"Wallace"

In my Greek class our text book is an advanced Greek grammar written by a man by the name of Wallace. Thus, we affectionately refer to the book siply as "Wallace," because, Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics doesn't roll quite so smoothly off the tongue.
Anyway, Wallace concludes his chapter dealing with the several uses of the Nominative Case (I'm not going to explain it to you), with this final entry:

V. Nominative ad Nauseum

Also known as the aporetic nominative (from the Greek aporew, "I am at a loss"), this is the category one should appeal to when another slot cannot be found. The title is descriptive not of the nominative but of the feeling one has in the pit of his/her stomach for having spent so much time on this case and coming up with nothing.

I must admit, I wasn't sure that Wallace was capable of telling a joke. Isn't that a rule? Authors of Greek Grammars have to be dull and unhumorous. Well, it makes me respect the book a little more, and makes me a little more excited to read it. Maybe there's a couple other jokes in there!

TV on DVD

I think this will be the death of me. The first time I tried TV on DVD it was with 24. I watched the first two seasons within about two weeks - that's a whole lot of TV on DVD. Then I got bored with 24, and I switched to Lost, which I absolutely fell in love with. I've been renting them all (I'm on a special deal with Hollywod Video where I get to rent lots of movies for $15/month). So tonight I have the last DVD of season 2 of Lost, and honestly I'm pretty depressed about it. I don't get TV in my apartment so any and all TV watching I do is via DVD. So I'm sad because I know that after these last four episodes, it's gonna be like a year before I get to see season three.
I'm also watching Prison Break right now on DVD, which is not as good as Lost, but still enjoyable. I feel kind of guilty when I think of how much of my life I seem so willing to give to watching these DVD's, when I should probably be doing something more important...

Does this make me a heretic?

A couple of weeks ago in my Principles of Biblical Interpretation class (a.k.a. Hermeneutics), we discussed the history of biblical interpretive methodology - sounds fascinating, huh? Well, it actually was, kind of. We discussed the ways in which the church has done well throughout history in its interpretive methods, and the ways it has done poorly. One of the very poor interpretive methods that survived for nearly a millennium (through the period which we call "The Dark Ages"), was the use of "tradition" as an authoritative tool for biblical interpretation. In fact, this is still an established interpretive method in the Catholic Church. To quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia

"The Tridentine Confession of Faith and the Vatican Council (Sess. III, Const. de fide cath., cap. ii) enjoin in a positive form that in 'matters of faith and morals belonging to the building-up of Christian doctrine', the Scriptures be explained according to the teaching of the Church and the unanimous consent of the Fathers."

Now by no means do I believe that we should ignore the established teachings of the church, or the way in which the church fathers interpreted the scriptures, considering that they were much closer to the times and culture of the apostles. However, these considerations are just that - considerations. The early fathers gave us some great commentaries on the writings of scripture, but they often differed in their interpretations, they themselves admitted their own inferiority to the "pillar apostles," and from one who has read some of the writings of the early fathers, I have personally noticed that they simply do not have the same ring of authority or inspiration as the writings of the biblical canon.
Well, that was my introduction. The point I wanted to make was this:
It's easy to point the finger at the Catholic Church (especially because I'm not Catholic), but the reality is that we do the same thing. Several months ago I found my way to a Christian forum where someone asked the question: "How do we know what the right interpretation of scripture is? How can we determine it?" This is an excellent question, I think. With all the different denominations, and all the theological disputes going around, with all the varied and diverse interpretations of scripture, how can we be certain which interpretations are true? The thread inevitably led to the discussion of theological "essentials" (e.g. the deity of Christ, that salvation does not exist outside of Christ, etc.) and the "non-essentials" (e.g. role of women in ministry, eschatology, etc.). The "essentials" are so called because there really cannot be disagreement on them without moving into heresy. Whereas the "non-essentials" are debatable without any overly severe consequences. (Whether you believe that the rapture will take place before the tribulation, after the tribulation, or whether you believe that there is no rapture, and that the tribulation is past already, we ALL believe that our faith in Christ assures us of eternal life, no matter how we get there.)
This is where the thread took a very interesting and slightly frightening turn. All of a sudden many of those posting on the forum began saying things like, "Well, if your doctrine agrees with the Nicene Creed/Apostles Creed (one is simply a revision of the other), you're on safe ground," and the like. But is this right? Did you notice the subtle shift from using the Bible as authoritative, to using some creed that is not part of the canon? There is a song that is currently in circulation on the radio performed by 3rd Day, which is basically the Nicene Creed put to music. The chorus says:

I believe what I believe
It makes me who I am
I did not make it, no it is making me
It's the very truth of God,
Not the invention of any man

Is this correct? Is the Nicene Creed really "the very truth of God"? Is it not indeed "the invention of man"? I am not saying necessarily that I disagree with the tenets of the Nicene Creed, but simply that we cannot say that this Creed is itself authoritative. It isn't! It is possible that it has mistakes. It is possible that those who wrote it made a few theological mistakes in the process. I believe that those who participated in writing it were diligently attempting to convey accurate biblical truth (and I think that probably 99% of it is indeed accurate). My point is that as accurate as it may be, it is not authoritative.
I'm sure there are some of you shouting a hearty "Amen!" while others are seriously questioning whether or not I am a true Christian if I am willing to question the authority of one of the most cherished and revered creeds of the Christian faith. So am I heretic? You decide. (But I'm not).

Okay, I'm confused...

So today I decided I wanted to peruse the different blogs/bloggers on blogspot, and so I looked around for a "search" input field, or some sort of link that would take me to a place where I could peruse the blogs...yeah, not so much.
So could one of my fellow bloggers out there cure me of my ignorance on this subject, and tell me how I can find a blog without having a specific url...

Ode to Fall

The leaves are fallin... wait no...
The air is crisp and I can see my breath...no, not that either...
Time to don our sweatshirts and jacke...nope

I didn't turn my A/C on today...

Community

Lately (like in the past couple years) it has been occurring to me more and more the vast importance of community - that sense of belonging, of being part of something bigger than yourself. These "revelations" have come through many sources. Partly I have been made aware of it through the simple fact that I have been on staff at a church now for almost two years, the whole purpose of a church being to form a community of believers. Partly it comes through recognizing some of my own weaknesses (namely, my tendency to be a bit of a loner - not that I don't like being around people, but I really don't like depending on other people, I have a strong, "I can do it myself," mentality). But probably most surprisingly, I have been finding these little nuggets of truth about community through my study of Greek, of all things.
For example...Yesterday in our Greek class we were translating Galatians 5:16-24. It is a very famous passage, especially the part about the fruit of the Spirit. However, there was an interesting thing we discussed. Look at verses 15-16:

"But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another! 16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh."

The interesting thing about this passage is our immediate tendency to personalize and individualize verse 16 (not that this is necessarily wrong, but I think we are shortchanging the whole message if we do this too quickly). The word "Walk," in verse sixteen is in the 2nd person plural form, meaning simply that it could be just as accurately translated, "Walk, all of you, in the Spirit..." My point is that this command to walk in the Spirit is to a group, a community, if you will, not an individual. Paul just finished telling them to stop fighting, then he gives a command for them to corporately walk in step with the Spirit so as not to fulfill (lit., "complete," or "carry out") the desires of the flesh. What becomes interesting is that this really puts a new hue to the rest of the passage. In Paul's laundry list of "the works of the flesh," out of eighteen things, eight of them are relational - "hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions...envy, murders." Then we come down to the fruit of the Spirit, "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfullness, gentless, self-control." See any relational implications in there?
Another Greek revelation that really surprised me is found in Hebrews 12:11-13,

"Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. Therefore strengthen the hands which have been weakened, and the knees that have been paralyzed, and make straight paths for your feet, so that the lame man may not twist his ankle, but rather be healed."

(This is an ugly amalgamation of my own translation, and the NKJV). Without belaboring the details, you have these people whose hands have been weakened, and who knees have been paralyzed. These are wounded people. But where did these wounds come from? If we follow the context directly preceding, we read about how God "chastens" us, or punishes us, and how it is not enjoyable for the moment, but in time it is worth it. Then we come to the wounded people...Could these people have actually been wounded by God?? Have you ever been wounded by God? I know I have. I'm sure Jacob could say he had been wounded by God. To quote my Pastor, "God is not above wounding your flesh to get you to do His will." There is no doubt in my mind, nor from the scriptures, that God is willing to put us over His knee from time to time to teach us a lesson. But how does He do it? Does He give us an unsettled feeling in our hearts? Maybe. Does He withdraw His presence from us in prayer and in worship? Maybe. Does He allow sickness in our bodies? Maybe. Does He allow painful or difficult circumstances into our life? Probably getting warmer. Does He allow us to experience the consequences of our disobedience by lifting His protective covering a bit. I think this last one is most likely. I think God says in those times, "Okay, so you insist on disobeying me? Alright, you get to enjoy that sin, and everything that comes with it!"
Yet as believers, don't we have a tendency to judge most harshly those who are being chastened by God in this way? We seem to prefer to point our finger, cast judgments, and gossip, then to come alongside that person and help them to healing. These are wounded people, and perhaps it is God who has allowed this wounding. According to Heb. 12:12, 13 above, our job is to "strengthen the hands that have been weakened, and the knees that have been paralyzed." And we are to "make straight paths for your feet, so that the lame man will not twist his ankle." Do you hear what he's saying? He's telling us that when wounded people come to us (even those wounded by the consequences of their own actions), our job is to be agents of healing. We are not to put stumbling blocks in their way. What a mandate! What a challenge! What if we put ourselves on the other side of the equation. What if WE are the wounded party? Would we want whispers and gossip and finger pointing going on about us?
Probably the most challenging part of community, at least for me, has to do with the process of being vulnerable. Frankly, this part of it scares me to death. As I said earlier, I'm somewhat of a loner. And yet we will never understand the glorious depth and blessing of being a part of a community until we allow ourselves to depend on other people. Until we really feel our need for our brother or sister, they will be just another person in our lives. But when we acknowledge that we will never be all that God has called us to be; we will never be as whole as we could be; we will never know joy, and peace and contentment as fully as we could, if we would simply embrace community for all it is.
So now I end this exceptionally long blog entry with some very appropriate song lyrics:

Lean on me when your not strong
And I'll be your friend, I'll help you carry on
For it won't be long 'till I'm gonna need
Somebody to lean on

Smarter or Dumber?

Okay, so tonight I took a closed-book take-home exam for Greek (only in Seminary would they think to give a closed book take home test). Anyway, I was really stressing over it. I really didn't feel that I was proficient enough to simply look at Greek text and know what it said without my Logos Bible Software open in front of me, or at least a good Greek Lexicon. However, the translation was surprisingly simple. Not only do I think I nailed it, but I did it rather quickly.
Then there was the section where we had to parse (that it, break the word down into it's parts). Basically I have to say whether it is a verb, noun, participle, etc. Whether it is masculine or feminine. Whether it is first, second, or third person, singular or plural, etc. What it's tense is. And, much to my chagrin - what it's case is. Now, for the life of me, I couldn't remember what "case" referred to. Honestly. I'm still not quite sure. The sad part, two out of four such questions asked only for the case of the word. So I politely wrote my teacher a small note saying, "I honestly can't think of what 'case' is, I will simply parse the word." That's ver-batem.
So, am I smarter than I thought because the translation was so easy, or am I dumber because I got hung up on such a simple thing as "case."

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

So I decided recently that I wanted to read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, being a classic in the Sci-Fi novel category. It is a wonderful marriage of my love of Science Fiction and Brittish humor (which is usually signified by strong satire, sarcasm and irony - it's a wonderful tihng).
So I went to Border's on Saturday, picked it up and have begun to read it and am having a blast so far. Here's an excerpt simply to show how utterly ridiculous it is:

"But Mr. Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months."
"Oh yes, well, as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything."
"But the plans were on display..."
"On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them."
"That's the display department."
"With a flashlight."
"Ah, well, the lights had probably gone."
"So had the stairs."
"But look, you found the notice, didn't you?"
"Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.' "

Genius...I give it a "thumbs up" (get it?). By the way, Border's is haveing a sale with a 25% discount for "Educators." I qualified for it as a Youth Pastor, so Scott and Don, if you were wanting to buy some books, now's a good time!

Religion and Politics

Okay, so I just posted like an hour or two ago, but I guess there's a lot on my mind.
So who in their right mind would talk about the two most divisive and controversial subjects in the world in the same blog post? Probably no one - which implies, of course, that I am not in my right mind...perhaps I am in my left mind.
So anyway, with the elections drawing ever nearer, and with my general feeling of malaise toward all things political (despite the fact that I am fascinated by politics), I figured I should probably spill out the contents of my mind on the subject.
First of all, I should probably get it out of the way that I tend not to identify myself as "Republican," or even so much "Conservative." I am a Christian. I believe the Bible, and I do my best to interpret the moral questions of our day through the lens of my understanding of scripture, which is not as easy or cut and dried as many Christians would like to assume (just to put your minds at ease, regarding most of the big partisan issues I tend to side with the conservative viewpoint, especially those that fall into the realm of moral issues - but rarely on anything else).
Anyway, that's not my point. These days there are a lot of questions floating around about how much religion should be allowed in the political process. This is mostly because our current president professes to be a man of faith, and this makes many people uncomfortable. However, the question I would like to pose is this - How much politics should we allow into our religious process? It pains me and quite honestly frightens me a bit to see how much the Christian community in America has married their religious views and their political views. It has come to be assumed that if you are a true Christian, you will also hold to Conservative political values. Why? Simply because of the "big" issues like abortion, and gay marriage? (Not that it is unimportant where you stand on these issues, but by no means do these "biggies" define the whole sphere of conservative or liberal thought.)
It's not that I believe that our political views and our religious views are, or should be, mutually exclusive. But it seems that we have almost put them on the same shelf of authority. We assume that what the preacher says on Sunday morning, what James Dobson says on his daily radio program, and what Fox News tells us on their evening broadcast are all equally authoritative. Is this a good approach to determining truth?
For instance, ask yourself this question - why is abortion wrong? If you are a Christian, you probably said something like, "Because God says it is wrong," or "Because God hates it," or "Because murder is wrong." You may be right, but where does God say it is wrong? How do you know He hates it? Is it murder to terminate a life before birth? If you cannot answer these questions from a Biblical point of view, then you have been swayed by political opinion, and not by God's Word.
Okay, do I sound harsh? Maybe I am being harsh (and by the way, for those of you getting a little nervous, I would place myself in the Pro-Life category). My point is this, we have allowed politics to influence our beliefs and values as much as (if not more, in some cases) than the Word of the Living God! This is unbecoming of the Christian. Again, as Christians we ought to have strong political views, and I consider the fact that we have the privilege of influencing the decisions of our government through voting to be a wonderful gift that we should not squander. However, let's get our information from the Bible, not from Dennis Prager, or Rush Limbaugh (please no!), or Sean Hannity, or even James Dobson, as well-intentioned as they all may be.
I guess my point is that I'm kind of tired of seeing all these politically-charged Christians, in place of the far superior Christ-charged Christians. I guarantee that if we want to see God transform this nation, it's going to happen more through the propogation of the Gospel, then through involvement in the political process. People need Jesus, not politics.

Purpose Statement

So "purpose statements" are a bit of a fad lately, at least in the Christian world (but I think it is a fad in the secular business world as well). Despite my strong disinclination to ever be "in vogue," I think there is some merit to the idea of a purpose statement. In an orginization or ministry, a purpose statement can help to identify your core values, beliefs and objectives. This in turn allows you to run through this new filter all current ministries, activities, etc., placing greater emphasis on those things which help to promote the vision, and diminish (or even discard) those which fail to do so.
Anyway, last night in Youth, we discussed my newly renovated Purpose Statement (which I hope will become our Purpose Statement) for our Youth Group. It was the final evening of a series of messages entitled "Experiencing God." I've been wanting to share this in Youth for a few months now, and it just seemed the appropriate time, and a good way to sum up the series.
The whole purpose statement is summed up by three main bullet points, which are these:

NoRegrets Youth exists to inspire young people to:
Pursue God,
Follow God, and
Shine for God

You can find a more detailed (though not lots more) description of our purpose statement here. The goal of sharing this with the youth group was simply that they would catch the vision as well. They they would personally experience a greater passion to pursue God, that they would become more committed followers of God, and that they would be excited about living their faith out in a way that the world will see Christ in them. AND, that they would get a vision for the whole youth group to corporately embrace these things as well.

I must say that I am quite proud of my kids for the way they have been responding to God lately, to His Word, and the way they seem to be growing in their faith. They really responded during our worship time and there were several of them who ended up on their knees, or with their hands raised. The sounds of quiet sobs were heard throughout the room and it was clear that God was doing something great.

Ironic word of the day...

perspicuity [pur-spi-kyoo-i-tee] : clearness or lucidity

Science Fiction...

So I watched X Men: The Last Stand today with my dad who is in town for a coulple days (it was pretty good, about a 6 or a 7 out of 10). It got me tihnking though about the kind of movies I like, and one of the first genres that comes to mind is Science Fiction (or "Sci-Fi" if you're cool). I am very aware that Sci-Fi bores the pudding out of a lot of people, so I had to ask myself - "why do I like it so much?"
Here's a few possible explanations:
1. Sci-Fi is always asking the question "what if?" This is appealing to me. I like it when a movie makes me consider some idea that has never entered into my brain before. Which leads me to point #2...
2. Science Fiction allows the writer to to take his/her imagination to the ultimate extreme. Anything goes. Creativity is good. Thinking outside of the box is good.
3. I'm pretty much a tech geek. That means imagining to what extremes teachnology might evolve is very fascinating for me.

So there it is. There's my best explanation for why I like Sci-Fi. There, I bet you're whole perspective on life has changed now because of this post.

This is for you Scott...

So here I am, setting up yet another blog, all because you asked me to, Scott. You know, I'm getting tired of all this "bending to your will" frankly, and I think it's time we put an end to it! That being said, here's the new blog you asked me to create. Enjoy!