Yes, that is right! I am ashamed that I have not blogged since the beginning of the New Year, and my last post was somewhat sarcastic, elitist and meaningless. Though I do not officially "recognize" Lent (yet), I thought that this would provide the opportunity to write something meaningful on a daily basis every day until Easter. They may not be the most well-written ideas or awe-inspiring thoughts, but they will be mine.
So here goes...
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Friday, December 4, 2009
How to pronounce "Israel" - My Christmas Wish for a Revolution
Though my wife will tell you that I do not have much of a Christmas Spirit, I have always enjoyed worship at Christmas. When Dr. Tim Lovett became pastor of my home church, Huffman Baptist (Birmingham, Alabama), he introduced our church to Advent worship. Celebrating the virtues of Advent - Hope, Peace, Joy and Love - has enhanced the already special worship experience of the Christmas Season.
And, though I am musically challenged and somewhat tone-deaf, I am moved by the Christmas Carols sung in the context of worship. Some of my favorites include "O Come, All Ye Faithful," "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing" and "The First Noel." Which brings me to my biggest gripe!
How do you pronounce "Israel"?
I think most southerners say something like "Izz-real" or "Izz-re-al" (like cereal). However, when we sing "The First Noel" or "O Come, O Come, Immanuel" we pronounce "Israel" something like "Iz-rye-el". It sounds like rye bread or rye toast. And, it is painfully annoying. Yet,everyone, from Josh Grobin and Amy Grant to the most skilled, classical musicians, does it.
Have you ever heard someone take their fingernails and scratch a chalkboard? Or, have you ever scratched a pizza stone? Those screeching sounds give me the heebie-jeebies. They make me cringe. And, I cringe the same way when I hear these classic songs, sung beautifully, played beautifully, and even emotionally, and then hear: "Born is the king of 'I-iz-rye-el'" Ooohh! Yuck!
Why do we pronounce Israel in these carols "Iz-rye-el"? For one thing, Is-ra-el is a three syllable word, not a two-syllable word. In the hymnal, Is-ra-el is correctly divided into three syllables, probably by the author or the composer of the tunes. Because we usually pronounce it with two syllables, seeing it written out in the hymnal with three syllables leaves us to guess the pronunciation. But, how did the pronunciation decision stick with "rye"?
My guess is that we are more familiar with Latin and Greek than we are Hebrew. Classical education once involved the study of Greek and Latin. Much of our English vocabulary owes its origins to Greek or Latin. As the father on "My Big, Fat, Greek Wedding" boasted, "Every word in the English language can be traced to Greek! You give me the English word and I give you the Greek root!" Spray some windex on that, why don't you!
In Latin the dipthong "ae" is always pronounced with a long "i" sound. In Greek, the alpha and iota (ai) combine to make the long "i" sound. In many cases, we carry the pronunciation over into English, or, in the case of the name Michaela, it is pronounced with a long "a" sound, like "mi-kay-la." (The name Michael, and the feminine are also Hebrew, not Greek or Latin).
However, when it comes to Hebrew, we are like Earnest T. Bass - ignorant (in the words of Sherriff Taylor). In Hebrew "ae" is not a dipthong. In other words, it should be pronounced with two syllables. It should never, under any circumstances, save my own ignorance and tradition, be pronounced "Iz-rye-el".
Thus, when we say the word "Israel" it should not come out "Izz-real" or, when we sing it, "Iz-rye-el" The correct pronunciation of "Israel" is "Is-rah-el." The "a" should be pronounced like an "a" in father or water. Furthermore, the 's' should be pronounced as a short 's' and not a long, drawn out, 'z'.
Each year my Christmas wish remains unchanged. I pray that God answers the prayer Jesus taught us to pray in its fullest. If God decides to wait another year, I pray that God allows my life to be someone's answer to the Lord's prayer and provides the means to do so. This year, He may not do the former, and He always does the latter, if I am watching and waiting.
But this year my third wish is that we Christians start a revolution in our churches. Let's sing with joy "Born is the king of "Is-rah-el"!
(Forgive the cynicism, and have a blessed Advent and Christmas season! Too, if I am wrong, I always stand to be corrected....thanks!)
And, though I am musically challenged and somewhat tone-deaf, I am moved by the Christmas Carols sung in the context of worship. Some of my favorites include "O Come, All Ye Faithful," "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing" and "The First Noel." Which brings me to my biggest gripe!
How do you pronounce "Israel"?
I think most southerners say something like "Izz-real" or "Izz-re-al" (like cereal). However, when we sing "The First Noel" or "O Come, O Come, Immanuel" we pronounce "Israel" something like "Iz-rye-el". It sounds like rye bread or rye toast. And, it is painfully annoying. Yet,everyone, from Josh Grobin and Amy Grant to the most skilled, classical musicians, does it.
Have you ever heard someone take their fingernails and scratch a chalkboard? Or, have you ever scratched a pizza stone? Those screeching sounds give me the heebie-jeebies. They make me cringe. And, I cringe the same way when I hear these classic songs, sung beautifully, played beautifully, and even emotionally, and then hear: "Born is the king of 'I-iz-rye-el'" Ooohh! Yuck!
Why do we pronounce Israel in these carols "Iz-rye-el"? For one thing, Is-ra-el is a three syllable word, not a two-syllable word. In the hymnal, Is-ra-el is correctly divided into three syllables, probably by the author or the composer of the tunes. Because we usually pronounce it with two syllables, seeing it written out in the hymnal with three syllables leaves us to guess the pronunciation. But, how did the pronunciation decision stick with "rye"?
My guess is that we are more familiar with Latin and Greek than we are Hebrew. Classical education once involved the study of Greek and Latin. Much of our English vocabulary owes its origins to Greek or Latin. As the father on "My Big, Fat, Greek Wedding" boasted, "Every word in the English language can be traced to Greek! You give me the English word and I give you the Greek root!" Spray some windex on that, why don't you!
In Latin the dipthong "ae" is always pronounced with a long "i" sound. In Greek, the alpha and iota (ai) combine to make the long "i" sound. In many cases, we carry the pronunciation over into English, or, in the case of the name Michaela, it is pronounced with a long "a" sound, like "mi-kay-la." (The name Michael, and the feminine are also Hebrew, not Greek or Latin).
However, when it comes to Hebrew, we are like Earnest T. Bass - ignorant (in the words of Sherriff Taylor). In Hebrew "ae" is not a dipthong. In other words, it should be pronounced with two syllables. It should never, under any circumstances, save my own ignorance and tradition, be pronounced "Iz-rye-el".
Thus, when we say the word "Israel" it should not come out "Izz-real" or, when we sing it, "Iz-rye-el" The correct pronunciation of "Israel" is "Is-rah-el." The "a" should be pronounced like an "a" in father or water. Furthermore, the 's' should be pronounced as a short 's' and not a long, drawn out, 'z'.
Each year my Christmas wish remains unchanged. I pray that God answers the prayer Jesus taught us to pray in its fullest. If God decides to wait another year, I pray that God allows my life to be someone's answer to the Lord's prayer and provides the means to do so. This year, He may not do the former, and He always does the latter, if I am watching and waiting.
But this year my third wish is that we Christians start a revolution in our churches. Let's sing with joy "Born is the king of "Is-rah-el"!
(Forgive the cynicism, and have a blessed Advent and Christmas season! Too, if I am wrong, I always stand to be corrected....thanks!)
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Cheap or Costly?
“Cheap Grace is the preaching of forgiveness without repentance, baptism without church discipline, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.
“Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will gladly go and sell all he has. It is the pearl of great price to buy which the merchant will sell all his goods. It is the kingly rule of Christ, for whose sake a man will pluck out the eye which causes him to stumble; it is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows him.”
“Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock.”
“Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son: ‘ye were bought at a price,’ and what has cost God so much cannot be cheap for us. Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon his Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered him up for us. Costly grace is the incarnation of God.”
(Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995, p. 44-45)
Friday, September 11, 2009
Eight Years Ago Today
I have recounted at this time last year my thoughts on the Christian's appropriate response to 9/11. I was disappointed then, and still am even today, at the failure of Christians to explain the tragedy of this day in light of God's gospel. This event has been a driving source for reminding me the importance of my vocation to speak clearly the message of Jesus Christ before the church so that the church may possess the necessary spiritual resources to speak the truth regarding events such as as 9/11.
One of the most important things in my life is to be prepared for tragedy. Paul reminded the church that we should not mourn as those without hope. Jesus was moved by his friends' mourning over the tragedy of their brother Lazarus' death. Even for Christians, in times of tragedy, our ultimate hope can seem so distant. This is evident in the symbols we turn to in times of tragedy. Our hope is distant when we are unable to articulate a tragedy such as 9/11 in terms of the Biblical narrative, particularly the gospel. We fail to see the connections between our faith and the problem that our faith dealt with.
The essence of our faith is that in cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ, death, evil, and hopelessness have been defeated. They have no power over the faithful ones. We remember those symbols in the bread and in the cup. We express that faith in the posture of prayer, in the songs we sing on days of tragedy.
How we respond to tragedy is a witness to the world. The symbols we turn to are a witness to the world. They might just be a witness to our selves about who we really are.
One of the most important things in my life is to be prepared for tragedy. Paul reminded the church that we should not mourn as those without hope. Jesus was moved by his friends' mourning over the tragedy of their brother Lazarus' death. Even for Christians, in times of tragedy, our ultimate hope can seem so distant. This is evident in the symbols we turn to in times of tragedy. Our hope is distant when we are unable to articulate a tragedy such as 9/11 in terms of the Biblical narrative, particularly the gospel. We fail to see the connections between our faith and the problem that our faith dealt with.
The essence of our faith is that in cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ, death, evil, and hopelessness have been defeated. They have no power over the faithful ones. We remember those symbols in the bread and in the cup. We express that faith in the posture of prayer, in the songs we sing on days of tragedy.
How we respond to tragedy is a witness to the world. The symbols we turn to are a witness to the world. They might just be a witness to our selves about who we really are.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Being the Church
Check this out:
http://www.biblicalrecorder.org/post/2009/09/03/Do-church-Or-be-church.aspx
What do you think?
http://www.biblicalrecorder.org/post/2009/09/03/Do-church-Or-be-church.aspx
What do you think?
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Jesus, Justice and the Kingdom of God
I read a post on Tony Cartledge's blog regarding President Obama's universal health care plan. I am not writing to debate whether or not government health care is a good thing. On a side note, I am amazed how something so important as government health care is being sloppily handled. Misinformation, no thought-out plan, and the urgency to run this thing through congress ought to concern you as it does me, regardless of what side you are on. It does not help that Republicans and Democrats are not working together on such an important topic. (I thought that was supposed to change this time around?) When will we ever learn?
However, on Dr. Cartledge's blog a friend of mine commented that he disagreed with covering illegal immigrants under the government health care reformed. Subsequently, a distinguished gentleman attacked my friend regarding his faith and whether or not he had done some serious reflection on the compassion of Jesus.
I want to ask whether or not you or I have done some serious reflection on the life, ministry, and the purposes of Jesus, justice and the kingdom of God.
First, justice is the concept of things being fair for everyone. We believe that the world is not fair, but God's plan with the coming kingdom of God is to create a world that is fair. All that is unfair will be eliminated. God is good, knows what's best, and his absolute sovereignty (the answer to the Lord's prayer) would benefit God's people, and ultimately the world, if its children would submit to his reign. Right now, things are not fair. One day, things will be.
At the heart of Jesus' ministry was the proclamation of the Kingdom of God and his role in bringing the Kingdom of God about. During that ministry, Jesus ate with the marginalized, healed their sicknesses, cast out demons, raised some of the dead, and exhibited compassion with those who were in need. He welcomed children. I would not argue that compassion for the marginalized is at the heart of Jesus' message.
Yet, somewhere in the middle of each of the Synoptic Gospel messages, Jesus sets his eyes on Jerusalem and a destiny of crucifixion. Followers, including many who received miracles at the hands of Jesus, and scores of those who witnessed them, began to fall away. Jesus was going to his death and they did not like this.
Why did Jesus go to die? I am sure that you have your church answers for Jesus' death. It was through the death of Jesus, and subsequent events on a mysterious "third day" that God would demonstrate the power of his kingdom, by defeating death itself. Things would be different for those who "trusted" Jesus. Things would be different in the world. Things would be different for the community of followers that would form following the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Now, let's look at a few things. There are some who believe that the mission of the followers of Jesus is to bring justice to all people of the world. They believe that the mission of the church is to make sure that life is fair for everyone. They believe that justice must be meted out in this life. When Jesus pointed his face to Jerusalem and revealed to his dull disciples the purpose for His coming, Jesus left behind many poor people, many children, many sick, and many hungry people. He did not achieve justice by removing Roman occupation, by equally distributing the wealth, or using his power and connections with the Father and the Spirit to make things right.
Why? The ultimate problem that the Kingdom of God manifested in the ministry of Jesus came to deal with is death. The Book of Ecclesiastes laments that kings and paupers, good and evil, inevitably all life, ceases to be. The Book of Job exemplifies that those who may deserve justice (from a human perspective) do not always get it in this life.
Let me say this: while Christians do bear a responsibility to work for justice, justice for all simply will not happen this side of eternity. Only through the fulfilment of the coming Kingdom of God can life be fair for all who benefit from God's reign. Justice will not eliminate the fact that there will be many who die before that justice can be distributed. Furthermore, health care can never answer the quandry of why one became sick in the first place, and the other did not.
No, our response to the message of Jesus, and the eventual coming of God's kingdom is compassion. If justice is equity without compassion, then give me injustice mingled with compassion. We cannot put the world to rights. God can. God will, in His time. However, we can demonstrate the compassion of Jesus to those who are suffering. Those of us who are not, are called to bear the cross of those who are. We are called to love people through relationships. We do not feed the poor from behind a soup kitchen shelf, but at their table where the dinner is steak. We love as equals, not as a project. We love not by providing a cheap health care system for the poor, but by gathering the sick as a community of faith, and taking them to the doctors, and providing for their care through compassion, not as a project.
Yes, we can work to make the world better, but that comes through Jesus' compassion infecting His followers by the Holy Spirit, and in turn infecting others with an unmeritted compassion. That compassion will include meeting real needs, learning to related to all kinds of people, and breaking down barriers. But the hallmark of that compassion is in the sharing of our motivation - we have experienced the love of God and a taste of His good future in Jesus Christ.
If this health care bill works, then great. I would be its supporter. If it does not, then so be it. But my compassion for others does not depend on legislation, but something deeper - the experience of God's love, the hope of a New Day in which many will participate, and trust in Jesus' message and method of compassion.
So, to the critic on Dr. Cartledge's blog, is universal health care the ultimate expression of Jesus' compassion? Those under that care will still die. Then what is next? My hope for the world, my community and family is in the God who has defeated death and sent the church as messengers to live out the gospel of Jesus Christ in deed and word.
However, on Dr. Cartledge's blog a friend of mine commented that he disagreed with covering illegal immigrants under the government health care reformed. Subsequently, a distinguished gentleman attacked my friend regarding his faith and whether or not he had done some serious reflection on the compassion of Jesus.
I want to ask whether or not you or I have done some serious reflection on the life, ministry, and the purposes of Jesus, justice and the kingdom of God.
First, justice is the concept of things being fair for everyone. We believe that the world is not fair, but God's plan with the coming kingdom of God is to create a world that is fair. All that is unfair will be eliminated. God is good, knows what's best, and his absolute sovereignty (the answer to the Lord's prayer) would benefit God's people, and ultimately the world, if its children would submit to his reign. Right now, things are not fair. One day, things will be.
At the heart of Jesus' ministry was the proclamation of the Kingdom of God and his role in bringing the Kingdom of God about. During that ministry, Jesus ate with the marginalized, healed their sicknesses, cast out demons, raised some of the dead, and exhibited compassion with those who were in need. He welcomed children. I would not argue that compassion for the marginalized is at the heart of Jesus' message.
Yet, somewhere in the middle of each of the Synoptic Gospel messages, Jesus sets his eyes on Jerusalem and a destiny of crucifixion. Followers, including many who received miracles at the hands of Jesus, and scores of those who witnessed them, began to fall away. Jesus was going to his death and they did not like this.
Why did Jesus go to die? I am sure that you have your church answers for Jesus' death. It was through the death of Jesus, and subsequent events on a mysterious "third day" that God would demonstrate the power of his kingdom, by defeating death itself. Things would be different for those who "trusted" Jesus. Things would be different in the world. Things would be different for the community of followers that would form following the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Now, let's look at a few things. There are some who believe that the mission of the followers of Jesus is to bring justice to all people of the world. They believe that the mission of the church is to make sure that life is fair for everyone. They believe that justice must be meted out in this life. When Jesus pointed his face to Jerusalem and revealed to his dull disciples the purpose for His coming, Jesus left behind many poor people, many children, many sick, and many hungry people. He did not achieve justice by removing Roman occupation, by equally distributing the wealth, or using his power and connections with the Father and the Spirit to make things right.
Why? The ultimate problem that the Kingdom of God manifested in the ministry of Jesus came to deal with is death. The Book of Ecclesiastes laments that kings and paupers, good and evil, inevitably all life, ceases to be. The Book of Job exemplifies that those who may deserve justice (from a human perspective) do not always get it in this life.
Let me say this: while Christians do bear a responsibility to work for justice, justice for all simply will not happen this side of eternity. Only through the fulfilment of the coming Kingdom of God can life be fair for all who benefit from God's reign. Justice will not eliminate the fact that there will be many who die before that justice can be distributed. Furthermore, health care can never answer the quandry of why one became sick in the first place, and the other did not.
No, our response to the message of Jesus, and the eventual coming of God's kingdom is compassion. If justice is equity without compassion, then give me injustice mingled with compassion. We cannot put the world to rights. God can. God will, in His time. However, we can demonstrate the compassion of Jesus to those who are suffering. Those of us who are not, are called to bear the cross of those who are. We are called to love people through relationships. We do not feed the poor from behind a soup kitchen shelf, but at their table where the dinner is steak. We love as equals, not as a project. We love not by providing a cheap health care system for the poor, but by gathering the sick as a community of faith, and taking them to the doctors, and providing for their care through compassion, not as a project.
Yes, we can work to make the world better, but that comes through Jesus' compassion infecting His followers by the Holy Spirit, and in turn infecting others with an unmeritted compassion. That compassion will include meeting real needs, learning to related to all kinds of people, and breaking down barriers. But the hallmark of that compassion is in the sharing of our motivation - we have experienced the love of God and a taste of His good future in Jesus Christ.
If this health care bill works, then great. I would be its supporter. If it does not, then so be it. But my compassion for others does not depend on legislation, but something deeper - the experience of God's love, the hope of a New Day in which many will participate, and trust in Jesus' message and method of compassion.
So, to the critic on Dr. Cartledge's blog, is universal health care the ultimate expression of Jesus' compassion? Those under that care will still die. Then what is next? My hope for the world, my community and family is in the God who has defeated death and sent the church as messengers to live out the gospel of Jesus Christ in deed and word.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
The Bottom Line?
Is it really OK to agree to disagree?
Unity amidst diversity sounds nice, but in reality it is easier said than done.
Why?
Coming from divinity school to the 'real world' of ministry has not been an eye opening experience, but I cannot help but notice the difference between theory and practice in church. In divinity school, I was educated to look at both or all sides of a position, delimma or doctrine. Knowing the arguments for each position, it was up to me to weigh the arguments against scripture, reason, tradition and experience. Then, I had to make the choice of where I stood. However, my personal position was not as important as knowing how I arrived at the position. Divinity School taught me to think. That's good. Church history is primarily a history of thought and subsequent practice.
However, it also devalues the importance of the final position. For example, I believe that God calls women to ordained capacities in the church. That is not a position that the church has historically embraced. Furthermore, those like me, who hold to a high view of scripture often come to different opinions as to what the Bible says. Paul seems to limit ministerial roles in 1 Timothy to males. Yet we have other passages that indicate women had a greater role in ministry vis-a-vis the role of women in society. The Bible narrative gives evidence of progress in the role of women when compared to the role of women in First Century Greco-Roman culture.
Yet, many people ask whether or not I believe a certain thing, like women in ministry, and expect a direct answer: "Yes, I believe women can serve in ordained capacities" or "no, they cannot" without appreciation as to how I came to that conclusion.
To illustrate that point, there are some that believe women can serve in ministry regardless of what the Bible says. They read scripture differently. They interpret differently. They believe that the Bible contains the word of God and they must pick and choose what parts of the Bible to embrace. That oversimplifies their position, but I must for sake of brevity. I cannot side with these people who "pick and choose" their scripture as opposed to the whole of the Bible.
Furthermore, I feel more akin to those who believe that women cannot serve in ordained capacities if their position comes from an honest attempt to read scripture. Though I do not agree with their final answer, their theological understanding of scripture I embrace.
Thus, for me, how I arrive at the final answer may be more important than the final answer and its applications. Too, I may appreciate how others come to that final position, even if we disagree.
However, in the 'real world' of church ministry, the final answer and its applications are more important than the process of how to get there. People want simple answers to run with. And, this is understandable. If my church agrees that women may serve in ordained capacities, then that, in turn, affects how the church does ministry. It affects the church's relationship with those churches that disagree. It affects whether or not people may feel they can attend that particular church. The catch-22 then becomes whether or not the church aligns with other churches that embrace the particular practice or with churches that embrace the method that comes to the conclusion. Therefore, to many, the final answer matters most, without thought given to the process of arriving at the final answer.
I fondly remember watching the famous Duke-Kentucky regional final in 1992. The two teams played what many consider to be the best basketball game ever played. Regulation ended with a 93-93 tie and the teams went back and forth throughout overtime. Kentucky led 103-102 with two seconds left. Christian Laettner hit the game winner at the buzzer for Duke's 104-103 win. They went on to win the national championship. Though we can admire the game, that Kentucky played their best basketball of the season, perhaps ever, in that one game, the result still stood. Duke won and advanced. They would have done the same if the game was ugly and the final score was in the 50's or if they blew Kentucky out. The tournament brackets showed no appreciation for the greatest game ever. It merely advanced Duke to the next round and Kentucky was labeled a loser.
The world is a bottom line world. But does this always work in Christianity, especially "organized" Christianity? What is most important, the end result or how the game is played? Does Christianity have a place for both? Can we work with those whom we disagree, yet share common values that led to differing practices?
These are just thoughts, but important thoughts for considering how to think theologically and for practical theology.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)