It was about ten years ago in the music department at a community college I had attended a few years prior. A former classmate of mine had just given his final semester guitar recital, and he’d been a smashing success. I recall overhearing his instructor talking to his parents. Something like, “There’s nothing left for me to teach him. He needs to transfer to a university to progress any further.”
I raised my eyebrows. This guitar instructor was an accomplished performer and experienced educator. Not only that, I’d always passed him off as being rather arrogant. So it was a pleasant surprise to hear him admit that a student had progressed beyond his capabilities as a teacher.
There are other examples of school teachers, college professors, and instructors in the fine and performing arts I’ve known over the years, who were vocal about their desire to see their students go as far as possible, even if it meant handing them over to others more capable. They push their students to meet, if not study, with the best in the discipline. They’d rather send off their best undergraduate students to the best graduate programs than hold them back by keeping them for themselves.
On the other hand, I’ve also known those with the opposite intentions. There was one piano teacher who had stars in her eyes. She saw a promising concert pianist in one of her teen students and dreamed about being the one to get her to the stage. She stubbornly refused to admit that she was incapable of getting her student to that level. There was also a double bass teacher who practically sabotaged his student’s chances to enter a better program at another school. I’ve seen envy pit professors against each other, fighting over students who don’t even want to be in their field. They’d rather tear up their colleagues’ reputations than admit that they don’t have the same skills or prestige.
When I read John 1:19-51, I see how admirable John “the Baptist” was. A number of passages in the New Testament, along with much of the historical record, indicate that the Sadducees and Pharisees had all of the knowledge and understanding of prophecy and tradition needed to verify that Jesus was the promised Messiah, but they stubbornly refused to acknowledge Him because they prided themselves in being the respected religious authorities of the day.
John “the Baptist,” on the other hand, knew his place and limitations. He heeded the sign given to him from God (vv. 32-33). He didn’t complain when two of his disciples (Andrew and possibly John) left to follow Jesus (vv. 35-40). He didn’t complain when Jesus’ baptism became more popular than his, and instead gave his wholehearted approval, recognizing Jesus as the superior teacher (John 3:22-30).
Humility is not an easy virtue to acquire or maintain. No one likes being put in his place. Why then do it yourself? Yet, John “the Baptist” serves as a great example of how to act humbly. His actions prove what a great teacher he really was.
This devotional was written as an assignment for Robert T. Davis’ course on “Johannine Literature,” which I am currently auditing at the Southern California School of Evangelism at Buena Park Church of Christ.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Devotional: John 1:1-18
I vaguely remember Sunday School teachers talking about the Greek concept of logos (λόγος) and trying to explain ideas of divine wisdom and the rational order of the universe to us bored children, who pretended to understand. We got the general idea that, rather than merely meaning “word,” logos meant something broader, but twenty-five years or so later, I’m not sure I understand it any better.
Christian tradition says that the apostle John traveled to Ephesus, a coastal city in Asia Minor, and there preached and wrote his gospel and three epistles. It’s no surprise then that he’d open his gospel (John 1:1-18) with a reference to the ideas of its ancient philosopher, Heraclitus “the obscure.” I thought it would be interesting to see what he said on the subject, so here’s a portion of the first passage provided in William Harris’ “Heraclitus: The Complete Fragments: Translation and Commentary and the Greek Text”:
A few parallels between the Greek philosopher and the disciple of Christ stood out to me. Heraclitus says that logos is eternal. John says that logos existed from the beginning (v. 1). Heraclitus says that through logos “all things come to pass.” (I’d interpret this as saying everything originates from logos.) John says that logos created all things (v. 3). Heraclitus says that people remain ignorant even after hearing logos. John essentially says that people were ignorant and rejected logos (vv. 10-11).
It does look like the two are saying the same things. Yet for all their similarities, John seems more optimistic, proclaiming that there are those who recognize what logos is and accept it (vv. 12-13). And through that recognition, those enlightened (v. 9) can thus receive the grace of God (vv. 14 & 16). It is not clear to me that Heraclitus saw the future with the same hope (although that might be blamed on his works being preserved in quotes and fragments). Perhaps we can say that John took Heraclitus’ concept of logos but added hope and salvation where there was previously just knowledge.
This devotional was written as an assignment for Robert T. Davis’ course on “Johannine Literature,” which I am currently auditing at the Southern California School of Evangelism at Buena Park Church of Christ.
Christian tradition says that the apostle John traveled to Ephesus, a coastal city in Asia Minor, and there preached and wrote his gospel and three epistles. It’s no surprise then that he’d open his gospel (John 1:1-18) with a reference to the ideas of its ancient philosopher, Heraclitus “the obscure.” I thought it would be interesting to see what he said on the subject, so here’s a portion of the first passage provided in William Harris’ “Heraclitus: The Complete Fragments: Translation and Commentary and the Greek Text”:
Although this Logos is eternally valid, yet men are unable to understand it -- not only before hearing it, but even after they have heard it for the first time. That is to say, although all things come to pass in accordance with this Logos, men seem to be quite without any experience of it.
A few parallels between the Greek philosopher and the disciple of Christ stood out to me. Heraclitus says that logos is eternal. John says that logos existed from the beginning (v. 1). Heraclitus says that through logos “all things come to pass.” (I’d interpret this as saying everything originates from logos.) John says that logos created all things (v. 3). Heraclitus says that people remain ignorant even after hearing logos. John essentially says that people were ignorant and rejected logos (vv. 10-11).
It does look like the two are saying the same things. Yet for all their similarities, John seems more optimistic, proclaiming that there are those who recognize what logos is and accept it (vv. 12-13). And through that recognition, those enlightened (v. 9) can thus receive the grace of God (vv. 14 & 16). It is not clear to me that Heraclitus saw the future with the same hope (although that might be blamed on his works being preserved in quotes and fragments). Perhaps we can say that John took Heraclitus’ concept of logos but added hope and salvation where there was previously just knowledge.
This devotional was written as an assignment for Robert T. Davis’ course on “Johannine Literature,” which I am currently auditing at the Southern California School of Evangelism at Buena Park Church of Christ.
Monday, January 14, 2013
More Thoughts on I Corinthians
Ever hear about unity on “matters of faith” and liberty on “matters of opinion”? It’s a principle followed by a decided majority of members of Restoration Movement churches. The intent is to encourage steadfastness on the fundamental beliefs of Christianity (e.g., Christ’s resurrection) while not getting caught up in the kinds of trivial arguments that have divided denominations over the centuries. “Matters of faith” are universal, and people must convert their beliefs and behavior to them. “Matters of opinion” are personal, to be believed or practiced in private and not forced on others.
Unfortunately, no one agrees what’s “essential” and what’s “non-essential.” The result has been a history of division among the Restoration Movement’s offspring (e.g., independent Christian Churches, the Churches of Christ) in the form of heated arguments, “defellowshipping” (i.e., excommunication), church splits, and the creation of sub-movements. In short, one man’s universal “matter of faith” is another man’s personal “matter of opinion.”
Nearly every day, I hear or read something related to this issue, and while ago I realized that something important is strangely absent from the discussion. Who says that Christians aren’t to express their opinions or seek to convert others to them? Revisiting 1 Corinthians 7 (ESV), we can see that Paul had no problem giving instruction to Christians that, by his own admission, wasn’t from the Holy Spirit:
In other words, Paul gave orders on “non-essentials”! From a Stone-Campbellite perspective, this is enough to throw suspicion on the soundness of the entire passage (not to mention the entire book). If we obey what he says, then we are clearly following “man’s personal opinion.”
Now, let’s assume that Paul wasn’t sinning by giving these instructions to the Corinthians, and that his Corinthian readers weren’t sinning if they obeyed him. Why, then, should there be one rule for Paul and another for members of the contemporary Church when it comes to spreading personal views? This passage suggests that the New Testament Church might have thought it perfectly acceptable for one Christian to present to others well-thought out, well-reasoned arguments about issues of personal concern.
If Paul was allowed to express his own opinions, maybe we should rethink forcing others to be silent. Of course, their conclusions would be non-binding. But their godly reputations may warrant at least a fair hearing and thoughtful consideration.
Unfortunately, no one agrees what’s “essential” and what’s “non-essential.” The result has been a history of division among the Restoration Movement’s offspring (e.g., independent Christian Churches, the Churches of Christ) in the form of heated arguments, “defellowshipping” (i.e., excommunication), church splits, and the creation of sub-movements. In short, one man’s universal “matter of faith” is another man’s personal “matter of opinion.”
Nearly every day, I hear or read something related to this issue, and while ago I realized that something important is strangely absent from the discussion. Who says that Christians aren’t to express their opinions or seek to convert others to them? Revisiting 1 Corinthians 7 (ESV), we can see that Paul had no problem giving instruction to Christians that, by his own admission, wasn’t from the Holy Spirit:
“Now as a concession, not a command, I say this.” (v. 6)
“I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.” (v. 7)
“To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am.” (v. 8)
“To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband…” (v. 10)
“To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.” (v. 12)
“Only let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him, and to which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.” (v. 17)
“Now concerning the betrothed, I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.” (v. 25)
“I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is.” (v. 26)
“I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord.” (v. 32)
“I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.” (v. 35)
“Yet in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I too have the Spirit of God.” (v. 40)
In other words, Paul gave orders on “non-essentials”! From a Stone-Campbellite perspective, this is enough to throw suspicion on the soundness of the entire passage (not to mention the entire book). If we obey what he says, then we are clearly following “man’s personal opinion.”
Now, let’s assume that Paul wasn’t sinning by giving these instructions to the Corinthians, and that his Corinthian readers weren’t sinning if they obeyed him. Why, then, should there be one rule for Paul and another for members of the contemporary Church when it comes to spreading personal views? This passage suggests that the New Testament Church might have thought it perfectly acceptable for one Christian to present to others well-thought out, well-reasoned arguments about issues of personal concern.
If Paul was allowed to express his own opinions, maybe we should rethink forcing others to be silent. Of course, their conclusions would be non-binding. But their godly reputations may warrant at least a fair hearing and thoughtful consideration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
