(no subject)
D and his wife C came over for dinner tonight; it's always interesting talking with him, not just because he's intelligent but because he's very good at looking through things and grasping essential points and principles, and simplifying things to concepts. D was finishing up a Ph.D in biology in London, but got disillusioned with the scientific process and got really into church ministry at All Souls. He delved deep into theology -- the program at All Soul, though informal, is incredibly rigorous, as far as I make out from what he tells me -- and is currently serving at my old church in Singapore, taking classes at BGST on the side.
I just wanted to set down a few thoughts from tonights extended conversation:'
First is the difference between Hebrew and Greek. Greek is a more modern and Western language, and words have more singular, specific meanings, while Hebrew is more ancient and Eastern, and words have broader meanings. The Old Testament is written in Hebrew, and many words have different inflections -- this is why Hebrew-Mandarin translations of the Bible are more accurate than Hebrew-English ones, as Mandarin, especially classical Chinese, is more in the philosophical spirit of ancient Hebrew than is English, which is really simplified and bastardised Latin -- and the depth of meaning in many passages is lost in the Greek. He says, interestingly, that when he listens to pastors, the ones who do their personal bible study in Hebrew, tend to have deeper and subtler understanding of passages, than do pastors who study in the Greek.
As an example: if we look at Deuteronomy (which means in Hebrew 'These are the words', apparently; while in Greek it is translated as 'The Second Law'), there is reference to two covenants: the Old, made with Moses, and the New, made with Abraham. However, the New covenant actually predates the Old covenant in terms of temporal chronological order. What gives? It turns out that the words Old and New refer not to temporal chronology, which is a Western/Greek way of interpreting them, but rather Old is 'always old', in effect 'passing away', which New is 'always new', or 'recurring'. It refers to states, rather than time periods. This makes sense in context: because the Old covenant with Moses was the Ten commandments -- the strict Law -- while the New covenant with Abraham was basically God telling him that he would bless Abraham's family and be the God of his descendants forever -- a relational, familial embrace that didn't depend on the law. We'd started talking about this because I pointed out the weird passage in 2 Chronicles, where the Israelites celebrate the passover without having first ceremonially cleansed themselves -- but are not struck down by lightning, because of the spirit of their worship; thus proving that the New Testament God who repudiates legalism is not a new, different God, but the same God in the Old Testament.
D bangs the table very hard on his interpretation of Christianity being relational, which I happen to agree with. He like to say that one should read the Bible as a letter from a lover who is away, not as a textbook. Anyhow, another issue we cleared up is my issue with that Christianity seems very much a religion for grown-ups -- I've felt that it requires a lot of life experience to appreciate what it is saying, that a child couldn't grasp the nuance of.
But thinking about God as focused on relationships, and building a family -- a catholic family in the original sense of the word, meaning all-inclusive, accepting of people from different backgrounds -- helps me to accept that children can and do understand God in a way that is different, perhaps simpler, than that of adults, but no less profound. It is that all of us appreciate and come to God from a different point of view: I as a historian, he as a scientist, she as a doctor -- I, being a historian, could not appreciate God in the way a scientist could, not on my own; but here is the value of fellowship, that because a friend is a scientist, by watching and listening to him, I can begin to appreciate how a scientist might approach God, might enjoy different aspects of his creation, though not a scientist myself. So likewise, I can believe that a child might enjoy certain aspects of God that I as an adult have forgotten, or perhaps having had a different kind of childhood, didn't myself experience. But I can learn from the child in terms of seeing how God could be looked at from that point of view. Its a bit like being back in freshman year and making students of different stripes read the same classical texts, hoping that we feed on each others' insights. I know the profs certainly thought those intro-type courses by far the hardest to teach.
Another interesting -- less theological and more sociological -- topic, was how the church is really experiencing a generation gap. The older generation in English speaking churches is used to a more dictatorial, pedantic sermon style, and cannot appreciate sermons where one is asked to think through the arguments -- they want practical, tell me what to do, type sermons. The younger generation can't abide that, and prefer thoughtful, nuanced sermons that critically argue through principles. Unfortunately, because the two groups attend the same sermons, the pastors have a hard time. D sees that as a looming problem -- along with that the Chinese-speaking congregations are seeing big inflows of PRC attendees, and they will again change the needs of the church (this is where we started talking about pastors who preach in Chinese; apparently there are a few BGST students from China with a good grasp of both Mandarin and Hebrew, and their sermons are supposed to really blow you away, if you can understand and appreciate it, I guess). One generation from now, the congregation will go the way of European churches -- where the main constituents are not first-generation Christians with all the fire of having been brought up Buddhist and discovered Christ, but that of second/third generation Christians, jaded, bored with Sunday School, needing a preacher that knows how to make the words relevant and fresh again. Along the same lines, reportedly a study of Singapore's population 10 years ago found that 50% of the population was Buddhist, a more recent study found that 40% of respondents claimed to be atheist. So the gospel will need to be contextualized and delivered in a way that the audience can appreciate. This will be a challenge.
Anyhow, all very up-there stuff. One practical thing I got out of it was a method of Bible study I think I will try -- when reading a book, say in the NT, refer to the part of the OT where the NT writer quotes, and write out my own interpretation of the OT book, then refer back to the NT book and see whether the writer's interpretation matches mine. Assume the writer's interpretation is right, and try to understand why he uses the quotes in this or that particular way -- apparently one can be very surprised here. Persevere with this, and this will deepen one's understanding of both OT and NT. Heheh, that makes it easy, no need to buy third party commentary...
Oh, and for the record, I reprised an experimental recipe of brown rice cooked with dried shrimp and olives -- a bit too salty cos I put too much of the olive-water in the rice compared to the first time, but otherwise still very tasty. Good, it will go onto my permanent menu.
I just wanted to set down a few thoughts from tonights extended conversation:'
First is the difference between Hebrew and Greek. Greek is a more modern and Western language, and words have more singular, specific meanings, while Hebrew is more ancient and Eastern, and words have broader meanings. The Old Testament is written in Hebrew, and many words have different inflections -- this is why Hebrew-Mandarin translations of the Bible are more accurate than Hebrew-English ones, as Mandarin, especially classical Chinese, is more in the philosophical spirit of ancient Hebrew than is English, which is really simplified and bastardised Latin -- and the depth of meaning in many passages is lost in the Greek. He says, interestingly, that when he listens to pastors, the ones who do their personal bible study in Hebrew, tend to have deeper and subtler understanding of passages, than do pastors who study in the Greek.
As an example: if we look at Deuteronomy (which means in Hebrew 'These are the words', apparently; while in Greek it is translated as 'The Second Law'), there is reference to two covenants: the Old, made with Moses, and the New, made with Abraham. However, the New covenant actually predates the Old covenant in terms of temporal chronological order. What gives? It turns out that the words Old and New refer not to temporal chronology, which is a Western/Greek way of interpreting them, but rather Old is 'always old', in effect 'passing away', which New is 'always new', or 'recurring'. It refers to states, rather than time periods. This makes sense in context: because the Old covenant with Moses was the Ten commandments -- the strict Law -- while the New covenant with Abraham was basically God telling him that he would bless Abraham's family and be the God of his descendants forever -- a relational, familial embrace that didn't depend on the law. We'd started talking about this because I pointed out the weird passage in 2 Chronicles, where the Israelites celebrate the passover without having first ceremonially cleansed themselves -- but are not struck down by lightning, because of the spirit of their worship; thus proving that the New Testament God who repudiates legalism is not a new, different God, but the same God in the Old Testament.
D bangs the table very hard on his interpretation of Christianity being relational, which I happen to agree with. He like to say that one should read the Bible as a letter from a lover who is away, not as a textbook. Anyhow, another issue we cleared up is my issue with that Christianity seems very much a religion for grown-ups -- I've felt that it requires a lot of life experience to appreciate what it is saying, that a child couldn't grasp the nuance of.
But thinking about God as focused on relationships, and building a family -- a catholic family in the original sense of the word, meaning all-inclusive, accepting of people from different backgrounds -- helps me to accept that children can and do understand God in a way that is different, perhaps simpler, than that of adults, but no less profound. It is that all of us appreciate and come to God from a different point of view: I as a historian, he as a scientist, she as a doctor -- I, being a historian, could not appreciate God in the way a scientist could, not on my own; but here is the value of fellowship, that because a friend is a scientist, by watching and listening to him, I can begin to appreciate how a scientist might approach God, might enjoy different aspects of his creation, though not a scientist myself. So likewise, I can believe that a child might enjoy certain aspects of God that I as an adult have forgotten, or perhaps having had a different kind of childhood, didn't myself experience. But I can learn from the child in terms of seeing how God could be looked at from that point of view. Its a bit like being back in freshman year and making students of different stripes read the same classical texts, hoping that we feed on each others' insights. I know the profs certainly thought those intro-type courses by far the hardest to teach.
Another interesting -- less theological and more sociological -- topic, was how the church is really experiencing a generation gap. The older generation in English speaking churches is used to a more dictatorial, pedantic sermon style, and cannot appreciate sermons where one is asked to think through the arguments -- they want practical, tell me what to do, type sermons. The younger generation can't abide that, and prefer thoughtful, nuanced sermons that critically argue through principles. Unfortunately, because the two groups attend the same sermons, the pastors have a hard time. D sees that as a looming problem -- along with that the Chinese-speaking congregations are seeing big inflows of PRC attendees, and they will again change the needs of the church (this is where we started talking about pastors who preach in Chinese; apparently there are a few BGST students from China with a good grasp of both Mandarin and Hebrew, and their sermons are supposed to really blow you away, if you can understand and appreciate it, I guess). One generation from now, the congregation will go the way of European churches -- where the main constituents are not first-generation Christians with all the fire of having been brought up Buddhist and discovered Christ, but that of second/third generation Christians, jaded, bored with Sunday School, needing a preacher that knows how to make the words relevant and fresh again. Along the same lines, reportedly a study of Singapore's population 10 years ago found that 50% of the population was Buddhist, a more recent study found that 40% of respondents claimed to be atheist. So the gospel will need to be contextualized and delivered in a way that the audience can appreciate. This will be a challenge.
Anyhow, all very up-there stuff. One practical thing I got out of it was a method of Bible study I think I will try -- when reading a book, say in the NT, refer to the part of the OT where the NT writer quotes, and write out my own interpretation of the OT book, then refer back to the NT book and see whether the writer's interpretation matches mine. Assume the writer's interpretation is right, and try to understand why he uses the quotes in this or that particular way -- apparently one can be very surprised here. Persevere with this, and this will deepen one's understanding of both OT and NT. Heheh, that makes it easy, no need to buy third party commentary...
Oh, and for the record, I reprised an experimental recipe of brown rice cooked with dried shrimp and olives -- a bit too salty cos I put too much of the olive-water in the rice compared to the first time, but otherwise still very tasty. Good, it will go onto my permanent menu.