This morning I finished the "final" edit on the handouts for the first year of the curriculum. I put "final" in quotes because I know that if I went back through it yet again I'd find more changes to make. And I probably will to through it again. But at some point I need to accept that perfection isn't possible. My book went to six editors - three for content and three for form - and after it was in print we still found errors that embarrassed us.
I don't know if this will go to outside editors. I'm fine if it does; that's their call. But the kind of grammatical precision one aims for with a book feels overly stuffy in handouts intended for Jr. and Sr. Highers. IMHO.
I'm struck by the controversy stirred up by Obama's choice of Pastor Rick Warren to bring the invocation at his inauguration. The gay and lesbian community is very angry because of Warren's stated opposition to homosexuality, and many outside that community are just as bothered by the choice.
I thought today about the change this represents. This fuss is over a pastor who opposes homosexuality bringing the invocation, instead of a pastor, Rev. Joseph Lowery, who has pressed for the ordination of gays and lesbians bringing the benediction. Not that many years ago the situation would have been reversed.
Why this way this time? Is it because our society's views have changed that much, swung to a more liberal view? That doesn't fit with the passage of anti-gay marriage amendments in every state where they were on the ballot.
If it's not about a sea change in the views of the majority of Americans maybe it has to do with the growing liberal perspective (agenda?) of the press. If a minority makes noise, a media sympathetic to that minority's views will be more inclined to report that noise.
I'm also struck by the irony of those who criticize evangelicals for being narrow and exclusionary protesting the inclusion of an evangelical in the inauguration ceremonies.
I saw the surgeon for my follow-up appointment this afternoon. I'm now cleared to do the workouts I've been doing for the last five days. But I can sure feel that I lost ground over the week I had to take off. Frustrating.
Charles has begun a pretty intense personal study of primitive religions. Just idol curiosity.
Back to last night's quiz on the circumstances of Christ's birth.
At Pathway we've talked about what biblical scholars call the "selection principle." Think about all the events, the conversations, the details from those few days that the Holy Spirit could have directed Luke to include in the birth narrative. But they are absent. No mention of any conversations, the date, the time of day, Mary's labor, the weather...never mind all the details we've erroneously filled in as illustrated with last night's quiz.
That leads to the question, "Why did the Holy Spirit select the data he did for inclusion?" The selection principle says that he had a reason for the narrow set of details he did put in, a point he wanted us to get as made clear by those details. And that is the problem with all the embellishment of the Christmas story. Precisely because we have trouble distinguishing between the biblical data and the Hallmark data we stand at real risk of missing the very point God had in mind when he gave us that account.
So it's essential that we get rid of all the extra stuff we've added. Toss it overboard. Then focus on the stripped down, original version, asking as we read and re-read it, "What does this narrative, with its narrow set of data, teach us. What is the point, the spiritual lesson God wants us to get here?" In this sense it can be helpful to note what Luke did not tell us, because we can conclude anything not in the narrative is irrelevant to the point. So, for example, Joseph's role at the birth has nothing to do with God's point. Nor do the circumstances of Mary's labor.
What do we get when we think in terms of the selection principle as it applies to the birth narrative?
Sunday morning at Pathway.
No comments:
Post a Comment