The Foggy Steps to Come

Around this time of year, everybody is thinking about the future. We begin rolling the sound of the new year in our minds: "Twenty-ten, or two thousand and ten, or how shall I say it?" Sometimes the arrival of a new year is accompanied by a sense of bewilderment, in wondering just where the year has gone, and in pondering just what this next year will hold.

This year, as I look out upon the on-coming year, I can't help but feel a bit overwhelmed not only at the thought of what might come to us in 2010, but in all the years that follow. In a lot of ways, I still feel like a kid. Sure, I've finished college (did well, too) and got married. Those events were the effective conclusion to many questions I had about my life earlier on. I don't have to worry about who to marry or what to study. But my questions have changed and broadened, and leave me feeling smaller than I felt I was six or so years ago: When it comes time to have children, will I have the strength to be a good father? Can I really strive hard enough to last through an MA and PhD? How long will I be able to continue my studies until my eyes fail on me? Where will we end up? What sort of job can I find in the end? How will I ever manage owning a house? Do I have what it takes to be a family leader and a provider?

Maybe I've had too much time to myself to think, but all these questions (and others) have been sharply on my mind. I do find much comfort, though, in reflecting on the story of Jesus' birth during this season--especially with reference to Mary and Joseph, and Zachariah and Elizabeth. These everyday people had their lives disrupted and realigned for a great purpose. The Lord was working dynamically in the world, and their lives, at least at first, would bear the brunt of it. Whatever plans they had were very much redirected. What a task it must have been for Joseph to care for his wife and her baby as he uprooted his family at Gabriel's beckoning; and Mary submitted her body, life, and reputation to God's bidding. What must it have been like for a couple old enough to be elderly grandparents to be suddenly thrust into childrearing (and to think of it, though it was a joyous occasion for her, Elizabeth had no say in the matter--the angel spoke only to Zachariah).

I can't possibly relate to the gravity of the challenges they faced. I'll certainly never raise a Messiah nor a prophet like John. My actions won't be the stuff of legend, and won't affect the course of history. And for this I'm grateful. But what I can relate to is standing on the threshold of many unknowns. All these questions I have, they aren't the kind of things that will alter time and space, but they are the kind of things that will directly affect the kind of life and service my wife and I and others will experience.

But along with all the unknowns comes comfort. I'm not alone in my unknowns. On one level, I have a kind and understanding wife who regularly reassures me that, in her own words, "I'll follow you to the ends of the earth." And on another level entirely, the same Most High who tore into the lives of Mary, Joseph, Elizabeth, and Zachariah, holds in his hands the pages of my own life.

(I'm not struggling to find the specifics of what the Lord desires me to do; I've laid to rest that childhood question of "What is God's will for my life?". To quote a friend, it's all about the "How" and "Why" of life rather than the "What?" "How shall I live?", rather than, "What will I do?" If I'm seeking to live a life that is worthy of the Lord, then I'm not too concerned about whether or not the specifics will line up. My assumption is that they will; that is, that they will 'line up' with what He has in mind, not according to what I think those future specifics should be.)

Basically, this is it: I don't care what I do. I'm not sure it matters what exactly I end up doing as a career, or where we end up living. All I want in life is to know that I am contributing to the Lord's working in the world. I want to contribute to the changing of lives, on whatever level it may happen by my influence. I want to take seriously the call he places on our lives as his children to live as children of light. Whether I end up as a professor at some prestigious school or a small one, or whether I end up as a pastor, or whether I end up working in a small town doing something completely unrelated to academics, I want only to have a sense of belonging and purpose in what I do.

I want to be a good leader to my family, a good worker, and an obedient son in Christ. All these things are what God wants of me as a man. All these things are difficult to accomplish, taking great attention and discipline. All these things are impossible to do well without God's mercy and enablement. My greatest desire for the fleeting years of my life is that they should be spent in pursuit of the things the Lord honors. I want my life to be counted as useful to him. What else matters?

Well, this has been therapeutic for me to think through. I suppose this post has been more for me than for you. At any rate, those are my honest thoughts, and my most earnest prayer.

Peace.

Collective Disjointment: a Rex Murphy Christmas

It's been a great Christmas holiday. Jenn and I enjoyed Christmas Eve and Christmas Day in Caronport with my parents, sisters, aunt, uncle, and our soon-to-be-brother-in-law, and then jetted off to Montreal for Boxing Day until New Year's Eve. It's such a nice time to slow down.


One of the funniest things this year has been running into Rex Murphy in the Toronto airport! I've always enjoyed his "Point of View" segments on the news, and his radio show. I'd recognize that face anywhere. I joked to Jenn (after we were out of ear-shot, of course), "Yep. He's definitely as ugly in person as on TV!"  He's the third sort-of-celebrity I've seen in an airport. So far, Regina's mayor, Pat Fiaco, Brent Butt from Corner Gas, and now Rex Murphy. 

It's been a lot of fun here in Montreal with Jenn's family. Lots of relaxing, eating, visiting, music, and napping. All things that make a holiday festive and restive.

I think one of my New Year's resolutions is going to be getting back to exegetical posts...

Firstborns and Christmas Lights

Tonight on a walk to deliver some popcorn to my wife who is babysitting some fun little kids, I saw four little girls--all sisters--busily and happily clearing away the freshly fallen snow from an elderly couple's driveway. They were outfitted in matching pink wool toques, each with a snow shovel in hand, and singing "We Want to See Jesus Lifted High." I can't think of a nicer place to be during the holidays than Caronport. After the semester is done, and exams are over, and many of the town's inhabitants have flown wherever home is for the Christmas break, there is a holy quiet that descends here. Especially on nights like these, blanketed under fresh snow.

Caronport is nicely lit up now with Christmas lights. As I look out at all the light-adorned houses, my thoughts wonder to the Exodus. Enslaved Israel prepared their houses with blood to ward off the plague of death threatening their firstborns as they anticipated their salvation. We decorate not to save a firstborn, but because we were saved by one. Our own plague of death has been warded off by a little baby who used his own blood to save us.

New Home

Welcome to the new (and hopefully) improved νόες σχεδίων. Everything from Wordpress has been transplanted here. Blogger seemed a happier home, so here's hoping it is!

Long Live Back to the Future!

All right, I wasn’t going to say anything, but this has become too strange to ignore.

There seem to be an unprecedented number of Back to the Future fans on the internet. Back on November 5, I posted about BTTF because that day happens to be the red-letter date in those movies. Since then, that post has been inundated by web-searches. Over 90% of all web searches that lead people to this blog are related to Back to the Future, such as “Marty McFly,” “Doc,” “Delorean,” “2015 clothing,” “flying car,” “Biff,” “clocktower,” ect… The number of views on that one post have exceeded the views on all other posts combined!

Frankly, I’m shocked! I’ve met a few people who really love the trilogy, but I thought the enthusiasm for the movies was restricted either to the few who grew up on the movies, or to those who really love 80’s movies. Either that perception is wrong, or there are many, many people out there who fall into those two enthusiastic groups.

At any rate, long live Back to the Future! (If you classify yourself as an especially ardent fan of BTTF, you should check out it’s web home: BTTF.com. Enjoy.)

"It's the most edible time of the year!"

Christmas is here in our little abode. On Friday evening, after Jenn finished a particularly nasty exam, we celebrated by zipping into Moose Jaw to pick up a Tree. We also grabbed all sorts of things to put on it — most of which are edible!

Back before I was married, I lived in Regina with some good friends, and each Christmas we decorated the tree with lots of chocolate, candy canes, and other edibles that make the tree both shiny, because of the tinny wrapping, and interactive, because people can snack from the tree throughout the holidays.

That tradition has transfered into our keeping. Last night my little sisters came over to help us decorate the tree, drink some eggnog, and watch some Smallville. Just a couple of weeks until the big meals and get-togethers! Can’t wait!

In Need of De-dragoning

Today I got to spend the day with my wife at her university. The roads were frightening, so I drove her in rather than sentencing her to the highways alone.

While she sat in class, I did some marking and reading in the picturesque student area of Campion College. As I worked, I couldn’t help but overhear the conversations going on nearby. One in particular caught my attention, and despite my attempts to shake it, I couldn’t. Two young women sat just down from my table, and talked for a couple of hours about a great many things. But as the minutes stretched on, and one hour turned into two, it became apparent that the content of their chatter wasn’t substance; it was nothing. To be more specific, it was an egocentric, preferential, stating of opinion that didn’t have any (helpful) shape or direction (or purpose).

Now, I’m being rather harsh here. I’m certainly no stranger to this sort of interaction. When speaking to another person, what is more natural or familiar than to speak about myself? It’s a basic mode of communication for individuals in relation to one another. As Gabriela, the nice lady with whom my sister and I stayed in Mexico, used to say, that sort of chatter is “siempre sobre mi” (“always about me”).

I suppose the conversation I overheard at Campion caught my attention because lately I’ve been thinking about Jesus’ call to discipleship. In the days of the first century, the basis of one’s life seemed to be in the family structure, and breaking ties with that structure seemed unwise and unthinkable. Today, I wonder if the basis of one’s life is no longer the family structure, but the self, the ego. “I” is the foundation on which everything that is achieved is mounted. I’m sure this was quite prevalent in Jesus’ day too, for Luke includes the emphatic “even your own life” to the list of relations we are to hate or renounce.

It’s undeniable that individualism drives our North American world these days. I guess I thought I’d come across different sorts of conversations while sitting in a Catholic college student area, in a school that boasts of classical learning. But what have I to boast? I’m just as egotistically driven as those two young women at Campion when it gets down to it. I realize that afresh each day as I live alongside my wife. There seems to be no greater task than that of divorcing myself from myself. It truly is a death, a daily death, that I must go through in order to rid myself of my own desperate grasp. As personal freedoms go, I don’t think there is anything quite so full of bondage as considering myself to hold the key to my own free will.

The obvious direction here is to turn to Jesus and ask for help. “Take hold of me and rip my self away as Aslan did for poor old dragoned Eustice, and grant me the freedom that exists only in total submission.”

Delirious?, your future starts today.

Yesterday, Delirious?, a band of five men from Littlehampton, UK, who have led the Church in song and cried out for 17 years for people to get out into the streets and change the world for the kingdom, have hung their hats and their guitars.

Delirious? always said that they would never stop until they had created their very best work. It is clear now that their “best” is beyond the music. Lead voice Martin Smith, along with his wife Anna, have started a charity, CompassionArt, “dedicated to seeing works of art generate income for the poorest of the poor.” Last year they brought together their friends of the music world, and produced a CD full of songs adding commentary to the injustice experienced in so much of the world. 100% of those proceeds went to specific charities funded by CompassionArt.

Martin Smith stated, “As a song writer and a person with a microphone I made a promise to try and do something about it. What better than to call on my friends and do something together. To be people that can make a change rather than just singing about it.”

This is the future for Martin and his family.

I’ve been listening/following Delirious? since their early days in the early 90’s, so it’s incredibly sad for me to watch them exit the stage for the last time, knowing the world has heard the last D:tune. But I’m proud too, knowing this band was never about the fame or the money. They felt called to make a change, to turn hearts toward God, and provide a voice for those who couldn’t speak for themselves. Now they step out of the concert spotlight, costumes, and equipment, and into the world of direct service.

Here’s a song for you from their latest live DVD, in Bogota, Columbia. It’s called “Break the Silence,” which is a call for the Church to find its voice and stand for those who can’t stand on their own.

Citizens with a secret in our hands
That could ignite our shadow lands
Light it up and let it go
Let it shine with love and grace and a redesign
A ray of hope for the common man
Light it up and let it go

Oh, oh, oh,
We’ve got to give it away
And there’s a price to pay
When we give it away

Break the silence, break the silence,
Cross ever boundary that divides us, divides us
Break the silence, break the silence,
Cross ever border that divides us, oh, unite us

We turn the page, to a future just begun
If heaven is real then let our heaven become
Peace on earth, let it flow.
We raise our voice where the colours all but gone
Paint the world with redemption songs
Stir it up let it flow.

‘Love’ and Discipleship in the Gospel of John

Here’s a question for you: Does the use of “love” in John match the use of “hate” in Luke?

That is far too broad (and probably inaccurate) a question to ask. My question is specifically about John 21:15-17, in which Jesus asks Peter three times, “Do you love me?”

As explored in my last post, in Luke 14:26 μισέω (“hate”) is used as a term of renunciation, renouncing one’s family as the foundation of security, belonging, and living and taking on Jesus as that foundation instead. In this sense, to hate my family means not that I harbor psychological hostility toward it, but that I no longer belong to/with my family, but belong to/with Jesus.

With this in mind, my question is: Since “love” is usually regarded as the opposite of “hate,” does Jesus’ question in John 17 have anything to do with the call to discipleship? Is this three-fold question of love a way of reinstating Peter as a disciple after he denied Jesus three-fold? Does “love” in this context mean the opposite of what “hate” means in Luke 14? In other words, does “love” in John 17 mean “proclamation of loyalty and belonging” while “hate” in Luke 14 means “renunciation of loyalty and belonging”?

‘Hate’ and Following Jesus in Luke 14

When it comes to his teachings about discipleship, Jesus says some pretty difficult things. In Luke 14, Jesus says, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters -- and even himself -- he is not able to be my disciple” (14:26).

This statement seems to contradict 'nicer' things said by Jesus, such as: "love your enemies, do good to those who hate you" (Luke 6:47), or "And just as you would wish that others would do to you, do so to them" (Luke 6:31).

Why this talk of hating? Μισέω is typically translated as “hate.” According to BDAG, μισέω can also mean, to "disfavor, disregard in contrast to preferential treatment" (BDAG 653 §2; cf.Matt 6:24, Lk 16:13, John 12:25, Rom 9:13). (LSJ doesn't give any sources in support of this un-preferential treatment.) In I. Howard Marshall’s opinion, μισέω “is usually said to have its Semitic sense, ‘to love less’” (Marshall, 592; cf. Gen 29:31-33, Deut 21:15-17, 2 Sam 19:7, Prov 13:24, Isa 60:15, Mal 1:2, Rom 9:13, 1 John 2:9). This is detectable in Matthew’s parallel: “He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves a son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me” (Matt 10:37-38).

In this way, μισέω isn’t a psychological hostility, but a renunciation, a disowning, or rejection (Marshall, 592; TDNT IV, 690). As a person chooses to follow Jesus, to become his disciple, he or she must sever the natural connections and obligations he or she has toward father, mother, spouse, children, brothers, sisters, and to renounce even himself/herself. According to Bonhoeffer, “By calling us [Jesus] has cut us off from all immediacy with the things of this world. He wants to be the centre; through him alone all things shall come to pass” (Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, 95). Such a separation would be extremely disorienting. As Carson Brisson comments,

These words enter a cultural setting in which an individual was primarily defined, from birth through death, by her or his family. In such a milieu, this saying sounds a call for individuals and the community of faith to embrace discipleship to Jesus as their new and ultimate basis for personal and corporate identity (cf. 8:19-21). Such a call would have presented a radically impractical choice, not simply an emotionally difficult one, and a nearly impossible act in a cultural setting in which contemporary definitions of freedom as individual self-assertion and many contemporary forms of economic support outside one's family system did not exist. . . . If God’s invitation is so urgent and so absolute that an individual’s family ties no longer form the basis of her or his identity, what is left that discipleship may not require? (Brisson, Carson. Luke 14:26-27.Interpretation, 61 no 3 Jl 2007: 311)

The answer is, of course, "nothing." There is no more to give after a disciple renounces even his/her own life. To make this ominously clear, Jesus states, “Whoever does not bear his own cross and comes after me is not able to be my disciple” (Luke 14:27). Luke uses this language elsewhere, in 9:23 in which Jesus says, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.”

The cross is, of course, and ultimately, a death sentence. Here, though, the cross also communicates the manner of life those who follow Jesus can expect – namely, one of shame and suffering. Just imagine, if we find it difficult today in our own time and culture to step outside the bounds of what our family members expect from us, how much more difficult would this task be within the bounds of the shame-honor culture of first-century Judea? But Jesus doesn't call us to an easy life. He calls us to a life submitted completely to him. This is why the apostles refer to themselves as δοῦλος τοῦ Ἰσοῦ Χριστοῦ, "slave of Jesus Christ." The life I live is not to be my own. In following Jesus' call, I give up my right to direct my own life. It's a total submission, an absolute resignation of self-sovereignty. If I declare that Jesus is Lord (κύριος), then that declaration has something to say about me too -- that I am his servant, his slave. Jesus becomes the anchor of our new reality. He is the mediator through whom we relate to the world and other people. No longer am "I" the lowest common denominator, but Jesus instead.

Ultimately, this order to "hate" is a declaration of where life is found. Am I so certain that there is more life to be found in my familial relations than in Jesus, or more life in wealth or in the other forms of security this world can offer? Or am I willing to let go of absolutely everything to which I previously clung to cling singularly to the one who offers life like no other can?

Joyeux Noël and the Death of War

Since I wasn't able to attend a memorial service this year, I decided to observe Remembrance Day by watching a couple of movies that bear witness to the sacrifice and suffering of those who fought on behalf of their countries. One of these movies was Joyeux Noël. This film was particularly good at portraying the hardship and anguish of soldiers in the trenches of World War I. In this story, three generals -- German, French, and Scottish -- along with their units, are brought together by the celebration of Christmas.

In the dreary dark of Christmas Eve, a German officer who before the war had been a vocalist in Berlin, sang "Stille Nacht" (Silent Night). Close by in their own trenches, the French and the Scots listened to the hopeful song of the German singer. The Scots joined in with their bagpipes, and soon, all the soldiers left their trenches to meet one another in peace on the battle field.

There they shared stories of home and tears for loss they had already incurred thus far in battle. Many even exchanged addresses with the intent of taking up friendship again once the mess of war had ended. At the high point of this meeting, the Scottish priest led the who assembly in the Christmas midnight mas. Participating together, they were no longer enemies, but fellow men who were all here by the same unfortunate circumstances, forced into combat by the will of their homelands. This was a really striking picture of peace that can come by love in Christ -- even in the midst of war.

During the mas, the artillery fire booming in the distance reminded all that though they might forget war in the moment, the war had certainly not forgotten them. At this, they exchanged greetings of "Merry Christmas" and "good luck," and returned to their trenches.

One of the most memorable scenes is one in which the German singer-now-soldier confronts his general, asking if they must go on to kill again now that they had truly come to know those they had regarded enemies. He said, "To die tomorrow is even more absurd than to die yesterday." How foolish it would seem, having now experienced the peace of Christmas Eve, to die by the hands that offered friendship only the night before?

This war was to be the War to End All Wars. But really, going to war can't truly cause the end of war. The only thing capable of ending war, as was so grandly demonstrated in Joyeux Noël, is the peace that comes through love in Christ. Let love be the foreign policy that guides nations in their dealings with one another. Let love be the 'war' that is fought, and it really will be the War to end all others.

New Friends

It has been another successful library book sale this year. I got there good and early this morning, and it paid off. Here are the new friends for my bookshelf (in preferential order):

1. Studying the Synoptic Gospels (E. P. Sanders and Margaret Davies)
   I'm excited for this one because I'm planning on taking Wes Olmstead's Seminary Gospel Seminar in May. I recently picked up a copy of Aland's Synopsis of the Four Gospels (Greek-English edition). Sanders should be a good guide.
2. NICNT: The Book of the Acts (F. F. Bruce)
   I really like F. F. Bruce. I've been collecting his commentaries.
3. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (George W. E. Nickelsburg)
   I don't know much about this stuff, but Nickelsburg sure does. So I figure this book is a good starting point.
4. What the Best College Teachers Do (Ken Bain)
   This one was assigned during my college internship, but because of the heavy courseload I took on that year, I didn't get to read it very carefully. More of a panicked skim. It's a great resource, and now I can read it properly.
5. The Gospel According to St. John (B. F. Westcott)
   All I know about Westcott is that he's a textual critic from a couple of scholastic generations ago. I haven't picked up any commentaries on John thus far, so, for a dollar, I figured I'd give him a try.
6. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (James Barr)
   This looks to be an interesting Hebrew resource. I've been reading Alan Black's Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek, and thought Barr's book might help round out some Hebrew reading.
7. Biblical Hebrew Step by Step: readings from the Book of Genesis (M. Mansoor)
   Hebrew still feels like a lot of work. I'm hoping this book will help to motivate me to get reading.

Good harvest. All for $15! Needless to say, I have my work cut out for me.

Are We There Yet? Back to the Future and the year 2015

Today is November 5th, which, according to Back to the Future, is a red-letter date in the space-time continuum (it's the day Doc invents time travel). So, I figure it's a great day to reflect on what Back to the Future held for the future.
Back in the mid-80's, a wonderful trilogy of movies was filmed, which is still my favorite set to this day: Back to the Future. There are many aspects of these films that set them firmly on a preferential pedestal. The casting couldn't have been better. Michael J. Fox plays the part of Martin (Marty) McFly, a cool, socially-savy, slightly insecure 17 year old who knows a lot about love, but can't stand it when people call him "yellow," and learns a lot throughout the trilogy about not allowing others' opinions to dictate his life. He (somehow) befriends an old, crazy-eyed scientist, Doctor Emmett L. Brown. Their association is never explained. How does a high school student become involved in the experiments of a fringe-scientist? I'm not sure, but I love the combination. Doctor Brown, or "Doc," is played enjoyably by Christopher Lloyd. He's the perfect picture of a mad scientist. He offers the trilogy all the techno-babble to explain just how time travel is possible. Together Doc and Marty discover the advantages and serious consequences of time travel, as they go from their native 1985 back to 1955, forward to 2015, way back to 1885, and finally home again.
Their travels to 2015 are of interest. When all the problems of the first movie have been resolved, Marty asks Doc where he'll go now. He tells him he'd like to go to the future "to see the progress of mankind." He says he'll go ahead "30 years. It's a nice round number." When Marty goes to the future in Back to the Future II, we get to see this progress.

To name a few of the 'advancements,' there are flying cars which travel"skyways" rather than highways, hoverboards, a controlled weather system, an efficient justice system (which has done away with lawyers), robotic waiters, automated gas stations, holographic advertising signs, video conferencing in place of the phone, lots of fax machines, vocal recognition, voice-activated lighting, retinal scan identification, self-drying (and automatic fitting) clothing, power-lace shoes, and hydratable foods.Also, the clothing fashion has become very bright, shiny, colorful, and all the young people wear their pockets inside out. (That's a young Elijah Wood to the left.)

So, are we there yet? We definitely haven't discovered an easy way to make cars fly, or to make skateboards hover. The weather is still as unpredictable as it ever has been. Though some parts of life have become more automated, such as self-serve banking and grocery shopping, or pay-at-the-pump gas stations, we are not yet served by robots. Our clothing is still very non-futuristic compared to that of Back to the Future's 2015. No self-drying, auto-sizing, or power lacing. Retinal scanning might happen in the most advanced corporations, but for now, it remains mostly in the movies. Our justice system is still not very efficient, and still full of lawyers. We do have many fast-convenience food items, though not quite like the hydrated pizza that starts the size of a quarter, and when hydrated, can feed a family of five.

On the other side of things, we've moved beyond the fax machine for the most part. Back to the Future's 2015 saw the fax machine as part of the communication of the future, with Marty's notice of job termination spitting out of almost 10 fax machines around the house. We do have such things as voice activated services, like lighting. Video calls are becoming more common, especially with the use of webcams. One thing the trilogy's writers did not anticipate that we do have in 2009 is the internet. The internet, as we know it now, did not exist in 1985, and is very much one of the great driving forces of our technology and convenience in this day and age.

Overall, though, we still have a lot of ground to make up if we are to achieve the vision Back to the Future has set out for 2015. We have six years to go.

A Delirious? Ending

Since the early nineties, Stew Smith, Jon Thatcher, Stu Garrard, Tim Jupp, and Martin Smith have been travelling the world, and writing music to capture the vision of the church and to ignite its heart. For more than fifteen years they have shaped and reshaped the worship genre, and have tried to blur the lines between "Christian" and "mainstream" music. And now their time together is soon coming to a close. Next month Delirious? launches its final tour, "History Makers - Farewell Tour," in Europe and the British Isles. Unfortunately they aren't including North America in their final tour. I've been a big fan since 1995 or so, so there will be a big D? shaped hole in my fandom when November is over... I've had the chance to see them twice, in Edmonton and Ottawa; it's always a treat. If you find yourself in Europe next month, be sure to catch a show if tickets are still available!

Below is Delirious? playing "Investigate" at Willow Creek in Chicago as part of their Now is the Time tour. I've always thought it to be one of their most reaching, desperate sort of songs; straining to allow God to tear into the heart and purify what he finds.

Investigate my life and make me clean
Shine upon the darkest place in me
To you my life's an open book
So turn the page and take a look
Upon the life you've made
Always, my days, I'll praise

Fly away, where heaven calls my name
Fly away, I'll never be the same
Investigate, I can't wait
Excavate, recreate

Investigate my life and take me through
Shine upon the road that leads to you
I know you'd heard the words I'd say
Before I'd even lived one day
You knew the life you'd made
Always, my days, I'll praise

Investigate my life and make me clean
Shine upon the darkest place in me
When I go, when I return you've seen your holy fire burn
Upon the life you made
Always, I'll praise

This song appears originally on their Glo album (short for "Glory"), from 2000. About its writing, Stu Garrard says,

"Psalm 139 is one of my favorites. Whenever I read it, I'm struck by the words "God, investigate my life; get all the facts first hand." I really do want to be an 'open book' and often think about God exploring my thoughts and motives, searchlight in hand. Reading this psalm gives me a feeling of being totally surrounded by God - not being able to escape and not wanting to, either. He knows my thoughts; He knows the words on my lips before I speak. He is before and me behind me; there is nowhere I can go to flee from His presence. He formed me and knew who I was even before I was born. If I could fly away to the ends of the earth, He'd be there waiting for me. The thing is, I don't feel hemmed in - I feel liberated. Psalm 139 closes with the words:

'Investigate my life, O God, find out everything about me; cross-examine and test me, get a clear picture of what I'm about; See for yourself whether I've done anything wrong - then guide me on the road to eternal life (vv. 23-24, THE MESSAGE).'

Determined words of a psalmist on a journey, flavored with introspection and perhaps a little melancholy . . . perfect for the key of D minor, don't you think?"

I Could Sing of Your Love Forever: stories, reflections and devotions. Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 2007; pages 43-44

Living Offline: perhaps not a bad idea

The other day I watched the fairly new movie, "Surrogates," in which everyone in the world experiences life through these machine-bodied surrogates, while the 'operators' remain in the safety of their homes.

I watched it because 1) I like science fiction and 2) Bruce Willis stars. I liked the movie. It had enough twists to keep you guessing, and the action was fairly strong throughout.

The most impacting line of the whole film, for me anyway, was spoken by the antagonist after he reveals his sinister plan to destroy the machines. He says, "Human beings weren't meant to experience life through machines!"

How very true! When computers were created, they were to save us time (and paper), but nothing seems to consume our time each day quite so much as our many electronic devices. When I think about how many hours I spend on a computer when I have some spare time or a day off, I think I'd be embarrassed to reveal the number. I'm grateful for much of what I can accomplish from my home computer, like communication with people far away, online banking, purchasing books and other items, and even searching for journal articles and things like that. But everything in moderation. The ease with which anyone can administrate their life on a computer, on the internet, is helpful. But if a person's use of these things isn't managed or moderated, it can easily become a colossal waste of time.

No wonder people back a century had such greater knowledge of things like philosophy, Latin, and Greek. They had no 'time saving devices' to eat up their every day.

Grammatical Diagram of Luke 14:28-30

As promised, I went through Luke 14:28-30 and completed a grammatical diagram. Click here to see the PDF. (I used unicode with SBL Greek font, so hopefully it will show up properly for you! If you don't have SBL Greek, you can download it here. It's free, and is fun to type in.)

The Grammatical Structure of Luke 14:29

Another quandary brought to you by Greek Tutorial. This week I was reading through Luke 14:25-30 with a couple of students, and verse 29 proved to be, shall we say, especially interesting. I'd like to examine the grammatical structure of the pericope to get a feel for what's going on in Luke 14:29. Here's 14:28-30:

[28] Τίς γὰρ ἐξ ὑμῶν θέλων πύργον οἰκοδομῆσαι οὐχὶ πρῶτον καθίσας ψηφίζει τὴν δαπάνην, εἰ ἔχει εἰς ἀπαρτισμόν; [29] ἴνα μήποτε θέντος αὐτοῦ θεμέλιον καὶ μὴ ἰσχύοντος ἐκτελέσαι πάντες οἰ θεωροῦντες ἄρξωνται αὐτῷ ἐμπαίζειν [30] λέγοντες ὅτι οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἤρζατο οἰκοδομεῖν καὶ οὐκ ἴσχυσεν ἐκτελέσαι.

In verse 28, τὶς (nom masc sg) is matched by the participle θέλων (nom masc sg pres act ptc), and is modified by the genitive phrase ἐξ ὑμῶν to read, "For, who among you desiring". The participle θέλων belongs to the infinitive οἰκοδομῆσαι which gives us the content of the desire, "to build." The direct object of οἰκοδομῆσαι is the accusative masculine singular πύργον, "a tower."

This phrase so far: "For anyone from among you desiring to build a tower".

Next, οὐχὶ negates ψηφίζει, "does he not calculate," which takes τὴν δαπάνην as its object, "does he not calculate the cost." ψηφίζει is modified by the attendant circumstance participle καθίσας, which describes the action that goes on as the person calculates the cost: "does he not, sitting down, calculate the cost". The next clause, εἰ ἔχει εἰς ἀπαρτισμόν, appears to be a purpose clause (though this verse is missing an infinitive like "to see" or "to determine" to nicely shape this into a recognizable purpose clause), indicating why he calculates: "if he has [what is needed] for completion".

This whole first verse is a question, noted by the interrogative form of τίς (which is anarthrous when it functions as an indefinite pronoun), and the Greek question mark ; at the end: "For who among you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down [and] calculate the cost [to determine] if he has [what is needed] for completion?" (Feel free to quibble with these conclusions; there is lots of room to move here in my understanding of the syntax!)

Moving on to verse 29. ἴνα starts this verse, which always introduces the subjunctive mood. The arrangement of this verse is a little odd, though, because the subjunctive verb, ἄρξωνται, is almost at the end of the verse. Immediately after ἴνα, the clause μήποτε θέντος αὐτοῦ θεμέλιον καὶ μὴ ἰσχύοντος ἐκτελέσαι is inserted before the ἴνα is completed. However, this arrangement may not be so strange, considering that ἴνα and μήποτε can function together as "a strengthened form of ἴνα μή" (Marshall [1978], "The Gospel of Luke," 594). And according to BDAG, this ἴνα μήποτε combination is often used for denoting purpose, "(in order) that . . . not, often expressing apprehension" (BDAG, 648-2b).

With this in mind, verse 29 looks a little friendlier. (If I had thought to look at BDAG last night with those Greek students, I could have been a little more helpful!) After the ἴνα μήποτε construction we find a genitive absolute θέντος αὐτοῦ θεμέλιον, "he placed a foundation," followed by the participle ἰσχύντος, negated by μή, "not being able," and its complementary infinitive ἐκτελέσαι, which completes the thought, "not being able to complete [it]".

So far in verse 29 we have: "In order that he does not place a foundation, and, not being able to complete it".

The consequence of this ill-conceived plan is that "all who see it should begin to mock him." πάντες is modified by the adjectival participle οἰ θεωροῦντες, "all who see," and is the subject of ἄρξωνται. ἄρξωνται takes ἐμπαίζειν as its complementary infinitive, "begin to mock." αὐτῷ likely refers to the uncompleted tower, rather than the builder.

This verse all together states, "In order that he does not place a foundation, and, being unable to complete it, all who see it should begin to mock him".

Verse 30 tells us the content of their mocking, "This man began to build and was not able to finish." (You can hear Nelson from The Simpsons in the background saying his customary, "Hah hah!")

I was going to do a grammatical diagram of this as well, but I've run out of time! Tune in next time for that.

There are many details I didn't focus on -- again, time being the issue. There is just never enough time for exegesis!

Luke 14:18, πάντες ἀπὸ μιᾶς (update)

According to Liddell-Scott-Jones' Greek-English Lexicon, ἀπὸ μιᾶς means "withone accord," as found in Eu. Luc 14.18 (LSJ 492, εἷς entry). This is very similar to Marshall's "unanimously." I'm pretty satisfied now.

Luke 14:18, πάντες ἀπὸ μιᾶς

In Jesus' story in Luke 14:18, a servant is sent to invite the guests for a feast, but none of them want to come. In response, Luke writes, καὶ ήρξαντο πάντες ἀπὸ μιᾶς παραιτεῖτσθαι ("and all unanimously began to make excuses"). The use of the feminine singular genitive μίας is confusing. There is no syntactical reason for it. According to I. Howard Marshall, "ἀπὸ μιᾶς is probably a Greek phrase (sc. γρώμης) meaning 'unanimously' . . . rather than a literal translation of [the Aramaic] min hada, 'all at once, immediately'" (p. 588 from Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, NIGTC, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978).

At Greek tutorial last night, students were asking about μίας, and I had no clue what to say other than, "Check BDAG and see if πάντα or ἀπό works with μία in any idiomatic ways." If Marshall is write, that appears to be the case.

Pocket Paradigms for Biblical Greek

It's been a few weeks, and I'm finally finished. In my spare time I've been putting together a little book of Greek paradigms to aid me in reading through the Greek New Testament. For a few years I've been looking for a pocket handbook for paradigms, similar to Mark Futato's Pocket Paradigms for Biblical Hebrew, but haven't found anything comparable. And since it's annoying to lug around textbooks all the time, I compiled charts from a few standard textbooks, and with the magic of Microsoft Publisher, produced a Pocket Paradigms for Biblical Greek. (This confirms my descent into extreme nerdom.) If anyone has come across a paradigms book for Greek, I'd be very interested to take a look at it, to compare what it includes, and all that.

Luke 14:12-14, Dinner Invitation Etiquette and the Grace of God

Last night while reading through Luke 14 with some Greek tutor students, I was struck by something Jesus said to the host of the dinner he attended. Jesus told him, "Whenever you should hold a meal or dinner, don't invite your friends, brothers, relatives, or your wealthy neighbours since they might invite you in return, and you might be repaid" (v. 12). Instead, Jesus tells him to invite the crippled, the maimed, the blind, and the poor -- those who have no means to repay the gift of hospitality (v. 13). Jesus declares to him that "you will be blessed because they do not have [the means] to repay you, for you will be repaid in the resurrection of the righteous" (v. 14).

This resembles exhortations Jesus gave elsewhere, such as Luke 6:32-36,

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them.And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that.And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Or like Jesus' instruction on acts of righteousness in Matthew 6:1-4,

Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

From Jesus' words in Luke 14, it seems that there is no repayment (from God) for giving to those who have the means to give back to you. Repayment is received from the friend or relative or neighbour who does for you what you did for him. But God repays those who give out of grace with no hope of repayment. From the contexts of Luke 6 and Matthew 6, it is also clear that God rewards those who do these good things in secret rather than in plain view for the sake of a pat on the back, or the elevation of one's status among his/her peers.

This is a big deal. Jesus wants us as his followers to be looking out for those who are truly down and out, to get our love working and acting in the real world. Inviting such people means also that your time is spent with them, and not only your food consumed by them. This isn't just food-bank-filling. This is ministering truly and personally to those who have real need.

And in a very real way, this action is a picture of what God, in Jesus, already has done, and does each day, for us. He has given the gift of his love, his grace, his Fatherhood, his Son, the promise of his enduring presence -- all things we can never repay. In this way in all of these passages, Jesus calls us to imitate the way the Father gives to us: out of grace.

Participial Fun

Tonight was the first of many Tuesday nights that I will spend with aspiring Greek students as a Greek tutor. This evening I had a great deal of fun (I'm actually being serious!) explaining the differences between adjectival (specifically substantival) and adverbial participles. I remember when the world of Greek participles was opened to me, and so I felt very purposeful in trying to clear some of the fog looming over the students' heads. "Look for the article," I told them. And by the end of the hour and a half, they were looking, and, I hope, to a slightly increased degree, understanding. Greek Syntax is definitely the most challenging semester of the first four. Hopefully by Christmas these students will look at syntax with some measure of confidence rather than despair. That is my mission.

Greek Prose Composition

I have begun to work through North and Hillard's Greek Prose Composition. It's a great little book, published over 100 years ago, that was once commonly used in schools for teaching children to write Greek. It offers exercise-by-exercise vocabulary lists, a English to Greek vocabulary list, and 175 composition exercises, beginning with simple sentences and working toward the composition of long paragraphs. This book teaches composition in what appears to be Attic Greek, which precedes Koine. Some forms are different, but for the most part it is easy enough to transfer over from Koine to Attic.

Greek composition is challenging (and humbling!), but a lot of fun! I suggest at least downloading this treasure, or getting your hands on a hardcopy.

Luke 4:22-28 and the Angry Mob

In Luke 4:16 and following there is a curious and rapid shift in the direction of the narrative.

Jesus goes into the synagogue in Nazareth and reads from Isaiah:

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me
because he anointed me to preach good news to the poor;
he has sent me to proclaim freedom for the captive,
and recovery of sight for the blind,
and to send away in freedom those who are broken,
and to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour."

After which, Jesus said, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."

The response of those in the synagogue was bewilderment. They were amazed at his words and said to each other, "Is this not Joseph's son?"

Jesus replied to their amazement with a surprising chastisement. He said, "Certainly you will speak to me this proverb: 'Physician, heal yourself. Whatever we heard that happened in Capernaum, do also here in your hometown.'"

Then he went on to tell about how prophets like Elijah and Elisha performed miracles for those outside of Israel (or at least outside of the people of Israel) because the people of Israel lacked faith. He said this to underscore his point that "no prophet is welcome in his hometown" (Lk 4:24).

Now here the story takes a quick twist. After Jesus' first words, everyone in the synagogue was amazed by him. Now after his second discourse, they became enraged. They marched him off to a cliff because they wanted to kill him by throwing him off of it. (And somehow Jesus was able to walk through them, leaving unharmed.)

So, why the sudden change in attitude? Jesus had just claimed that he was a prophet who had come to fulfill the passage he read from Isaiah. The proverb he quoted was a rebuke for their lack of faith, and, in speaking of Elijah and Elisha, he rebuked them further, implying that they are no better than their forefathers who lacked faith in God's prophets of long ago.

Most ironically, showing a glimmer of Luke's humour and flare, the narrative immediately follows Jesus to Capernaum where he performs miracles of healing and casting out of demons. Faith is the key.

Textkit - Greek and Latin

This is a great resource I came across lately. I'm sure it's not new to some of you, but if it is, do check it out! There are all sorts of downloadable resources for learning Greek and Latin. Most significant, in my opinion, are the composition workbooks. These workbooks, such as North and Hillard's andSidgwick's, have been in use for over 100 years, going back to a time when kids learned Greek and Latin in elementary school. Where's a Delorian when you need one?! I've taken plenty of Greek classes while at Briercrest College, but I still find my recall of vocabulary and verb forms to be a touch dodgey. I figure that learning to write, instead of just to read, Greek will help it all along. Do check out Textkit. It's a candy store for nerdy academic kids!

Matthew 6:8, “your Father knows before you ask him”

In Matthew 6, Jesus speaks a lot on prayer: method, appropriate time and place, and even gives us an example of how we should pray. I was struck today by verse 8. Jesus said, "[7]And when praying, do not babble on like the heathen, for they think that by means of their many words they will be heard. [8] Therefore, do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."

The fact that the Father knows what we need before we ask is very reassuring. I find it interesting that Jesus doesn't say, "Don't bother praying, because the Father already knows what you need." The exhortation is, "Don't babble on and on . . . for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."

It's all about humility, isn't it? Earlier in Matt 6 Jesus warns us not to blow the trumpet to announce our charitable acts. And we're to pray in secret with the door closed behind us rather than shouting out in the street. Jesus is communicating how prayer is to function. It's not a show, it's an enactment of humility before the Father. Of course he doesn't need to be told what we need to live; he made life afterall. We are to do good deeds, but not for our own glorification. The Father sees what goes on in secret, and he rewards those who do righteous things when there is no one to watch. Those who 'peacock' about have attention as their only reward.

This seems to be really a call for honest intent. The idea is to be righteous in the sight of God rather than super-duper in the sight of men. Perhaps a little bit like marriage versus dating. There is so much pressure to be doing the right things and saying the right things and being the right things when two people are getting to know one another. But once that superficiality is stripped away, and a husband and wife can simply go about living life together, their efforts together are real and not for show. The result is a rich interaction in which love is the point and service is the means.

Anyway, I was greatly impressed (once again) by Matthew 6:8, and am deeply grateful to have been provided life by a God who knows how to take care of me, and who is interested in the way I live the life he has placed in me.

Remembering Ryan Chute

This afternoon I took in Ryan Chute's funeral along with thousands of others. It was a beautiful service. Below is the text from the back of the program. I was able to chat with his 4-year old son, Rhett. He's an amazing little guy, who loved his dad and wants to be just like him. When I found him, he was drawing on a pie plate. When I asked what he was drawing, he said, "A picture of my dad."

Matthew 5:3,10, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven

Appearing twice in Matthew's Beatitudes is the phrase, "for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Respectively this phrase is applied to "the poor in Spirit" and "those persecuted on account of righteousness." If they receive the same blessing, is there a connection between the two groups? Maybe the experience of persecution causes a person to become poor in spirit? Or perhaps the answer is found in viewing the Beatitudes as a unified whole rather than as blessings to separate group:
Looking at the literary structure of the passage, the same blessing is given in the first beatitude as the last. There are eight blessings given in the third person:

1. Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
2. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
3. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
4. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.
5. Blessed are those who show mercy, for they will be shown mercy.
6. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
7. Blessed are those who make peace, for they will be called sons of God.
8. Blessed are those who have been persecuted on account of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

These blessings don't form a chiasm, at least none that I can decipher. But they are hemmed in the beginning and end by "for theirs is the kingdom of heaven," as an inclusio of sorts, indicating the norms of the kingdom. The norms of this sinful world will be turned on its head.
And how does one get into this wonderful kingdom? It isn't easy, that's for sure. Obedience is absolutely required. For, "anyone who breaks the least of one of these commands and teaches men [to do] likewise, he will be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:19). This is a direct slight to those regarded in that day as the authorities on righteousness - the scribes and Pharisees. For, as Jesus continues, "If your righteousness does not greatly exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:20).

So, if the kingdom of heaven belongs to those who are poor in spirit, the pure in heart, the mournful,  meek, and merciful, those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, those who are persecuted on account of it, and those who make peace instead of war, then it is definitely not for those who operate out of greed and hostility and selfish ambition and hate.
That's quite the list to live up to. The Lord has given us quite the standard to adhere to, and thankfully, sufficient grace to see use through. At any rate, knowing that he will return soon makes me just as nervous as it makes me glad.