The Confusions of Gary McDuda

And now....the REST of the story...

2007-09-04T21:35:00.001-03:00

OK, it wasn't so much the what of the last post as it was the who. It's a quotation by Gustavo Gutiérrez, a catholic priest regarded as the father of liberation theology.

Anybody surprised? I was.

So what do you make of that?

Does this mean that liberation theology is all OK? Of course not. But it does mean that I'm going to have to actually read the original authors. They just might have something to say. I mean, yeah, I might learn something that God wants me/us to know. It's just that it's so much easier to think I can only learn from those in my little circle, and if you are not in my circle, you have nothing to offer. It appears that it's not quite so black and white.

That's pretty much the first thing I've learned so far in my studies: you can usually learn something from everyone. I'm actually looking forward to reading his seminal work Teología de la liberación . Yeah, it's in Spanish. That's what makes studying so much more fun!

It kinda makes me wonder what else is out there that isn't quite what we thought it was but is "offlimits" because he/she is not in our circle.

All reactions, thoughts, comments etc. welcomed!

Theology check...

2007-08-30T16:35:00.000-03:00

Over the last several years, as I've started pursuing my doctorate, I have read a lot of really bizarro theology. The following quotation struck me as not quite so bizarro. In fact, I think it sounds pretty (refreshingly) good.

What think ye?

"It’s a central tenet of our faith and, for that reason, present throughout the entire Bible, that the book of Job strongly highlights. Human works, as Paul says, according to the revelation of Jesus Christ, do not justify, do not save; they cannot force God’s hand. That is the scope of his affirmation of “justification by faith” (Rom 3:28). Faith that saves is grace from the Lord. Entrance into the kingdom of God is not a right that is acquired, not even by the practice of works of righteousness; it is always a free gift. “By grace you have been saved,” says Paul to the Ephesians (2:5)."

A funny thing happened this morning...

2007-04-23T18:05:00.000-03:00

I have a new post on my "lighter" Xanga blog. Check it out.

The Kingdom and the Church

2006-12-08T12:40:00.000-03:00

OK, I really need some feed back on this. This series of quotations pretty well summarizes the essentials of the prevailing view in Latin America. And, as you might expect, is "somewhat" different from the prevailing conservative North American view.

Please read this carefully and give me your feedback/reactions.

In the Bible, the kingdom of God is the primary image for understanding God's saving strategy and for grasping the nature and mission of the Church.... the reign of God transcends human expectations. Thus it constitutes a key ingredient in the hope which sustained suffering Christians, particularly in areas of conflict in our world. Conditions of political and economic oppression and privation have confronted many Christians in Latin America. They have studied Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom, God's new order of justice, peace, liberation, and covenant community. There they found a relevant key for understanding God's Word and will for their life and mission as the people of God... during the final decades of the 20th century, Christians rarely asked, "is there life after death?” Instead, they ask is there life before death?" In a world plagued by the realities of human misery, oppression, and suffering, Christians are finding in the Bible a message of justice, peace, liberation, and reconciliation. In the biblical motif of the kingdom of God, we find summed up God's saving intention for a new humanity within a restored creation.... the biblical view of the kingdom of God offers a framework in which to understand more wholistically the nature and mission of a transformed and transforming messianic community. (pp. 85-87).

This new Adam has begun to reverse the effects of the disobedience of the first Adam (Romans 5:12-21). In effect, the mission of Jesus has been to reverse the consequences of evil in the world: disease, demon possession, the hostility of nature, social and religious and ethnic rivalries, hunger, economic exploitation, empty religiosity, alienation, and death. The conflict was characterized Jesus' ministry was, in reality, the struggle of the new order to replace the era of sin and death. Therefore, all who trust in their wealth, power, and prestige for their security react violently because the values of the new order threatening false sources of security (pp. 90-91).

"Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sites, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them" (Matthew 11:4-5). These, according to Jesus, are conclusive signs of the presence of the kingdom. The righteous reign of God becomes manifest in the gracious, saving, provident ways in which God is at work among the poor, the oppressed and the suffering. God does this work through his Messiah and later through the messianic community. This is the vision that marked Jesus's ministry. (pp. 91-92).

Like Jesus, the community of the Messiah has been commissioned to live out the reality of the presence of the kingdom world, thereby fulfilling the commission it has received. This is the community which anticipates the kingdom; it is a sign of the kingdom; and fulfills its mission in the service of the kingdom. Such a vision of God's reign should orient all our evangelizing deeds and words. In this way the spiritual power that characterizes God's kingdom, present in the mission of Jesus, will also characterize the church’s evangelization. (p. 93).

The church, of itself, is not the kingdom. It is, rather, the messianic community in the service of the kingdom. It witnesses to the kingdom. In its life and values, it anticipates the kingdom. It is the community charged with continuing the messianic mission in the same spirit and strategy characterized Jesus's mission. It is the community in which the signs of the kingdom are most clearly evident. We must resist the temptation to identify the church with the kingdom of God.... we must also resist the temptation to clearly separate the kingdom in the church, and some protestant interpretations, such as dispensationalism, have done. According to this tradition, the kingdom of God, as Jesus proclaimed it, was one thing, and still remains strictly future; the church, when it arose, was totally another thing, a stopgap provision while waiting for the kingdom. (pp. 94-95).

The church is commissioned to continue the messianic mission of Jesus. Like Jesus, we proclaim the kingdom of God by deed and word. Like Jesus, we dedicate ourselves to those activities which correspond to God's kingdom. Authentic signs of the kingdom should be evident in the church. And together with Jesus, we fervently pray, "Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven" (Matthew 6:10) (p. 95).

Out of this world...data

2006-12-06T18:12:00.000-03:00

This post is in response to the Pharoah's comment in my previous post. I think these data are important enough not to get buried in a comment.

First off, the phrase ek tou kósmou (including ek toútou tou kósmou) occurs 18 times in 11 verses in the NT. All but 1 occurrence (1 Cor 5:10) ALL the rest come from the Johannine literature.

Gospel of John 14x
8:23 (2x)
13:1
15:19 (3x)
chapt 17 (6x) v. 6, 14, 15, 16
18:36 (2x)

1 John (3x)
2:16
4:5 (2x)

So? Well, I'm not sure, but it sure seems interesting to me that this is primarily a Johannine phrase, and that it occurs 12/18 times in about a 12 hour period the night and early morning of Jesus' arrest, 6 of those times in Jesus' prayer in John 17. What is the significance of that? Isn't all scripture inspired? Sure...but this context must be considered in any interpretation of the phrase.

OK, R.P. now to your question. Well, before that, interesting observation about your "chiastic" image. (How long have you waited to use that word?)

NOW, to your question about a "clarification of the genitive used here. To what extent was Jesus "ek tou kosmou"? I think we need to look at the whole phrase and ask how that is used, not just the genitive, but ek + gen. Well, prepositions can be pesky critters. "In general, the more common a preposition is, the more varied are its uses" and ek is the 3rd most frequent preposition (behind eis and en) with a frequency of 914x! (Wallace, Beyond the Basics, p. 357). So one has a number of "options" to choose from.

Again, citing Wallace, p. 371:

"In general, ek has the force of from, out of, away from, of.

1. Source: out of, from

2. Separation: away from, from

3. Temporal: from, from [this point] . . . on

4. Cause: because of

5. Partitive (i.e., substituting for a partitive gen.): of

6. Means: by, from"

I think "source" best fits this passage. BDAG (sv. ek) cites John 17:14 as a "marker denoting origin, cause, motive, reason, from, of... to denote origin as to family, race, city, people, district, etc."

Again, your question, "to what extent was Jesus not "ek tou kosmou"? I think it indicates that ultimately, he has his "citizenship" else where. Spanish has a very similar construction: ¿De donde es? Where are you from? The question means "Where were you born, or where are you from originally." Not where do you currently reside. Jesus is from above. In fact, he makes this clear in John 8:32 "You are from below, I am from above, you are of this world, I am not of this world." But there he was, big as life...physically residing in this world...in the world, but not 'of' it.

And we, too, are aliens, with our citizenship in heaven...in the world, but not not of it.

And my original question in the previous post, might not the Kingdom be "in the world, but not of it"?

This makes the preponderant usage in John 13-18 much more understandable.

The kingdom...out of this world?

2006-12-04T17:45:00.000-03:00

Ok, maybe I got a bit carried away with my quotations. Sorry. But it was good for me to get them recorded though. I hope some of you actually read them and reflected on them.

This idea of a contrast society living among the nations is intriguing. I'm not sure we think of ourselves as a new society. I think our view of the church rarely goes beyond a group of believes that holds meetings a couple times per week. We don't think of ourselves as a new society, new creation, or a new humanity. (I will return to these topics another day.)

A society within a society...interesting. "Jesus says about his followers, 'They do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world' (John 17:16).... the contrast-society lives in the midst of societies where the deceitfulness of evil has perpetrated degrading social forums." What does that mean, "they do not belong to the world"? They are not ek tou kósmou. They were obviously physically in the world, so it must mean something else.

This is confirmed by the preceding 2 verses "I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world [ek tou kósmou], even as I am not of the world [ek tou kósmou] . I do not ask You to take them out of the world [ek tou kósmou], but to keep them from the evil one."

We even say "they were in the world, but not of the world. We seem to know what that means.

Then my mind jumped to John 18:36, 'Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world [ek tou kósmou] . If My kingdom were of this world [ek tou kósmou], then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.'

Why do we suddenly make that totally other worldly? Why can't the kingdom also be in the world, but not of the world? Might Jesus be saying, "My kingdom, which is living as a counter kingdom among you, does not function according to your values. If it did, we'd fight you, because violence is part of your kingdom values. It has no place in mine" [McDuda expanded paraphrase]. It doesn't have to mean "because it doesn't really exist here!"

Maybe we are to be a kingdom of priests, shining as lights in the midst of a crooked and perverse world. Maybe when Jesus comes we won't be a counter-kingdom, but we will be the (millennial) kingdom, and there will be no counter kingdom!

This has radical implications, I think, for how how we view the "kingdom" work of the Church.

Please, share your thoughts. Am I off base on this?

Contrast Society

2006-12-02T14:16:00.000-03:00

Chapter 2
A People in Mission: the Biblical Record

"The Biblical history of salvation is essentially the story of a people--the people of God who live by faith. It is the story of this community space, the life and mission in response to God's salvific initiative. The mission of God's people is deeply rooted in God's saving alternative--its vocation to holiness is God's contrast community" (p. 23).

"We cannot recover biblical view of mission apart from a radical return to peoplehood as God intended” (p. 24).

"God's people are his new creation. In the call of Abraham history begins anew. The people of God is clearly viewed as a new alternative rising up in the midst of humankind. This implies a radical break with the old. The call to Abraham to "go from your country and your kindred and your father's house" points to more than a mere change of geography. It implies a recognition of "the Lord, the God of Israel," in contrast to the “other gods" of the Chaldeans (Joshua 24:2) (p. 25).

"To know the God of Israel is to reorder all of life and its values in accord with his nature. God’s call to Abraham is an invitation to become a contrast-society... whenever Israel has this vision of its distinctive identity as God's contrast-society in sharpest focus, then it will most faithfully fulfill its mission to serve for the blessing of all of the Earth's families (p. 26).

"To be God's holy people is to adhere to a concrete social order which distinguishes it from all other nations.... this is a social order standing in sharp contrast to those which characterize all other nations. "You shall be holy to mean; for I the Lord and holy, and it separated you from the other peoples to be mine" (that it exists 20:26) (p. 28).

The prophets "bring God's message to a people who of long since ceased to be a contrast-society in the midst of the nations; they warn of impending judgment. But they also share a vision of hope beyond judgment -- a hope based upon restoration of God's reign of righteousness and peace. Picking up the theme of the ancient promise to Abraham, the prophets perceive the blessing of God's righteous reign reaching to all humanity to the faithfulness of his restored people. It is a vision of "a mountain of the Lord's house" being established in a new and highly visible way among the peoples of the earth and the nations being attracted by the gracious covenant relationships of righteousness, peace, and salvation which characterize God's people" (p 30).

"The messianic movement initiated by Jesus cannot be understood apart from the OT vision of God's people as a contrast society. Jesus’ kingdom preaching, teaching, and activity all point toward the restoration of God's people. This restoration is for the people to carry out in a definitive way God's plan for a holy people in the midst of the nations. The messianic mission is aimed at the establishment of the eschatological people of God in which the social order of the reign of God will be lived. Jesus perceives the messianic community in terms of the prophetic vision of the "Lord's house... established as the highest of the mountains." He concretely describes this new people of God as "the light of the world. A city built on a hill... that [others] may see your good works and give glory to your father in heaven" (Matthew 5:14-16). (pp. 31-32).

"This is the context in which we must understand Jesus’ revolutionary calls for his followers to absolutely renounce violence (Matthew 5:39-48) and coercive domination (Mark 10:42-45).... this perspective of a contrast-community stands in sharp contrast to secular societies, which are marked by the will to coerce and to exercise control over others. Precisely this kind of non-resistant love can communicate most powerfully its missionary witness to a God who loves his enemies and seeks to save them (Matthew 5:3, 9, 16, 44-48) (p. 32).

"A new and different people of God is appearing in the midst of the nations, of people in which God's glory shines forth for the blessing of all peoples” (Micah 4:1-4; Matthew 5:14-16) (p. 33).

"The concrete social form of the messianic community gathered by Jesus is already anticipated in the OT vision of God's people. They are to be a contrast society set in the midst of the nations as a sign of God's saving purpose for all peoples. Jesus’ great commission is based on his restored messianic community" (page 33).

"Darkness and light are figures for the two contrasting spheres -- life as a pagans, and life in the church. "In the Lord" or "in Christ" are not references to a purely mystical or spiritualized sphere; instead they mean life within the realm of Christ's rule, the church.

"The two contrasting spheres are sometimes described by long catalogs of vices and virtues (cf. Colossians 3:8-14), which need not be understood primarily in terms of individualistic ethic. Rather they describe two contrasting social orders" (p. 33).

"The contrast between the two humanities -- the old and the new -- is another image used to underscore the essential nature of the church as God's substantially different counter a society (Ephesians 2:15; 4:24; Colossians 3:9-11). The image of the new creation communicates the same reality (2 Corinthians 5:17; et al.). The contrast between the "present evil age” (Galatians 1:4) and "the age to come”(Hebrews 6:5; cf. Ephesians 2:7) is not merely a reference to salvation in a distant future. Whoever participates in the realm of Christ's rule is delivered from the present evil age. The Christian community realizes that it needs no longer to live in the bondage of evil nor according to the false structures of pagan society" (p. 34).

"Jesus’ prayer in John 17 reflects the contrast-society vision of God's people and their mission, which we have already noted in the OT. Jesus says about his followers, "They do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world" (John 17:16).... the contrast-society lives in the midst of societies where the deceitfulness of evil has perpetrated degrading social forums. Christ immunity serves to make this deception manifest and therefore becomes the object of the world's persecution (John 15:18-20)" (p. 34).

With respect to 1 Peter 2:9-10, Driver says "it shows clearly that the primary concerning biblical vision is not merely the private holiness of individuals, important as this may be. The fundamental thrust of the passage is that the people of God (as a people) give witness to his saving purpose for all humanity the unambiguous identity of the early church is the prime ingredient in fulfillment of its mission. This contrast society is both the context in which God's mercy has experienced an instrument of God's mentioned the peoples of the year" (p. 35).

I'll comment on this post next post. For now, please read it carefully.

Images of the Church

2006-12-01T20:57:00.000-03:00

In February I'm taking a course called "Biblical Perspectives of the Missio Dei and the Role of the People of God." I'll save the whole issue of what in the world is missio Dei for a later post (much later, actually, since I really don't know. It was a brand new term for me until a couple of months ago.) Suffice it to say it's Latin for "Mission of God" or "God's Mission". Or, in a McDuda paraphrase "What in the world is God doing?"

One of the assignments is a book review of Images of the Church in Mission by John Driver. It's been a long time since I did a book review, but I guess I better read it first. What I propose to do is give some chapter summaries, with some quotes from which to write my review.

Please chime in with any comments. Let me know what you think.

Chapt 1: Images of the Church in Christendom

"Catholic Christendom as well as Protestant has throughout much of its history perceived the church as a self concerned community of salvation--and end in itself. This has led to a clear separation between its own church life and it's calling to mission. Whenever interest in mission did arise, it often was carried out by Christians on the fringes, outside the structures of the church. In Catholicism, there are the missionary orders. In Protestantism, they're the mission agencies." (p. 11). Ouch!

"The Bible employs a rich variety of metaphors that illumine our understanding of the identity and mission of the Church. Images can communicate a vision with power. They reflect a sense of identity which characterized the early Christian communities. Images also inspire the church and challenge it to live up to its real reason for being. The images we used to reflect what we are; they also largely determine what we will become" (p.12).

The thesis of this book is that the church has abandoned the biblical metaphors for its self understanding and replace them with either nonbiblical images or a distortion of the biblical ones.
For instance, "as early as the third century, the church was facing problems arising out of internal disciplinary practices. Leaders compared the church to ark of Noah, with unclean as well as clean animals (Genesis 6-8). Such a misuse of the biblical image led the church to accept unholiness in the lives of its members. This was notably different from the NT vision of a Church of holy people, "a holy nation" (first Peter 2:9).

"In the fourth century, problems arose out of the Constantinian detour. The Church ceased to be a persecuted minority; it came to be tolerated in the Roman Empire and even became popular. Hence, the church saw itself like a field in which weeds and wheat are left to grow together until the end of the age (Matthew 13:20 4-30, 36-43). Here again, the image tended to create a church quite different from the apostolic community, which understood that “the field as the world" rather than the church (13:38) (p. 17-18).

“However, there is a far greater problem. The church often draws the controlling images of itself-understanding from secular society rather than from the NT. Even so, the church has generally continue to articulate its vision of self-identity and roll with the traditional images at those images have been wrenched out of context and twisted from their primary intention.

"One of the results of the fourth century Constantinian ship visit the church began to draw its models from the Roman Empire. In a graduate largely and conscious process, changes were instituted until the church's hierarchy began to look much like the bureaucracy of the Roman government.”

"In the Middle Ages, the church adopted feudal models for its self-understanding." (p. 18).

"The great century Protestant missionary activity was also this entry of imperial expansion. The predominantly Protestant powers of the Northern Hemisphere ruled throughout what has since come to be called the Third World. Not unexpectedly the imperial model is color the church's self-understanding of its nature as well as its mission” (p. 19).

"During the colonial period in North America, churches bar from the democratic model of social organization. That image is largely shaped their self-understanding" (p.19).

"More recently corporate business model has become a prominent image for the churches self-understanding in North America. Management techniques have slowly but surely left their marks on church administration. The congregation's performance is evaluated in commercial terms of gain or loss. The church program is run with one eye and competition (the congregation down the street) and the other eye and keeping customers (its own members) satisfied" (p. 20).

Other images that the church is used for itself-understanding include a country club model, a therapy group model, a school model or a supermarket model.

"In the Bible the final goal of God's saving intentions the transformation of all creation. The biblical vision calls the people of God first to live out this new reality in its own midst. The antisocial and corrupt systems of society--with coercive violence, the desire to dominate, and economic greed--cannot be attacked more decisively than by the formation of a counter society in its midst. Simply through its existence, this new society is an effective attack on the old structures for transforming the world. The church as this new society can work much better than any of the many brilliantly conceived programs, carried out at no personal cost" (p. 21-22).

OT- What was he THINKING?

2006-12-01T09:47:00.000-03:00

A little Off Topic, but ... Man hides guitar in pants!

Fun facts to know and tell

2006-11-25T22:03:00.000-03:00

A quick search in BibleWorks (Using NASB 1995 as the search version) yields the following data:

Kingdom: Occurs 160 times in NT (125 in the Gospels; 8 in Acts; 27 Romans-Revelation)
Church: Occurs 77 times in NT (3 in Gospels; 17 in Acts; 57 Romans-Revelation)

This is hardly an exegetical study, but it does yield some interesting info. The word "kingdom" occurs twice as many times as the word church. What's that mean? I don't know. It's just interesting. Yes, a few of the instances of kingdom don't refer to the Kingdom of God (I count at least 3 times in Rev. alone). Kingdom is found preponderantly in the Gospels, yet is not unknown in the rest of the NT.

This doesn't mean that kingdom is necessarily talked about more (or less) than church. It just means these two words occur with the stated frequency. My point (if I have one) is that these stats alone should compel us to talk more about the kingdom than we do. It's like it's a non-issue except when we talk about eschatology (and we know how often that creeps into our daily conversation). It doesn't seem to come up very often when we talk about evangelism, for example.

But note: Philip preached the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ (Act 8:12).

Paul went about preaching the Kingdom (Acts 20:25; 28:31), and talks about his fellow workers for the kingdom (Col 4:11).

Oh, and let's not forget Jesus: Seek first the KINGDOM of God (Mat 6:33), but, alas, He also said that His kingdom was not of this world" (John 18:36). Does that mean it's only "spiritual" and we don't need to worry about it anymore?

I continue confused and with my dudas. But I think the kingdom deserves a little bit more of our attention.

Wishing you a

2006-11-23T13:10:00.000-03:00

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!!!

(Just in case anyone is reading my blog again)

The Caveman Cometh

2006-11-20T14:50:00.000-03:00

As I've re-entered academia, I've discovered that there are a whole lot of people who don't think like I do, and hold to beliefs not found in my theological circles. Before, I just ignored them (***burn, heretics, burn*** ) and studied "safe" stuff.

Well, as it turns out, people in the Latin American evangelical community read some of that junk. And believe it! As I start to interact with it, my first reaction is "I'm right and they are wrong" But that's pretty narrow of me, and doesn't give me the option of learning. So maybe "They are right and I'm wrong". Again, an all or nothing option probably isn't the best option (Especially since I really doubt that I'm TOTALLY wrong. :) So, it becomes, what's right and what's wrong with each position??

Case in point: An article in Evangelical Missions Quarterly, January 1984 "Key Issues in Missiology: An Evangelical View" byJohn Gration. Now, this is an article that from a journal that by an large would be accepted even in our circles. Yet, it's from 1984 and I'm just now reading it!

I really feel like I'm a cave man coming out into the light and being blinded. There is so much out there that I have never been exposed to, even though I've been on the field for over 13 years!

Anyhow, here is a quotation from said article:

The relationship between the church and the kingdom and the significance of this relationship to missions should receive increasing attention on the part of evangelicals. The answers to a number of questions depend upon the nature of this relationship. First, what is the primary aim of evangelism? Is it to preach Christ and the kingdom, or to plant churches? If this is not the best way to put it, we might ask whether the task of missions is based on the nature of the church or the nature of the kingdom. Is God's work in this age primarily "calling out a people for his name" (Acts 15:14), or extending and building Christ's kingdom on earth (Acts 15:16)? (This entire Acts 15 passage merits careful exegetical study.)

To put the question still another way, is the growth (expansion and extension) of churches the ultimate goal of mission, or is the church simply a result of the gospel proclamation, the "first fruits" of the manifestation and reality of the kingdom?

Hmmm, the relationship between the church and the kingdom. I vaguely recall talking about the Kingdom in seminary. It was generally relegated to the millennium. There was the "already, not yet" discussion, but that left me a little less than satisfied. Already how?

Yes, I had a course "The Kingdom and the Church" but that was basically two courses in one, not much of a discussion of the relationship between the two. I've skimmed that syllabus a couple times in recent days without finding much in it to help me know what the significance is of the kingdom for today, in relation to the church. Maybe if I studied it a bit more, I'd find what I'm looking for, but I kind of doubt it.

Most Latin-American theologians seem to understand the relationship. Are they right? Wrong? I'm not even sure I understand what they think it is. But I do know that when I read them I react by saying, but that's Post-millennialism! (A term they don't seem to employ!).

So, alas, I feel like a caveman. Blinded by a whole knew world I never knew existed. Pray for me. And I invite your comments! If I don't figure this one out, I'm in for a VERY long course of study.

I'm baaack...Maybe

2006-11-13T19:49:00.000-03:00

I remember it well, April 16. Yes, Easter Sunday. I had this really cool post running around in my head on how people in Argentina tend to focus on the empty cross as an Easter symbol while North Americans usually emphasize the empty tomb. I was trying to grapple with that issue, as well as the fact that Easter is called "Pascua" here (Passover!). Any how, there were a bunch of things I wanted to deal with, but couldn't get anything to come out right. So, I kept trying for a week or so. Then gave up in defeat. And haven't blogged since.

I suppose I'm too much of a perfectionist to successfully blog. I mean, to me, it should have the reliability of an exegetical paper. One that got a good grade, that is.

So, alas, I'll try again.

It will be hard for me, because I hate putting stuff in print, unless I'm SURE of it. Well, anymore I'm seldom sure of anything. I'm probably not blogging material. But I will try.

I'm getting ready to start back to school, so maybe I'll just share some of what I'm learning. Or what they want me to learn. Learning is such a scary thing. Pray for me if you get a chance.

Oh no!!! Another Woe!

2006-04-08T11:35:00.000-03:00

"But woe to you who are rich..." (Luke 6:24a).

If you are like me you read that and think, "Well, that's certainly not talking about me! I'm not rich." And we translate it to "Woe to Bill Gates...!"

Steve Corbett says that if you make minimum wage in the US, you are among the richest 5% in the world. And if you make $28,000 you are in the top 2% of the richest people in the world.

So, unless you make way less than minimum wage, when Jesus says "Woe to the rich..." He is talking to YOU!

"...for you are receiving your comfort in full." Um...yeah, that's probably most of us...we live pretty comfortable lives. (Especially when you consider the rest of the world.)

"Woe to you who are well-fed now, for you shall be hungry." I'm sorry, but there is no doubt whatsover that this applies to us. When we go back to the states we are struck by the enormous number of um... well-fed people.

Jesus started this discourse with "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. 21 "Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be satisfied" (Luke 6:20-21a). Let's not be too hasty in saying "Oh, he's talking about the spiritually poor. The rest of the discourse seems to be pretty literal.

Next time you read about issues regarding the rich...don't read yourself out of the Bible!

To a Louse

2006-04-02T23:57:00.000-03:00

The is one of my Dad's favorite poems. I've heard him quote it for as long as I can remember...mostly the last stanza. Please, take the time to read and reflect on the situation. It's 200 year old Scottish English, but I think you will get the point.

To A Louse
Poem lyrics of To A Louse by Robert Burns.

On Seeing One on a Lady's Bonnet at Church

Ha! whare ye gaun' ye crowlin ferlie?
Your impudence protects you sairly;
I canna say but ye strunt rarely
Owre gauze and lace,
Tho faith! I fear ye dine but sparely
On sic a place.

Ye ugly, creepin, blastit wonner,
Detested, shunn'd by saunt an sinner,
How daur ye set your fit upon her--
Sae fine a lady!
Gae somewhere else and seek your dinner
On some poor body.

Swith! in some beggar's hauffet squattle;
There ye may creep, and sprawl, and sprattle;
Wi' ither kindred, jumping cattle;
In shoals and nations;
Whare horn nor bane ne'er daur unsettle
Your thick plantations.

Now haud you there! ye're out o' sight,
Below the fatt'rils, snug an tight,
Na, faith ye yet! ye'll no be right,
Till ye've got on it--
The vera tapmost, tow'rin height
O' Miss's bonnet.

My sooth! right bauld ye set your nose out,
As plump an grey as onie grozet:
O for some rank, mercurial rozet,
Or fell, red smeddum,
I'd gie you sic a hearty dose o't,
Wad dress your droddum!

I wad na been surpris'd to spy
You on an auld wife's flainen toy
Or aiblins some bit duddie boy,
On's wyliecoat;
But Miss's fine Lunardi! fye!
How daur ye do't?

O Jeany, dinna toss your head,
An set your beauties a' abread!
Ye little ken what cursed speed
The blastie's makin!
Thae winks an finger-ends, I dread,
Are notice takin!

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An foolish notion:
What airs in dress an gait wad lea'es us,
An ev'n devotion!

Silly poem, exhortation to personal transparency, or...political commentary?

Woe is me!!!

2006-03-30T21:49:00.000-03:00

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are" (Mat 23:15).

How easily could we change that to "pastors and missionaries"?

Woe to you pastors and missionaries because you travel around on sea and land to make one convert.

Oh, we mean well, but then so did the Pharisees. How adept are we at distinguishing the gospel from our culture?

When the "savages" convert to the living God, they should live pretty much like us, shouldn't they?

But consider the Toba:

"The Toba take life as it comes, focusing on the present rather than the future. For example, when collecting food from the woods, they will take just enough for that day only. "If today they eat, fine. If not, that is fine too", observes Ramiro Schejtman, one of the Discovery Channel crew who filmed them. Ramiro continues: "No matter what the situation is, or the life they live, the Toba are never stressed or frustrated. They have no idea what stress is, they just don't know about that. They're happy people in their own way."

No stress, no hoarding, living in the present...for today..., "for tomorrow has enough troubles of it's own."

Now I ask you, Who has the better life?

Woe unto them if they convert...

Snake Summit

2006-03-30T09:37:00.000-03:00

Should we be bothered by the fact that George W. is meeting with the leaders of Mexico and Canada in a place called "Nest of Serpents" (a.k.a. Cancun) to discuss issues of international concern?

2006-03-28T20:05:00.000-03:00

Starting a BLOG is probably the singularly biggest mistake of my life. I mean, if I write what I really think, somebody might not like me! But I enjoy reading other people's blogs and commenting (albeit occasionally).

So, you ask, "Why Gary McDuda"? I'm glad you asked.

I love to teach, and especially teaching the Bible, but not just to give facts. I want people to think and learn for themselves. I try to teach for life change. I try never to tell someone something that they can learn or figure out for themselves. So I ask a lot of questions. Actually, that's about all I do. I usually answer a question with another question. Drives people nuts. I don't care. If I just give them the answer, they don't really learn anything. And they don't think. See The Role of Questions .

John Milton Gregory in his book The Seven Laws of Teaching says:

The true function of the teacher is to create the most favorable conditions for self-learning...True teaching, then, is not that which GIVES knowledge, but that which stimulates pupils to GAIN it. One might say that he teaches BEST who teaches LEAST (chapt 6)

The above quote is also found in a great little book on teaching by Howard Hendricks Teaching to Change Lives.

In Spanish, when someone has a question, they often say "Quiero que me saques una duda". Which means literally means "I want you to remove a doubt from me." Or, for you dynamic equivalence fans, "I have a question." Ha! If they only knew!! (You think have questions now, wait till I get done with you!)

I usually tell them "I don't answer questions, I just ask them" and they give me this quizzical look, because, after all, aren't teachers supposed to teach?

¡Yo no saco dudas, las siembro! Which means "I don't remove dudas, I sow them!"

Anyhow, that's how I became known as Gary McDuda.

Aren't you glad you asked?