Personal Note on Posting Timeline
We will be meeting on Palm Sunday but not Easter Sunday. So I will post on “Good Friday” March 29th. There will be no post on the week following East; the next post will be no later than Friday, April 12.
Gen. 26: 23 – 25: Isaac and the Promise Renewed
Review
I began with what I intended to be a brief comment about one of the exchanges which occurred in the previous week’s discussion and it ended going on for more than forty minutes. My opening comment dealt with a series of exchanges among Faryl, Roseann and myself. It all began when Faryl said that her take on the mess that the world is in is that God made the mess so as to fix it. I reflected that the both the Jewish and Christian take is that we made the mess. Faryl responded that she didn’t mean to blame God for the mess. Roseann offered that God permitted the mess.
This exchange offers quite a bit to reflect on. I preface my remarks below by saying that I could “hear” so much in this exchange and wondered if or what any of the participants or you who are reading this post “hear” in the exchange. Below are my “hearings” and response.
- The scripture is clear first that creation is good, in fact, “very good.”
- It is often the case that we don’t express at first the full meaning of what we intend. How often do we say, “Oh! I didn’t mean that” and then go on to offer further clarification. This is what I think happened inside of Faryl but, as I said, it happens to all of us.
- Roseann’s remark that God permits is both profound and theologically sound. It would take us too far afield to deal with the problem of evil in this post but Roseann’s remark points to one of the significant elements in the solution to the problem of evil. At least this much can be said, Though, God allows the human component of the “mess,” namely, sin or evil, God is neither the cause nor the author of “sin.” If these points raise questions or comments for you, please feel welcomed to state you thoughts in the comment section at the end of this post.
Mark, who was not present at last week’s gathering, but had read the post. He wondered what Faryl meant by “pda.” His simple question continued the discussion for another ten to fifteen minutes. Before Faryl explained what “pda” meant, I asked those not in attendance last week if they knew. Only two knew. Faryl explained that “pda” stood for “public display of affection.” The word “affection, however, has overtones which came up a bit later in our discussion.
Three follow up remarks elicited some reflections on my part. Steve commented that “pda” was just part of the new language created by texting. Ken said that “pda” existed long before texting. Heber remarked that holding hands with your “girlfriend” was as far as it went in the school halls in his day. The kids today do a lot more than hold hands in the school.
Here are my comments.
- Ken had a different “when” for “pda” than Steve. He was convinced that his “when” was true so he corrected Steve. His correction was a mere correction of facts. Neither the topic nor the exchange had any meaningful emotional overtones, no values involved.
- Heber, on the other, implied a judgment of value in his comments. He verified my read of his comment. Heber saw a difference too, but his difference had a direction to it and he didn’t approve of that direction. They [the kids today] were going too far. There is both emotion and value involved now. More is at stake.
Rosemarie said that this conversation reminded her of how some young people she is acquainted with talk; every sentence seems to include, “And he goes…” “Blah, Blah, Blah and then they say, ‘And he goes …’” Rosemarie’s assessment is that the young people speak poor English, grammatically incorrect. “Going where?” she asks herself.
More commentary! Rosemarie’s assessment reveals first that she, like all of us, have a standard within us by which we judge; in this concrete instance, a standard of proper English. We normally not only have a standard but think that our standard is correct. If we were to read Chaucer, Shakespeare, or Orson Wells, however, we would find different English, different grammar, different standards.
The notion of a standard for Proper English offered an example of historical studies at work. Historical studies forces us to place whatever standard we wish to apply in an historical context. It doesn’t make it relative but does make it much more both complex and rich. To Rise to the Level of our Times requires that we come to know at least that there is a historical context for our standard and maybe what that historical context is. There is enormous consequences if we accept that our standards have an historical consequence. Are you able to identify any?
When the historical context is applied to the bible or our faith in general another question arose. Ken pointed out well that what God means, or the bible, or our faith is what it means to us in the context of our life. The people of the bible lived thousands of years ago in a different culture and at different places. Scripture resonates with us in our life and it resonated with them in their lives. Our two lives are very different and it is hard to put ourselves in their times, in their lives.
I wondered if it is important to do that, hard as it might be, to understand what it meant to them, then. Ken though that it was important. Faryl said that it was important too because it is important to get it right, to interpret the scripture correctly. I wish that I could share her example from an exchange begun on the Internet but again, more than can be shared in one post.
It is hard to disagree, however, with Faryl’s observations. Unless we can approximate what the bible meant then, we are unlikely to transfer that meaning into our lives as we live them today. And there is plenty of examples of people of faith doing exactly that.
Mark took us to another aspect of this issue when he claimed that it is both important and not important. He felt that in an “adult” study it was important but there was no way that such effort to understand the meaning as it once was could be taught to children. His remarks brought out the issue of education in our parish, in our church. I suggested that unless the adult had an adult understanding; the parent, the teacher could not faithfully teach. We cannot teach what we don’t understand. If we understand, then we can modify our presentation in as many ways as it takes so that our children, the student, whomever, can understand.
I drew our conversation to an end, though the conversation was not over. I also will limit this post to the “review” part of our discussion. In a second post entitled, Isaac and the Promise Renewed: Part II I will share the discussion we had on three verses, chap. 26: 23 – 25.
Your comments, observations, questions are welcomed. See “comment” link below