Friday Summary Report, June 28

My posting has been nonexistent over the past two weeks, which is unfortunate, but also unavoidable:

• I spent last week at Green Valley Bible Camp. This was my 20th consecutive year at Green Valley (8 as a camper, and now 12 as a counselor), and it is always a special place for me and a spiritual highlight of my summer. We had a good week, although my week was unusual as I spent a large portion of it reading and preparing for a grad school class.
• This week I have been in Memphis at HST taking a class on New Testament Exegesis. As always, I have learned a lot and enjoyed my time here, but it has been difficult. My days generally consist of about 8 hours of class time, followed by study (I took a midterm on Tuesday and will take my final exam in the morning) and research (I have a paper to write for the class and have to take advantage of the library while on campus) in the evenings. Doing this after a week of camp (which is physically exhausting) has left me pretty drained. I am looking forward to finishing up tomorrow.

Next week, I will be on vacation in Florida. I am excited about this, and am hoping to have lots of opportunities to (a) Read books of my own choosing, (b) Get back to blogging, and (c) relax. Have an excellent weekend, and hopefully I’ll have something (relatively) significant to say next week.

Friday Summary Report, June 14

It has been a crazy and hectic week, and the upcoming weeks will be similar!

(1) We have had a busy week with Kinsley. Sunday night we had to take her to the ER because she (apparently) has a peanut allergy. It doesn’t seem fair—my little girl has enough to deal with without being deprived of peanut butter as well! In more positive news, we went to Little Rock Tuesday/Wednesday so she could have another EEG. We received a good report, and so she won’t have to continue to take steroids to fight her seizures (which is a significant blessing—the steroids make her cranky and also cause her to gain weight).

(2) I am officiating a wedding tomorrow (for two awesome people), preaching on Sunday, and also preaching next week at camp, so I have had a lot of lesson prep to do. Also, as it happens, we are kicking off new lesson series in the youth group Bible class this week (both this past Wednesday, and this coming Sunday). Lotta work.

(3) I’m going to camp on Sunday. It will be fun (it always is), but I am not prepared for it in any sense.

(4) The week after camp I have class in Memphis. Between now and then I have a lot of reading to do (at camp! How is this going to work?) and assignments as well. It will be a challenge starting a week of class (which is exhausting) immediately after completing a week of camp (which is exhausting).

(5) The week after class we are headed for vacation with Caroline’s family to Rosemary Beach. I am so looking forward to it—I think I’m going to get to read books of my own choosing!

(6) With the busyness upcoming, I’m betting the blogging will be sporadic. Hopefully not too much though—I miss blogging when I am away from it.

Good Preaching vs. Poor Preaching

What distinguishes good preaching from poor preaching? We tend to focus on things like how entertaining the speaker is or how good his powerpoint presentation is. In his book The Church of Christ in the 21st Century, my friend Mark Adams offers the following helpful perspective:

“Good preaching will be firmly rooted in the Word of God. Poor preaching will be rooted in a preacher’s personal agenda or favorite story. Good preaching will cause people to be amazed at the power and wisdom of God. Poor preaching will cause people to be impressed mostly with how smart or eloquent the preacher is (assuming they are impressed at all). Good preaching will allow Scripture to re-imagine our world as it should be, challenging us to live out the vision that God has for us. Poor preaching will allow us to ignore whatever parts of Scripture do not fit with our schedules, our preferences, or our comfort zones. Good preaching is faithful to God, whatever the cost. Poor preaching is faithful to  God, as long as there is no cost.”

I love those words. Good preaching is God-focused, and explicitly directs us to His greatness.

Updated “Writings” Page

The “Writings” link in the navbar above contains a list of my favorite posts from over the years here at The Doc File, as well as longer pieces I have written (usually in the form of research papers). A couple of recent updates to this page:

• I have added some of my top articles (in my own opinion, not necessarily by popularity) from the last year or so.
• I added an older paper I wrote on the Spanish dramatist Jerónimo López Mozo. The paper is in Spanish, and probably not very interesting to the majority of my readers, but it is interesting to me, both as a reminder of work I once did, and a direction in life that I once contemplated (further Spanish study).

La Vida y Obra de Jerónimo López Mozo

Jerónimo López Mozo es un dramaturgo muy prolífico quien es conocido por sus técnicas innovativas y también por sus relaciones antagonísticas con el gobierno de Generalísimo Franco en los años sesenta y setenta. Durante su vida, López Mozo ha escrito más que sesenta obras, incluyendo Guernica, un drama anti-guerra que fue inspirado por el cuadro famoso de Picasso, y que muestra ambos de sus características principales. 

Jerónimo López Mozo nació en Gerona, Cataluña el 15 de mayo de 1942. Cuando López Mozo tenía cuatro años, su familia se trasladó a Toledo, y cuando tenía ocho años, su familia se trasladó otra vez a Madrid. López Mozo vivió en Madrid durante los años cincuenta y cursaba estudios en la Escuela Superior de Ingenieros Agrónomos de Madrid y recibió su título como Ingeniero Agrícola en 1964.¹ También en 1964, López Mozo escribió su primera obra de teatro, Los novios o la teoría de los números combinatorios. En 1966, fue instrumental en la fundación de la Federación Nacional de Teatro Universitario.²

Está considerado como parte de la generación llamada el “Nuevo Teatro Español”, un grupo de escritores de los años sesenta y setenta que trabajaban con grupos universitarios e independientes y participaban en numerosas creaciones colectivas.³ Según a López Mozo, el Nuevo Teatro Español era unido por su odio al régimen de Franco, y no por sus estilos similares.⁴ También, George Wellwarth, un profesor estadounidense se refiere a la obra de López Mozo como “underground drama” o “teatro censurado”.⁵

En facto, López Mozo tenía muchas problemas con el gobierno franquista, y la Junta de Censura no se permitieron casi 75 por ciento de sus obras, generalmente a causa del contenido crítico, aunque usualmente simbólico, de sus obras y sus creyencias ideológicas contra al régimen de Franco.⁶A pesar de sus problemas causado por la Junta de Censura, López Mozo dice que “escribí como si no existiera la Junta de Censura…supuso que buena parte de mis obras fueran prohibidas…[pero] no impidió…su publicación… en locales que escapaban a su control.”⁷

Desde la muerte de Franco en 1975 y el término de su gobierno fascista, la obra de López Mozo ha recibido más atención favorable crítica y popular también.⁸ Pero, es todavía difícil encontrar sus obras en librerías y tiendas. López Mozo dice que es difícil encontrar obras de teatro en general porque “los textos dramáticos apenas interesan ni a los editores, ni a los distribuidores, ni a los libreros. Se venden poco y el precio no puede ser elevado.”⁹

Aparte de sus obras dramáticas, López Mozo ha sido muy activo en el mundo literario durante los años noventa. Desde 1995 a 1998, ocupó la Secretaría General de la Asociación de Autores de Teatro (AAT), desde 1998 ha pertenecido a la Asociación de Escritores de Teatro Infantil y Juvenil (AETIJ), y hasta 2004, formó parte del Consejo de Lectura del Centro Dramático Nacional.¹⁰

Desde López Mozo escribió su primera obra en 1964, ha escrito más que sesenta obras en solitario o en colaboración con otros autores. La mayoridad de las escrituras de López Mozo son creaciones teatrales, pero ha escrito cuentos, novelas, y ensayos también.¹¹ Sus dramas teatrales fueron influidos por el teatro del absurdo de la segunda mitad del siglo veinte, pero “a partir de 1990 ha incorporado a su obra elementos propios del teatro realista, que, hasta entonces, había rechazado.”¹² Sobre todo, los dramas de López Mozo son caracterizados por la búsqueda constante de nuevas formas de expresión teatral (por ejemplo, el uso de la proyección de película y el fragmentación estructural), y como resultado, sus dramas tienen “algunas de las técnicas más avanzadas, pero también más sólidas del teatro occidental contemporáneo.”¹³

Durante su carrera como dramaturgo, López Mozo ha recibido más que veinte premios y reconocimientos notables por su obra, empezando en 1968 cuando ganó el Premio Sitges de Teatro por Moncho y Mimí. Otros dramas y premios importantes incluyen el Buho de Bronce de la Institución Cultural Vox por Guernica en 1976, el Premio Tirso de Molina en 1996 y el Premio Nacional de Literatura Dramática en 1998, ambos por Ahlán, y el Premio Serantes de Teatro por La Infanta de Velázquez en 2000.¹⁴

Guernica, un drama anti-guerra que fue escrito por López Mozo en 1969, es una de sus obras mejor sabido. Esta drama fue inspirado por el cuadro famoso de Pablo Picasso del mismo título que cuenta la historia de un pueblo vasco que fue bombado por los Nazis de Alemania el 26 de Abril, 1937, durante la Guerra Civil Española. Durante la guerra, el gobierno fascista de Franco estaba aliado con los Nazis de Adolf Hitler, y Guernica fue atacado para desmoralizar las esfuerzas republicanas. Fue el primer ataque masivo aéreo contra una población civil en historia. En el cuadro y en el drama también, Picasso y López Mozo tratan de representar la vivacidad del pueblo y el horror que experimentó.¹⁵

El drama Guernica de López Mozo empiece con una sinopsis breve de que ocurrió—que 1.754 personas estaban matado y 889 estaban herido durante el ataque sorprendente. Entonces, los actores entran en la escena con piezas de un rompecabezas grande y se disponen a colocar las piezas como mural grande y reconstruyen el cuadro Guernica de Picasso. 

Entonces, la voz de un narrador empiece a leer poemas anti-guerras del escritores tal como Pablo Neruda y Alberti. Al mismo tiempo, hay un ruido inmenso. Al primero, es el sonido de altavoces y el doblar de campanas, y entonces, se oye los motores de aviones en la lejanía. Se acercan hasta su rugido domina el sonido de las altavoces y campanas. Entonces, hay el sonido de bombardeo, los silbidos de bombas y proyectiles, explosiones, y gritos de miedo y dolor. 

Después de eso, se proyectan fotografías y filmas en pantallas del bombardeo: un grupo de bombaderos en el aire, una bomba en vuelo, las calles del pueblo, le gente en refugio, una Guernica destruida, y unas cadáveres a los lados de un camino. 

Finalmente, después de todo eso, los personajes comienzan a aparecer. En la Guernica de López Mozo, todos los personajes del drama son los mismos personajes del cuadro de Picasso: la mujer del incendio, la madre con su hijo muerto, la mujer que mira la luz, el toro, el caballo, el guerrero, el pájaro, la flor, y la portadora de la lámpara. Entonces, cada personaje dice su parte del cuento del bombardeo. Por ejemplo, la mujer del incendio está en la cocina recogiendo la mesa cuando oye el sonido de las campanas, y el ruido de aviones y explosiones. Ella va a la ventana, y ve que hay gente corriendo en las calles. De repente, una bomba estalla en su casa, y hay cascotes por todas partes. Las sabanas, los manteles, y las cortinas de la ventana se queman, y ella no puede respirar a causa del humo. Quiere salir de la casa, pero ve que muchas otras casas están incendiando también, que el pueblo entero es un fuego grande, y que es inútil salir. El fuego arde la ropa y la carne de la mujer. Ella grita desesperadamente, y se muere. 

Los otros personajes dicen un cuento similar, y al fin, todos han muerto excepto la portadora de la lámpara, quien ha llegado tarde, después del bombardeo. Con la luz de su lámpara, ella ve las cadáveres y la destrucción del bombardeo, y con indignación y enojo, dice que “mi lámpara seguirá encendida señalando al mundo el lugar en que se ha consumado el crimen.” 

Ella se sitúa ante el mural grande de la pintura Guernica, y el ruido y las proyecciones del bombardeo cesan. Los otros actores aparecen, y cada uno toma un cirio y lo encienda en el fuego de la lámpara de la portadora. Entonces, se dirigen al público y el fuego se multiplica de unos cirios a otros, y el drama termina. 

Puesto que Guernica es un obra de teatro, es difícil a encontrar crítica acerca de la escritura de López Mozo en lugar de crítica de la música o los actores. Pero, hay alguna crítica de la organización del drama. Según a Tom Hawkinson, el drama es un poco tedioso a causa de los personajes del cuadro de Picasso están aislados y enfatizados tantas veces.¹⁶

Pero, Hawkinson tiene cosas buenas decir de Guernica también. Dice que el drama es muy bueno para transmitir el dolor de los personajes mientras recordando un importante incidente internacional de que la mayoridad de personas no han oido o han olvidado. También, piensa que el diseño del escenario, especialmente con el mural de la Guernica de Picasso es bello.¹⁷

A causa de no yo podía verlo el drama Guernica, tenía que usar mi imaginación cuando lo leía, pero todavía me gustaba mucho. Me gustaba el uso de los personajes del cuadro como los personajes del drama y sus historias individuales, y también me gustaba los efectos sonidos del bombardeo que continuaban por todo el drama. Pero mi cosa favorita del drama fue como la portadora de la lámpara daba la luz a la audencia que era simbólico de dar el conocimiento de la tragedia al mundo. Estoy seguro que, en un teatro, con los monólogos de los personajes, los efectos sonidos, y el uso simbólico de la luz, sería un drama muy conmovedor y poderoso. 

Aunque López Mozo no es todavía bien conocido en los Estados Unidos, es un dramaturgo importante y influencia en España. Sus obras, como Guernica, no son solamente dramas innovativos y populares, pero también funcionan como acusaciones de la régimen turbulenta de Franco. 

• • •

¹“Jerónimo López Mozo.” Caos Editorial: http://www.caoseditorial.com/autores/ficha.asp?lg=es%id=29. March 26, 2005.
²Campal, José Luis. “Introducción a una bibliografía de la obra dramática de Jerónimo López Mozo.” La Ratonera: http://www.la-ratonera.net/numero4/n4_mozo.html. March 26, 2005.

³“Jerónimo López Mozo.” Cátedra Miguel Delibes: http://www.catedramdelibes.com/archivos/000103.html. March 26, 2005.
⁴Ferrer, Carlos. “Entrevista a Jerónimo López Mozo.” Anika Entre Libros: http://www.libros.ciberanika.com/entre51.htm. March 29, 2005.
⁵“El teatro español a partir de 1940.” http://free.hostdepartment.com//d/deflor/70.htm. March 26, 2005.
⁶Campal.
⁷Ferrer.
⁸“Cultural Night from Spain: Music and Theatre.” Loyola University: http://www.loyno.edu/newsandcalendars/release.php?id=707. March 26, 2005.
⁹Ferrer.

¹⁰Campal; Cátedra Miguel Delibes.

¹¹Campal.

¹²Caos Editorial.

¹³“El teatro español a partir de 1940.”

¹⁴Cátedra Miguel Delibes.

¹⁵Hawkinson, Tom. “Picasso’s Guernica.” TheaterMania.com: http://1067litefm.theatermania.com/content/news.cfm/story/521. March 26, 2005. “Bombing of Guernica.” Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Guernica. March 27, 2005.

¹⁶Hawkinson.

¹⁷Ibid.

Why Don’t We All Read the Bible the Same Way?

If you at all pay attention to the world of Christendom, you are aware of the fact that a lot of people who claim to follow the teachings of the same book (the Bible) come to vastly different conclusions about what that book teaches. Why is that?

I think there are a lot of reasons: sometimes people read the Bible with less than pure intentions, and that can certainly affect the way it is interpreted. Other times people simply haven’t been trained very well, and this can warp their understandings as well.

But I think one of the biggest reasons that there is such a wide variety in the way the Bible is interpreted stems from the fact that people are very different from one another: we come from different ethnic, social, economic, and geographical backgrounds, and we also have significantly different personal experiences. All of these things combine to make us unique people who look at the world (and Scripture) in unique ways. It just makes sense that we would see some things differently. I recently read an example which illustrates this profound influence that our different backgrounds can have on the way we read and interpret Scripture.¹ 

Using the story of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15.11-32), one scholar had readers from different cultures read the story silently and then recount it to someone else. The results were surprising:

• Only 6 percent of American readers mentioned the famine that came upon the land while the prodigal was in the far country (15.14). In contrast, 100 percent of the recounted the way the prodigal wasted his estate (15.13).
• When the same exercise was used with residents of St. Petersburg, Russia, 84 percent mentioned the famine while only 34 percent mentioned the squandering.

So what’s the point?

In 1941, the army of Nazi Germany besieged St. Petersburg (then Leningrad) for about 2 1/2 years, leading to the death of 670,000 people (the picture above shows destitute citizens fetching water from a busted water line). The Russians polled in the exercise were survivors of the famine or descendants who had heard of the horrors of it throughout their lives, and thus it was only natural that they would be quick to hear of the problem of famine in the prodigal’s misadventures.

On the other hand, American readers had never experienced famine, but they definitely were familiar with wasteful and excessive lifestyles. It makes sense that they would seize upon these aspects of the parable.

While these differences don’t mean that the two groups would necessarily come to irreconcilably different interpretations of Jesus’ story, the example does illustrate how differences in our backgrounds and experiences can cause us to read the Bible differently, and can impact our interpretations accordingly.

To me, there are at least three implications of this point:

1. We need to be humble about our interpretations, realizing that they are at least in part influenced by our own personal experiences and backgrounds and thus, subject to bias. 
2. Since Scripture does not have an unlimited number of valid interpretations (if it did, it would be meaningless), it follows that the backgrounds and experiences of some people help them to arrive at valid interpretations, while those of others hinder them from doing so.
3. The solution is for us to study more and seek God’s guidance in understanding His word! This enables us to learn from each other, discovering the blind spots in our own perspectives and helping others to do the same. God doesn’t intend that His will for our lives be unintelligible, but that doesn’t mean that discerning it through Scripture won’t require time, effort, and practice.

● ● ●

¹ Croy, N. Clayton. Prima Scriptura: An Introduction to New Testament Interpretation (Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, 2011), 5-6.

“You Did Well That It Was In Your Heart”

After the death of King Saul, there is a struggle between David and Saul’s son, Ish-bosheth, for the throne of Israel. With God’s support, David eventually wins out, things settle down, and everything seems to be okay.

But David isn’t happy. He isn’t happy because he realizes that while he lives in a nice, comfortable house made of cedar, the Ark of God is kept in a tent!

This doesn’t seem right to David, so he determines that he wants to build a temple for the Ark to be housed in. That sounds like a good idea, but God rejects his offer in 1 Chronicles 22.8-10:

“But the word of the Lord came to me, saying, ‘You have shed much blood and have waged great wars; you shall not build a house to My name, because you have shed so much blood on the earth before Me. Behold a son will be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.’”

Later, Solomon talks about his father’s desire to build a temple for God in 1 Kings 8.17-19:

“Now it was in the heart of my father David to build a house for the name of the Lord, the God of Israel. But the Lord said to my father David, ‘Because it was in your heart to build a house for My name, you did well that it was in your heart. Nevertheless you shall not build the house, but your son who will be born to you, he will build the house for My name.’”

Did you catch that? God tells David, “You did well that it was in your heart.”

Even though David wasn’t going to be able to accomplish his goal of building the temple, God still appreciated and honored David’s intentions. Because he had been a man of war, David was told that he would not be the one to build a temple for the Lord—but God still appreciated that David had the desire to do so.

“It’s the thought that counts” is a common saying that we tend to throw around when we receive a gift we don’t like. It’s somewhat of an ironic saying, since often the reason we receive bad gifts is specifically because very little thought was put into it, but I think it’s still a true statement, and it’s basically what God tells David in this story: “It’s the thought that counts.”

By extension, this passage means that God cares about our intentions as well. And to me, as a Christian and as a minister, that is incredibly encouraging—while our actions certainly matter, the thoughts behind our actions matter as well. We can’t always control how things turn out, but we can control our intentions.

When we try to do something big for God, as David did, and we fail and our plans don’t pan out, I’m thankful to know that we have a God who says, “You did well that it was in your heart!”

I don’t know what your exact situation is…

• Maybe you try to help a friend with a problem like substance abuse or financial or marital difficulties, but your assistance is refused…God looks at your “failure” and says, “You did well that it was in your heart!”
• Maybe you try to influence others for good and try to be salt and light in the world, but your influence is ignored and they continue to embrace darkness…You did well that it was in your heart!
• Maybe you’re a youth minister and you’ve got that teen who you’ve poured yourself into— teaching, going to athletic events, modeling the Christian life, praying for them and lying awake at night worrying about them—but they choose to follow the world…You did well that it was in your heart!
• Maybe you try to share your faith with someone, perhaps a family member or close friend, but it simply falls on deaf ears…You did well that it was in your heart!

Realize that you are going to fail in life. Your results won’t always match up with your intentions and your plans. But our God is someone who sees our hearts and appreciates our best efforts. With that in mind, let us attempt great things for Him!

Being Humble About Our “New Interpretations”

Some more good stuff from Jonathan Pennington’s Reading the Gospels Wisely on the importance of

studying the history of the interpretation of the biblical text:

“Any time we think we have come up with a new and insightful interpretation, the odds are that someone has already had this insight and expressed it better; conversely, if we do arrive at an entirely new interpretation, then chances are, if none of the tens of thousands of students of Scripture have ever seen things that way, that interpretation may have serious weaknesses and blind spots.”

So basically, if you’re reading Scripture and feel like you’ve come upon a new and brilliant interpretation of a verse or passage that you’ve never heard before, do a little research: most likely someone else has already developed that same interpretation and has done so in a better and more thorough way. And that’s a good thing, because it leads to a deeper understanding of the Bible.

And it’s also possible (though unlikely) that your research will show that you have, indeed, come up with a new interpretation that no one else has ever thought of before. If that’s the case, your new interpretation is most likely flawed.

Either way, I think researching and reading the interpretive views of others is helpful in determining accuracy, and also leads to humility as well. Both are good things.