Joyeux Noël and the Death of War

Since I wasn’t able to attend a memorial service this year, I decided to observe Remembrance Day by watching a couple of movies that bear witness to the sacrifice and suffering of those who fought on behalf of their countries. One of these movies was Joyeux Noël. This film was particularly good at portraying the hardship and anguish of soldiers in the trenches of World War I. In this story, three generals — German, French, and Scottish – along with their units, are brought together by the celebration of Christmas.

In the dreary dark of Christmas Eve, a German officer who before the war had been a vocalist in Berlin, sang “Stille Nacht” (Silent Night). Close by in their own trenches, the French and the Scots listened to the hopeful song of the German singer. The Scots joined in with their bagpipes, and soon, all the soldiers left their trenches to meet one another in peace on the battle field.

There they shared stories of home and tears for loss they had already incurred thus far in battle. Many even exchanged addresses with the intent of taking up friendship again once the mess of war had ended. At the high point of this meeting, the Scottish priest led the who assembly in the Christmas midnight mas. Participating together, they were no longer enemies, but fellow men who were all here by the same unfortunate circumstances, forced into combat by the will of their homelands. This was a really striking picture of peace that can come by love in Christ — even in the midst of war.

During the mas, the artillery fire booming in the distance reminded all that though they might forget war in the moment, the war had certainly not forgotten them. At this, they exchanged greetings of “Merry Christmas” and “good luck,” and returned to their trenches.

One of the most memorable scenes is one in which the German singer-now-soldier confronts his general, asking if they must go on to kill again now that they had truly come to know those they had regarded enemies. He said, “To die tomorrow is even more absurd than to die yesterday.” How foolish it would seem, having now experienced the peace of Christmas Eve, to die by the hands that offered friendship only the night before?

This war was to be the War to End All Wars. But really, going to war can’t truly cause the end of war. The only thing capable of ending war, as was so grandly demonstrated in Joyeux Noël, is the peace that comes through love in Christ. Let love be the foreign policy that guides nations in their dealings with one another. Let love be the ‘war’ that is fought, and it really will be the War to end all others.

New Friends

It has been another successful library book sale this year. I got there good and early this morning, and it paid off. Here are the new friends for my bookshelf (in preferential order):

1. Studying the Synoptic Gospels (E. P. Sanders and Margaret Davies)
   I’m excited for this one because I’m planning on taking Wes Olmstead’s Seminary Gospel Seminar in May. I recently picked up a copy of Aland’s Synopsis of the Four Gospels (Greek-English edition). Sanders should be a good guide.
2. NICNT: The Book of the Acts (F. F. Bruce)
   I really like F. F. Bruce. I’ve been collecting his commentaries.
3. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah (George W. E. Nickelsburg)
   I don’t know much about this stuff, but Nickelsburg sure does. So I figure this book is a good starting point.
4. What the Best College Teachers Do (Ken Bain)
   This one was assigned during my college internship, but because of the heavy courseload I took on that year, I didn’t get to read it very carefully. More of a panicked skim. It’s a great resource, and now I can read it properly.
5. The Gospel According to St. John (B. F. Westcott)
   All I know about Westcott is that he’s a textual critic from a couple of scholastic generations ago. I haven’t picked up any commentaries on John thus far, so, for a dollar, I figured I’d give him a try.
6. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament (James Barr)
   This looks to be an interesting Hebrew resource. I’ve been reading Alan Black’s Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek, and thought Barr’s book might help round out some Hebrew reading.
7. Biblical Hebrew Step by Step: readings from the Book of Genesis (M. Mansoor)
   Hebrew still feels like a lot of work. I’m hoping this book will help to motivate me to get reading.

Good harvest. All for $15! Needless to say, I have my work cut out for me.

Are We There Yet? Back to the Future and the year 2015

Today is November 5th, which, according to Back to the Future, is a red-letter date in the space-time continuum (it’s the day Doc invents time travel). So, I figure it’s a great day to reflect on what Back to the Future held for the future.

Back in the mid-80′s, a wonderful trilogy of movies was filmed, which is still my favorite set to this day: Back to the Future. There are many aspects of these films that set them firmly on a preferential pedestal. The casting couldn’t have been better. Michael J. Fox plays  the part of Martin (Marty) McFly, a cool, socially-savy, slightly insecure 17 year old who knows a lot about love, but can’t stand it when people call him “yellow,” and learns a lot throughout the trilogy about not allowing others’ opinions to dictate his life. He (somehow) befriends an old, crazy-eyed scientist, Doctor Emmett L. Brown. Their association is never explained. How does a high school student become involved in the experiments of a fringe-scientist? I’m not sure, but I love the combination. Doctor Brown, or “Doc,” is played enjoyably by Christopher Lloyd. He’s the perfect picture of a mad scientist. He offers the trilogy all the techno-babble to explain just how time travel is possible. Together Doc and Marty discover the advantages and serious consequences of time travel, as they go from their native 1985 back to 1955, forward to 2015, way back to 1885, and finally home again.

Their travels to 2015 are of interest. When all the problems of the first movie have been resolved, Marty asks Doc where he’ll go now. He tells him he’d like to go to the future “to see the progress of mankind.” He says he’ll go ahead “30 years. It’s a nice round number.” When Marty goes to the future in Back to the Future II, we get to see this progress.

To name a few of the ‘advancements,’ there are flying cars which travel”skyways” rather than highways, hoverboards, a controlled weather system, an efficient justice system (which has done away with lawyers), robotic waiters, automated gas stations, holographic advertising signs, video conferencing in place of the phone, lots of fax machines, vocal recognition, voice-activated lighting, retinal scan identification, self-drying (and automatic fitting) clothing, power-lace shoes, and hydratable foods. Also, the clothing fashion has become very bright, shiny, colorful, and all the young people wear their pockets inside out. (That’s a young Elijah Wood to the left.)

So, are we there yet? We definitely haven’t discovered an easy way to make cars fly, or to make skateboards hover. The weather is still as unpredictable as it ever has been. Though some parts of life have become more automated, such as self-serve banking and grocery shopping, or pay-at-the-pump gas stations, we are not yet served by robots. Our clothing is still very non-futuristic compared to that of Back to the Future’s 2015. No self-drying, auto-sizing, or power lacing. Retinal scanning might happen in the most advanced corporations, but for now, it remains mostly in the movies. Our justice system is still not very efficient, and still full of lawyers. We do have many fast-convenience food items, though not quite like the hydrated pizza that starts the size of a quarter, and when hydrated, can feed a family of five.

On the other side of things, we’ve moved beyond the fax machine for the most part. Back to the Future’s 2015 saw the fax machine as part of the communication of the future, with Marty’s notice of job termination spitting out of almost 10 fax machines around the house. We do have such things as voice activated services, like lighting. Video calls are becoming more common, especially with the use of webcams. One thing the trilogy’s writers did not anticipate that we do have in 2009 is the internet. The internet, as we know it now, did not exist in 1985, and is very much one of the great driving forces of our technology and convenience in this day and age.

Overall, though, we still have a lot of ground to make up if we are to achieve the vision Back to the Future has set out for 2015. We have six years to go.

A Delirious? Ending

Since the early nineties, Stew Smith, Jon Thatcher, Stu Garrard, Tim Jupp, and Martin Smith have been travelling the world, and writing music to capture the vision of the church and to ignite its heart. For more than fifteen years they have shaped and reshaped the worship genre, and have tried to blur the lines between “Christian” and “mainstream” music. And now their time together is soon coming to a close. Next month Delirious? launches its final tour, “History Makers – Farewell Tour,” in Europe and the British Isles. Unfortunately they aren’t including North America in their final tour. I’ve been a big fan since 1995 or so, so there will be a big D? shaped hole in my fandom when November is over… I’ve had the chance to see them twice, in Edmonton and Ottawa; it’s always a treat. If you find yourself in Europe next month, be sure to catch a show if tickets are still available!

Below is Delirious? playing “Investigate” at Willow Creek in Chicago as part of their Now is the Time tour. I’ve always thought it to be one of their most reaching, desperate sort of songs; straining to allow God to tear into the heart and purify what he finds.

Investigate my life and make me clean
Shine upon the darkest place in me
To you my life’s an open book
So turn the page and take a look
Upon the life you’ve made
Always, my days, I’ll praise

Fly away, where heaven calls my name
Fly away, I’ll never be the same
Investigate, I can’t wait
Excavate, recreate

Investigate my life and take me through
Shine upon the road that leads to you
I know you’d heard the words I’d say
Before I’d even lived one day
You knew the life you’d made
Always, my days, I’ll praise

Investigate my life and make me clean
Shine upon the darkest place in me
When I go, when I return you’ve seen your holy fire burn
Upon the life you made
Always, I’ll praise

This song appears originally on their Glo album (short for “Glory”), from 2000. About its writing, Stu Garrard says,

“Psalm 139 is one of my favorites. Whenever I read it, I’m struck by the words “God, investigate my life; get all the facts first hand.” I really do want to be an ‘open book’ and often think about God exploring my thoughts and motives, searchlight in hand. Reading this psalm gives me a feeling of being totally surrounded by God – not being able to escape and not wanting to, either. He knows my thoughts; He knows the words on my lips before I speak. He is before and me behind me; there is nowhere I can go to flee from His presence. He formed me and knew who I was even before I was born. If I could fly away to the ends of the earth, He’d be there waiting for me. The thing is, I don’t feel hemmed in – I feel liberated. Psalm 139 closes with the words:

‘Investigate my life, O God, find out everything about me; cross-examine and test me, get a clear picture of what I’m about; See for yourself whether I’ve done anything wrong – then guide me on the road to eternal life (vv. 23-24, THE MESSAGE).’

Determined words of a psalmist on a journey, flavored with introspection and perhaps a little melancholy . . . perfect for the key of D minor, don’t you think?”

I Could Sing of Your Love Forever: stories, reflections and devotions. Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 2007; pages 43-44

Living Offline – perhaps not a bad idea

The other day I watched the fairly new movie, “Surrogates,” in which everyone in the world experiences life through these machine-bodied surrogates, while the ‘operators’ remain in the safety of their homes.

I watched it because 1) I like science fiction and 2) Bruce Willis stars. I liked the movie. It had enough twists to keep you guessing, and the action was fairly strong throughout.

The most impacting line of the whole film, for me anyway, was spoken by the antagonist after he reveals his sinister plan to destroy the machines. He says, “Human beings weren’t meant to experience life through machines!”

How very true! When computers were created, they were to save us time (and paper), but nothing seems to consume our time each day quite so much as our many electronic devices. When I think about how many hours I spend on a computer when I have some spare time or a day off, I think I’d be embarrassed to reveal the number. I’m grateful for much of what I can accomplish from my home computer, like communication with people far away, online banking, purchasing books and other items, and even searching for journal articles and things like that. But everything in moderation. The ease with which anyone can administrate their life on a computer, on the internet, is helpful. But if a person’s use of these things isn’t managed or moderated, it can easily become a colossal waste of time.

No wonder people back a century had such greater knowledge of things like philosophy, Latin, and Greek. They had no ‘time saving devices’ to eat up their every day.

Grammatical Diagram of Luke 14:28-30

As promised, I went through Luke 14:28-30 and completed a grammatical diagram. Click here to see the PDF. (I used unicode with SBL Greek font, so hopefully it will show up properly for you! If you don’t have SBL Greek, you can download it here. It’s free, and is fun to type in.)

The Grammatical Structure of Luke 14:29

Another quandary brought to you by Greek Tutorial. This week I was reading through Luke 14:25-30 with a couple of students, and verse 29 proved to be, shall we say, especially interesting. I’d like to examine the grammatical structure of the pericope to get a feel for what’s going on in Luke 14:29. Here’s 14:28-30:

[28] Τίς γὰρ ἐξ ὑμῶν θέλων πύργον οἰκοδομῆσαι οὐχὶ πρῶτον καθίσας ψηφίζει τὴν δαπάνην, εἰ ἔχει εἰς ἀπαρτισμόν; [29] ἴνα μήποτε θέντος αὐτοῦ θεμέλιον καὶ μὴ ἰσχύοντος ἐκτελέσαι πάντες οἰ θεωροῦντες ἄρξωνται αὐτῷ ἐμπαίζειν [30] λέγοντες ὅτι οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἤρζατο οἰκοδομεῖν καὶ οὐκ ἴσχυσεν ἐκτελέσαι.

In verse 28, τὶς (nom masc sg) is matched by the participle θέλων (nom masc sg pres act ptc), and is modified by the genitive phrase ἐξ ὑμῶν to read, “For, who among you desiring”. The participle θέλων belongs to the infinitive οἰκοδομῆσαι which gives us the content of the desire, “to build.” The direct object of οἰκοδομῆσαι is the accusative masculine singular πύργον, “a tower.”

This phrase so far: “For anyone from among you desiring to build a tower”.

Next, οὐχὶ negates ψηφίζει, “does he not calculate,” which takes τὴν δαπάνην as its object, “does he not calculate the cost.”  ψηφίζει is modified by the attendant circumstance participle καθίσας, which describes the action that goes on as the person calculates the cost: “does he not, sitting down, calculate the cost”. The next clause, εἰ ἔχει εἰς ἀπαρτισμόν, appears to be a purpose clause (though this verse is missing an infinitive like “to see” or “to determine” to nicely shape this into a recognizable purpose clause), indicating why he calculates: “if he has [what is needed] for completion”.

This whole first verse is a question, noted by the interrogative form of τίς (which is anarthrous when it functions as an indefinite pronoun), and the Greek question mark ; at the end: “For who among you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down [and] calculate the cost [to determine] if he has [what is needed] for completion?” (Feel free to quibble with these conclusions; there is lots of room to move here in my understanding of the syntax!)

Moving on to verse 29. ἴνα starts this verse, which always introduces the subjunctive mood. The arrangement of this verse is a little odd, though, because the subjunctive verb, ἄρξωνται, is almost at the end of the verse. Immediately after ἴνα, the clause μήποτε θέντος αὐτοῦ θεμέλιον καὶ μὴ ἰσχύοντος ἐκτελέσαι is inserted before the ἴνα is completed. However, this arrangement may not be so strange, considering that ἴνα and μήποτε can function together as “a strengthened form of ἴνα μή” (Marshall [1978], “The Gospel of Luke,” 594). And according to BDAG, this ἴνα μήποτε combination is often used for denoting purpose, “(in order) that . . . not, often expressing apprehension” (BDAG, 648-2b).

With this in mind, verse 29 looks a little friendlier. (If I had thought to look at BDAG last night with those Greek students, I could have been a little more helpful!) After the ἴνα μήποτε construction we find a genitive absolute θέντος αὐτοῦ θεμέλιον, “he placed a foundation,” followed by the participle ἰσχύντος, negated by μή, “not being able,” and its complementary infinitive ἐκτελέσαι, which completes the thought, “not being able to complete [it]“.

So far in verse 29 we have: “In order that he does not place a foundation, and, not being able to complete it”.

The consequence of this ill-conceived plan is that “all who see it should begin to mock him.” πάντες is modified by the adjectival participle οἰ θεωροῦντες, “all who see,” and is the subject of  ἄρξωνται. ἄρξωνται takes ἐμπαίζειν as its complementary infinitive, “begin to mock.” αὐτῷ likely refers to the uncompleted tower, rather than the builder.

This verse all together states, “In order that he does not place a foundation, and, being unable to complete it, all who see it should begin to mock him”.

Verse 30 tells us the content of their mocking, “This man began to build and was not able to finish.” (You can hear Nelson from The Simpsons in the background saying his customary, “Hah hah!”)

I was going to do a grammatical diagram of this as well, but I’ve run out of time! Tune in next time for that.

There are many details I didn’t focus on — again, time being the issue. There is just never enough time for exegesis!