Happy Mother’s Day! (5/5/12 – 5/12/12)

Growing up in a Baptist church there is a surprisingly small amount of things I remember from the sermons. One of things I remember vividly was the Mother’s and Father’s day sermons. Usually picking one example from the Old or New Testament, the pastor would wax eloquent on the exemplar nature of this person’s character and tell the men to be like this character. However with women it would always (well, most always) be the same. The pastor would have us turn to Proverbs 31 and he would extol the virtues of a mother’s daily routine in child rearing, household management, and her beauty as a child of God. However, the sense that one got was that according to these messages, the women’s jobs were much harder if not impossible (then the men’s). To me it always felt like the women hearing these messages thought this was impossible, like the commandment in both testaments to “be holy as God is holy.” How is that possible? 

So in reading and researching for Mother’s day in Leona’s and Jeanette’s bibles, I discovered a hidden (and not-so-hidden) strength and a gold mine of both information and wisdom - even shocking/surprising me who studied the Old Testament in grad school.

Shall we sit on the shoulders of these giants (of our faith) and see farther than them?

The book of Proverbs is called “Wisdom Literature”, and in this type of literature wisdom is not the same as knowledge, for knowledge can be acquired with hard work but wisdom is elusive and often eludes the smartest of people. In India I compared wisdom with trying to catch a greased pig (the humor did not translate since pigs are seen as “unclean” animals. Why then would you want to catch one?). Wisdom can be difficult to define, but could here be seen as “skillfully living” since the word for “wisdom” in Hebrew is the same work for skill. The people who build the temple where called by the same word, they were skillful/wise. Overall, the goal for wisdom literature is character formation, and in this sense, my grandparents knew this and were wise. They caught the pig!

In seminary I learned that the book of Proverbs can be organized accordingly:

• Proverbs 1:1-9 – Introduction (maybe the most important part of the book)

• Proverbs 1-9 – “My Son” poems

• Proverbs 10-31 – various collections of proverbs that loosely relate but relate none-the-less

Don’t let this simple outline bore you! Notice that built into this structure is gender – male! The 10 “my son” poems offer a metaphor for the reader where a “father” is guiding his “son” to find wisdom. Throughout the story the son encounters two women – Lady Wisdom and Dame Folly. The father encourages the son to follow Lady Wisdom and to avoid Dame Folly. What I never heard in church, but learned in seminary was that Proverbs begins and ends with a woman. Lady Wisdom is the bookends to the entire book of Proverbs. She is personified abstractly in chapters 1-9, and concretely in chapters 30-31. The book begins and ends with a woman!!!!! Leona hinted at this went she wrote a similar structure at the beginning of the book in her bible:

• 1-9 wisdom to sons

• 10-29 occasional advice of council

• 30-31 council for women

Stop and think about this. THE book in the bible on wisdom begins and ends with wise women! It is not a wise man; wisdom is not personified as a truthful husband, or a strong husband, but a woman. Notice that in Leona’s structure there is an inherent gender separation in it. For her Proverbs 1-9 was council to sons, and 30-31 was council to women. In her lifetime this method of character development was done with the male and females separately. This is not a bad thing, but a different thing.

I wonder if Grandma Karloski was thinking highly of femininity when she underlined the entirety of 31:10:12 and 25-28:

"Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life... Strength and dignity are her clothing, and she smiles at the future. She opens her mouth in wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue. She looks well to the ways of her household, and does not eat the bread of idleness. Her children rise up and bless her; her husband also, and he praises her, saying: “Many daughters have done nobly, but you excel them all.”

Both grandma's bridged the context of scripture and specifically Proverbs 31 into their own lifetime. The following are examples from Leona's bible::

• Provide for household: v. 13, 15, 17, 27

• Good shopper, thrifty: v. 16-18

• Practice Personal Holiness – 26 – 26. 27 (strength, honor, kindness, wisdom, (?), love

• Fears the Lord personally – honors the lord in all that she does (v. 30 – contrast)

• Favor and beauty that the world cannot give (I Pet. 3:4) [An interesting comparison with 1:30]

• Challenge to men – v. 31 (to help her, not discourage her, and not stand in her way) 

Leona celebrated the strength of women by singling out a list of words associated with them in chapter 31. These words are: trust (v. 11), willingly (v. 13), strength (17, 20, 25), honor (25), rejoice (25). Most importantly, and probably the best things I've read in her bible is the phrase right after the last verse. Proverbs 31:31 reads:

"Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates." 

Leona added:

"Men don't stand in her way."

Resisting Death: The Visions of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and William Stringfellow for a “Seminary Underground” (4/15/12 - 4/21/12)

This past week was a very busy one for me. On Monday, a friend of mine told me that a philosophy conference at Cornerstone University (which was taking place on Friday evening and all day Saturday) had a cancellation and needed another person to present an academic paper. Since I have been working with all sorts of ideas which have not yet fermented, I told him I would be glad to try to write up something which reflects the conference topic. The conference was titled, Thinking Christianity in the Present Tense: The Politics of Discipleship. It was largely a conference on how Religion (Christianity) is completely inseparable from politics, that if you DO theology, you at the same time DO politics.

Since I spent the entire week writing an abstract/paper proposal, I thought I would share it with all of you. Consider this the blossoming/flourishing of my family, my education, my passions/desires, and my faith. I have added pictures for your benefit!

Abstract/Paper Proposal

Resisting Death: The Visions of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and William Stringfellow for a “Seminary Underground” by Eric Karloski

William Stringfellow

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

In the past 2 years there has been a ground swell of interest in Dietrich Bonhoeffer. From Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy by Eric Metaxas to the recent Bonhoeffer, Christ, and Culture conference at Wheaton College, Christians who live in America have begun to ask questions about what a genuine confessional and political witness in our contemporary American culture looks like. This interest in Bonhoeffer, I believe, is only exaggerated when a Christian wonders what university and seminary he should attend. There is a growing distrust with theological education in America. Sown from the seeds of the Enlightenment and fostered by a church which has unquestionably adopted the values of secular culture, theological education often looks no different than state universities on the one extreme, or monasteries on the other extreme.

For many Christians seeking a radical alternative to this, it is Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s exemplar witness of resistance which speaks most clearly against America’s overwhelming submission to the “powers and principalities” of Death. While Bonhoeffer still speaks to us today, he does so separated by considerable time and space. Bonhoeffer’s vision for a “seminary on the run” reminds us that the churches’ resistance to a nation-state’s “prevailing ideological and political convictions” must be rejected as false doctrine “as though there were areas of our life in which we do not belong to Jesus Christ, but to other lords – areas in which we would not need justification and sanctification through Him.” (Barman Declaration 8:15).

Since the posthumously published Letters and Papers from Prison (1953) people have wondered where Bonhoeffer’s fully developed and matured theological and political insights would have taken the church, and specifically how those insights would have affected theological education in America. It is here where I believe the church in America has missed its opportunity, because we have missed the witness of William Stringfellow. William Stringfellow (1928-1985) was one of the twentieth century’s more enigmatic and elusive theologians – a precipitator of dreams and a prophet par excellence. Stringfellow’s thick, seemingly alien polemic often counters the subtle theological complexity of his language. It is precisely this rich polemic which exposes the idols of our life and liturgy that makes him so distinct, and so engaging. He fostered the imagination of Stanley Hauerwas, Walter Wink, Jacques Ellul, Daniel Berrigan. Karl Barth said of him, “This is the theologian American needs to listen to.”

If anyone has even heard of William Stringfellow today, they still probably do not know that he himself had and participated in a radical community of resistance which Bill Wylie Kellermann calls the “seminary underground.” This group of mostly unsatisfied Union Theological Seminary students met in different places and at different times to speak of their vocation as Christians and most importantly of the reading of the Word of God. It was here where Stringfellow’s commitment to politics on the one hand, and the Christian faith on the other met as the “twin pillars” of his life and work. For Stringfellow the centrality of the seminary is the ministry devoted to the health and holiness of the Body of Christ in the World which cares for and conserves the tradition of the church, is baptism, and not ordination.[1] Stringfellow himself has said that “ordination produces a “denigration of the laity and a professionalization of the clergy, representing an adoption of the “expert” and “amateur” distinction prevalent outside the church.”[2] For Stringfellow, this structuralism creates a works based righteousness produced by our own virtue, rather than the authority bestowed by baptism. Our baptism into the death and resurrection of the risen Christ means God is not a stranger among us who needs an expert introduction; rather, the incarnation is such that God’s word is addressed to all people.

Stringfellow and Bonhoeffer agree that all theology is always confessional,[3] that is, a confession against something and a confession for something. For Bonhoeffer confession means to confess against those who would teach false doctrine and confuse the roles of the state and church. It is a confession for Christians to be preaching and professing the Christian faith in all times and in all places. For Stringfellow, Christians must understand theology as “an immediate and contemporary confession for the presence of the life of God in the world” rather than a subject/object study. Against the trend to separate the meaning of the scriptures with its application (for Stringfellow – ethics and eschatology more specifically), theology’s purpose and subject is the same goal – the life of faith in the world, in the spirit of Christ. The reading and hearing of the bible then takes priority, not as an academic act of studying, but because the Bible is the witness and descriptor par excellence to the reality of the life of faith. To be discipled in theological education is to then be in the world, which is always a political act because it “reflects upon and speaks about the reconciling activity of God in the world, and orientates people in relation to that divine activity”.

Because of the resurrection of Jesus the Christ, the church is free of the demonic powers and principalities which dominate the world and consign it to death. Our theological education must reflect this in both its teaching and in living. Dietrich Bonhoeffer and William Stringfellow are two people whose vision for theological education is alive, under the reign of God, in all of life.
________________________________________________________________________
[1] William Stringfellow, A Privet and Public Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 43-44.

[2] Anthony Dancer, An Alien in a Strange Land: Theology in the Life of William Stringfellow (Oregon, Cascade Books, 2010), 145.

[3] William Stringfellow, A Privet and Public Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 45.

Faith and Works? (4/8/12 - 4/14/12)

Last week Saturday I was traveling back from Lansing MI where a friend of mine and I were playing disc golf at an amazing course there. My friend, being like so many people in this culture both "spiritual" and an atheist got us again into a conversation. Here is how it went:

Sam: I don't even know what I am, an atheists (a-theists = someone who does not believe in theism = a god) , an agnostic (a-gnostic = without knowledge = you don't know or don't care what you believe), I just don't know?

Eric: Well, that's easy to figure out. Do you believe that this world, this material is all that exists, or do you believe something that we cannot see exists?

Sam: I think this world is all that exists. 

Eric: Great! Then you are an atheist. Problem solved.

Sam: Yet... There might be something else out there. How did you choose Christianity?

I've heard Sam's comment before. Way too often. Sam being both an atheists and a "spiritual" person is weird, idiotic, and simply stupid. It is simply contradictory - however it is pretty common in American culture. I was not upset about this comment. It was his "how did you choose Christianity" that is fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. Here is how I answered him.

Eric: You are going to think what I'm about to say is purely semantics, but it is not. I did not choose Christianity. Christ chose me! Christianity is not some abstract religion, but a relationship with a personal God. It is not like my life of choice, where I can choose what I eat, where I live, who I marry, what I buy, where and what I worship, etc... The scriptures even say that Jesus Christ was chosen before the foundations of the world were made to save us from our sin and rebellion from God (I Peter 1:20).

Then, feeling like this was a good time to drive the point home, I went even further and said,

Eric: In fact, the scriptures even say that I cannot even know that God has chosen me without first the Holy Spirit illuminating my eyes (and brain) to see his choosing me. 

Sam was quiet and then we arrived at home. 

_______________________________________________________________________________

This event has left me thinking about a paradox in what I read in the scriptures and what I see in American Christianity, that is, to force our "choice driven culture" into our understanding of Christianity and all that entails: Christ, faith, salvation, eternal life, etc. 

This has traditionally be called "WORKS" by the Giants of our tradition. I wonder if my grandparents would call all of this "choosing" - works? My initial impression would be to say no, however, rather than speculate about it, let me ask you? 

1. Did you ever hear your parents, grandparents, or anyone in the family talk about "faith and works?" If yes, how did they define it?  
2. With the conversation above guiding your next answer, would you say your parents, grandparents, or anyone in the family would say we could choose God?
3. How much of our culture’s (this includes you and I) obsession with "choice" would you say has helped hinder our understanding of the Gospel?
4. Would you have answered Sam differently then I did? If yes, how?
5. John of Salisbury who lived in the 12th century once said:

We are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, so that we can see more than they, and things at a greater distance, not by virtue of any sharpness of sight on our part, or any physical distinction, but because we are carried high and raised up by their giant size. Our age enjoys the gifts of preceding ages, and we know more, not because we excel in talent, but because we use the products of others who have gone before."

Do you think we indulge in "excelling in talent" or in being raised up "by their giant size" so we may "see more than they, and things at a greater distance"? 

Please feel free to respond to all of these questions as you see fit.

“In Joshua He is the Captain of the Lord’s Hosts” (5:13-15) Homer and Leona Reflect on Joshua (3/25/12 - 4/7/12)

On Wednesday this past week I had a great evening with Colette Baker Thelen about the family. The outcome of this conversation will hopefully be evidence in near future weeks. For now however we turn to Joshua. Why Joshua you ask? Well, why not! Well, ok, there are some ulterior motives. Nicky has begun a bible study on this book and it has been going for three weeks. I figured Nicky and I could look at Leona and Homer’s notes, compare them, and talk about what things were similar and what things were different. Maybe get a glimpse at their separate and related interests in this book.

 

 

The book of Joshua is the sixth book of the Old Testament. The first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) are similar to a chorus or refrain of a song or the overture of a symphony – without them the rest of the story does not make sense. In Genesis, God creates the world (his kingdom) and creates caretakers for it (the man and the women). The first humans rebel against their sovereign (King) and from this rebellion, chaos, alienation, separation, curses, and death enter the world. God’s plan to live with his people has shattered. From Genesis 3:16 to the end of Deuteronomy, God begins to restore his people back to himself, and to set up his physical rule once again in the world through a people he has chosen simply out of his own freedom to choose, and he has chosen Israel. Israel herself was a small, weak, and insignificant nation, who happened to be on prime real-estate for the significant, strong, and large nations (Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon). Who would have believed that God would choose the foolish wisdom of this world to heal and redeem all created things back into right relationship with their creator?  In the most important portion of the Holy Scriptures (the first five books) we have been given a promise for this but no fulfillment.

 

 

The beginning of this fulfillment is what concerns Joshua. Where God issues only one command in the garden, God now issues an entire institution of commands. Where God walks with his people in total immanence in the garden, God must now be worshiped with transcendence, weight, and holiness in mind. Where God sets up total egalitarianism (all are equals) in the garden, he now institutes chains of command/hierarchies. Seen in this way, the long lists of names, battles, and seemingly tedious information in the book of Joshua begins to not only make more sense, but to actually be interesting.       

 

 

Amidst all of the overwhelming historical information, my ancestors Homer and Leona choose not to reflect on this. Other than one date underlined in the cross reference notes (by Homer), all of the notes, marginal marks/notes, underlining, and cross references have focused on something else altogether. Can you guess? We’ve already mentioned in past reflections that for Homer and Leona, Jeanette, and Dick, the scriptures were immensely accessible, that is to say, they gave immediate access to how I should live (morality/ethics), and what I should do (the Christian life). For them the historical gap of at least six thousand years on all accounts did not exist. The scriptures, through the leading of the Holy Spirit spoke through them directly to us. So for them, Joshua was primarily about:

 

 

1.)    The Promises of God for us – Inheriting the Baptized Life. 

2.)    The Commands of God for us – Living the Baptized Life.

 

 

In suggesting these two interests, let me add a caveat. We cannot suggest that Homer and Leona (and for that matter Jeanette and Dick) were unaware of the historical reality of the biblical texts. I am sure they could wax eloquent regarding the historical issues of date, authorship, place in the canon, Israel’s society, and ancient Near Eastern culture, etc.  We cannot suggest however that their intensions were purely objective or followed a proper rule for biblical interpretation. What I mean by this is that just like now; they also faced a cultural landscape of deteriorating trust in the scriptures as being without error and a sure belief in God. What I am “getting at” is that their notes can be viewed as the remains of a cultural battle ground, more or less extinct. Going back to the second post about Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism, there was a battle being waged for the legitimacy of the Holy Scriptures. For Leona and Homer, the scriptures were the inspired word of God without error, as opposed to those who believed the scriptures to be from human origin. Homer and Leona loved Timothy when he said “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, ^ that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (I Tim. 3:16-17).

What all this means is that God’s speech to Joshua in 1:2-9 (8 verses), and Joshua’s speech to Israel in 1:11-18 (8 verses) both being about not losing heart and being courageous when you enter the promised land – this for my grandparents was primarily about not losing heart and being courageous in fighting the good fight of protecting the bible from those who would naysay it. Against those who would deny God’s existence and/or not trust the Word of God,  those promises of God were underlined, scored, marked, and cherished. For them Joshua was a smorgasbord of encouragement.

Here are the verses in Joshua that both Homer and Leona had underlined. A picture of them follows:

• “This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the LORD thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.” (1:8-9)

Homer's Notes



Leona's Notes

• That all the people of the earth might know the hand of the LORD, that it is mighty: that ye might fear the LORD your God for ever. (4:24)

Homer's Notes

• Now therefore fear the LORD, and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the LORD. And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.  (24:14-15)

Homer's Notes

Leona's Notes

Where both were concerned with the promises of God and the commands of God, what interested Nicky and I more when going through them together were the things that interested Homer and Leona differently. Here are a small collection of the notes and verses underlined that caught our attention.

From Homer’s Bible:                                                           

• Homer has underlined 6:18 “And ye, in any wise keep yourselves from the accursed thing, lest ye make yourselves accursed, when ye take of the accursed thing, and make the camp of Israel a curse, and trouble it.” One wonders if he believed God was talking about the purity of the church here?

• Next to Joshua 7:3 he has written “again 12,000”

• In 7:5 the text says “And the men of Ai smote of them about thirty and six men.” Homer has this underlined. I hope he underlined this because there was a boy still in him who enjoyed a good war story and fight sequence.

• A funny note, Homer has written next to 24:27 “stone heard.” Here is 24:27, “And Joshua said unto all the people, Behold, this stone shall be a witness unto us; for it hath heard all the words of the LORD which he spake unto us: it shall be therefore a witness unto you, lest ye deny your God.” There is glimpse here into Homer’s imagination as he pondered the fact of a stone hearing the Word of God.

From Leona’s Bible:

• On the page before Joshua begins Leona has some notes on tithing.

• In 1:7 she has underlined “Only” in “Only be thou strong and very courageous…” She seemed to understand that the Christian life stemmed from a few simple commands.

• Next to 1:8 Leona has written “for success in your Christian Life” and “PROMISE”

• Throughout two thousand years of Christian interpretation of scripture, the Ark of the Covenant was seen as a type of Christ, that is to say, the ark gave an initial glimpse of something that was fully seen later with Christ. In Joshua 3 Grandma has written “Ark is a Picture of Christ.”  In verses 3, 6 (2x), 8, and 11 she has “ark” circled.

• In chapter 6 Joshua and the hosts of Yahweh have leveled Jericho, only one family was saved from the destruction of the city, the family of Rahab. Leona has only underlined the phrase “Joshua saved Rahab” in verse 6:25. One wonders if she is showing that God deeply cares for women here.

• Leona has made little notes through the text of Joshua indicating when God did a miracle.
• Next to chapter 14 Leona’s marginal note says “Caleb means whole hearted.”

• Next to 24:14-15 Grandma wrote “Who will you serve, Joshua made his choice.”

If their notes in these bibles were an indicator of their knowledge of the scriptures then both of them were thoroughly submerged in its teaching. However one must wonder if Leona has a better, more well rounded understanding of them from the evidence of her notes.

I hope you enjoyed this tour de force through the book of Joshua, guided by my Grandparents, Homer and Leona Baker.

Embracing our Doubts, Fears, and Anxieties for Lent? (3/4/12 - 3/24/12)

This week begins the third week in the season of Lent. Even around the time of the early church the Orthodox tradition has called it Great Lent. Lent is roughly a 40 day church season in which Christians prepare for the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. Lent begins on Ash Wednesday and ends on Maundy Thursday – which leads Christians and the Church to reflect on the mystery and fulfillment of Christ’ incarnation, that is, his death and resurrection. This three day time period is called the Triduum, and comprises Good Friday, Holy Saturday, and Resurrection Sunday.

For many Christians throughout the ages (including Nicky and I) this period in the life of the church was and is the most important time of the year. For it is in this time that the church has us contemplate our mortality, self-examine our sins and consciousness, enter into the darkness of sin through our baptism, and rise with Christ victorious over sin and death. It is here where Christ conquerors death itself by the Descensus Christi ad Inferos "descent of Christ into hell" or the Harrowing of Hell. It is here where we Christians begin our baptized life. While many Christians (including my extended family, grandparents, and parents) have believed baptism to be a deep conviction of our religious commitment to Jesus, Paul says that we:

…have been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him. (Colossians 2:12-15)

Notice the verbs that Paul uses while speaking of baptism and the cross of Christ: “buried” “raised up” (2x), “dead” “forgiven us” “canceled” “disarmed” “triumphed.” This focus on verbs signifies that Paul is characteristically concerned with the actions of God—the concrete, specific action of God—and not God’s character, nature, being, or attributes, except as those are evidenced in concrete actions. This focus on verbs commits us in profound ways to Jesus Christ, to live a baptized life while never forgetting that it is Jesus who is said to have done these deeds. Remember that just like the death and resurrection of Jesus enabled the church to live, and move, and have its being, so too does our baptism begin this life in the church, God’s redeemed humanity.

Somewhere in the deep recesses of my family’s unpolished and indescribable language existed a life of deep religious commitment and fervor, a seemingly unshakable bastion of firm convictions, free from doubt, fear, and anxiety. However I personally sometimes feel that this baptized life (that we have been forcibly submerged into and raised as new creations out of death and into a life with God) does not define me. I read my grandparents bibles, hear stories from family and only occasionally hear the “stuff” we like to push under the rug. I know I sometimes personally doubt, have fears, and am intensely anxious about those promises of God offered to me. Sometime I ask “are they really true?” An open space where I can be affirmed in my questions is during Lent  The Lenten practices of contemplating our mortality and self-examination seen in this light should not then be understood as part of an external, pharisaical system of legalities, rigid systems and do’s and don’ts,  but an open space of deep introspection. “Religion” then is a given grace for God’s glory, so we can battle our suspicions and doubts and dwell in the waters of baptism. An interesting article related to this idea is called Atheism for Lent by Merold Westphal, and you can find it here.

Maybe I will write notes of doubts and despairs in the margins of my bible so one day my grandchildren can sympathize with my faith story. My parents have been excellent in showing me a full and robust faith, free from sentimentalism. Often this is all one can ask for. 

F.Y.I

To understand why sentimentality is so bad for Christian faith, here is a video where Stanley Hauerwas, Christian, Texan, and Professor of Theological Ethics at Duke University, explains it:

Sentimentality from The Work Of The People on Vimeo.

Rev. Homer Baker (2/26/12 - 3/3/12)

Last week Saturday Nicky and I were preparing for our evening prayers combined with our various readings for Lent this year. I got into bed and reached for our commonly used bible which was not there. I grumbled about it not being there and stood up, walked into our bedroom closet (which also doubles as an auxiliary library) and search our shelf of bible translations. Don’t ask, we have many! I noticed that behind them there was another bible, older looking, and very King James looking. I fished for it behind the already full shelf and turned on another light. I noticed it was a Scofield Reference Bible. The black leather was somewhat faded and tattered. I opened it up to the (prepare for technical book term) front free page and there before me was the following image:

I turned around, emerged from the closet/auxiliary library, and shouted to Nicky, “Nicky! It’s Homer’s bible!” I immediately called my mother who seemed to be relieved that she was not going crazy because it, in fact, was not at her house. In fact, the whole yearly project began when I opened a bible I believed to be my grandpas. The silhouette of this man looked similar to my own. My profession, education, and training similar to his, my vocation exactly like his, my looks strangely similar to him. At family reunions and with friends I constantly hear, “you should be a pastor.” Let’s just say that sometimes I feel like I was made for his shoes and decided to walk barefoot.       

His bible fits the description of a pastor during his time. His notes for example lack the personal stories and journal-like reflections grandma Leona’s does. He included dates of confession, salvation, and baptism for family, parishioners, and friends:

What was very striking was the absence of New Testament notes from Leona's bible, but the overabundance of New Testament notes from Homer's. Both of them wrote extensive notes on and in the Psalms:

Romans

Psalms

This is a random page from the Old Testament book of Ezekiel. Notice how pristine the pages are!

I have two thoughts regarding this and I would love some input on them. I received my education in Old Testament Studies. My study of the Old Testament (OT) was rather extensive. My bible is covered with OT notes, and my New Testament (NT) is rather absent of notes. If you were to do a similar blog with my college and seminary bible you would probably say that I read the OT far more than the NT. Or you would say that I had many OT classes, that for some reason I read it and studied it far more than the NT. You would be correct in making these connections. I think Homer's vocation as a pastor demanded he studied the NT. For Homer, his church(es), and the church universal, the NT contains the promises of God fulfilled in the Gospel, that is, the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Paul in I Corinthians 15:1-3 defines the Gospel this way:

"Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures"

Homer was rightly passionate about this portion of the bible. So why is Leona's OT filled with notes? I studied the OT to the point of obsession. Mainly because the church I grew up in almost never spoke about it unless it was to chastise someone in the OT for bad morals, or uphold someone for good morals. The OT in most churches has been reduced to bad moral lessons. In India, Nicky taught some NT courses. Frankly she probably knows more about the NT than I do. So the issue with Homer and Leona I think was one of marriage, of balancing out one another.

For the Psalms, I wonder if Homer and Leona both read the same similarly? Throughout the ages, The Psalms have been there to give expression to all of our emotions: our fears, doubts, anxieties, joys, sadness, loneliness, praises, etc. The Psalms can provide the bulwark to life's highest mountain peaks and lowest valleys. Originally the psalms were man's words to God. Now the Psalms are God's words to man. Homer and Leona both knew this and cherished them in their hearts and on their lips.    

Homer's bible is a great find indeed! And I repeat what the Psalmists says:

"Give thanks to Yahweh, for he is good, his steadfast loyal love endures forever!"

Please Don’t Apologize (2/19/12 – 2/25/12)

 When Nicky and I go to the store for groceries we always approach this “shopping experience” rather differently. I want to get the few things I know I want and get the hell out. When Nicky leads the “shopping experience” she wants to systematically meander up and down the aisles looking at every product available, and taking the most time to make sure she gets everything we need (at least this is how I interpret it). The way we approach shopping is different, what we need from shopping is different, and what we expect from shopping is different.   

Often when I read one of my grandparents bibles I verbally say “duh, I knew that!” “Really, is that all you want to say about this very important text?” Sometimes when I talk with an older relative about a specific memory of someone in the family studying the scriptures I fight to not roll my eyes and ponder on why I am not “getting anywhere” with how my grandparents studied the scriptures. Frustrations quickly lead to thoughts of intellectual superiority and general snobbery. Just the other week I was talking to my parents about some families in their church who left because the church refused to only teach the literal 7 24 hour days of creation from Genesis 1. The questions and answers these families arrived at sometime in their past refused to let them see another viewpoint different from their own. It is not because these families and my grandparents were wrong or bad, reading a different bible, or interpreting it incorrectly, but because the way they approached the bible was different, what they needed from the bible was different, and what they expected from the bible was different. Let me explain…

Every generation brings new questions to the bible. In the past 40 years the single discipline of “biblical studies” has become a much more diverse and in some ways, a much more fragmented discipline. The one “historical-critical” method which dominated biblical studies for over 300 hundred years (roughly 1600-1900, the Enlightenment to the end of the Renaissance period), soon gave way to a many methods. Today we have feminist, black, Majority World, liberation, social-scientific, narrative, textual, form, psychological, and postmodern criticisms/approaches, just to name a few. Each method brings different questions to the text, which uncovers different answers.

Knowing this was true I tried to ask the same question about my grandparents, namely, what methods and questions did they bring to the text? What was their driving motivational force?

In one word: Apologetics. Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the discipline of defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of information. Remembering back to the common ground shared by both families (12/26/11 – 12/30/11), it was an evangelical faith dominated by fundamentalism. “The founders of Fundamentalism reacted against liberal theology and militantly stood on 2 pillars or foundations of doctrine, the inerrancy of the Bible and Jesus Christ as the only means to salvation/atonement.” Being raised in this culture, Leona, Homer, and Jeanette defended the inerrancy of the Bible (it is without error), and Jesus being the only way to God (John 14:6 is underlined in all 4 bibles I have). With those being “The Fundamentals,” and defending them with all their heart, mind, soul, and strength, my grandparents could now spend their energy on how the bible meets their needs. Those universal human conditions such as loneliness, depression, happiness, joy, and anxiety could be given a prescription through the Word of God. While this method has the tendency to manipulate the scriptures into a magic genie in the bottle, it can also produce a Christian characterized by simplicity, one whose surety cannot be shaken easily. So for example when approaching Genesis 1 and the creation account my grandparents would ask questions like, how does this disprove evolution? How does this show the mighty strength of God the creator? And can this same God who created the world and who sustains the word with his word alone keep me safe in his arms? To me this last question is the more important one and probably the most honest one since the first two insist the asking of the third one. This is why I was and I am so frustrated when talking with my parents/grandparents about the Bible, we are asking it different questions! Of course the questions we ask it can be bad questions, and the answers we get from it can mistakenly be from ourselves. This is why frustration is always met with joy, why younger and older generations don’t understand each other, and this is why we must diligently search the scriptures and our ancestors. We must find the questions they were asking and ask why those questions were important to them, and why or why not they should still be important for us today.

Almost every evening Nicky and I say our evening prayers. At the end of them it reads:

See that ye be at peace among yourselves, my children,

and love one another.

follow the example of good men of old

and God will comfort you and help you,

both in this world

and in the world which is to come.

In the name of the Father,

and of the Son,

and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

I will “follow the example of good men (and women) of old, and I believe that God will comfort me and help me because of this. In this regard I do not apologize for my family, as long as my future family won’t apologize for me.

F.A.M.I.L.Y.? (2/12/12 – 2/18/12)

For something a little more light hearted, I figured this week I’d highlight and show off our family’s propensity to use mnemonic devices to remember favorite bible verses and theological doctrine/dogma. Since my generation is highly suspicious of these pedagogical tools, I’ve always been slightly annoyed by their cheesiness, by their cliché-ness (and Nicky agrees with me!). However, my grandparents lived in a time where technological devices and tools such as computers were unavailable to assist in bible study. When Nicky and I went to India to teach at a seminary, we brought over two thousands books on our computer. This ability to have everything “at our fingertips” however is not always good. Knowledge quickly gets reduced to expediency, truth becomes fact, and “information overload” reduces our wonder for the world. Eugene H. Peterson once said, “The assumption that our ancestors, working without benefit of computers, have nothing to teach us – can be exposed as nonsense! Surfeited with knowledge but starved of wisdom, many of us are more than ready to sit at table with our ancestors and listen to their holy conversations on Scripture.” I guess Peterson’s quote could have been the thesis statement of this whole project.

I might feel these to be highly insignificant, but my grandparents, who were wiser and more intelligent than I believed writing these down in their Bibles were very important. After all, what you treasure there will your heart be also.

What follows are pictures of these various sayings, slogans, acronyms, and acrostics. Please respond by commenting about your reactions to these various pictures and ideas? Are these memory tools helpful or are they cheesy? Does each generation need to "update" them or make new ones? These are just some questions to prime the discussion pump. Enjoy! Remember you can click on a picture to get a bigger view of that picture. 

   

The Exterior Verses the Interior? (2/5/12 – 2/11/12)

I've realized in the past couple of weeks that I've naively thrown myself into this project ill equipped and ill prepared to accomplish the mission I've set out to do. For a quick reminder, I primarily set out to look at my family’s spiritual lineage (How they understood God, the bible, the world, etc.), and how they passed that legacy on to their family. Secondly, I set out to do this in order to get my family talking about said topics, things I consider very important to life itself.  The first one could be considered “objective,” that is, I have taken source material (bible notes and oral history, “stories” from family members) to achieve an objective. However the first one spills into the second one because often people have conflicting memories, stories, etc. Some see these memories/stories as primarily positive; some see the same as wholly negative. Of course there are usually also unchecked or unresolved issues unbeknownst to us, subtly steering our conversations in one direction verses another. This second one I could label “subjective” and I know I've begun to slide into the realm of family dispute.

For once in my life, I am not trying to cause disturbance, I am not trying to be controversial. I have no other objectives, no other hidden agendas than the two above. I could be wrong. I most certainly have been wrong on some things. We don’t have certain people here telling me when I’ve made a misstep, when I’ve messed up. However I for one know that my ancestors, despite their hardships, despite their mistakes, despite their good and bad intentions have been a sacrament of God’s glory.

One of the “hang-ups” I’ve had with descriptions of God, the Christian life, and the church from my parents, grandparents, and great grandparents has been their acceptance of the exterior life over the interior life. This statement needs clarification.

By exterior life and interior life I mean identity markers: activities, things, and actions we do or don’t do by which we identify ourselves. In the Old Testament, Israel was known, was identified by their observance of Torah, their “instruction or guidance.” In this context Torah was the commandments of God, given to Israel on Mount Sinai, and that which constitutes the majority of Exodus-Leviticus.  Torah was also a term used later to identify the first five books of the Old Testament, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. If you were to ask a Rabbi if an Israelite did this activity, did not participate in that activity, or if they believed this about God, humanity, the world, they would respond, “the law of God says…” or “The Torah commands…” Their identity was sealed. They knew who they were. And they knew who they were in contrast to their surrounding cultures based on their external life.

In India, Nicky and I saw Christians who lived according to a similar mentality. They were defined by their external actions. Their identify markers were seen by all. Many Christians did not eat meat, none ate pork. Christians did not call each other by their family names, but by brother and sister, since these names showed their common identity in the church and the Christian life. Christians did not smoke or drink or chew tobacco or gamble. Christians were not homosexuals. Christians did not marry non-Christians. Does this sound familiar?

Indian Christians practiced external Christianity in the same way that Israel in the Old Testament practiced external Judaism. And in response, our family practiced a morality and a similar type of Christianity to that of Israel and our friends in India, namely an external identity they called Christianity.

For years I’ve tried to stay away from that understanding of Christianity. For a large part, that type of Christianity has put a bad taste in people’s mouths. Christians are known now for their hypocrisy, for their legalism, for their strict rules, for their out of date morality, and for being out of touch with modern science. However India at least helped me begin to see why the external life of Christians is at least beneficial and helpful, and at most helped me see that we can’t live without it.  Let me explain this.

As Americans, we hold certain values and virtues (or vices) that have been fostered by being an American, by living in this country. American’s love their freedom, their independence, their personal choice, their individualism, their tolerance etc. To a large extent Americans have substituted their familial, racial, and religious identity markers for a much narrower one, socio-economics. Our identity is primarily where our position in society is. We ask questions like are they rich or poor? What type of job do they have? What kind of house do they live in? What kind of car do they drive? However the older, external values of previous generations still come into play. When we ask our primary socio-economical questions, we secondarily ask at the same time questions like, are they white or black, gay or straight, Christian or secular? We climb the social ladder trying to arrive on top. Some of us get there, most of us do not. For those of us who do not, we are left feeling like we have no identity. We feel defeated, debased, and demoralized. We feel like we have no voice to speak and no audience who will listen to us. This is unfortunately true, since we have no status in society, and therefore we are left trying to create our own identity.

After coming back from India Nicky and I would love to describe India’s social life. The ridged and structured caste system, arranged marriages, very traditional marriages where the husband is the bread winner and the wife cooks and cleans for the family. Usually the son does exactly the same job as the father does, and the daughter is sure to grow up in the kitchen, providing for her family. India’s social life surely has its terrible things about it, and I don’t want to sweep those under the table.

However one thing most Indians have is an identity. They know exactly who they are! Their identity markers are firmly in place. I also believe that some of my ancestors/family (specifically the Baker and Karloski grandparents) had very firm identity markers, those constituting the religious face of our family. And since faith in God has decreased in the past three generations in America, religious life and religious identity have changed from being the normative standard in our society to being the small, weird, and sectarian groups in our society. This is commonly called secularization. During its process in the past couple of decades our family has been affected by secularization. I wonder if that strong and sure identity in Christianity of past generations has more or less become the face of the family. And I wonder if the rest of those in the family who have no Christian identity have no voice to speak up to those who proudly wear the “positive” reputation of the family.

 

The externals of the “grandparent” generation served them very well to help create and center their spiritual identity in Christ. However, as our society has changed, the same set of externals no longer “works.” In other words, younger generations of our family have found other ways to find their identity in Christ (instead of the old externals: “don’t drink, smoke, chew or go with girls that do) and that has been beneficial to the family as well. As Christians there are still, and always will be certain identity forming features to one’s external life. We don’t want to get rid of those and simply say “anything goes.” Some thoughts on this: we want our internals and externals to match. Like in one of the last posts where we talked about the importance of combining head and heart, so we also need to shape our lives to reflect our beliefs. This blog will hopefully start a dialogue on how to do this starting from the ways our ancestors did and allowing us to find ways to do so ourselves. The different parts of our family all make up the whole of the Baker/Karloski clan, and Nicky and I are proud to be a part of it.

“In Ecclesiastes He is the Forgotten Wise man” Leona Baker Reads Ecclesiastes (1/29/12 – 2/4/12)

Above a specific book’s title in grandma’s bible is a one sentence annotation of that books content. They probably helped or steered Leona’s thinking as she studied each book. They also probably helped grandma make connections between this books message with the grand story of the bible (some use the million dollar word, meta-narrative to describe this type of story). This condensation of content is very interesting in some cases, and very common in others. A flip through these annotations quickly reveal the hermeneutic, or method of interpretation Leona used, both for the specific books content, and how the message fits with the grand story of the bible. In each “biblical study” done this year I will begin with Leona’s one sentence explanation to be the reference point for our study.

I begin with Ecclesiastes, not because it was grandma’s favorite, but because it is my favorite. My knowledge of the book probably far exceeds that of any other portion of the Bible, except for maybe Isaiah. I don’t say that to brag, after all, who brags about a book which is typically a “thorn in the side” for most Christians? I begin with Ecclesiastes because the thought of even writing about what someone close to my family believed brings fear, discomfort, and trepidation. Consider it a rather easy way to breach my fears. Now how do I condense that knowledge into something not too long?

In our English Bible Ecclesiastes is located in the Old Testament, in between Proverbs and Song of Songs. Its genre has been identified as “Wisdom Literature.” Other complete books of “Wisdom Literature” include Proverbs and Job. The English title comes from the Latin translation of the Bible and is derived from the same word in Greek which means “church.” In the King James Version the translators added the subtitle “Or, The Preacher.” This subtitle is from the German translation which Martin Luther originally translated the German as “The Preacher.” (stay with me!) Martin Luther was very smart with this translation since the original Hebrew, Qoheleth, is best translated, not as a proper name, but as a title, similar to the common phrase “I would like you to meet my preacher, pastor Richardson.” In its verbal form the Hebrew phrase means “to assembly, to gather together.” NOW, let’s simply put all of these words I’ve shotgun blasted you with together in a coherent sentence so you can begin to see how I believe Leona thought through this book:

The church is the true assembly, assembled together under the authority of the true preacher (that is, Jesus Christ, Christ being his honored title).

To understand the significance of this idea, a very basic understanding (to the point of perversity) of Ecclesiastes needs to be given, although if you read it you won’t be worse off (Here is a link to the entire text). After the initial introduction in 1:1, the main thesis statement or overture is made in 1:2, “Absurdity of absurdities, says Qoheleth, absurdity of absurdities, all is absurdity.” Ecclesiastes message is that life “under the sun,” that is, life here on earth, is most often absurd. It is absurd because when we try to make heads or tails of life’s “ultimate meaning” the hard metal slab separating those living “under the sun” with he whom is living above the sun is most often barred, and we are locked out. We only can live in “times” and “seasons” which are “beautiful in their own time.” However, God has put an enigma in man’s heart because man cannot find out what God is doing from beginning to end.” (3:11) Peter Kreeft, a Catholic theologian and ethicist once wrote the he begins his introduction theology classes with Ecclesiastes because it is the book which most often connects with cynics, materialists, teenagers, and skeptics.

In grandma’s bible the word I’ve translated “absurdity” is commonly rendered “vanity.” Even in a note in their Scofield Reference Bibles on the bottom of the page reads,

““Vanity,” in Ecclesiastes, and usually in scripture, means, not foolish pride, but the emptiness in final result of all life apart from God….”  

“Vanity/absurdity” occurs 38 times in Ecclesiastes. It serves as the introduction phrase in 1:2 and the concluding phrase in 12:8. Common to my grandparents was a belief held firmly about the nature of life “under the sun,” a phrase that occurs 27 times in the book. For my spiritual legacy, my family, and for the majority of church tradition, people have understood the wisdom of Ecclesiastes to be of that “under the sun,” which is code for the fleshly life, the earthly life, the sinful life, our condition rendered to us by man’s rebellion as recorded in Genesis 3. In a very real since, this way of understanding the book (foreign to how I was taught it) makes for this most interesting observation: Ecclesiastes helps us understand how our rebellion and condition before a just and holy God is connected with the gospel story. This story is the recital of humanities own selfish grasp at salvation apart from God’s action through the Cross of Jesus Christ. Paul in Romans calls this “living under the law/living by the flesh” and theologians call this grasping for salvation with our own strength “works based righteousness.” The author of Ecclesiastes (think ultimately Jesus) called this living “under the sun.” In short, Ecclesiastes is the summation of the entire Old Testament, a preparation for our redemption in Israel’s Messiah – who Christians identify as Jesus.

My grandparents were great interpreters of the Bible, as evidenced by their solidarity with about 1000 years of similar interpretations from men and women throughout Christian tradition. Here is a quote from a great set of books called “Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture:

Ecclesiastes, “The Preacher,” also understood as being Solomon, is a type of Christ (Didymus, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa). In one sense, thought, the Spirit is the real author of this (Didymus). In addition, the name Ecclesiastes indicates the church and the one who leads it (Jerome, Gregory of Nyssa). The church is true knowledge, and Christ is the author of that knowledge (Evagrius). The book of Ecclesiastes must be understood spiritually and in light of other passages of scripture (Gregory of Nyssa), for this present world is not the ultimate end (Evagrius). All things are vanity, and we must turn away from them towards  God (Ambrose, Augustine). All things are vanity even though God made them good (Jerome).

J. Robert Wright, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Old Testament IX: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), 190.  

In Leona’s bible marginal phrases like “Emptiness in life without God” and “money does not satisfy” are present in Leona’s bible; however “other passages” of scripture (like Gregory of Nyssa said is necessary of Ecclesiastes’ meaning) are referenced all over the place. Here is a rundown of Leona’s cross references:

KJV Bible Passage                  Leona’s marginal reference

1:2                                           Rom. 8:20-22

5:15                                         Job 1:21; Psalms 49:17, I Timothy 6:7

7:3                                           II Corinthians 7:10

7:8                                           Proverbs 14:21

11:5                                         Job 1:21; Psalms 71:6; 139:13-14

My grandparents knew that life was not just about what’s in front of us, that reason and logic has its limits, that balance rather than over indulgence in anything was wise, that work and play were both advantageous, etc. Those things were not difficult for them to realize. Those things were not difficult for the author of Ecclesiastes to realize. But it took true insight, that is, to be illuminated by the Holy Spirit to see the world for what it truly is, dominated by sin and death, but now redeemed through the death and resurrection of Christ. Christ is the hermeneutic which we interpret the world through. Long before I came to realize this, and long after I should have realized this (after seminary), my grandparents were frolicking in this field with joy and delight, eating, drinking, and being merry – for Christ lives and reigns.