Something I didn’t realize until a few days ago: the old International Standard Bible Encyclopedia is available free on-line. No, it’s not the updated, much-newer one. But the original ISBE is loaded with a lot of still-good stuff for the would-be Bible student.
One of the finest multi-volume works of biblical scholarship from the early 20th century, it features articles by some of the best and brightest of that day: George L. Robinson, Benjamin B. Warfield, A. T. Robertson, the list goes on.
Actually, it can be found at two or three different places on the web. You can check it out at the following: http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/ Happy studying!
Friday, January 05, 2007
The Gospel of Judas, 1
Last night, I read “The Gospel of Judas.” A little bit about it.
An English translation of this mid-second century document was first published just last year. Why not before? Because for about 1,600 years, it was completely lost.
It was only within the last few decades that a single manuscript turned up on the antiquities market. And by the time it was recognized as an ancient copy of “The Gospel of Judas,” the manuscript was in such bad shape it had to be pieced together again (using tweezers!) over a period of several years.
Of course, then, for our purposes, the ancient Coptic manuscript had to be translated into English. For what it’s worth, scholars say that our one manuscript actually reflects a translation into Coptic from the document’s original language, Greek. So reading it in English, we’re actually two languages away from the original.
Anyway, for a full account of the rediscovery, reconstruction, and eventual publication of “The Gospel of Judas,” apparently the best place to go is Herbert Krosney’s book, The Lost Gospel: The Quest for the Gospel of Judas Iscariot (Washington, DC: National Geographic Society, 2006).
I suspect that many theologically-conservative Christians will immediately want to read N.T. Wright’s new book, Judas and the Gospel of Jesus: Have We Missed the Truth about Christianity? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2006). That way they’ll have the Wright take on the whole thing. But remembering something I once heard Everett Ferguson repeat—that one word in the primary source is worth a 1000 words in a secondary source—I made myself just read the text first. You can too.
Without having to purchase all of the debatable “Introduction” and “Commentary” sections of the print edition--The Gospel of Judas (Washington, DC: National Geographic Society, 2006)--you may read the English translation here.
Within the next few days, I’ll mention some of my first reactions to “The Gospel of Judas” and what’s been made of it since it first came out.
An English translation of this mid-second century document was first published just last year. Why not before? Because for about 1,600 years, it was completely lost.
It was only within the last few decades that a single manuscript turned up on the antiquities market. And by the time it was recognized as an ancient copy of “The Gospel of Judas,” the manuscript was in such bad shape it had to be pieced together again (using tweezers!) over a period of several years.
Of course, then, for our purposes, the ancient Coptic manuscript had to be translated into English. For what it’s worth, scholars say that our one manuscript actually reflects a translation into Coptic from the document’s original language, Greek. So reading it in English, we’re actually two languages away from the original.
Anyway, for a full account of the rediscovery, reconstruction, and eventual publication of “The Gospel of Judas,” apparently the best place to go is Herbert Krosney’s book, The Lost Gospel: The Quest for the Gospel of Judas Iscariot (Washington, DC: National Geographic Society, 2006).
I suspect that many theologically-conservative Christians will immediately want to read N.T. Wright’s new book, Judas and the Gospel of Jesus: Have We Missed the Truth about Christianity? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2006). That way they’ll have the Wright take on the whole thing. But remembering something I once heard Everett Ferguson repeat—that one word in the primary source is worth a 1000 words in a secondary source—I made myself just read the text first. You can too.
Without having to purchase all of the debatable “Introduction” and “Commentary” sections of the print edition--The Gospel of Judas (Washington, DC: National Geographic Society, 2006)--you may read the English translation here.
Within the next few days, I’ll mention some of my first reactions to “The Gospel of Judas” and what’s been made of it since it first came out.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Xmas is Over!
A belated “Happy New Year!” I hope your 2007 is off to a good start.
The last two weeks brought me a predictable change of pace. It was a good thing, I guess. But I crave my routines, don’t you?
Not to mention that there’s a lot about the holidays that I absolutely hate, the part that C. S. Lewis distinguished as “Xmas” as opposed to “Christmas.” That is to say, I like wonder but not worry, sharing but not over-spending, feasting but not gorging, traveling but not rushing.
I think about all of the stories and statistics I’ve heard over the years about people putting on weight and overspending in the season just past. And then there’s all of the drinking that turns people into menaces and puts all the rest of us on high alert. What’s good about that?
I remember one of my church elders in Connecticut who without blinking would say, “I hate Christmas.” Yet, during our Sunday-night-before-Christmas devotionals, no one sang about Jesus Christ with more gusto and spirit than he did. He loved Christmas. He hated Xmas.
The last two weeks brought me a predictable change of pace. It was a good thing, I guess. But I crave my routines, don’t you?
Not to mention that there’s a lot about the holidays that I absolutely hate, the part that C. S. Lewis distinguished as “Xmas” as opposed to “Christmas.” That is to say, I like wonder but not worry, sharing but not over-spending, feasting but not gorging, traveling but not rushing.
I think about all of the stories and statistics I’ve heard over the years about people putting on weight and overspending in the season just past. And then there’s all of the drinking that turns people into menaces and puts all the rest of us on high alert. What’s good about that?
I remember one of my church elders in Connecticut who without blinking would say, “I hate Christmas.” Yet, during our Sunday-night-before-Christmas devotionals, no one sang about Jesus Christ with more gusto and spirit than he did. He loved Christmas. He hated Xmas.
The holiday season is over. I’m glad Xmas is too. Aren’t you?
Friday, December 22, 2006
A Timely Decision
I guess you’ve heard by now. Time magazine has named me it’s “Person of the Year.” You too. I wonder how many conversations that one has generated.
Jay Leno quipped that Time should at least give all of us one free copy (which, looking back on it now, seems strangely and doubly ironic since it appears that all of the magazine’s content is free on the web).
I wondered if it was a scene where everyone on the committee was way behind on Christmas shopping and they all needed to get out of there. “You!” said someone recalling the ethos of those 1970s smiley faces. “The Person of the Year is ‘You’!”
Where was this idea coming from? So I read the editorial. Turns out, there’s a fair and reasoned explanation. According to Richard Stengel, the Time choice was based on the facts . . .
“that individuals are changing the nature of the information age, that the creators and consumers of user-generated content are transforming art and politics and commerce, that they are the engaged citizens of a new digital democracy. From user-generated images of Baghdad strife and the London Underground bombing to the macaca moment that might have altered the midterm elections to the hundreds of thousands of individual outpourings of hope and poetry and self-absorption, this new global nervous system is changing the way we perceive the world. And the consequences of it all are both hard to know and impossible to overestimate.”
Several months ago, I wondered in a post here if blogging was part of a real revolution, or if it was more like the CB radio of yesteryear. I’m much closer to a good answer now. But, then, what would you expect from Time’s “Person of the Year”?
I hope you have yourself a merry little Christmas.
Jay Leno quipped that Time should at least give all of us one free copy (which, looking back on it now, seems strangely and doubly ironic since it appears that all of the magazine’s content is free on the web).
I wondered if it was a scene where everyone on the committee was way behind on Christmas shopping and they all needed to get out of there. “You!” said someone recalling the ethos of those 1970s smiley faces. “The Person of the Year is ‘You’!”
Where was this idea coming from? So I read the editorial. Turns out, there’s a fair and reasoned explanation. According to Richard Stengel, the Time choice was based on the facts . . .
“that individuals are changing the nature of the information age, that the creators and consumers of user-generated content are transforming art and politics and commerce, that they are the engaged citizens of a new digital democracy. From user-generated images of Baghdad strife and the London Underground bombing to the macaca moment that might have altered the midterm elections to the hundreds of thousands of individual outpourings of hope and poetry and self-absorption, this new global nervous system is changing the way we perceive the world. And the consequences of it all are both hard to know and impossible to overestimate.”
Several months ago, I wondered in a post here if blogging was part of a real revolution, or if it was more like the CB radio of yesteryear. I’m much closer to a good answer now. But, then, what would you expect from Time’s “Person of the Year”?
I hope you have yourself a merry little Christmas.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Musical Movements
Music has always done things to me. For one thing, certain melodies and chord progressions have the ability to make me feel sad, undone even. Sometimes I cry, even if the lyrics that go along with the music aren’t all that sad.
I can still remember when I was very young, sometimes the congregation where my family worshipped would begin singing one of a handful of hymns that never failed to melt me. Before they’d sung the second or third line, I would burst into tears, stricken by the melodies or the harmonies or whatever it was that I heard.
What I’m describing has stayed with me through the years. But these days, it’s not so much the church songs. More often, it’s popular music and some classical pieces that blow me away.
For example, one of the most haunting songs I’ve ever heard is Pink Floyd's “Us and Them." If I happen to listen to it from beginning to end, the song never fails to send me into this glassy-eyed funk, with me loving it all the while. If I’m listening to it on the radio, and “Funkville” isn't where I want to go, then I have to switch stations. Immediately.
Ecstatic music also does things to me, like make me happily manic or manically happy. . . . Something like that. Some songs, especially when the volume’s cranked, make me sweat. When I’m having this sort of experience with music, I’m sure that my heart rate is much higher than normal. I could mention several songs here. But in the interests of not looking too much like a complete Philistine, I’ll simply say that most of those titles would be found in that section of your local record store labeled “Head Banging!”
When I was still in grade school I used to think that no one else had my sort of relationship with music. Who else was blubbering in church? I imagined that I was the only one who knew what I knew. As long as that illusion lasted, it was never a burden, like being the only kid who sees dead people. Instead, it was like a secret that I just kept to myself.
As time went on and my world got a little larger I realized, of course, that without it being exactly the same other people did know what I knew. Music did things to them too.
As I grew up spiritually, I came to recognize music as one the greatest things God ever gave us; both the capacity and all of the good reasons to sing and make music in our hearts. Isn’t is sweet?
And now, a few of my current favorites in sometimes-strange categories:
1. Favorite Traditional Christmas Song: “O Come, All Ye Faithful”
2. Favorite Traditional Hymn: “Love Divine” by Charles Wesley. The beginning of the stanza, “Finish then thy new creation . . .” is one of those tear jerkers for me.
3. Favorite Hymn I Really Don’t Know, but Have Heard a Time or Two: “Ancient Words” (by Michael W. Smith?) This one is something special. If a congregation sings it well right before the preacher stands up they’re guaranteed to get a better sermon.
4. Favorite Communion Song: “We Saw Thee Not” Tune by the Restoration Movement’s own “Singing Evangelist,” Knowles Shaw. My ears are older than the rest of me. Can you tell?
5. Favorite Movie Soundtrack: “The Sting.” Some of the best Ragtime ever.
6. Favorite Recorded Groove: Steely Dan’s, “Peg.” Exquisite guitar solo too. If you don’t feel five degrees cooler when you hear this song, check for a pulse.
7. Favorite Solo Album by Someone Who Previously Got Famous with a Band: Steely Dan front man Donald Fagen’s “The Night Fly.” (People who sell speakers for a living should be paying commissions for their use of this one).
8. Favorite Mostly-Unacknowledged Power Trio from Yesteryear: Triumph.
So, what does music do with you? Any favorite songs? Bands? Forgotten tunes? Memorable experiences with music? Let’s hear it.
I can still remember when I was very young, sometimes the congregation where my family worshipped would begin singing one of a handful of hymns that never failed to melt me. Before they’d sung the second or third line, I would burst into tears, stricken by the melodies or the harmonies or whatever it was that I heard.
What I’m describing has stayed with me through the years. But these days, it’s not so much the church songs. More often, it’s popular music and some classical pieces that blow me away.
For example, one of the most haunting songs I’ve ever heard is Pink Floyd's “Us and Them." If I happen to listen to it from beginning to end, the song never fails to send me into this glassy-eyed funk, with me loving it all the while. If I’m listening to it on the radio, and “Funkville” isn't where I want to go, then I have to switch stations. Immediately.
Ecstatic music also does things to me, like make me happily manic or manically happy. . . . Something like that. Some songs, especially when the volume’s cranked, make me sweat. When I’m having this sort of experience with music, I’m sure that my heart rate is much higher than normal. I could mention several songs here. But in the interests of not looking too much like a complete Philistine, I’ll simply say that most of those titles would be found in that section of your local record store labeled “Head Banging!”
When I was still in grade school I used to think that no one else had my sort of relationship with music. Who else was blubbering in church? I imagined that I was the only one who knew what I knew. As long as that illusion lasted, it was never a burden, like being the only kid who sees dead people. Instead, it was like a secret that I just kept to myself.
As time went on and my world got a little larger I realized, of course, that without it being exactly the same other people did know what I knew. Music did things to them too.
As I grew up spiritually, I came to recognize music as one the greatest things God ever gave us; both the capacity and all of the good reasons to sing and make music in our hearts. Isn’t is sweet?
And now, a few of my current favorites in sometimes-strange categories:
1. Favorite Traditional Christmas Song: “O Come, All Ye Faithful”
2. Favorite Traditional Hymn: “Love Divine” by Charles Wesley. The beginning of the stanza, “Finish then thy new creation . . .” is one of those tear jerkers for me.
3. Favorite Hymn I Really Don’t Know, but Have Heard a Time or Two: “Ancient Words” (by Michael W. Smith?) This one is something special. If a congregation sings it well right before the preacher stands up they’re guaranteed to get a better sermon.
4. Favorite Communion Song: “We Saw Thee Not” Tune by the Restoration Movement’s own “Singing Evangelist,” Knowles Shaw. My ears are older than the rest of me. Can you tell?
5. Favorite Movie Soundtrack: “The Sting.” Some of the best Ragtime ever.
6. Favorite Recorded Groove: Steely Dan’s, “Peg.” Exquisite guitar solo too. If you don’t feel five degrees cooler when you hear this song, check for a pulse.
7. Favorite Solo Album by Someone Who Previously Got Famous with a Band: Steely Dan front man Donald Fagen’s “The Night Fly.” (People who sell speakers for a living should be paying commissions for their use of this one).
8. Favorite Mostly-Unacknowledged Power Trio from Yesteryear: Triumph.
So, what does music do with you? Any favorite songs? Bands? Forgotten tunes? Memorable experiences with music? Let’s hear it.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Some Plans for Next Year
I’m making big plans for 2007. If all goes according to schedule, I’ll be taking trips to Connecticut (my daughter’s graduation), Colorado (family get-together) and California (professional meeting).
By virtue of my job, I get to visit and teach at a lot of churches in the Texas panhandle. If anything, I’ll be doing even more of that next year. One speaking gig I’m especially looking forward to is October’s “Friends Day” at the Comanche Trail Church of Christ here in Amarillo.
Starting in the fall, the Religion Department is hoping to offer two semesters of “Elementary Biblical Hebrew” at Amarillo College. I just hope my Hebrew holds up well till then.
And I’ll be reading. Here are some of the books, and a little bit about why:
Gilead, by Marilynne Robinson
I bought a copy of this book as soon as it came out. I heard about it on this radio talk show and was intrigued. It’s still sitting there on the shelf. Meanwhile, folks have been raving about it.
For me, reading fiction is sort of like waxing my car. I’m not drawn to it, and don’t do it very often. But once I get started, I like it and always feel like it was time well spent.
Michele’s constantly goofing on me because I rarely read fiction. She sees it the way I see non-fiction. Why would someone want to read the other? She’s been known to read some slightly-racy stories. So for those book debates that she usually wins, I’m fond of a standard retort in which I ask her about “Love’s Luscious Lust.” (Disclaimer: If there is such a title, Michele hasn’t read it. . . . I think).
A Greener Faith: Religious Environmentalism and Our Planet’s Future, by Roger S. Gottlieb
Several years ago, I got lost and found myself at the intersection of Christianity and conservation. Not that I’m much of an activist. I’m not. But I did use a little of my preaching-teaching time to put environmental issues in a theological frame (as opposed to a radicalized political frame). I want to read this book because it’s advertised as the “first comprehensive account of religious environmentalism.” Ooooh. (That other sound you hear is Michele scoffing in the background).
Evil and the Justice of God, by N. T. Wright.
I first met Tom Wright back in 1991. At a session on Romans during the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, the two people who sat down on either side of me were him and Gordon Fee. I felt like a dime between two silver dollars.
Anyway, when Wright delivered the Schaffer Lectures at Yale in 1996, the Divinity School and Religion Department were places where people like Wayne Meeks and Abe Malherbe would have had a lot more to say about Paul than Jesus. However, if others in New Haven had been lecturing about Jesus, I dare say it wouldn’t have been the sort of thing that Wright delivering.
On top of all that, he concluded his third and final lecture with something like an altar call for academicians. I thought I was dreaming and kept waiting for someone to stand up and say, “Hal-le-LU-jah!”
To his credit, and in his funny sort of way, Leander Keck followed Wright at the lectern and said, “Finally, someone who thinks that Jesus stood in a tradition.” (Remember the Jesus Seminar?) If ever there was an academic tour de force, Wright’s lectures at Yale were it, and I’ve been hooked ever since. Someone has said that Wright writes faster than most of us read. I’m doing my best to keep up.
The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher’s Life, by Parker J. Palmer
This one came out in the 1990s and established a good reputation for itself. Not long after it was first published, several of the faculty at a community college where I was an adjunct were reading the book and having regular get-togethers to discuss it. It was all the rage, and I’ve been interested in it ever since. It’s past time for me to read this one.
So where are you going next year? (If you get to go overseas, I’ll probably post your comment. But I don’t want to hear too much). Any gotta-read books?
By virtue of my job, I get to visit and teach at a lot of churches in the Texas panhandle. If anything, I’ll be doing even more of that next year. One speaking gig I’m especially looking forward to is October’s “Friends Day” at the Comanche Trail Church of Christ here in Amarillo.
Starting in the fall, the Religion Department is hoping to offer two semesters of “Elementary Biblical Hebrew” at Amarillo College. I just hope my Hebrew holds up well till then.
And I’ll be reading. Here are some of the books, and a little bit about why:
Gilead, by Marilynne Robinson
I bought a copy of this book as soon as it came out. I heard about it on this radio talk show and was intrigued. It’s still sitting there on the shelf. Meanwhile, folks have been raving about it.
For me, reading fiction is sort of like waxing my car. I’m not drawn to it, and don’t do it very often. But once I get started, I like it and always feel like it was time well spent.
Michele’s constantly goofing on me because I rarely read fiction. She sees it the way I see non-fiction. Why would someone want to read the other? She’s been known to read some slightly-racy stories. So for those book debates that she usually wins, I’m fond of a standard retort in which I ask her about “Love’s Luscious Lust.” (Disclaimer: If there is such a title, Michele hasn’t read it. . . . I think).
A Greener Faith: Religious Environmentalism and Our Planet’s Future, by Roger S. Gottlieb
Several years ago, I got lost and found myself at the intersection of Christianity and conservation. Not that I’m much of an activist. I’m not. But I did use a little of my preaching-teaching time to put environmental issues in a theological frame (as opposed to a radicalized political frame). I want to read this book because it’s advertised as the “first comprehensive account of religious environmentalism.” Ooooh. (That other sound you hear is Michele scoffing in the background).
Evil and the Justice of God, by N. T. Wright.
I first met Tom Wright back in 1991. At a session on Romans during the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, the two people who sat down on either side of me were him and Gordon Fee. I felt like a dime between two silver dollars.
Anyway, when Wright delivered the Schaffer Lectures at Yale in 1996, the Divinity School and Religion Department were places where people like Wayne Meeks and Abe Malherbe would have had a lot more to say about Paul than Jesus. However, if others in New Haven had been lecturing about Jesus, I dare say it wouldn’t have been the sort of thing that Wright delivering.
On top of all that, he concluded his third and final lecture with something like an altar call for academicians. I thought I was dreaming and kept waiting for someone to stand up and say, “Hal-le-LU-jah!”
To his credit, and in his funny sort of way, Leander Keck followed Wright at the lectern and said, “Finally, someone who thinks that Jesus stood in a tradition.” (Remember the Jesus Seminar?) If ever there was an academic tour de force, Wright’s lectures at Yale were it, and I’ve been hooked ever since. Someone has said that Wright writes faster than most of us read. I’m doing my best to keep up.
The Courage to Teach: Exploring the Inner Landscape of a Teacher’s Life, by Parker J. Palmer
This one came out in the 1990s and established a good reputation for itself. Not long after it was first published, several of the faculty at a community college where I was an adjunct were reading the book and having regular get-togethers to discuss it. It was all the rage, and I’ve been interested in it ever since. It’s past time for me to read this one.
So where are you going next year? (If you get to go overseas, I’ll probably post your comment. But I don’t want to hear too much). Any gotta-read books?
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Making the Grade
We’re nearing the end of finals week at Amarillo College. That’s right. Between now and the beginning of 2007, I have no more classes to teach, no more papers to read, no more tests to give, etc.
On the other hand, I do have final grades to figure and turn in, syllabi to revise (and, in some cases, produce), a bunch of administrative chores to do, a report to write, etc. So don’t be too jealous.
Speaking of grades, one of the hardest things for me to do is to finally give that “F” to the student who deserves nothing better. When I had to face that for the first time, I was lamenting about it to one of my mentors, Jerry Klein. He’s one of the former directors of this Bible Chair, and he always has a good response to my questions.
So there I was, fretting over assigning Fs, when Jerry said: “Frank, years ago I concluded that for some students making an F is part of the educational process.” Since then, I’ve repeated that one more than once. But I’m still thankful that a huge majority of my students score anywhere from A to C. It’s hard to see someone stumbling through the school of hard knocks.
So, if you had to give yourself a grade for 2006, what would it be? What was your last F in life? Did it serve an educational purpose for you? Any recent As?
On the other hand, I do have final grades to figure and turn in, syllabi to revise (and, in some cases, produce), a bunch of administrative chores to do, a report to write, etc. So don’t be too jealous.
Speaking of grades, one of the hardest things for me to do is to finally give that “F” to the student who deserves nothing better. When I had to face that for the first time, I was lamenting about it to one of my mentors, Jerry Klein. He’s one of the former directors of this Bible Chair, and he always has a good response to my questions.
So there I was, fretting over assigning Fs, when Jerry said: “Frank, years ago I concluded that for some students making an F is part of the educational process.” Since then, I’ve repeated that one more than once. But I’m still thankful that a huge majority of my students score anywhere from A to C. It’s hard to see someone stumbling through the school of hard knocks.
So, if you had to give yourself a grade for 2006, what would it be? What was your last F in life? Did it serve an educational purpose for you? Any recent As?
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Introduction to Hinduism, 2
7. The essence of every person is no different from the essence of the universe. Hindus call the substratum of all reality Brahman. When identifying Brahman as the essential human nature, they call it Atman. To understand this better, consider the analogy: a wave on the surface of the ocean is distinguishable, but is still “ocean.” In the same way, the individual, indeed all things, though distinct, are expressions of the one absolute essence, Brahman.
8. However, to understand the nature of the Self at the level of intellect, merely from the neck up, is not enough. What humans need is to experience their essence. This experience is called “enlightenment” (alternately called bodhi, nirvana, jivanmukti, paravidya, etc.). When an individual has this, only then is he released from the cycle of rebirth called samsara.
9. To enliven consciousness so that Atman might be experienced, Hindus practice one or more yogas. These are methods of awakening, means to generating greater consciousness.
10. Among Westerners, the best-known yoga is Hatha. This yoga involves body positions called asanas and breathing exercises called pranayama.
11. The Bhagavad-Gita, “The Divine Song of God,” often called “the Gita,” is one of the most recent (3rd century B.C.) and best-known and loved parts of the wide array of Hindu Scripture. In the Gita, Lord Krishna tells the warrior prince Arjuna that there are three main paths to enlightenment:
8. However, to understand the nature of the Self at the level of intellect, merely from the neck up, is not enough. What humans need is to experience their essence. This experience is called “enlightenment” (alternately called bodhi, nirvana, jivanmukti, paravidya, etc.). When an individual has this, only then is he released from the cycle of rebirth called samsara.
9. To enliven consciousness so that Atman might be experienced, Hindus practice one or more yogas. These are methods of awakening, means to generating greater consciousness.
10. Among Westerners, the best-known yoga is Hatha. This yoga involves body positions called asanas and breathing exercises called pranayama.
11. The Bhagavad-Gita, “The Divine Song of God,” often called “the Gita,” is one of the most recent (3rd century B.C.) and best-known and loved parts of the wide array of Hindu Scripture. In the Gita, Lord Krishna tells the warrior prince Arjuna that there are three main paths to enlightenment:
- Jnana Yoga, the “path of wisdom” (which involves the study of sacred texts, meditation, and an ascetic lifestyle).
- Karma Yoga, the “path of action” (which involves close attention to ethics, compassion towards all living things, and service to others).
- Bhakti Yoga, the “path of devotion” (which involves pilgrimages, ceremonies, ritual offerings, visits to temples, etc.).
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Introduction to Hinduism, 1
I’m reworking an “Introduction to Hinduism” handout, the kind of material that can be used in the World Religions class, but also in a church class setting. What follows is the first half of an outline. Most of this material comes from Dr. Dana Sawyer, Professor of Religion at the Maine College of Art, Portland, ME. The other source is the chapter on Hinduism in Warren Matthews, World Religions.
- - - - - -
1. Unlike Buddhism and Christianity, Hinduism has no particular founder.
2. The origins of Hinduism disappear into pre-history. According to prevailing theory, what came to be called Hinduism began sometime around 1800 B.C. Aryans migrating to modern- day NW India brought with them their religion, which is reflected in ancient Vedic texts. They met the spirituality indigenous to the Indus Valley Civilization. The blending of these two viewpoints was, evidently, the beginning of Hinduism.
3. For Hindus, the purpose of life is to find out the true nature of the self. That is, in Hinduism the big question is, “Who are you?”
4. Hindus believe that we reincarnate lifetime after lifetime because we are in ignorance (avidya) of our true nature. Knowledge of who we are will bring moksha, liberation.
5. Hinduism postulates two levels of the self: (a) There is the transitory self, bound by time and space and made up of the body, the mind, emotions, thoughts, and memories. (b) Underlying and implicit to the relative, transient self is an infinite, unbounded, eternal and unchanging self called Atman. The Atman, or higher self, was never more and never dies. It does not change because it is absolute according to its very nature.
6. The Atman is the essence of every human being. But this differs markedly from, say, the Islamic concept of the soul. For Hindus there is not a multiplicity of infinite Atmans. (In Islam, there are as many souls as there are people). Instead, there is one world soul at the base of all individual consciousness.
- - - - - -
1. Unlike Buddhism and Christianity, Hinduism has no particular founder.
2. The origins of Hinduism disappear into pre-history. According to prevailing theory, what came to be called Hinduism began sometime around 1800 B.C. Aryans migrating to modern- day NW India brought with them their religion, which is reflected in ancient Vedic texts. They met the spirituality indigenous to the Indus Valley Civilization. The blending of these two viewpoints was, evidently, the beginning of Hinduism.
3. For Hindus, the purpose of life is to find out the true nature of the self. That is, in Hinduism the big question is, “Who are you?”
4. Hindus believe that we reincarnate lifetime after lifetime because we are in ignorance (avidya) of our true nature. Knowledge of who we are will bring moksha, liberation.
5. Hinduism postulates two levels of the self: (a) There is the transitory self, bound by time and space and made up of the body, the mind, emotions, thoughts, and memories. (b) Underlying and implicit to the relative, transient self is an infinite, unbounded, eternal and unchanging self called Atman. The Atman, or higher self, was never more and never dies. It does not change because it is absolute according to its very nature.
6. The Atman is the essence of every human being. But this differs markedly from, say, the Islamic concept of the soul. For Hindus there is not a multiplicity of infinite Atmans. (In Islam, there are as many souls as there are people). Instead, there is one world soul at the base of all individual consciousness.
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Surprised by Tears
Tears and the whole business of crying are odd. Aren’t they?
Sometimes you expect tears, but don’t get them. Several years ago, a great and wonderful elder’s wife who meant so much to me died. Not long after I got the call, I was traveling from Connecticut to Arkansas for her funeral.
From the moment I got the news, to that first time that I saw her husband and family again, to “calling hours” and seeing her body, to the funeral, and finally the cemetery, I never cried. Not even a little bit. I can still remember how it bothered and embarrassed me, the absence of tears. To this day I can’t explain it.
There are other times when tears come from nowhere. Well, that’s stretching it. They come from somewhere, just not the place you expected and can identify. It happened just this morning.
The course outline for the New Testament class said we were supposed to be covering the Letter to the Hebrews today. After I returned the third exam (over Paul and his letters) and reviewed it with the students, I had about an hour left. An hour. . . . To introduce and overview Hebrews. . . . Survey courses are so frustrating.
Anyway, after discussing how odd Hebrews is, and some of what’s going on behind the words of this letter, we started looking closely at the text itself. I was eager to get to those parts where the speaker offers a theological interpretation (God’s view) of people suffering for the sake of Christ. I was reading from chapter 2,
“In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering. Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers.”
That’s when and where it hit me. I caught myself and within a second or two was able to go on. But I never once expected such emotion. And I still don’t know exactly how that happened.
Of course I can say that I love how this prose, even in translation, seems much closer to poetry. I might mention how Jesus owning up to me as his kid brother is such a tender image. I can say how much it means to think that I’ve been miraculously born into the best family ever. I guess it’s all of that and more.
But, again, like the reasons why I shed no tears at the death of a loved one, I’m far from certain why I got all choked up this morning.
What about you? Ever wished you could cry and expected to, but didn’t? Ever been completely surprised by the arrival of sudden tears?
Sometimes you expect tears, but don’t get them. Several years ago, a great and wonderful elder’s wife who meant so much to me died. Not long after I got the call, I was traveling from Connecticut to Arkansas for her funeral.
From the moment I got the news, to that first time that I saw her husband and family again, to “calling hours” and seeing her body, to the funeral, and finally the cemetery, I never cried. Not even a little bit. I can still remember how it bothered and embarrassed me, the absence of tears. To this day I can’t explain it.
There are other times when tears come from nowhere. Well, that’s stretching it. They come from somewhere, just not the place you expected and can identify. It happened just this morning.
The course outline for the New Testament class said we were supposed to be covering the Letter to the Hebrews today. After I returned the third exam (over Paul and his letters) and reviewed it with the students, I had about an hour left. An hour. . . . To introduce and overview Hebrews. . . . Survey courses are so frustrating.
Anyway, after discussing how odd Hebrews is, and some of what’s going on behind the words of this letter, we started looking closely at the text itself. I was eager to get to those parts where the speaker offers a theological interpretation (God’s view) of people suffering for the sake of Christ. I was reading from chapter 2,
“In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering. Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers.”
That’s when and where it hit me. I caught myself and within a second or two was able to go on. But I never once expected such emotion. And I still don’t know exactly how that happened.
Of course I can say that I love how this prose, even in translation, seems much closer to poetry. I might mention how Jesus owning up to me as his kid brother is such a tender image. I can say how much it means to think that I’ve been miraculously born into the best family ever. I guess it’s all of that and more.
But, again, like the reasons why I shed no tears at the death of a loved one, I’m far from certain why I got all choked up this morning.
What about you? Ever wished you could cry and expected to, but didn’t? Ever been completely surprised by the arrival of sudden tears?
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Here and There
As a follow-up to yesterday’s post, you might check out last Friday’s prayer for Ted Haggard composed by Fred Peatross.
_ _ _ _ _ _
A few days ago, I was reading a post by Larry James about his conversations with some folks from Azerbaijan, once a part of the former Soviet Union. Almost all of the people in the delegation were Muslims.
It just so happened that the day before I read Larry’s post, I had heard a piece on National Public Radio about American politics and the Arabic term “jihad.” Here was the gist of the report:
“Jihad” simply means “struggle (for the sake of God).” As some Muslims see it, jihad should be external, against non-Muslims, and violent. Thankfully, only a small percentage understands it that way. For many Muslims, jihad is internal, a struggle against sin. In that sense, it corresponds to a Christian’s battle with the flesh, wrestling with the old man of sin.
So one obvious question is, Should American politicians denounce violent, extremist Muslims as “jihadists”? To someone fluent in Arabic, such a statement sounds like, “We oppose anyone who, in any way, struggles in behalf of God.” Is that really the message we want to send?
It would be similar to someone overhearing an abuse of prayer in the name of Jesus and then concluding, “I oppose anyone who prays to God through Christ.” In the same way that not all “Christian prayer” truly represents Jesus and his Way, not all “jihad” is external and violent. Shouldn’t such an important distinction be recognized and acknowledged in political speech and commentary?
_ _ _ _ _ _
Wade Tannehill is currently telling the truth about “full-time ministry” in the Churches of Christ. . . . . which is not to say he was lying before.
_ _ _ _ _ _
Perhaps because he lives in Wisconsin, Bobby Valentine has been thinking about Christmas. He has some book recommendations for the readers on your list.
_ _ _ _ _ _
A few days ago, I was reading a post by Larry James about his conversations with some folks from Azerbaijan, once a part of the former Soviet Union. Almost all of the people in the delegation were Muslims.
It just so happened that the day before I read Larry’s post, I had heard a piece on National Public Radio about American politics and the Arabic term “jihad.” Here was the gist of the report:
“Jihad” simply means “struggle (for the sake of God).” As some Muslims see it, jihad should be external, against non-Muslims, and violent. Thankfully, only a small percentage understands it that way. For many Muslims, jihad is internal, a struggle against sin. In that sense, it corresponds to a Christian’s battle with the flesh, wrestling with the old man of sin.
So one obvious question is, Should American politicians denounce violent, extremist Muslims as “jihadists”? To someone fluent in Arabic, such a statement sounds like, “We oppose anyone who, in any way, struggles in behalf of God.” Is that really the message we want to send?
It would be similar to someone overhearing an abuse of prayer in the name of Jesus and then concluding, “I oppose anyone who prays to God through Christ.” In the same way that not all “Christian prayer” truly represents Jesus and his Way, not all “jihad” is external and violent. Shouldn’t such an important distinction be recognized and acknowledged in political speech and commentary?
_ _ _ _ _ _
Wade Tannehill is currently telling the truth about “full-time ministry” in the Churches of Christ. . . . . which is not to say he was lying before.
_ _ _ _ _ _
Perhaps because he lives in Wisconsin, Bobby Valentine has been thinking about Christmas. He has some book recommendations for the readers on your list.
Monday, November 06, 2006
The Sad Saga of Ted Haggard
Ted Haggard’s letter to New Life Church can be seen here. I came across it over at Mike Cope’s blog. Someone there remarked about how ironic and sad it was that, in this case, a homosexual prostitute has evidently been more truthful than a Christian preacher.
What bothers me as much as anything is that Haggard’s confessions have apparently been one step slower than the evidence against him. Your thoughts and reactions to this bombshell in the Evangelical community? To Haggard’s letter? To the amount and kind of attention this story has received in the media?
What bothers me as much as anything is that Haggard’s confessions have apparently been one step slower than the evidence against him. Your thoughts and reactions to this bombshell in the Evangelical community? To Haggard’s letter? To the amount and kind of attention this story has received in the media?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
