Part five of the series “Hebrews 2:9 – Separated by Grace.”

Before considering Origen’s citations, however, let us review the methodological considerations relevant to the use of “patristic” citations. One of the issues associated with using patristic citations as text-critical evidence involves the notion of quotation in the ancient world. Those who seek to use patristic evidence must adequately address a host of issues in order to deem those citations useful.

First, the patristic author should be citing the text in such a way that the grammar of the citation is not greatly affected by the author’s employment thereof. If the author’s grammar requires that a different verbal form be used (for example, in indirect discourse or within a result or final clause), then the usefulness of the citation is diminished to the extent that it is now more difficult to ascertain what form of the verb the author’s text may have originally had. This is not to say that such usage yields a citation unprofitable for textual criticism, but it does complicate the argument to some degree.

Second, one has to take into account how close the patristic author is to the text. If the author can be shown to be quoting from memory rather than from a manuscript, the fruitfulness of the citation is diminished.

Third, there is the issue of critical editions of patristic works. It is well known that the editions prepared by Jacques-Paul Migne (Patrologia Latina and Patrologia Graecae) are often fraught with bad readings and errors. But as more and more critical texts become available, such as those in the Sources Chrétiennes series, this problem becomes less relevant.

Finally, there is the matter of translation. If, for example, a Latin author is quoting the text, then it must be clear which reading of the Greek manuscript produced the translation.¹

If these four concerns about the author’s citation can be shown to be nonexistent, negligible, or irrelevant, then the patristic citation is important for text-critical arguments.

Footnotes

1. For difficulties in going from a versional translation back to Greek, see Bruce Manning Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977). It should also be noted that the text-critical issues associated with patristic citations carry over into translations of those patristic authors. For example, many of Origen’s works have survived only in Rufinus’s Latin translation. We must ask ourselves all of the questions in the text above about both Origen and Rufinus. What text of Origen was Rufinus using? How faithfully does Rufinus translate Origen? Etc.

I posted a bunch of stuff via Twitter and Delicious this week. Here are some of my favorites.

• The new Biblioblog Top 50 came out. Apparently being #150 makes me a runner-up!
• Jake Belder at café de soirée posted about the eschatology of American evangelicalism: “American Evangelicalism’s Over-realized Eschatology.” I tend to agree with Jake on several points here.
• I was blown away by this (totally unscientific) speed comparison between Logos and Accordance.
• A hot topic around the net right now is the evilness quotient of social networking. Tim Stevens writes “Everybody Agrees…Twitter and Facebook are Bad.” (Spoiler: it’s a defense of social networking.)
• Adam Walker Cleaveland has started laying out a series of posts on his personal beliefs: The Credo Blog Series. Adam’s always got an interesting take on things, and I especially like that he’ll be comparing his current thoughts on various topics with thoughts that he had many years ago.
• James McGrath pokes a bit of fun at the “Obama is the antichrist” stuff that’s going around: “Barack Obama the Antichrist? Shedding Some Lightning on the Subject.” McGrath also had an interesting post about James and Paul and the idea of early skeptics: “Early Converted Skeptics?”
• Jonathan Brink has an interesting, quick post about the emergent church: “The Emergent Paradox.”
• John Hobbins takes a crack at explaining the contents of the Hebrew Bible in 1,000 words or less: “The Primary History.”
• Between the Times posts a rather thorough look at the issue of infant/child salvation: “Why We Believe Children Who Die Go to Heaven.” This is a serious look at an old problem — so good ol’-fashioned apologizin’!
• Inside Catholic has a nice page that everyone should visit: “Chesterton and Lewis for Beginners.”
• Jared Wilson has a funny list of “25 Evangelical Myths.”
• Charles Lee has begun posting about some sea changes or paradigm shifts that he is seeing in the church. Part one focuses on the Spirit. “The Church on the Move (Part 1)”
• John Piper considers (along with C.S. Lewis) the idea of the husband’s “headship”…interesting read: “Weighty Words on the Meaning of a Husband’s Headship.”

Special Video Section

I saw some interesting videos this week, so I thought I’d share.

• First up: the new trailer for Where the Wild Things Are. If you’re not excited about this movie, you may have no soul.
• It’s all about Okie Noodling — Oklahoma men catching flatheads (huge ones!) with their bare hands. Unbelievable. (YouTube has disabled embedding of this video.)
• Zooey Deschanel and Joseph Gordon-Levitt do a rather strange video for She & Him’s “Why Do You Let Me Stay Here?”
• Conan O’Brien. Wax figures of Tom Cruise and the Fonz. Giant cannons. Yes. Seriously, I just love this, and I love Conan. One question: where’s Max Weinberg’s drum roll?

This is the fourth part of a fairly extensive review of John Piper’s The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23.

The Justification of God: An Exegetical & Theological Study of Romans 9:1–23 by John Piper

In this chapter, Piper attempts to venture back to the book of Exodus which Paul quotes in Romans 9:15: “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” The goal for Piper is to show that even in its original context (whether or not Paul might have tampered with that context is another issue entirely) this is a general principle rather than a particular event. By this, I mean to say that the notion of God having mercy/compassion on whom he will have mercy/compassion is not just relevant to Moses at that moment, but is an attribute of God that we can all take to the bank for all time.

To this end, Piper does his usual excellent job of exegesis. Even though the chapter is fairly short (”tight” might be a better word), he attends to the broader context by looking at chapters 32–34 and then narrows that down until he hones in on the key verse (Exodus 33:19). There is enough grammatical stuff here to keep language nerds like myself happy, though I think that Piper might rely a bit too heavily on articles from Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (aka TDNT).

The crux of Piper’s argument has to do with this episode in which God “passes by” Moses and reveals his glory. This revelation of glory, for Piper, is wrapped up in the verbal proclamations that God makes beforehand (33:19) as well as the rather odd saying that he blurts out as he “passes by” (34:6,7).

While I tend to agree with Piper’s general idea, that mercy and compassion are God’s prerogative, I do think he places an inordinate amount of stress on this “verbal” passing by to the detriment of the physical action that occurred. I find it very interesting that in 33:21–23 God sets up the encounter and goes as far as to tell Moses that his glory is too much and therefore he will have to cover Moses’ face with his hand, but then he’ll remove his hand so that Moses can see his back. This is a very physical moment!

Perhaps Piper and I could quibble all day, it wouldn’t really matter as I don’t think it’s that important to his argument. The important notion is that this idea of mercy and compassion and God’s ability to dole that out as he pleases is wrapped up in the very name of God — it is, for all intents and purposes, who he is. I don’t think that I can mount much of a challenge to Dr. Piper on this front as I read the text in the same way.

The only other issue that I have is Piper’s use of the word “sovereign” throughout this chapter. I think it is a rather sly ploy on his part as he slips this theological timebomb of a word into his prose without defining it or calling attention to it. “Sovereign” is a theologically heavy word and requires some attention. What exactly does Piper mean when he uses it in this particular chapter? I think I know, but I’d rather he make his purposes plain.

Recently a friend of mine told me that he thought I was holding back when I taught. I was taken aback by this, but I did agree with him. In some senses I’ve felt hemmed in by some of the strictures that I have imposed upon my Bible studies (some of these are self-imposed; others are not). So, I asked, “In what way do you think I’m holding back?”

His response paraphrased:

I can tell that you are extremely passionate about Scripture. But, I’m not sure why. That’s what I want to know. What is it that makes you so passionate about this set of texts? I wish you’d just let us have it…

I thought that was a great observation, and probably full of truth. For some reason, when I’m in “teacher” mode, I tend to take on a disconnected, dispassionate persona. In order for me to be a better teacher, I probably need to get away from this — I need to let my theological and emotional hair down and really give in to the side of me that is saying: “YEAH BABY!”

This post is, in a sense, my first foray into this territory. Here’s the question: “What is it that I find so great about the Bible?”

John 1:1 tells us this: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος — “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” If we continue to read John 1, we’ll find that this Word became flesh (John 1:14), and entered into creation, entered into the world. With all of the power and authority and possibility of God, the Word wrapped itself in the trappings of human flesh, imposing upon itself limitations unfathomable for such an infinite being. I look at the Christ hymn in Philippians 2 and am immediately inspired:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
who, though he was in the form of God,
did not count equality with God
a thing to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the form of a servant,
being born in the likeness of men.
And being found in human form,
he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death,
even death on a cross.
Therefore God has highly exalted him
and bestowed on him
the name that is above every name
so that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bow
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father. (Phil 2:5–11, ESV)

The infinite, almighty, omnipotent, omniscient God took on the form of humans, humbling himself to a staggering degree. That is an amazing statement in and of itself. But, what does this have to do with Scripture and my love for it?

Like many things in the world, parallelism is very present here. I see Scripture and Jesus as parallel. We often refer to Scripture as “The Word of God” or more simply “The Word.” Here we have a tome that contains within it the very Word of God, the Word from John 1, the Word that became flesh and dwelt among us. However, like Jesus who took on the trappings of man, took on the limitations of humanity, humbling himself in order to make himself more accessible to us, Scripture too has been humbled so that we can understand it.

Scripture is the Word of God in human trappings.

Rather than giving it to us straight from the horse’s mouth, God chose to have his Word transmitted from human to human via written communication, a necessarily fallible form of communication that is fraught with errors and the limitations of understanding and interpretation. God could have found a way to communicate the glory of his Word directly, but it’s possible that that might have killed us (I’m thinking of the glory of God when Moses would go up and see him on the mountain — that’s scary stuff…).

This is what I mean when I say “the wretched beauty of Scripture.” The Bible, like humans, is subject to the wretchedness of humanity. It’s crude, really. However, that’s the beauty of it. If it were not contained within this book, within this earthly, fleshly prison, would it be possible for us to understand it? Would it be possible for us to internalize it and for it to be written on our hearts? Would it be possible for us to even look at a page?

I suppose that is what I find so fascinating about the Bible — it is the Word codified in human form. As such, it is subject to attacks and interpretations; it is subject to our limitations. However, like Jesus, in the end it is Truth and reveals a freedom that we can hardly begin to understand.

I hope that explanation at least begins to answer my friend’s question/challenge.

What about you? What do you think of Scripture?

Go ahead…sound off!

I find it interesting that throughout the Bible, God is referred to as “The Living God.” For example, in Acts 14, Paul and Barnabas are preaching in Lystra. After Paul miraculously heals a crippled man, the townspeople begin referring to him as Hermes and to Barnabas as Zeus. The priests of the temple of Zeus in that town bring gifts to sacrifice to their gods. Paul, of course, is incensed. In his admonition of these people, he says:

We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. (ESV, Acts 14:15)

When we boil it down, Paul makes two statements about other gods (i.e., Zeus and Hermes in this case):

• They are vain or empty — worthless. (Explicit argument.)
• They are not alive. (Implicit argument.)

Do these worshippers of Zeus realize this? If Paul is speaking the truth here, then they must come to understand that Zeus is not alive. Is this a surprise to them?

When we try to translate this passage into our modern context, we don’t rub up against these problems. We replace Zeus and Hermes with our 21st century gods: sex, money, power, etc. Most people would probably agree that an obsession or lust for these is unhealthy. Is it the same case for Paul’s priests? Do they realize that service to Zeus or Hermes is bankrupt?

Again, this makes me think of some of the hermeneutical issues that I’ve been having (see my previous article “Canonizing Culture” for more on that). God’s word here seems to have a different impact now than it might have then.

What do you think? Do you think the “Living God” is a more or less scandalous term now than it was then?

Part four of the series “Hebrews 2:9 – Separated by Grace.”

On the other hand, χωρίς has a claim to originality based on a number of internal criteria. While it is less common than χάρις in the New Testament, it is actually more common than χάρις in Hebrews. Discounting the verse in question, χάρις appears 154 times in the New Testament, while χωρίς appears 41 times; χάρις appears 107 times in the Pauline epistles (all “Pauline” letters, not just those considered “genuine” by modern scholars since at this early period Hebrews was most assuredly associated with Paul), whereas χωρίς appears only 29 times. In Hebrews, however, χάρις occurs 7 times, and χωρίς occurs 13 times. Therefore, the word χωρίς is also more in accord with the vocabulary of Hebrews than χάριτι. Further, the phrase χωρὶς θεοῦ appears nowhere else in the New Testament, while χάριτι θεοῦ appears some 20 times.¹ It is more likely that a scribe would replace χωρίς with the more common χάριτι than the other way around. In addition, as we have mentioned before, the idea of Jesus dying separated from God is a much more difficult reading in terms of proto-orthodox christological ontology than dying by the grace of God. The orthodox scribe is more likely to have altered the phrase in an effort to dispel questions about the ontological nature of Jesus, thus inserting χάριτι for χωρίς.² Bart Ehrman has argued that such an alteration of the text may well have been in reaction to so-called “heretical” doctrine running rampant during the second century about the humanity and divinity of Christ:

We know that the scribal alteration of the text of Heb 2:9 occurred precisely during the time that the controversy between proto-orthodox Christians and Gnostics was raging. It is not at all implausible to think that it was just this controversy then that led to the modification of this text, that proto-orthodox scribes, who shared the christological views of Irenaeus, modified the text so that Gnostics could not use it as a scriptural warrant for saying that Jesus died “apart from God,” since the divine Christ had already left him.³

For Ehrman, the christological debate of the second century, which was ultimately won by those whose theology would become the “orthodox” view, provides the theological motivation for overly pious scribes to alter the text in an effort to disallow the use of Scripture by those they deemed “heretics.” It is clear, then, that χωρίς is the lectio difficilior. It is also a word used more frequently in Hebrews than elsewhere, and its change to χάριτι can be explained both by scribal lapse (substituting the more common word for the less common, creating an easier phrase from something more complex) or by a theologically motivated scribe.⁴

Thus, the two readings conflict, creating a gulf between those who find the external evidence more persuasive, and those who find the internal evidence more persuasive. From the time of Tischendorf, the external evidence in this case has dictated the variant selected for inclusion in the majority of critical editions. However, this denies the relative ancientness of the alternative reading, χωρίς. For, while it is true that the weight of the manuscript evidence strongly favors χάριτι, it cannot be said to be more ancient than χωρίς—both readings originate extremely early, by the end of the second century. This is obvious for χάριτι, since it appears in P⁴⁶, a manuscript dated to somewhere around 200 ce. However, the same can be shown to be true of χωρίς—Origen’s usage proves this point most aptly.

Footnotes

1. Ehrman, Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, 147. J. K. Elliott discusses the use of these words together in terms of the usage of χωρίς with articular versus anarthrous nouns. His conclusion is that the use of χωρίς with an anarthrous noun is totally in accord with both New Testament usage and the usage of Hebrews. See James K. Elliott, “When Jesus Was Apart from God: An Examination of Hebrews 2:9,” ExpTim 83 (1972) 339.
2. Patristic writers were fond of disproving another group’s heretical christological belief based on textual criticism—showing that they altered the text. Bruce Manning Metzger, “The Practice of Textual Criticism Among the Church Fathers,” Studia Patristica 12 (1975) 340–49. It is striking to me that until Ehrman’s Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, little attention had been paid to the reverse—namely, the theologically motivated alteration of texts by proto-orthodox scribes in an effort to control the christological debate.
3. Ehrman,“Text and Tradition.” I am a bit uncomfortable with Ehrman’s use of “Gnostic” as a kind of collective, as if there were only two groups waging this theological war—but the point is still valid. For more on “Gnosticism,” see Karen L. King, What is Gnosticism? (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003).
4. See also Paul Garnet, “Hebrews 2:9: Χαριτι or Χωρις?,” Studia Patristica 18 (1985) 324.

This is the 45th part in an ongoing series on the epistles of John.

Some may read this, growl at their screens, and say, “Nuh uh! What is all of this business about commandments? I thought that we were interested in community and fellowship.”

It’s true, I really think that the heart of God, as expressed in 1 John is about two things: community and idolatry (we’ll see idolatry especially in the final sentence of the epistle). However, part of that community and part of avoiding idolatry is obedience, willfully submitting to the commands that he has written on our hearts.

The idea that these commands aren’t “burdensome” seems ridiculous. I’ve always had difficulty with Jesus saying “my yoke is easy.” Is it really? Why does it seem so hard? Why do most Christians (myself included) seem to have extreme difficulty putting that yoke on our backs?

Why does following God seem like such a burden?

I wish I had the answer. I wish I knew how to make following God’s commandments an easy process. But, I don’t. In fact, the problem for me is much deeper than simply following God’s commandments. Often I feel like I don’t even know what it is that he’s asking of me.

Sure, I can look at the Old Testament and see all of the Law. But, it’s supposed to be OK for me to ignore that because that Law was fulfilled in Christ. So, if I follow Christ, then I should be in good shape.

Jesus himself gives two commandments:

1. Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul, and mind. (Matt 22:37)
2. Love your neighbor as yourself. (Matt 22:39)

Those seem pretty straightforward. 1 John seems to offer a different version of #2 by pointing out, quite strongly, that we must love those who are our fellows in this journey with God. Holy cow! That’s difficult sometimes. Some Christians make themselves extremely difficult to love, don’t they? (Perhaps you’re thinking this of me, right now.)

So, those are some commandments for us to follow. But, I think that most people feel like God has put other mandates on their lives. For some these are notions of sins, e.g., drinking, smoking, dancing. They get wrapped up in these commands. For others (and I put myself in this category), it’s about personal mandates — what is God asking of me personally? What does God want me to do?

To be constantly in a state of introspection, trying to figure out the path or figure out the way that you are headed is a tough spot to be. This is where I feel like I live most of the time — in constant thought (and sometimes prayer) about what’s next, what am I supposed to do, where should I go, etc.

Is this just adding burden to what should be an easy load?

Am I guilty of adding to the gospel (gospel+)? Or am I working through this notion of commandment in a healthy way?

Here’s the big question: Has my personal journey become an idol?

I posted a bunch of stuff via Twitter and Delicious this week. Here are some of my favorites.

• Tyler Braun’s series on “Sovereignty” is full of great guest posts yet again this week. I strongly encourage you to check them out: Kurt Brandemihl (@godsidekurt) and Justin Wise (@JustinWise) brought some really interesting thoughts.
• Additionally, Tyler Braun found some interesting similarities between the Tour de France and ministry. It’s all about teamwork, kids!
• Jonathan Brink (@jonathanbrink) offered some really interesting thoughts on “The Problem of Ordination.” Brink engages with N.T. Wright’s thoughts on the recent decision by Episcopalians to ordain homosexuals. Jonathan also posted a video called “The Good News According to Rob Bell.” I’m not a huge Rob Bell fan (even to the point where I find his speaking rhythm/cadence annoying!), but setting that — and some issues with his understanding of history — aside, I found this video to be full of some interesting insights. Eleven minutes is a bit long, but you can handle it!
• Tony Jones discusses “shibboleths” and the fondness that Evangelicals hold for them in “Just Another Means of Division.” He shows that Evangelicals have jumped from the abortion debate to the gay marriage debate. Another interesting note is his insistence that Evanglicals, though clearly comprising a huge political bloc in the US, prefer to view themselves as an oppressed minority.
• Kem Meyer told us that cutting clutter and noise was the way to go for most churches: “Pigs flew and I went on Christian TV…”
• Think that folks tweeting during church is no bueno? Carol Howard Merritt offers a different point of view: “Twibal Church.”
• Carlos Whittaker (@loswhit) alerted us to the awesome goings on at Rolling Hills Baptist Church: “Where’s the Steeple?” I also posted on this here.
• PCUSA’s Special Committee on Civil Union and Christian Marriage is asking for your thoughts and opinions on marriage. Drew Tatusko (@dtatusko) offered his letter to the committee for all to see: “on covenanted same gender relationships.”
• John Piper discusses 1 Thessalonians 5:8–10 and how it provided him with solace while he was dealing with some serious medical issues: “Biopsy Blows and the Helmet of Hope.” That’s pragmatic Christianity!
• Pat McCullough created a page devoted to helping undergrads figure out the grad school scene: “Wanna be a Bible scholar…?” A lot of good advice from McCullough there.
• Along with Brandon Wason, I will celebrate the anniversary of Hans Dieter Betz’s commentary on Galatians.
• Josh Hale, after reading a recent article on Mashable talking about Twitter’s new homepage, writes about the new Twitter attitude (twattitude?) and how it is appropriate for evangelism: “Twitter and Mission Fields.”
• César Baldelomar writes about being “corrected” by a Catholic community for asserting that Adam and Eve were not historical figures: “Taking the Bible Seriously, but not Always Literally.”

Let me tell you what is keeping me up at nights: hermeneutics.

When I say, “Hermeneutics,” I mean it in the rather strict sense that Gordon Fee defines in some of his essays. Fee describes hermeneutics over against exegesis in an effort to create a distinction between the two so that he can talk about two different operations that, for all intents and purposes, would fall under the same blanket term: hermeneutics.

• Exegesis — The interpretation of a text with an eye toward historical context.
• Hermeneutics — The application of a text to our time (e.g., taking the 2000 year old New Testament and applying it to 21st century Western society).

It should be clear that both of these operations are not without their issues. For example, when we look at exegesis, we must immediately ask: “How do we go from text to context?” That is, of course, a classic historiographical issue. With respect to hermeneutics, we must ask an equally basic question: “Should we be attempting to apply these texts to our context in the first place?”

Because I believe that the Bible is the Word of God, and that it is “useful for instruction” (See 2 Timothy 3:16), I must overwhelmingly affirm the application of Biblical texts to my own life. In fact, I take a very serious (some would say “high”) view of Scripture.

Here’s the problem: the texts of the New Testament were written roughly twenty centuries ago. Is it possible that some of the messages contained therein were not meant for a 21st century crowd? Or is it possible that some of those messages weren’t really meant for a 1st century crowd but are enormously important to those of us living in the 21st century? Quite the conundrum.

If our interpretation and understanding of these texts is inccorect, we may be in danger of canonizing culture.

What are your thoughts?

What do you see as the most contentious interpretive issues facing Christians today?

I would love to think about those issues that you find most difficult. So, let’s start a discussion.

If you want to talk about a situation that really puts you in touch with yourself and with God, try unemployment. As a married American male, this is a particularly trying circumstance.

However, unemployment has its benefits. If you can put yourself in the right frame of mind, joblessness can be a blessing. Allow me to enumerate and elaborate.

1. Unemployment requires serious self-examination.
   In order to get back out there in the job market, or to change careers, you’ve really got to get in tune with yourself and understand what it is that makes you tick and what your strengths and weaknesses are. Beyond that being unemployed will also force you to think about what it is you really want to do. How do you measure success?
2. Unemployment affords you more time to spend alone.
   When I was working a 9-to-5, I was with people all day. I’d go to work and there would be people there. I’d go home and my wife was there. The only alone time that I ever really had was in the car. This is not as much of a problem for the unemployed. While you may be out canvassing for a job, chances are you aren’t spending 8 hours per day on this venture. (If you are, then you are probably going insane.) Take advantage of the extra few hours you have each day. Read the Bible. Pray. Seek to understand who God is, who you are, and what your relationship to him should look like.
3. Unemployment gives you an opportunity to reconsider what is important in life.
   As of this post, I’ve been unemployed for 8 months. In those 8 months my wife and I have had to make some very difficult decisions about how we spend our money and what we do with our time. We’ve realized that what’s important is not how awesome our computer is or whether or not the iPod is functional — what’s important is spending time together. The great thing about spending time together is that it’s almost totally free! (Which means that we can do plenty of it.)
4. Unemployment helps you to realize how truly blessed you are.
   Maybe this isn’t the case for everyone, but this is how it’s worked for me. As the end of the month approaches (like right now), and I know rent is due, I’m always biting my nails as I look at the checkbook. Somehow God has sustained us. Somehow God has helped us find the means to stay current on all of our responsibilities. As Abraham told Isaac in Genesis 22: “The Lord will provide.”
5. Unemployment gives you the opportunity to experience tough times with your spouse and come out ahead.
   I’m not attempting to downplay the emotional toll that unemployment can take on a person or a couple. Nor am I saying that “trying times are the best!” However, unemployment has always forced my wife and I to have some very serious conversations about who we are and what we are doing. Sometimes these conversations go really well; sometimes not. At the end of each of those rough patches, I always feel like we’re stronger for it.

Unemployed or Employed? The latter!

Because unemployment gives you the opportunity to experience God and community in so many different ways, I look at it as a spiritual practice. For those who have been unfortunate to find themselves unemployed during the current recession, tell me how you’ve capitalized on that added time to alter yourself or your relationship with God.

If you don’t take advantage of the situation, then you may end up looking like me in the photo to the right (click to enlarge). Ironically, I was very much employed at the time.

Christine Sine over at Godspace has an ongoing series where various folks have posted about different activities as spiritual practices. I suggest you head over there and check it out.