A chill morning

Today's a day off, and with the arrival of minor storm, the temperature dropped 20 degrees yesterday afternoon to a chilly 65°F this morning. So I was chilling out in the front room this morning, doing some reading and drinking mate, and this came crawling across the floor:

This is only the third or fourth scorpion I've seen in Paraguay, and the first I've seen at this house. She was probably brought out by the flooded state of her normal hiding places. Still, it's a little unnerving to see this little monster crawling across the floor where your baby romps all day, with her tail curled and ready to strike. A quick Google search reveals little helpful information about scorpions in Paraguay, mostly articles about the rock band's cancelled concert last year.

One 2002 newspaper article says only one person has died from a scorpion bite in 1980, but warns that some bites could be fatal for children under 9 and the elderly. Apparently the only poisonous species of scorpion in Paraguay is the Tityus trivittatus (which interestingly doesn't have a Wikipedia page in English; it's not that often that I find a page on the Spanish Wikipedia that doesn't have a corresponding (and usually more informative) page in English). From the pictures, it seems that the one I killed could be this species.

I was finishing up reading 1 Corinthians as she appeared, right in the part of chapter 15 where it talks about different kinds of bodies and death being swallowed up. Her appearance definitely brought a different vibe to the text.

After that, I had a great breakfast: homemade chipa, and a chai latte (which only tastes better in the beautiful work of art from J. Fetzer Pottery).

+

Marilynne Robinson on God's "jealousy"

"For the Lord your God is a devouring fire, a jealous God." - Deuteronomy 4:24

Upon reading this yesterday, I was reminded about what Marilynne Robinson says about the word "jealousy" as ascribed to God. I was reading in Spanish, and the word "celoso" is a much broader term than jealous in English--in accordance with Robinson's comments (see below). "Celo" can mean both jealousy and zeal, but it can also refer to an animal that's in heat. So her suggestion of "impassioned" sounds like a better choice, especially considering that seven verses later God is described as "a merciful God, he will neither abandon you nor destroy you; he will not forget the covenant with your ancestors that he swore to them." (4:31).

Here is Robinson's commentary, from p. 109 and 110 of When I Was a Child I Read Books.
"'Impassioned' is usually used by the Jewish Publication Society to translate the word other English translations render as 'jealous.' The Hebrew stem apparently means 'to grow red.' 'Jealous' comes from the same Greek root as 'zealous,' and the Greek words that derive from it are usually translated in the New Testament as 'zeal' or 'zealous.' In its earliest English uses, for example in John Wycliffe's fourteenth-century translation of the Old Testament, 'jealous' often has that meaning, suggesting ardor and devotion. In modern translations the Hebrew word is usually translated as 'zeal' when the subject is a human being (as in 1 Kings 19:10), which must indicate an awareness of the wider meaning of the word. But 'jealousy' is virtually always imputed to God. Jealousy has evolved into a very simple and unattractive emotion, in our understanding of it, and God is much abused for the fact of his association with it. Since translations are forever being laundered to remove complexity and loveliness,and since tradition is not a legitimate plea in these matters, one cannot help wondering how this particular archaism manages to survive untouched."

(P.S. In preparing this post I came across the Marilynne Robinson Appreciation Society. Excited to follow their blog!)

Inductive study of the Message!?!

By: Augusto C.  at photo.net

"Beer is good and sex is better, but never should they go together". This was one of the refrains of our freshman orientation at the libertine liberal arts college I attended. Upperclassman (perhaps some with considerable hypocrisy) chanted the rhyme to remind us not to mix inebriation with lechery. I suppose there was some wisdom there [emphasize some, not wisdom].

Now fast forward ten years... This trimester I'm teaching a course on the book of Ephesians, as a means of looking at the teachings of the primitive Christian communities, and also as a sort of introduction to Christian ethics. I've taught similar courses twice, and have used the opportunity to present some basic tools of inductive Bible study (as popularized by Intervarsity: observation-interpretation-application).

All good and well, except that this year I chose to use the text of Eugene Peterson's the Message, instead of the ESV as I've previously done. I personally love the Message with all its quirks and Americanisms and poetic pastoral wisdom, and last trimester with these students, the Message was an effective means of bringing color to the narratives of Jesus' life and teaching. But this last week as we were digging into Ephesians 4:1-16 together, the Beer&Sex refrain was brought to mind: "The Message is good, and inductive Bible study is better, but never should they go together!"

What a mess. Where the ESV calls the Ephesians to be "eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace", Peterson calls for "pouring yourselves out for each other in acts of love, alert at noticing differences and quick at mending fences". Ignoring the fact that the Message omits the Spirit (although, can we really ignore that?), how do I explain to these EFL students what "mending fences" means? Do we have to bring the whole Robert Frost poem in, and exegete that, in order to properly exegete Ephesians 4? Also, doesn't the whole concept of "good fences make good neighbors" contradict what we were reading in Ephesians 2 the other week about the wall of enmity being torn down? Maybe not.

My students got snagged around verse 14, too, where Peterson translates "No prolonged infancies among us, please. We’ll not tolerate babes in the woods, small children who are an easy mark for impostors. God wants us to grow up". It sounded like intolerance to my students, rather than the culmination of the gift-giving of Christ as in the original structure.

I still love the Message and find it useful. I also just came across the wikipedia article on the Message where Peterson is quoted as saying "I would never recommend it be used as saying, 'Hear the Word of God from The Message.'" So it's likely that Peterson would join me in affirming: "The Message is good, and inductive Bible study is better, but never should they go together!"

"The Beard" by I. M. Shannon

In my job as theological librarian, I came across a pamphlet in the archives of our library

Cover of the the pamphlet "The Beard" by I. M. Shannon (undated).

Allow me to quote at length from the pamphlet (I've tried to be faithful to the spelling and punctuation of the original):

       These facts I have written regarding the beard have for their foundation the Bible, and nature, and are especially written for the Christian man who truly wishes to gain eternal life...
      Shaving is very popular, but does the popularity of shaving make it the right thing to do? JESUS, whom you worship, and who is the Christian man’s example wore His beard. (Isa. 50:6) and He is well pleased when His men followers imitate Him in this as in other respects. Obeying Him in practice and precept. 1 John 2:6. The beard grows by a divine law; it is a part of creation that God pronounced “very good.” Gen. 1:27. When men destroy the beard they are out of harmony with God’s original thought... There is a great intelligence and wisdom behind the laws of nature, and when these laws are broken, those who break them will stand a punishment sooner, or later...
        A good question is raised: Why should God put a beard on a man’s face if He did not design that he should wear it? We cannot charge God with folly, a deficiency of understanding, and that the beard was a stupid mistake on His part. Men directly insult the wisdom and intelligence of God when they shave off their beards. Isa. 29:-6; Eccl. 7:29. A razor is an invention to thwart God in nature. Men have becomes slaves to the razor, for no reason, as a rule, except to make their faces smooth like the woman’s, or follow the worldly fashion. They will say it is for sanitary reasons. In saying this they practically accuse their Saviour of being unsanitary, for he wore His beard, so did the apostles, prophets, patriarchs, also our pioneer brethren in the Churches. Wholesale destruction of the beard is of recent date. To shave is an open violation of the laws of nature. It is God’s wisdom and design that a man wear a full, well-kept beard. It is the outward mark of manhood. To be smooth-faced is a sign of YOUTH, or EFFEMINACY.
       It is not the plan of God for a man to de-whisker himself, shaving away his distinguishing feature, calling it unsightly and unsanitary. It isn’t the intelligent thing to do. There is nothing that man can do to make himself appear more womanish than to shave off his beard. The dictionary says: “to be beardless is less than a man.”
       Men shave daily, but God in nature rushes to repair the wound, and starts a new growth, showing that the beard should be a permanent fixture on the face of man. The beard is a beautiful arrangement, a princely feature. IF taken care of. Men have long abused the beard, and that fact shows up when they try to wear one. Many men can hardly wear it after having shaved for so many years. It is stiff and bristly. Those who have made this a study know it is true. It is unatural to shave, a daily operation to remove it. If the same amount of time were devoted to its care, as it takes to remove it, it would be beautiful, and not hideous as some seem to think. He who effeminates himself follows the example of apostacy instead of Christ. Be Christlike. Honor His beard by wearing one...

That’s most of pages 3 to 6. He then goes on for 8 more pages to make further arguments based on the image-of-God, comparing shaving to the sins of Eve and Esau, explaining away why “Joseph of Bible fame” shaved (“JESUS, not Joseph, or any other man is man’s example”), differentiating shaving from the sin of cutting finger and toe nails (?!), placing shaving within the saved by faith/works argument, and clarifying that the effeminate will not enter the Kingdom of God. On page 14 his conclusion begins:

       To establish the truth of the beard we have THREE witnesses: NATURE, JESUS’S EXAMPLE (Isa. 50:6), and the LAW. Lev. 19:27, 28. The FACT stands established. 
       Jesus said, “The very hairs on your head our numbered.” Matt. 10:30. King David said “I will praise the Lord, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are thy works, and that my soul knoweth right well…and in Thy BOOK all my members are written.” David we see praised and upheld God’s works. The beard, if let grow, is the most conspicuous member that a man has. I wonder what it will be when men meet their Maker “face to face.”

Upon first reading I found this really funny. I almost have to wonder if it was actually written as a parody of bad interpretation. But since I suspect it wasn't, it’s actually rather sad, for it represents all those instances in which we manipulate the sacred texts in support of teachings which are not in fact truthful. We are wise to approach the truth of Scriptures with great humility. Daniel Taylor warns in The Myth of Certainty: “How one holds a truth, one’s intention in regard to truth, the use to which a truth is put, the position against which a truth is asserted, the relationship between one truth and an equally valid balancing truth—all these and more determine the ultimate character of truth in our lives. Sadly, even truth can be made to function as falsehood when it is fragmented, distorted, or isolated from its position to the whole.” (129)