I was reading Bonhoeffer late last night for the first time.
"Human* love is directed to the other person for his own sake, spiritual love loves him for Christ's sake. Therefore, human love seeks direct contact with the other person; it loves him not as a free person but as one whom it binds to itself. It wants to gain, to capture by every means; it uses force. It desires to be irresistable, to rule" (Life Together, ch. 1).
I had wondered why I seem so closed within myself of late. And then there it was: the answer; so simple, so hard. This is why I have not been free.
"You have not love because you have not Christ."
"What do you mean? Of course I have Christ. It's not all about emotions. Just because I don't feel it, doesn't mean I don't have it."
"It? It? Would you possess Him in the same way you seek to possess others? He cannot become an It, you know, it is contrary to His nature. He is and ever will be the Eternal Thou. He is a free Person and shall always be free. Will you follow in the sin of your father Adam and seek to subdue a Person rather than subdue the earth? Has it not been written that He is the Α and Ω? Is He not ὁ λογος in which all λογοι live and move and have their being? Is He not the God through Whom and for Whom all things were created and ὁ λογος Who holds all λογοι together? You cannot directly address any λογος without first turning towards ὁ λογος and speaking: Thou."
I cannot help thinking about the primeval chaos into which God spoke and created the earth. Was it all a jumble of unintelligible sounds, symbols and words? Were there no words at all? Is hell/death the place where language cannot hold together? Is it the scattering of l multiplied a thousand times over? Is it the place where words cannot find their relationship to one another because they cannot address the Word? Is it a state wherein one is forever doomed to address other words as "It" and never as "Thou"?
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν. Ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος, καὶ σκότος ἐπάνω τῆς ἀβύσσου· καὶ πνεῦμα Θεοῦ ἐπεφέρετο ἐπάνω τοῦ ὕδατος.
The following translation of LXX Gen. 1:1-3 is mine except for ἐπεφέρετο, an imp. mid. indicative verb from ἐπιφέρω. While trying to figure out how to translate this, I stumbled across a helpful blog which translated the verb as "carry itself" (http://kilbabo.wordpress.com/category/septuagint/).
"In a beginning God made the heaven and the earth. But the earth was invisible and untamable, and darkness over the abyss/ /place of the ; and a spirit/breath/wind of God was carrying itself over the water."
(Note the use of τῆς ἀβύσσου. If this is a description of the earth in its "invisible and uncontrollable" state of chaos before God speaks - or try "words/languages" - creation into existence, this gives deeper meaning to Jesus casting out of the Legion in Luke 8. The Legion begs Jesus not to send them into τἠν ἄβυσσον. Jesus sends them into the herd of pigs and then the pigs rush down into the lake. It's ironic because they beg not to be sent into the abyss - "where the wild things are" - yet they end up returning to the water which seems to be a place of chaos/uncreation/death.)
Now try John 1:1-5 on for size:
1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. 2 οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. 3 πάντα δι ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν ὃ γέγονεν 4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων· 5 καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτο οὐ κατέλαβεν.
I'm having a lot of difficulty with these verses so please bear with me as I stumble through this. I know that ἐγένετο is an aor.mid.3rd.sg from γινομαι ("I am created/born/produced) and is usually translated in English as "he/she/it was created" (that's how it is translated in my Mounce textbook) Yet, if this is middle, shouldn't it mean something more like, "it was created by itself" or "it created itself." Is there some simple Greek rule about aorist middle indicative verbs that I'm forgetting or is this just really weird? I know we always translate it "was created" - I just don't know why. So here is my translation (heresy not omitted). I know the third sentence doesn't really work with the plural πάντα and singular ἐγένετο but, again, bear with me (and, yes, there are punctuation issues with verses 3-4).
"In a beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was a god. This [word] was in the beginning with God. All [things] through him was created through itself (or 'he was created through himself'?) and apart from him not one thing was created through itself which has been created in him was life, and the life was the light of men; and the light in the darkness appears/shines and the darkness did not grasp it."
Okay, I know I'm probably wrong and my translation is likely just bad and heretical. But ponder with me a moment what meaning might be conveyed if it could be translated that way. What if it really meant that "the Word was a god"? The Word is a "god," a representative of God like Adam. And yet this Word is greater than Adam, because this Word was with God in the beginning. Therefore, this Word is before all other words - an uncreated Word because he "was created through himself." This would not necessarily negate the deity of Christ in this passage, but it would certainly not make His deity explicit from this passage.
Yes, heresy - I know; we talked about it in Doctrine I. But it's fun to think about.
So where was I going with all this? Oh, yes. Christ as the Creator God, the Word, the source of all other words. Just for fun, here's my translation of the poem in Colossians 1:15-20:
15 ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου,
who is an image/likeness/form/substance of the God of the invisible,
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως,
chief/first/foremost offspring of all creation,
16 ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς,
because in him was called into being/created all things in the heavens and on the earth,
τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα,
the visible (things) and the invisible (things),
εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε ἐξουσίαι·
whether thrones whether lordships/potentates whether rulers whether powers/authorities;
τὰ πάντα δι ᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ν ἔκτισται·
all things through him and in him it has been created;
17 καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν,
and he himself is before all things and all things in him he has placed together/permanently framed,
18 καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῦ σώματος τῆς ἐκκλησίας·
and he himself is the head of the body of the church;
ὅς ἐστιν ἀρχή,
he who is a beginning/ruler
πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν,
first-offspring out of the bodies,
ἵνα γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων,
in order that he might exist/live in all things holding first rank/having preeminence,
19 ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκσησεν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι
since in him everything which fills up was pleased to indwell/inhabit
20 καὶ δι ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἀποκαταλλάζαι τὰ πάντα εἰς αὐτόν,
and through him to reconcile all things to him,
εἰρηνοποιήσας διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ,
making peace through the of his cross,
[δι ᾿ αὐτοῦ] εἴτε τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς εἴτε τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.
[through it/him] whether the things on the earth whether the things in the heavens.
And still there remains the very practical question of "how"? How is one member of the covenant community to love another not for his own sake, but for Christ's sake? Yes, through Christ - creation and re-creation are His affair. We are God's field and He is the One Who causes growth. And yet how is this done? I suppose the most basic (basic - not easy) answer would be to love others without any sort of expectation, receiving love from Christ in whatever way He sees fit to give us (not indulging in futile expectations as to how He will or must show love to us - for He is free). As Job learned, one cannot continue forever relating to God through a "blessings and curses formula." There comes a point where God has to show up and answer with His Presence.
"You have not love because you have not Christ."
And how might I have Christ? I cannot bind Him, for He is ever free. The only way to have Him - have Him in a real sense - is for Him to have me. A word is only free as it faces its Source; a reflection only lives as it faces the Image it bears. I cannot define Him; He defines me. I cannot swallow the Word; I cannot rule over Him. I must turn and know that He is master over me.
*The translator renders the term "geistlich" as "spiritual" instead of "pneumatic" (referring to the Holy Spirit) and the term "seelisch" as "human" instead of "psychic." I do not care for this rendering as I think that too often the words "human" and "spiritual" are pit against each other, when there is really nothing innately unspiritual about humanity. Our problem is our sin nature, not our human nature - there is nothing human about sin.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Metaphor and Biblical Humanism
June 22, 2008
Reflections on metaphor adapted from a series of e-mails...
I am currently reading Wright on Heaven. Take note:
"My suggestion is that it is possible for human beings so to continue down this road (idol worship so that they become like that which they worship), so as to refuse all whisperings of good news, all glimmers of the true light, all promptings to turn and go the other way, all signposts to the love of God, that after they become at last, by their own choice, 'beings that once were human but now are not,' creatures that have ceased to bear the divine image at all." (chapter 11: Purgatory, Paradise, and Hell, 182; Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the church. NT. Wright, 2008.)
This quote reminds me of what I once wrote about man being a metaphor for God. Because a metaphor has its source and definition in the thing which it represents, when a metaphor refuses to represent that thing, it has no definition and dies/disappears.
As an essay for Mr. Palladino's World Civ class, I wrote reflections on Pico Della Mirandola's, "Oration on the Dignity of Man," which reflects the rising humanism of the Renaissance. However, I argued that Mirandola's view was decidely unhumanistic ("humanism" in a true, Biblical sense) and that the Biblical view of man is far more humanistic. Mirandola seemed to believe that God had created man in a sort of "in-between place" - man was made "a little lower than the angels/gods" and yet "higher than the beasts." Man was then given a unique ability to make choices - he can become as great as the angels/gods or as base as the beasts of the earth.
The problem with this view is twofold. First, it is a very Platonic way of thinking. It depicts the earth and humanity as something innately negative or "low" and the heavenly realm as something good. Therefore, man must aspire to eschew earthly, beastly things and seek to be made like a heavenly, angelic being. Secondly, it places the power of greatness in the hands of man without any consideration of the sovereignty of God. It is deism, now that I think about it: God created man with potential and left him to his own devises, saying, "Go, be as great or as low as you can be."
Contrast this with the Biblical worldview, which depicts man as being created in the image of God - this is what makes him distinct from all other creatures. He does not have to aspire to godhood because he is already "like God." He is, in a sense, a "mini-god," who is to do in small the things that God does in large: subdue evil, create, procreate (for God "gave birth" to the world) and rule. Man is already a king of the earth who must continue to rule in submission to the divine King if he wishes to maintain a sense of identity as a human being. Man is free to make decisions, but not without limitations. He is truly free, truly human, insofar as his choices reflect the will of God. This is where man's greatness lies: in his role as a representive of God on earth. When man ceases to live in proper relationship to God, he loses his humanity and becomes a faceless phantom; a metaphor.
I think that a high view of true humanity inevitably evokes a high view of God since man was made in His image. Our problem is not that we glorify what is human versus what is divine, but that we believe humanity can have substance, definition or glory apart from God. This is the sin of Adam and Eve - not that they wanted to be gods (for they were "gods" already), but that they wanted to be gods apart from God; to have a separate identity. They wanted to be self-sufficient instead of embracing the dependency characteristic of metaphors. Yet, a metaphor is most glorified when it most fully represents its Source. This is what it means to be human: to embrace and fulfill one's role as an image-bearer of the Deity. This is true humanity; this is true greatness.
A real metaphor seeks not its own glory, but points beyond itself to its Source. In his book, "Humility," Andrew Murrey defines humility as "dependence on God." He asserts that our need to be humble does not lie in our sinfulness, but in our humanity, for Christ was completely humble and completely holy. Murrey emphasizes that Christ's humility was his dependence on the Father. Christ always seeks obedience to and glory for his Father. So Christ is the ideal Metaphor who seeks the glory of the Father whose image he bears.
(Phil. 2:3-11) "Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of , even on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
Now, here is Phil. 2:3-11 with my thoughts added about Christ as the ideal Metaphor. Pardon its theological flaws and eisegesis - when speaking of metaphor, I am foremost an artist and philosopher, not a theologian.
"You, members of Christ's body/form and His representatives/metaphors on earth - do nothing from unhuman selfishness or empty conceit (which leads to formlessness), but with humility/dependence of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests (simply seeking glory for yourself), but also for the interests of others (realizing that true glory comes through seeking someone else's glory). Have in yourselves this same attitude of self-emptying dependence which was also in Christ Jesus, who existed in the form/image of God, but did not consider equality with God something to be grasped or stolen (unlike the Old Adam), but made himself a metaphor, taking the form of a bondservant (who serves and represents his master), by becoming a human being. Being found in appearance as a human (whose role is to point to God), he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of , even on a cross. (Now is natural punishment of an image-bearer of God who abdicates this role. Though Christ is the perfect image of the invisible God, the ideal metaphor, he experienced the pain of being dehumanized: he became a formless metaphor [i.e., became nothing]. Yet in that very act of relinquinshing his image, Christ perfectly represented the selfless love of His Father. In suffering the punishment reserved for "bad metaphors," Christ actually acted as the wholly "righteous metaphor" who represents its Source well.) For this reason also, God exalted this obedient Metaphor and bestowed on Christ the name which is king above every name (it is the name reserved for the quintessential Adam), so that at the name of the New Adam, every knee will bow (the whole created order), and every tongue will confess that the New Adam is at last lord, to the glory of the God the Father (under whose Kingship he rules and subdues on earth as His representative)."
The thought did not occur to me until I began to type that part of Phil. 2: "And every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." I had always supposed this verse to, in some way, refer to Christ's role as the divine king (and perhaps it does). But perhaps, in the context of the poem - since it deals primarily with Christ's humanity - it makes more sense to think of it as the declaration that at last an Adam has become lord of the earth as the first Adam was meant to be. As the first Adam was meant to rule (assumedly) for the glory of God as His viceregent of sorts, so Christ now fulfills that role created for an Adam, ruling to the glory of the God the Father. I suppose I also thought the poem refers to worship of Christ as a deity (and, again, it could - since Christ is also God). However, perhaps it makes more sense to think of "every knee shall bow" as an act of submission to God's chosen human king rather than direct worship of Jesus as God (although, since the role of the human being is to represent God, in submitting to His viceregent, we are in a sense worshipping God). Perhaps, perhaps.
Reflections on metaphor adapted from a series of e-mails...
I am currently reading Wright on Heaven. Take note:
"My suggestion is that it is possible for human beings so to continue down this road (idol worship so that they become like that which they worship), so as to refuse all whisperings of good news, all glimmers of the true light, all promptings to turn and go the other way, all signposts to the love of God, that after they become at last, by their own choice, 'beings that once were human but now are not,' creatures that have ceased to bear the divine image at all." (chapter 11: Purgatory, Paradise, and Hell, 182; Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the church. NT. Wright, 2008.)
This quote reminds me of what I once wrote about man being a metaphor for God. Because a metaphor has its source and definition in the thing which it represents, when a metaphor refuses to represent that thing, it has no definition and dies/disappears.
As an essay for Mr. Palladino's World Civ class, I wrote reflections on Pico Della Mirandola's, "Oration on the Dignity of Man," which reflects the rising humanism of the Renaissance. However, I argued that Mirandola's view was decidely unhumanistic ("humanism" in a true, Biblical sense) and that the Biblical view of man is far more humanistic. Mirandola seemed to believe that God had created man in a sort of "in-between place" - man was made "a little lower than the angels/gods" and yet "higher than the beasts." Man was then given a unique ability to make choices - he can become as great as the angels/gods or as base as the beasts of the earth.
The problem with this view is twofold. First, it is a very Platonic way of thinking. It depicts the earth and humanity as something innately negative or "low" and the heavenly realm as something good. Therefore, man must aspire to eschew earthly, beastly things and seek to be made like a heavenly, angelic being. Secondly, it places the power of greatness in the hands of man without any consideration of the sovereignty of God. It is deism, now that I think about it: God created man with potential and left him to his own devises, saying, "Go, be as great or as low as you can be."
Contrast this with the Biblical worldview, which depicts man as being created in the image of God - this is what makes him distinct from all other creatures. He does not have to aspire to godhood because he is already "like God." He is, in a sense, a "mini-god," who is to do in small the things that God does in large: subdue evil, create, procreate (for God "gave birth" to the world) and rule. Man is already a king of the earth who must continue to rule in submission to the divine King if he wishes to maintain a sense of identity as a human being. Man is free to make decisions, but not without limitations. He is truly free, truly human, insofar as his choices reflect the will of God. This is where man's greatness lies: in his role as a representive of God on earth. When man ceases to live in proper relationship to God, he loses his humanity and becomes a faceless phantom; a metaphor.
I think that a high view of true humanity inevitably evokes a high view of God since man was made in His image. Our problem is not that we glorify what is human versus what is divine, but that we believe humanity can have substance, definition or glory apart from God. This is the sin of Adam and Eve - not that they wanted to be gods (for they were "gods" already), but that they wanted to be gods apart from God; to have a separate identity. They wanted to be self-sufficient instead of embracing the dependency characteristic of metaphors. Yet, a metaphor is most glorified when it most fully represents its Source. This is what it means to be human: to embrace and fulfill one's role as an image-bearer of the Deity. This is true humanity; this is true greatness.
A real metaphor seeks not its own glory, but points beyond itself to its Source. In his book, "Humility," Andrew Murrey defines humility as "dependence on God." He asserts that our need to be humble does not lie in our sinfulness, but in our humanity, for Christ was completely humble and completely holy. Murrey emphasizes that Christ's humility was his dependence on the Father. Christ always seeks obedience to and glory for his Father. So Christ is the ideal Metaphor who seeks the glory of the Father whose image he bears.
(Phil. 2:3-11) "Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of , even on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
Now, here is Phil. 2:3-11 with my thoughts added about Christ as the ideal Metaphor. Pardon its theological flaws and eisegesis - when speaking of metaphor, I am foremost an artist and philosopher, not a theologian.
"You, members of Christ's body/form and His representatives/metaphors on earth - do nothing from unhuman selfishness or empty conceit (which leads to formlessness), but with humility/dependence of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests (simply seeking glory for yourself), but also for the interests of others (realizing that true glory comes through seeking someone else's glory). Have in yourselves this same attitude of self-emptying dependence which was also in Christ Jesus, who existed in the form/image of God, but did not consider equality with God something to be grasped or stolen (unlike the Old Adam), but made himself a metaphor, taking the form of a bondservant (who serves and represents his master), by becoming a human being. Being found in appearance as a human (whose role is to point to God), he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of , even on a cross. (Now is natural punishment of an image-bearer of God who abdicates this role. Though Christ is the perfect image of the invisible God, the ideal metaphor, he experienced the pain of being dehumanized: he became a formless metaphor [i.e., became nothing]. Yet in that very act of relinquinshing his image, Christ perfectly represented the selfless love of His Father. In suffering the punishment reserved for "bad metaphors," Christ actually acted as the wholly "righteous metaphor" who represents its Source well.) For this reason also, God exalted this obedient Metaphor and bestowed on Christ the name which is king above every name (it is the name reserved for the quintessential Adam), so that at the name of the New Adam, every knee will bow (the whole created order), and every tongue will confess that the New Adam is at last lord, to the glory of the God the Father (under whose Kingship he rules and subdues on earth as His representative)."
The thought did not occur to me until I began to type that part of Phil. 2: "And every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." I had always supposed this verse to, in some way, refer to Christ's role as the divine king (and perhaps it does). But perhaps, in the context of the poem - since it deals primarily with Christ's humanity - it makes more sense to think of it as the declaration that at last an Adam has become lord of the earth as the first Adam was meant to be. As the first Adam was meant to rule (assumedly) for the glory of God as His viceregent of sorts, so Christ now fulfills that role created for an Adam, ruling to the glory of the God the Father. I suppose I also thought the poem refers to worship of Christ as a deity (and, again, it could - since Christ is also God). However, perhaps it makes more sense to think of "every knee shall bow" as an act of submission to God's chosen human king rather than direct worship of Jesus as God (although, since the role of the human being is to represent God, in submitting to His viceregent, we are in a sense worshipping God). Perhaps, perhaps.
The Beauty of Morphology
June 20, 2008
In Greek this morning, I had an epiphany (a few minutes after downing some coffee - it's always when I have caffeine or go running that thoughts start bouncing around in my head). I began to pen furiously in my moleskine notebook (thank you, Joyanna!) and later e-mailed it to my Greek professor with some additional thoughts. It is here transcribed for your thoughts and comments. For those of you who are not Greek students, "ho logos" means "the word" and "logoi" is the nominative plural form of logos, meaning "words."
Here is the raw, unrevised, unedited transcript of what I wrote. Please forgive its crudeness...I had so many thoughts moving in different directions. I feel like my brain is a jar of ink that someone opened up and spilled half onto the page and this is the result.
6/20/08 - Greek class -
Suddenly the idea of the beauty of morphology is "clicking." The way that letters contract, the way an iota is tucked beneath another letter so that a word can flow easily off the tongue - these are the sorts of things that make Greek more like a dance or a song, not simply a combination of steps or a gathering together of notes. It is the marriage of symbols which have heretofore stood alone. "Gestalt" in all its glory! This marriage reveals that language and symbols are more than simply representative of the Thing to which is points. The meaning, though its source is in the Thing beyond the symbol is found in the uniting of these individual symbols. The medium is the message. As each letter finds its relationship to the other letters of a word (it does so by morphing accordingly), the wholeness of the metaphor is discovered. It is a dialogue between letters, symbols reacting to each other, an improvisation, a bouncing back and forth, two metaphors calling to each other. It is what turns a combination of notes into a whole symphony - each note sings in response to the call of other notes. In this way, language moves beyond discourse and into ; no longer a harmony and a melody, but one song born of the morphing together of two distinct parts. The notes do not cease to be distinct and individual, but in the morphology - in becoming one with another notes - it becomes more fully itself. Before, memorization of these forms and the precise morphological changes was simply so I could know what each word meant - so I might understand what the word stands for. Yet now I see that the beauty is not simply in the "knowing," and that the knowledge (apart from learning the process of morphology) is illegitimate. "Understanding" is not a great leap from one place to another, but a continual shifting, a turning towards. In this, the letters/symbols begin to understand that their "constancy" is only in the Thing they represent, for they themselves are always shifting, morphing, changing. This significance and meaning is not found in their own form, which is in flux, but in the Constant - the One Who is the same yesterday, today and forever. [End of moleskine musings]
I have more thoughts bouncing everywhere now. I was thinking about all this and the idea of the covenant community. I view people not only as users of language, but as language itself; we do not simply speak words, we are words (this goes back to everything I've been writing regarding man as a metaphor for God). It is clear from history that man has continually wrestled with the concept of the individual and the community, from the swallowing of the individual of the Middle Ages to the burgeoning individualism of the Renaissance to the disappearance of the individual in ideas of totalitarianism and similar ideologies. Often the individual and the community are pit against each other. The pervading question is how to be simultaneously one and more than one; how to serve both self and "other than self"? I think the nature of language gives us some insight into this mystery. If there were no other testimony to Christ's deity, the fact that the Scriptures testify that Christ is ho logos would be sufficient, for the nature of words reveals how each "I" relates to all other "I's." Christ is ho logos in which all other logoi live and move and have their being. In Christ, we know what it means to be simultaneously one and many. The saying, "there is strength in numbers," just isn't sufficient to describe the value of the community because the emphasis there is on mass or quantity and not on oneness. In language, the strength of letters is not found in quantity, but in each individual letter relating properly to the other letters of a word. "When two or three are gathered together in My name, I am in their midst," spake Christ. Think of this in terms of words: "When two or more words are gathered together in the Word, the Word is in their midst." Within the covenant community, Christ Himself is somehow present - but He is not "created" by the community. Rather, as the individuals in the community wrestle together to morph into better metaphors/respresentatives/image-bearers of their God, that God is present with them and gives the community its shape and definition. When letters "wrestle" to come together into some sort of distinct word with meaning, they do not "create" meaning, rather, they are formed with reference to the Thing the word represents. The Thing which the word represents exists independent of that word - yet the word does not have any substance or meaning apart from the Thing it represents (otherwise they are simply stray symbols, inert marks on a page, witless sounds). God exists independent of our knowledge of Him - yet we do not exist apart from His knowledge of us. We discover in community that we are not simply a collection of individual letters/symbols, but together whole words - but we are only whole words when we exist in proper relationship to one another. In this proper relationship, a whole word is formed and it well-represents the Thing which stands behind it (and not only stands behind it, but is strangely found in the midst of it; see the poem in Colossians 1). I do not believe that Adam was a "half" representative of God and that he needed Eve in order to "fill in" the other half in order for humankind to be image-bearers of God. Rather, the relationship between Adam and Eve - that they were two yet one - reflects the nature of our God who is three yet one. It is not that Adam was half a man or partial an image-bearer and needed a companion in order reflect the other part of God (some say that the distinctions between men and women reflect different aspects of God's character) but that letters are defined by their relationship to other letters. It is not that people are so very different from one another (although that is, at times, true), but that they are separate entities from one another, yet are meant to live as one. Letters have meaning only when they rest in their proper place within a word. (Could this in any way relate to covenantal nomism? The forms of law [instruction on how the existing covenant community is to live in relationship to one another] have experienced some morphology from the OT covenant community to that in the NT. Likewise, the forms of words and the rules which govern them experience morphology from one language to the next, yet there are still rules which dictate how words relate to each other in every language. There is still a "covenant" of language which each letter keeps and when it fails to keep that covenant - to live in proper relationship to the other letters in a word - it loses its definition. It is not the keeping of this covenant that makes a letter a letter or a word a word, but it is keeping this covenant which enables it to function as it ought to function and retain meaning.)
I want to unpack this more, but that's is enough for now.
In Greek this morning, I had an epiphany (a few minutes after downing some coffee - it's always when I have caffeine or go running that thoughts start bouncing around in my head). I began to pen furiously in my moleskine notebook (thank you, Joyanna!) and later e-mailed it to my Greek professor with some additional thoughts. It is here transcribed for your thoughts and comments. For those of you who are not Greek students, "ho logos" means "the word" and "logoi" is the nominative plural form of logos, meaning "words."
Here is the raw, unrevised, unedited transcript of what I wrote. Please forgive its crudeness...I had so many thoughts moving in different directions. I feel like my brain is a jar of ink that someone opened up and spilled half onto the page and this is the result.
6/20/08 - Greek class -
Suddenly the idea of the beauty of morphology is "clicking." The way that letters contract, the way an iota is tucked beneath another letter so that a word can flow easily off the tongue - these are the sorts of things that make Greek more like a dance or a song, not simply a combination of steps or a gathering together of notes. It is the marriage of symbols which have heretofore stood alone. "Gestalt" in all its glory! This marriage reveals that language and symbols are more than simply representative of the Thing to which is points. The meaning, though its source is in the Thing beyond the symbol is found in the uniting of these individual symbols. The medium is the message. As each letter finds its relationship to the other letters of a word (it does so by morphing accordingly), the wholeness of the metaphor is discovered. It is a dialogue between letters, symbols reacting to each other, an improvisation, a bouncing back and forth, two metaphors calling to each other. It is what turns a combination of notes into a whole symphony - each note sings in response to the call of other notes. In this way, language moves beyond discourse and into ; no longer a harmony and a melody, but one song born of the morphing together of two distinct parts. The notes do not cease to be distinct and individual, but in the morphology - in becoming one with another notes - it becomes more fully itself. Before, memorization of these forms and the precise morphological changes was simply so I could know what each word meant - so I might understand what the word stands for. Yet now I see that the beauty is not simply in the "knowing," and that the knowledge (apart from learning the process of morphology) is illegitimate. "Understanding" is not a great leap from one place to another, but a continual shifting, a turning towards. In this, the letters/symbols begin to understand that their "constancy" is only in the Thing they represent, for they themselves are always shifting, morphing, changing. This significance and meaning is not found in their own form, which is in flux, but in the Constant - the One Who is the same yesterday, today and forever. [End of moleskine musings]
I have more thoughts bouncing everywhere now. I was thinking about all this and the idea of the covenant community. I view people not only as users of language, but as language itself; we do not simply speak words, we are words (this goes back to everything I've been writing regarding man as a metaphor for God). It is clear from history that man has continually wrestled with the concept of the individual and the community, from the swallowing of the individual of the Middle Ages to the burgeoning individualism of the Renaissance to the disappearance of the individual in ideas of totalitarianism and similar ideologies. Often the individual and the community are pit against each other. The pervading question is how to be simultaneously one and more than one; how to serve both self and "other than self"? I think the nature of language gives us some insight into this mystery. If there were no other testimony to Christ's deity, the fact that the Scriptures testify that Christ is ho logos would be sufficient, for the nature of words reveals how each "I" relates to all other "I's." Christ is ho logos in which all other logoi live and move and have their being. In Christ, we know what it means to be simultaneously one and many. The saying, "there is strength in numbers," just isn't sufficient to describe the value of the community because the emphasis there is on mass or quantity and not on oneness. In language, the strength of letters is not found in quantity, but in each individual letter relating properly to the other letters of a word. "When two or three are gathered together in My name, I am in their midst," spake Christ. Think of this in terms of words: "When two or more words are gathered together in the Word, the Word is in their midst." Within the covenant community, Christ Himself is somehow present - but He is not "created" by the community. Rather, as the individuals in the community wrestle together to morph into better metaphors/respresentatives/image-bearers of their God, that God is present with them and gives the community its shape and definition. When letters "wrestle" to come together into some sort of distinct word with meaning, they do not "create" meaning, rather, they are formed with reference to the Thing the word represents. The Thing which the word represents exists independent of that word - yet the word does not have any substance or meaning apart from the Thing it represents (otherwise they are simply stray symbols, inert marks on a page, witless sounds). God exists independent of our knowledge of Him - yet we do not exist apart from His knowledge of us. We discover in community that we are not simply a collection of individual letters/symbols, but together whole words - but we are only whole words when we exist in proper relationship to one another. In this proper relationship, a whole word is formed and it well-represents the Thing which stands behind it (and not only stands behind it, but is strangely found in the midst of it; see the poem in Colossians 1). I do not believe that Adam was a "half" representative of God and that he needed Eve in order to "fill in" the other half in order for humankind to be image-bearers of God. Rather, the relationship between Adam and Eve - that they were two yet one - reflects the nature of our God who is three yet one. It is not that Adam was half a man or partial an image-bearer and needed a companion in order reflect the other part of God (some say that the distinctions between men and women reflect different aspects of God's character) but that letters are defined by their relationship to other letters. It is not that people are so very different from one another (although that is, at times, true), but that they are separate entities from one another, yet are meant to live as one. Letters have meaning only when they rest in their proper place within a word. (Could this in any way relate to covenantal nomism? The forms of law [instruction on how the existing covenant community is to live in relationship to one another] have experienced some morphology from the OT covenant community to that in the NT. Likewise, the forms of words and the rules which govern them experience morphology from one language to the next, yet there are still rules which dictate how words relate to each other in every language. There is still a "covenant" of language which each letter keeps and when it fails to keep that covenant - to live in proper relationship to the other letters in a word - it loses its definition. It is not the keeping of this covenant that makes a letter a letter or a word a word, but it is keeping this covenant which enables it to function as it ought to function and retain meaning.)
I want to unpack this more, but that's is enough for now.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Ich und Du
there i lay, my body
trembling,
leaf-like,
in the wind of wondrous discovery.
there i stayed, my mind
roving,
winding –
why was i made steward of such mysteries?
and in the dark
i saw Christ –
i spoke into the night
and cried: Thou!
my whole being turning, widening, facing:
ev'ry inner evil loosed before Him
as i turned inside-out.
there He stood, present,
suffering:
exposing
my vaporous thoughts and vain iniquities.
for in the dark,
enters Christ –
He speaks into the night
and cries: Thou!
His whole being pouring, emptying, filling:
mankind's ev'ry evil loosed upon Him
as God turns inside-out.
there He lay, His body
lifeless,
entombed
like a still-born child in its mother's womb
then in the dark,
God's Spirit spoke –
He whispered in the night
and cried: arise!
His whole being breathing, filling, labouring:
restoring all flesh in Adam's re-birth
as Christ rose from the tomb.
trembling,
leaf-like,
in the wind of wondrous discovery.
there i stayed, my mind
roving,
winding –
why was i made steward of such mysteries?
and in the dark
i saw Christ –
i spoke into the night
and cried: Thou!
my whole being turning, widening, facing:
ev'ry inner evil loosed before Him
as i turned inside-out.
there He stood, present,
suffering:
exposing
my vaporous thoughts and vain iniquities.
for in the dark,
enters Christ –
He speaks into the night
and cries: Thou!
His whole being pouring, emptying, filling:
mankind's ev'ry evil loosed upon Him
as God turns inside-out.
there He lay, His body
lifeless,
entombed
like a still-born child in its mother's womb
then in the dark,
God's Spirit spoke –
He whispered in the night
and cried: arise!
His whole being breathing, filling, labouring:
restoring all flesh in Adam's re-birth
as Christ rose from the tomb.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
God Speaks
There is a school of thought that says Paul didn't write 1 Timothy. There was once a time when I might have found this disconcerting because it seems deceptive at first. For if the author isn't Paul, why does the letter begin, "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the commandment of God our Savior, and of Christ Jesus, who is our hope, to Timothy, my true child in the faith..."? Regardless of whether or not Paul wrote 1 Timothy, even considering the possibility that he is not the author raises important questions on the nature of Scripture and moves us to question how we will respond to this and other such tensions in the Bible.
On the surface, it may seem deceptive. My initial question was, "If Scripture is true, why would it contain the untruth of attributing the authorship of a letter to Paul when it was really written by someone else?" The question is valid, but the Christian must ask another question while he seeks the answer to that one. Succinctly: If it is true and the Bible contains "error" or untruth such as this, does this undermine the authority of Scripture? Does perseverance in the faith necessitate intellectual dishonesty? We must let Scripture be what it is. We must not let our idea of what is true dictate how we read Scripture, but let Scripture determine our ideas of truth. If Paul didn't write 1 Timothy, he didn't write it. Period. Are we going to keep insisting that he did so that we can have a false sense of security in our ideas about how God reveals Himself to His people?
As a Christian, I operate on the assumption that God speaks. He has spoken through His prophets and through His Son Jesus Christ. He speaks both through the textual witness of the Scriptures about the Christ event (and everything leading up to it) and also the witness of the Church. While there is debate over the authority of certain books and how close our copies come to the originals of the books which are considered canonical by all of Christendom (if, indeed, "originals" actually existed), there is no doubt that these texts have preserved the faith from generation to generation. God is still redeeming people today. We know that Scripture is true because we have seen how God uses it to speak to His people.
I still have not answered the question about 1 Timothy, nor am I educated enough to answer it well. However, I will say that it, in part, involves the issue of expectations. For example, it is not unusual for presidents and politicians to have other people write their speeches. In fact, it is expected. The president speaks as though the speech contains his words - and in a way they are his words because the speech says what he intends to say even if he didn't write it. Can it not be the same way with Scripture? Maybe the elusive authorship of 1 Timothy is meant to tell us that it really doesn't matter who wrote it because ultimately it is the Word of God. If Paul didn't write 1 Timothy, are we to assume that some evil impostor wrote the letter to lead people astray and the letter somehow found its way into the canon? No; the book still contains wisdom and has been passed down through the ages and has helped to keep the faith alive.
Along similar lines, I have been wondering how to take the Septuagint and Apocryphal books. Are the vast differences between the Hebrew Esther and the Septuagintal Esther really "problems"? Each has different theological points and things to teach. God speaks through both versions of the ancient story. Is it a problem that Bel and the Dragon gives a different account of Daniel's experience in the lion's den from the book of Daniel? Both stories testify to Yahweh's deliverance of the righteous man who takes refuge in Him.
Maybe, instead of insisting that Scripture meet our expectations, we should let the text speak for itself and testify to its truth in whatever manner it chooses. Maybe we should trust God to speak even through the errant words of man. Maybe we should let the text shape our expectations of what it means for something to be "true." Maybe we should stop telling God to shut up.
On the surface, it may seem deceptive. My initial question was, "If Scripture is true, why would it contain the untruth of attributing the authorship of a letter to Paul when it was really written by someone else?" The question is valid, but the Christian must ask another question while he seeks the answer to that one. Succinctly: If it is true and the Bible contains "error" or untruth such as this, does this undermine the authority of Scripture? Does perseverance in the faith necessitate intellectual dishonesty? We must let Scripture be what it is. We must not let our idea of what is true dictate how we read Scripture, but let Scripture determine our ideas of truth. If Paul didn't write 1 Timothy, he didn't write it. Period. Are we going to keep insisting that he did so that we can have a false sense of security in our ideas about how God reveals Himself to His people?
As a Christian, I operate on the assumption that God speaks. He has spoken through His prophets and through His Son Jesus Christ. He speaks both through the textual witness of the Scriptures about the Christ event (and everything leading up to it) and also the witness of the Church. While there is debate over the authority of certain books and how close our copies come to the originals of the books which are considered canonical by all of Christendom (if, indeed, "originals" actually existed), there is no doubt that these texts have preserved the faith from generation to generation. God is still redeeming people today. We know that Scripture is true because we have seen how God uses it to speak to His people.
I still have not answered the question about 1 Timothy, nor am I educated enough to answer it well. However, I will say that it, in part, involves the issue of expectations. For example, it is not unusual for presidents and politicians to have other people write their speeches. In fact, it is expected. The president speaks as though the speech contains his words - and in a way they are his words because the speech says what he intends to say even if he didn't write it. Can it not be the same way with Scripture? Maybe the elusive authorship of 1 Timothy is meant to tell us that it really doesn't matter who wrote it because ultimately it is the Word of God. If Paul didn't write 1 Timothy, are we to assume that some evil impostor wrote the letter to lead people astray and the letter somehow found its way into the canon? No; the book still contains wisdom and has been passed down through the ages and has helped to keep the faith alive.
Along similar lines, I have been wondering how to take the Septuagint and Apocryphal books. Are the vast differences between the Hebrew Esther and the Septuagintal Esther really "problems"? Each has different theological points and things to teach. God speaks through both versions of the ancient story. Is it a problem that Bel and the Dragon gives a different account of Daniel's experience in the lion's den from the book of Daniel? Both stories testify to Yahweh's deliverance of the righteous man who takes refuge in Him.
Maybe, instead of insisting that Scripture meet our expectations, we should let the text speak for itself and testify to its truth in whatever manner it chooses. Maybe we should trust God to speak even through the errant words of man. Maybe we should let the text shape our expectations of what it means for something to be "true." Maybe we should stop telling God to shut up.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Demythologizing
Just a few thoughts on the nature of Scripture...
I've been reading about how the Creation story is essentially a "demythologizing myth," so to speak. There are many ANE myths somewhat similar to the Creation story, yet these differ from the Creation account in that they depict the beginnings of the gods and goddesses as well as human beings. What the Creation myth does is re-orient the other myths to reveal that what the ANE peoples thought of as "gods" were, in truth, not gods at all, but men created by God. There is no goddess named Ishtar - Esther is merely a human queen. Adam and Eve were not gods, but human beings created by God to enjoy His garden, care for it and subdue evil. My brother is writing a paper on a Psalm that was apparently originally written for Baal worship (Psalm 29 - I think) but was rewritten as a Psalm to the Lord.
So it seems that much of what God is doing through the biblical writers is taking the pagan stories of man and rewriting them to show who the true King is: Yahweh. It is as though He is saying, "Man is not the one who has the final say on history - I do. I AM the one who determines what was, what is, and what will be."
If this is what God has done with Scripture, isn't this also what He is still doing in our lives today? The witness of God is not just through Scripture, but the testimony of the Church and God's redemptive acts in the lives of His people today (one witness to the authority of Scripture is the fact that God is still speaking through it today - it is still alive because God is alive). As Joseph said to his brothers, "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today." We experience this every day as we continually fail to "write our stories well" by the choices that we make. Yet God is ultimately the great Story-Weaver who takes all that we intend for evil and intends it for good. He is "demythologizing" our lives and showing us that all these things that seem so absurd and out of control are really under God's control and He is ultimately the one who determines everything.
Similarly, we are not fallible gods who rule the universe (very selfishly) apart from any sort of accountability to a greater, infallible God; we are human beings created by God to be sub-creators and servants who are accountable to God for our actions (not for controlling what we cannot control, but for being faithful with the earth God has given us).
God is "rewriting" us so that our selves are becoming theocentric instead of anthropocentric.
I've been reading about how the Creation story is essentially a "demythologizing myth," so to speak. There are many ANE myths somewhat similar to the Creation story, yet these differ from the Creation account in that they depict the beginnings of the gods and goddesses as well as human beings. What the Creation myth does is re-orient the other myths to reveal that what the ANE peoples thought of as "gods" were, in truth, not gods at all, but men created by God. There is no goddess named Ishtar - Esther is merely a human queen. Adam and Eve were not gods, but human beings created by God to enjoy His garden, care for it and subdue evil. My brother is writing a paper on a Psalm that was apparently originally written for Baal worship (Psalm 29 - I think) but was rewritten as a Psalm to the Lord.
So it seems that much of what God is doing through the biblical writers is taking the pagan stories of man and rewriting them to show who the true King is: Yahweh. It is as though He is saying, "Man is not the one who has the final say on history - I do. I AM the one who determines what was, what is, and what will be."
If this is what God has done with Scripture, isn't this also what He is still doing in our lives today? The witness of God is not just through Scripture, but the testimony of the Church and God's redemptive acts in the lives of His people today (one witness to the authority of Scripture is the fact that God is still speaking through it today - it is still alive because God is alive). As Joseph said to his brothers, "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today." We experience this every day as we continually fail to "write our stories well" by the choices that we make. Yet God is ultimately the great Story-Weaver who takes all that we intend for evil and intends it for good. He is "demythologizing" our lives and showing us that all these things that seem so absurd and out of control are really under God's control and He is ultimately the one who determines everything.
Similarly, we are not fallible gods who rule the universe (very selfishly) apart from any sort of accountability to a greater, infallible God; we are human beings created by God to be sub-creators and servants who are accountable to God for our actions (not for controlling what we cannot control, but for being faithful with the earth God has given us).
God is "rewriting" us so that our selves are becoming theocentric instead of anthropocentric.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Screens
i sat there for days,
staring into screens,
trying to love what i could not see
until at last
my aching heart
trembled itself to sleep.
a wordless wind filled my dreams,
sweeping images into place,
speaking in silent shadows.
a metaphor lifted its weightless finger
and mocked me -
even in slumber, i wept.
O hardhearted metaphor,
why can't you be something more?
more than a humble herald
that proclaims the coming of its lord?
i sat there for days,
thinking about screens
trying to see what i could not see
until at last
i turned to find
a metaphor
like me.
staring into screens,
trying to love what i could not see
until at last
my aching heart
trembled itself to sleep.
a wordless wind filled my dreams,
sweeping images into place,
speaking in silent shadows.
a metaphor lifted its weightless finger
and mocked me -
even in slumber, i wept.
O hardhearted metaphor,
why can't you be something more?
more than a humble herald
that proclaims the coming of its lord?
i sat there for days,
thinking about screens
trying to see what i could not see
until at last
i turned to find
a metaphor
like me.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Divine Metaphor
Jesus, Divine Metaphor,
have mercy on us in our constant wandering,
as we wrestle through this restless quandary,
this fog where every bit of light thickens the darkness
and we know the dullness of our vision.
Father, Concealed Creator,
have mercy on our clouded intellect,
forgive our spotted retrospect;
may we not darken Your counsel
with words devoid of wisdom.
for we seek to solve,
yet every question begets a thousand more;
You give no answer -
just a Metaphor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)