take advantage of it?  Why/why not?
What could we do differently?
I want to argue that the answer is not simply to read our bibles by ourselves everyday (although that is a good practice), but, as we are, to come together in community and read these words together.  The texts were originally to be read out loud in group settings, so that is the intention of this class. 
(Further, Paul here describes Scripture as a story, as a narrative.  We should never understand God’s written Word as a list of rules and propositions, but as God’s narrative.  It is a story began long ago incorporating peoples from all walks of life.  Were scripture merely rules and propositions, it would have hardly any relevance to a people and culture other than the original, but that Scripture is a story, it involves us.  We too are a part of this story, and God’s involvement with God’s people then relates to the way God involves Godself now.)
Freedom:  Paul wants his readers to understand that through Christ, and a properly understood reading of scripture, we gain freedom.  All shackles are thrown off.  This is not the type of freedom we might imagine as Americans.  It is not inalienable rights, not the freedom to own a gun or property, but “manifests itself through the formation of concrete communities where the old barriers of nation, race, class, and gender are overcome in communion at one table.” (Richard Hays, New Interpreter’s Bible)
Do we believe in this freedom?  If so, how is this freedom manifest?  Autonomy (self-law)? Or through Christ?
Further, how do we live it out, how do we participate in it?  Are there ways we can better live out this freedom?

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

money

I am a server at an incredible barbecue restaurant in Kansas City, Fiorella's JackStack and have been serving here for just over a year now. This is by far the nicest of the six restaurants I've ever worked in. My general manager likes to think he's funny from time to time (and he is). Last week I left one of the other manager's keys near a computer and thought I misplaced them, only to find out that the GM had placed them in a cup filled with bacon grease and orange soda. That one was sick… This morning was not so sick and got me thinking.

I was walking through the dining room and looked at our soda machines and recognized a problem. This is not a new problem, it's been there ever since I've worked here, but I thought I'd bring it up to the manager. He was in the office talking to one of the other servers and I opened the door telling him and the server that I apologized for interrupting, but it was an emergency. I told him, "We need to get rid of Mr. Pibb and get Dr. Pepper!" (I am infatuated with Dr. Pepper, and it's probably best that the restaurant doesn't have Dr. Pepper…) The server and he laughed, and then he told me that there actually is a Dr. Pepper hidden in the restaurant, and that if I found it he would buy my lunch. Not just any lunch… a porterhouse. That's 20 ounces of certified angus beef still on the bone, grilled to medium perfection with JackStack's steak rub with a plethora of side items ranging from steamed broccoli to cheesy potato bake. The game was on!!

He told me that he wouldn't tell me what form the Dr. Pepper was in, but that it was in the dining room. Seeing that our contract is with Coca-Cola and Dr. Pepper is a Pepsi product, we don't carry it at all. I checked all of the stations we do our work in to see if any servers would leave one there, I checked the private dining room thinking that it could be in one of the many locations we keep canned soda. I looked up in the bar area where we keep all of the liquor thinking there might be some we keep for special mixed drinks. Nothing!

I went to ask him a question, and one way or another he told me that the Dr. Pepper had been here since the store opened, and it took him 3 years to find it. That made me think it might not actually be a container of Dr. Pepper (for that would be grody!), but a sign of some sort. The walls are decorated with collages of random material, some farm stuff, some household items… its really weird. I studied a few of the massive collages with no reward, but saw something written across a board on one of the last two collages. It had dark red paint and was nearly all scratched off, but you could still make out that glorious name. "DR. PEPPER!"

He was shocked I succeeded, and begrudgingly gave me the wonderful steak! Certainly I wouldn't finish the whole steak and three sides at once, so I only ate half. The massive T-Bone with steamed broccoli, fries, and hickory pit beans made up both my lunch and dinner and saved me from having to buy another meal at the restaurant or using some of my own groceries which I would then need to replace. Two free meals (made up of ridiculously quality food, mind you) is always greatly appreciated.

So what's the point? I realized, through my suppressed joy at not having to spend my own money, how dependant I am upon mammon. I have school debt to pay off, wedding things to attend to (honeymoon!), rent, everyday life, etc. For better or worse, mostly worse, my life is consumed with making money in order to spend it so that I can 'survive.'

Don't get me wrong, despite my proximity to the national poverty line, I'm terribly privileged. I have a warm apartment in a snowed in city. (Seriously Kansas City, you can't afford one snowplow?) I have a full pantry with more than the essentials. My fridge may not be the prettiest sight, but it isn't empty. Most of the world is far worse off than I. I just hate that so much of our lives is dictated by what we can and cannot afford. How am I supposed to truly participate in God's kingdom when so much of my life is defined by this piece of paper?

It is in these moments I find myself asking for grace. I remind myself that although God's kingdom has been inaugurated, it is not fully here. I find that I must still live IN this world…

Welp, I have to go back to work, and I'm way over 500 words. Thanks for reading. See you soon!

OTFIL

p.s. today is 11111…

Monday, January 10, 2011

one to fall in love

If you haven't noticed, I've decided to start a blog.

Now, I'm not a professional anything, nor am I an expert on any particular topic, but I am a student. I am a second year graduate student who does a lot of reading and a lot of writing. In order to get better at writing, I have decided to do it regularly, as in blogging. I will update this blog very frequently, writing roughly 500 words per post. I toyed with the idea of writing 500 words every day, but I realize that that will realistically not happen. I'll be happy with 3-6 posts per week.

As I am neither a professional nor an expert, topics will be ranging. Most likely, class texts, pleasure readings, and every day life will produce the inspiration. I am also recently engaged, so there may be much discourse on relationship and love (as the title suggests).

To give you a heads up on forthcoming posts, my spring semester starts one week from tomorrow, January 18, with a modular class. This is an intensive class that meets for 4 hours every morning for nearly 2 weeks. I will be taking Integrative Theology II until Friday, January 21. Integrative theology attempts to integrate systematic, historical, practical, and biblical theology. All (should) factor into the development of graduate students (i.e. my) theology. This class will discuss two major topics; atonement (the significance of Jesus' death) and pneumatology (doctrine of the Holy Spirit), two very fuzzy and commonly overlooked/misunderstood (could that be related?) dimensions of Christian theology. I imagine I will spend a good amount of time looking at the atonement as I am 50 pages into a very compelling text, Transforming Atonement: a political theology of the cross by Theodore Jennings Jr.

Some other discussion will circle around the development of post-modernity, specifically looking at epistemology (the doctrine of how we 'know'), as I am really into some 20th century philosophers right now; Michael Polanyi (Personal Knowledge) and Alasdair MacIntyre (After Virtue).

Concerning relationship and love, my fiancée and I got engaged on Christmas day 2010. She is an incredibly beautiful, sweet, and generous woman. Dating (and now being engaged to) her has been so much fun, partly because her family is from Belize. Her parents moved to the US after getting married, and so they still hold to much of their Belizean culture. It's really fun to be with someone who has this mixing of cultures, living among multiple cultures from multiple sources.

Lastly, the title, "one to fall in love." This is a lyric from the song "War in my blood" by Fiction Family (Jon Foreman from Switchfoot and Sean Watkins from Nickelcreek). The full line is "It takes two to go to war, but only one to fall in love." I find incredible truth in this phrase. As I am learning, violence begets violence, war begets war, hate begets hate. Nothing like love can smother hate. While the world goes to war, my desire is to participate in a Peaceable Kingdom so filled with love that it discontinues the violent cycle.

Hope to see you soon!
OTFIL