With my self-appointed one week deadline fast approaching I'm here to offer my readers the same low-quality last minute work that I do in everything. If there is a brightside I suppose it is some accomplishment that I've held myself to one of my own standards. Hardly one of my strengths.
This term's Humphrey class on the NT Letters has been a bit slow. There aren't many notes to take when we try to cover Romans, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians all while trying to have a feelings-based discussion about Paul's views on homosexuality. I can understand the need for topical discussion and the desire for the professor to not proselytize her own opinion without opening the floor for comments but I don't think I learn anything about the New Testament from a group of people all stammering around looking for the most hospitable way to say that homosexuality is pretty much indefensible by Biblical standards. Sadly, unlike the Gospels course, these lectures just sound like sermons expounding upon Paul's thought instead of studies of dating and source theories and OT prophesy and such. It's a bible study at $400 per credit hour. One tidbit to take away from it is the discussion of pistis theou. These are two Greek nouns held together in Paul's writing that can be interpreted in two basic ways or thousands of nuanced ways. The first is "God's Faithfulness/the Faithfulness of God" and the other is "God's Faith." You may already be pondering of the distinction between the two. One implies the characteristic of God that He’s always there, always present and ready like a good friend would be. The other doesn’t do that specifically instead it describes the general concept of Faith as something that originates from God… it’s really something for individuals to interpret based on their relationship with and understanding of God.
In History Dr. Partee continues to show a real interest in our desperate need for education in reformed thought. While his lectures are amorphous there is a heart to the process that exemplifies a concern for how we all react to the ideas of those who formed our views of Christianity. There seems to be an accidental cross over between his and Dr. Humphrey’s class most days. I would expect that Dr Humphrey talk about Luther's doctrine of justification by faith arising from Paul but I wouldn’t expect Dr Partee to interrupt a lecture on Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, Calvin, etc. (he really talks about everyone everyday, there is no point sorting notes) to talk about his understanding of Faith as God’s gift bestowed to us. This is powerful means of understanding predestination that might assuage those of you who fear it the most. To talk about “my faith in God” is a misnomer (according to Partee, Humphrey, and - for what it’s worth - me). You can talk about your faith in the Red Sox or your faith in gravity but a faith in God isn’t yours, it’s God’s. From this, election might be a bit more approachable. The elect may be seen as those who have been gifted by God (through Grace) a faith in God. It may not be a guarantee but this idea of faith might help you avoid the all too common conversation:
“Hey buddy, how’s your faith?”
“Oh, I dunno, I’ve really been busy and not praying enough.”
“Oh, well uhh, God still loves you!”
Sure, I’m over simplifying it but this concept of a person’s “faith” and his or her contrary “doubt” is not really the model found in Paul. Doubt is a consequence of living in this world (especially this modern/post-modern world), in fact doubt is frequently the thing that makes us feel the most intelligent and controlled. The way I see it, Faith is not a consequence of living in this world. Faith is the state of living in the world, appreciating the goodness of Creation, and yet denying it to claim citizenship in the Kingdom of God. Saying that places Faith (big 'F') in a different plane from doubt so there is really no comparing them as some kind of polar opposites.
I wanted to talk about Greek participles and the nonsense of learning 50x more in 2 weeks than we have learned in 4 months, but on a Friday before a long weekend I’m just not feeling enough animosity to make it angry and funny. To introduce this totally foreign concept right after we came back from break when even the easy stuff was fuzzy in our minds is ludicrous and I won’t possibly learn it in any substantial way. Perhaps my ire will rise appropriately after the midterm in 5 days.
<><
This term's Humphrey class on the NT Letters has been a bit slow. There aren't many notes to take when we try to cover Romans, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians all while trying to have a feelings-based discussion about Paul's views on homosexuality. I can understand the need for topical discussion and the desire for the professor to not proselytize her own opinion without opening the floor for comments but I don't think I learn anything about the New Testament from a group of people all stammering around looking for the most hospitable way to say that homosexuality is pretty much indefensible by Biblical standards. Sadly, unlike the Gospels course, these lectures just sound like sermons expounding upon Paul's thought instead of studies of dating and source theories and OT prophesy and such. It's a bible study at $400 per credit hour. One tidbit to take away from it is the discussion of pistis theou. These are two Greek nouns held together in Paul's writing that can be interpreted in two basic ways or thousands of nuanced ways. The first is "God's Faithfulness/the Faithfulness of God" and the other is "God's Faith." You may already be pondering of the distinction between the two. One implies the characteristic of God that He’s always there, always present and ready like a good friend would be. The other doesn’t do that specifically instead it describes the general concept of Faith as something that originates from God… it’s really something for individuals to interpret based on their relationship with and understanding of God.
In History Dr. Partee continues to show a real interest in our desperate need for education in reformed thought. While his lectures are amorphous there is a heart to the process that exemplifies a concern for how we all react to the ideas of those who formed our views of Christianity. There seems to be an accidental cross over between his and Dr. Humphrey’s class most days. I would expect that Dr Humphrey talk about Luther's doctrine of justification by faith arising from Paul but I wouldn’t expect Dr Partee to interrupt a lecture on Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, Calvin, etc. (he really talks about everyone everyday, there is no point sorting notes) to talk about his understanding of Faith as God’s gift bestowed to us. This is powerful means of understanding predestination that might assuage those of you who fear it the most. To talk about “my faith in God” is a misnomer (according to Partee, Humphrey, and - for what it’s worth - me). You can talk about your faith in the Red Sox or your faith in gravity but a faith in God isn’t yours, it’s God’s. From this, election might be a bit more approachable. The elect may be seen as those who have been gifted by God (through Grace) a faith in God. It may not be a guarantee but this idea of faith might help you avoid the all too common conversation:
“Hey buddy, how’s your faith?”
“Oh, I dunno, I’ve really been busy and not praying enough.”
“Oh, well uhh, God still loves you!”
Sure, I’m over simplifying it but this concept of a person’s “faith” and his or her contrary “doubt” is not really the model found in Paul. Doubt is a consequence of living in this world (especially this modern/post-modern world), in fact doubt is frequently the thing that makes us feel the most intelligent and controlled. The way I see it, Faith is not a consequence of living in this world. Faith is the state of living in the world, appreciating the goodness of Creation, and yet denying it to claim citizenship in the Kingdom of God. Saying that places Faith (big 'F') in a different plane from doubt so there is really no comparing them as some kind of polar opposites.
I wanted to talk about Greek participles and the nonsense of learning 50x more in 2 weeks than we have learned in 4 months, but on a Friday before a long weekend I’m just not feeling enough animosity to make it angry and funny. To introduce this totally foreign concept right after we came back from break when even the easy stuff was fuzzy in our minds is ludicrous and I won’t possibly learn it in any substantial way. Perhaps my ire will rise appropriately after the midterm in 5 days.
<><
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home