R. N. Whybray's Isaiah 40-66 (The New Century Bible Commentary)

I finished reading R. N. Whybray's  commentary on Deutero-Isaiah (40-66) tonight. It was an enjoyable work, particularly technical with some good analyses of Deutero-Isaiah theology. It was very much the type of work one expects The New Century Bible Commentary series (The Anchor Bible Commentary Series is still the overall best).

Deutero-Isaiah is one of the most important works in the Bible and one of the deepest. Written during the time of the Israelite exile in Babylon, Deutero-Isaiah's purpose is to announce to those in exile that Yahweh has not forgotten them. Indeed, the prophet announces that Yahweh is about to free them from Babylonian captivity through his servant, Cyrus, and send them back to their homeland. It's at this point that the prophet reveals the full scope of Yahweh's plan. Not only is God going to redeem Israel but he is going to redeem the whole world through Israel, bringing Gentiles into God's people, bringing in the poor and outcasts, and reversing the Fall of Man, reversing the curse upon creation, and establishing a New Creation. This is the presentation of the great sweep of God's original plan and here, at Israel's lowest point, the whole purpose Yahweh's promise to Abraham and the purpose of Israel is made known.

I had only two major problems with Whybray's book. First, he argues the case for chapters 56-66 being the work of separate post-Exilic author. This is a popular viewpoint among scholars but I am still unconvinced. In fact, having read Whybray's presentation of the evidence I am even more convinced at the flimsiness of the position. Secondly, Whybray argues that the Suffering Servant of Deutero-Isaiah refers to Deutero-Isaiah himself. I think his argument here is pretty shallow and contorted. Traditional scholarship has identified the Suffering Servant as a personification of Israel. I think this traditional view is the correct one and even Whybray has to argue for conjectured interpolations into the manuscript to argue his position. These are theoretical interpolations not found in the LXX or the Dead Sea Scrolls and do not break the meter of the poetry.

Still, despite these two objections, I was pleased with the overall thrust of the work, most of its individual parts, and the historical-cultural insights it taught me about Deutero-Isaiah.

Thought Processes and Leadership in the Kingdom of God [A Fragment of an Uncompleted Article]

[A few months ago, a seminary friend asked me to write an article for his blog. I wrote the following, but, even after four separate attempts, I couldn't come up with a satisfactory conclusion. I ended up writing something else but in a similar vein. However, I think there are some good nuggets in here despite its fragmentary form.]

"One thing I learned from my father is to try to think as the people around you think." - Michael Corleone, The Godfather II

"He puts himself in the man's place, having first gauged his intelligence. Then he imagines how he himself would have proceeded in similar circumstances." - Dr. John Watson, The Musgrave Ritual (Granada - 1986), explaining Sherlock Holmes' method

I love both of these two quotes because I think they encapsulate something fundamental about practical life.

Certainly, I think every individual is more than the sum of his or her parts. As Reinhold Niebuhr noted, the human being is finite but is conscious of the limits and contours of his/her finiteness. Because of this knowledge, he/she can aspire beyond that finiteness, though never reaching beyond it. But because of this aspiration to infinity, humans have the ability to explore their finiteness in a way beyond the capability of other species. We can diverge from our predetermined paths. We can rise above our base instincts. We can self-examine ourselves and our lives. We can know that we know. We can actually pull ourselves out of our context (at least partially) and grasp the eternal truth in which our context must ultimately submit.

However, such an ability can only be exercised through submission, humbleness, wisdom through fear, knowing we know nothing, and the recognition of our own finiteness in the face of infinity. And that takes willful purpose. That involves the realization and recognition of the culture, context, and patterns of our existence, the analyzing of culture etc., and the choice to deviate. Unfortunately, most people never realize there is anything beyond their context. Therefore, people nevertheless tend to follow regular patterns of thought and behavior because it is the most natural thing for them to do.

So ... if you can work out a person's pattern, their personality, background, worldview, belief system, character, major life experiences, influences, etc., then you can begin to ascertain how someone thinks and then how that person behaves in different situations. Once you've gauged the person's thought processes, their behaviors, and even  their modus operandi, then you can make predictions about how they will think and react to a given circumstance.

For the Christian, the importance of knowing thought processes is how to positively engage an individual for the strategic purposes of the Kingdom of God.

God Wins

One of the things about the Christian Faith is the option to look at the universe, creation, and history from a wide perspective. I'm reminded of an episode of the BBC murder mystery show Inspector Lewis in which a Oxford professor who studied the Greek classics admitted his unconcern with the trivial details of day-to-day life because he thought in terms of thousand year eras. For the Christian, God created the universe some 13 billion years ago. He began creating the earth 4 billion years ago. He created man at some point and then inaugurated the salvation of this world some 4,000 years ago with the calling of Abraham. It was only some 2,000 years ago that the Kingdom of God came, breaking into history, in the person and work of Jesus and his Church. And as Jesus proved at his resurrection: God wins. New creation is coming. The thorns and thistles that cycle through our lives and the up and downs that cycle through our world that can seem so relevant to our existence are really just blips in the overall working out of God's plan for the salvation of his creation. As Christians, we are called to do good works for the Kingdom of God, seeking God's guidance in how to best do so. If we ask him, he'll give it. It is in the confidence of God's victory and in the assurance of the hope of God's ultimate justice that we place our faith. God wins. Everything else we do is the working out of that ultimate cosmic salvation in the tasks and mission that God in Christ gives us. All anxiety and worry should just fall away. God wins. A wider perspective of creation and history should cause one to throw their sufferings and anxieties on God and trust in his salvific work. God wins.

Charles L. Campbell's Preaching Jesus: New Directions for Homiletics in Han Frei's Postliberal Theology

The other day I finished reading Charles L. Campbell's Preaching Jesus: New Directions for Homiletics in Han Frei's Postliberal Theology. Charles L. Campbell (Preaching Jesus: New Directions for Homiletics in Hans Frei's Postliberal TheologyEssentially, the book is an exploration of the thought, teaching, and context of Frei's use of narrative preaching.The context seems to be the reemergence of biblical preaching by mainline denomination liberals as their move away from subjective religious experience and back towards the centrality of Jesus and the meta-narrative told through the Scriptures. During the 1960s, liberal preachers began to abandon neo-orthodoxy in favor of a more private spirituality and a secular politics, both completely divorced from the Christ event.

Much of the book - literary interpretations of the Bible, the meta-narrative of the Scriptures, refocus on neo-orthodoxy - is "old hat" to me. My studies of Kierkegaard, Mullins, Barth, Brunner, Bonhoeffer, Niebuhr, Moody, Stagg, Buber, and Wright taught me all this long ago. But it is nice to see liberal Christians starting to get it right to some degree.

The most interesting aspect of this book for me was the examination of how people become "Christians" culturally and how they come to believe what they believe. Essentially, the thesis here is that becoming a "Christian" is a process of socialization or enculturation within a particular cultural-linguistic community. One doesn't become a "Christian" by having a "religious experience" but by learning the particular language and set of practices inherent in Christianity, a denomination, and a particular faith tradition. Furthermore, people learn the "meaning" of a scriptural teaching and their way of "interpreting" Scripture by adopting the cultural practices of their faith community, not by drawing upon the sensus literalis.  All of this is really about the practical process of how individuals and community arrive at Biblical interpretation and theology, regardless of accuracy. All of this can be quite depressing to the learned Christian but it really seems to be the way the majority "Christianize" themselves in practice.

Frei is said to argue that the function of the gospels is to render the identity of Jesus. I find this highly questionable but probably only overstated.

I greatly appreciated Frei's assessment that Jesus enacted the way of God in the world as an embodiment of the reign of God. I think this is right on the money. This dips slightly into some of the deeper areas of Scriptural studies involving Jesus self-understanding and prophetic vocation.

I really don't think there are any deeper aspects of Scripture studies than the theology of Job, Roman 1, Deutero-Isaiah, and Jesus' personal understanding of his prophetic vocation.

The book is fairly technical and might be of some interest to preachers. However, it's probably more interesting to those who study preaching. And though I think most evangelicals would find this book uninteresting, liberal and more progressive Christians would find the more practical homiletic parts very useful.

"Judge not ..."

Sometimes when one points out that a particular behavior is contrary to God's will, others will condemn that pronouncement by citing the first part of  Jesus' teaching in Matthew 7, saying, "Judge not".

The people in this context that cite this statement interpret it to mean that one must never judge another person's behavior to be wrong. I am under no delusion that anyone who does so is actually attempting to offer Scriptural wisdom  - they simply don't like being told that a particular behavior is wrong and they are looking for the easiest way to deflect their guilt.

Obviously, we make judgments about behavior every day. Judges and juries are supposed to do it. Jesus in John 7:24 is quoted as saying, "Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.”

Indeed, Telling someone that it is wrong to judge is actually judging someone and their behavior. Therefore, under the "never-tell-anyone-they-are wrong" interpretation, it is wrong to tell someone to "judge not". It's hypocrisy.

Again, I know that no one who cites "judge not" in the above manner is really concerned with the meaning of Jesus' teaching and the inner-contradictions of their misinterpretations - they just don't like the guilt of being told they're wrong.

Let's actually look at "judge not" in its context.

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye" (Matt7:1-5).

As the context makes perfectly clear, the purpose of pointing out the sin in someone's life is to help that person remove it. It's not simply the proclamation of error but the call to turn towards a more authentic way of living. For someone to be upset that someone is attempting to guide them towards the removal of serious error in their life is like going to a doctor with breathing problems and becoming angry when he suggests the cure.

"Mr. Smith, you need to stop smoking. It's damaging your health." "'Judge not lest ye be judged!'" "Uh, but I don't smoke." "'Physician, heal thyself!'" "Actually, I'm a general prac-" "'"Shut the heck up," thus sayeth the Lord!'"

Jesus is saying that one cannot help remove the sin from someone's life if they are engaging in that sin as well. You can't help someone with their drunkenness if you are a drunk. You can't help someone with their lying if you are a liar. You can't help someone with their immorality if you also engage in immorality. You can't help someone with their hypocritical use of "judge not" if you are hypocritically using "judge not."

1-3 John (The IVP New Testament Commentary Series), by Marianne Meye Thompson

This weekend, I finished reading Marianne Meye Thompson's commentary on the Epistles of  John for The IVP New Testament Series. Thompson is probably one of the best female Biblical scholars in the world today and certainly one of the best when it comes to the Johannine works. I've read many of her works and conversed with her through email in my early days of seminary when I was leaning towards Johannine studies. I subsequently followed Lucan studies.

I think it is really necessary for the Christian interested in 1-3 John to read good commentaries upon the subject. John frequently writes in general, universal, absolutist, and dichotomous manner which can cause the faithful reader to make thought applications not intended by the author.

A good commentary will help the reader put some of the more stringent statements of John in context, both the context of the letters, the situation in which the letters were written, and within the overall Johnannine corpus. This is what Thompson does in her book.

1-3 John continues to be even more relevant today with its focus on love, truth, fellowship, division, and discipleship. With so much of the North American church adopting new, pseudo-definitions of what it means to love, hate, and pursue the truth, it's important for those followers of Jesus who still have their feet planted in the mission of the church to adequately relate to those other members of the church.

Here is one of my two favorite quotes from the commentary:

"Sacrificial love that models itself after Jesus' example does not enable the destructive behavior of others, but encourages them in actions that lead to love and life, and to healing and wholeness."

Telling the Grand Story to Our Children

We all love good stories. From the earliest cave sketchings to the latest award winning movie and TV show, there seems to be something intrinsic that God put into human nature to want to tell and hear great stories about life and learning. From an early age we are told nursery rhymes and fairy tales and learn all about the adventures of great heroes and heroines. When we go to school we hear the stories of great kings and queens and about the Founding Fathers of our country and the great men and women who shaped American history. These stories are important to tell as they ground children in the American experience and provide points of reference and context for how students are to interpret the contemporary world. All nations, all movements, all people groups have grand stories about themselves and their history that are used to orientate and educate their children and explain to them their culture's identity and worldview.

One of the chief characteristics of our contemporary world and its currently fashionable philosophies is an incredulity towards such grand stories, based upon the belief that they are created and reinforced by power structures seeking self-validation and are therefore untrustworthy. Personally, I am not necessarily adverse to this critique of grand cultural stories insofar as it rightly addresses the issue of stories told by a group of people in order to legitimize a particular worldview or privilege. Our world is full of people and cultures attempting to justify worldviews and ways of life contrary to God's expectations. However, I do believe that grand stories are fundamentally useful and should not be dismissed offhand but rather critiqued on the basis of how close they correspond to God's revealed Word. Nevertheless, grand stories are too often used for social and epistemic validation and are the driving force buttressing a particularly cherished worldview.

Christianity, of course, has its own grand story told through the Bible, the person of Jesus, and the Gospel message. However, the important difference between the Christian story and most others is that instead of a grand story propping up a worldview, Christianity is a story in search of a worldview. It's a complete reversal of the way much of the world acts. Christianity already has a definitive, over-arching story to be told and understood; it's not telling new stories in order to validate a pre-existing social order or conception. At most, Christians are continually re-examining the established story in hopes of creating a worldview and social order that corresponds with the narrative.

This is why telling the grand story of God's redeeming work to our children is so central to establishing  a proper worldview for Kingdom work. Without a proper foundation in a proper, grand story, children will develop other worldviews (usually unauthentic, self-serving worldviews) and then seek the stories, the narratives, and the "truths" that seem to best validate that worldview. The worldview is now buttressing one's sinful, self-serving nature. Ultimately, all false stories crack and eventually crumble when unavoidably confronted with reality, casting doubt upon the worldview and threatening an individual's self-validating conception. This is why the book of Proverbs teaches parents to train children in the way they should so they will not depart from it when they are older (22:6). This is why the Israelites continually told the story of God redeeming them from slavery. We must firmly immerse our children in the Biblical narrative to prepare them for effective, God-honoring lives when they grow older - lives that develop a Christian worldview of authentic, self-giving values.

Here are some important ways we as parents can do so:

·         Get your child an age-appropriate Bible. There are great children's and learner's Bibles available that focus on the stories of the Bible and teach fundamental principles of the Faith.

·         Read these stories to your children every night. Most good early learning Bibles offer brief synopsis of the stories that can be read in a matter of minutes and can supplement what other stories you read to your child.

·         Find your children videos that tell Bible stories. I'm a huge fan of Veggie Tales. I don't think anyone does Children's Ministry better than Bob and Larry. Those videos teach great Bible stories and other Scriptural lessons in fun, inventive ways that appeal to both children and parents.

·         Get your child involved in a Preschool and Elementary program that . Bethany's Children's Ministry offers a great curriculum that is narrative based. Over the course of your child's involvement in our weekend services, he or she will learn all the major stories of the Bible in order from Genesis to Revelation. Our curriculum, The Gospel Project, is the perfect way of enriching a child's understanding of the story of God's redemptive work in history through Israel and Jesus.

·         Get your child involved in an AWANA program. This is a wonderful program that teaches Bible stories and Scripture memorization in a fun and entertaining way.

 

Children must be fully inculcated with the story of God's saving work through Christ in history, both in the individual stories of the Bible and the sweeping narrative of the Gospel message.

Without it, our children become divorced from the foundation of life, unable to comprehend a worldview that grows effective, God-honoring lifestyles. Without it, as adults, they are tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching that comes from deceitful people. With it, our children grow into authentic, realized human beings, firmly established in reality and prepared for lives of moral and mental exceptionalism.

 

Resurrection, Religion, and the Fear of Death

I've often hear people espouse the theory that humanity created religion in order to deal with the concept of death. This theory goes that people feared the finality of death and conjured up the idea of an afterlife in order to avoid confronting reality. This theory is probably not without some merit. I am sure there are plenty of people in this world who embrace religion merely to escape this fear.

Based upon their burial practices, there is some evidence that the Neanderthals may have believed in an afterlife. Certainly, the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Canaanite religions believed in a spiritual place after death.

Interestingly enough, the Hebrews and ancient Israelites actually did not believe in an afterlife until after the time of the Babylonian Exile (539 BCE). Up until this later era, general Israelite conceptions of death held that the body was created from dust and naturally returned to dust. The body was considered holistic, not being divided into body and spirit but as a unified materialistic substance. A body didn't have a soul (nephesh); a body was a soul. Therefore, the body, created by God originally from nothing, returned to nothing at death. There was no spirit world to which the immortal body was delivered. Sheol was the representation of the grave, a final resting place for all people in dust.

It is not until after the Exile that a resurrection from the dead began to appear in common Jewish religion. It seems that the Jews began to read Exilic Bible passages about Yahweh's promise to reform the nation of Israel from exile (Isaiah 26:19; Ezekiel 37) as a promise of resurrection of the body from death. This was later picked up by Daniel and 2 Maccabees. By the time of Jesus, the vast majority of Jews believed in a resurrection of the dead.

Resurrection of the dead, of course, is vastly different from other religious ideas of an afterlife. Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans believed that the body died and the spirit continued on in some immaterial, spiritual plane of existence. The Greeks in particular believed that the spirit was an immortal form that existed prior to bodily life and continued after bodily death. The spirit was said to be indestructible and thus continued on. This is a far cry from the idea of the creator god, Yahweh, who brings everything into existence out of nothing. The Jews believed that Yahweh would one day bring back to life all of the materials that made up a person, recreating out of dust the body and spirit of man. This seems to have been a unique view among the ancient world. The Greco-Roman worldview found the idea of a resurrection of the body to be foolish, both religiously and philosophically.

Naturally, the concept of the resurrection of the dead remained a matter of faith and theory for the first several centuries of its existence. It wasn't until around the year 30 CE with the resurrection of Jesus that it was proved that, yes, resurrection of the dead was the creator god's intended purpose for humanity.

So the ancient worshippers of Yahweh (the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) did not embrace religion in order to deal with any fear of death in hopes of an afterlife. In terms of mortality, their adherence to a monotheistic, creator god, one who creates out of nothing, was of almost stoic acceptance to a supreme being whose authority to create and utterly destroy was strictly a divine prerogative.

Thankfully, that prerogative is to recreate and offer the resurrection of the body to those willing to accept it.

Anxiety and the Purposes of the Kingdom

I was reading some of the spiritual writings of Soren Kierkegaard the other day. Among the myriad of subjects upon which he is a prophetic authority, Kierkegaard also understands the spiritual dimensions of fear, despair, and the concept of anxiety. It's the concept of anxiety that most interests me. In his Christian Discourses, Kierkegaard writes that anxiety is a grappling hook by which the prodigious hulk of fear gets a hold of the individual to dominate it under its power. He further deems anxiety a distraction.

Jesus talks about anxiety in his famous Parable of the Sower (Matthew 13:18-22; Mark 4:14-20; Luke 8:11-15). In this parable, Jesus is teaching his disciples about the different reactions people have from hearing about the good news of the Kingdom of God. Some people ignore the good news, others hear the news and, after and initial burst of enthusiasm, fall away because they never had a proper foundation for their faith. Then there are those who hear the good news, have the foundation, but do not bear the true results of their faith because they are choked by the world. Jesus used the analogy of thorns that choke a plant, preventing it from bearing fruit. This immediately reminds me of one of the results of the Fall of Man where authentic work of tending to the earth is now frustrated by the growth of thorns (Genesis 3:17-19). In the same way, the world is constantly producing frustrations and distractions that inauthenticate our lives prevent us from living out our faith fully.

Jesus lists a few of these distractions in generalities: wealth, abundance of possessions, food, and pleasures of the world. It's important to note that these things are not necessarily bad in of themselves. They become bad when they distract you from growing in your faith and doing God's work.

But Jesus also mentions one other distraction and frustration that can prevent full growth in the faith: the cares of this world. Now the word used in the New Testament in these parables is merimna and is best translated as "anxiety". This is the anxiety and fear that strangles and cripples the individual and distracts him from accomplishing the personal growth and service necessary to achieve the goals of the Kingdom of God.

There are endless examples of such anxiety and fear. A few that pop to mind are concern for finances, fear of people's perceptions of one's self, fear of achieving or maintaining status and possessions, concern for health, and fear of the unknown. These anxieties hinder you from making the right decisions, silence you from speaking truth, and focus your attention on the peripheral fluff while avoiding central issues.

Merimna is used a few more times in the New Testament. It is used in Luke 21:34 when Jesus warned the people not to be distracted from the coming destruction of Jerusalem by Rome. Paul uses the term in 2 Corinthians 11:28 when describing the troubles and burdens he faced as an apostle. Along with the beatings, shipwrecks, pains, hunger, thirst, and other sufferings he experienced that sought to prevent him from preaching the gospel, Paul adds the anxiety that comes upon him ministering to the churches. Like his other sufferings, this anxiety sought to distract and prevent his Kingdom work.

Finally, Peter uses merimna in his first letter when talking about suffering and submission (5:7). He quotes Psalm 55:22, saying, "Give all your anxiety to [God] for he looks after you." Essentially, this is the same teaching of Jesus when he tells his disciples to avoid fear but have faith in God who looks after you (Matthew 10:28-31).

Throughout this letter, Peter is delving into some of the more scandalous aspects of Christian ethics with regards to defeating evil through submission and suffering. Much of this is counter-intuitive to the way in which we generally understand the world to work. However, there are ways in which we can go about giving our anxieties to God. My personal experience has shown me that some individuals - because of personality or life experience - have a more difficulty not worrying than others.

So how do we do so? How do we give our anxieties to God?

1) Tell God your troubles, sufferings, and concerns. This is an engagement with God, opening our hearts and minds to receive the message and instruction we need at this particular time.

2) Trust that God is who he says he is and that he will do what he says he will do. This means that whatever God tells us through Scripture or authentic, subjective experiences is what he will do. A significant part of this is to realize and immerse yourself in the Gospel message that God is defeating evil and has the final victory. The more we inculcate ourselves in this reality, the fewer anxieties we will have.

3) Do exactly what God says. Neither of these previous two points means doing nothing. Of course, telling the Creator of the Universe your problems and believing that he'll act in accordance is definitely something we do. But even after that, giving God your anxieties is then about proceeding in accordance with God's instructions and not going beyond that. The innate human tendency is act out upon our own devices. We sometimes want to do more than God wants us to do or to take actions that are counter-productive to the best solution.

4) Limit the distractions in your life. Cut back on possessions, activities, and the peripheral aspects of life towards a more simplistic , less chaotic existence. Our modern, consumeristic society has the potential of choking us and distracting us from the our proper purposes. If we can simplify our lives, we lessen the potential for the anxieties that come from such things.

In the end, anxiety is a force seeking to inauthenticate our lives by separating us from our purpose in God. It is a force to be overcome, and we can do so by fully embracing God and his purposes.

Job and the Crisis of Theology

My pastor gave a good sermon on the book of Job this weekend - one of my favorite books. The Book of Job is set during the time of the Patriarchs but was written after the time of the exile.

In a sense, the book (like Ecclesiastes) is a response to the theology taught in the books of Deuteronomy and Proverbs. These latter two books offer a fairly clean cut approach to life in that it plainly states the general cause and effect truth that good begets good and evil begets evil. If we lead moral, righteous lives, we will be blessed by God and his ordained will. If we act immorally and lead unrighteous lives, we will reap bad consequences. This theology is generally true and real life experience bears it out. However, this theological framework does not tell the whole truth. There are times when  evil flourishes and the good unjustly suffers. Real life experience bears this out.

The book of Job's purpose is to deal with the theological particular of the righteous person suffering. Job is a righteous individual with strong faith in God. When he suffers blamelessly, his whole theology is shook to the ground. He wonders why God would allow such evil to befall him. His three friends are disturbed by the questions he is raising about how God relates to man and begin to argue with Job, trying to defend God and attempting to correct Job's theology. Much of what Job's three friends espouse is the theology of Proverbs and Deuteronomy. The most interesting part of this book is that Job listens to the theologizing of his three friends and agrees with them. His response is that he agrees with all their theology - it's his theology! - but it just does not fit his circumstance. Throughout his ordeal, Job never loses his faith/trust in God, but wrestles with the theology. From this perspective, the book of Job is about a crisis of theology, rather than specifically a crisis of faith.

Yet, Job remains unshakeable in both his belief in God and in the belief of his innocence.

A Fuller Expression of the Gospel

I was reading today a few articles on N.T. Wright and his view of narrative theology. I came across one article that took him to task for a less than clear conception of penal substitutionary atonement theology. I sympathize with the articles frustration over the ambiguity of Wright's position, though it is obvious that we come down on separate sides when it comes to the validity of the doctrine. Nevertheless, what really struck me about the article was the author's dissatisfaction with Wright's book "Simply Christian" in that it did not explain the basic Gospel -- "Christ died for our sins."

This is a bit of a bugaboo for me. One of my criticisms of most conception of the Gospel message, particularly the more popular understandings, is that they are extremely narrow formulations, completely devoid of the narrative thrust of the Bible. In effect, to say the basic Gospel is "Christ died for our sins" is like saying that WWII was about liberating Poland from Nazi Germany. The saying captures the part but not the whole.

Granted, a full expression of the Gospel (like the one I humbly suggest below) does not fit on a bumper sticker or key ring. If one was to simply reduce the Gospel to its purest essence it would be the following: "The Gospel is the Good News of the coming of the Kingdom of God" (Matt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Mark 1:14). This was the Gospel that Jesus proclaimed and would have been readily understood by his Jewish contemporaries.  

However, outside of first century Palestine, we, like the gentiles of the era, depend upon the apostles to flesh out the meaning of this good news and explain it as it related to the story of Israel.

Therefore, the following should be understood: "The Gospel is the Good News of the coming of the Kingdom of God (Matt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Mark 1:14), that God has broken definitively into history and the world (Luke 4:18) with power (1Th 1:5) and grace (Acts 20:24; Eph 1:13) in the person and work of Jesus the Christ (1Th 3:2; 2Th 1:8; Gal 1:7; 1Cor 9:12; 2Cor 2:12; Rom 1:9; Phl 1:27), who is the first fruits of the resurrection (1Cor 15:20, 23), bringing Justice (Rom 2:16), Peace (Eph 6:15), and Healing (Matt 4:23; 9:35) to the World and the offer of Salvation (Rom 1:16) for Repentance and Faith (Mark 1:14; Acts 15:7) to all peoples, fulfilling the God’s promise to Abraham (Rom 4:13; Acts 7:17; Gal 3:29) and inaugurating New Creation (Gal 6:15) and the summing up of all things in Christ (Eph 1:10)."

I think this definition offers a far fuller and more accurate expression of the Gospel and how it was encapsulated by Jesus' original audience.

Meta-Narratives and the Christian Worldview

Meta-narratives are generally defined as a comprehensive explanation of historical meaning, experience or knowledge, which offers a society, culture, or movement legitimization through the anticipated completion of a (as yet unrealized) master idea.

One of the chief characteristics of post-modernity is a incredulity towards meta-narratives based upon the belief that they are created and reinforced by power structures seeking self-validation and are therefore untrustworthy.

I am not necessarily adverse to this critique of meta-narratives insofar as it rightly addresses the issue of grand stories told by a group of people in order to legitimize a particular worldview or privilege.

However, I do believe that meta-narratives are fundamentally useful and should not be dismissed offhand but rather critiqued on the basis of how close they correspond to known reality.

Nevertheless, meta-narratives are too often used for social and epistemic validation and are the driving force buttressing a particularly cherished worldview.

Christianity, of course, has its own meta-narrative told through the stories of the Bible, the person of Jesus, and the Gospel message. However, the main difference between the Christian narrative and most others is that instead of a meta-narrative propping up a worldview, Christianity is a narrative in search of a worldview. It's a complete reverse. Christianity already has a definitive, over-arching story to be told and understood; it is not telling new stories in order to validate a pre-existing social order or conception. At most, Christians are continually re-examining the established story in hopes of creating a worldview and social order that corresponds with the narrative.

This is why telling the grand narrative of God's redeeming work to our children is so central to establishing  a proper worldview for Kingdom work. Without a proper foundation in a proper, grand narrative, children will develop worldviews (usually unauthentic, self-serving worldviews) and then seek the stories, the narratives, and the "truths" that seems to best validate that worldview. The worldview is now buttressing the ego.

Ultimately, all false narratives crack and eventually crumble when unavoidably confronted with reality, casting doubt upon the worldview and threatening the individual's self-validating conception.

It is at this critical juncture that the individual has a choice: either 1) to pursue the truth in the submission of the self towards a relationship with God in Christ and adopting the proper meta-narrative or 2) to try continuing with a false, deteriorating narrative with spurious thinking, self-justification, cognitive dissonance, and a reprobate mind.

Difficulty with the Translation אֶרֶץ ('erets)

One of the more confusing aspect of the Bible is the translation of the two words: אֶרֶץ ('erets) and γῆ (gē). Both words have a few different translations but are generally translated as either "earth" or "land". Here is where the confusion comes in with translations:

Some of the prophecies of the Old Testament predict that God will wipe a people from the 'erets. If a Bible version translates the word as "earth" then the prophecy is often interpreted as not having occurred (i.e., God has not wiped these particular people from the earth). However, if the word is translated as "land" then it can be showed that these people were expelled  and can be proven that the prophecy was fulfilled.

So because of this little translational detail, there are many Christians who have misinterpreted the Bible and are waiting for particular events that occurred thousands of years ago.

"Candle in the Wind", by Alexandr Solzhenitsyn

I finished reading Alexandr Solzhenitsyn's play "Candle in the Wind", which I found in a nice little bookshop in Newport.

The story is basically about the professional and personal lives of scientists and mathematicians working at a biocybernetics institute and how they differ in their reactions to the amorality of their work. But essentially, the meaning of the work is to examine movements of materialism divorced from the spiritual, particularly the purposes and uses of science by the state, and how such socialistic statism suppresses the human soul.

These themes of materialism and the dehumanizing effects of socialism are all common to Solzhenitsyn. Indeed, Solzhenitsyn, as the last great Russian writer of modernity, is the successor of Tolstoy in his focus on the simplicity of the individual soul seeking maturation (specifically the spiritual) amidst the forces of modernity, particularly materialism and socialism.

Naturally, being a Russian from the Soviet period, Solzhenitsyn's stories are located within Russia and explore spiritual themes in the context of a socialist society (much like Pasternak, Akhmatova, and Bulgakov). However, in "Candle in the Wind", Solzhenitsyn intentionally places his story in a nameless state devoid of identifying cultural markers in order to create a more international feel and universal quality. How effective he is with this technique is open for criticism. Personally, I think the universal quality of his theme itself would lift the story out of a Soviet context and unto a broader, international stage.

I was quite reminded of the plays of Tom Stoppard, particularly the critique of socialism, the analogies of science, mixed with wit and the personal lives of the characters. I particularly loved the first few lines:

Maurice: One of the main criteria for judging people's taste is cheese. What cheese do you prefer, Alex?

Alex: I'm no connoisseur, Uncle, they're all the same to me.

Maurice: All the same? You really are a savage, then!

"Candle in the Wind" is a minor work by a major writer. It's a quick read and a good primer for his more expansive works.

Freedom or Death, by Nikos Kazantzakis

Today I finished reading "Freedom or Death", by Nikos  Kazantzakis. I've been a huge fan of Kazantzakis for many years now and was glad that I finally got around to reading this particular work.

Ostensibly, the book is about the rebellion of the Cretans against the Ottoman Empire in the year 1889, seen through the eyes of Captain Michales.

Kazantzakis, of course, goes deeper, meditating upon the Cretan psyche in terms of its identity, nationalism, religion, and character.

I also think that there is an undercurrent of the ever-present Minoan ethos that figures so prominently in most of Kazantzakis' works (he was born in Crete). Strip away the philosophical and cultural flourishes of a Kazantzakis work and you'll find a pre-historic, earthy, almost proto-mythic quality that reduces humanity to the simplicity of a life/death dichotomy. Such a philosophical bent is not untypical of modernist writers but it seems always more heightened with Kazantzakis.

I think you also find such thinking in the Old Testament wisdom literature of Ecclesiastes and Job. The Book of Job in particular has as its base point the understanding that the individual human exists for a brief moment between two abysses and that the only positive choice is a full leap of faith into the creator God.

Kazanzakis, like many of the best modernist writers, understood the situation of man as existing between two voids, but, unfortunately, unlike writers such as Hermann Broch, he rejected the positive choice of falling into the infinity of God but instead embraced and explored a synthesis of life-death as an alternative to God.

So I don't agree with Kazantzaki's conclusions, but I greatly appreciate and am interested in his exploration of the theme of man's primal, existential situation.

All in all, I think that "Freedom or Death" is a very good book, though I don't think that it rises to the levels of other such Kazantzakis' works such as "The Greek Passion", "The Last Temptation", or "The Odyssey: A Modern Sequel". It is certainly better than the vastly over-rated "Zorba the Greek".

"Sin" in 2 Corinthians 5:21

I've been doing a study on 2 Corinthians 5:21, specifically about the odd saying that "God made him who had no sin [i.e. Jesus] to be sin for us". This verse has traditionally been interpreted to mean that by some mystical transference God turned Jesus into sin during the crucifixion in order to be substitutionally punished for the sins of humanity. However, I had noticed that several of the better, scholarly translations of the New Testament add a footnote to the second occurrence of "sin" (hamartia) in verse 21, indicating that it can be translated as "sin-offering".

The reason for this is that the Old Testament uses the same word (chatta'ath) for both "sin" and "sin-offering". Only contexts determines the usage.

Therefore, we get a translation of Leviticus 4:3: "If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, he must bring to the Lord a young bull without defect as a 'sin offering' [chatta'ath] for the 'sin' [chatta'ath] he has committed."

Now when the Hebrew Bible was translated into the Greek Septuagint (LXX), the translators rendered chatta'ath as hamartia.

With this in mind, the  atonement context of 2 Corinthians 5:21 suggests that Paul intended the second use of hamartia to be understood as "sin-offering" instead of "sin".

It makes more sense to think of God considering the sin-less Jesus an offering for sin than actually somehow turning him into sin.

Two Approaches to Christianity

There are two different practical approaches to being a Christian in today's world. The first approach is the most common and considers the Christian faith as a means by which one gets through this life. This approach generally manifests itself in the view that life is life and the Christian faith helps one get through it with utmost help. There are varieties to this approach. Some choose to follow Christianity but believe it is not so much different than any other religion. They generally follow Christianity because they are culturally conditioned to do so. Other varieties of people truly believe that Christianity is the one true faith, ordained by the creator of the universe, and that Jesus Christ is the only way to be saved. Nevertheless, these same people still perceive Christianity as a faith that helps them get through life. For them, Christianity is either a form of "self-help" psychotherapy or a means of "health and wealth" creation. The second approach is radically different. This approach considers the Christian faith as life itself and that the believer is definitively called into a life- and world-changing mission to advance the Kingdom of God and work towards New Creation. The first approach is about improving the self for the purposes of the self. The second approach is about denying the self for the purposes of the overall mission of God in Christ. The first approach is about reading a story. The second approach is about being a character in the story.

On the Translation of the Word אֶרֶץ ('erets)

One of the more confusing aspect of the Bible is the translation of the two words: אֶרֶץ ('erets) and γῆ (gē). Both words have a few different translations but are generally translated as either "earth" or "land". Here is where the confusion comes in with translations:

Some of the prophecies of the Old Testament predict that God will wipe a people from the 'erets. If a Bible version translates the word as "earth" then the prophecy is often interpreted as not having occurred (i.e., God has not wiped these particular people from the earth). However, if the word is translated as "land" then it can be showed that these people were expelled  and can be proven that the prophecy was fulfilled.

So because of this little translational detail, there are many Christians who have misinterpreted the Bible and are waiting for particular events that occurred thousands of years ago.

Reasons for the Crucifixion of Jesus

For those unfamiliar with Christianity or those only culturally tied to it as a religion, there can be some confusion and uncertainty about the meaning and purpose of Jesus' crucifixion as it pertains to the Christian Faith. I'd like to offer four primary reasons for the death of Jesus, in brief:

Reason 1: Servant - In this, Jesus obeyed God and followed the divine will perfectly throughout his life even to the point of death.  Jesus was the perfect human being as God always intended, representative of both God and Man, selflessly denying himself for the love of his fellow man and God, giving himself in obedience to God, even into death, for the purposes of God's saving work. Here, the grace of God is shown in that for whoever trusts God and follows Jesus, God recognizes in them the same selfless obedience that God sees in Jesus.

Reason 2: Moral-Theological Example - Jesus' obedience and selflessness is the ultimate expectation that God has for humanity, both as individuals and as a community. If Jesus is the ultimate human and a sign-post pointing forwards to God's consummation of creation, disciples of Jesus are called to follow his example in their daily lives, even to the point of self-sacrificial death.

Reason 3: Defeat of Evil - The resurrection that followed Jesus death from crucifixion ultimately shows that evil and all the dark forces that the world can muster can never have the final victory over Jesus and his followers. If killing is the ultimate act that one can do to another, if death is the worse destruction that evil can do, then the fact that Jesus overcame death by crucifixion and was resurrected into a glorified body means that evil can do its worse and not have victory over good. Jesus defeated both evil and death and all those who follow Christ participate in that victory. This is also the reason why there cannot be any justice in the world without a resurrection of the body from death.

Reason 4: Enacted Parable - This is a difficult one. In order to grasp it, we must peal back centuries of established theology (both correct and incorrect) in order to look at the immediate role and self-understanding that Jesus had of himself as a prophet in first century Palestine, warning his contemporaries about the threat of Rome and God's imminent judgment upon the nation of Israel. Jesus was deeply steeped in the Jewish prophetic traditions, both in terms of metaphor and method, particularly in how Old Testament prophets acted out God's message and even upcoming judgment (see Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, etc.). In this way, Jesus, in his crucifixion, was acting out the destruction of Israel by Rome. He was demonstrating through a prophetic act that if the people continued their way of being Israel and did not turn to God's way (the way of Jesus), then Rome would attack and destroy Israel. Rome would treat the people of Israel as enemies of the state and crucify them, which is exactly what happened in AD 70.

The Occupation of Jesus

Traditionally, it has been believed that Jesus was a carpenter by trade. This is due to the passage in the Gospel of Mark that states of Jesus, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?" (Mark 6:3)

The Greek word used for "carpenter" here is tektōn (τέκτων) which can be translated as "craftsman", but it can be applied to both wood-work and stone-work. So, technically, Jesus could have been either a carpenter or stone-worker.

Now when we look at the words of Jesus as they are recorded in the Gospels we see an abundance of references to stone-working:

Building foundations (Matt 7:24-27; Luke 6:48-49), faith as a foundation rock (Matt 16:18), building towers (Matt 21:33; Mark 12:1; Luke 14:28), falling towers (Luke 13:4), cornerstones (Matt 21:42-44; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17-18), temple stones (Matt 24:2; Mark 13:1-2; Luke 21:6), millstones (Matt 18:6; Mark 9:42; Luke 17:2), nicknaming Peter, rock or stone (Matt 16:18; John 1:42), and other general references to rocks and stones (Matt 4:6; Matt 7:9; Luke 4:11; Luke 11:11).

Contrast these to the lack of references to wood and wood-building in the Gospels. When Jesus mentions trees, the references are exclusively agricultural (fruit trees, etc.).

Based solely upon the ambiguity of the word tektōn and the more frequent use of stone analogies in his words and teachings, I submit that Jesus was more likely a stone-worker than a carpenter.

ELOI ELOI LAMA SABACHTHANI

One of the more significant misunderstandings people have when reading the Gospels is the belief that God the Father rejected or turned his back on Jesus during the crucifixion.

This confusion is largely derived from Jesus' crying out on the cross “ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?” which is translated, “MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?” (Mark 15:34).

At first look the idea that Jesus is p...roclaiming that God has forsaken or rejected him seems fairly straightforward. Certainly, everyone at the time believed that Jesus was in this situation because God was not with him (Mark 15:29-32).

However, Jesus' cry of "ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI" is actually an Aramaic translation of Psalm 22:1. If you read the entirety of Psalm 22 a far different picture emerges of what is going on in Jesus' situation.

The Psalm tells of a figure who is crying out to God in desperation. He is in the worst of circumstances. It looks like his enemies have conquered him. They laugh at his affliction. Everyone believes the figure has been deserted by God.

BUT ... in verse 24 we read the following:

"For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard."

The whole purpose of Psalm 22 is to show that even though it seems like God has turned his back on the figure, in fact, God has been with that person the entire time. He has not rejected.

So when Mark includes Jesus crying out the first line of Psalm 22, he is pointing to the entire Psalm and its meaning, arguing that, just like in the Psalm, even though it seems like God has rejected Jesus, the exact opposite is true: God is with Jesus the entire time him.

The people who gathered at the cross to watch Jesus be executed with the brigands were oblivious to this. In fact, Mark highlights their confusion by saying that when they heard Jesus say, " ELOI, ELOI", they thought he was saying "Elijah, Elijah" (Mark 15:35).

Interestingly, so many of us get this wrong, too. The original readers of Mark would have gotten the literary allusion and understood the meaning: God did not reject or turn his back on Jesus during the crucifixion.

Beck's Morning Phase: A Review

It's always a well-anticipated celebration when a new Beck album is released. In terms of comparison, I think many of us feel the same way about a new Beck album as we do about a new Radiohead album. We are certain that we are in for a treat, and we know that we will be exploring shining new areas of musical exploration. And, once again, Beck doesn't disappoint.

It has been six years since Beck released his last album, Modern Guilt (2008). In the interval, the so-called original 90s slacker musician explored a number of other musical projects.

In 2009, he began Record Club, a project to cover an entire classic album by another artist in one day (The Velvet Underground, Leonard Cohen, INXS, Yanni), using an informal and fluid collective of peer musicians. The covered performances were video recorded and then posted on Beck's website.

In 2012, he released Song Reader, a work of 20 original songs presented only as sheet music, in the hopes that enterprising musicians will record their own versions. If you go on Youtube you can find various performances of each of these songs by various musicians.

He also wrote a few songs for soundtracks, collaborated with other musicians, and produced a few albums for others, most notably the Charlotte Gainsbourg's IRM (2009). Here is an album for which Beck produced, wrote every song (except one cover), played on every song, and sang on a few of them. Apart from Charlotte Gainsbourg's vocals and name and picture on the cover, what keeps this record from being considered a regular Beck album?

So what comes after a much too long gap in between records is Beck's glorious Morning Phase.

According to press releases and other promos, Morning Phase is to be considered a "companion piece" to his 2002 album Sea Change. The comparison is accurate and everyone who listens to the new work will see the affinities. As is generally known, half of Beck's oeuvre is dedicated to more acoustic-based albums (see One Foot In the Grave [1994], Mutations [1998], Sea Change [2002]) on which he often overlays lush orchestrations, dense layers, and his own distinctive sounds. Such albums are often more melodic and uniform than his alternative-hip-hop-focused work with the Dust Brothers as producers (Odelay [1996], Midnite Vultures [1999], Guero [2005]). Both Mutations and Sea Change were produced by famed Radiohead producer, Nigel Godrich.

Morning Phase falls within this acoustic-based category and includes much of the harmonies, immersive orchestrations, and the melancholic and introspective tones that were so distinctive on Sea Change.

Sea Change is a more distinctive album and is usually the album most liked by people who either do not like Beck or are suspicious of his talent. This album was a worthy successor to the surprisingly good Mutations but came jarringly after the tongue-in-cheek Midnite Vultures.

Sea Change came across as more of a concept album delving into the break-up of a relationship. The ironic lyrics of his previous albums were replaced by more sincere, simpler lyrical content. Again, a far deeper and sad Beck than we had seen before. A very sub-surface melancholy that drew inspiration from Nick Drake, Bob Dylan's Blood on the Tracks, and Serge Gainsbourg (listen  to the strong affinities between "Paper Tiger" and Histoire de Melody Nelson).

While I do not think that the songs on Morning Phase are as strong as some of the ones on Sea Change ("The Golden Age", "Paper Tiger", "Already Dead"), the overall work is far more satisfying. There is an even stronger uniformity and thematic wholeness. This is a concept album, but one returning to semi-familiar territory.

In an article for Rolling Stone, David Fricke wrote the following about his interview with Beck:

"But Beck is loathe to use the word "sequel" to characterize Morning Phase. 'It was going back to the same place,' he says, 'and seeing where we're all at, like those Seven Up! movies, where they go back and see those people every seven years.'"

In Morning Phase, Beck is returning to the broken relationship of Sea Change to see what remains and to see if the small light still glowing has any chance of growing. He seems to want to take us on a personal, deep journey of inspecting the shipwreck of a relationship to see if anything can be salvaged, invoking strong images of water, light and turning. I'm reminded of similar tonal explorations with The Moody Blues (Days of Future Passed) and, to a lesser extent, The Who (Quadrophenia). Again, comparisons with Nick Drake, Serge Gainsbourg and 70s Bob Dylan emerge.

Not surprisingly, given this thematic material, there is far more uncertainty here than there was in Sea Change.

Here are my thoughts and analysis of the songs:

"Cycle", "Morning"

The short intro, "Cycle", followed by "Morning," open the work and immediately set the tone. "Cycle" gives us inundating waves of orchestration. It is just a short string piece, symbolic of the swell of the morning, the rise of the sun, yet again, the cycle of day and night. It soon flows into the daybreak of "Morning", a song that expresses the hope and possibility that a once shattered relationship can be revived.  The tone is that of daybreak and the first rays of light. The song itself recalls "The Golden Age", the first track of Sea Change. If that song is about realizing you need to start over (but being unable to even try), "Morning" more or less covers the same idea, but instead of looking forward at an unknown road, wondering how to get there, it looks backwards and realizes, I may have just survived (and am all the wiser for it). Those distant lights he could not locate in "The Golden Age" seem to have been found in the first lines of "Morning."

The lyrics read:

"Woke up this morning, found a love light in the storm
Looked up this morning, saw the roses full of thorns
Guns are falling, they don't have nowhere to go
Oceans of diamonds always shine, smooth out below"

These are images of morning, light, and water - images that will pervade the entire work.

"Heart is a Drum"

"Heart is a Drum" reminds me both of solo Tom Petty (Full Moon Fever, Wildflowers) and some of the more poetic moments of Adore-era Smashing Pumpkins.

The water imagery continues with lyrics such as "Everyone, if they drown from the undertow" and "'Til all my days are drowning out".

"Say Goodbye"

In his review, Will Hermes of Rolling Stone Magazine noted that "Country Down" was reminiscent of Harvest-era Neil Young. I can just barely see that, but I think the similarities are more evident here on "Say Goodbye".

"Blue Moon"

"Blue Moon" is the first single released for the album. It's a good song with more water imagery ("Songbird calling across the water") and a "turning" reference ("See the turncoat on his knees
A vagabond that no one sees"). For some reason or other, Beck has likes to use the word "vagabond" in his lyrics (also "convalescence").

There is, of course, a very famous song called "Blue Moon," one of Elvis' biggest and earliest hits. It includes the lines "Blue moon / you saw me standing alone" and clearly uses the rare event of a blue moon to symbolize the rare event of finding love. Beck uses a line or two as a jumping point for his own song ("I'm so tired of being alone").

"Blue Moon"'s music infuses the dark themes with a bit of hope, the chirpy clavinet and gorgeous vocal harmonies bringing some uplift to its lonesome lyrics. The song is about feeling trapped, and a longing to be saved.

"Unforgiven"

Rolling Stone, having heard a preview, compared the song to Gram Parsons and David Crosby.

"Wave"

The strings from "Cycle" resurface in "Wave" reinforcing the thematic unity of the work. The song has the orchestrations that reminds one of Radiohead's Kid A (no Nigel Godrich here, though) or a Bjork album. But the lyrics and wave imagery hearken back to Sea Change.

"If I surrender and I don't fight this wave/No I won't go under/I'll only get carried away".

"Don't Let It Go"

One of the three best songs on the album.

"Blackbird Chain"

"Blackbird Chain" seems to come straight out of Mutations-era Beck and naturally finds its place within the work. The music does mix different sounds into an essentially country form, including a very soulful bassline and subtle strings.

"Phase"

Another instrumental piece that continues the orchestrations from "Cycle" and "Wave".

"Turn away"

"Turn Away" continues the theme of the light that signifies the hope of a renewed relationship. Vocally, it sounds like Beck singing with himself. Personally, I found it to be too repetitious and jarring. I think it is the weakest song on the album. The orchestration is nice. Too much Simon and Garfunkle.

Lyrically, though, it fits right in with some of the light and, of course, "turning" themes of the album.

"Hold hold the light
That fixes you in time
Keeps you under
Takes you over the wall
That love divides between waking and slumber
Turn away"

"Country Down"

"Country Down" is a Dylan-esque song full of water imagery of rivers, floods, undertows, and waves. "Turning" references abound. There is also this striking lyric combining both water and "turning" images:

"All along the floodline/Waves are turning around"

It is evident that in both Sea Change and here in Morning Phase, Beck associates water imagery with relationship. It is also evident that Beck's lyrics reach out for that desire to return that relationship to its former state.

This song, along with "Blackbird Chain" and "Waking Light", came out of Beck's Nashville recording sessions for what was originally to be a  fairly traditional country album. He never was fully satisfied with the results, and ended up shelving it, but he did keep 3-4 of the songs and brought them to the Morning Phase sessions a few years later.

"Waking Light"

The album ends with another aching morning song, "Waking Light."

Rolling Stone refers to the song's "Leslie-guitar crescendo," which reminds them of George Harrison's guitar solo on "Let It Be."

I'm sure there is more to explore in this album than I've already indicated. I suspect that Beck may have also continued the "road" theme from Sea Change on this album. More exploration needed.

The title of the album is a slight pun: "Morning Phase" and "Mourning Phase". It is a time of mourning over a failed relationship but also considerations of whether return is possible and whether anything that remains can be salvaged and rebuilt.

I enjoyed almost every song on this album ("Say Goodbye", "Don't Let Go", and "Blackbird Chain" being the highlights) and found that I could listen to the entire work in one sitting and do so repeatedly. This only enhanced my appreciation for the conceptual unity of the work. The only song that I did not care much for was "Turn Away", for reasons stated above.

I think that this is probably the best Beck album since Mutations, one of my top three favorite Beck albums and once one of my top ten favorite albums until it was pushed out by Danielson's Ships (both Mellow Gold and Odelay remain in my top ten). I also think it signals that Beck has reached a new level of artistic maturity, and I look forward to what I suspect in several years will be the third part of a Sea Change-Morning Phase-X Trilogy.