ASK:What literary genre(s) do you seem to detect?
If you are reading a gospel, this is important: remember how we defined "gospel": "history/biography but with a TTP" What is the targeted theological purpose of the writer and the overall book (For Matthew, you might suggest something like "Jesus is presented as the new Moses" etc. Do you seen any change of gebre/sub-genre: are the sections in the text that are poetry, discourse, satire, apocalyptic.
A letter: How does a biblical letter FLOW. First word?
can genre change midstream in a document, book, paragraph..even sentence..
It may not translate well...you know what EP says, and BB says , about translation...but here goes. She read the first three lines aloud for the class, with all the exaggerated romantic flourish
they deserved:
And the final (punch)line with its subversive non-sequitur shock:
Could it be there is more satire/spoof/subversion in the Bible than we have realized?
Did Jesus mean Matthew 5:30 literally?
Did Paul mean Galatians 5:12 literally?
The Body of Christ (church) is interconnected, interdependent,
not an aggregate, but a collectivity (Kraybill, pp.18-19, UDK, Be familiar with these two terms for the midterm)
>>Matthew 12: 46-50: While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."
------------------
Kraybill, in our "Upside Down Kingdom," book, says,
Be familiar with the two types from H and Y book, page 100
Apodictic-Commands that begin with "do" or "do not" - direct commands telling them what to do to fulfill their covenant w/ God.
Casuistic- case by case (elements are conditional-example of what may be the case or what may happen
CIVIL LAW vs CEREMONIAL LAW
"The Bible presents two laws: one changeless and eternal, the other provisional and temporary" here
See some debate here or here.
Chris Seay:
During a protest for partners of gay city employees, Pastor Artie Bucco looked straight into the Fox news camera and said, "Sodomites should have 'em an island. They got plenty of money-they ought to buy 'em an island and every sodomite ought to there to that island and just stay there. And maybe we can drop 'em a little food if they don't know how to grow their own food." I called him the following week at church to see if his comments were taken out of context or he somehow misspoke. I asked him if this was his actual statement,and Pastor Bucco wanted it to be perfectly clear that the news segment had left something out. In his plan, those sodomites would have to pay for any food we dropped to them ("They don't get no charity").
Then Pastor Bucco of Grace (how ironic) Church informed me that the Bible calls sodomy an abomination,and Asa removed all sodomoites from the community. When asked about the imporatance of living under the Law of the Old Testament, he said "We must live under the whole Law!" After further questioning, Bucco confessed to wearing a shirt made of two different kinds of thread, in his case a blend of cotton and polyester (mostly polyester), which is expressly forbidden in Leviticus 19.1. He also makes a habit of shaking the hands of women without asking if they are currently menstruating(Lev. 15.19-24), a flagrant violation of the law. Furthermore, he partakes of shellfish of all kinds: barbecued shrimp, teriyaki shrimp, coconut shrimp, Creole shrimp, fried shrimp, and even shrimp salad, which the Old Testament onsiders an abomination, requiring that he be stoned to death.
I asked him if we could set an appointment for his stoning. In seeking his own transgressions, Pastor Bucco jested that stoning would soon have to be a regular event in his congregation. This is the beauty of the new story found in Christ. We all ought to be stoned, but we have been shown grace. Could we try offering some grace to others? One of the real tragedies and ugly realities of the church is that we put the hot hand of discipline and anger on the world and not on the unrepentant church leaders who do not love their enemies. It's no wonder that evangelical Christians are hated and despised by so many.
-Chris Seay, p. 131 ":Faith of Our Fathers"
See:
I officiated at a wedding for a wonderful couple. They asked me to be careful mentioning to one of the grandmothers who would be at the rehearsal dinner exactly how the couple had met.
I heard a pin and a few jaws drop.
"...They met online. Isn't that so wonderful!"
She had known all along, and was good with it.
But I still wonder:
So here below are the questions I got circa 1997 on my "Ask Dave" web column....from the bride mentioned above:
1997 was a long time ago. So last millenium. The whole world and church has changed since then (anyone remember pay phones?). Tattoos have become much more mainstream. And I am not sure how my answer would differ today, but here's how I answered then.
On Monday, I asked this question on Facebook:
Be sure to check out the final vote (Lie-18, Temper-12 ....interesting!),comments and answers at tiny.cc/greatersin
Yes, I know the "real" right answer is "neither" or "both".. a "fuzzy set" and a
"Marker Trick," as Rob Bell would have it in the video below:
I also agree that it might depend on context.
But I was curious to see what answers would emerge, and which would win, among the wide spectrum of facebook friends. And I sure got some great, and hugely helpful comments. Thank you.
I also wanted to, after the contest was closed, feature as a follow-up, an excerpt from the book I stole the question from: Duane Elmer's "Cross-cultural conflict: building relationships for effective ministry." But it turns out the excerpt I wanted was not online, at least in a format I could paste in here . It is readable on Google Books, so I would recommend clicking here to read pp. 11-17.
OR if you are really brave, you can watch/listen to me reading that same section here. I was too lazy to type it all up. You'll hear the question addressed from a cross-cultural perspective.
Enjoy!
Elmer's story starts like this:
Does whether or not somethiing is a "bad" sin, or sin at all, ever depend on culrure?
Was anyone ever commended for lying in the Bible?
----
Ephesians 2: 8-10 SAVED by grace/faith...which has nothing to do with works
James 3: 16 JUSTIFIED by works and not by faith alone
Is this a contradiction? Fuzzy set? Drop down box?
---------------------------------
Does Jesus expect us to literally pluck out our eyes to avoid a literal hell?
----------------------
R
can genre change midstream in a document, book, paragraph..even sentence..
A Valentines poem I wrote in high school Spanish class delighted my teacher with it's Poe-like twist:
Toma mi corazon, mi queridaHaz esto, y me causa alegriaToma mi corazon, mi queridaCompleto con sangre y arteria.
It may not translate well...you know what EP says, and BB says , about translation...but here goes. She read the first three lines aloud for the class, with all the exaggerated romantic flourish
they deserved:
Take my heart, my loveDo this, and cause me great joyTake my heart, my love..
And the final (punch)line with its subversive non-sequitur shock:
Complete with blood and artery.
Could it be there is more satire/spoof/subversion in the Bible than we have realized?
Debate:
- "Do you take the Bible literally?"
- "Yes, I do, I take it "literally according to genre".. and sometimes genre calls me to take it metaphorically"--------------
Did Jesus mean Matthew 5:30 literally?
Did Paul mean Galatians 5:12 literally?
The Body of Christ (church) is interconnected, interdependent,
not an aggregate, but a collectivity (Kraybill, pp.18-19, UDK, Be familiar with these two terms for the midterm)
>>Matthew 12: 46-50: While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."
------------------
"The Kingdom of God is a collectivity--a network of persons....more than a series of
individualized email connections linking the King to each subject...[It] infuses the web of relationships, binding King and citizens togeter" -Kraybill (p, 19 emphases mine)
LAW/TORAH
Two types of law:Be familiar with the two types from H and Y book, page 100
Apodictic-Commands that begin with "do" or "do not" - direct commands telling them what to do to fulfill their covenant w/ God.
Casuistic- case by case (elements are conditional-example of what may be the case or what may happen
CIVIL LAW vs CEREMONIAL LAW
"The Bible presents two laws: one changeless and eternal, the other provisional and temporary" here
See some debate here or here.
- Are we to keep the Ten Commandments today?
- How about other OT laws/commandments?
- How do we decide which are for today?
- What does it mean Jesus came to fulfull the law?
- Why does Paul seem to be so harsh on the law?
- Are the two types of law a "fuzzy set"?
During a protest for partners of gay city employees, Pastor Artie Bucco looked straight into the Fox news camera and said, "Sodomites should have 'em an island. They got plenty of money-they ought to buy 'em an island and every sodomite ought to there to that island and just stay there. And maybe we can drop 'em a little food if they don't know how to grow their own food." I called him the following week at church to see if his comments were taken out of context or he somehow misspoke. I asked him if this was his actual statement,and Pastor Bucco wanted it to be perfectly clear that the news segment had left something out. In his plan, those sodomites would have to pay for any food we dropped to them ("They don't get no charity").
Then Pastor Bucco of Grace (how ironic) Church informed me that the Bible calls sodomy an abomination,and Asa removed all sodomoites from the community. When asked about the imporatance of living under the Law of the Old Testament, he said "We must live under the whole Law!" After further questioning, Bucco confessed to wearing a shirt made of two different kinds of thread, in his case a blend of cotton and polyester (mostly polyester), which is expressly forbidden in Leviticus 19.1. He also makes a habit of shaking the hands of women without asking if they are currently menstruating(Lev. 15.19-24), a flagrant violation of the law. Furthermore, he partakes of shellfish of all kinds: barbecued shrimp, teriyaki shrimp, coconut shrimp, Creole shrimp, fried shrimp, and even shrimp salad, which the Old Testament onsiders an abomination, requiring that he be stoned to death.
I asked him if we could set an appointment for his stoning. In seeking his own transgressions, Pastor Bucco jested that stoning would soon have to be a regular event in his congregation. This is the beauty of the new story found in Christ. We all ought to be stoned, but we have been shown grace. Could we try offering some grace to others? One of the real tragedies and ugly realities of the church is that we put the hot hand of discipline and anger on the world and not on the unrepentant church leaders who do not love their enemies. It's no wonder that evangelical Christians are hated and despised by so many.
-Chris Seay, p. 131 ":Faith of Our Fathers"
See:
---------------------------------God Hates Shrimp
Dave Wainscott got a tattoo!
A pin just dropped.
Note to my parents :
No, this is not a picture of me.
It is a photo of another Dave Wainscott's back. Not only does he have a great name, but he is a believer as well.
I officiated at a wedding for a wonderful couple. They asked me to be careful mentioning to one of the grandmothers who would be at the rehearsal dinner exactly how the couple had met.
And please, would I not mention it is the wedding sermon. They were concerned the truth would be too much for her:
the couple had met online.
I found it curious that at the dinner, I found myself seated directly next to the relative in question. So I carefully navigated the conversation with this delightful older woman. I sure didn't want to give her a heart attack by blurting out the secret! But when the couple asked Grandma if she wanted to stand up and say a few words in honor of the couple, she began: "I just love these two young peeople; and isn't it wonderful how they met?"..
I heard a pin and a few jaws drop.
The room was quieter than my parent's living room when they first saw this post's headline on their computer.
"...They met online. Isn't that so wonderful!"
She had known all along, and was good with it.
But I still wonder:
Does she know about the bride's tattoo?(:
So here below are the questions I got circa 1997 on my "Ask Dave" web column....from the bride mentioned above:
Dear Dave:
So what I am wondering is why this one verse is taken as still holding true today, and then the rest of the verses aren't. Also, the devotional writer said that tattoos and body piercing were a form of personal mutilation. I personally disagree because I have a tattoo and a body piercing, and I would not say that I did either as a form of mutilation. What do you think? Have we just forgotten these verses cause we want to secularize God, or have these old testament laws changed, minus the 10 commandments of course. I'd like to know your take on:
1.Why do you think people get tattoos/body piercing?
2.Do you think that it's a form of mutilation?
3.Do you think that God looks down on this...why?
4.If yes to #3, what should people do who have already done this?
5. Do you think it's a generational thing...especially body piercing?
1997 was a long time ago. So last millenium. The whole world and church has changed since then (anyone remember pay phones?). Tattoos have become much more mainstream. And I am not sure how my answer would differ today, but here's how I answered then.
Which is the greater sin?
(Just pick one, and don't add options-- On Thursday, I will post an interesting article about this choice) Feel free to explain your choice in the comments..
Which is the greater sin?
To tell a lie? | ||
To lose your temper? |
Be sure to check out the final vote (Lie-18, Temper-12 ....interesting!),comments and answers at tiny.cc/greatersin
Yes, I know the "real" right answer is "neither" or "both".. a "fuzzy set" and a
"Marker Trick," as Rob Bell would have it in the video below:
I also agree that it might depend on context.
But I was curious to see what answers would emerge, and which would win, among the wide spectrum of facebook friends. And I sure got some great, and hugely helpful comments. Thank you.
I also wanted to, after the contest was closed, feature as a follow-up, an excerpt from the book I stole the question from: Duane Elmer's "Cross-cultural conflict: building relationships for effective ministry." But it turns out the excerpt I wanted was not online, at least in a format I could paste in here . It is readable on Google Books, so I would recommend clicking here to read pp. 11-17.
OR if you are really brave, you can watch/listen to me reading that same section here. I was too lazy to type it all up. You'll hear the question addressed from a cross-cultural perspective.
Enjoy!
Elmer's story starts like this:
It was Sunday morning in the sleepy town of Amanzimtoti in South Africa's picturesque Indian Ocean coast. The heat was very intense. A light ocean breeze offered some relief, but I hardly noticed. I was scheduled to preach at a local church and was aferaid of arriving late. My directions to the church wrere not too clear. I never knew quite what to expect when I visited a church for the first time. Sometimes church services woiuld be held in a garage, sometimes under a flamboyant tree spreading under a high umbrella of shade, sometimes in a town hall, sometimes in a tent attached to a residence. The people of rural South Africa possessed boundless ingenuity for creating worship spaces.
It being Sunday, the stores were all closed. And since the extreme heat was .
...continued on Google Books, click here to read the rest, pp 11-17..or watch below to allow me to read it for you
Does whether or not somethiing is a "bad" sin, or sin at all, ever depend on culrure?
Was anyone ever commended for lying in the Bible?
----
Ephesians 2: 8-10 SAVED by grace/faith...which has nothing to do with works
James 3: 16 JUSTIFIED by works and not by faith alone
Is this a contradiction? Fuzzy set? Drop down box?
---------------------------------
- Who is Jesus addressing in the sermon?
- Who is at risk of hell?
- Who is promised heaven?
Does Jesus expect us to literally pluck out our eyes to avoid a literal hell?
----------------------
R
No comments:
Post a Comment