LECTURES ON ROMANS 2013: SIGNS AND MEANINGS: WARNING ON DECONSTRUCTION: ROM. 16: 17-20

MY BRIEF TESTIMONY

BRIEF 5 min. PERSONAL TESTIMONY - BARRY BALLARD

On a warm summer day in Washington D.C., I sat in a small movie theater listening to a re-broadcast of a Billy graham crusade that had been previously given elsewhere. I was attending with a Christian group who ministered on the air force based where I was stationed, "Andrews Air Force Base". At the conclusion of the presentation, there was an invitation given to receive Christ and counselors were standing up front to pray with those who came forward. The house lights went up and I went forward and prayed to receive Jesus Christ into my life. This was not the moment of my true conversion, this was "preparation-of-heart", part one.

On a humid pitch-black night in 1969, my plane touched down on the Saigon airfield that was currently under rocket attack. Black-out conditions were in effect and we were rushed to trucks and then transported to our barracks and its inclusive bunker for protection. I was assigned an m16 rifle, two clips of ammo, and given a helmet and flack-vest. I spent my first night in Saigon standing in the bunker, wondering "why?" I was even here. I understood none of it, except that supposedly it had to do with communism and we were protecting democracy. But, I just felt abandoned to the most bizarre and remote assignment I could imagine. I worked "support", so I do not want to give the false impression that I was "combat"; but I did serve some time in the jungle. Only one man died in our group during the year I was there; and he told me beforehand that he wanted to die and never return home. He had received his divorce papers in the mail about a week before my arrival. He was shot down in a helicopter "one" day before he was to return home. My one year in Saigon was a lesson in the deterioration of the human spirit and soul. Eventually, I also learned to hate myself and "living" and could care less about what might lie ahead. I was returning to the states with a crushed human soul, devoid of all optimism. This was "preparation-of-heart", part two.

On a humid gray-dusk-like-evening, I found myself, in 1970, driving through the main gate of Carswell Air Force Base in Fort Worth, Texas. I soon settled into my tasks of working in the 7th bomb wing headquarters, in support roles again as usual. I also served on the honor guard for special occasions for fallen veterans funerals, or award ceremonies. Even though my personal psyche was "wasted“; I was considered an admirable employee and respected for my abilities. My inner life however was an absolute disaster that I did not "share" with anyone. Strangely enough; I was visited by representatives of the "Navigators"; the same Christian organization that had approached me in Washington D.C. I began attending bible studies two nights a week and felt a little better about life by receiving this follow-up. I'll call this "preparation-of-heart", part three.

During my term of service at Carswell, I met my wife to be, Beverly, who invited me to her church in River Oaks, "Trinity Baptist Church". They had a young pastor, John Hatch, who was just finishing his doctorate at Southwestern and the atmosphere attracted me. It was in 1973, “4” years after that initial "preparation-of-heart"; that I made an honest commitment to Jesus Christ and immediately followed that with baptism.

From there, the road did not get any smoother, but my “soul” began a healing process that eventually went from healing to true "Wonder and Discovery". The first thing that was revealed to me was my spiritual gift, which is "Teaching". While at Trinity, I ended up writing three commentaries: James, Colossians, and Philippians. All three helped me grow in my commitment to Jesus Christ.

True conversion was preceded by three moments of "preparation-of-the-heart" in my case. Over a four year stretch of time, God never gave up on me. I think the strength of my testimony must be given to the strength of God's loving patience; to lead me along the final path that would secure my faith. Thank You.

Thursday, December 19, 2013

WARNING ON DECONSTRUCTION: ROM. 16: 17-20

click link: http://www.mediafire.com/listen/5j270w2uhbraqwy/paulxx9.mp3

GLOSSARY FOR ROMANS 16: 17-20 :

1. SKOPOS: to “target” something.

2. EKKLINO: to turn aside from someone.

3. PARADIDAKA: the positing of a contradiction.

4. AKERIOS: pure truth of theoretical intent

5. SUNTRIBO: the Greek term for “deconstruction”.

6. CHARIS: as substantial force of attraction and singularity.

7. Paul’s concluding comments include the notion that the acquisition of “signs and meanings” will usually involve some work of deconstruction.

No comments:

ABOUT MY HERMENEUTIC

ABOUT MY HERMENEUTIC: this commentary will exclusively use the “Heidegger-hermeneutic”, as outlined in Catherine Malabou’s book “The Heidegger Change”. Therefore each section will pass through three “cuts” of lifting the significant signs; consisting of: “exchange”; “transformation”; and finally “metamorphosis”. Barth proposes the exact same thing himself in chapter “7" of his commentary. Therefore it will be a consistent approach, appreciated by Barth himself.

STANCE

STANCE: “POINT-OF-VIEW” OR “ART-OF-STANDING-IN”:

this commentary will take up a position of critiquing the letter to the Romans by critically examining Karl Barth’s commentary written in 1923. It will engage with the offerings of Karl Barth through the vision of two separate philosophers who have taken-up his legacy. These two thinkers are :

Jurgen Moltmann

Jean-Luc Nancy.

Both thinkers began to surface in the 1960's; but Moltmann gained prominence almost immediately, while Nancy rose to prominence in the 1990's.

From Nancy we will borrow his concept of “phonology” or “listening” which will be borrowed for our motivational substrate when examining Paul’s letter. From Moltmann, we will borrow his “hermeneutic-of-reversal” and his approach to appropriating “signs”. These specific aspects will be articulated in greater detail in the first introductory lecture.

It is not the intention of this commentary to purposefully offend anyone; in fact, I welcome all listeners to engage in the study. But the history of the contributors cannot be denied. Jurgen Moltmann has been accused of Christianizing Atheism in the past because of his appropriation of the thought of Ernst Bloch . And Jean-Luc Nancy has made no secret of the fact that he feels the goal of Christianity is to reaching Christian-Atheism , where all metaphysics have been adequately deconstructed. And, of course, karl Barth himself was criticized for not adhering to the doctrine of “verbal-plenary” or literal inspiration of scripture. All three have had their differences with fundamentalist Christianity.

but these disturbing issues will not be filtered-out in this commentary. I intend to present disturbing challenges when they surface. It is the listener’s responsibility to appropriate that material within the context of their own core-beliefs.

But; having said that, it should also be understood that Romans is the closest document we have to a secular-gospel, or gentile-gospel. The invitation here, therefore is universal; to Christians and “non-Christians”. Many post-modern philosophers have taken-up the Apostle Paul as a member of their post-modern context of thinking; and have forced Christianity to share his legacy. And there have been published volumes on Paul to follow this interest by these Post-Moderns.

I think I have a responsibility to spell-out my own stance prior to the initiation of this project: I have a background in Southern-Baptist Christianity. But my undergrad and graduate studies focused primarily on the theology of Jurgen Moltmann; who was not a liberal, but did present a new radical way of approaching the written documents of Christianity. He emphasized “Eschatological-Time”as fundamental to his hermeneutic. Therefore I do have a bias towards Jurgen Moltmann’s post-modern position, and his view of karl Barth.

SIGNS:

ROMANS 2013: and its “signs-of-meaning” for our time:

If you take the scriptures to be literally true or symbolically true, within your Christian faith; these scriptures (both literal and symbolic ) contain “signs” of meaning that point to a significance of deeper meaning.

this study will address those signs; and therefore, the concept needs some clarification:

A SIGN:

1. Is an “abbreviation” of a “plurality-of-meanings” contained within its own pliable border.

2. Is a “dynamic” concept that is always in movement and never static; always taking on the attribute of action and functioning like a “verb”, even if it is a “noun”.

3. Is a fragment that occupies a “space” within a larger inter-related space of other signs. It shares a position “with” other “positioned-signs”.

4. Is a “category” under certain conditions where it abbreviates other “signs of significance”.

5. Is a concept that occupies infinite-space and is not limited in number; however “categories” will eventually reach a limit-point of their praxis-defined finitude. Their perimeter is a finite-border (that is pliable , in order to contain the infinity within it).

6. Is a concept enclosed behind a “thin-pliable-border” that can “bulge” to reveal its tendency-to-appear. And can eventually burst forth from finitude itself in an emerging-appearance.

LECTURES ON ROMANS 2013: SIGNS AND MEANINGS

MY BRIEF TESTIMONY:

MY BRIEF TESTIMONY

Thursday, December 19, 2013

WARNING ON DECONSTRUCTION: ROM. 16: 17-20

No comments:

Post a Comment