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.

How Shall They Hear?

It seems to me that Proctor not only describes how one should present a sermon, but writes his book as if it were a sermon, to serve as an example. Though different from an actual sermon that he would present to a congregation, his book embodies a style that shares many traits with a sermon:

-He uses personal anecdotes, such as his surgery
-He uses repetition, such as repeating the phrase "How Shall They Hear" to form a theme
-He quotes scripture, not only in the title but in other places, such as Psalm 121
-He uses other rhetorical techniques such as rhetorical questions

Perhaps Proctor uses this language because he is used to giving sermons, or perhaps he hopes to show on a second level how one should write a sermon.

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.

Pilate

Reading Luke 23-24 reminded me of my confusion about the role of Pilate in the New Testament. Often times in literary allusions Pilate has an extremely negative connotation and he is made out to be the "bad guy" in the situation. However, Luke reminds us that Pilate argued that Jesus had done nothing wrong; he wanted to flog him and let him go. It was the crowd who insisted that Jesus be crucified and Pilate eventually gave in. Is it because he had the final word that he is portrayed negatively? What does this confusion have to do with Jewish/Christian relations today?

Qur'an and Woman

While reading Qur'an and Woman, I came up with a similar question to the one posted about women in Judaism. Muhsin says, "The existence of one in such a pair is contingent upon the other in our known world. These are the Qur'anic pairs. Night flows into day; the male is irrevocably linked with the female as man is compatibly linked with woman" (21).

Though Muhsin is trying to show that this idea of pairs shows equality between men and women - each is equally important to the pair - this could be a dangerous perspective. What does this idea mean for homosexuals or people who choose not to marry? Is a man without a woman incomplete; is a woman without a man incomplete?

Averroes: The Decisive Treatise

This treatise seems to say that philosophy is not only allowed by the Law, but demanded by it. However, it concludes by saying, "Thus whoever tampers with them, by making an interpretation not apparent in itself, or [at any rate] more apparent to everyone than they are (and that [greater apparency] is something nonexistent), is rejecting [25] their wisdom and rejecting their intended effects in procuring human happiness (184).

How is one to determine whether an interpretation is "apparent" or not? This treatise seems to believe it has solved the problem of philosophy and religion, but who can judge this matter of "apparent interpretation" when everyone has his or her own perspective?

How does this idea relate to Midrash and the arguments of interpretation?

Qur'an as the Word of God

The section in chapter three of JCM brought up some interesting questions for me. Because Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the Word of God, revealed to his Prophet, how do they respond to the fact that men were the ones to actually write the text? Is there any acknowledgment of the possibility of error in writing and translating? This chapter raised at least four processes in which the original text or original oral word could have been distorted:

1.) Oral transmission
2.) Pulling together the multiple versions of oral tradition into text
3.) Adding consonants to the text (if a word was misinterpreted this could change the meaning)
4.) Translating the text from Arabic to English and other languages.

How do Muslims respond to these problems? The same could be asked for Jews and Christians, as the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts underwent the same processes.

Like Bread on the Seder Plate

I just wanted to post this picture to go along with my comment to Sophie's post. If you're interested in Jewish feminism, this is a good book to read.

Messianism in Judaism

After reading chapter four in JCM, I'm still unclear about the place of Messianism within Judaism. The chapter explained the history of messianic views and some messianic movements, but how do Jews today respond to this? Are Jews still waiting for a Messiah?

Perhaps modern Jews take the Messianic promises of the Bible to mean the people of Israel or as something less concrete, as JCM says, "...the title of Messiah is ascribed to King David...the term also refers to all descendents of David's line who sat on his throne" (78). Can anyone help clarify what the state of Messianism is in Judaism today? Or is it different for all people and denominations?

Women in Judaism

In response to JBK's question, I think men and women definitely have distinct relationships with Torah. This distinction can be on many levels, starting with the fact that men have traditionally been encouraged to study Torah, while women have not. But even those women who do study Torah have a different relationship with it because, as the professor in "Half the Kingdom" stated, the texts were written and studied by men. Another woman believed that women were not absent from the writing process, but were involved indirectly. Because of this, women studying Torah need to search for the woman's voice.

I can understand the traditional concept that men and women have different roles: men worship though study of Torah while women worship through their domestic tasks. Just the fact that men and women have separate roles does not mean that one is naturally superior. But it is when Torah study is seen as the ultimate goal and glory of a Jew's life that the women's role seems inferior. I was struck by the woman in the film who said that women are worshiped in Israel as mothers and wives, but not as individuals. This shows that women are not viewed negatively, they are worshiped even, but their whole being is not considered, only their ability to become wife and mother. As I learned in the Religion and Sexuality class, this view is extremely difficult for women who don't fit this role, such as lesbian Jews or women who cannot or chose not to conceive.

While I think that Jewish women need to look for change, I did not, however, agree with everything the professor in the film had to say. Because some scripture and tradition contains sentiments that might be offensive to women, does this mean that we should get rid of all scripture and traditions? Where does one draw the fine line between making positive changes to a religion and distorting it? I agree with the approach of the orthodox woman who studied Torah with a women's group. Women shouldn't disregard Torah, but should deal with the parts that upset them, and find their voice within it.

Moral Questions

I want to hear people's opinion on Holtz's claim that "Biblical narrative rarely moralizes. It explores moral questions, to be sure, but it is in the wit and nuance of the specific moment that one is to find the narrative's intelligence most concentrated" (63). What does this mean for modern followers of the Bible. Can we take away "morals" from the Bible? I just think this is so interesting because people usually look to the Bible for these values, and justify lifestyles based on these so-called morals.