Spiritual Journeying

I must admit I have a healthy, perhaps unhealthy, appreciation and identification with this piece from iMonk. I have been forcing myself outside the page, to experience, to widen myself. To think and find that there is more than where I’ve been.

On one level I’m stuck, but on pace. Doing my due diligence in the historical work necessary to get to the next level. You can’t do theology without a foundational base, can you? And in the Christian tradition that base is found in biblical studies. I feel that I’m a good ways along now, having a good foundation to understand the gospels, though apocalyptic is still a struggle. Paul is next on the list. Having done that, I would fee comfortable and able working up to a proper Theology.

One of the things I never realized, that to do this all correctly, takes years. But of course life and living it cannot wait for that. There is so much more.

On the lowest level religious experiences happen, have happened to me, and create the foundation for religion and spirituality. Add community experiences with symbols and praxis and you have it all. But listening to Stephen Prothero’s Noble Lectures this year game me more incentive to do what I felt I had been doing (to a small extent). Be a wanderer. Wander to and from the community, in and out of the praxis, in and out of the experiences. Find their boundaries, and what they mean.

I am still a skeptic (not a cynic in either the real or pejorative meaning) on some level. Not that I don’t trust others, perhaps I don’t trust the meaning others find in what they experience. I’m a pretty unique person in the way I think, believe, and act. For historical studies I now have a pretty set method for understanding things – most people I talk with do not have any method whatsoever. For life experiences, well those are wide open, and I hope to have many more of those.

On Resurrection

Reading the beginning of The Resurrection of the Son of God NT Wright does a good deal of work moving through the pagan writings around the ideas of resurrection and life after death (which are two different things). I wish everyone over here arguing about it would stop, and read the first hundred or so pages to get an idea about how to even talk about the subject to begin with.

That said, there is more on the topic (and I wish I could get my hands on the presentation) being talked about over at Singing in the Reign. The conclusion from the rabbinic text fits perfectly within the model suggested by Jesus talking with the Saducees: the object of resurrection is to make whole, restore, and to perfect the person. The Jewish worldview saw the created order as good, not evil or to be escaped as did the pagan views. The Jewish hope was a fully restored and perfected creation. The hope for the whole included the hope for the individual. This came about in the idea of resurrection, though not all Jewish people did believe and expect resurrection. Clearly all Christians did.

It is important once more to be clear on the key topic before we go any further. The texts we shall consider, however we understand their detailed nuances, are not speaking about a new contrual of life after death, but something that will happen after whatever ‘life after death’ may involve. Resurrection is not just another way of talking about Sheol, or about what happens, as in Psalm 73, ‘afterwards’, that is, after the event of bodily death. It speaks of something that will happen, if it does, after that again. Resurrection means bodily life after ‘life after death’, or, if you prefer, bodily life after the state of ‘death’.
The Resurrection of the Son of God, NT Wright, pg 108-9

Quote

“A text without a context is just a pretext for whatever you want it to mean”

Build Systems: Version Control and Releasing

This issue has been on my mind a long time. When I first walked into my new job, I was shocked they were using CVS. For making sure no one overwrites others changes, CVS does fine. But for being a real build system? It does not pull its weight. CVS’s merging is infamous, it can’t hold symlinks, and you have to do extra work (tagging) to get what you get for free in other version control systems.

Any build system has got to be flexible. You can’t really anticipate what you might need to do – other than release any arbitrary bit of code at any time. That means flexibility. It doesn’t matter whether you are releasing branches to live environments, or updating trunk on your SaaS service in the live environment – you need to be able to do lots behind the scenes:

1. Branch when you start a new feature
2. Move patches from branch to branch
3. When you merge these branches together they don’t conflict
4. Make a build in 1 step

One of the most understood (and sometimes misunderstood) concept is that what you need to do is push changesets (or patches), not files. You don’t push N files, you push N patches. This is how any modern version control system works (read: not CVS, you need to use tags if you’re using CVS). And you should be pushing SQL to get run as well (RoR uses migrations to accomplish this)! Keep it all in one place, don’t use multiple systems to keep track of things.

Whenever you start working on a new feature, you want to do it on a branch(#1). Keep those changes isolated from everything else. If you need a bugfix or another feature from another branch you replay that patch over to your branch (#2). When you’re done, you merge that back into whatever you’re releasing (trunk or branch). Hopefully it does not conflict (#3). Then you release (#4). You let the code fly up to whatever server it needs to, and the SQL in the repo gets run as well.

Not too many people disagree with that setup. However, this setup also makes a statement towards your dev environment. If you can make a build in one step that means your environment should also be taken care of in that build step. Again most frameworks (like RoR) have methods (YAML, dev, and production modes) to take care of this.

One of the problems I’m coming up against is the inability to run two enviornments side-by-side. The primary reason for this is because I cannot build in one step. I can’t count how many steps it takes to make a build, I don’t even know some of them. This is a problem if you’ve done #1, branch when you make a new feature. Suppose your “new feature” is to make something more efficient. Well a good way to know you didn’t break anything (in addition to unit tests) is to put the old and new environments side by side to see if you get the same output. Currently, I can’t do that. Which makes branching less useful (not to mention the fact it is CVS).

This is the best build system I’ve come up with and actually used in a real environment before. Does anyone else have other examples that have worked for them? I’d like to know.

Armchair Theologians

The new Barna report has, spotted a trend which, to me, has been a long-time coming:

Growing numbers of people now serve as their own theologian-in-residence

With people spending less time reading the Bible, and becoming less engaged in activities that deepen their biblical literacy, faith views are more often adopted on the basis of dialogue, self-reflection, and observation than teaching. Feelings and emotions now play a significant role in the development of people’s faith views – in many cases, much more significant than information-based exercises such as listening to preaching and participating in Bible study.

I think this is a scary development. At this point I would classify myself as some-what armchair, but at least educated in the methods, classifications, and topics of the guild. Just this year I went to SBL in Boston and felt right at home.

But the scary part is both individual people and leadership figures are standing up, making truth claims, and interpretations without proper education. Even some educational institutes, I would classify, as woefully lacking and in the business of creating armchair theologians with a shiny diploma.

All the more important to deal directly with the evidence. Hard theories that can be falsified. Not rhetoric and strawmen. Hopefully I can get myself out of the somewhat armchair situation I find myself in, with a dull diploma from a respected age old school. Then you are allowed to step on the field and play in the game.

Jesus and Power

At community group tonight we were looking over the passage in Mark 1:

They went into Capernaum; and immediately on the Sabbath He entered the synagogue and {began} to teach. They were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as {one} having authority, and not as the scribes. Just then there was a man in their synagogue with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, saying, “What business do we have with each other, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are–the Holy One of God!” And Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be quiet, and come out of him!” Throwing him into convulsions, the unclean spirit cried out with a loud voice and came out of him. They were all amazed, so that they debated among themselves, saying, “What is this? A new teaching with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey Him.”

And we got to talking about power and authority. One of the questions that we were asked is what would it look like if the Church acted with this authority. And another question that is always there week in and week out is how does this inform our faith and actions. We always leave that question to be pondered, without a definitive discussion on it.

Power was one of the big conclusions I talked about in my first paper on atonement. Jesus, as a figure in Mark’s story, is incredibly powerful. He is teaching with authority, and backing it up with his spiritual authority to heal and cast out demons. The surprising thing to me is not that Jesus is acting with authority or has authority – but rather how he uses that authority.

In reading through NT Wright’s historical work (starting the third volume now), along with others like Scot McKnight, Ben Witherington, and David Daube it seems plain that both John the Baptist and Jesus are specifically critiquing the way power is used. Jesus is not like King Herod trying to prove his greatness and worthiness while ruthlessly killing his brothers or the people. Or the Pharisees, laying down un-carriable burdens. Or the Shammites willing to die, to kill, and to sacrifice the lives of the Jewish people to stand up and fight against Rome. Or the priests, hopelessly intertwined in compromise with their pagan overlords. No, Jesus is doing something very different with the authority and power of God.

What would the Church look like with that authority?

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

Naked Pastor

Being Broken

One of the things I like so much about the Naked Pastor is his ability to wear his heart on his sleeve. I don’t have that ability. He talks openly and candidly about himself and his community. Based on his writings, they exhibit what the iMonk says about finding “the right church”. There is no right church

He links a lot of different ideas together there worth talking about. What he says about people being prone to depression finding themselves poured out into the Church in either emotional or intellectual is very true. I’ve never seen a doctor, but in the past I’ve felt that closing in at specific times in my life.

Being able to grow past “solving all the puzzles” and “finding the right church” is a big step. Allowing mystery, uncertainty, and failure a permanent place in your world is a necessary step. It was for me.

Committing to something imperfect is hard to do. But it is what you have to do. No church is perfect. These are broken people, it is a broken Church. I am still broken. But I’m committed to myself, aren’t I? Committing yourself to another person is hard. They are just as broken as you. Most marriages end in divorce these days, even in the Church. So, committing yourself to a church, way more than just one person, is incredibly hard to do. Especially when you expect perfection, when you expect no mysteries, no puzzles. Or you expect to figure out everyone, everyone’s mysteries or all the puzzles. It just is not going to happen.

We are all broken. And we need to realize that, and act accordingly

Be Sure to Understand

More from the iMonk in a long, but worthwhile post. The highlight:

Did you ever notice how Jesus deals with those he has serious disagreements with?

Those Pharisees? Jesus had a lot in common with them. But at some of those key points, there was serious division and disagreement.

So watch Jesus. Do what he does. Don’t do what Jesus doesn’t do.

He interacts with the Pharisees. He doesn’t avoid them.

He lets them finish their sentences.

He doesn’t yell at them.

He asks good, subversive, insightful questions.

He tells stories.

His “points” are simple and on target.

He understands how these differences arise, i.e. out of methodology or values.

He never compromises.

He leaves the conversation in the hands of the Holy Spirit.

Can you improve on that? I can’t. In fact, I have a long way to go to get anywhere close to it.

This is the only way to get anywhere. And if you don’t want to get anywhere in your discussion, well you are in the wrong game. Without listening to the other, you’re talking to yourself, you’re talking to hear yourself talk. It is just you in your little world. It can get awful lonely, I’ve been there before. I hope to never go back. Beyond listening, communicating is perhaps the single hardest thing to do. It is definitely the hardest thing for me to do effectively.

Be Sure To Explain

iMonk shows how Paul “…stopped shouting long enough…” to make his point. He point was pointed, clear, and powerful, despite how complex and/or far-reaching it might be.

I know there are plenty of times in my own life where I need to slow down and make the point simple. Stop jumping directly from problem to solution – explain how I get to the solution. Bring others with you. Don’t assume they do not want to go with you on the journey. Though I am also coming to the conclusion that to talk about a solution means they need to see a solution as well. Which means you have to explain along with something concrete. Something they can touch, see, use, and feel.

There’s a lot to learn from Paul. Not just in what he said, but in his choice to say anything at all.

I hope I can say what I need to say, when I need to. And that I can shut up, and put up when I need to.