Welcome Home

This is an excerpt from a project that I've been working on for myself, a collection of memories of "Manama," my grandma, Clara Bartel. 

“Knock knock!” I shout as I push open the screen door. "Come in," she hollers back. It has been a long time since the days when she waited for me on the front porch. She knows I’m coming. I called earlier to ask if it was alright. “Yeah. Come on,” she had said. Of course it’s alright. And of course she’s not busy. She’s too old to be busy, as she often says. But I call out so as not to scare her. Though I doubt that she’s scared of much these days. I reckon she’s too old to be scared of much, either. Come to think of it, she's never been one for fear. 

I walk into her place surprised, even though I've prepared myself for what I’ll find there. Contrary to the laws of the universe, I know that the house has somehow shrunk over the last twenty-five years. I find it smaller each time I enter. Here I’m a giant in a dollhouse. I know that I can rationalize it by reminding myself that the time I spent here was when I was much smaller. It is my body that has grown and not the house that has shrunk. But stepping over that threshold, hearing her voice, smelling the smell of the place—it all does something to me. I’m transported back to a time before having my own kids, before getting married, before moving off to college, before puberty and the summer when I “grew like a beanstalk.” It’s the time-travel that makes it hard to believe that the house hasn’t shrunk. 

I tell her she doesn’t have to get up. But, of course she does. Slower this time than when I last visited. We give our hugs and greetings. As I hug her, I realize that she’s smaller than I remember, too. This, I remind myself is not because I’m the one who has changed. She settles back into the EZ-chair where, I reckon, she spends about eighty-five percent of her time these days. She doesn’t have to ask us to sit down; I choose another EZ-chair, knowing to avoid the couch, which will swallow you alive. (Terese, apparently, does not remember this important factoid.) We’re already making ourselves at home. The boys need no reminder about where the toys are stashed and head straight for the cabinet. 

The conversation runs in familiar grooves. We talk about the trip, offering our standard schpeal about the long drive with little people. When we left. Where we stopped for the night. She always asks, “How long you plannin’ on stayin’?” I’m never sure how she feels about our answer, but it seems that she’s always a little disappointed that it isn’t longer—and this is without judgment, only love. We ask her about the family—starting with the near-relations and moving on to those who live in the area. We ask about church and friends. These conversations are filled with frequent and long pauses. 

These pauses used to be filled only with relentless "tick tock" of the old clock above the couch. But no longer. The boys, by now, have emptied the cabinet of several large trucks. The sounds of the toys take me back thirty years. Many of the trucks were bonafide antiques even then. All of them, I daresay, would easily classify as such now. But they’re still running strong proving true the platitude that, “They don’t make ‘em like they used to.” The metal trucks clang against one another, the farm animals bounce in the bed of the trailer, the wheels make their familiar clamor on the dining room linoleum. 

And so it is that I begin to settle in to the *Shalom* of the place and the person whose life makes it a place of peace. I am welcomed home. 

Law / Gospel?

This post is a response to the standard Law / Gospel dichotomy. 

It is too bad that we think about the "Law" as something that is bad. It is written by God for the good of his people. Here I'll make three brief points with some Scriptures to chew on.

The "Law" describes itself very differently. Jesus and Paul describe the "Law" very differently. 

The "Law" talks about itself as a blessing, something that guides us into right living, something that teaches the people of God how to be the people of God.

• Why do we do the stuff written in the Law? (Sounds like a question my 6 year old would ask.) Deut 6:20–25
• I need to elaborate a little at this point, because it is at the foundation of the problems of the "Law / Gospel" distinction. In the OT, the "Law" itself does not say that someone needs to do the "Law" in order to win God's favor. Just like in the NT, God shows his favor freely, that is, by grace. Notice what this passage says: We do it because "God brought us up out of Egypt." This is the Salvation Story of the Old Testament. The "Law" is done, then, as a response to God. God acts and the only reasonable reaction to God's action. If God is going to do this thing (save me) then he deserves anything out of me that he wants. But what does he want from me? The "Law" tells us what he wants.
• In this vein, we need to ask another of Deuteronomy's questions: How great is it that God has shown us how to be like him? (Deut 4:1–14) (Other god's don't do this!)
• Can we actually DO the Law? (Deut 30:11–14; and see Jeremiah quoting this passage when describing the New Covenant in 31:31–34.)

Jesus talks about the Law very differently.

• But this is often quite subtle. We miss it because we don't have Deuteronomy oozing out of us. But, go read Deuteronomy every day for a month and it'll start showing up everywhere in the Bible. In the Bible, Deuteronomy is like the Office: the show that everyone quotes from and everyone knows when it is being quoted.
• For example, when Jesus meets Zacchaeus, Zacchaeus repents, turns his life around, and does the right thing. We don't see that what he actually does is the "Law." (I realize that it's not an exact correlate, but the idea comes from Lev. 6:1–7.)
• Or, notice that Jesus' critique isn't against the "Law" but against bad interpretations of it: "You're so busy weighing your mint and cumin that you neglect the weightier matters of the Law." Notice what he doesn't say. He doesn't say: The Law is bad. Don't do it. 
• Or, take the passages where Jesus teaches the "Law." He teaches NOT like their teachers of the Law, but as one with authority. For those of us who believe that the Bible is authored by God, this shouldn't surprise us. Jesus teaches the Law with authority because he is its author. 
• Or, notice when Jesus is asked about the Law, he tells stories. The Good Samaritan is one of these stories. And notice the point of the story, Jesus' last words in reference to it: "Go and DO likewise." 
• Finally, notice that when Jesus is tempted, he quotes from Deuteronomy. The man had it in his head and used it to fight the enemy. It's too bad that we think the Law is the enemy. It's like the enemy has convinced us to do battle without our sword... 

It might surprise you to hear me say that Paul thought about the Law very differently, too. 
But, let's start with a basic historical fact and then some passages where Paul lays out the basics:

• First, when Paul was writing, the NT was not the NT. His Bible was the OT. So, when Paul says these basic things, he's talking about the OT: 
• The Word of God is the only offensive weapon in the metaphorical armor described by Paul.
• The Word of God is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. (These are all terms, by the way, that parallel what Deuteronomy says about the "Law," but more on that below.)
• I know that there might be exceptions to this, but we shouldn't overlook that this is the baseline of Paul's thinking about the Law. I say baseline because he's using general statements and not getting into the nitty-gritty. 
• Second, even the places where Paul says something negatively about the "Law," he is like Jesus talking about folks who have interpreted the Law a certain way—that is, misinterpreted it. 
• So, when he says: "The law, with it's rules and ordinances, has been abolished..." (Eph 2:15) he says it in a context where he's criticizing certain Jewish folks who have misread and misused the law, and used it to trounce other people.
• There may be exceptions, but we should always attend to the conversation that Paul is having and not the conversation that we're having, and less the conversation we want Paul to be having.
• Third, Paul uses the Law in the way that the Law itself says it should be used.
• Without some standard of behavior, there are no standards of behavior. Do we really think that Paul is advocating a Christianity without certain standards of behavior? If this is true, then is murder alright? Sleeping around? Worshipping other gods? If we agree that Paul does have standards, do we then think that Paul made these standards up on the spot? Perhaps the Spirit led him to new standards? This is certainly possible, but the new standards are so very similar to the old ones. And this is not to mention that Paul, given his training, would have had the Law (especially Deuteronomy) memorized. Deuteronomy was like your favorite quotable movie. It was just part of his regular vocabulary and outlook on life. Paul had, I would argue, let the words of the Law be written on his heart. He had them pressed upon him as a child, he talked about them while sitting or walking, while lying in bed, and when he got up. He had them metaphorically (or maybe literally) tied to his clothes and forehead. (See the great command in Deut 6.) These words were everywhere for him. 
• One example is enough to prove false the claim that Paul didn't use Deuteronomy to support his expectations for Christian behavior. (Though many more could be offered.) 
• Let's take 1 Corinthians 5. Here Paul quotes and/or alludes extensively from/to Law passages. Here he suggests that the Law tells us that we shouldn't sleep with our father's wife. Notice that he doesn't appeal to Roman or Greek customs. He appeals to the "Law." 

And, finally, you'll notice that I've been putting "Law" in "quotation marks." This is because "Law" is a gross mistranslation that has a long history. But the word that the "Law" uses to describe itself, the word that we translate as "Law" is Torah. This is a word that means "teaching." So, I propose that
1.) we start reading the "Law"
2.) we whenever we see or hear the "Law" we think "teaching" instead
3.) we read the NT without a critical eye to the NT's Scriptures
4.) we take the yoke of Jesus' teaching upon us, in other words, we accept his gracious offer of forgiveness and then respond by going and doing likewise.

"Bible Studies"

Today, my reading has me digging into the work of Norbert Lohfink, a (the?) preeminent German Old Testament Scholar—who happens to be Roman Catholic (Jesuit priest). He is nearly 90 years old. The word "prolific" can hardly contain his career. His list of published works is 80 (that's right eight-zero) pages long! (link)

In addition to some heavy academic lifting, Dr. Lohfink has also done much to leverage his considerable knowledge and study for the benefit of the church. He has contributed a whole lot of stuff to the liturgical readings (daily Scripture readings of [in this case] the Roman Catholic Church), translation, etc., etc.

This reminded me of a conversation that I had recently with someone doing "Bible studies" at church and a tragedy of the contemporary American Evangelical scene. In what follows, I mean no disrespect, but I do wish to offer a challenge. (Change can't happen without at least acknowledging that something is not as good as it could/should be.)

The tragedy is not that there aren't the equals of Dr. Lohfink (there are!), but that the average church-goer doesn't want to listen to them. Instead, we listen to folks who have fame or flash or "woo" but lack substance. For proof, just look at a list of the "Bible Studies" on offer in any Christian bookstore. (For example, and be sure to sort by "bestseller.")

My experience in teaching college students (both the traditional 19 year old but especially the non-traditional adult student) how to hone their Bible reading skills, I have identified a few problems. 

1. An underlying and un-examined imbibing of our culture's veneration of fame. (I could invoke the current political race and Evangelical participation in it to prove my point, but I'll refrain...oh wait, whoops.)
2. An underlying and un-examined distrust or even fear of academic study of the Bible. It befuddles me that we'd rather trust someone from the bestseller list than someone who has dedicated their life to studying Scripture, has parsed through important and difficult issues, *and remains faithful to the Lord in the midst of it*. There are *many* people like Dr. Lohfink within the Evangelical tradition. 
3. But academics aren't off of the hook here. These brilliant, creative, faithful people seem to lack the creativity and expertise to write such material. There are notable exceptions. (See here and especially here.) But we should also note that these studies aren't jumping off of the shelves.