Question #1:
Hello Dr. Luginbill,
May the celebration of Jesus Christ of our LORD and Savior rest upon you
each and every day.
I appreciate you and cannot express in words the thanksgiving to God for
all that He has done through your Website.
"He is not here, He has risen!"
My favorite Bible verse.
May the LORD pour out His great blessings on you and your family always.
Your friend,
P.S. God is moving. I will tell you soon.
Response #1:
Thank you, my friend!
Hope you had a blessed day curious to hear your news too.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #2:
Hi Bob,
I have a unusual question for you. How do we explain spiritual attack/ testing
to unbelievers?
I would rather not have to explain at all as I have found it to be very much
"pearls before swine". The problem for me is that when I am going through a
point of struggling with my testing then I tend to "go quiet" with my loved ones
until I am in a better place spiritually. As they are very probing into my life
even on the best days, I find it hard to know what to tell them?
They pretty much demand to know by the way and if I don't give a satisfactory
answer then they always chalk it up to ill health or specifically mentally ill
health. I'm pretty exasperated with this label now but realise that they won't
actually listen to the truth.
Imagine how they would take someone (who they already deem mentally unfit)
saying they were being attacked by Satan? So I need to tell them the truth that
buys me time and gives me peace (usually a day is enough these days) that they
will actually accept.
I can really see why Jesus spoke in parables now! I really understand how
frustrating it is to talk spiritual matters to someone who hasn't the foggiest.
I hope as I mature that I bounce back more and more quickly and won't actually
need these time outs as much. Though I know even our Lord sought time alone to
pray!
In Him,
Response #2:
I can't give you a "rule" since I don't know of one in scripture. That's
probably for good reason. We are all different, our circumstances are
all different, and the testing we undergo is always going to be unique
to us for that reason (in spite of similarities).
You make some good points about the perils of giving others, immature
Christians but especially unbelievers, explanations that might muddy the
waters (especially ones which they will never accept in any case). Our
main witness at these times is the witness of the life. Others see that
we are under pressure, and if we handle that pressure better than they
would be able to do, God has a way of causing them to recognize that.
This may at some point give us the opportunity to witness THE truth to
them, telling them about Jesus.
There's no law against saying, when asked for an explanation, that the
Lord is bringing us through our troubles and that we have absolute
confidence in His doing so.
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.
1st Peter 3:15b
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #3:
I pray all is well with you. Would you mind putting me back on the
notification list when new emails and Bible studies have been posted?
Thank you.
I will also sign up for the RSS feed.
Response #3:
You were never off the list!
Let me explain how the list works (now). I used to send out mass mailers
to everyone who had expressed interest, but I got dinged for sending out
SPAM. Long story short, now I only send out an announcement when I post
a major study, such as the latest installment of the Peter series (next
one coming this summer some time). And I usually do not send an
announcement to those with whom I am in regular or recent contact. I figure
that of course they will know about it because 1) it's on the front page
of Ichthys and 2) I usually put at least part up on the weekly email
page as the weekly offering.
In terms of RSS, let me know how that works for you, will you? RSS used
to be a standard, built-in feature of all web browsers, but some of
them, Firefox, for example, now require you to download and install some
sort of add-on. I don't use it myself since, obviously, I know what I've
posted. If you have an RSS, how well does it work? If you get one, and
get it to work, I'd be grateful for you sharing the details. I do update
the RSS feature every week.
Doing well! Keeping you and your family in my prayers daily as well.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #4:
Doc,
So many people seem to demonize the idea of fun or even enjoying life at
all, even if it's just enjoying the natural world God has given us. Why?
Do you think this is just legalism, or do they truly think a righteous
God means He hates anything that's not explicit, inherent worship of
Him? Why do they think anything that's made for entertainment or fun is
from the devil? I agree we shouldn't let anything become an idol, but
demonizing the idea of fun just because it's not inherent godly good is
absurd.
Response #4:
I wouldn't worry about what other people think. In terms of activities
that are not inherently sinful, if something is bad for you personally,
you still shouldn't do it. But if it's not causing you to stumble or
stunting your personal growth, that's another story. This life is all
about how closely and how well we are following Jesus Christ. Those who
are doing what He wants will win top rewards from Him; those who aren't
are wasting their time in this life . . . or worse.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #5:
[personal struggles reported]
Response #5:
I can relate! It seems that things have gotten busier and busier even
without any particular strapping on of anything major and new. Part of
that has to do with spiritual growth: when we were "young pups" in the
Lord, we couldn't handle this sort of testing so we weren't given it;
part of it has to do no doubt with the times in which we live; and part
of it is probably gracious provision from the Lord, necessary
preparation for the near future when things will become more than just
"busier".
As my dad used to say, "everything is always over". It's not in the
Bible, exactly, but amen to that!
And of course it makes me VERY happy to see how wonderfully you are
handling this extended test. Don't let yourself get put off by momentary
lapses. Those will be with us as long as we have these sin natures.
Don't let "the little foxes" ruin your wonderful garden. Deal with them
and move on.
In the meantime, it can't be being missed by all who are observing you
that you are operating in a "supernatural gear". I'm praying that
they'll act on that. The witness of the life is a very powerful thing
especially when the pressure is on and everyone else knows and can see
that it's on.
"I have full confidence in the Lord to get us through this."
Amen! Nothing is impossible for the Lord, and whenever we are flagging,
if we but trust Him, what He does for us is always amazing.
But those who hope in the LORD will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint.
Isaiah 40:31 NIV
"Can't wait to be with the Lord! Can't wait for that day!" Amen
to that too!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #6:
Hi Bob,
I hope you've had a good day and I'm happy to hear you're enjoying the
sunshine!
Thanks for your prayers for __. I had another conversation a couple of
weeks ago about the Lord. I always wait for my opportunities and I'm
always very gentle about it. Even after everything __ has gone through
___ says beliefs haven't changed - still doesn't believe. But as you say
- we'll keep praying.
Hope you have a good weekend. Another busy one ahead for me. And I'm
looking forward to the emails as always too!
In Jesus
Response #6:
People can be stubborn about coming to (or coming back to) the Lord. I
certainly was! But the Lord really knows how to get the attention of
everyone who has the spark. Just because __ says nothing has changed
doesn't mean that the Lord is not working the problem for us. So we keep
praying.
Reminds me of a joke my old scoutmaster used to tell. A man just
couldn't get his mule to move no matter how hard he yelled or pulled the
bridle. His friend came over and smacked the mule right between the eyes
with a 2 by 4. The mule started moving. "First", said his friend, "you
have to get their undivided attention".
Hot weather continues here but at least we're not on fire like New
Mexico and California.
Keeping you in my prayers too, my friend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #7:
Dear Teacher,
I didn't realize that you were back already. Happy to hear that it went
well, Sir.
Amen, Sir. I look forward to it. It's very rough going right now, but I
feel that things are clearer inside me everyday, like I'm breaking
through the fog and gaining clearer definition as a man and a believer
through this experience. There is still so much I don't know or
understand and very much that I don't know that I don't know, and coming
face to face with my ignorance and inadequacy every time can still be
pretty frustrating.
Keeping you in our prayers here, Sir.
Response #7:
We're all deficient in many ways. As Paul said, not many of us are mighty, wise or noble (1Cor.1:26), and of those who are, they tend not to be the most zealous believers because they are tempted to rely on themselves instead of on the Lord (along the lines of rich people having a hard time entering the kingdom). Recognizing our insufficiency is actually a plus.
And He said to me, My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness. Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in needs, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christs sake. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
2nd Corinthians 12:9-10 NKJV
God always faithfully delivers us. Always. So we just need to trust Him
that this is so, and do our best with the time and energy He has
provided us with out of that faith (rather than slacking off because
we feel it is hopeless). In the end, faith always has the victory. I
have seen that so many times in my own life and also in my observation
of the lives of many other believers.
I wouldn't worry about the other issue. People "do what they do".
Mostly, all we can do is pray for them and steer them in the direction
of the truth if they are willing.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #8:
[omitted by request]
Response #8:
First, I want to commend you for NOT reacting and NOT rising to this
"bait". Good for you!
Second, if I were you, I'd let this one go. This is the kind of drivel
people say all the time without actually having thought about it in any
depth or considered the implications. If an answer is given, a simple
scripture quotation would be my choice:
Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
2nd Corinthians 5:18-19 NKJV
Once people decide to respond to the truth, they generally start asking
questions rather than making pronouncements (as if they already knew it
all). We're unlikely to bring them to that point by arguing with them,
even if we are very good at arguing (or perhaps even especially so
because that will only upset them and lead them to "double down" as you
note). We need to keep praying, keep setting a good example, and keep
putting forth "apples of gold" when the opportunity is truly ripe
(Prov.25:11), avoiding times when we know we're only going to have a
fight.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #9:
[omitted by request]
Response #9:
I am sorry that you're getting so much opposition, but as you have
correctly concluded, it is a help to spiritual growth (pushups are never
fun at the time we're doing them, but they do have positive results).
I'm very proud of the way you are fighting this fight.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #10:
[omitted by request]
Response #10:
For thus says the Lord GOD, the Holy One of Israel:
In returning and rest you shall be saved;
In quietness and confidence shall be your strength.
Isaiah 30:15a NKJV
Indeed, it's really not possible to fix the world. That requires fixing people,
and people "do what they do". Even under duress and pressure, they "do what they
do". We can give them the truth, but they have to want it. It's all about free
will. So while we are obligated to do certain things, like pray for others, we
need to keep our own spiritual house in order first. If we are suffering the
kind of anxiety you are mentioning here, then that's a sure sign that we have
got our eyes off of our own spiritual advance and have become mired down in
trying to fix problems which only God can fix. Our job is to do what's right in
our walk with Him and toward others in love for Him, trusting Him to fix what we
cannot or at least to work it out together for good (Rom.8:28).
So, yes, I do counsel you to do what you say here (and what you said
previously), namely, to leave insoluble problems to the Lord in trust that He
can and will do what is right in answer to prayer, and to not neglect your own
spiritual welfare. If we allow ourselves to be put out of action, then we can't
be much help to anyone else or ourselves either.
Keeping you and your family in my prayers daily, my friend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #11:
[omitted]
I guess also it comes from long standing frustration of having no one to
rely on, even as a Christian, knowing many Christians. I mean I thought
of __ as a friend, but many times when I was concerned about ending up
on the street, not because of stupid decisions, but because I just
didn't have the support others did, __ wasn't there though knowing my
lack. And over the freeze when you took the initiative and asked about
my health, yeah you were the only one (thanks for that). So if my
experience with most believers is like that, that you can't rely on
them, well I am rambling but I think you get the idea.
___ is also giving charity to muslim refugees from Afghanistan. And I
did not express just how much this angered me. But it did anger me. A
large part of my feeling/sense is that it is like giving money to the
Zeus worshipping (Caesar worshipping?) Christian slaughtering Romans
when there are so many believers everywhere in and out of the country
you are living in who need help. So I suppose someone might ask if it is
good to give to this charity if so much doesn't seem to lead anyone to
God or closer to Him except for a rare few?
Thanks for your dedication
Response #11:
Being disappointed by other people is a universal part of the human experience
(cf. Jn.2:24-25). As a Christian, especially one who is dedicated to spiritual
growth, that happens even more often, it seems, because in their heart of hearts
so few are actually equally dedicated. But the more we rely on the Lord, the
happier we will be.
In terms of charity, I have the same basic take as you. Giving money, if one has
it but even more especially if one doesn't have it, is best done in the actual
service of Jesus Christ. And it is also very, very common for people with money
to give to those who either don't really need it or are otherwise obviously
unworthy (from a Christian perspective) while overlooking those near and dear to
them or otherwise very worthy (from that same Christian perspective).
Blessedly, the Lord knows all of our needs and never lets us down in fulfilling
them. Perhaps not immediately (waiting is part of basic testing to develop
patience and trust) and perhaps not in the way the world would wish . . . but
bountifully in terms of giving us what we need to do what He wants us to do.
So keep your eyes on Him, and don't let the failings of human beings throw you
off of your good walk with Him.
Thanks for YOUR dedication in reading the email postings . . . and just a
reminder that these are the dessert (after a week of reading and re-reading the
major postings).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #12:
Well I was remembering the verse that says "There is a friend that sticks closer
than a brother." Originally I used to think that friends are people who are
there for you when things go bad. But now I think you can have situational
'friends' (which I'd prefer to term acquaintances in my own private thoughts),
and I mean types of friends on a spectrum you might say.
So that any 'friend' is not obligated to help you in a time of need. But if they
are there and aware of it, and they seem to you the type of friend you would be
there for, you might rethink being that close to them and your choice to help
them if they needed it. Maybe your help is better spent somewhere else? (Or
maybe not...)
It also helps when I think about it like that there are billions of people and
you will inherently 'reject' (so to speak) some and not others. And you only
have limited resources. So what is wrong with being more proactive and self
directing about that? The Bible talks about being unequally yoked, and this is
kind of what I am aiming at too. If our life is a ship, we want to be
circumspect about who we let help drive it, kind of thing.
Do you think I am in the right ballpark? I used to think Christians had to try
to be friends with everyone and always be willing to give charity but have been
coming around from that lol.
Response #12:
The older I get, the fewer and fewer the people in whom I personally
confide. I've also learned that one shouldn't expect too much of people,
being people, after all (Jn.2:24-25).
The passage you quote, Proverbs 18:24, actually says not "friend" but
"one who loves". Friend is not a bad translation. The passage also says
in the first part of the verse, in Hebrew, that having lots of friends
is a good way to destroy oneself. So the two parts have to be taken
together: there are some friends who are truly exceptional; most are
not. So one needs discernment in committing to friendship (as with all
things), and if a good friend is found, that is something to be
treasured (as all very rare things should be).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #13:
And so, in James 2:14, I note a couple things. First, what the
hypothetical person he is referring to is lacking is severe necessity
like food (starvation) and clothes (heat or cold sicknesses). And
second, it of course must be taken with other verses like John 12:8 (I
am taking it to mean, for one, that this doesn't mean you have to help
every dying person you come across). So with many other verses you and I
have mentioned, and some of which you helped explain, it does seem like
the Bible is not saying Christians have to just be friends with
anyone/everyone and give to anyone who asks and just take any injury
from anyone/everyone. But that actually we should be careful who we are
friends with, even in the Family. And as for helping others, the verses
that directly talk about them are mentioning basic necessities to
survive, and even then you don't have to do it for every person who
happen across. And lastly, taking injury is either only for a particular
reason (witnessing, but only in certain situations, like when Paul
stopped the one about to whip him), or for minor injury that is not like
an ongoing thing.
Do you think I am near the Truth and understanding on this? I really am
trying. I hope this doesn't seem stupid to you. I do think a lot of
believers don't understand this stuff either, though why I don't see a
lot of people asking then, I have no idea.
Response #13:
First, none of us is perfect . . . or in any danger of achieving
perfection. So whatever the true standard, I guarantee you that we all
fall short. At the conclusion of the parable of the "good Samaritan",
Jesus asks "who was neighbor to the man", and when the person replies,
"the one who showed mercy to him", Jesus says, "go and do likewise"
(Lk.10:37). We've discussed before the various aspects of the situation
Jesus uses as an example to demonstrate that there is a big difference
between that set of circumstances and, say, a woman stopping to pick up
a hitchhiker in the dark BIG difference (the latter I would never
recommend). But the parable does challenge us to think in terms of mercy
for those in obvious and serious need rather than in selfishness. All
this has nothing whatsoever to do with friendship, however.
In terms of the James passage, yes indeed there is a question of
grinding need, not merely of relative disadvantage. Also, James' purpose
is to call out the hypocrisy of "talking a good game" without actually
doing anything . . . as a WAY of demonstrating that true faith has
results which are by no means limited to what we today call charity;
James is merely giving an example of dead faith (talking when someone
needs action).
In terms of John 12:8, it's a good observation on your part. We know
that we cannot fix the world and that verse confirms it. Trying to fix
the world is actually evil. Helping one poor person could be a very good
thing (depending on the circumstances and what's in the heart of the
person helping). It is also clearly the case that even if we were rich
as Croesus, there is no way we could help "every poor person we came
across". I would add a reminder that feeling guilty is usually a sign of
misapplying the truth. If we sin, we repent and confess and move on,
making a point not to sin again. But God does not call us to impossible
tasks. Jesus said, For My yoke is easy and My burden is light
(Matt.11:30) not impossible.
The scribes and the Pharisees made an impossible burden out of the Law
(Matt.23:4; Acts 15:10). We are free of that burden entirely, and we
want to use that freedom to the glory of Jesus Christ.
... whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.
1st Corinthians 10:31b
And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.
Colossians 3:17
If we are walking in love, if we are doing what we are doing to the
glory of God and in Christ's name with joy and thanksgiving, there is
"no Law" against any of that (Rom.13:9-10; cf. Matt.22:34-30). So I
would strongly urge all and sundry not to worry about making rules about
befriending others or helping others. If the Spirit moves our hearts to
help in joy, we should do so. But if we are acting out of guilt
feelings, that is almost certainly NOT the Spirit prompting us.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #14:
Hi Dr Luginbill,
So, "love your neighbor as yourself' means more toleration, is what you
were saying right? It does not mean we have to act as friends or even
act friendly with everyone. (In fact, off that verse alone, I don't want
someone to pretend or force friendship with me as I don't think that is
not good for everyone in the long run, or even short run).
The Bible actually tells us to be circumspect who we are friends with,
and if the person is engaged in certain sins, actually not to have
anything to do with them. This is different when it comes to life and
death situations with strangers where you might throw a lifeline. But it
is not requiring us to throw a lifeline to everyone we come across in
such a situation. But to remember, along with many other commands and
things to balance it out, the Good Samaritan and other similar verses.
This also goes the other way in that my fellow Christians are not
obligated to help me in a life and death situation (but if they were
someone I thought of as a friend who I'd do those things for (help them
in such a situation) I may reconsider).
It isn't that I am trying to make rules. I am trying to understand what
He is commanding because apparently I misunderstood for a long time,
lived that misunderstanding out, and harmed myself. It is actually kind
of ironic that people that ignored the Bible got it better than me in
this case. I would still choose the Bible though overall at least.
Would you please tell me if I sound like I understand?
Response #14:
Yes, I think you have it exactly right.
I'm guessing that you would not want someone whom you did not
particularly like foisting him/herself on you because they are
determined to "love their neighbor". Most normal people want good
relations with others but NOT close intimacy with most. That is what I
prefer that is how I would like others to treat me as well. If I were
about to drown, I would appreciate a stranger throwing me a
life-preserver. Intruding in my life otherwise without my asking for
it, even if someone thought they perceived some need, is not something I
would prefer.
It is good to keep an open heart while we read scripture, to let the
Spirit work on us. We all have a lot of rough edges. But it is also a
mistake to take some scripture which reminds us of our shortcomings and
run too far with it, "beyond what is written", out of guilt or a false
interpretation.
As I often say, spiritual growth makes all these sorts of judgments
better in every way (please see the link: in
BB 6A: "Spiritual Discernment").
"Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise (phronimoi: lit. "discerning" or "shrewd") as serpents and harmless as doves."
Matthew 10:16 NKJV (cf. Rom.16:19; 1Cor.14:20; Prov.14:18)So [in all things] you should [always] be calculating what it is that pleases the Lord.
Ephesians 5:10
(9) And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in full-knowledge (epignosis: truth believed) and in all discernment, (10) so that you may be able to evaluate the things that are good and appropriate [for you to do] to be sincere and without offense in regard to the day of Christ (i.e., to gain a maximum reward at Christ's judgment seat), (11) full of the righteous production Jesus Christ [commends] to the glory and praise of God.
Philippians 1:9-11
Solid [spiritual] food is for the [spiritually] mature, those who by [diligent] practice have trained their [moral] perceptive faculties to [properly] distinguish between good and evil.
Hebrews 5:14
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #15:
Bob,
I was just thinking about the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes. When
I read "blessed are the pure in heart" I feel ashamed as I know my heart
is not completely pure. I have seen though that if I walk day by day and
walk by the Spirit that I can make sure that my actions and my words
reflect the Spirit and witness Jesus. I am getting better with my words
than I was but it still feels impossible to tame the tongue.
As I am wrestling with my own tongue more, I see that the battle to do
sin has switched upstairs in that it is in my thoughts now. Thoughts
force themselves in that are not of my choosing. I can tell the
difference now between my own sinful thoughts that drift in and the
intrusive thoughts that force themselves on to me that I very quickly
reject. I say a very quick "no!" or an "out!" but obviously it would be
better to contend with attacks and temptations with Scripture.
I have upped my ante significantly and so I have felt more attacked in
my mind than before. It seems that the enemy can see that I am trying to
tame the tongue or at least stay silent and I guess that is why the war
has broken out in my thoughts.
I do see the fruit of the Spirit when I rest in the Lord and trust Him
like a child. This not only benefits those around me who I can witness
to but also myself. I am learning not to fear and to not try to fix
things myself but to trust Him with the childlike faith. The relief when
I do this is enormous. I suddenly feel unburdened from the things I was
trying to carry and was worrying about and then I feel I have the
strength and the freedom to fulfil my material commitments as well as my
spiritual ones. Yesterday ___ commented on how confident and cheerful I
sounded but my confidence is not from myself but from the Lord.
I try to pray for meekness and humility as the great believers all had
these strengths. I'm sure I will learn a great deal about all this in
your series on the Christian walk.
Many thanks for you continued support and friendship Bob.
In Jesus,
p.s.
A couple from Australia want to fellowship with me! They have had
problems finding a church that teaches the truth so I am really excited
about this! Will start off with emails at first but may move onto
Whatsapp once I get a new second hand phone. This one is IPhone 5s which
is prehistoric now! (Though it has served me well.)
In Him,
Response #15:
That's wonderful!
I've been praying for you for some GOOD Christian contacts for a long
time.
Hope you find a good phone soon as well!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #16:
I just had a quick question. Matthew 18:17, 1 Corinthians 5:11, and 2
Thessalonians 3:6-14 command us not to associate with immoral brothers
or sisters. However, I don't take this to mean that if one of them came
up to me and asked for a cup of water and I gave it to them that I have
somehow violated this command or encouraged their bad behavior even
more. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't believe giving to an immoral brother
who is thirsty is in violation of the command to not associate with
them. I give them a drink, perhaps say a few words, and then they go on
their way. I don't see the Bible condemning this anywhere. I'm not
sharing a meal with them or inviting them into my house because that
would be a type of association forbidden in the passages above. For me
personally, I would want to give them a drink even if it wasn't an
emergency situation. They are just really thirsty and I offer them some
water. I don't see how that is a bad idea. I think I would do it in good
faith (feeling both obligated but also having a genuine desire to do
so.)
So you have my question above which leads me to ask, how far should we
take those passages above? Absolutely no interaction whatsoever, or (as
I believe) there are some exceptions?
Response #16:
Good to hear from you, my friend. How goes the new job?
As to your question, scripture is full of guidance that at first
consideration may seem to collide with other guidance, but it is
inevitably the case that this is true only when one precept or the other
is pushed beyond spiritual common sense.
As you rightly point out, even if a brother or sister has been adjudged
to be unworthy of further association, we would not be right in, e.g.,
refusing to throw them a life-preserver if they fell overboard on some
voyage we both happened to be on.
The purpose of the non-association commands is twofold: 1) to get the
attention of the wayward individuals in order to bring about a change of
heart; and 2) to prevent their bad behavior from negatively influencing
us (cf. Jude 1:22-23). Neither purpose is cruel in any sense but instead
very much in accord with Christian love, when that virtue is properly
understood.
If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you to some extentnot to put it too severely. The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient. Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him. Another reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. Anyone you forgive, I also forgive. And what I have forgivenif there was anything to forgiveI have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake, in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes.
2nd Corinthians 2:5-11 NIV
If anyone should have been tagged with the "don't associate" stricture,
it was the incestuous Corinthian man, the one Paul "handed over to
Satan" in his earlier epistle (1Cor.5:1ff.). But above we see that,
following repentance, once that repentance is seen to be genuine, to
move then to forgiveness and reconciliation is the rule something that
would be impossible to effect if, e.g., said person had drowned for want
of a life-preserver before coming around.
In all such matters, spiritual common sense informed by wisdom and
experience in the spiritually mature is able to "discern what is best"
(Phil.1:10; cf. Heb.5:13-14), that is, to make a good, biblical
application where scripture allows leeway as in this case. Trying to
apply a rules-based, Procrustean standard is mere legalism (and that is
something to be avoided at all costs).
Keeping you in my prayers, my friend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #17:
Hello,
Would you please explain the meaning of your symbol and Greek letters?
Response #17:
Good to make your acquaintance. Ichthys is an acronym wherein each
letter corresponds to the first letter in the words, "Jesus Christ, Son
of God, Savior".
Here's a link to where the Ichthys acronym (the letters and meaning of
the word) is described in more detail:
The Ichthys
Acronym.
Do feel free to write me back if that is not what you were asking about.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #18:
Hi Bob,
Very random assortment of questions here. Had a conversation today with
folks in my debate group, and we ranged over quite a few things. So this
is today's question selection. I'll try to give a bit of context before
each question. That's all just there as background. Actual questions are
bolded, if you'd just like to skip to those.
Textual criticism
Interlocutors attacked sola scriptura on the basis that according to
them it is foolish on a practical level to jump up and down saying "only
the original autographs in the original languages are inspired and fully
accurate" because we don't have the original autographs, only copies of
copies of copies (etc.) at best.
With the implication being, we must accept centralized church authority
(who can be an arbiter of truth in place of scripture, I guess) or
otherwise acknowledge the supposedly huge problem of never being certain
of the text anywhere. (That is, admit that this is a big epistemological
problem in our system that puts so many eggs in the basket of the text
of the Bible itself).
I said something like:
99% (or whatever) of all textual differences don't change meaning
anyhow, but only a small number do. I said we actually have to pick a
meaning. Interlocutors gave examples of ancient commentators not picking
a reading, but giving interpretations for multiple variant readings, and
not seeming to really care that much or be exercised by the
discrepancies. Supposedly this is evidence that we aren't supposed to
worry about such things, or not supposed to use the Bible that way. I
also said that there are principles that can be followed to get to the
bottom of things, and that it's an even smaller number of places where
things are truly murky in any sort of vexing way. So basically, many
people grossly overstate their arguments about textual uncertainty.
Interlocutors attempted to focus things on OT textual criticism since
it's a harder defense on my end. It's true we only have late copies of
the MT (Leningrad codex is c. 1000 AD). I made the point that the DSS
substantially agrees with the MT, so that's one thing. But of course
there are differences too, like in Isaiah, so that one still must
grapple with the big differences that show up in places.
They (being Eastern Orthodox) then focused in on the LXX. The LXX is so
much older than the Hebrew MT witnesses we have, and it differs greatly
in places, so shouldn't we hard-inspiration sola scriptura Evangelicals
be falling over ourselves in uncertainty at all times? (Interestingly,
my interlocutors actually think the LXX is inspired, but that's another
topic for another time).
This is where things got a bit murky for me. It is true that Paul, for
example, echoes the wording of the LXX in places. (Sometimes he just
paraphrases too, and to be fair, there's only so many ways to convey the
same things in Greek. Although that some quotes are direct quotes is
pretty obvious in places).
I've always argued that whatever Paul quotes must be inspired, but that
doesn't mean the whole translation of the LXX is as a whole. It's a bit
reductionistic (by definition, anything Paul quotes must be inspired
because it's in the actual NT), but the position works fine logically,
as it seems to me.
So now we come to the question:
1) Do you have any general places to start in better arguing about the
reasonableness of confidence in the Hebrew of the MT, and also how to
deal with positions that try to give a high amount of significance to
the LXX and its usage in NT quotations? (And also differences between
the MT and DSS)?
Inspiration/inerrancy
I pushed my interlocutors hard on what is lost if one is too loosey-goosey
on the Bible being literally true. (Think inerrancy).
They basically said "it's ridiculous to hold the Bible to the standard
of 21st century historiography" or something along those lines.
"Obviously there are points where taking inerrancy too far gets you
tangled up, silly. It's just the general spiritual meaning that is
important."
I spent a long time trying to define terms (e.g., "a fact is a statement
that is actually true") such that they would concede that they did not
believe that the Bible was completely factually accurate. They quibbled
the whole way saying that I'm projecting modern materialistic
sensibilities upon interpretation (eisegesis). I said "well, the meaning
of the word 'fact' is pretty consistent, so isn't your position exactly
that 'the Bible is not completely factually accurate'?"
The point I was driving towards was that how in the world can you be
certain of anything in the Bible then?
I of course yielded the point that there are places where requiring some
very narrow interpretation will get you into trouble (for example, if
1,127 people were in a field for a concert, and you said "the concert
attendance was a thousand people", nobody is going to give you issues).
Cf. the circumference and diameter of the basin in the OT not quite
lining up to the ratio of 3.14159... (etc.).
Some points in the conversation I shook my head at:
I asked about the historicity of the Exodus and the historicity of the
wealth of the Davidic Kingdom. I said "the Bible says XYZ numbers, so
that's how many people left Egypt, pace what the archaeologists find
plausible." They said something along the lines "well, some event like
the Exodus really happened. Why should we care about the numbers since
they're not really all that spiritually significant?"
I brought up "an evening and a morning, day X". They believe the whole
Genesis account is metaphorical in some sense. I also asked "well, what
about when it said God formed Adam's body out of earth and then breathed
life into him, is that a metaphor?" Apparently. Apparently, the idea
that humans evolved from whatever is cool, because somehow the account
in Genesis can mean that.
At this point, I pushed hard on "well, how in the world do we know when
to switch into 'we can wave our hand at this bit since it's just
metaphor' mode? Kings and Chronicles are history right? How about the
book of Acts?"
Misc questions relating to specifics in this general topic:
2) How does the "evening and morning" phrasing make sense in the Genesis
account before the creation of the heavenly lights? Interlocutors argued
that this inherently means that the words can't mean what they normally
mean, so why don't we just go the whole way and say they don't even
remotely resemble the normal physical meanings? (=Not literal 24-hour
periods).
3) How do we know that the "evening and morning" language is not somehow
metaphorical? Example wording adduced as example: "it was the dawn of a
new age." Good arguments against this? (I mean, it seems mostly like
rubbish to me, but saying that isn't inherently convincing to others).
4) Vis-a-vis inerrancy, the "gotcha" example they clung most firmly to
was the gospels' different accounts of Jairus' daughter. Was she dead
when Jairus came to Jesus, or just very sick (=still alive, but near the
end)? The accounts seem to differ on that. Could you explain more
formally how this one can be tackled (in terms of Greek wording, and
tenses and such, perhaps)? I'm not shaken up about it, but I'd just like
to be able to provide a good plausible explanation, since this was the
only one off of the list of supposed "ways in the which the Bible cannot
meet modern standards of factual accuracy" that I didn't have an
immediate counter-argument for. (E.g., the timing of Jesus cleansing the
temple is no problem if you say He did it twice).
Trinity conversations
I've clashed with my interlocutors before about the "eternally begotten"
business with monogenes. They make a big deal out of the supposed
eternal begetting of the Son and the eternal proceeding of the Spirit
and how these hypostatic differences (that's the jargon) are "necessary"
to explain the roles of the Trinity.
Here's some propositions I affirm:
The classic definition of the Trinity as three persons one essence
That the Bible outlines different roles for the members of the Trinity.
The Father as the architect, the Son as the agent, and the Spirit as He
who empowers, for example.
That the members of the Trinity are co-equal and co-eternal
That Psalm 2:7 has as its referent the begetting of Christ as a human
being (i.e., in time), not the eternal divine person of the Son
And some that I take exception with:
That the Son is "eternally begotten" of the Father
That the "proceeding" of the Spirit has anything to do with the causal
origin of the Spirit. Instead, I believe that the "proceeding" of the
Spirit has entirely to do with who the one sending Him is. (So the
"proceeding" is not a matter of "where the Spirit comes from", but who
sends Him to humanity, to indwell us as believers).
That since God is eternal and never changes, the roles in the Trinity
must also necessarily be eternal
At the time of the discussion (i.e., in the moment), I stated that I was
agnostic on whether the present roles are eternal (precede spacetime).
Scripture only ever talks about them in reference to this creation, so
my point was that we really have no ground to stand on in speaking of
"the roles of God before creation." How are we supposed to know?
My interlocutors believe the roles are inherent to each person of the
Trinity, and eternal. The Son's role is inherently because he is
eternally begotten. The Spirit's role is inherently because He eternally
proceeds.
5) In particular, they posed this question: did each member of the
Trinity have to adopt the role they did? Could the person of the Trinity
taking on the role of the Father have instead taken on the role of the
Son, and vice versa? If so, what differentiates the persons of the
Trinity? They seemed to think that not "having reasons" for the
differences in person (=eternal begetting, eternal proceeding)
inherently makes one akin to a modalist.
I saw that you make the following statement in an email response:
The "differences" in the roles of the Trinity are operative only within "time and space", that is, in the conduct of the Plan of God which is angelic and human history. Within this very limited "box" of the present universe progressing temporally since its initial creation (by the Lord Jesus in accordance with the Father's plan in the power of the Spirit), the Father directs the plan, the Lord Jesus carries out the plan, and the Spirit empowers the plan. This differentiation in roles, chosen freely by the Trinity individually, explains all of the "issues" and "problems" that any real believer in Christ might have (as in our Lord's taking on of true humanity and the self-imposed limitations thereof in order to carry out the plan of salvation in dying for our sins; see the link: "Kenosis");
6) How do we know that the roles are only operative within time and
space? (Would this make the roles of Father, Son, and Spirit "not
eternal"?)
7) How do we know that the members of the Trinity chose the roles
freely? Why is this of import?
8) If the members of the Trinity "came to adopt" roles, as them choosing
the roles individually would seem to logically require, then how can God
be declared as unchanging? A good bit of the argument I had turned on
this question specifically.
Well, I think that about does it. No big rush on any of this.
In Him,
Response #18:
Good to hear from you. How is the job going, the house? I keep these and
"concern #1" in prayer daily.
As to your questions, first, what I will say here is for your benefit
and not meant to be taken as apologetically "bullet-proof". There are
things one refrains from saying in argumentation that, while true, make
one rhetorically vulnerable. As you know, while I don't discount such
ministries, I'm not interested in pursuing them myself. I had a number
of students back in California who were Greek Orthodox. They were really
nice people and seemed to be more interested in the Bible than your
average Protestant. But I couldn't vouch for them being born again. Like
your correspondents here, they had an academic appreciation of things
which is to be distinguished in the heart from true epignosis
which is all about actual truth actually believed.
1) On the LXX, I think you handled this well. You can't expect, however,
for your reasonable take to be accepted by people for whom the LXX is
"the Bible". That is like expecting KJV-onlyists to be persuaded by a
reasonable appeal to the Greek text on the longer endings of Mark, for
example. This is a matter of emotional commitment, not of rational
evaluation (even though it may be couched in terms of the latter). OF
COURSE a translation into another language is never going to be anywhere
near as good or important as the actual text, no matter what text we are
talking about. If we have the actual text, that is to be preferred, as
long as it is essentially intact. A translation may help us to 1) affirm
that the original language text is legitimate, and 2) give insight in
individual passages where there is some doubt about the precise reading
or meaning. What the LXX tells us along the other versions of the
Greek Bible which have survived (i.e., Origen's trifaria varietas)
is precisely that: namely, that the Masoretic text we have IS
essentially the Hebrew text of the OT as originally written. Since it IS
basically the same as the MT, the LXX thus actually demonstrates that
the size and scope and content was the same as what we have today as
early as ca. the 3rd cent. B.C. when the LXX was first produced. As long
as the MT isn't a back-translation from the Greek (and no one is saying
that it is plenty of evidence against that, the Qumran texts, just for
starters), then we would want to start with the MT in spite of having
the LXX, even if the latter seemed superior (which it most definitely
does not . . . except to the Orthodox church).
In the ancient world, written texts tended to be very solid, much more
so than one might imagine today having no experience of such things (as
you know very well from your Classical training). Just for example, the
oldest mss. of Thucydides go back only to the tenth century (and most
are even more recent than that). But the text of all the very many mss.
we have is essentially the same, that is, the same sort of situation we
have with the Bible of having far less than 1% about which one can even
argue for anyone who knows Greek, that is. And we have discovered
papyri dating back to the second century which confirm the text they
contain for Thucydides. And there are quotations in many later authors
which confirm the text, etc. So that anyone looking into the problem
will quickly discover that it's not as if there is huge potential for
variation. We HAVE Thucydides' History as he wrote it; there are small
textual variations. It's the same story in the MT. Ironically (for these
people), it is the LXX text which is problematic because it did undergo
an unknown process of compilation (clearly made up of different
translators) and later assimilation (along the lines of the Latin
Vulgate). But the MT was set and solid by the time the LXX was
translated, and it precedes the LXX which must have been based on it
(this is clear from many proofs, not the least of which are innumerable
times where LXX translators struggle to understand difficult passages in
MT and come up with "solutions" of the sort that might occur to us as
well; in other words, we can often see "how they got" what they got in
producing the LXX, even when we don't agree with their "solution"
because we are commonly using the SAME MT. Ever since the post-exilic
time (at least) there have been synagogues with copies of the MT, and we
know from Jewish history the great care that was taken with the text,
greater care than with any other ancient document (e.g., the Masoretes
counting the letters). There are no reports of different texts of the
Hebrew Bible floating around and all the evidence which has survived
(the Cairo geniza fragments, Qumran, other translations besides the LXX
in a variety of languages, etc., etc.) all speak to the essential unity
of MT. Are there textual variations? Sure. But the MT is THE text that
the LXX translators used the main point here and they failed to
understand it as well as we are able to today (with the additional
resources we possess today). Is the LXX different in places from the MT?
Yes, but that is because of its own convoluted history and not because
it was reading a different text from the MT.
I spent a lot of time in seminary on the LXX (took several classes on
it); but I've almost never gotten anything of value out of it (and I
have all the "tools" too, concordances, editions, works on it, etc.).
That should not be surprising. The value of an ancient translation will
consist of insight into the meaning and the original readings text of
the work said translation is rendering. But if the translators were
severely challenged in their understanding of what they were translating
(that is most assuredly the case with the LXX) and if the text of the
translation is more confused than that of its exemplar, then the value
is much reduced.
So much for the LXX. p.s., yes there are differences between the Qumran
scrolls and the MT, but seldom if ever would I prefer what Qumran reads.
These scrolls were not the carefully copied and cared for synagogue
rolls on expensive parchment, but popular texts on papyrus much more
rapidly and cheaply produced and they show that at every point. p.p.s.,
yes, the NT often quotes the LXX, but not always, and it is also the
case that when it is essentially quoted it is often slightly modified
along the lines of how my old pastor used to use the KJV but would
"correct it" when important to do so for the doctrinal point at hand.
The fact that 1) the NT sometimes modifies the LXX and 2) sometimes
translates entirely anew, demonstrates that while the LXX was the
translation of choice, it was not inspired nor meant to be considered so
and was only used for convenience sake when the translators had gotten
it right enough for the Spirit to make use of.
2) "It's the spiritual meaning that's important": This has been the
(false) Greek scholarly position ever since the beginning of "the Greek
fathers". But what divorcing oneself from the true meaning of scripture
always ends up doing is giving a "spiritual meaning" that is in fact not
true and therefore wholly devoid of the Spirit in fact. What is
important is what the Spirit has actually placed in the Bible and how He
illuminates it for us who are paying attention to what He actually
provided. Any other approach is fraught with spiritual ruin, not special
inspiration. And as to scripture, it is ALL important, even if we can't
see that in a given passage at a given time. We have faith about that.
Without that faith, then nothing in scripture turns out to be important,
merely what one "feels" is important, independent of scripture (so we
are down to emotion instead of truth, and that is disaster even if it is
"life of the mind" scholarly emotion).
"They believe the whole Genesis account is metaphorical in some sense."
Q.E.D. You either believe or you don't believe. Once there is no respect
for the Bible and considering it a metaphor is about as disrespectful
as one can get there is no further means of arguing because the people
you are arguing with are proceeding from an entirely different starting
point. A bit like arguing with JWs about some point of biblical
interpretation when in fact they only accept their own dogma, regardless
of what the text of scripture says.
Your #2: I don't even understand how someone could fail to understand
this apart from adopting a debater's "prove it to me!" stance.
Your #3: "saying that isn't inherently convincing to others"; again, I
don't have much to offer on the "convince me of that!" playing field.
Your #4: I find it a bit ironic and sad that putative Christians are
taking delight in (what they see as) undermining the Bible. In terms of
Jairus' daughter specifically, only Mark and Luke mention this man by
name so I'll leave out for a moment the possible companion passage in
Matthew (there were many parallel instances which can seem the same but
over the course of a three and a half year ministry were actually only
similar, the two cleansings of the temple at the beginning and end of
our Lord's ministry being a prime example as you note). Mark says that
Jairus said, "Τὸ
θυγάτριόν
μου
ἐσχάτως
ἔχει", which seems to mean "is on the point of death" (Mk.5:23);
Luke says, NKJV: "for he had an only daughter about twelve years of age,
and she was dying" (Lk.8:42). This legitimate translation of the
imperfect tense would mean that the girl was not yet dead at that time
but nearly so so that these two passages harmonize as far as I am
concerned with no problem. The Matthew passage does certainly seem to be
the same incident (Matt.9:18), and here the man says that she "died just
now". Contradiction? In either case, this man was beside himself about
his daughter. She was either dead or so close that he could have no
confidence, absent a miracle, that she would be alive when he returned.
So when he spoke to Jesus, describing her as "dead" or "on the point of
dying" would be equally true as far as he knew. So he could easily have
said both things and truthfully so (she was, in fact, dead when they
arrived back at his home). This is only a problem for those who would
want to say that this man would never have come if he were sure that the
girl was already dead or would be because the Lord couldn't arrive in
time. But the whole point here is that this man clearly had faith that,
dead or alive, if Jesus touched her, she would "be healed and live"
that is what he says in all these iterations and that is what we should
be amazed about and that is exactly what Jesus did. To quibble about the
verbal differences is not only to denigrate the Bible unnecessarily but
also to miss the whole point of the Spirit's inclusion of this episode
which is all about faith in spite of what we see and hear and feel the
same faith these Philistines seem to lack.
3) The Trinity. I agree with your seven points entirely.
Your #5: I can't be responsible for other people's flawed impressions.
We teach the truth we are given to understand. Are they disagreeing that
there is a difference between how the Son, e.g., acts and what the
Father and the Spirit do? That is to turn scripture on its head: the Son
came into the world sent by the Father and empowered by the Spirit. Not
the same "role" or whatever you want to call it if you don't like that
word. As to "reasons", I don't pretend to know why each has each "role".
This is beyond our understanding (and our "need to know" at present).
Your #6: Since "role" is only a word we are using for convenience of
description, I would not want to build or argue doctrine on the basis of
it (other than give clarifications to avoid the sort of abuse you are
being subjected to here). The Trinity are God irrespective of time and
space. We have no idea what "things are like" outside of time and space
and have no possible frame of reference to even try to imagine that. So
arguing about this is pointless. We can only affirm that God created
time-space, that He doesn't need it to exist, and that in fact God
exists completely outside of it.
Your #7: God is coequal and coeternal. How would there be compulsion?
Even more to the point, God is "one", meaning, importantly, not a shadow
of difference in Will. So while I would admit that my prose in saying
that they "chose their roles" is perhaps a bit out on a limb, we can say
that they have roles and that they agree on the roles and that they
weren't compelled to accept those roles (which seems to me to amount to
the same thing). Understanding the difference in "roles" can be an
important element in understanding Christ's incarnation for those who
have issues with the Trinity in particular.
Your #8: Change is something that can only occur in time-space. The
Trinity was always the Trinity and time-space was always preordained.
When we speak of "choosing" and roles and behavior generally, in terms
of describing God, we have to accept that this is "language of
accommodation", putting things in the only sort of terms we mortals who
are subject to time-space can possibly understand. God does not change.
God created time-space. So why is there change all around us, given that
time-space cannot exist independently of the One who created it? The
answer, it seems to me, is that the plan is all comprehensive and
complete in every aspect and only seems to change from our point of view
but has always existed even as God has always existed. We just can't see
that yet. What I'm curious about is whether or not, given these
quibbles, these individuals really believe that Jesus is God? Seems to me
that putting things in the way they have put them has boxed them into some
lesser understanding of the Lord. If there are not roles, then that must
mean that Jesus is a man who is somehow less than God in their view (or
at least in the logic of it).
Apologies in advance for anything not dealt with.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #19:
Hi Bob,
After reading my earlier whiny emails and your responses this week it
occurred to me that I never gave you an update. My minor troubles are
insignificant compared your other correspondents. I'm ashamed.
Things have germinated and most are growing. After praying for rain, I
was blessed with 2" or so. The blackberries I thought were dead have
returned to life, my vineyardette is alive, mustard and collards are
coming to life and I have more tomatoes growing than I can say grace
over. The Lord truly takes care of His own. Of course, the bugs and
weeds are back in full force, I didn't ask for relief from the bugs in
prayer and I'm reminded of the Lord's comment, "You didn't receive
because you didn't ask."
I consider my minor annoyances a learning experience and pray my
grumbling doesn't end as it did for the Israelites during the Exodus.
(Some of the cracks in the soil had me wondering.) At worst, I now have
to start mowing and may have to develop new recipes. I'm not wiped out
as some are.
All in all, Bob, I have been truly blessed and the Lord has seen that
I've been cared for. What more can I ask.
Stay well. I pray for you and your family daily.
In our Lord Jesus,
Response #19:
Certain bugs I like (butterflies, e.g.); certain bugs really do "bug me"
too. We have our share of chiggers, ticks and mosquitoes here. Had a
nice watermelon crop coming one year but the bugle-nosed bugs got them
all (not sure what they're actually called). I am happy to hear that you
have had a bit of rain. Can you irrigate otherwise, at least your
tomatoes et al.? Other than spices, it's all flowers here again this
year (spring was too busy to get around to anything else before it was
too late). We've also been blessed here to have a goodly amount of rain
this year, yet not enough to make things too soggy. A lot of heat and
sun in the forecast now, however, so it'll be time to turn on the
sprinklers soon.
I've gotten most of my admin chores out of the way, so next week is it
June already?! I'll be grinding back into research mode (finally). If
I can finish two articles and launch them out there this summer, I'll
consider it a success.
Thanks for those prayers, my friend! Still no more news. Keeping you and
yours in my prayers as well.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #20:
Hi Bob,
Yes, I can irrigate and I'm well equipped to do that as long as the
electricity holds out. It's not the same, though, as a good rain. It
probably has to do with the ozone and peroxide in the water from the
lightening. Biology wasn't my strongest suit so I'm just guessing.
I'm glad your school year was a success. I'll be praying for your fall
enrollment. Only four for Greek?! It seems to fit, though. People I've
talked with who hire complain of young people not wanting to work, come
and go when they feel like it and want to surf the web while at work.
The owner of my favorite hardware store went through younger people
every few weeks until he finally settled on a crew that was reliable. I
can imagine Greek is a challenge. Latin for me certainly was. I'm
actually surprised there are young people willing to tackle it.
I'm glad you got rain but I'll bet you also got the humidity. I had to
be in Ohio in July and August to settle my mother's estate and I thought
I was going to die. Temperatures were only in the mid 80s which here is
a pleasant spring but humidity was in the upper 90s. It was a relief to
get home where temperatures were in the upper 90s but humidity was in
the teens. Every place seems to have it's pros and cons.
I pray you and yours are well and safe.
Yours in our Lord,
Response #20:
Never heard of that before so I guess you know a lot more about it than I do!
All I know about the water here is that it comes out of the Ohio and costs a
small fortune (in spite of the fact that there is no lack of it).
I'd be happy to teach only one! But the problem is that our budget model now
more than ever is all about "butts in seats". So if that is the number round
about August 15th or so, the class could be canceled. Then I'd have to somehow
pick up another class (don't ask me how we've established that I wouldn't be
able to teach biology), or take a big pay cut (problematic).
U of L has a language requirement: two years for B.A. students and one year for
B.S. students. Latin and Greek have the advantages of not being conversationally
spoken (when taught via the Classical method), and that is appealing to students
who don't relish asking each other what they did over winter break in some
modern tongue. Also, studying Greek and Latin as you no doubt will confirm is
the best way to learn how English works as well as to build vocabulary. Lots of
other advantages too, so we used to do OK in the enrollment wars. But this has
gotten trickier for us over the years. We have a lot more B.S. students than we
used to have. Psych, our biggest major by far, has gone 100% recently and this
has significantly reduced the pool of students for the second year classes.
Also, we have a full blown sign language program now and they have to chase the
students away with a stick. It's very appealing at present and it doesn't
require you to learn a different language in the conventional way. Add to this
that Greek and Latin are hard, thought to be hard, and that Classics is less and
less taught and or discussed in our country and you see why my enrollments are
challenged. I did more this year, I may have mentioned, than ever before to
address this problem with what I am able to do, but at present the students
haven't shown up yet. That was also the case last year at this time, and the
Lord provided. So I'm certainly not giving up hope. Everything happens for a
reason, in any case. [note: classes made last fall and this fall too thanks
everyone for your prayers!]
I hear you on the humidity! It does make a difference. So does the angle of the
sun. The same heat and humidity in Florida is far worse than in Michigan. We're
somewhere in the middle here.
Thanks for your prayers, my friend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #21:
Hi Bob,
My only teaching experience was teaching French horn privately. On the
whole, it was satisfying. I never had any classroom teaching experience,
so I have no idea how that works. "Butts in seats" sounds like the
typical big business approach; quantity before quality though I suppose
the economics of tuition and overhead plays a major part.
On the whole, Latin was lost on me, I can't even remember the declension
of Agricola. Of course, that was 55+ years ago. It did, however, help me
with English back when I could still speak English correctly. Having
spent so many years as a musician, I don't hear language as distinct
words; rather phrases and intonation. Languages were lost on me. Much
like listening to Italian opera. The words are irrelevant. The music is
the message. The sentence structure of Latin was a major stumbling block
for me which made it easy to fall back on the melody. French was the
same and with all the cockeyed genders.
I pray for the best for you and yours. Your postings have become a major
part of my Sunday mornings.
In our Lord,
Response #21:
French satisfies our language requirement (but not French horn). And, yes, this
is indeed a business model, one designed to have Arts and Sciences fail (since
they count graduate hours much more heavily and all of the other colleges are
exclusively or much more heavily focused on graduate studies since they charge
more for grad classes).
You have a very good grasp of language clear from your emails. So I dare say
Latin did help you, even if you can't remember the declensions.
Thanks much for your prayers, my friend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.