Monday, February 18, 2008

The Listening Heart: Vocation

[Number four in a series]

A. J. Conyers, in The Listening Heart, explained the point of the book in this way:

"Why in this modern world have humane communities - communities that for brief moments in history rise above strife and in fact nourish the human spirit, enrich the mind, provide for the safety and education of the young - proven so hard to come by, so difficult to maintain, and known it seems only to our most nostalgic moments? Why have the 'wars and fightings' of this past century taken more lives, destroyed more communities, exiled more people, decimated more ethnic groups than ever before in any comparable time? Why have more people been killed by their own governments in this past century than in all other times together? How is it that this new century has gotten off to such an unpromising start? James had an answer that tapped into the root of human nature, and into the human lunacy: 'Is it not your passions that are at war in your members? You desire and do not have; so you kill. And you covet and cannot obtain; so you fight and wage war'

This book might be considered a commentary on that one question and its answer, and on the hope which frames this question."
His answer is the decline of vocation, and the rise of "choice", since the dawn of modernity in the Renaissance and Enlightenment. This post examines the first of those.



Vocation
The familiar term "vocation", used in both religious and secular contexts, is rooted in the Latin vocatio, meaning "call" and is related to Latin-based words such as "voice" and "invoke." The Greek word is klesis and is found in our words "cleric" and "ecclesiastical". It is the root of the New Testament word for the Church, ekklesia, a point that is not etymologically significant except in that assemblies of all kinds were referred to with the same term. To say that the church consists of those "called out", however, is significant for more reasons than can be traced through linguistic usage: it was the reality to which the church had always attested.
Conyers points out that the idea of a divine call plays a central role in Judeo-Christian and non-Judaic contexts - and gives the communities and societies a distinctly non-modern character. I would broaden that: even the ideas of civil religion and nationalism are designed to give folks a sense of calling that is outside of, and higher, than themselves. Conyers doesn't disagree with this in the book, and implies agreement, but he just doesn't focus on it. This is the idea of a "higher power" encouraged in 12 step programs - even for folks that are not believers in God.

Conyers highlights a few points to make the distinction clear between the idea of vocation or calling, and the philosophical basis of modernity:


  1. "The idea of a call implies an agent outside of the one who is subject to the call."
    One does not simply "choose" a course of action, but one responds to a summons. A person might be "free" in either case; but in the case of one responding to vocation, the freedom is not an inner-directed impulse, but the use of the will to respond to an unforeseen and perhaps unknown reality. This summons is characteristic of various reports, in a great variety of communities, from the summons of Zarathustra (the Iranian Zoroaster), to the calling forth of Abraham and the divine election of Moses, to the call of Isaiah, the baptism of Jesus, the blinding of Paul, the spiritual apparitions of Joan of Arc, and the divine compulsions of Martin Luther. The character in each case is founded on the summons that is external to the one who is called.

  2. "The summons is often against the will of the one who is called into service."
    Muhammed first believed himself to be mad. Moses complained that the Israelites, to whom God sent him, had never listened to him and therefore neither would Pharaoh, "poor speaker that I am." Jeremiah, the Hebrew prophet, not only resisted the call, but continued to complain that God had overpowered him and placed him in an impossibly difficult circumstance, even protesting that God's call had made him "like a gentle lamb led to the slaughter." Jonah attempted to flee from the Lord to Tarshish, rather than going to Nineveh where he had been called. Jesus prayed to be delivered from his appointed calling.

  3. Third, the calling involves in almost every case hardships that must be overcome in order to answer the summons.
    Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Muhammed, Mani (the founder of Manichaeism), Socrates, Jesus, and Paul all found themselves under threat of death by their community. Zarathustra is sent into exile. Jesus' moment of public vocation is followed by temptation in the wilderness. Paul's vocation is accompanied by physical ailments, imprisonment, beatings, and exile.

  4. Fourth, from the point of view of answering to the summons, the greatest danger appears not in this kind of resistance, but in the possibility of being diverted or distracted from the goal.
    The whole of Joshua's reiteration of the covenant with Israel, after they had settled the land of Canaan, was devoted to the threat and the consequences of being distracted from their promise to "serve the Lord" and to the warning against being tempted by other gods. In all of the Deuteronomic history of Israel . . . the chief standard by which the nations of Israel and Judah and their kings are judged is their faithfulness to God, measured by their resistance to distraction by the religions of their neighbors. And the last petition in Jesus' model prayer, "lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil;' is an invocation against this distraction.
It is this sense of calling that William Wilberforce experienced. It is this sense of calling and vocation that modern historical critics of the Bible - at least the ones that are most anti-supernatural - must look beyond in finding "rational", "reasonable", and "historical" reasons for the actions of the Apostles and the writers of scripture. Certainly, inspiration and calling must have some source other than God reaching into His creation and calling people to His Will.

It is the need - in order to build the Body of Christ and His Church - to overcome folks "thinking for themselves" and "taking guidance from no one" that causes churches both theologically liberal and conservative to call their members to focus on their communities and to view that community, at least, as something which calls, from above and outside, them to vocation for the Body.

In modern society as well, it is only when people are drawn outside themselves to a greater call or vocation that true community can be built - otherwise we have the "competition of desires" that is the source of the violence and greed of modern life. President Kennedy called us to "Ask not . . ." It is Barack Obama, and not Hillary Clinton - and Mike Huckabee and not John McCain - that give us the attractive image of folks who are "called" to a mission. We are attracted to them because they seem to give true reverence to something outside of, and greater than, themselves.

That is the "schizophrenia" of Western life. We deeply, innately, almost desperately, seek real community and real relationship; and yet . . . Conyers :

I was struck with how far we had lost sight of the sentiment embedded in "vocation" when I ran across the title of a mid-twentieth century book that was given as "How to Choose Your Vocation"! Precisely the point of vocatio is that you don't choose. And this is precisely why and how the idea jars against conventional modern sentiment, the sentiment that since the Enlightenment has succeeded in making a primary virtue of self-determination. "What is Enlightenment?" asked Immanuel Kant. It is the capacity "to use one's intelligence without being guided by another." "Have courage to use your own intelligence! is therefore the motto of the enlightenment". Thus stand side by side, in unmistakable opposition, two ideas of the way one lives in the world. One is that of attentive listening to the guidance of another, whether of a wise guide, or tradition, or of God. The other is the notion of the self-determined "free" man, who without listening to another, becomes the master of his own soul.
It is that notion of "choice" that I will look at next.

Read more!

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Christian Carnival CCXI (211)

The Valentine to God Edition

In preparing a "structure" for this Carnival I was tried to avoid 1 Corinthians 13 - (not that it isn't great); and I decided not to focus on John's (and Christ's) call for Christians to show that they are Christ's followers because of our love for one another.

I settled on the kinds of love we show, and receive, as Christians -- thinking it might make a good way to divide Carnival entries:

First, some housekeeping at the Carnival: We need some new hosts. We occasionally get to the point where the same 5 or so blogs rotate the Carnival. This really isn't good, and hosting the Carnival - while it can be some work - is a good ministry opportunity within the Body of Christ. Go here to jump in - the water is awesome.

The Love of God for Us
"For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him. The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. Now this is the basis for judging: that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil." (John 3:16-19, NET)
  • Jennifer in OR presents "Grapes of Abundance: 13 Thoughts" posted at Diary of 1.


  • e-Mom presents "Theology: Differences Between West & East" posted at C h r y s a l i s.


  • Pat & James Taylor presents "Immersion in the Spirit" posted at On the Wings of the Wind.


  • Sue presents "What are you giving up for Lent?" posted at Abstractions.


  • Wickle presents “One of Those Humbling Things" posted at A True Believer's Blog.


  • Amanda presents “Lent: Goodbye TV" posted at Imago Dei.



  • Our Love of God
    "Now one of the experts in the law came and heard them debating. When he saw that Jesus answered them well, he asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” Jesus answered, “The most important is: ‘Listen, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’" (Mark 12:28-30, NET)
  • William Meisheid presents "Lent 2008: Day 2: Death, Purpose & Why Should I?" posted at Beyond The Rim....


  • FMF presents "The Bible and Money All Around the Web" posted at Free Money Finance.


  • Jamie McIntosh presents "Go Organic for Lent" posted at Suite101: Organic Gardens blog.


  • Chuck Jines presents "The Power of God" posted at Thoughts on God.


  • Rusty Pritchard presents "Environmentalism and fear" posted at CounterCulture.


  • Shaun Connell presents "The Philosophy of Rational Happiness" posted at Reason and Capitalism.



  • Our Love of Jesus
    (the Word made Flesh)
    “If you love me, you will obey my commandments." (John 14:15, NET)

    "The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him.”" (John 14:21, NET)

    "If you obey my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commandments and remain in his love." (John 15:10, NET)
  • Ariah Fine presents "Open Letter to Anyone Returning from a Missions Trip" posted at Trying to Follow.


  • Weekend Fisher presents the "Internal evidence and the authorship of the Gospel of John" posted at Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength.


  • Chasing the Wind presents "Life Without Limbs" posted at Chasing the Wind.


  • Richard H. Anderson presents "Rewriting Moses" posted at dokeo kago grapho soi kratistos Theophilos.


  • John presents "A Matter of Perspective" posted at Light Along the Journey.


  • Tom Gilson presents "The Not-So-Secret" posted at Thinking Christian.


  • Henry Neufeld presents "Not Through the Law: Romans 4:13" posted at Participatory Bible Study Blog.


  • Rey presents "Being a Student" based on John 8 posted at The Bible Archive.


  • * * * * *

    "The second is: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”" (Mark 12:31, NET)
    "Love of neighbor" divides into specific and general revelations:

    Our Love of our Spouse
    [I think we primarily have a "husband problem" . . . ]
    "Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word, so that he may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless. In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one has ever hated his own body but he feeds it and takes care of it, just as Christ also does the church, for we are members of his body. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This mystery is great – but I am actually speaking with reference to Christ and the church. Nevertheless, each one of you must also love his own wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband." (Ephesians 5:25-33, NET)
  • Jeremy Pierce presents "Commanded Sexual Delight" posted at Parableman.



  • Our Love of our Brethren
    "“I give you a new commandment – to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples – if you have love for one another.”" (John 13:34-35, NET)

    "For this is the gospel message that you have heard from the beginning: that we should love one another . . . We know that we have crossed over from death to life because we love our fellow Christians. The one who does not love remains in death. Everyone who hates his fellow Christian is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him. We have come to know love by this: that Jesus laid down his life for us; thus we ought to lay down our lives for our fellow Christians. But whoever has the world’s possessions and sees his fellow Christian in need and shuts off his compassion against him, how can the love of God reside in such a person? . . . Now this is his commandment: that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he gave us the commandment." (1 John 3:11-23, NET)
  • Diane R presents "Are Lack of Social Skills in Churches Sinking Outreach?" posted at Crossroads: Where Faith and Inquiry Meet.


  • Drew Tatusko presents "The Spectacle of Evangelicalism: Exclusivity and Sectarian Inversion" posted at Notes From Off-Center.


  • Shaun Connell presents "Organized Religion" posted at Rational Christianity.


  • ChrisB presents "Politics, Religion, and Brotherly Love" posted at Homeward Bound.


  • Annette presents "Love each other" posted at Fish and Cans.


  • Dana presents "A vision for the church" posted at Principled Discovery.



  • Our Love of our Children and Parents
    [. . . and a "father problem".]
    "“Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." (Matthew 10:37, NET)

    "honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself.”" (Matthew 19:19, NET)

    "Fathers [or "parents"], do not provoke your children, so they will not become disheartened." (Colossians 3:21, NET)
  • Dana presents "The measure of a Christian education" posted at Principled Discovery on the question of how Christian parents should educate their children


  • Laura Beutler presents "Perfect Bodies" posted at Children & Chocolate and Other Paths to God.



  • Our Love of all People
    (even our Enemies)
    "“But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the person who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other as well, and from the person who takes away your coat, do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your possessions back from the person who takes them away. Treat others in the same way that you would want them to treat you. “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to be repaid, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, so that they may be repaid in full. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to ungrateful and evil people." (Luke 6:27-35, NET)
  • Doug presents "Can we persuade each other with logic alone?" posted at Bounded Irrationality.


  • Ron Thomson presents "Britney Spears and her mental health problems" posted at TheCrossCounts.com.


  • John Hobbins presents "Where does the commandment to love one’s enemies come from?" posted at Ancient Hebrew Poetry.


  • Heir to Life sends us "The Man in the Smoke Screen" from the Spirited Ink Blog.


  • Leslie Carbone presents "On his Birthday, Some Words of Encouragement from Ronald Reagan" posted at Leslie Carbone.


  • Rodney Olsen presents "Extraordinary Forgiveness" posted at RodneyOlsen.net.



  • Aw heck, how can I leave this out:
    "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but I do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so that I can remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I give over my body in order to boast, but do not have love, I receive no benefit. Love is patient, love is kind, it is not envious. Love does not brag, it is not puffed up. It is not rude, it is not self-serving, it is not easily angered or resentful. It is not glad about injustice, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. But if there are prophecies, they will be set aside; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be set aside. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when what is perfect comes, the partial will be set aside. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. For now we see in a mirror indirectly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I have been fully known. And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love." (1 Corinthians 13, NET)
    All bible quotes are from: Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

    Read more!

    Sunday, February 10, 2008

    Bible in a Year:
    Week of February 10th

    Many people have simply never read the Bible from cover to cover; and yet many people have many opinions about what is there. The first time I read it through the actual scope and flow of the Word became apparent - the underlying plan and it's unfolding.

    The idea is that over the years this resource can grow as folks add their own comments, links to commentaries and other tools, etc in the comments to this index.

    1. Do you have a viewpoint on a particular piece of scripture? Go to that place and leave a comment.

    2. Heard or read a great sermon on a section of scripture? Link the audio file or text in the comments.

    3. The possibilities are many.

    2/10: Leviticus 21:1-23:25; D: Sirach 14

    2/11: Leviticus 23:26-25:55; D: Sirach 14

    2/12: Leviticus 26:1-27:34; D: Sirach 14

    2/13: Numbers 1:1-2:34; D: Sirach 15

    2/14: Numbers 3:1-4:33; D: Sirach 15

    2/15: Numbers 4:34-6:27; D: Sirach 16

    2/16: Numbers 7:1-89; D: Sirach 16


    Things to look for each day:
    1. Lessons to be learned
    2. Examples to be followed
    3. Promises to be enjoyed
    4. Jesus to be revealed
    A good journaling question: How will I be different today because of what I have just read?

    Next Week: Week of August 21st
    Index to whole series

    Read more!

    Monday, February 04, 2008

    The Listening Heart: "The Era of Bloodshed"

    [Number three in a series]

    I have been intending to more extensively about The Listening Heart: Vocation And the Crisis of Modern Culture by A.J. Conyers; and have been waiting for a "handle" on how to approach the topics in the book - that handle never came (or maybe I have too many). I did do two posts on slavery - "The Bible and Slavery" and "Christianity and Slavery" - based on the book intending to segway into the books position on slavery and modernity:

    In a stunning insight, Conyers shows that the quintessential institution of modernity is slavery, for the slave is the ultimate autonomous individual. Stripped of every human tie, he belongs to no community but to a stranger. It is no accident, then, that the rise of modern slavery coincided with the Enlightenment itself.
    Actually, not so much the Enlightenment but a little earlier in the Renaissance - however that doesn't actually damage his main point either about slavery, or overall.

    What is that overall point? As this blurb from the publisher says:
    A culture built upon the ideology of individual choice will be a culture of alienation, loneliness, and violence . . . Conyers shows that Western culture was once informed by a sense of vocation, that men understood life as a response to a call from outside and above themselves. Beginning in the sixteenth century, however, the sense of vocation began to fade, to be replaced by the modern celebration of the unfettered human will. In such a society, Conyers argues, where relations among men are based on force, true community is impossible.
    . . .
    This wide-ranging study, refreshingly free of sentimentality, makes the barbarism and unparalleled violence of the twentieth century explicable. For a society that casts off the burden of vocation abandons that which makes it human.
    Pastor Dan at Street Prophets stated at one point that theologically conservative Christians were pre-modern. There is some accuracy to that statement, but it is a bit off. Conyers isn't so much pre-modern as he is a believer that modernity, or at least a major premise of it, has failed and failed violently. Actually, I would say he is contending for the pre-modern understanding of vocation as the something that needs to be recovered in a post-modern age. [BTW: I did not say he was a post-modernist.] . His question, now that the critique of modernity is clear and the post-modern agenda is before us, is
    "Shall we heal a broken society through love, or through power?"
    His indictment of modernity is scathing on many levels (too many to even sort out and list here) but he centers in on one main indictment, and one main question, to focus the book on:

    "Why in this modern world have humane communities - communities that for brief moments in history rise above strife and in fact nourish the human spirit, enrich the mind, provide for the safety and education of the young - proven so hard to come by, so difficult to maintain, and known it seems only to our most nostalgic moments? Why have the 'wars and fightings' of this past century taken more lives, destroyed more communities, exiled more people, decimated more ethnic groups than ever before in any comparable time? Why have more people been killed by their own governments in this past century than in all other times together? How is it that this new century has gotten off to such an unpromising start? James had an answer that tapped into the root of human nature, and into the human lunacy: 'Is it not your passions that are at war in your members? You desire and do not have; so you kill. And you covet and cannot obtain; so you fight and wage war'

    This book might be considered a commentary on that one question and its answer, and on the hope which frames this question."

    His critique of the modern quest for power and wealth is unambiguous. One of his indictments is "the army of 'homeless' in the cities and along the highways in a land of unimagined wealth". However, he believes we are a nation of homeless people split off from the concepts of family, community, and over-riding principle in order to make us fair game in the "rivalry of competitive desires" which is modern Western culture.

    One of the interesting things about Conyers' premise is that it is not going to make political conservatives very happy (see above) nor is it going to make political liberals/"progressives" very happy either:
    Sooner or later violence overtakes a society that functions chiefly on the basis of the rivalry of competitive desires, on the basis of choice, or on the basis of "freedom" defined as the unhindered will. Modern secular society is the longest experiment in history attempting to elevate "choice" or this kind of freedom to the level of a basic social principle. It should not be surprising, though I think to many the awareness of this has not surfaced, that modern life is also the most violent period in the history of mankind.
    He takes the critique straight to the core of Enlightenment philosophy upon which modern Western culture is founded - and the bloody ground from which many political liberals will make their stand.

    Conyers briefly examines three theories on "the sources of violent behavior on a wide scale in society":
    • "First, Hannah Arendt suggested that where power, in the sense of effective action within a community is missing, violence takes its place. Moreover, once the institutions of government have outgrown the individual and the neighborhood, so that the very scale of governance no longer permits effective action for most people, then those people are more likely to take to the streets and address their grievances in destructive ways.


    • Second, Rene Girard claims that violence gives focus and directs our competing desires in such a way that community is strengthened by a mutual turning against a scapegoat or an enemy. Thus the collective shape of society, its very possibility for community, feeds off a fundamental injustice and attachments to common hatreds. Moreover, in Girard's view, modern society, long tutored by the Christian gospel in the awareness of injustice and the innocence of its victims, finds itself in a crisis of contradiction precisely over the issue of violence and peace.


    • Third, Eric Voegelin taught that once society becomes closed to those experiences by which it is shaped, namely its reach for transcendent meaning, and the human quest focuses instead on worldly goods, the competing demands are satisfied by nothing short of bloodshed and revolution
    All three of these views overlap at a critical point: human beings naturally reach for meaningful action, and not finding it, resort to irrational and destructive action. All of these theories begin, as we can easily see, with what James has called "the passions . . . at war in your members." All of these theories, I believe, are important for understanding the kinds of conditions that give rise to violence and the uses to which violence is traditionally given over."
    However, as Conyers states, The Listening Heart heads in a different direction . . .

    Next: Vocation

    Read more!

    Sunday, February 03, 2008

    Bible in a Year:
    Week of February 3rd

    Many people have simply never read the Bible from cover to cover; and yet many people have many opinions about what is there. The first time I read it through the actual scope and flow of the Word became apparent - the underlying plan and it's unfolding.

    The idea is that over the years this resource can grow as folks add their own comments, links to commentaries and other tools, etc in the comments to this index.

    1. Do you have a viewpoint on a particular piece of scripture? Go to that place and leave a comment.
    2. Heard or read a great sermon on a section of scripture? Link the audio file or text in the comments.
    3. The possibilities are many.

    2/3: Exodus 40:34-Leviticus 5:13; D: Sirach 12

    2/4: Leviticus 5:14-7:38; D: Sirach 12

    2/5: Leviticus 8:1-10:20; D: Sirach 13

    2/6: Leviticus 11:1-13:46; D: Sirach 13

    2/7: Leviticus 13:47-14:57; D: Sirach 13

    2/8: Leviticus 15:1-17:16; D: Sirach 13

    2/9: Leviticus 18:1-20:27; D: Sirach 14

    Things to look for each day:

    1. Lessons to be learned
    2. Examples to be followed
    3. Promises to be enjoyed
    4. Jesus to be revealed
    A good journaling question: How will I be different today because of what I have just read?

    Next Week: Week of August 21st
    Index to whole series

    Read more!

    Sunday, January 27, 2008

    Inching up to the Fence

    A saying I have used a lot is that I think being on opposite sides of the fence from another should be a process where both folks get closer and closer to the fence, until both folks are leaning on the fence chatting - rather than screaming at each other from a distance. Then, maybe, occasionally, one of them can see whether it is possible to kick some of the slats out of the fence that separates them.

    That obviously makes me a moderate - a position in which I am quite comfortable. Now, the ideologues on both sides view those folks leaning on the fence chatting as less than pure, and less than right. They, of course, are pure and right - and a bit hoarse.

    There are a couple of posts over at the Stand to Reason blog that warmed my heart - because they both point to the dialogue occurring in the middle. The middle is, of course, where dialogue occurs. The first dialogue is a direct one. Steven Wagner

    specializes in training college students to engage their campuses in large-scale discussion on abortion . . . Steve is a summa cum laude graduate of the University of Southern California, and he is currently working on his Masters Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics at Talbot School of Theology.
    and examines in "Kissling and Michelman Refuse to Dismiss Pro-Lifers as Irrelevant" an Los Angeles Times opinion - "Abortion's battle of messages" by
    Frances Kissling, a fellow at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, is the former president of Catholics for a Free Choice. Kate Michelman is the former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America and the author of "Protecting the Right to Choose."
    Michelman and Kissling outline the issue for the pro-choice movement pretty clearly:
    Science facilitated the swing of the pendulum. Three-dimensional ultrasound images of babies in utero began to grace the family fridge. Fetuses underwent surgery. More premature babies survived and were healthier. They commanded our attention, and the question of what we owe them, if anything, could not be dismissed.

    These trends gave antiabortionists an advantage, and they made the best of it. Now, we rarely hear them talk about murdering babies. Instead, they present a sophisticated philosophical and political challenge. Caring societies, they say, seek to expand inclusion into "the human community." Those once excluded, such as women and minorities, are now equal. Why not welcome the fetus (who, after all, is us) into our community?

    Advocates of choice have had a hard time dealing with the increased visibility of the fetus. The preferred strategy is still to ignore it and try to shift the conversation back to women. At times, this makes us appear insensitive, a bit too pragmatic in a world where the desire to live more communitarian and "life-affirming" lives is palpable. To some people, pro-choice values seem to have been unaffected by the desire to save the whales and the trees, to respect animal life and to end violence at all levels. Pope John Paul II got that, and coined the term "culture of life." President Bush adopted it, and the slogan, as much as it pains us to admit it, moved some hearts and minds. Supporting abortion is tough to fit into this package.
    and
    In recent years, the antiabortion movement successfully put the nitty-gritty details of abortion procedures on public display, increasing the belief that abortion is serious business and that some societal involvement is appropriate. Those who are pro-choice have not convinced America that we support a public discussion of the moral dimensions of abortion. Likewise, we haven't convinced people that we are the ones actually doing things to make it possible for women to avoid needing abortions . . . If pro-choice values are to regain the moral high ground, genuine discussion about these challenges needs to take place within the movement. It is inadequate to try to message our way out of this problem. Our vigorous defense of the right to choose needs to be accompanied by greater openness regarding the real conflict between life and choice, between rights and responsibility.
    Wagner welcomes the article
    In fact, they make the pro-life case better than many pro-life advocates . . . I applaud the honest assessment Kissling and Michelman have made of the best of the pro-life movement . . . they have worked hard to understand pro-life arguments . . . That's the attitude I encourage both sides to adopt in my book, Common Ground Without Compromise in which I . . . help pro-life advocates take seriously the legitimate concerns pro-choice advocates typically emphasize. These include honestly confronting the very difficult circumstances many women face and being realistic about solutions to the problems of unwanted pregnancy

    It appears from their article that Kissling and Michelman are calling for an internal discussion of the effective pro-life challenges they've highlighted, but I would encourage them to go further. Talk to pro-life advocates about them. We're ready to listen, understand, and build common ground first in order to really hear your concerns and perspective.
    The other bit of "slat kicking" has Stand to Reason pointing to a John Mark Reynolds's post - "Is Huckabee Confused About the Proper Role of Christianity and Politics?" - discussing Mike Huckabee's comment on making the Constitution conform to God's will
    "I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."
    .It is a great post on which discusses:
    • general vs. specific revelation
    • that some truths could be gained through human reason, itself a common grace of God to all humankind.; and
    • that "Christians discovered through history that freedom of conscience was one of God’s great gifts to mankind."
    among other things.

    Melinda, in an earlier post - "Presidents and Pastors" also looked at Huckabee's quote
    The Constitution should never be changed to conform to God's standards - at least that's not the reason we should change it. What's right and good is certain God's standard, and the rationale for Constitutional amendments should be made because it's right and good, not because it's God's standard. We should amend the Constitution for appropriate and good reasons for societal welfare.
    Both posts echo many of the criticisms from the left of Mike Huckabee's comment - something neither side may be entirely comfortable with.

    Certainly, some folks reading this at the two blogs where it is posted will object from both sides of both fences. They will call those folks on their side traitors for giving up the purity of their position - and accuse the opposition of much worse. Certainly, they will not agree to the views of those across the fence from them.

    However, this post is not about views on abortion or theocracy - it is about the "music" of chatting and slat-kicking.

    Read more!

    Bible in a Year:
    Week of January 27th

    Many people have simply never read the Bible from cover to cover; and yet many people have many opinions about what is there. The first time I read it through the actual scope and flow of the Word became apparent - the underlying plan and it's unfolding.

    The idea is that over the years this resource can grow as folks add their own comments, links to commentaries and other tools, etc in the comments to this index.

    1. Do you have a viewpoint on a particular piece of scripture? Go to that place and leave a comment.
    2. Heard or read a great sermon on a section of scripture? Link the audio file or text in the comments.
    3. The possibilities are many.

    1/27: Exodus 23:14-25:40; D: Sirach 9

    1/28: Exodus 26:1-28:30; D: Sirach 10

    1/29: Exodus 28:31-30:21; D: Sirach 10

    1/30: Exodus 30:22-33:11; D: Sirach 10

    1/31: Exodus 33:12-36:7; D: Sirach 11

    2/1: Exodus 36:8-38:20; D: Sirach 11

    2/2: Exodus 38:21-40:33; D: Sirach 11

    Things to look for each day:
    1. Lessons to be learned
    2. Examples to be followed
    3. Promises to be enjoyed
    4. Jesus to be revealed
    A good journaling question: How will I be different today because of what I have just read?

    Next Week: Week of February 3rd
    Index to whole series

    Read more!

    Sunday, January 20, 2008

    Bible in a Year:
    Week of January 20th

    Many people have simply never read the Bible from cover to cover; and yet many people have many opinions about what is there. The first time I read it through the actual scope and flow of the Word became apparent - the underlying plan and it's unfolding.

    The idea is that over the years this resource can grow as folks add their own comments, links to commentaries and other tools, etc in the comments to this index.

    1. Do you have a viewpoint on a particular piece of scripture? Go to that place and leave a comment.
    2. Heard or read a great sermon on a section of scripture? Link the audio file or text in the comments.
    3. The possibilities are many.

    1/20: Exodus 2:1-4:31; D: Sirach 7

    1/21: Exodus 5:1-7:24; D: Sirach 7

    1/22: Exodus 7:25-10:20; D: Sirach 7

    1/23: Exodus 10:21-13:16; D: Sirach 8

    1/24: Exodus 13:17-16:36; D: Sirach 8

    1/25: Exodus 17:1-20:21; D: Sirach 9

    1/26: Exodus 20:22-23:13; D: Sirach 9

    Things to look for each day:
    1. Lessons to be learned
    2. Examples to be followed
    3. Promises to be enjoyed
    4. Jesus to be revealed
    A good journaling question: How will I be different today because of what I have just read?

    Next Week: Week of January 27th
    Index to whole series

    Read more!

    Sunday, January 13, 2008

    Bible in a Year:
    Week of January 13th

    Many people have simply never read the Bible from cover to cover; and yet many people have many opinions about what is there. The first time I read it through the actual scope and flow of the Word became apparent - the underlying plan and it's unfolding.

    The idea is that over the years this resource can grow as folks add their own comments, links to commentaries and other tools, etc in the comments to this index.

    1. Do you have a viewpoint on a particular piece of scripture? Go to that place and leave a comment.
    2. Heard or read a great sermon on a section of scripture? Link the audio file or text in the comments.
    3. The possibilities are many.

    1/13: Genesis 34:1-36:30; D: Sirach 4

    1/14: Genesis 36:31-38:30; D: Sirach 5

    1/15: Genesis 39:1-41:40; D: Sirach 5

    1/16: Genesis 41:41-43:34; D: Sirach 6

    1/17: Genesis 44:1-45:28; D: Sirach 6

    1/18: Genesis 46:1-48:22; D: Sirach 6

    1/19: Genesis 49:1-Exodus 1:22; D: Sirach 6

    Things to look for each day:
    1. Lessons to be learned
    2. Examples to be followed
    3. Promises to be enjoyed
    4. Jesus to be revealed
    A good journaling question: How will I be different today because of what I have just read?

    Next Week: Week of January 20th
    Index to whole series

    Read more!

    Tuesday, January 08, 2008

    Rick Moran Goes Off

    I like Rick Moran at Rightwing Nuthouse. We share at least one thing - the principles upon which he bases his political conservatism are close to my own. We do not share at least one thing - a belief in God. Rick is a professed atheist.

    We share another belief I think: the marriage of theologically conservative Christians with the Republican Party in 1980 and increasingly in 1984 was not really because of shared political philosophy.

    It was because the Republican Party staked its verbal claim (at least) to being opposed to abortion and the repeal of Roe v Wade; while the Democratic Party staked his big tent firmly for abortion choice and the defense of Roe. For those who believe that the death of 1,200,000 unborn children a year is horrific, and the most important issue facing the country, they really had no other place to go. The rise since then of a movement for re-defining marriage as any two loving people, even if they are the same biological sex - again generally opposed verbally by the Republican Party and supported verbally by the Democratic Party - has increased that feeling that being Republican was where it was at for theologically conservative Christians. Since they constituted 40ish% of the Republican Party, and were essential to its victories since 1980, they have wielded some weight.

    However, both the Republican and Democratic parties have both completely pandered on the latter point (a Democratic president signed the Federal DOMA) and the Republicans have largely pandered on the former. The results are that the two Supreme Court appointees of George Bush will NOT (imo) vote to overturn Roe if they get the chance; and (imo) - they were never intended to; and John Roberts - claiming hired gun status - successfully argued the case against the Colorado DOMA before the Supreme Court before he was nominated. While both are strict constructionists whom I support, there is hardly a reason to believe they will violate that strict constructionist philosophy to make social conservatives happy in the areas of gay marriage and abortion.

    In exchange for (imo) nothing, some of the leadership of theologically conservative Christians in this country have traded the centrality of Christ's power in their life, as well as the spreading of the Gospel, with the quest for political power - or really just recognition at the "kid's table" of American politics. Now, the first time one of those social conservatives takes a shot at political power itself the screams from the right of American politics is deafening.

    That brings us to Rick's "Facing up to the Unbearable Truth" - a rant every bit as hateful really as any I have seen from the most rabid anti-faith secular liberal. It made me want to put my shoes on, take that straw outa my mouth, and march right up and hit him in his citified face with a bowl of grits - and I will not be voting for Mike Huckabee. To Rick's credit, he apologized, and in doing so brought up the real issue:

    There is going to be a reckoning within the conservative movement between classic conservatives who believe that a society must have a just, moral order to survive and social conservatives who wish to “take back (sic) the country for Jesus” while imposing a moral order on the rest of us via top down, government solutions . . . the solution will eventually be found in local communities who will decide for themselves the definition of “moral order” without diktats from Washington. [I am going to ignore that "imposing morality" nonsense for now]
    Every married couple - especially after being married for 30 years - has had those periods of strained civility for the sake of peace - a horrible caricature of relationship to be sure. Suddenly, when the peace breaks and the long-stifled issues surface - the marriage has either reached its end; or a new and deeper relationship will be formed. Welcome to that moment in the social conservative and political conservative marriage. It is hard for me to see how the marriage can be saved.

    First of all, both parties have lost their way. Christianity is not, at its heart, a legislative religion - the failure of Mosaic Law to make us righteous was one of the reasons for Christ's advent - to write the law on our hearts instead of in stone. It is not possible to use secular political power to spread the Kingdom of God. If you are going to use secular law to restrain immorality, the process of doing so shouldn't obstruct the real building of a real Kingdom. Admittedly, over a million lives a year is an astronomical pressure on pro-life Christians to ban abortion. I cannot blame them for trying even if it will never work before you win the hearts and minds of a super-majority; and the current political/legal battle may actually get in the way of winning those necessary additional hearts and minds. However, the amplification of homosexuality to some special class of sin has no Biblical justification whatsoever in my opinion.

    Politically conservative Republicans have also lost their way - becoming "big government" "big spenders" at the Federal level (at least). Frankly, it matters not whether your deficits are created by cutting taxes or increasing spending - conservatives have not been paying the bills and instead have left them for future generations. When the only President in the last 27 years to actually balance a budget and pay down the debt was a Democrat - it shows the bankruptcy (literally) of the current version of (un) "fiscal" conservatism.

    Also, whether it be actively usurping state's rights through use of the Commerce Clause, or centralizing control of FEMA so it was unable to respond quickly to a regional crisis like Katrina - the idea of subsidiarity has been lost to the Republican Party. This goes for attempting to usurp state power through proposed constitutional amendments governing marriage and abortion: even if pandering to social conservatives, these political impossibilities (coupled with liberal top-down social engineering) should have never been proposed. Republicans, in general, have been just as much about giving power to the Federal government at the expense of lower levels of organization as the Democrats. Witness President Bush's use of the Commerce Clause and the FDA to assault California medical marijuana and Oregon's acceptance of physician supported suicide.

    The use of torture and the building of vast Federal domestic spying programs are anathema to classic conservatism and its support for individual rights vs. the intrusion of the state. Admittedly, the need for security in a post 9/11 age requires some giving up of individual liberty in order to protect the general population - but excess is excess. President Bush's claims to unrestricted executive power in such cases do not ring true - whatever classic conservatives trust, it is not unrestricted government power.

    Luckily, political marriages are not made in Heaven, are not forever, and divorce is not banned. This couple needs to examine themselves, repent and return to their respective philosophical and theological roots, and then decide whether they should part for the good of both of them.

    Hey, they can still remain friends.

    Read more!

    Sunday, January 06, 2008

    Bible in a Year:
    Week of January 6th

    Many people have simply never read the Bible from cover to cover; and yet many people have many opinions about what is there. The first time I read it through the actual scope and flow of the Word became apparent - the underlying plan and it's unfolding.

    The idea is that over the years this resource can grow as folks add their own comments, links to commentaries and other tools, etc in the comments to this index.

    1. Do you have a viewpoint on a particular piece of scripture? Go to that place and leave a comment.
    2. Heard or read a great sermon on a section of scripture? Link the audio file or text in the comments.
    3. The possibilities are many.

    1/6: Genesis 17:1-19:29; D: Sirach 2

    1/7: Genesis 19:30-22:24; D: Sirach 2

    1/8: Genesis 23:1-24:67; D: Sirach 3

    1/9: Genesis 25:1-26:35; D: Sirach 3

    1/10: Genesis 27:1-29:13; D: Sirach 3

    1/11: Genesis 29:14-31:21; D: Sirach 4

    1/12: Genesis 31:22-33:20; D: Sirach 4

    Things to look for each day:
    1. Lessons to be learned
    2. Examples to be followed
    3. Promises to be enjoyed
    4. Jesus to be revealed
    A good journaling question: How will I be different today because of what I have just read?

    Next Week: Week of January 13th
    Index to whole series

    Read more!

    Wednesday, January 02, 2008

    Applying the Principles, Part II

    [Part seven in the Scripture and History series]

    Picking up where I left off in "Applying the Principles, Part I", I am outlinging Greg Herrick's application of the principles of historical criticism to the resurrection narratives. Again, you must read the entire linked linked article for the full argument.

    III. The tomb was found empty three days later:

    1. Earliest tradition: Paul believed in the empty tomb:
      • "He was raised" - ἐγείρω - in 1 Corinthians 15:4.
      • It was an early tradition Paul received before he wrote about it in 37 - 40AD.
      • Paul would not preach so boldly if he did not believe in the empty tomb

    2. Multiple attestations: The empty tomb tradition is found in:
      • all four Gospels
      • three of the Gospel strata (i.e. Mark, "M" and John).

    3. Dissimilarity:
      • is not overlaid with theology for apologetic purposes.
      • all the Gospel writers use the expression "first day of the week." While the early preaching referred to the "third day"

      This makes it dissimilar to the preaching of the early church and therefore unlikely that the early church invented it.


    4. Embarrassment: women were witnesses to the empty tomb while the disciples were hiding in fear.


    5. Semitisms: Matthew mentioning the "angel of the Lord" and Luke's "bowed their faces to the ground".


    6. Divergent traditions: the different number of angels and the different number of women in the different traditions has been pointed to as a reason to doubt their authenticity.
      • that they differ points to the story not being crafted by the early church. If that was the case they should be uniform
      • as to the reliability of the witnesses themselves, it was not unusual for different writers to focus on the participants they wished and ignore others that were there

      There is no need to postulate other competing traditions.


    7. from the perspective of the Jewish leaders, in the development of their attack on the apostles, they did not deny that the tomb was empty. Besides, the religious leaders could have put an end to the whole mess, if they could have produced a body. No such evidence was ever presented according to our sources.
    Herrick - "From the preceding evidence it is clear that the tradition of the empty tomb passes the historiographical tests of: 1) multiple attestation; 2)dissimilarity; 3) tendencies of the developing tradition; 4) Semitisms and 5)embarrassment. Therefore, a belief in the empty tomb is reasonable historically speaking. It bears all the marks of being early, and not a later creation of the church. It is to be regarded as authentic."

    IV. Jesus was seen alive and the disciples held the belief of his resurrection.
    According to [Lane] Craig there are essentially four lines of evidence one can adduce in support of the historical reliability of the resurrection appearances: 1) The Apostle Paul's testimony; 2) the genuine character of particular resurrection appearances, 3) the evidence for the general trustworthiness of the Gospel accounts and 4) the fact that the appearances were of Jesus' resurrected body. Since we have already discussed #3 and #4 . . . we will concentrate on the #1 and #2.
    1. Paul's Testimony in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8
      It is generally believed that the earlier a tradition is, the more likely it is to be authentic. This, of course, is a major idea behind the criteria of authenticity and form criticism . . . We maintain that the "witnesses" of 15: 5-8 are a part of that early tradition. There was not enough time to develop a legend in this regard, for the tradition here can probably be dated before A.D. 40 and some argue before A.D. 37 . . . The Corinthians could have checked it out, and yet there is no reference in our sources to the Corinthians . . . denying the resurrection.
    2. The Historical Veracity of Resurrection Appearances, and Other Phenomena
      • Cause/effect or Correlation:
        • James: The fact James was doubtful of Jesus' identity during his life and that he later became a pillar and apostle in the church requires a sufficient cause. The only reasonable explanation is that Christ did indeed rise from the dead and appear to him, just as tradition says.
        • Paul:
          . . . it is even harder to account for Saul . . . Did Paul suddenly feel remorse for his actions? Probably not. This might lead him to desist from his attacks on the church, but it cannot account for his faith in Jesus as Messiah. Did he just realize from his background that Jesus fits the Messianic bill, so to speak? This is unlikely, since the bodily resurrection of an isolated individual is not found in the Judaism of Paul's day. There was only the general resurrection of all people at the end (criterion of Palestinian environment [context and expectation]). And, the concept of a dying and rising Messiah was probably foreign to Paul . . . He even goes so far as to teach Jewish/Gentile equality in God's plan. . . . Paul suffered greatly as a result of his faith in Christ . . . This is only reasonably accounted for on the basis of his seeing the resurrected Jesus
        • The emergence and growth of the church in Jerusalem and around the known world at that time is difficult to explain on the basis of naturalistic causes. Fear of the religious and political authorities would have squelched the movement
        • Early church treatment of sin:
          They did not tolerate it . . . This is not exactly the way a movement goes about the process of attracting followers. There was belief in Jesus' resurrection and only such a belief would cause sane people to become a part of the church . . . we ought to consider Paul's ethics which he enjoined on the churches in the name of the risen Lord. It is an incredibly demanding ethic and not very easy to live out. It is difficult to believe that people would submit to this without a sufficient reason. The resurrection of Christ provides the a priori reason to move toward a lifestyle like Paul outlines in his letters and also offers the hope required to fulfill that ethic.
      • Embarrassment: In first century Judaism, since the claim of women witnesses would not carry much weight, it is likely that this tradition is true. It does nothing to help their cause in promoting Jesus as risen from the dead. The fact that Paul leaves the women out in his list of witnesses confirms this interpretation.
    As I said in a comment at Street Prophets, it is not my intent in this series to convince anyone of anything - other than that believing in the physically risen Christ from the Gospel narratives is not historiographically irrational or insupportable.

    That is unless one denies the possibility of the supernatural. That, however, has nothing to do with the evidence - that is about what you are willing to believe.

    Read more!

    Tuesday, January 01, 2008

    Applying the Principles, Part I

    [Part six in the Scripture and History series]

    I have been outlining Greg Herrick's "The Historical Veracity of the Resurrection Narratives" the last few posts in the series. First, I should say that here Herrick is only dealing with one possible naturalistic explanation of the Resurrection accounts:

    From this brief discussion we contend that Jesus' resurrection, spoken of in the Gospels (and indeed the entire New Testament) is a bodily resurrection - the corporeal theory.
    The brief discussion in the paper also mentioned five (5) other explanations:
    1. the political theory,
    2. the swoon theory,
    3. the mythical theory,
    4. the subjective vision theory,
    5. the objective vision theory
    He dismisses the first two without discussion, but he examines why the thinks the next three fail to the corporeal theory.

    You will have to read the linked article for those reasons. He moves on to examine the historicity of the Gospel accounts of the corporeal Resurrection of Jesus. The last two posts looked at Herrick's view of some common "criteria of authenticity" to measure that by; and
    "We turn now to an application of those criteria to the resurrection narratives, including the material on the death of Jesus, his burial, the empty tomb, the appearances of Jesus to his disciples and the disciples' belief in the resurrection."
    His introduction to the section:
    No one saw the resurrection of Jesus. All that was seen was the resurrected Jesus. If, then, a resurrection took place, it must be demonstrated with a reasonable degree of certainty, historiographically speaking, that Jesus actually died and then was seen at some later time alive and in bodily form. A brief sketch of the Gospel testimony runs something like this: 1) Jesus died; 2) was buried in a sealed and guarded tomb; 3) the tomb was found empty three days later and 4) Jesus was seen alive and the disciples held the belief of his resurrection . . . This section seeks to analyze these various ideas according to the details of the Gospels and the criteria of authenticity.
    I am only going to outline that application - again you have to read the linked article if you want to capture his entire argument, and that of those he argues against.

    I. Jesus died
    the criterion of multiple attestation, coherence, and multiple forms demonstrate with reasonable certainty that Jesus did indeed die by crucifixion. That crucifixion was indeed practiced by the Romans . . . is confirmed by Josephus, [satisfying] the criterion of Palestinian environment.
    II. He was buried in a sealed and guarded tomb
    • Multiple Attestation:
      • The earliest tradition: 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 - the word θάπτω (thaptō) occurs 10 other times in the Gospels and Acts . . . It always refers to the physical burial of a dead person.
      • The Gospels all confirm this testimony

    • Developing tradition or dissimilarity:
      • The earliness of the 1 Corinthians tradition argues against the development of legend. Some of those eyewitnesses were indeed women [also criterion of embarrassment] who played a role in the early church in which the traditions developed
      • The tradition of his burial is not surrounded by adornment and embellishing . . . The later church cannot be read back into the description of Jesus' burial.

    • Divergent tradition: all the Gospel writers mention Joseph of Arimathea and Luke tells us that he was a member of the Sanhedrin. Given the fact that all the writers implicate the religious leaders in Jesus' death . . . Such a unanimously spoken of tradition would probably not survive due the presence of eyewitnesses, unless, of course, it were true.


    • Palestinian environment:
      • the tomb meets with archaeological discoveries
      • the new tomb coheres with the Jews not wanting to pollute other family members interred there
      • Jesus' body would not have been allowed to remain on the cross until the next day, lest the corpse defile the land
      • since he died around the sixth hour, Joseph probably had time to accomplish the burial before nightfall and the beginning of the Sabbath

    Next post, the real issues:
    • III. The tomb was found empty three days later
    • IV. Jesus was seen alive and the disciples held the belief of his resurrection.

    Read more!

    Bible in a Year:
    Week of January 1st

    Many people have simply never read the Bible from cover to cover; and yet many people have many opinions about what is there. The first time I read it through the actual scope and flow of the Word became apparent - the underlying plan and it's unfolding.

    The idea is that over the years this resource can grow as folks add their own comments, links to commentaries and other tools, etc in the comments to this index.

    1. Do you have a viewpoint on a particular piece of scripture? Go to that place and leave a comment.
    2. Heard or read a great sermon on a section of scripture? Link the audio file or text in the comments.
    3. The possibilities are many.

    1/1: Genesis 1:1-3:24; D: Sirach 1

    1/2: Genesis 4:1-5:32; D: Sirach 1

    1/3: Genesis 6:1-9:17; D: Sirach 1

    1/4: Genesis 9:18-12:9; D: Sirach 2

    1/5: Genesis 12:10-16:16; D: Sirach 2


    Things to look for each day:
    1. Lessons to be learned
    2. Examples to be followed
    3. Promises to be enjoyed
    4. Jesus to be revealed
    A good journaling question: How will I be different today because of what I have just read?

    Next Week: Week of January 6th
    Index to whole series

    Read more!

    Bible in a Year Index

    I created a Bible in a Year loop at Street Prophets. While mainly based on the Crosswalk format - I have added the Catholic Deuterocanonicals from another source and a quick link to the Bible.Org commentaries for those that want them. This set has a reading from the Old Testament, the New Testament, and Wisdom/Prophecy each day along with the Deuterocanonicals.

    I am going to gradually create a loop here at Brain Cramps for God as well - with links to the New English Translation (NET Bible) at Bible.Org. This will be a straight through reading of the Bible, with the same extra readings from the deuterocanonicals. The week a book begins in is listed behind the date - if you want to begin in a particular place.

    Read more!