It's Wednesday. How do I know? Well, the birds are singing, the sky is clear, the grass is soft, and I was forced to sit inside a poorly-lit, musty room for an hour with the lot of you while someone droned on and on and on and on. . . .This obviously shows that SNU doesn't care about the tree-huggers.
"This is gonna be a good chapel." [And how, may I ask, would you know? Are you using your Jedi mind powers again? If the past is any indication of what is to come, your claim, good sir, is quite unfounded.]
Get ready, get set, go! *This is the part where we're listening to a better-than-average band play some better-than-average gospel music. . . .* Wait! What's happening? We're watching a lame video about the history of the Nazarene church? What the hell? Oh, and now we're going to talk about the video?! *This is the part where no one is listening to His Holiness and everyone really just wishes he would shut the hell up so that the band could play some more.* [And since when did being Nazarene matter? I thought Christians were all supposed to be one big happy family in Jesus!] What's this? Brad is not on stage and someone is still spouting nonsense? *This is the part where the band starts to play again and the singer gets back to what she's good at.* And all was right in the world.
I am completely shocked by the music this week: two full days where worship didn't suck the proverbial 'big one.' Amazing.
Here's a tip for whoever is teaching the ethos group for non-Christians: put all those sinners on a strict diet of gospel music. Mark my words, if anything is ever going to be successful as a ministry tool, it's going to be gospel music.
"Jason is going to speak now. Pay attention, because he's a very smart guy. But you really have to be listening to catch it. And he's weird. And he has a quirky sense of humor. And he has a new haircut. And he's dressed like a fifteen year old trying to negotiate his identity. And he makes pop culture references that I don't get. And he has a bucket of dirt on stage. . . ."
Thanks Brad. I'm sure Jason was very flattered.
Today, if you'll remember, the good reverend Hubbert attempted to make the point that God can take all of the "dirt" from your past and make something beautiful out of it. A good lesson, to be sure, but he didn't quite get all the way from here to there.
The scripture employed to support his thesis was from the good book of Genesis, chapter two, verse seven. "Then the Lord God formed the man from the dirt of the ground. He breathed the breath of life into the man's nostrils, and the man became a living person." Jason was correct to note the controversial nature of this text, as it is caught up in the debate [that the Church won't let die] between creationism and evolution. But oddly enough, even after making this aside, the Good Reverend proceeded to reference the text as though it were literal. Or maybe he just assumed that it had somehting to "say" to us, around 4000 years in the future. [Yeah, right. . . .] Unfortunately, the use of this text caused the Good Reverend to commit the fallacy of the high-school English teacher.
High-school English teachers are notorious for two things. First, they wear denim vests with kittens embroidered on them. Second, they have their students read books by Joseph Conrad and then write exegetical papers that extract and examine every possible shred of symbolism in the book. This would all be fine, except that The Heart of Darkness contains no symbolism. Such was the problem the Good Reverend encountered, unknowingly, today.
Genesis 2:7 served, at the time of its writing, to explain to unscientific, bronze-age sheep-herders how humans came into existence. These people did not have a scientific understanding of the natural world, thus, this explanation is necessarily little more than myth and unsubstantiated speculation. [Unless, of course, you are of the opinion that there should be a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to heterosexual couples. If that's the case then you might actually think that Genesis 1 and 2 are historical documents.] Also, people of this time and geographical location were predominantly poly-theistic and and had little or no understanding of human psychology. This makes it very unlikely that the author of Genesis 2:7 meant for the word "dirt" to be used as a metaphor to represent all of our past "sin." I'm pretty sure they just meant for "dirt" to mean dirt.
That said, the Good Reverend's trick of redefining "dirt" and using it in the metaphorical sense so that our past sins could conveniently be equated with the dirt that unknowing herdsmen suspected The Almighty of "creating" glittering, children's playthings from [props courtesy of Mattel], doesn't really work to support his argument.
Please notice that I am not saying that God does not want to, or cannot, make a beautiful Barbie doll out of the miserable, contemptible wretch that you were/are/will be. All I'm saying is that Jason's argument for that position was without merit. Oh well, maybe next semester he'll get it right.
"And God will come down and put his lips on your lips. . . ."
Aww yeah, God. That's it. You know how I like it.
"Keep near me and you will be safe."
Daedalus
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I have to say, Daedelus, this is probably the first post you have done that I disagreed with on almost every level. The music today, I felt, was horrible. I relish the fact that I can hear, and the music in chapel today was not very conducive to that end. Maybe it's me, but heightened volume does not directly equate heightened spirituality to me. I understand that this is an age old dispute, but I have to say that I don't get a lot out of noisy, repetitive bellowing in God-speak.
As to the Reverend Hubbard, I felt you were wrong again. I don't think Jason was going into it saying "This is what this passage means." I think he was taking something that he concedes is not a historical document, that may not be particularly relevant to our culture, and trying to draw something out to give people hope. I don't think he's dredging up some kind of obscure symbolism that is incredibly inaccurate. Jason IS a smart guy. I'm surprised you're so critical of him.
Daedelus,
Were you not the one who told me two weeks ago to remember that Genesis is a poem? If Genesis is a poem, as you say, (and I absolutely agree with,) then it would not have been written to explain literally to bronze-aged fools how God created the world. It would be a poem ABOUT creation, but that far more to do with God and how he relates to people and how a relationship between people and God is supposed to look like and how we typically mess that up. On that note, it is more than reasonable, in fact it is paramount, that this poem be preached from, because it tells us so much about who we are, who God is, and how we can better relate with Him.
I found Jason's message deep, refreshing, and very theologically sound. And I agree the music was fantastic.
Madame Blogger...
I am having a hard time finding the exact quote, since you removed me from your Facebook friends, but I seem to remember you asserting that the first two chapters of Genesis were written as poetry.
And I agree. (As do most Bible scholars.)
This is why you lost me when you wrote, "Genesis 2:7 served, at the time of its writing, to explain to unscientific, bronze-age sheep-herders how humans came into existence."
Although poems can be used to bring lofty, scientific concepts down to a more relatable level, I believe that they typically have a higher purpose. Poetry is, by definition, literary work in which special intensity is given to the expression of feelings and ideas by the use of distinctive style and rhythm [New Oxford American Dictionary}. It seems to follow that--in addition to explaining such concepts--these two chapters are also intended to convey certain aspects of God's nature, such as his omnipotence, his creativity, and the aspects of his character which he bestows upon humans.
You also lost me when you accused Jason Hubbert of using that verse literally, then charged him with the "fallacy" of looking for symbolism. If the writer "just meant for 'dirt' to mean dirt," then why would you chastize Jason for taking a literal approach to the text (which I would argue that he did not do)?
This one verse from Genesis was not even the primary text for Jason's speech. He first read from Psalm 103, and used the passage from Genesis to support the theme that God remembers how we were formed. "He remembers that we are dust" (Psalm 103:14)...hence the reference to Genesis 2, which was used to support this. Jason's "trick" of using the word dirt in a metaphorical sense neither employs obscure symbolism nor does it interpret biblical poetry too strictly. Rather, it emphasizes the theme of the psalm (also a poem), which praises God for knowing and having compassion for his children.
"We know the truth, not only by the reason, but also by the heart."
--Blaise Pascal
I, like Shane, have also been removed from your Facebook friends. I think I might have even been blocked.
I think Jason avoided stating whether or not he was interpreting the passage literally or metaphorically for the very reason that it is a controversial text and by doing so he avoids alienating people from what he was trying to say.
Also, I'm not sure what being "dressed like a fifteen year old trying to negotiate his identity" means.
Also Also, I think you should answer Michelson's question.
"Genesis 2:7 served, at the time of its writing, to explain to unscientific, bronze-age sheep-herders how humans came into existence."
Genesis 2:7 served, at the time of its writing, to tell recently freed Hebrew-Egyptian slaves, who they were, where they came from, and where they were going. They didn't "herd" sheep...that was their ancestor Abraham. They "were" the sheep.
:) No one was barred from being my friend on Facebook. Through an unfortunate series of events, my original Facebook account was disabled by site administrators, and I had to start again from scratch. The process of re-friending over 500 people is understandably long and arduous, and apparently I have yet to re-friend a few of you.
As for the Genesis question. If I ever said that Genesis 2 was a poem, I was wrong. What I do remember saying was that the first chapter of Genesis is a poem, but only that chapter.
Every world religion has its myths about how everything came into being. Genesis 2 articulates the Hebrew, and now Christian, myth of that process.
My issue with Jason's use of Genesis 2:7 as support for his argument is that we now know better than to think that man was "created from the dirt." Even taking the scripture from Psalms into account, we know better. That said, if the authors of the Genesis and Psalms texts meant "dirt" literally, they were wrong, and Jason's sermon amounts to little more than an elaborate metaphor for "God loves you." [This would also provide a great example of how the Bible can be twisted to say anything you want it to.] If the authors of those texts meant "dirt" in a metaphorical sense, which I think is highly unlikely, then I was wrong to critique his argument as I did.
Please note that nowhere did I say that I did not enjoy the sermon. The blog post simply critiqued a point of his argument, nothing more.
Thanks for your comments.
As for Michelson's questions, I offer the following.
As I explained in the first post I made, I chose the moniker 'Daedalus' because of the banner than hangs in chapel. The one-winged being on the banner reminded me of the fall of Icarus, and I chose to take the name of the father in the story because I thought, and think, that I have some positive, yes, even pro-active, things to say about chapel.
My advice is not explicit, and I have never claimed to have the answers to all of the problems that I point out. Whether or not I will fall with my son is up to those who read the blog. Like Daedalus, I will attempt to make wings for my son, but the use of those wings will be up to those who try them on.
I am the spark. What remains to be seen is if I can start a fire.
Excuse my ignorance, but I still do not follow.
Are you critiquing Jason for using the Genesis verse too literally (because you feel that it should be understood metaphorically), or for extracting symbolism from a verse that you believe should be taken literally?
Or is your argument that the entire chapter should be scrapped, as an outdated myth that has absolutely nothing valuable to offer its intellectually elite readers of the twenty-first century?
I, too, enjoyed Jason's sermon. And as for his clothing...just be glad he doesn't wear denim vests with kittens embroidered on them.
"We know the truth, not only by the reason, but also by the heart."
--Blaise Pascal
Thanks.
Is there a point to this blog? I mean, of course, YOU think there is. I'm just wondering if there's an ACTUAL reason for it?
I'm mainly wondering in the context of; You've captured the attention of a large part of the school, students, faculty, SO many people read this blog, and yet, I'm still waiting for you to say something?
Like... I see a lot of words on a webpage out here in blog-land, but... they're SOOOOOO trite and meaningless. You haven't portrayed a single original thought in this blog.
I know what you're thinking, you're thinking that you're just "voicing" what everyone is already thinking, right? FINALLY! Someone has stood up and said what we've all been too scared to say! Thank you god!... but that's the complete opposite of what you're doing.
Voicing the opinions of a mass group of people is usually done with fervor and eloquence, and usually by someone great in intelligence and character. I'm so confused because I really WANT you to be that. If someone ACTUALLY said what we're all thinking, in an intelligible and thought-provoking way, that would be awesome. I'm in full support of that happening.
But I'm afraid you're going to have to call me when it does, because this blog is nothing more than the cover of a 14 year-old girl's notebook: You take what you think is popular, in this case disdain for chapel, and you run with it, you make all these cute logos and draw all these cute pictures and yet, you have no understanding of what it is you THINK you're talking about, no more so than the girl who writes "I love the Rolling Stones" on her binder because she thinks they're "so cool" and wonders when they're going to get their own Behind The Music.
I'm all in favor of you having this blog, and of you "commenting" on things that actually matter, but sadly, you've yet to do that. And if no one else will come forward to say it then I guess I'll have to;
You haven't said anything more than what EVERYONE else who's ever gone to chapel has felt through out the history of chapel. And there in, you haven't said anything at all.
You're the guy who was too busy to go see The Dark Knight so now you're organizing as many people as you can to see it at the dollar theater.
You're the 15 year-old kid trying to tell his parents about how great the 60's were.
You're Cornelius Fudge announcing that Voldemort has returned!
You're saying things we already know, you're saying them in a completely ignorant way, and you're slandering and hurting people all along the way.
So for anyone who's ever cared enough to research their opinions, to have good timing, and cared enough to realize that EVERYONE goes through chapel in the exact same way, so stop crying about it, I say; Please stop this annoying excuse for a commentary. The only thing it has done is been hurtful and a little less than entertaining.
Post a Comment