Luke 24:
Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, Jesus interpreted to them the things written about himself in all the scriptures. The course was twelve weeks, and each week there was an assigned reading with a short quiz. The disciples were required to submit a 4500-word paper (MLA formatting), and there was a midterm and a final exam (comprehensive). Upon satisfactory completion of course work, each disciple was awarded a Master of Divinity degree.
*20/711/13*
In the media business model, you are the product, not the customer, which the media companies sell to advertizers. That is the underlying impetus for the production of all the media we consume.
I know this is cliche in a sense, but I have been thinking about it a lot lately.
*19/711/13*
There is something of a magic formula for referencing sources in graduate school scriptural exegesis papers. Make sure to consult some “reputable” commentaries, use the standard reference works, and be sure to include some journal articles (always more than you think). But there are some fundamental issues concerning the use of critical sources in exegesis which I have not seen addressed adequately:
•What is the justification for the use of critical sources in exegesis? At times I feel as though the practice borders on the appeal to authority fallacy. I know that the practice is meant to foster interaction among commentators, and this is supposed to increase the quality of exegesis (and I believe it can). However, I am not sure why such sources are necessary to ascertain the meaning of the text.
•If exegesis is centered around interaction with other sources, it is really a descriptive or critical commentary of those sources and not exegesis of scripture in its own right.
•What is the logic behind the selection of sources? Each topic has its own compulsory sources (e.g. Raymond Brown for the gospel of John). But how many sources are necessary to adequately engage the community on a given topic? It is practically impossible to interact with every published work. So how do I decide which sources and how many to interact with?
•Concerning the ubiquitous phrase “most scholars believe”: How do we actually measure consensus among Biblical scholars? Does anyone actually gather data before making such an assertion? How do we decide which votes count? If there is a consensus, what does that mean? Besides being descriptive of prevailing views, how does that help us better understand the meaning of the text?
*18/711/13*
An American television network is talking about producing television shows based on the products of advertizers:
The collaboration between NBC and Omnicom offers “a unique way of giving brands a seat at the table with writers and producers in developing episodic programming that ties directly to brand needs,” Omnicom Media Group Digital chief executive Matt Spiegel said.
This is of course opposed to the the status quo, where programs are produced specifically to tie into the brands’ needs.
*17/711/13*
Last night I had the pleasure of viewing a new documentary entitled Lord Save Us From Your Followers. The film uses a style reminiscent of Morgan Spurlock to examine “why the gospel of love is dividing America.” A number of devices are used, including the confession booth concept from Blue Like Jazz, to examine various aspects of the relation of the church to the rest of the world. Since this is an American film, it touches on abortion, gay marriage, and bumper-sticker ethics. In other words, this film is a critique of the “culture wars.” The film is not only deconstructive, however, and some positive examples of church-world interactions are explored.
I believe that this movie is for virtually everyone. You are a Christian? See it. You know a Christian? See it. You once heard something about Jesus? See it. And bring your friends. It will foster a conversation that will help us live a better life together.
Then why the snarky post title (”Lord save us from your filmmakers”) if I love the film so much? Well, it is just a play on the film’s title which picks up on the self-deprecating (and more importantly, repentant) tone of the film. Perhaps an alternate title would be “Lord save us from your bloggers.”
*16/711/13*
Pope Benedict XVI is celebrating the mass today at Yankee Stadium. I expected better judgment from the Holy Father than electing to celebrate Jesus’ resurrection in that den of iniquity, the home of the Damn Yankees. The ecumenical movement is dead.
*15/711/13*
For I could wish that I myself were accursed – cut off from Christ – for the sake of my people, my fellow countrymen, who are Israelites. To them belong the adoption as sons, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the temple worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever! Amen.
Romans chapters 9-11 contain no mention of the land of Palestine. So it seems that focusing on possession of the land as the primary aspect of God’s future plan for Israel is to miss the main point of Paul’s argument. It is not the land but the salvation of Israel in exchange for which Paul would gladly count himself cursed.
*14/711/13*
I think I have a new, full-orbed political theology thanks to Switchfoot:
I pledge allegiance to a country without borders
Without politicians
I am broken, I am bitter
I’m the problem, I’m the politician
*13/711/13*
Obama is now running from Jeremiah Wright. I have to say that Jeremiad Wright is a good preacher. I also have to say that I find nothing particularly troubling in his sermons from a theological perspective. As for his apparent subscription to HIV conspiracy theories, I am perplexed. As for various associations (or alleged associations) with controversial groups and individuals, I say perhaps he lacks good judgment.
But when I see his preaching held up as a political liability for Obama, I am saddened. And when I see Obama running away from his pastor for saying such things, I descend into a deeper level of cynicism about politics than ever before.
*12/711/13*
This week Philosophy Talk had a great caller-submitted conundrum: A woman bought a used children’s book for her nieces which turned out to contain inappropriate content (racism). Should she simply return it to the store and risk another child being exposed to it, or should she destroy (by recycling) the book and become a censor?
I found the crucial concept to be that of separating the type of the book (which is really the idea) from the token of her copy. For her to destroy her personal copy is not censorship, because the idea is still available. She is just doing her best to ensure the ethical transmission of the idea (i.e. not falling into the hands of impressionable children). The caller also noted that she might hang on to the book in order to educate the girls about racism at a more suitable age.
I have considered the same question when a friend became convinced that some CDs were not appropriate but sold them to a used record shop instead of destroying them. So overall, I think I would destroy media I thought to be harmful.
*11/711/13*