Go Deep and Go Wide

For my class this morning, I was assigned to read a book and then write a three page paper on it, summarizing the book for one page and then delving into one argument and discussing it for two pages.

One of the challenges in graduate study, apart from the requisite expectation of lack of sleep, is to broadly define and then specifically argue a topic. This often feels like an impossible task. How can I go so broad as to summarize a topic and then go so deep as to analyze it meaningfully? When you add in the third parameter of keeping all this to three short pages, I feel pressed from all sides.

How can I go deep while simulatenously going wide? And on top of all that, keep it short and concise? I have no answers today; just this one question I'm flinging out into the cosmic void.

That is all.

Christology and Soteriology

I'm taking a 2-week intensive for Systematic Theology 2: Christology and Soteriology with Veli-Matti Karkainnen. If those terms are foreign to you, join the club. They were foreign to me too. Essentially, Christology is the study of Jesus' "Messiah-ness" and Soteriology is the study of how we are saved or atoned for by Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. If that still doesn't make sense, you can rest assured that scholars are coming out with the Global Dictionary of Theology soon.

This might sound dry, because we have to delve into the nuances of penal substitution, but it's a plethora of fascination I'm swimming in compared to Systematics 1: Theology and Anthropology wherein I kid you not, I read an entire book exegeting ONE word's appearance in the NT.

Jesus makes everything backwards

He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliott

Sometimes I look around and it seems like people really have their lives together. And it never really seems like I do. I'm almost always a day late and a dollar short. I have no idea how people manage to buy a house or take care of a baby when I can barely get myself to class on time. Granted, I often take on too much stuff, as in the case of this quarter, when I have 4 classes that are doing me in. I'm certain I will feel much much better when all the papers are written and I can get back to a normal sleeping routine of 6 plus hours a night. But in the meantime, I'm taking breaks by finding out what people in my world are doing. A person I used to know is graduating from med school and another person I just met is in a successful career. And in the moment right before I was about to start envying them, I remembered that they're not in love with Jesus. Their lives may appear satisfying on the outside and maybe they are on the inside when they stop to think about that, but ultimately their hope is in that thing they're achieving and I guess it makes sense then that they'd better milk it for all it's worth cause that's pretty much it.

Sometimes I'm awed that I really made the choices I've made. I will never be rich from them, and 99% of people will always think what I do is weird-slash-confusing. But somehow God got me to a place where that's okay and what's important is being true to myself as little as possible, so he can get me to do crazy and foolish things for him. I love him for that. For making everything backwards.

And I don't love him for that because secretly I'm rubbing my fingers together and scheming for the day when last will be first and I'll finally get my desserts, I'm just making friends with the idea that I do this thing and I look genuinely foolish and unwise to the world and even to myself most of the time and yet I know completely that this is my place. It's not completely fun, (in fact it's a whole lot of not-fun right now) but it's completely right. Right-side, up-side down-side. It's right.

And I'm happy to sell all I have to stay right here, where I don't necessarily want to be. In this small uncomely space. Where Jesus can force-undo all the ways I've learned to want. And need. And envy. And greed - for success and wealth and happiness that are not mine to have.

I have to remember that she is no fool who gives what she cannot keep to gain what she cannot lose.

I have to remember Shealtiel.

the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament

I was in a bible study my sophomore year in college. When I consider how I arrived here at seminary, I remember that bible study as containing one of the formative moments in my destiny to arrive at theological studies.

That we attempted to study the Bible I look back and realize was an audacious decision. That I personally desired to really look at what it says, I reflect now, was an audacious personal decision.

This bible study was led by a Campus Crusade staff member and I remember one session when our discussion of a New Testament scripture (I think we were studying Philippans) brought up the question: Did the Holy Spirit exist in the Old Testament? Reflecting now on this question, I also see inherent in it the questions: Did the Trinity exist in the Old Testament? How do we conclude the existence of the Trinity even in the New Testament? Does the "us" in Genesis refer to the Father and Son, without the Holy Spirit? Which person of the Trinity is preeminent?

But nonetheless, the question posed was: Did the Holy Spirit exist in the Old Testament? I know it was this because I have pondered it again and again in confusion over the years.

I'm not sure what the various arguments for or against this idea were, but I remember that I upset our leader by being truly interested in investigating this issue. For a long time, I looked back on that moment with equal parts frustration and chagrin, knowing that I wanted to be perceived as of course desiring genuine Christian love and unity amongst us, while sincerely wanting to examine the arguments around this issue. To this leader, my eagerness to pursue the issue meant I was willing to divide the group, or at least relinquish the sensitive balance of unity we had amongst us.

This morning I took a midterm that asked for examples of the Trinity in the Old Testament. My school allows for multiple sincere interpretations of this doctrine, including denying the doctrines existence in the Old Testament, by Christians of good faith. We were not asked to conclude whether the Trinity existed "back then" from the suggestions of it in the Old Testament, but at an initial critical level, to consider the evidence for it.

While I was probably not mature enough in my sophomore year to express this idea; that's what I really wanted. I didn't want us to conclude, but I did want us to consider it. Consider all the angles and evidence for the idea.

One of things I've been thinking about lately is that I tend to care more about the heart of sincerity over the exactness of being right about theological matters. Therefore, I never would have thought of myself as someone interested in attending seminary. Also, I've never seen myself as someone particularly interested in the nuances for instance of the Greek word "power" in the New Testament (on which topic I just read a delightfully detailed and lengthy book) or other minute matters of exegesis.

However, I do think these matters are important to consider and discuss, even if we don't agree or are not able to come to conclusion on them. And I'm at the right school because I'm realizing I don't need to sacrifice my heart, that desires genuine loving fellowship, in order to approach these issues with a critical mind.

I present this evidence that you might arrive at the conclusion I've arrived at today...
God is good.
And more specifically, He's good to me.

Mouw on the Pope

A Papal Discussion: On Faith and Human Rights

Reading Mouw's latest offerings on Catholic/Protestant ethics.

Something that comes to mind as I read this is an old phrase I heard once, probably on a crime show:
What do we think?
What do we know?
What can we prove?

I know that's a very rational way to evaluate the blog and the Pope's visit, but I fall back to it because I think this kind of visit often attracts so much conjecture and emotive response from critics and ordinary thinkers. I think it's important to go back to the facts when there's a lot of that and try to remember that "he who is not against us is for us".

Women and the Church and Me

So I've been having some thoughts. I'm currently without church. I'm significantly more worried about this than most of my friends, who I tell this to and they immediately say, but you've got so much church around you all the time. Which is true. I am not without friends, support, etc. If I tried to become a monk or a Buddhist, no doubt there would be a line at my front door. It seems as though as much as I try, my church comes to me, not the other way around.

Therefore, since I am without church, I'm on a quest looking for church. I've tried many. But mostly I run into some main problems. One, women are not allowed to teach. (Hence, they probably won't be psyched that I'm going to seminary or psyched to help me grow into pastoring.) Two, they have some crazy beliefs. Like they think God wants us to be rich. Or they think women should read books like: "Biblical Womanhood In the Home." Hm, that's not very subtle. Are you sensing a theme here? I'm not sure what to do.

Was RockHarbor okay with women pastoring? I think so. And for some ways that they stuck to conservative interpretations on things like communion, that's a little hermeneutical leap they took on women. What with us being half the human race, I'm glad they jumped. A happy leap for me. But alas, I'm looking for some churches around here that will take the leap. And I'm afraid all I'll find is ones where I'm shamed for taking up a perfectly good spot a man could have in seminary. Boo.

Complexity

I had this thought in class today:

Of course it's hard to understand humans. We're made in the image of God, and who's more complex than God?