Spirit of Scriptural Jazz: A Parable
Scriptural Improvisation
As long as I managed to confuse half of you with my previous post, thought I may as well take the opportunity to dig myself in deeper while raising the question: what do you think about the idea of improvising scripture? Something that God and nature never intended? Or is this a valid way of trying to understand it? The prophetic-sounding overtones in the first and third paragraphs below, which I obviously wrote, involve no delusions on my part; just trying to maintain a New Testament style.
Parable of the Harvest
Jesus did not come to bring complacency to worshippers and self-satisfaction to a corner of the earth, but came carrying a sword of spiritual discernment for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear (cf. Matt 10:34). And he said:
“The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field; but while everybody was asleep, an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and then went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared as well. And the slaves of the householder came and said to him, “Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where, then, did these weeds come from?” He answered, “An enemy has done this.” The slaves said to him, “Then do you want us to go and gather them?” But he replied, “No; for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along with them. Let both of them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Collect the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.” (Matt 13:24-30)
Hear now the parable: Each of us is a mixed blessing. In so far as we still sleep, an enemy within sows weeds among the wheat. Both may grow in secret for a while. Yet to each of us the Master speaks, giving us power to distinguish each from each. And when we hear that Word then we begin the harvest, collecting and binding our weeds and letting the wheat stand so that the One may reap what he has sown.
As long as I managed to confuse half of you with my previous post, thought I may as well take the opportunity to dig myself in deeper while raising the question: what do you think about the idea of improvising scripture? Something that God and nature never intended? Or is this a valid way of trying to understand it? The prophetic-sounding overtones in the first and third paragraphs below, which I obviously wrote, involve no delusions on my part; just trying to maintain a New Testament style.
Parable of the Harvest
Jesus did not come to bring complacency to worshippers and self-satisfaction to a corner of the earth, but came carrying a sword of spiritual discernment for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear (cf. Matt 10:34). And he said:
“The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field; but while everybody was asleep, an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and then went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared as well. And the slaves of the householder came and said to him, “Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where, then, did these weeds come from?” He answered, “An enemy has done this.” The slaves said to him, “Then do you want us to go and gather them?” But he replied, “No; for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along with them. Let both of them grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Collect the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.” (Matt 13:24-30)
Hear now the parable: Each of us is a mixed blessing. In so far as we still sleep, an enemy within sows weeds among the wheat. Both may grow in secret for a while. Yet to each of us the Master speaks, giving us power to distinguish each from each. And when we hear that Word then we begin the harvest, collecting and binding our weeds and letting the wheat stand so that the One may reap what he has sown.
Posted by Paul at 7:27 PM Permalink
21 Comments:
...And they called this here cat "The Nazz."
He was a carpenter kiddie.
Now, The Nazz was the kind of a cat that come on so cool and so groovey and so with-it that when he laid it down, WHA-BOM, it stayed there.
Naturally all the rest of the cats said, "Man, look at that cat wail! He's wailin' up a storm up there. Hey, I'm tellin' ya,he layin' it down right, he... "
"Get off my back, Jack! What's the matter with you? I'm tryin' to dig what the cat's puttin' down!"
They're pushin' The Nazz to dig his miracle lick.
And The Nazz say, "Cool, babies. Tell ya' what I'm gonna do. I ain't gonna take two, four six, eight of you cats, but I'm gonna take all twelve of you studs and straighten you all at the same time."
Say, "You cats look like you pretty hip."
He say, "You buddy with me."
So The Nazz and his buddies was goofin' off down the boulevard one day and they run into a little cat with a bent frame.
So The Nazz look at this little cat with the bent frame and he say, "What's the matter wit' you, baby?"
Little cat with the bent frame he said, "My frame is bent, Nazz." Say, "It's been bent from in front."
So The Nazz look at the little cat with a bent frame and he put the golden eyes of love on this here little kittie and he look right down into the window of the little cat's soul and he say to the little cat, he say, "Straighten!"
Rooom - Boom!
Unbent that little cat like an arrow.
And everybody's jumpin' up and down sayin' "Look what The Nazz put on that boy!"
"You dug him before. Redig him now!"
Everyone's talkin' about The Nazz. What a great cat he was. How he swung with the glory of love. How he straighten out the squares.
In junior high, a well intentioned aunt of mine who was then a nun gave me a book that was a rewrite of the NT narrative done in groovy sixties speak. She lived far away and had no idea of my reading level/tastes/interests. And like man, was that a downer. I didn't dig at all...
That said, in this post I was trying to improvise in a way that speaks to content and actually did my best to preserve rather than alter NT style - for example, "Here now the parable" is a recurring verbal formula found there.
Keshi.
That's true - seems like reading improvisations on scripture could be a way of hearing words that one may have previously heard very often, but in a new way.
Someone has to have done this before... Seems to me that sermons come close to doing it, giving the cleric's own take on a particular passage.
KESHI, thanks -
Isn't the whole of Christianity - taking all sects and variations into account - an improvisation on the Bible record? In fact this seems to be the best way to describe the religious phenomenon.
In Hindu mythology the devas (roughly the inheritors of the kingdom of heaven) and the asuras (the drunken bohemian lot who cares two hoots for ideals, and are concerned only about movements and noise) strike a truce to churn the ocean of essentiality to bring out the objects needed to rejuvenate the universe. All they share is the great snake of sensibilities, within which is concealed all the treasures of existence. They loop the snake around a mountain and use it to churn the ocean to bring out all the things that make the world a more lively and interesting place. And throughout the exercise Vishnu, the presiding deity of dynamic balance, was moving all around helping everybody. Sometimes he will help the devas; sometimes the asuras. He even took the form of a tortoise and supported the mountain when it started going down.
I guess we find similar truces in all great renaissance movements. The world wilts when Gods or self styled Gods becomes partisan to side with one party exclusively.
Fortunately, I don't normally write in parables!
Unfortunately, at least when I was in divinity school, almost no attention was given to eastern religion. Hope that's changing. What I know of it is mostly through my own eclectic reading/listening, which happens to have been mainly in Buddhism.
It is through human devotion that things become holy, in my opinion.
Many people are spritually blind and have no understanding of the scriptures, hence Jesus' use of parables to illustrate His point. Parables are word pictures that contain a message. Max Lucado uses this technique very effectively, but makes no attempt to usurp the authority of the Scriptures.
Some of us, unfortunately, do not have the benefit of a post-secondary school education, and are thus left in the dark when academics use fifty cent words to convey their message. Hence the neccesity of "dumbing things down" to a level that we can understand.
He that has ears to hear, let him hear... :)
On accurately reflecting the message of scripture - to me that's a different matter. One thing that scriptural reworking helps demonstrate is the role of our own hearts and minds in how we understand scripture. We tend to select, emphasize - and minimize - different verses and aspects of the text. We also interpret passages differently. Of course, it's possible to read scripture flat out wrong - maybe the person's reading comprehension is lacking, for example. But it seems to me that most scriptural disagreements are questions of emphasis and interpretation, not accurate/inaccurate.
Thanks for looking this up - permalinking is something new for me...
Many have used their particular (mis)understanding of the scripture to either lead others astray or to brow-beat their followers into submission.
While I believe that God continues to speak to His people today, either through shining a light on a particular passage - thus enabling us to see it in a different light, or by speaking directly to them through The Holy Spirit, discernment is necessary to avoid falling into error.
"Progressive Revelation" is fine, but must, I repeat: MUST, fall into line with the rest of Scripture to be valid or considered "Thruth."
The Bible is a highly complex text - a large anthology with many authors written over many centuries, and containing a huge variety of material, from narrative with historical elements to poetry and metaphor. Variation among Christian viewpoints naturally occurs around how to understand such a complex source document.
I suppose it’s human nature to assume that our own interpretations of scripture best fall into line with it. Maybe part of the reason we’ve been given such a rich text is to notice that there’s a tendency for all sides to feel very confident – sometimes overly so – that those who think most like themselves have a thorough grasp of Truth while others have necessarily fallen into error.
I am also liberal enough to believe that the age of miracles; of healings; of "tongues;" of prohetic utterances; and of God speaking directly to His people has not passed away with the Apostles.
Whether God chooses to use The Bible or "New" revelation is entirely up to Him. Have you ever read a scripture so many times you can quote it verbatim, and yet one day out of the blue you suddenly see it in an entirely different light? I have, many times.
As a Christian of the "Charismatic" persuasion, I also am quite comfortable with hearing prophetic utterances delivered through either the man/woman behind the pulpit or through a member of the laity.
That is what I mean by "Progressive Revelation." God still speaks directly to His people, but as I said, such revelation MUST line up with the Authoritative Word of God, - the Bible. It is only too easy for someone to pronounce "Thus sayeth The Lord..." and proceed to lead the hearers down the garden path. Take the Jone's Family for example.
I am not foolish enough to believe I, or anyone else for that matter, have/has the inside track when it comes to interpretation of The Word, nor am I suggesting that denominations other than the one I prefer are wrong. As you mentioned, the Scriptures are a complex text, with the possibility of many varied interpretations thereof. There is a requirement however, to observe a certain amount of orthodoxy when interpreting the Scripture.
I believe that too often, we "major on the minors," and become embroiled in dissension and disagreements unnecessarily. Complete agreement with every other Christian around us may be impossible to achieve this side of "heaven," but the commandment is not to agree with one another, it is to LOVE one another.
When it comes to aspects of religion that are more doctrinal than experiential, I find that it’s often impossible for people of different views to engage in meaningful dialog. It seems to me that maybe the basic problem is that people often find that that they can't “bracket” their beliefs – temporarily set them aside just for the sake of conversation, just long enough to really listen and take in, empathetically, what the other person’s trying to say, instead of making every sentence a re-insistence on their belief that their belief is right and the other guy’s is wrong.
We seem to live in age of increasing fracture, both politically and religiously.
Post a Comment