Yesterday, on the train to and from Edinburgh, I finished this excellent book by Eugene Peterson, 'The Word Made Flesh'.
I've posted on this book earlier - here - and don't want to over extend my comments here.
In the second major section of the book, Peterson writes about Jesus and his prayers. There is not so much on the language of Jesus in the section on his prayers, however, Peterson's insightful comments on prayer and Jesus as a teacher, example in prayer are so good you hardly notice.
Let me share one comment from this second part of the book, in the chapter on the Lord's Prayer on 'Thy will be done':
The mature, sane, enduring counsel of our best pastors and theologians is this: keep Jesus' prayer, 'Your will be done,' in the storied and praying context of the Holy Scriptures. Quit speculating about the 'will of God' and simply do it - as Mary did, as Jesus did. 'Will of God' is never a matter of conjecture. It directs a spotlight on believing obedience. (page 180)
Yes, obedience beats speculation any time. Just do it!
Showing posts with label Word Made Flesh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Word Made Flesh. Show all posts
Tuesday, 8 June 2010
Saturday, 5 June 2010
The Invisible Man
Peterson's chapter on Lk 16:19-31, commonly known as the Rich Man and Lazarus, entitled by Peterson 'The Invisible Man' is really good.
Before he is seen at Abraham's side, Lazarus is invisible to the Rich Man. This parable, however, is not a story about what happens after death, it is very much a story about what happens before death.
It is in this life that the Rich Man seals his eternal fate. Once you notice the connection between Lk 16 and Jn 11 is becomes more clear. Lazarus did rise from the grave, but they did not believe him, they plotted to kill him all over again! Jn 12:10-11.
This story of the Invisible Man only functions are part of a larger story, a meta-story, in the context of which we can find ourselves included in this particular story. Story requires our involvement, a better word than response, we need to join in the story.
In this story, the invisible question - did the five brothers ever repent? Did they hear this account and change their ways? Are we among the five brothers?
Before he is seen at Abraham's side, Lazarus is invisible to the Rich Man. This parable, however, is not a story about what happens after death, it is very much a story about what happens before death.
It is in this life that the Rich Man seals his eternal fate. Once you notice the connection between Lk 16 and Jn 11 is becomes more clear. Lazarus did rise from the grave, but they did not believe him, they plotted to kill him all over again! Jn 12:10-11.
This story of the Invisible Man only functions are part of a larger story, a meta-story, in the context of which we can find ourselves included in this particular story. Story requires our involvement, a better word than response, we need to join in the story.
In this story, the invisible question - did the five brothers ever repent? Did they hear this account and change their ways? Are we among the five brothers?
Tuesday, 1 June 2010
Who Grumbles?
The first main part of this Peterson book is to walk with Jesus through Luke's travel narrative - Luke 9:51-19:44. This section of Luke is mostly unique to Luke and is framed by references to leaving Galilee (9:51) and arriving in Jerusalem (19:11, 28, 41).
In these chapters Jesus travels through Samaria, non-Jewish territory. Peterson takes this as his starting point to look at the stories Jesus told and how they will help us live in the non-Kingdom of God territories we find ourselves in day by day.
On Luke 15, Peterson draws our attention to v. 2, that the Scribes and Pharisees were grumbling. Peterson notes that this word is only used by Luke and that it appears in the Greek OT at Exodus 16:2-3:
Exodus 16:2-3 In the desert the whole community grumbled against Moses and Aaron. 3 The Israelites said to them, "If only we had died by the LORD's hand in Egypt! There we sat round pots of meat and ate all the food we wanted, but you have brought us out into this desert to starve this entire assembly to death."
Putting these two groups of grumblers together, Peterson writes,
The people of Israel murmered not because they were bad and evil but because they were good and scared. The Pharisees and Bible scholars [scribes] murmur not because they were bad and evil but because they were good and scared. The murmurers in both cases are reverent and devout worshipppers of God, delivered from pagan superstitions and following God's leader. Both sets of murmurers can be given the adjective eusebeia, godly, righteous. But now something is taking place that turns everything topsy-turvy. Their self-image, righteous, by which they define themselves, is suddenly erased. They are disorientated, lost. They don't like the feeling and so they murmur, diegongudzon. Understandably so. (page 93)
Self-righteousness is a sin unique to to godly. Only within the church do we find self-righteous people who look down on others. When this self-righteousness is challenged, in any way, grumbling results.
The people with Moses, the Pharisees and Bible scholars, are followers, they are on the journey towars God's promise. But they fall into this defensive grumbling.
The first three stories in Lk 15 take that which is lost, in the place where grumbling might begin, and show how grace finds what was lost. The fourth story - of the elder brother - is openended, he is grumbling but we are not told if he will leave his grumbling and come into the Father's welcome and party. This draws the hearer and reader in, how will we respond?
In these chapters Jesus travels through Samaria, non-Jewish territory. Peterson takes this as his starting point to look at the stories Jesus told and how they will help us live in the non-Kingdom of God territories we find ourselves in day by day.
On Luke 15, Peterson draws our attention to v. 2, that the Scribes and Pharisees were grumbling. Peterson notes that this word is only used by Luke and that it appears in the Greek OT at Exodus 16:2-3:
Exodus 16:2-3 In the desert the whole community grumbled against Moses and Aaron. 3 The Israelites said to them, "If only we had died by the LORD's hand in Egypt! There we sat round pots of meat and ate all the food we wanted, but you have brought us out into this desert to starve this entire assembly to death."
Putting these two groups of grumblers together, Peterson writes,
The people of Israel murmered not because they were bad and evil but because they were good and scared. The Pharisees and Bible scholars [scribes] murmur not because they were bad and evil but because they were good and scared. The murmurers in both cases are reverent and devout worshipppers of God, delivered from pagan superstitions and following God's leader. Both sets of murmurers can be given the adjective eusebeia, godly, righteous. But now something is taking place that turns everything topsy-turvy. Their self-image, righteous, by which they define themselves, is suddenly erased. They are disorientated, lost. They don't like the feeling and so they murmur, diegongudzon. Understandably so. (page 93)
Self-righteousness is a sin unique to to godly. Only within the church do we find self-righteous people who look down on others. When this self-righteousness is challenged, in any way, grumbling results.
The people with Moses, the Pharisees and Bible scholars, are followers, they are on the journey towars God's promise. But they fall into this defensive grumbling.
The first three stories in Lk 15 take that which is lost, in the place where grumbling might begin, and show how grace finds what was lost. The fourth story - of the elder brother - is openended, he is grumbling but we are not told if he will leave his grumbling and come into the Father's welcome and party. This draws the hearer and reader in, how will we respond?
Continuity In Daily Living
This is another must buy, must read book by Eugene Peterson.
From p. 4
God does not compartmentalize our lives into religious and secular. Why do we? I want to insist on a continuity of language between the words we use in Bible studies and the words we use when we're out fishing for rainbow trout. I want to cultivate a sense of continuity between the prayers we offer to God and the conversations we have with the people we speak to and who speak to us. I want to nurture an awareness of the sanctity of words, the holy gift of language, regardless of whether it is directed vertically or horizontally. Just as Jesus did.
Yes, we should not have a special speech for God-talk and a different, 'ordinary' form of speaking for non-God-talk. Who are we dishonouring if we use words and language like this? So no more omnipotent, or hypostatic, or whatever the phrase we love to use that is our in language.
Yes, we should not only be careful about our words and mean what we say when we talk to or about God. Integrity of language is vital in all our use of language. We honour those we speak with when we speak with integrity.
Peterson is writing about words and language, but once you catch the idea it doesn't stop. There is no religious secular divide. God loves us and cares for all our lives. God is interested in how we drive, what we do in our bedrooms, what we eat, how we talk, what we look at ... there is no part of our life that is beyond the love and care of our God.
This is the kind of Christian living that will impact the world with the good news of Jesus in ways that we presently don't recognise as evangelism, but which are profoundly a sharing of the good news of Jesus, who is God with us.
From p. 4
God does not compartmentalize our lives into religious and secular. Why do we? I want to insist on a continuity of language between the words we use in Bible studies and the words we use when we're out fishing for rainbow trout. I want to cultivate a sense of continuity between the prayers we offer to God and the conversations we have with the people we speak to and who speak to us. I want to nurture an awareness of the sanctity of words, the holy gift of language, regardless of whether it is directed vertically or horizontally. Just as Jesus did.
Yes, we should not have a special speech for God-talk and a different, 'ordinary' form of speaking for non-God-talk. Who are we dishonouring if we use words and language like this? So no more omnipotent, or hypostatic, or whatever the phrase we love to use that is our in language.
Yes, we should not only be careful about our words and mean what we say when we talk to or about God. Integrity of language is vital in all our use of language. We honour those we speak with when we speak with integrity.
Peterson is writing about words and language, but once you catch the idea it doesn't stop. There is no religious secular divide. God loves us and cares for all our lives. God is interested in how we drive, what we do in our bedrooms, what we eat, how we talk, what we look at ... there is no part of our life that is beyond the love and care of our God.
This is the kind of Christian living that will impact the world with the good news of Jesus in ways that we presently don't recognise as evangelism, but which are profoundly a sharing of the good news of Jesus, who is God with us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)