Thankfully the technical difficulties have been short-lived and I am back in podcasting business!
I must say that the silver lining to this whole thing is that I think the *technical quality* of my podcasts is going to be noticeably improved. I am now capable of recording in stereo--which I think makes a big difference even though it's just a sermon.
On the technical side...
If you're a techno-nerd like I am, you may want to know more about the product I'm now using. I decided to move away from Olympus and am now using a Philips Digital Voice Tracer 0860. In addition to being able to record in SHQ stereo, it also saves as an mp3 (thus eliminating a step from my prior process--converting .wav to mp3), AND is recognized by both Mac OS and Windows operating systems as a simple USB drive...making uploads to my system a SNAP!
I am constantly amazed at the development of technology when it comes to these things. I first bought into the DVR world while I was in seminary. Granted, I did not spend a lot of money, but the item I purchased then sounded as though a dishwasher were constantly running in the background. Thank God that's no longer the case.
So, if you care, you may want to do a point-counterpoint comparison between the quality of my podcast from this last Sunday (Jul 19th) using the Philips, and any of the previous podcasts using the Olympus. I'm sure you'll agree that the Philips is a noticeable improvement.
Silver linings are nice.
cheers,
TM
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
experiencing technical difficulties
Remember way back when in the days of only 3 TV channels.....ABC, NBC, & CBS.....(I never counted PBS).....and every now and then they'd experience some kind of "technical difficulties," and you'd just see a screen of colored bars?
Well, something LIKE that is happening with my ability to record my sermons.
My trusty Olympus DVR appears to have died on me. It's been acting up for the last several weeks, and this last Sunday (the 12th) it chose to not record my sermon at all.
A new model is on order--hopefully better, faster, stronger--but until I have it and have learned how to use it, there will be a brief interruption in my ability to post recordings of the Sunday sermon. Watch this space for more info.
Thanks & God bless!
Pastor Manwell
Well, something LIKE that is happening with my ability to record my sermons.
My trusty Olympus DVR appears to have died on me. It's been acting up for the last several weeks, and this last Sunday (the 12th) it chose to not record my sermon at all.
A new model is on order--hopefully better, faster, stronger--but until I have it and have learned how to use it, there will be a brief interruption in my ability to post recordings of the Sunday sermon. Watch this space for more info.
Thanks & God bless!
Pastor Manwell
Monday, March 16, 2009
Lent 3, Morning After Thoughts
A few things are swirling around in my head this morning about the focus of the Ten Commandments yesterday.
Perhaps the main thing is that recent scholarship and the scholarly dialog between Jewish & Christian communities has very much begun to call into question the typical posturing in Lutheran theology that places "LAW" and "GOSPEL" in very distinct and mutually exclusive categories. Such categories, for instance, would see NOTHING gospel oriented in the giving of the 10 Commandments. These are HOLY DEMANDS made by a HOLY GOD, that imperfect/unholy Humanity are incapable of keeping. And yet, this is but one way of viewing the situation. Moreover, it happened to be Martin Luther's way....true....but Luther was a man of his age who was GREATLY [and negatively] influenced by the medieval theology of his day. As it was hopefully brought out in yesterday's sermon, there is PLENTY of Gospel in the giving of the 10 Commandments, most specifically found in Exodus 20:1 & 2.
cheers,
TM
Perhaps the main thing is that recent scholarship and the scholarly dialog between Jewish & Christian communities has very much begun to call into question the typical posturing in Lutheran theology that places "LAW" and "GOSPEL" in very distinct and mutually exclusive categories. Such categories, for instance, would see NOTHING gospel oriented in the giving of the 10 Commandments. These are HOLY DEMANDS made by a HOLY GOD, that imperfect/unholy Humanity are incapable of keeping. And yet, this is but one way of viewing the situation. Moreover, it happened to be Martin Luther's way....true....but Luther was a man of his age who was GREATLY [and negatively] influenced by the medieval theology of his day. As it was hopefully brought out in yesterday's sermon, there is PLENTY of Gospel in the giving of the 10 Commandments, most specifically found in Exodus 20:1 & 2.
cheers,
TM
Monday, March 9, 2009
Lent 2, Morning after thoughts
Well, the main thing that is still swirling around in my mind this morning from yesterday's text(s) concerns the last verses of the Genesis 17 reading, vss 14 & 16:
15 God said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. 16 I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall give rise to nations; kings of peoples shall come from her."
We are told over and over again that the ancient culture that produced the Bible was a male-dominated patriarchal culture. And this is certainly true. And yet knowing this fact, one must be all the more struck by the detail of these two verses. In the narrative, God has just appeared to Abram and given him these wonderful covenant promises. Furthermore, Abram's name is changed to Abraham so as to further bring home this idea of "new responsibility, new relationship & new destiny" that I talked of yesterday. Great. One could even add, in a male dominated patriarchal society, "'nuff said." Yet for God in His goodness, it wasn't 'nuff said. He also turns to Sarai, and in some sense gives her equal billing as Abram. Yes, he shall be the father of nations and kings shall come from him, but she will be the mother of nations and kings shall come from her.
This is neither the first nor the last specific mention of the role of women in God's salvation covenant history. From a purely biological perspective, one could say "of course women are needed in the process," but it goes deeper than that. In this male-dominated patriarchal society of *human* origin, God breaks in and CHOOSES certain women BY NAME to have special place in his covenant purpose.
May we always see God as a God who "breaks in" to our arbitrarily established 'world,' for it is in this 'in-breaking' that His covenant purposes to reclaim a people for Himself moves forward.
cheers,
TM
15 God said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. 16 I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall give rise to nations; kings of peoples shall come from her."
We are told over and over again that the ancient culture that produced the Bible was a male-dominated patriarchal culture. And this is certainly true. And yet knowing this fact, one must be all the more struck by the detail of these two verses. In the narrative, God has just appeared to Abram and given him these wonderful covenant promises. Furthermore, Abram's name is changed to Abraham so as to further bring home this idea of "new responsibility, new relationship & new destiny" that I talked of yesterday. Great. One could even add, in a male dominated patriarchal society, "'nuff said." Yet for God in His goodness, it wasn't 'nuff said. He also turns to Sarai, and in some sense gives her equal billing as Abram. Yes, he shall be the father of nations and kings shall come from him, but she will be the mother of nations and kings shall come from her.
This is neither the first nor the last specific mention of the role of women in God's salvation covenant history. From a purely biological perspective, one could say "of course women are needed in the process," but it goes deeper than that. In this male-dominated patriarchal society of *human* origin, God breaks in and CHOOSES certain women BY NAME to have special place in his covenant purpose.
May we always see God as a God who "breaks in" to our arbitrarily established 'world,' for it is in this 'in-breaking' that His covenant purposes to reclaim a people for Himself moves forward.
cheers,
TM
Monday, March 2, 2009
Morning after thoughts, Lent 1
I continue to be struck this morning by the idea that being *IN* the covenant, IN the covenant relationship with God, means that God bears us no ill will. This has immense pastoral care significance, as one's frequent knee jerk reaction to the trials and tribulations of life is that perhaps "God is judging me for some particular sin in my life." On the one hand, this reaction can be understood--if from no other angle, at least the perfectly pragmatic angle that perhaps if I just get that one thing (whatever it is) straightened out, then God's judgment against me will cease.
Unfortunately, the problem with this line of thought is that it is based upon a theological fallacy. The judgment of God that awaits the non-believer is an eschatological event. It isn't currently happening, but *will* happen at the end of all time when Christ "comes again to judge the living and the dead. For the believer, it is also a theological fallacy to think that God is visiting judgment upon him or her for sin, as St. Paul tells us in Col 2:14: "He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross." Hence, the trials and tribulations that occur in our lives are the trials and tribulations that occur in life .....given this fallen world we live in.
While it is a thought from a different liturgical season, the angels recognized that God was not at war with us when at the birth of Christ they sang: Glory to God in the highest and *peace* good will to man.
Cheers,
TM
Unfortunately, the problem with this line of thought is that it is based upon a theological fallacy. The judgment of God that awaits the non-believer is an eschatological event. It isn't currently happening, but *will* happen at the end of all time when Christ "comes again to judge the living and the dead. For the believer, it is also a theological fallacy to think that God is visiting judgment upon him or her for sin, as St. Paul tells us in Col 2:14: "He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross." Hence, the trials and tribulations that occur in our lives are the trials and tribulations that occur in life .....given this fallen world we live in.
While it is a thought from a different liturgical season, the angels recognized that God was not at war with us when at the birth of Christ they sang: Glory to God in the highest and *peace* good will to man.
Cheers,
TM
Monday, February 23, 2009
Morning after thoughts, Transfiguration
Good Morning!
Well, I have just a few leftover thoughts from our text yesterday in Mark chapter 9. As a brief aside, I would recommend doing a study sometime between the differences of the 3 Transfiguration accounts from Matthew, Mark & Luke. There are some subtle differences. For instance, Luke is the only one who says Jesus went to the mountain "to pray." Mark, curiously lists Elijah first when he speaks of the two heavenly visitors, when clearly the convention in biblical literature is to list the "more important" person first. Matthew seems to correct Mark's "oversight" by swapping the order around--leaving one to wonder why Mark chose the order he did. Peter responds to Jesus in Matthew's version that it is good "Lord" to be here, whereas Mark uses the more Jewish term "Rabbi." Very curiously, Luke uses a word that could be translated as "Master" or "Supervisor,".....in other words, neither the Greek title "Kyrios," nor the Jewish teaching title "Rabbi."
Having said all of that, it strikes me that Mark's version COULD appropriately be used as a funeral text. Beginning with vs 1 of Mark chapter 9, Mark tells us:
1 And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."
Then the text continues:
2 After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them.
After the mountain-top event, and they're on their way back down, the text says:
10 They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what "rising from the dead" meant.
This gives an indication that as far as Mark was concerned, the event should be seen--if nothing else--as confirmation of the promise of the resurrection of the dead. To some degree, the 3 privileged disciples were granted an advanced look at what RESURRECTION was all about.
This one-time advanced look then (obviously) quickly made its way into the genre of sacred story, was preserved in the oral tradition, and then included by Mark in his Gospel.
As I said yesterday, we cannot time travel back to the event and even if we could, only 3 of that larger group were privileged to see it. And yet if by faith we can accept that it actually happened, we can rejoice at this GLIMPSE of the resurrection, knowing that human pain, suffering, grief, and crosses will not have the final word.
cheers,
TM
Well, I have just a few leftover thoughts from our text yesterday in Mark chapter 9. As a brief aside, I would recommend doing a study sometime between the differences of the 3 Transfiguration accounts from Matthew, Mark & Luke. There are some subtle differences. For instance, Luke is the only one who says Jesus went to the mountain "to pray." Mark, curiously lists Elijah first when he speaks of the two heavenly visitors, when clearly the convention in biblical literature is to list the "more important" person first. Matthew seems to correct Mark's "oversight" by swapping the order around--leaving one to wonder why Mark chose the order he did. Peter responds to Jesus in Matthew's version that it is good "Lord" to be here, whereas Mark uses the more Jewish term "Rabbi." Very curiously, Luke uses a word that could be translated as "Master" or "Supervisor,".....in other words, neither the Greek title "Kyrios," nor the Jewish teaching title "Rabbi."
Having said all of that, it strikes me that Mark's version COULD appropriately be used as a funeral text. Beginning with vs 1 of Mark chapter 9, Mark tells us:
1 And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."
Then the text continues:
2 After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them.
After the mountain-top event, and they're on their way back down, the text says:
10 They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what "rising from the dead" meant.
This gives an indication that as far as Mark was concerned, the event should be seen--if nothing else--as confirmation of the promise of the resurrection of the dead. To some degree, the 3 privileged disciples were granted an advanced look at what RESURRECTION was all about.
This one-time advanced look then (obviously) quickly made its way into the genre of sacred story, was preserved in the oral tradition, and then included by Mark in his Gospel.
As I said yesterday, we cannot time travel back to the event and even if we could, only 3 of that larger group were privileged to see it. And yet if by faith we can accept that it actually happened, we can rejoice at this GLIMPSE of the resurrection, knowing that human pain, suffering, grief, and crosses will not have the final word.
cheers,
TM
Monday, February 16, 2009
Morning after thoughts, 6th Sun after Epiphany
Well, there are still many things swirling around in my mind about this text.....like, for instance, the way it ends:
(vs 45) "But he went out and began to proclaim it freely, and to spread the word, so that Jesus could no longer go into a town openly, but stayed out in the country; and people came to him from every quarter."
99 out of 100 commentators take that to mean that Jesus is now *so popular* because the [former] leper didn't keep his mouth shut like Jesus had *sternly* told him. Due to this extreme popularity, the tiny narrow streets & alleyways simply could not accommodate the huge crowds of the villages that desired to see Jesus, so now he had to stay out in the countryside.
I generally accept that this is the original intent behind Mark's point, however, the alternative is at least worth considering.
We have to remember that Jesus JUST TOUCHED A LEPER. That makes HIM unclean now. Even if he doesn't contract leprosy himself, he still needs to go through the prescribed purification process in order to become "clean" again. It's as though he touched a dead body. Furthermore, if he was interested enough in upholding the Jewish customs concerning these things that he instructed the Leper to go to a priest & submit to the prescribed manner of being declared "clean," (vs 44), then he should do the same, HIMSELF, given that he had just had physical contact with a Leper. And here's the thing......maybe he *did*.....but Mark doesn't say he did. It just says now he can't go into the villages. Maybe it's because he's too popular.......but *maybe* it's because he's been associating with the wrong people. Maybe it's because a large segment of the culture now views Jesus as UNCLEAN.
The thing about that latter possibility is that there will always be the risk that when we TRY to follow Jesus....when we TRY to go where he went and interact with the hurting, disenfranchised, like he did, we'll end up touching the "wrong" people and losing points in the "in crowd" for it. This takes wisdom and discernment. To lose face for being a jerk or a weirdo is not our calling. But to lose face for touching the lepers of our society is.
cheers,
TM
(vs 45) "But he went out and began to proclaim it freely, and to spread the word, so that Jesus could no longer go into a town openly, but stayed out in the country; and people came to him from every quarter."
99 out of 100 commentators take that to mean that Jesus is now *so popular* because the [former] leper didn't keep his mouth shut like Jesus had *sternly* told him. Due to this extreme popularity, the tiny narrow streets & alleyways simply could not accommodate the huge crowds of the villages that desired to see Jesus, so now he had to stay out in the countryside.
I generally accept that this is the original intent behind Mark's point, however, the alternative is at least worth considering.
We have to remember that Jesus JUST TOUCHED A LEPER. That makes HIM unclean now. Even if he doesn't contract leprosy himself, he still needs to go through the prescribed purification process in order to become "clean" again. It's as though he touched a dead body. Furthermore, if he was interested enough in upholding the Jewish customs concerning these things that he instructed the Leper to go to a priest & submit to the prescribed manner of being declared "clean," (vs 44), then he should do the same, HIMSELF, given that he had just had physical contact with a Leper. And here's the thing......maybe he *did*.....but Mark doesn't say he did. It just says now he can't go into the villages. Maybe it's because he's too popular.......but *maybe* it's because he's been associating with the wrong people. Maybe it's because a large segment of the culture now views Jesus as UNCLEAN.
The thing about that latter possibility is that there will always be the risk that when we TRY to follow Jesus....when we TRY to go where he went and interact with the hurting, disenfranchised, like he did, we'll end up touching the "wrong" people and losing points in the "in crowd" for it. This takes wisdom and discernment. To lose face for being a jerk or a weirdo is not our calling. But to lose face for touching the lepers of our society is.
cheers,
TM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
