habakkuk: a midrash [week four]
well, gang - here we are at the end!
as i review the series, i truly believe there is so much to chew on - things that we ought to wrestle with and be shaped by.
in particular, i think of the ideas of...
...salvation rhetoric, that god speaks in a certain voice that recalls his prior promises
...the burden of a prophet, that it can be a heavy thing to carry god's word
...trust in god, in his character and his dominion
...debunking a theology of happiness, without deteriorating into an infatuation with UNhappiness
...the freedom to argue and speak openly to god about our struggles
...giving god the freedom to say 'enough is enough' pipsqueak :)
these issues rarely come up when we engage the new testament, and spending time in habakkuk has given us access to levels of faith i think we would otherwise ignore if we chose only to focus on the didactic bits of paul's letters. truthfully, i'm personally challenged by the text in a way that's more specialized than what's typical.
it's been a very good experience for me, so thanks for participating in it :)
now, for week four, let's try and engage the following things
#1 what does the text of chapter 3 mean after spending almost a month in chapters 1 and 2? do you feel like habakkuk's "response of praise" is more meaningful because of the time we've spent in the bad bits? do you feel like it's a more character-driven response? or, do you feel like he "rolled over" so-to-speak and just tried to placate god? what would you have done at that point? what have you done at similar points?
#2 james armstrong is joining me for wk.4. he's a very different voice than myself, or john, or randy, or ben, or lori - what does he bring to the text that is fresh? how does this "outside" perspective challenge our "westwinds" perspective? in what ways is it healthy for us to hear a totally unfamiliar voice?
#3 would there have been a better response from habakkuk at the end? a more true response? do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing that habakkuk wrote/spoke the whole book publicly - in front of a nation - rather than privately before god? how honest/confident in your words/responses would you feel if you had to do your god-arguing that way?
i'm excited to hear your thoughts!
as i review the series, i truly believe there is so much to chew on - things that we ought to wrestle with and be shaped by.
in particular, i think of the ideas of...
...salvation rhetoric, that god speaks in a certain voice that recalls his prior promises
...the burden of a prophet, that it can be a heavy thing to carry god's word
...trust in god, in his character and his dominion
...debunking a theology of happiness, without deteriorating into an infatuation with UNhappiness
...the freedom to argue and speak openly to god about our struggles
...giving god the freedom to say 'enough is enough' pipsqueak :)
these issues rarely come up when we engage the new testament, and spending time in habakkuk has given us access to levels of faith i think we would otherwise ignore if we chose only to focus on the didactic bits of paul's letters. truthfully, i'm personally challenged by the text in a way that's more specialized than what's typical.
it's been a very good experience for me, so thanks for participating in it :)
now, for week four, let's try and engage the following things
#1 what does the text of chapter 3 mean after spending almost a month in chapters 1 and 2? do you feel like habakkuk's "response of praise" is more meaningful because of the time we've spent in the bad bits? do you feel like it's a more character-driven response? or, do you feel like he "rolled over" so-to-speak and just tried to placate god? what would you have done at that point? what have you done at similar points?
#2 james armstrong is joining me for wk.4. he's a very different voice than myself, or john, or randy, or ben, or lori - what does he bring to the text that is fresh? how does this "outside" perspective challenge our "westwinds" perspective? in what ways is it healthy for us to hear a totally unfamiliar voice?
#3 would there have been a better response from habakkuk at the end? a more true response? do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing that habakkuk wrote/spoke the whole book publicly - in front of a nation - rather than privately before god? how honest/confident in your words/responses would you feel if you had to do your god-arguing that way?
i'm excited to hear your thoughts!