The purpose of a sermon

Our most recent assignment and also the past few readings have made me wonder what exactly the purpose of a sermon is. What do people look a for once a week on Sunday? I used to always think that a sermon was a sort of weekly "spiritual renewal" - a chance to reflect on God in this time taken out of the busy week. But I don't think this was always the case - church on Sunday wasn't always the exception - I think religion used to be a much larger part of Christians' day to day lives. Has the purpose of the sermon shifted since people's relationship to religion has shifted? I think that at one time, the sermon may have been more about teaching than about consolation or renewal.

In any case, how does scripture relate to the purpose of a sermon? What's interesting is that I think scripture can function in a sermon in these different ways and others. Scripture, in this case the Old and New Testaments, encompass so many ideas that it can be used from purposes of teaching to purposes of consolation.

What kind of book is the Bible?

Richard Mouw’s The Bible in Twentieth-Century Protestantism was very interesting. However, what struck me the most was not the fact that certain groups within Christianity have different opinions on the bible; it was the fact that ONLY 48 percent of Protestants and 41 percent of Catholic believed that “the Bible is the word of God and is not mistaken in its statements and teachings”
I understand that every Christian has his or her opinion about “what kind of book the Bible is”; whether they are doctrinalists, pietists, moralists/legalists, or culturalists, every Christian has distinctive opinion on the Bible.
Some might say it is a source that talks everything about God, some might say it is a bridge that connects to God, some might say it is a guideline which tells us how to live the moral life, and some might say it is a handbook which tells us how to survive in this world.

Yet, I just don’t understand that 52 percent of Protestants and 59 percent of Catholic do not believe that “the Bible is the word of God, thus it is absolute”.
Christianity I know is not only accepting Jesus Christ as the only Son of God (who had come to die and suffer for salvation of humanity), but also accepting the Bible as the word of God, the absolute TRUTH.
It is wrong to “WORSHIP” the bible, but I do not believe that it is right to accept the Bible merely as a source, bridge, guideline, or handbook.

How could Christians say that the Bible contains mistakes while believing that the Bible tells about everything about God? How could Christians say that the Bible is not the word of God while reading them in order to connect to God, and find the moral guidelines and tips to survive in this world? If they do not believe that the Bible is not the word of God thus absolute, why do they even bring the Bible to the church?

I mean, if the Bible is not the word of God, why do we even care what kind of book the Bible is?

God’s will and Free will

I believe that God has a plan for me, and I also believe that everything happens according to His plan. I know what God wants me to do, and I am going to follow His will whether I like it or not, because I do trust that ONLY GOD knows what is best for me.
God had created me not because He was bored, but because He had a plan for me. He had to personalize me specifically not because he was creative, but because He had a specific plan for me.
I do know that I do not necessarily need to follow His will. God has given me free will that I can always do whatever I want to do.
However, I cannot disobey His will, because God has given me free will only to love and respect him “willingly”.
God did not have to give me free will; He could have simply created me to do whatever He wants me to do. Yet, He did not create me as a robot, because He wanted to “see” if I could respect and love Him back “willingly.”
I can prove to Him that I do love and respect him only by following His will or living my life according to His plan. I know that God will love and wait for me no matter how far I run away from Him through disobeying His will. Yet, why would I do that knowing that disobeying God will only break His heart as well as mine?

We know what our parents want us to do (or what they want us NOT to do). Yet, it is OUR CHOICE whether we follow their wills or not. Parents will love us no matter what we do, but can we be truly happy knowing that what we are doing is making them sad?

Class in the Chapel

When we were talking about the ideas of free will and if god really does have a set plan for all of us i realized that that is one of my fundamental issues with christianity. I have found myself slowly becoming more and more interested in christianity but i keep wondering about the whole role of god. I mean so many people believe that either god has plans for everyone or than he doesnt and that we have free will but god watches over us. I sorta like both those ideas but i want something more concrete almost. I just want to know what really is the deal with god? Does he have a plan for us all or is it more a rough draft and we are the ones the edit it to make the final version and when we die and supposedly go to heaven is it then that god gives us a grade on our final life draft? Just some things i have been pondering.

Fasting

I also thought the reading in JCM was interesting, particularly the section on fasting. I'm surprised that the ritual still continues to this day and is "inseperable" for most Christians with prayer. I personally don't believe that through fasting demons will be expelled or our sins will be forgiven. If a murderer fasts, is he/she forgiven for his/her sins then? Another idea that struck me was the statement, "fasting was believed to heighten the soul's power to concentrate on prayer, since it helped to distance it from the demands of the body." When I read this, the first religion that came to mind was Buddhism. In Professor Timm's "Engaged Buddhism" class we learned that Theravadin Buddhists, in partucular fast as a method of purification and as a means of freeing the mind.

Worship and Ritual in Christianity

The JCM reading on worship and ritual in Christianity was interesting. I liked the way it discussed different Christian perspectives, rituals and ideologies based on the history of the New Testament. I also thought the reading did a good job summarizing and examining Christian perspectives and relationships to Judaism and Islam. It seemed to me that most Christian rituals are the ones Jesus and the New Testament scholars considered.

The part I enjoyed most was the part about European missionaries and indigenous Africans. I was born in a region where European missionaries (Catholics and Protestants) competed over indigenous people for conversion. As the reading put it, there were some misunderstandings and differences between the missionaries and indigenous people. The persons the missionaries wanted to convert did like some Christian rituals because they were against their cultures. For example, pouring water over heads for baptism seemed strange to Africans because it was a symbol of action, not a sign of religious identity. “In Christianity, Ritual and prayer is ritual, and ritual is prayer. Ritual and prayer are most often called ‘worship’ by Christians” (JCM 236). I am not sure about the first religions and traditions we studied early, but is Christianity the only religion, which considers prayer and ritual to be the same? I do not see ritual and prayer as different words because they have distinctive meanings.

Monday's Class

I really enjoyed the visiting professor that came on monday. I thought that he gave a lot of new information about that bible that I wasnt really informed about. I thought it was especially cool when he showed us the images of the remains of different manuscripts. It made me a lot more interested in the restoration of these different texts. When he mentioned that some of the texts were omitted from the bible during the time of constantine was also very interesting, I had no idea that the texts that were included were decided by a small group of men that constantine had chosen. I now wonder if christianity would be very different if the texts that were omitted has been included in the text.

Does God Speak to us?

Do you believe that God speaks to us? Or do you believe that God is too almighty or… busy to communicate with human beings? If you believe that God speaks to you from time to time, how does he do that?

As a Christian, I do believe that God speaks to us, and I also believe that He sends His messages in various ways.
He may talk to us through the bible… He may use other people/messengers to deliver His messages to us… He may allow certain circumstances in our life to lead us to discover His message… or He may simply talk to us directly just like the way He did to Moses and other prophets/kings from the Old Testament.

When Professor Kraus first asked Jackie to read Matthew Chapter 4 verse 2 through 11, I felt completely nothing as I knew what the passage was about. I read and heard the passage many times before, and I had never ever felt that God was trying to tell me something through the passage from Matthew 4:2-11.
Yet, today was different. I could feel myself becoming extremely emotional as Professor encouraged us to find “what God is trying to tell each one of us through this passage”; the more the passage was read by different people, the more I felt that God was sending me the same message over and over again. Overall, I felt that… I mean, I understand that it might sound very funny, but I believe that God spoke to me today through inspiring professor Kraus to make his students read Matthew 4:2-11 over and over again on 04/11/2008 for his REL 204 class.

I understand that lots of people, even many Christian friends of mine, might say “no, that is ridiculous” or “well, you are taking it too seriously.” However, I really did receive an answer to the problem that I had been dealing with for the past two weeks, and this is more amazing, because I prayed God to send me the message last night… (I don't know I might be just too religious)

The Song of Songs

I still remember the day when I first read the Song of Songs.
I was shocked...confused... embarrassed...

I simply did not understand why the Bible, the Holy Scripture, was containing the story of two lovers.

Even though I later learned that the Song of Songs was an allegorical representation of the relationship of God and Israel as husband and wife, I still did not understand why the book(the Song of Songs) had to be so 'erotic.'

However, while struggling to find the inner meaning of the Song of Songs (after Monday's class), I realized that there was no reason for the Song of Songs to be ashamed of.

Yes, the Song of Songs contains detailed, vivid descriptions of the desire of two lovers for each other. Yet, the desire, which is described in the Song of Songs, is/should be considered honorable, because those two lovers have been permitted by God to have the pure desire of wanting each other (both physically and psychologically) as husband and wife (or bridegroom and bride).

I might be wrong, but personally I think that the Song of Songs is meant to justify and emphasize God's design for sex (or sexual activies) within marriage.

INTERESTING ARTICLE I FOUND

Song of Solomon: God's Sex Education For Ages 11 to 99

What is Christian Scripture?

In response to JBK's question about what comprises Christian scripture, I believe that it is a combination of the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament is interpreted from a Christian perspective and added to by the New Testament. Though the New Testament interprets the Old, I don't think it's fair to say that one is primary and on is secondary- each without the other would not function as Christian scripture; together they equal Christian scripture.

A passage from the reading of 1 Corinthians for tomorrow reminded me of this:

"Let me remind you, my friends, that our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all of them passed through the Read sea; so they all received baptism into the fellowship of Moses in cloud and sea. They all ate the same supernatural food, and all drank the same supernatural drink; for they drank from the supernatural rock that accompanied their travels - and that rock was Christ." 1 Corinthians 10:1-4.

This passage and many like it show the New Testament's interpretation of the Old Testament. Paul adds Christian ideas and vocabulary to the Old Testament. Without this addition, the Old Testament would not be as significant to Christians- this is why I believe that both Old and New Testaments together form Christian scripture.

Does Jesus fulfill the Hebrew prophecy? or Does the Hebrew prophecy fulfill the life of Jesus?

When professor asked us, during the class on Monday (03/31/08), if the Old Testament prophecies mentioned in the gospels were talking about Jesus, I said "YES" without thinking further about the question. Just like other Christians around the world, I strongly believe that Jesus was sent from God as the fulfillment of the Hebrew prophecy; I also believe that Jesus was the Messiah whom the Jews had awaited for centuries.

Yet, Jesus was clearly neither the King Messiah nor the Priest Messiah figure who the Jews had expected to see; Jesus came neither to reconstruct the temple of Jerusalem nor to fight against the Roman Government. Moreover, various historians/scholars have argued that a number of fulfillment citations found in the gospels were not related to Jesus/the future Messiah at all.
For example, both Mark and Luke claim that Jesus was born of a virgin referencing Isaiah 7:14, but the scholars have pointed out that Isaiah 7:14 is not about virginal conception (it is about God's destroying the armies of Syria & Northern Israel).Therefore, some concluded that the Old Testament prophecies were reinterpreted to fit Christians' beliefs in Jesus (after Jesus' crucifixion or... resurrection).

As a Christian, I cannot agree that the authors of the gospels had reinterpreted the Hebrew prophecy to make a random person the future Messiah depicted in the Old Testament.
However, I respect that everyone has his/her own belief and opinion about anything. So, which do you think came first, Jesus or the Hebrew prophecy.... and how do you think, your answer is going to affect all the Christians around the world?

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John

The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ who has been depicted as the Son of Man, the Son of God, the King of Jews, and the Messiah. However, each gospel presents its own version of Jesus Christ which is slightly different from one another (each gospel tells us different details about the life of Jesus).

I understand that it is because each gospel is written by a different author who had a different purpose and opinion about Jesus. However, I wonder, if the vast majority of Christians actually believe that the gospels were written by people (not by God or by the inspiration of God) that the gospels (the words of God) even contain numerous errors made by those authors.

I personally believe that the bible, the gospels were written by the inspiration of God through those authors. However, I realized that the majority of Christians are not willing to admit that the holy scriptures were actually written by humans (they tend not to think about the origin of the bible).

Do you think that the fact that the bible was written by humans, (or the fact that those gospels were written by mysterious people) can affect one’s belief in Jesus Christ?

Christian Scripture

In response to JBK, I believe that Christian Scripture is mainly about "the dynamic personality of Jesus Christ himself" and the way the different writers of the New Testament Gospels interpret his life. For example, Mark does not begin Jesus' life story until he is baptised by John, while Matthew and Luke begin with Jesus' birth, and finally John begins with the creation of the universe. For Mark, Jesus is secretive and does not want news of his miracles to be spread around. However, for John, Jesus is the exact opposite as the man described by Mark, constantly talking about himself, as seen in his "I am" statements. These are just a few examples of how these authors attempt to describe Jesus' "dynamic personality" that I think Christian scripture tends to revolve around.

Jesus was Buddhist

When we talking about Jesus as scripture yesterday in class in reiterated many similarities I see between the life of Jesus and stories of Tibetan Buddhist yogis we have been looking at in Buddhism. I am really interested in ideas of interfaith and find very interesting that Jesus holds true to ideals sought in other religions.

Wandering in the desert for forty days and forty nights is very similar to a yogi's retreat. Jesus had many visions during this time of things that transcended reality. This is very common in the meditation of yogis. Jesus also had the ability to perform miracles and transcend reality. There are many stories about yogis who left behind footprints or body impressions during their meditations, as well as yogis who were able to perform other miracles.

Jesus also becomes the prime moral example like many yogis. His value on compassion and turning the other cheek ring very true for Buddhists.

The exception is that yogis take disciples and teach their advanced practices to younger generations. Looking at that as an example, I wonder did the historical Jesus want us to worship him as the exemplary or did he intend to create a new tradition of Christian yogis?

Christian Scripture

JBK posted very interesting questions. Even though we talked about Christian scripture in class yesterday, I still have some issues with it. Christians seem to rely on the New Testament scripture more than the Old Testament one. I think Christian scripture is both New Testament and Old Testament. But I noticed that many Christians think that the New Testament is the most important scripture of the two. Also, I noticed that some Christians do not see the Old Testament as the same as the Hebrew Bible because they perhaps do not want to rely on the interpretations of the Jewish scripture. As a Christian I personally enjoy reading the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) because its stories are more interesting than those of the New Testament.

Writing Style

I have found that the writing style of the New Testament is very different than that of the Old Testament, I don't know if anyone else has found this to be true? It keep feeling as though I'm reading a contemporary story instead of an extremely old text. This could be attributed to the translation of the text but it just seems to flow differently than the old testament. The old testament read slightly slower and kept having a genealogical element to it that the new testament does not have. Does the mean that the teachings of Jesus valued less one's family history than the Jews did? I have found that that main family references are that Jesus is the son of God and thats about it. Does the difference in writing style have anything to do with trying to stray away from the Jewish text and to try and differentiate it? Or is it just the time that it was written in and this is the style?

New Testament: Primary or Secondary Scripture?

Is the New Testament a "primary" or "secondary" Scripture, according to William Graham's distinction in his article on Scripture in the Encyclopedia of Religion? I ask because the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament seem nearly always to be interpreting something else. Sometimes it's interpreting passages from the Hebrew Bible, like the verses from Isaiah in Mk 4:12ff, or the Exodus story of the manna, the "bread from heaven" in John 6. Or more often than not, it's interpreting the sayings and biography of Jesus. In that sense, it seems that the sayings of Jesus (and his actions) are an "oral scripture" which the NT painstakingly preserves, interprets, and otherwise "relates to" as Scripture. And it treats the "Old Testament" verses as scripture by quoting them as prooftexts, or prophetic promises that are fulfilled in the life of Jesus. Jesus' sayings and actions become a sort of interpretative key for understanding the "true meaning" of the Old Testament - namely, that it's always referring to Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. So what exactly is Christian Scripture: the Old Testament, the New Testament, or in a sense, the dynamic personality of Jesus Christ himself? Or is it better to say that these are Christian Scriptures only when they're taken together, sort of like the Written and Oral Torahs of rabbinic Judaism? It that's the case, is it correct or even helpful to describe them as primary and secondary scriptures with respect to one other, and if so which is which to which? Finally, if Jesus' dynamic personality can be considered a sort of "Scripture" in terms of the way it functions in a Christian religious worldview, what advantage might that be over scripture as a written text?