“Life” and Death in the ‘Burbs

Part of the fun (at least my fun–and that is what matters) of pointless ironies is reading too much into them–precisely, i.e., beyond what we’re sure was meant. That may be what I do best. I mean, c’mon, what’s the point of a reader (ha. speaking of pointless ironies) if he doesn’t get to distort the text? 🙂 I’m only slightly sarcastic with that. I’m sure you’re familiar with the conservative obsession with the “author’s intentions.” The maxim they crammed down our throats when I was an aspiring hermeneutician went something like “what neither the author could have intended nor the original audience understood cannot be the meaning of the passage.” That may not be it exactly but I swear the original had that double (almost triple) negative structure. Obviously there’s truth there and, if nothing else, it’s a good place to start. Unfortunately, imo, one has to jump through all sorts of hoops or grant all sorts of awkward exceptions to reconcile this principle with, say, NT interpretation of the OT or even the Prophets’ interpretation of the Torah. The only thing that’s inviolable, in my book, is the Author‘s intention. Which, in itself, is a bit of a moving target, if only because of our limitations and, therefore, the evolutionary nature of our understanding. I’m not saying that we should cast off all restraint. . . . Well, maybe I am. But I’m not saying we disrespect or completely disregard the author and his intentions. . . . Well, at least not most of the time. I’m definitely not saying that we ignore the original audience’s perspective. . . . at least not in our initial approach. I’m a big fan of reading in context and would love it if more folks did just that. But context is not Truth and, like most anything else, it can quickly become shackles and an idol.

Whew! See what you did with two little sentences? Bet you didn’t intend that. 😉 Yeah, that was kind of a tangent, but it’s one of those things I think about way too much.

What’s funny on the “Just for Christine” is that for a while that was my linked page, because I didn’t know if I wanted to so expose the rest of my wayward thoughts. Then I decided to go ahead and be me. But there’s nothing voyeuristic. Yeah, this is the main place to be, if you’re truly wanting to listen in on my wandering words, but the other one is there so that folks can hear about my wonderful daughter. So, I hope you’ll listen there, too.

I’m not really a fan of NASCAR myself, except maybe in an abstract, perverted, idyllic sense. But “Talladega Nights” is genius.

I hope to go too far. I may not do it as well as Mac Powell, but I’m flattered even that you’d mention us in the same paragraph. I am all for worship that’s too sexy, btw (as long as it doesn’t just turn into a lurid cartoon of itself–which, I suppose, is a matter of perspective). Have you listened to JoAnn McFatter? . . . or Kevin Prosch? For that matter, David Ruis goes some places. There are others. Misty Edwards and a lot of the IHOP folks sing some stuff that you won’t hear from your father’s hymnal. And something that seems to happen to me a lot is that I hear the Lord’s voice (or the cry of my own heart back to Him) in “secular” love songs.

Thanks for listening in. Likewise, please comment–perhaps especially when (I won’t even say “if” ) I go off the deep end (not that I’ll necessarily swim back, but I like hearing another voice–especially a thoughtful one–when I get out there). I appreciate your ability to sort through and make sense of all of my . . . stuff. Again, as you can see, I get carried away, so I probably will curtail my responses just so that I don’t spend all of my time in them, but I’m enjoying your blog even in my relative silence.

Rock on, Guitar Man!