The Bird & Babe Public House

America's Next Top Pastor

2009-05-25T20:07:00.000-07:00

Sit back and enjoy.

Evolutionary Hymn

2008-12-05T12:42:00.000-08:00

Lead us, Evolution, lead us
Up the future's endless stair;
Chop us, change us, prod us, weed us.
For stagnation is despair:
Groping, guessing, yet progressing,
Lead us nobody knows where.

Wrong or justice, joy or sorrow,
In the present what are they
while there's always jam-tomorrow,
While we tread the onward way?
Never knowing where we're going,
We can never go astray.

To whatever variation
Our posterity may turn
Hairy, squashy, or crustacean,
Bulbous-eyed or square of stern,
Tusked or toothless, mild or ruthless,
Towards that unknown god we yearn.

Ask not if it's god or devil,
Brethren, lest your words imply
Static norms of good and evil
(As in Plato) throned on high;
Such scholastic, inelastic,
Abstract yardsticks we deny.

Far too long have sages vainly
Glossed great Nature's simple text;
He who runs can read it plainly,
'Goodness = what comes next.'
By evolving, Life is solving
All the questions we perplexed.

Oh then! Value means survival-
Value. If our progeny
Spreads and spawns and licks each rival,
That will prove its deity
(Far from pleasant, by our present,
Standards, though it may well be).

C S Lewis

"...It's in the game."

2008-11-28T17:50:00.000-08:00

I have read many books which discuss the psychological and sociological implications of our plugged-in-world. None have been as intriguing as Richard DeGrandpre’s Digitopia, a collection of essays published in 2001. I like it because he constantly reminds his readers what he is not arguing.

In one particular essay he cites David Grossman (a retired L. Col. Army Ranger and WestPoint professor) who wrote a book on the psychology of learning to kill another human being. Grossman discusses how during WWII there was a failure by many soldiers to fire their weapons during combat situations. Interestingly, by the time of the Vietnam War the rate of fire jumped up from 15-20% to 90-95%.

This begs the question—what changed? Grossman demonstrates this change was the result of various desensitization techniques. I have no military experience, but what I gathered was that soldiers are put through various simulated acts of killing in order to replace a voluntary response with an involuntary reflex.

DeGrandpre, following this line of thought, applies it to our plugged-in-world when he writes, “the context of simulation in which desensitization takes place have been replicated within a large variety of action-oriented media, especially interactive video games” (37).

Now, it is important to note that DeGrandpre points out he is not arguing for a one-to-one cause-and-effect relationship; nor is he trying to oversimplify things. Rather, he is talking about a context of simulation that causes desensitization. In this regard he quotes Grossman again, who gives a great analogy.

Grossman points out that this conditioning media is like AIDS. The AIDS virus does not kill someone; rather, it attacks one’s immune system such that they become vulnerable to death by some other illness. Similarly, conditioning media creates an acquired deficiency in the violence immune system.

Is the rise in violence among teenagers, for instance, a direct result of playing video games? I think if one says yes they are arguing fallaciously. However, if one simply points out that the rise in violence among teenagers is because of desensitization due to various forms of conditioning media, then I think one would be making a valid argument—and they would be in good company too.

Thoughts?

DeGrandpre

Grossman

Follow Up: A Little Foreshadowing

2008-11-25T08:56:00.000-08:00

Hook 'Em Horns

2008-11-25T08:43:00.000-08:00

Like many good things; don't ask me to explain it, just enjoy it!

BCS Rankings

The Language of Beauty

2008-11-24T10:20:00.001-08:00

In Narnia and Beyond, a guide to the fiction of C. S. Lewis, Thomas Howard writes, "poetry (the literature of high imagination) carries the legitimate interest of all measurers and analysts (geographers, astrophysicists, all of us) on through to the clarity and intensity implicit in that interest from the outset" (71).

I wonder what many moderns, with their dichotomy between the bona fide disciplines (i.e. sciences) and the more feigned ones (i.e. humanities), would think of this; for Howard claims that poetry does indeed carry weight for all mankind.

Obviously this claim begs further explanation; and Howard, in typical fashion, gives it:

That is, if the botanist for example, finding himself galvanized by the efficiency and symmetry of the life forms he is scrutinizing, continues to press the question implicit in notions like efficiency and symmetry, he is going to find himself reaching for such words as "beauty" and "pleasure" and "awe", and at this point he is going to need poetry, at least if he wants language to chart these latter developments in his study. It is not that poetry or the poetic imagination uncovers some arcane significance in things that a cloddish scientific analysis cannot hope to see: rather we may say that the poetic imagination wants to speak with a language that charts how we mortals see these phenomena, the thing implicit in poetry all along being that there is perhaps no truer way to speak of the phenomena.

Thoughts?

Link

How Can Poetry Matter?

2008-11-17T12:54:00.000-08:00

Given the nature of the classes I teach, at some point in the course of the year the dreadful "P" word shows its ugly head. At least this is what my students think when I say something like "Today we are going to discuss the poetry of T. S. Eliot..."--it would not take a visitor to my class long to hear much grief and sorrow expressed through horrendous shrieking when the word poetry is mentioned.

I have been thinking lately about why this is the case. Why is studying poetry such a seemingly daunting task? Of course, one could mention the rather esoteric nature of poetry—or, at least, that poetry has become esoteric. But, this is not interesting to me. Instead, I am more interested in the question of whether or not poetry can matter—make a difference in our lives.

This thinking has led me to an article written by Dana Gioia, the chairman of the NEA—who was recently interviewed by Ken Meyers on the Mars Hill Audio Journal. Gioia wrote an article in 1991 dealing with this same question; Link namely, can poetry matter? I found a fascinating analogy that he used to show how poetry can matter. He argues that poetry is like cooking. And, insofar as one could eat without first cooking the food, one could live their life without ever having read or understood a poem. But, asks Gioia, imagine what they would be missing.

Indeed, there is something additive about poetry. There is something about poetry which makes the spiritual nourishment that words provide taste so much better. How can I get my students to understand this? Thoughts…

Deism: A Serious Problem

2008-11-10T13:00:00.000-08:00

I was asked a question this week about how to answer someone who holds to a sort of quasi-deism. This particular person holds the position something like God created everything but has since left us on our own to figure things out. Initially I began to think; certainly no one really holds this position anymore. After all, how would one know for certain that this deistic God did indeed create everything?

My thoughts soon carried me away into thinking about what would influence someone to think this. Hasn’t the Church dealt with this? Or, has it?

My thoughts soon brought me, as they often do, to N. T. Wright. I found this quote in Simply Christian which I found simply remarkable.

Many popular misconceptions of Christian faith make the mistake at this point of trying to fit Christian faith into a residual Deist framework. They depict a distant and austere God suddenly deciding to do something after all, and so sending his own Son to teach us how to escape our sphere and go and live in God’s instead…

Perhaps some in the church—with their teaching that the earth is doomed and must be tolerated until our final escape to heaven—have caused this misconception. Perhaps Deism is more of a problem than I assumed at first.

Intriguing Introductions

2008-11-07T12:35:00.000-08:00

David Lodge in the Art of Fiction, a collection of essays on various aspects of British and American fiction, writes, “However one defines it, the beginning of a novel is a threshold, separating the real world we inhabit from the world the novelist has imagined. It should therefore, as the phrase goes, ‘draw us in’” (4-5).

As I sit at my desk contemplating this quote, I can think of three beginnings that completely captivated me:

Estragon: (giving up again). “Nothing to be done.”

From Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett

“Call me Ishmael.”

From Moby Dick by Herman Melville

“Ours is essentially a tragic age, so we refuse to take it tragically.”

From Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence

Can you think of any?

A Robust Reminder

2008-10-20T12:41:00.000-07:00

... the way was prepared for our salvation, not by the Lord God's weaning men away from their physical life and teaching them to be spiritual, as the Buddha and Plato and other sages have urged. Rather, the way He laid out was crowded with altars of stone, and bloody pelts, and entrails and great haunches of lamb and beef, and gold and incence and fine-twined linen, and immense golden bulls holding up the brazen sea in the Temple. Doves, heifers, bullocks, rams--it was very crowded.

But that was all primitive. Surely something spiritual would emerge from those elementary lessons. Surely thoughtful men might anticipate the day when all of this would be put behind and be replaced with elevated thoughts and spirituality.

Indeed, it was all put behind. There came an end to those gory altars and all that slaughter. But it was not a tissue of elevated thoughts that replaced them. Rather, an angel appeared to a woman and said, 'Hail!' What we now had, far from the summons away from the physical realm that highminded men might have wished, was gynecology, obstretics, and a birth. Whatever we may imagine about the spiritual rhapsody that might have attended this angelic visitation to the Virgin, the one thing we know to have occurred was a conception. The virgin's womb teemed.

It was embarrassing to the religious mind. It proved a scandal. The whole ensuing story bothered and even enraged religious men, and it has continued to do so. Christian history is littered not only with the bones of the martyrs who have died at the hands of enemies who hated this story but also with the confused and heretical attempts of Christians themselves to skirt it. Seizing on Saint Paul's vocabulary and wrenching it about, they have tried to pit the spiritual against the physical...a religion that summons us away from earthly, earthy life.

Thomas Howard, Link

Strength and Honor

2008-07-04T08:48:00.000-07:00

The following post is for 2 reasons: First, it is a tribute to those who have served and continue to serve our country. I love this country and I love those who swear an oath to serve and protext it. Second, I think this is a statement which, with only a few words changed, could serve as a model for how to be a Christian Man. So read. Thank God for soldiers. And Pray that God will make us into men like this for His Kingdom's Sake.

UNITED STATES NAVY SEAL PHILOSOPHY

"In times of war or uncertainty there is a special breed of warrior ready to answer our Nation's call; a common man with uncommon desire to succeed. Forged by adversity, he stands alongside America's finest special operations forces to serve his country and the American people, and to protect their way of life. I am that man.

My Trident is a symbol of honor and heritage. Bestowed upon me by the heroes who have gone before, it embodies the trust of those whom I have sworn to protect. By wearing the Trident, I accept the responsibility of my chosen profession and way of life. It is a privilege that I must earn every day.

My loyalty to Country and Team is beyond reproach. I humbly serve as a guardian to my fellow Americans, always ready to defend those who are unable to defend themselves. I do not advertise the nature of my work, nor seek recognition for my actions. I voluntarily accept the inherent hazards of my profession, placing the welfare and security of others before my own.

I serve with honor on and off the battlefield. The ability to control my emotions and my actions, regardless of circumstance, sets me apart from other men. Uncompromising integrity is my standard. My character and honor are steadfast. My word is my bond.

We expect to lead and be led. In the absence of orders I will take charge, lead my teammates, and accomplish the mission. I lead by example in all situations.

I will never quit. I persevere and thrive on adversity. My Nation expects me to be physically harder and mentally stronger than my enemies. If knocked down, I will get back up, every time. I will draw on every remaining ounce of strength to protect my teammates and to accomplish the mission. I am never out of the fight.

We demand discipline. We expect innovation. The lives of my teammates and the success of the mission depend on me — my technical skill, tactical proficiency, and attention to detail. My training is never complete.

We train for war and fight to win. I stand ready to bring the full spectrum of combat power to bear in order to achieve my mission and the goals established by my country. The execution of my duties will be swift and violent when required, yet guided by the very principles I serve to defend.

Brave men have fought and died building the proud tradition and feared reputation that I am bound to uphold. In the worst of conditions, the legacy of my teammates steadies my resolve and silently guides my every deed. I will not fail."

What He Didn't Say

2008-05-18T20:43:00.000-07:00

Arguments from silence aren't very good arguments. But sometimes it is interesting how some people choose to answer certain questions. The ways people answer can be windows into how they see things enabling us to possibly see their answers to other questions. Here is one such example which I deem appropriate to our pub blog and to our church calendar given the nature of our blog and the time of the Christian year.

On Pentecost, when the disciples start speaking in tongues, some people began mocking them saying "They are full of sweet wine. (Acts 2:13)" Notice what Peter says in response....and what he doesn't say: "These men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only third hour of the day...(Acts 2:15)"

He doesn't defend himself from the charge of drunkenness by saying that they would never touch the stuff. What he says is that is it is too early for them to have been drinkin' long enough to have become intoxicated. He argues not about the thing but its use.

I don't know. Maybe I am reading too much into this. I just thought it was kind of interesting. What say you?

The Beloved Disciple

2008-04-15T11:49:00.000-07:00

I heard an interesting theory in my Christology class with Colin Brown yesterday which was new to me, and may or may not be to you.

Although the beloved disciple has traditionally been assumed to be John, there is evidence that it may in fact be none other than... Thomas. Doubting Thomas? Why?

It is interesting that in following Jesus toward Jerusalem, Thomas is recorded as saying, "Let us go with him that we may die with him." Seeing this devotion to Jesus, is it hard to imagine that he was the only disciple to be with the women at the crucifixion?

And following the resurrection, when Jesus appears to the disciples, isn't it interesting that Thomas is the only one not present? Well, if Thomas was a faithful Jew as we ought to expect, then it would make sense that he had to be absent, for he would isolated while observing his period of purification after having come in contact with a dead body.

And this also explains why he would say, "Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe." He did not say this because he is a "Doubting Thomas," but because he was the only disciple who actually saw Jesus pierced and dead.

Now if this is the case, then poor Thomas has been maligned and his character unfairly stigmatized for two thousand years. Not only that, but even more ironically, perhaps the gospel of John would be more appropriately entitled, yep, you guessed it: The Gospel of Thomas.

Behold the Man

2008-03-22T22:08:00.000-07:00

On the sixth day, after God had created the world and the first Adam, he beheld the man and the world, and saw that it was very good. This was indeed a very good Friday. And on the seventh day, God rested. Tragically, what followed on the eighth day was the rebellion of Adam and the consequent marring of that very good creation. And death entered the world.

Let’s now fast-forward to the week which we have just celebrated, Holy Week. The sixth day came, and on Good Friday, Pontius Pilate ironically voiced the words of God as he announced to the people, “Behold the man.” Jesus, the second Adam, and very God himself, completed His work. And on the seventh day, He rested in the grave. But the eighth day, the high holy day of universal history, had the opposite effect the first eighth day. The New Adam defeated death, and new life entered the world. New Creation had come, and just as had God walked in the cool of the morning in the garden on the eighth day of the first creation, so Mary Magdalene while visiting the tomb on the eighth was startled to find God himself walking in the garden in the cool of the morning on the eighth day, and she mistook him for a gardener.

New Creation has come, and we have new life through the Second Adam, God with us, Jesus.

Ergonomics of the Kingdom

2008-01-22T09:08:00.001-08:00

Four buddies of mine (Andre is pictured here) came down and stayed at my house for a few days this past week. One of the things we did was to climb Vasquez Rocks, located just fifteen minutes from my house. We all had a great time, and even Matt Maselli, with blood and sweat (but no tears) made it to the top. This got me thinking about the new heavens and new earth, and ergonomics. I haven't thought this through completely, and I'm not solidifying my doctrine by posting this so don't cry "Heretic!" if I say something questionable.

I grew up being taught by everyone that in the resurrection, there will be no more pain, no more suffering, etc. However, I think that we all agree here that there will definitely be work in the resurrection; after all, the first Adam worked in the garden, and we will be redeemed Adams working in God's new garden.

I don't know about you, but I have come to appreciate work, and part of what makes it so good is the pain and exhaustion which you are able to overcome. I'm not saying that it's only good after the work is done and you can sigh and say that it was worth the pain. I'm actually saying that there seems to be something good in the actual pain, suffering, and exertion of it all. And there's something fulfilling and cathartic about collapsing on the floor after climbing a mountain, or running a race.

So I guess I'm wondering, how might this fit together in the resurrection? I'm hoping that somehow, my perfected body will be able to sweat, and ache. Is that crazy?

He Stayed and Worked with Them

2007-12-30T23:09:00.000-08:00

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this...

In contemporary Church language, a "missionary" is someone sent with full (or significant) financial support to spread the Gospel in a foreign place.

I am wondering...Where did this model come from? How did we come to the conclusion that some people who share the gospel should draw their livelihood from donations of others?

First of all, pastors (as I know many of you are) deserve to gain their living from their work:

11If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?...14In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. - 1 Cor 9

Paul appeals to the idea that those who proclaim the Gospel deserve to reap from those among whom they work.

However, what I am not sure about, is the concept of "raising support" to be a missionary free from the demands of paid labor.

What is potentially wrong with giving money to someone for the sake of making disciples in a foreign place? Here are some reasons:

1. It Sets a Poor Example
Imagine the typical missionary who has full financial support and can devote 100% of their time to proclaiming the Gospel. Who can follow their example?

Now, consider someone who goes to a foreign country, works to provide for their needs, AND brings witness of Christ. This person could go to any fellow believer and truly say, "You can do exactly what I do."

Since we "pay" people to share the Gospel, I can see how non-paid missionaries can be unclear about their own role as disciple-makers. The follower of Christ who is waiting tables, doing construction, or working in an office could likely resent their job as meaningless and "in the way" of being a true disciple.

2. Everyone Must Work

We were not idle when we were with you, 8nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat. - 2 Thes. 3

Labor is part of life. All disciples of Christ are responsible for sharing the Good News.

If anyone could have claimed that labor would get in the way of ministry work, Paul would have been justified. Yet, he adamantly required everyone to work, and he made himself no exception. (1 Thes 2:9)

3. Efficiency
People must be dependent on raising support before they can go. A missionary that could work to provide for their needs would be more stable in the long run.
A self-supporting missionary could also set their own schedule and would probably travel much lighter.

Paul both worked for a living and shared the Gospel to the exclusion of neither:

and because he was a tentmaker as they were, he stayed and worked with them. 4Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks - Acts 18

If Paul wasn't exempted from working (laboring and toiling) for a living, is anyone else? Are missionaries the same as pastors?

Any Thoughts?

Chillin' with Enn Tee

2007-11-19T19:55:00.000-08:00

That's right; I know you're all jealous.

Over and Done With

2007-10-29T07:44:00.000-07:00

I am convinced that the concept of covenant has been misunderstood by Christians, at least by many of the people in the circles in which I run. I have heard people variously say things like, "God made the covenant with Israel and God wont break his oath even if we break ours." Such statements have been used to justify a great deal of things regarding national Israel, their continued chosen status, their right to various promises which have not been literally fulfilled and how it all relates to the church. The problem is that we believe, or at least should believe, that God made a NEW covenant, meaning, among other things, that the old one is over.

We, as Christians, need to stop thinking either that we are God's JV squad that got put on the field while He teaches his starters a lesson; or that Israel is defined in any other way than as those people who follow God through His chosen Messiah.

For those who disagree, I give two pieces of information:

First: the words of Jeremiah from Chapter 32 showing the Israel BROKE the old covenant:

³¹"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, ³²not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, Mycovenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. ³³"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD,

Second: a blog by a NT scholar talking about covenants, how they operate in the OT, and the nature of the covenant the God made with Israel.

The Living Word

2007-10-06T19:50:00.000-07:00

I recently had the opportunity to attend the Parchman Endowed Lecture Series at Truett Seminary at Baylor University. The speaker was Ben Witherington III. I had been trying to find a way to condense my notes on his lectures for inclusion here. Turns out, I don't have to. Ben has felt moved to post the text of at least one of the lectures on his website. Warning: It's long. After all, it was a lecture (which you find here).

One of his main arguments is that given the literacy rates in antiquity, written documents were composed primarily to be read out loud to groups and not privately. Paul's epistles should be considered surrogate sermons, the words the apostle would have preached where he present.

I wonder what the implications are for us today. I wonder if it suggests that God's Word was meant to be communicated primarily as Living (spoken) words. (How shall they hear without a preacher?) If this is the case, I think pastors and teachers should take more seriously the art of preaching and learn not just what to say but how to say it clearly and convincingly.

What say you? Is this off base? Are there other implications of this suggestion?

Skateboard Church

2007-09-26T15:42:00.000-07:00

Yesterday in my Theology and Culture class, we watched a video about a "skateboard church" in the U.K. in which the worship consisted of skateboarding and bmxing on ramps, and which the pastor likened to liturgical dance.

I’m trying to keep an open mind about all of this, but it seems like one of the key elements of the “church gathered” has to do with the corporate aspect of it. If this is so, how do a bunch of separate skaters and bikers avoid the individualism implicit in the act of skating/bmxing? In other words, while these activities seem to be an excellent form of personal worship (like Eric Liddle’s running), they seem to present problems when applied to corporate worship. And what of the priority of word and sacrament in the divine service, which goes all the way back to the birth of the church in Acts?

It seems like the idea being put forth by this church is that, as opposed to having a heavy skating ministry within a church, the service is actually composed almost entirely of skating. If I am mistaken, and this really is a church with an Acts-type service interpreted through the lense of skate culture, then this isn’t really very revolutionary. Churches have been doing this type of thing for years.

Another question that arises is this: What happens to this church when these kids lose interest in skating? I personally skated in Jr. High and High School, but I have since left that hobby, and picked up and dropped many other fads over the years. Is this church destined to be a transient church, which only has a limited amount of time to disciple young people? What type of impact on the culture will this church have, or will it be forced to constantly follow the culture wherever it leads?

It really seems like this church is doing the reverse of “being all things to all people” and instead being one thing to one people. And what if this formula were used in other recreational “cultures?” For example, I love college football. How do you create a church for people who love college football? Would it be appropriate for me to invite a bunch of guys over to eat nachos and drink beer in front of my TV on Saturday morning as a form of corporate worship?

Any thoughts?

Anybody but Barry

2007-08-09T08:06:00.000-07:00

Now that the inevitable has happened, allow me to express my profound apathy about Bond's new record. One of baseball's greatest records has been broken and I don’t care….well…I guess I care but I am not excited. Though his name will be listed above theirs on the list, in my opinion he has not eclipsed Hank Aaron, Babe Ruth, or even his godfather Willie Mays. In celebration of this, allow me to give my list of people I would rather see break the record:

Ken Griffey, Jr. – Man I wish he had stayed healthy. Remember he was only one of 2 (or three I cant remember) active players selected to the Baseball All-20th Century Team.
Albert Pujols – The dude can hit…and he is a great guy. If he can stay healthy, he will be the homerun king that my grandkids remember.
Alex Rodriguez – I don’t dislike the guy as much as I probably should. Is it because Yankee fans hate him, so that makes him okay in my book? Probably its because he stands the best shot of breaking Barry's record (in fact obliterating it if you do the math).
Mark McGuire – Hey, if I have to pick a juice-head, I would rather it be someone the fans love and who looked like he enjoyed the game. Did I mention that he used to play for the A's?
Ryan Howard – the long-shot. He is really young but from what I can tell the guy can flat hit and is a great guy. I gained respect for him when even though he wasn’t voted to the All-Star game this last year, he still elected to attended the HR derby to defend his crown. The fans wanted to see him, so he showed up…it stark contrast to the local boy who was a no-show.
Anybody else -- I am serious. I am hardpressed to think of a person I wouldn't rather take Barry's place.

I know this blog is normally about other stuff, but I suspect the Bird and Babe has a little Sports Pub in her blood.

Any comments?

The Seal of the Church

2007-07-30T20:19:00.001-07:00

I was arguing (in the traditional sense) with someone earlier today about the nature and purpose of the Church, and naturally the topic of non-Christians came up. What is the Church's function toward those who don't follow Christ? Do we turn them away? shall we be seeker-friendly? of course a church can not satisfy both Christians and non-Christians, as it will be inevitable that they will either conform to one or the other, but what about separate functions in order to accommodate both (i.e. church for Christians on Sunday, and church for non-Christians on another day)? Well, in search for an answer to this question, I came upon this outstanding quote from The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer:

The sanctification of the Church means its separation from all that is unholy, from sin; and the method by which it is accomplished is by God's sealing the Church and thus making it his own possession...The Church's claim to a place of its own in the world, and the consequent line of demarcation between the Church and world, prove that the Church is in the state of sanctification. For the Spirit seals off the Church from the world. This seal gives the Church the strength and power to fulfill its duty of vindicating God's claim over the whole world...Because it is sanctified by the seal of the Holy Spirit, the Church is always in the battlefield, waging a war to prevent the breaking of the seal, whether from within or without, and struggling to prevent the world from becoming the Church and the Church from becoming the world. The sanctification of the Church is really a defensive war, for the place which has been given to the Body of Christ on earth. The separation of the Church and the world from one another is the crusade which the Church fights for the sanctuary of God on earth.

The Church is designed to be purposely and perfectly sealed off from the world, aided by the Holy Spirit, to directly maintain sanctification. Bonhoeffer states that sanctification means "that...Christians have been judged already, and that they are being preserved until the coming of Christ and are ever advancing towards it." It is one of the utmost duties of the Church to remain pure, in this sense; to preserve sanctification. When churches sacrifice this sanctification and training in order to be 'seeker-friendly,' they are going directly against God's design for his holy Church; they are breaking the seal that the Holy Spirit protects. Isn't it ironic, in this age, how this seal is usually broken from the inside of the church rather than from the outside?

Any thoughts on the matter? Am I looking too far into this?

Emerging Church Spoof

2007-07-26T19:08:00.000-07:00

Inspired the wildly funny demotivators posters: (http://www.despair.com/viewall.html), there is a new version spoofying the emerging church.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/posters.htm

They are painfully dead on. Enjoy.

Godric, Time, Storms, and the Lord of Heaven

2007-07-23T07:32:00.000-07:00

One of the best things about moving to San Antonio is I get to spend a lot of time with Rob (I think the comments should be directed towards how Rob might respond to this statement). One of the best things about spending time with Rob is I have someone to suggest what book I should read next—although, it’s rather like a strong exhortation; ok, a command!

One book that Rob recently lent me is Godric, by Frederick Buechner (BEEK-nur). This is a fascinating tale about a 12th century saint (Perhaps one might wonder whether the word “fascinating” can be used of a 12th century saint?)—written from the perspective of the saint: Godric. This is all I am going to tell you about the plot because I want all of you, I mean Rob wants all of you, to read this yourselves. You bunch of lazy @$$*$! Actually, I do not want to feel obligated to write one of those plot spoiler warnings at the beginning of this post...Ok, I will tell you a little bit simply because I am trying to make a point.

Just near the middle of the book (60-61), as Godric is making his way to Rome, he is plagued with one seeming disaster after another—the portrait of which Godric paints with these words,

Except that there they have no end, the pains of Hell can be no sharper than the pains we suffer here, nor the Fiend himself more fiendish than a man. Oh Queen of Heaven, pray for us. Have pity on the pitiless for thy dear Son our Savior’s sake.

At home the leaves are falling sere when we behold at last the hills of Rome.

I love the line from his prayer—‘Have pity on the pitiless…’

Anyhoo…Right in the middle of his ranting (this is what I think it is) Ailred, Abbot of Rievaulx, staring into the sky as the rain has now stopped and the sun is shining through, says this,

‘You speak of time, Godric,’ Ailred said. His cough for once was gone. ‘Time is a storm. Times past and times to come, they heave and flow and leap their bounds like Wear. Hours are clouds that change their shapes before your eyes. A dragon fades into a maiden’s scarf. A monkey’s grin becomes an angry fist. But beyond time’s storm and clouds there’s timelessness. Godric, the Lord of Heaven changes not, and even when our view’s most dark, he’s there above us fair and golden as the sun.’ And so it is.
‘God’s never gone,’ my gentle, ailing Ailred said. ‘It’s only men go blind.’

As I sat at my desk this morning thinking about Godric, thinking about the Lord of Heaven and Time, the following thoughts came to my mind:

Time is tricky just as storms are tricky. At one moment we cry out and beg God to slow down time—just as farmers cry out to God for a few more inches of rain! Yet at other moments we wish that time would fade away, leaving no trail behind to follow—just as the disciples cried out to Jesus, ‘Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?’

In the midst of these various periods of time we have at least two choices. We can, as Godric did, and as the disciples did, see only the storm itself. That is, we can choose only to focus on the circumstance itself. This, I think, will lead us to react in much the same way Godric, the Israelites, the disciples did. Or, in the midst of the storm, we can see through the clouds and look for the light that will shine through as Ailred did. We can choose to remember in those circumstances that God is never gone. We can choose to see, or we can choose to remain blind.

Thoughts?

Getting Past the Christianese

2007-07-17T15:59:00.000-07:00

In my previous post, I looked at the idea that “good news about the son of God” in the first century Greco-Roman world would have brought about ideas of emperor worship. And we saw that Mark, in the opening sentence of his gospel, was making the bold statement that the real good news was that Jesus was the true Emperor who was bringing peace and new creation through his kingship.

So, what would the Jews have heard when someone mentioned the term “son of God?”

We modern American Christians often allow terms like this to fit comfortably within our Christianese vocabulary without any thought, and therefore we give answers like, “Well, they would have thought of the second person of the trinity, of course.”

In reality, it is much more likely that the original audience of Mark’s account would have immediately thought of YHWH’s anointed one, His servant. They would have remembered Judas Maccabaeus, and how they were sure that He was the messiah, the son of God, sent to free them from exile and tyranny. But ultimately, that effort had failed, and the kingdoms of this world had prevailed. So on and on they waited for YHWH’s servant, a descendant of that great son of God, King David, to come and vindicate His people.

Therefore, in Jewish thought, as in Greco-Roman thought, “Son of God” was a title- more like “King” or “Emperor” than the associations to the trinity/divinity that come to our minds today.

This then begs the question, when he was born, was Jesus the Son of God? And my answer is [wincing] No… sort of. Before you stone me, let me explain.

My answer would be yes, if you would also say, for example, that George W. Bush was born as the President of the United States of America. And my answer would be no, if you would say that George W. Bush was not born as the President. In other words, if we look back in the history books, we will not likely distinguish G.W. from his office and say that he was not the President. However, we can look back at an earlier chapter in his life, to a time before he was declared and appointed as President.

[Please don’t jump to conclusions here. Let me state emphatically that I believe that Jesus is God. We are simply looking at what Mark meant by the title “Son of God,” and what his readers would have understood.]

So when did Jesus become the son of God? At his baptism, of course.

And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opening and the Spirit descending like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well-pleased” (Mk 1:10-11).

Much more needs to be said, and many assertions have been made, but this post is already too long. So... thoughts?

Aristotle and the Church

2007-07-14T14:06:00.000-07:00

Aristotle in his Nicomachean (pronounce: nicama-KEE-an) Ethics groups types of friendship into 3 categories:

Pleasure – I am your friend because I find you fun.
Utility – I am your friend because I find you useful.
Respect – I am your friend because I admire you and wish to be like you.

The more I thought of these categories, I realized that they were useful for analyzing the business of the church. It seems to me that many churches develop themselves around groups 1 and 2, and for the most part neglect group 3. We try to orchestrate church so that it is fun and practical but rarely model the abundant life Christ came to bring us. We tell children and youth: Be a Christian because it is radical, awesome, off the hook, extreme. We tell adults: Be a Christian because it will help you balance your check book or keep your kids out of trouble.

We are so busy copying the world that we never model the transformed humanity that the body of Christ is supposed to be.

Oliver Goldsmith once wrote:

At church, with meek and unaffected grace.
His looks adorned the venerable place;
Truth from his lips prevailed with double sway,
And fools who came to scoff remained to pray. (The Deserted Village)

Instead of showing ourselves worthy of respect and imitation, we attempt to convince the lost that we are capable of entertaining and assisting. I think we need to follow 1 Cor. 11:1 and focus on imitating Christ and on being ourselves worthy of imitation.

So what do you think? Am I way off base?

Good News

2007-07-05T09:06:00.000-07:00

My professor brought up something today at class regarding the book of Mark, which I found compelling. Mark 1:1 states, "The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”

The word for "good news" in this passage is, of course, euaggelion. This word does not have a Christian origin, or even a biblical one. In fact it is found only once in the whole OT (2 Sam 4:10, LXX). So then, where does it come from?

The answer Dr. Brown gives is that it is to be found in numerous inscriptions connected with Roman emperor worship. For example, the ancient city of Priene in Asia Minor (9 B.C.) preserves a calendar which is proposed to begin on September 23, or day of Caesar Augustus’ birthday. The proposal says that this day "marks beginning of new era." It goes on to say that "It is the good news of the birth of the God, the emperor."

So then what is the beginning of Mark’s gospel saying? The answer is that the real good news is not birth of Caesar Augustus, rather it is the good news of the birth of Jesus. The real son of God is not Caesar, rather it is Jesus Christ. This verse is making a challenge to the Emperor worship of Mark's day.

So at the end of Mark's gospel, we have in the centurion's statement regarding Jesus, not a personal confession of faith, as has been traditionally taught. Rather, we have a cry of defeat, an acknowledgment that the kingdom of this world has been vanquished.

“Truly this man was son of God.”

Thoughts?

Was Revelation Written Before or After AD 70?

2007-06-05T23:14:00.000-07:00

Here are some reasons why Revelation could have been written before AD 70:
1. John makes no mention of the destruction of the temple. Such an apocalyptic event would likely be recorded.
2. The temple was destroyed in one generation as Jesus prophesied, yet John makes no mention of it.
3. In Revelation 11, John is instructed to measure the temple and altar. These events are spoken of as if the temple is still standing.

What say you?

What is happening!?

2007-05-30T10:13:00.000-07:00

Hi. There are two things that I think might make interesting discussion (this should probably be two posts (hey this is a two for one (aren't you lucky!)))
one: Recently while "surfing the web" I stumbled across a band that has made it their mission to "bridge the gap between sacred and secular music." Should this band (who will remain nameless) continue on with their bridging plan or be exhorted. why? discuss.
two: While visiting an awesome church, in Valencia California, I realized something perilous. (Not that this church does this but seeing the complete picture in the sermon made me notice the deficiency everywhere else.) It seems to me that there is an overall trend of discarding previously learned information so that we can move on to new things. The first realm that I have clearly seen this is in education. "Grammar" school students learn a lot of things, building blocks if you will, but they are never told what to do with them. These building blocks are forgotten or only vaguely remembered later. It seems like there is a stress on vocationally specific information, only what can be used to the student's advantage in the future. I think that the second place this is happening is in Church. The things taught in Sunday school are building blocks that are never stacked or connected; they are discarded for, once again, things that "apply to my life." what do you think? or do you?

It Takes Two?!?

2007-05-12T08:29:00.000-07:00

I recently and unintentionally started a huge argument in my Sunday school class…I mean Adult Bible Fellowship or Adult Learning Community or whatever the new trendy nomenclature is. I didn’t think it was all that controversial but maybe it is and maybe I am wrong.

What is forgiveness? I had always assumed it was the cancellation of a debt between two people. Or between a person and God. And so the evidently controversial point I made was that it takes two people for forgiveness to occur. If the person who did the sinning does not consider what he did wrong, or doesn’t want to apologize, or to accept your forgiveness, then what you are doing is making forgiveness available and loving that person but the debt hasn’t been cancelled.

The Bible is clear. No one has the right to withhold forgiveness from anyone. But in the same way that God makes forgiveness available to us, if we don’t receive it then we are not forgiven. So to, I think, someone can reject the forgiveness we offer them.

Am I completely out in left field?

You're A What?

2007-04-27T10:37:00.000-07:00

I often laugh whenever I watch the following debate take place (with its many variations):

Jimmy: “I can’t believe you are a dispensationalist! Don’t you know it has only been around for 170+ years?”

Suzanne: “I can’t believe you are an idiot! Don’t you know your argument is committing the Genetic Fallacy?”

Now, I believe that the Genetic Fallacy is indeed a fallacy. I do not think that Santa Clause exists simply because my mommy told me so. However, I question whether or not the argument that Jimmy is offering is guilty of committing this fallacy. It is true; Jimmy is making an argument that hinges upon the origin of dispensationalism? But, must all arguments which hinge on the origin of something be guilty of committing the Genetic Fallacy?

Consider: “A critic commits the genetic fallacy if the critic attempts to discredit or support a claim or an argument because of its origin (genesis) when such an appeal to origins is irrelevant” (here; italics, mine).

So then the question becomes, I think, is Jimmy’s appeal to the origin of dispensationalist irrelevant?

Thoughts?

In Danger of Missing the Point?

2007-04-21T16:50:00.000-07:00

I was thinking about a certain question this morning as I was trying to get back to my studies (thank you Andrew for the Vigil, and for keeping everyone informed of our situation)...and it may make too many assumptions to generate an answer from anyone...here ya go:

The study of the New Testament, (Jesus, Paul, etc., and the theology of the whole movement) says N T Wright (here, 47), is obviously a study of literature. Therefore, in order to understand the New Testament, we need to understand the nature and function of literature. The question of what to do with the New Testament, according to Wright, ought to be the same as the question of what do with any piece of literature (we might think of the New Testament as a subset of the study of literature). Wright even makes the point; modern literary theory, applied to the New Testament, is pressing on theologians such that if they do not stand guard more strongly they are in danger of being forced to retreat!

What do you think? Do you think, modern theologians, in a sense, are in any such danger?

Personally, I think Wright is being a bit hasty here (although I wish he were [W]right!). I think this might be looked at as theologians, for the sake of making everything fit nicely, missing the point, but I do not think they are going anywhere anytime soon.

For clarification; modern literary theory applied to the New Testament, according to Wright, will essentially lead us to the question of “Story” (cf. Anthony Thiselton, here; E P Sanders, here, ch’s15-16)…and I think this is what Wright has in mind here (see also: Wright, here, ch’s2-3).

Rest In Peace

2007-04-18T23:49:00.000-07:00

Aaron Kristopher Southwick was born this morning at around 9:30am, weighing in at 5 lbs 6 oz. The beautiful baby boy's heart gave out at 11:30, and he is now resting in peace. We look forward to seeing him again at the glorious appearing of our King Jesus, when he will not be less clothed, but more fully clothed, and the body of his humble state will be transformed into conformity with the glory of Jesus' body, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.

Please pray for the family at this time. More details to come, as Aaron Sr. sees fit.

Kyrie Eleison.

Vigil

2007-04-17T23:25:00.000-07:00

A vigil (from the Latin vigilia, 'wakefulness') is a period of sleeplessness, an occasion for devotional watching or observance.

The Bird and Babe Public House is holding a vigil for the Aaron Southwick family. If you didn't already know, Aaron's wife is pregnant with a baby boy who suffers from osteogenesis imperfecta (see Aaron's explanation here). Tomorrow morning, at 8:30am PST, Aaron's wife will have a c-section and give birth to their son. Please be praying for the family and the precious little boy.

O Father of mercies and God of all comfort, our only help in time of need: We humbly beseech thee to behold, visit, and heal this child for whom our prayers are desired. Look upon him with the eyes of thy mercy; comfort him with thy goodness; preserve him from the enemy; and give him peace under his affliction. In thy good time, restore him to health, and enable him to lead his life in thy fear, and to thy glory; and grant that he may dwell with thee in life everlasting; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen (adapted from the Book of Common Prayer).

The First Day

2007-04-11T19:29:00.000-07:00

I have to admit, I was disappointed with Easter this year. Well, not with Easter, but with the way it was celebrated. The Easter service I attended was more of a Good Friday service, stressing the need for the cross and the penalty that was paid. But that was Friday, Sunday is about resurrection. Victory, Triumph, Kingdom. The resurrection was the single most important event in human history. Yet, Many christians fail to grasp the centrality of this event. With a view to doing my part towards reversing this trend, I submit one of favorite Easter quotes:

“On the third day the friends of Christ coming at day-break to the place found the grave empty and the stone rolled away. In varying ways they realized the new wonder; but even they hardly realized that the world had died in the night. What they were looking at was the first day of a new creation, with a new heaven and a new earth; and in a semblance of the gardener God walked again in the garden, in the cool not of the evening but the dawn.”
-G.K. Chesterton
The Everlasting Man

They Shall Reign on the Earth

2007-04-07T00:42:00.001-07:00

I know I harp on this all of the time, but I think it's important! I hear so much talk about "heaven," and it never seems to match up with the picture which the Bible gives us. People seem to always focus on the intermediate state as the end all, and completely leave out the most glorious fact that at the end we who are in Christ will be physically resurrected and will reign with Jesus on the new earth. I heard this point gloriously made when someone said, "Heaven is important, but it isn't the end of the world" (if you get that, you should be chuckling to yourself right now).

I was reminded of this last night when our pastor read from Revelation 5:9-10 at our Good Friday service:

"Worthy are you to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation,
and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God,
and they shall reign on the earth."

Obviously, I'm not saying that heaven isn't eternal; that would be foolish. Heaven is God's dimension where he dwells and rules. But the point I am making is that John is showing us in Revelation that the end is about heaven and earth being completely joined together; when finally and fully God's kingdom shall have come and his will shall be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Thoughts?

Good Friday

2007-04-06T14:24:00.000-07:00

As you're probably aware, today is Good Friday, the most important day leading up to the Highest Holy Day of the year. The fact that we call this day "good" still sounds so paradoxical to my ears. It reminds me of a song we used to sing in Chapel at Azusa Pacific University entitled, "Beautiful, Scandalous Night."

In the hopes of aiding your worship this day, I'm posting a passage from Tom Wright's book, The Scriptures, the Cross & the Power of God for you to consider:

John's gospel is full of irony at every level, but this is surely the greatest: that when the empire hears the word that there is a God who might call empire to account, the empire does what it always does, mocks and kills - but that very action proves the point, because God the creator, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, does not fight the battle against evil with the weapons of the world, but with the weapons of love. As St. Paul saw so clearly, Caesar's apparent victory was actually the victory of God.

And that is why, with Jesus going to his cross, God's project to heal creation itself is accomplished. John announced his intention of writing a story with that large theme in his opening words, echoing the opening of Genesis itself. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth; now, in the beginning was the Word... and the Word became flesh, joining heaven and earth into one. Great themes from the creation narrative have been woven into his gospel: light and darkness, day and night, the seed which will be fruitful and multiply. Now, on the Friday, the sixth day of the week, the day of creation of humankind in the image of God, Pilate brings Jesus out dressed in purple and wearing a crown of thorns, and declares, 'Behold the man!' And the watching world, in the persons of the chief priests and guards, shout, 'Crucify him!' When the Image of God appears in creation, the point is that the rest of creation will look at the Image and see their creator reflected. Now the son of God appears as the true Image of God, and the world is so corrupt in its rebellion that, rather than recognize the true creator God reflected in this Jesus, it must get rid of him, must blot out the reminder of who God really is, must do anything rather than be confronted by the one whose love will stop at nothing to reconcile creation to himself.

But the scriptures must be fulfilled, and the power of God will triumph. At the end of the sixth day in Genesis, God finished all his work (synetelesen, Genesis 2.2 LXX). At the end of the sixth day in John, Jesus declared, 'It is finished' (tetelestai). It is accomplished. Creation is healed. In the beginning was the Word; and the last word spoken by the living Word was the word which declared, as Jesus had in the Upper Room, 'I have finished (teleiosas) the work you gave me to do' (17.4). That is, of course, how the father, the creator, is glorified. That is how love is perfected, brought to its final completion (13.1).

A Tragic Lesson Learned?

2007-04-04T18:33:00.000-07:00

Today marks the 39th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Martin Luther King Jr. was shot just after 6 p.m. on April 4th 1968 while standing on the balcony outside his second-story room at the Motel Lorraine in Memphis, Tennessee. A tragic day, to be sure, which will forever be stamped into the history books of America.

Dr. King was a strong proponent for the Civil Rights Movement in America, and for this he is to be commended. Indeed, were it not for men like Martin Luther King Jr. the black community in America would still be gripped by the painful oppression and racism that haunted the black community for so many years. We should all take a moment and thank God for the life of a man like this, and so many others, for forcing many people to remove their colored and distorted lenses!

Unfortunately, however, we live in a time when so many people are wearing another set of lenses which are quite distorted. While the death of Dr. King was tragic, the deaths of so many innocent babies, which occur every day, are even more tragic. Tragic because we in America, knowing full well that innocent people are being murdered, lay our heads on our pillows and go to sleep every night not even taking a moment to even reflect on this atrocity.

We must, as Dr. King did, stand up in the midst of this tragedy, raise our voices, and do something to solve this problem! One small way that we can be a part of the movement to save the lives of innocent babies is to participate in the “Walk for Life.” If you live in the San Francisco Bay Area; Please consider taking part in the Walk for Life which will take place on May 5th in Union City. The purpose of this walk will be to help raise money for the Pregnancy Choices clinic (here)--a clinic which exists for the purpose of saving the lives of innocent babies. For more information contact Redwood Chapel (here).

Poisoning the Well, or Pointing Out that the Well is Poisoned?

2007-03-26T10:21:00.000-07:00

So I've been thinking (yes, I know, a very dangerous exercise) about certain fallacies we all learned in our Logic classes, particularly the ad hominem/ poisoning-the-well fallacy. And of course, we have been taught that one ought never to use this argument because it is fallacious and invalid.

Here is an example of an ad hominem argument:

"We have all witnessed Steve's proclivity to misrepresent people and their views, and have heard him make wildly false claims about everything under the sun. Therefore, we should not believe anything he says about Chinese food" (See post below).

Obviously, this example shows why we shouldn't commit this fallacy. But on the other hand, isn't the story about The Boy Who Cried Wolf there to teach us that there is validity in the ad hominem? In other words, the moral of the story is: liars are not to be trusted, so don't be a liar. Or maybe it's just the other way around: You should probably trust a liar, because sometimes he is telling the truth (the boy was telling the truth the last time). Now, I'm not excusing all ad hominem arguments by any means; I'm just asking if they do indeed carry some weight sometimes. Could it be that sometimes we are not poisoning the well, rather we are simply pointing out that the well is already poisoned? For example:

"I was reading a book by Vijay, and in it, he made claims regarding the New Testament which I know to be false (since I am an expert on the New Testament). Therefore, I don't know if I should trust the things he said about the Old Testament either (since I'm not an expert on the Old Testament). If I know he is wrong about the subjects with which I am familiar, why in the world should I trust him regarding the subjects with which I am not familiar?"

Anyway, I'm not trying to come to any conclusions in this post; I just want to start some fun discussion. So, discuss!

Same Name--Different Face

2007-03-19T19:22:00.000-07:00

Ok, so I am attempting to maintain my own blog one more time (here)...Be patient with me, my site is still under construction. I hope you enjoy the template!

Don't miss Paul's last post on the B&B...just scroll down a bit!

Jack

2007-03-17T21:51:00.000-07:00

Hello, recently I read a book called "Of Other Worlds," a collection of essays and stories by our old friend, Professor Lewis. There was a particular part that I thought post-worthy - forgive me if you've heard this one. It is the last bit of an informal conversation transcribed from an audio recording of C.S. Lewis, Kingsly Amis, and Brian Aldiss. It was committed to tape in Lewis' rooms at Magdalene College shortly before he retired:

Amis: More Scotch?
Lewis: Not for me, thank you, help yourself. (Liquid noises.)
Amis: I think all this ought to stay in, you know - all these remarks about drink.
Lewis: There's no reason why we shouldn't have a drink. Look,
you want to borrow Abbott's "Flatland" don't you? I must go to dinner I am afraid. (Hands over Flatland.) The original manuscript of the "Illiad" could not be more precious. It's only the ungodly who borroweth and payeth not again.
Amis (reading): By A. Square.
Lewis: But of course the word square hadn't the same sense then.
Aldiss: It's like the poem by Francis Thompson that ends "She gave me tokens three, a look, a word of her winsome mouth, and a sweet wild raspberry"; there again the meaning has changed. It really was a wild raspberry in Thompson's day. (Laughter.)
Lewis: Or the lovely one about the Bishop of Exeter, who was giving the prizes at a girls' school. They did a performance of "A Midsummer Night's Dream," and the poor man stood up afterwards and made a speech and said (piping voice): "I was very interested in your delightful performance, and among other things I was very interested in seeing for the first time in my life a female Bottom." (Guffaws.)
((the end.))

Hopefully you've at least laughed half as hard as Erica and I do each time we read that out loud to each other.

I also have a topic for discussion: I've noticed after reading Lewis' book "The Discarded Image," a strong current of medieval cosmology throughout his "Space Trilogy." Does anyone have anything to say about that?

Ancient Chinese Secret

2007-03-02T21:17:00.000-08:00

Okay, now for something completely different. I was sitting down the other day Jones-ing for some good Chinese food and lamenting the fact that I haven’t found acceptable fare in my current locale. I began asking myself what I would consider the best Chinese food I have ever had. My answer: That depends on what course you are talking about. What follows is my list. Take it for what its worth.

Soup – Hot and Sour Soup from Sun Flower in Castro Valley, CA
Fried Rice, Steamed Rice, or Chow Mein – Chicken Chow Mein from Empress of China in Chinatown, San Francisco, CA.
Entrée – Sesame Chicken from Hunan Express in San Leandro, CA
Eggroll or Crabmeat Rangoom – Eggroll from Full House in San Antonio, TX

If you can get to any of these places, please go. And while you are there, enjoy one for me.

Franklin & Winston

2007-02-27T10:01:00.000-08:00

If you are looking for an enjoyable read, Franklin and Winston (here) by Jon Meacham will, I think, satisfy what you are looking for. I have, through reading this book, come to admire the intellect and wit of Winston Churchill (two things I wish I had). Here are two quotes from the book which show both quite clearly:

"The Labourite Clement Attlee was at the urinal in the men's room of the House of Commons. Churchill came in and, seeing Attlee, moved away. 'Feeling standoffish today, are we, Winston?' Churchill replied: 'That's right. Every time you see something big, you want to nationalize it."

"On June 18, Churchill briefed the nation on the crisis it now faced without the French in the fight.

Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation. Upon it depends our own British life and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free, and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands; but if we fail then the whole world, including the United States, and all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister, and perhaps more prolonged, by the lights of a perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duty and so bear ourselves that if the British Commonwealth and Empire lasts for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'"

Abortion--"A better healthy choice"?

2007-02-24T06:57:00.000-08:00

TIME recently ran a piece on the abortion debate, focusing primarily on the rise and work of crisis pregnancy centers (for a good commentary on this article go here) One of the objections against crisis pregnancy centers brought up in the article by the vice president of Planned Parenthood is,

The movement toward "medicalizing" the centers particularly concerns groups like Planned Parenthood that define their mission as offering the most accurate information about the most complete range of reproductive options. The motive behind offering free ultrasounds, which would typically cost at least $100, is
more emotional than medical, critics argue, and having them performed by people with limited training and moral agendas poses all kinds of hazards. "What is really tragic to me is that a woman goes into a center looking for information, looking to be able to make a better, healthy choice, and she doesn't get all the facts," argues Christopher Hollis, Planned Parenthood's vice president for governmental and political affairs in North Carolina. "That's taking someone's life and playing a really dangerous game with it.

Notice, as Dr. Mohler points out, "the effort to disguise abortion as "a better, healthy choice." The only reason a woman would choose not to abort, some pro-abortion advocates seem to say, is that she didn't "get all the facts." What are the "facts" that they may be missing? Notice some "facts" that this quote gives:

1)"The motive behind offering free ultrasounds, which would typically cost at least $100, is more emotional than medical..."

2)"...having them performed by people with limited training and moral agendas poses all kinds of hazards."

3)The information, or lack thereof, that these crisis pregnancy centers are giving amounts to "taking someone's life and playing a really dangerous game with it."

Three is rather interesting to me since I think that Planned Parenthood is more guilty of this than the crisis pregnancy centers, and worse; for Planned Parenthood's failure to give all the facts (the fetus is a human being) amounts to "taking someone's life."

In regards to two, I am not sure how performing an ultrasound, even with limited training, poses a health hazard. I suppose I need more information on this.

One, I am sure, is quite irrelevant.

Now, the inspiration for me to even introduce this article is for the following reason: Recently my wife and I discovered that our son, which my wife is carrying in her womb right now, has a 0% chance of surviving outside of the womb. He has a severe form of skeletal displaysia (current diagnosis: Osteogenesis Imperfecta, level 2). We have spent countless hours talking with various doctors, specialists, geneticists, etc. And, initially, the consensus of the experts was that we needed to abort our baby (interestingly, these specialists had no problem referring to the 'fetus' as: baby, child, son, human being).

I must admit, we did take into consideration what they were telling us. Namely, abortion appears to be the best option. However, after considering all the facts, my wife and I decided that the moral choice here was to keep the baby--not for reasons that some people would give (I am sure)--for the simple 'fact' that our child is a human being. Here, I think, is a counterexample to Planned Parenthood's argument. That is to say, we have all the facts, we even considered abortion as an option, and in light of those facts we made a reasoned decision to keep the baby because we believe that not keeping the baby would amount to "taking someone's life and playing a really dangerous game with it."

Enjoying God's Blessings

2007-02-20T23:50:00.000-08:00

I just finished sipping a glass of Jim Beam bourbon, and since we've been hitting some "heavier"subjects of late here at the pub, I thought I'd lighten the conversation up a bit with a post on some of my favorite "heavier" beverages. Here's a list as they come to my mind:

1. Cognac- I've tried a number of these delicious drinkables, and I'd have to say that my favorite is Remy Martin. I hear (though I've never had the blessing of tasting) that Louis XIII is the creme de la creme, but Remy Martin XO is the best I've ever tasted hands down. I think that the best buy ($30/bottle at Costco) is definitely the Remy VSOP. It is pretty smooth, and has a tremendous aftertaste. It's full-bodied, and deliciously sweet; a perfect dessert drink.

2. American/Canadian Whiskey- Although Jim Beam is a good standard, and Maker's Mark goes down smooth, Jack Daniel's is so far above the rest. I can't exactly put my finger on it, but when I'm at a pub and I want a good whiskey, I always go for Jack. Crown Royal (a Canadian whiskey) is a close second, but Jack just tastes so sweet and full that I can't resist. I wish I was drinkin' it right now.

3. Scotch Whisky- This is a tough category since there are so many good ones. Lagavulin has a wonderful and unique peaty flavor, but I just couldn't drink it on a regular basis. Dalwhinnie and Oban are also very tasty and smooth single malt scotch whiskys, but I have found that they can't compare to The Macallan. I especially like the Macallan 18, although I imagine that the 25 and 30 are amazing (I just can't afford them!). You can really taste the oak in Macallan, and the 18 in particular is so smooth! All in all, you can't go wrong with any of the Macallans.

4. Tequila- While I have much respect for Sauza and and Jose Cuervo, my personal favorite by far is Patrón. Gran Patrón in particular is equally respectable straight up as it is in a nice, warm Mexican coffee. Unfortunately, it has become somewhat of an icon of wealth in the hip-hop culture, but I won't hold that against Patrón.

Well, there you have it, Drewdog's delectable drinkables. Have I left anything out? What are your favorites, and why?

My Doubts About Doubt

2007-02-18T14:09:00.000-08:00

Doubt is a rather funny word. For some Christians, I think, it is a sort of barometer for one’s spiritual health. That is to say, if a Christian is having doubts than that Christian must still be ‘spiritually’ immature. I remember thinking this as a young Christian; that somehow the doubts I was having (maybe this whole thing is one big sham) were somehow a sign of immaturity. What I needed to do was learn more about God, find a more mature Christian to mentor me, and act more spiritually at church, and then my doubts would go away.

Interestingly, as I (seemingly) ‘mature’ in my faith I have discovered just the opposite. The more I learn about God, the more I surround myself with Christian friends, the more I go to church, the more I find myself doubting my faith at times. Just the other day I remember thinking, something like, maybe the disciples really did make up all these stories about Jesus. I wonder why this is?

I was reading the gospel of Matthew the other day, and I was struck by something (which I have noticed before but never really thought about clearly). In Matthew 28:16-20 we have a record of some of Jesus’ last words to his disciples. In this passage Jesus commissions his disciples to go into the world and make disciples. Interestingly, we read that some of the disciples, who were with Jesus at this time, were doubtful (v17). The text does not tell us exactly what they were doubtful about. So we have to do a little guess work here. I suppose that the people who doubted, doubted that this really was the risen Jesus whom they had spent time with before he had died.

The thing I find most striking about this passage is Jesus never speaks to their doubt. He never questions them, or their commitment to him, because of their doubt. Instead, Jesus begins by saying "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and earth..." The reader, I think, is kind of left hanging here. Were these people wrong to doubt? Why didn't Jesus speak to their doubt?

I think, in a way, he does. When Jesus claimed to have all authority he was speaking to their doubt. In other words, he understood that some of them had doubts, and rather than rebuking them for this (as if they were somehow less mature than the other disciples who worshipped Jesus), he reminded them that he was the one who had all authority. It is this authority which trumps their doubt. This does not mean, however, that those disciples were not going to doubt, or that they shouldn't doubt. It simply means that in spite of their doubt, Jesus is sovereign over all things (and therefore they were to obey him). It is rather like the book of Job where we are sort of left hanging. Why did God allow these bad things to happen to Job (a seemingly innocent person)? We never get a good answer. We are sort of left hanging. The only answer we get is simply; God is in control.

There have been many times in my life where I have had my doubts (maybe this whole thing is one big sham!). I remember, when I was laying in the hospital just a few weeks ago, doubting the existence of God After all, a good God really wouldn't let someone like me experience this kind of pain would he? In that moment, however, I was encouraged by the simple words that a certain pastor spoke: "God is in control." Indeed, that's it! Just like the disciples experience--just like Job's experience--when we go through times of doubt in our lives it is more than enough to realize that God is in control--that all authority in heaven and earth belongs to Him.

The New Man, the New World

2007-02-15T14:35:00.000-08:00

The following is not from my brain, but I thought it was worth posting and discussing. I'm hoping y'all will find it thought-provoking, and perhaps want to comment on it. If not, then post something provocative yourself (that means you, Paul, Aaron, Steve, Vijay, and Bill)! Anyway, here it is:

The Gospel of John is the Gospel about the new man, and the book of Revelation is the book about the new world created by the new man, culminating in the Great City.

It seems to me that John is the intensly Jewish book that is an answer to Hellenistic culture. Friendship is not a particularly Jewish or Hebrew theme (only being raised in the context of David) but is the great Hellenistic theme. It seems to me that... what accounts for the great difference in this Gospel from the others is that it is written by Jesus best friend, and therefore it is the book that knows Jesus not so much even from his actions, as from the inside.

The book begins by telling us that Jesus is in the bosom of the Father, and therefore He is competent to "declare Him" (exegete Him). Likewise, John is in the bosom of Jesus at the Last Supper, the implication being that as the Jesus is competent to exegete the Father, John is competent to Exegete Jesus and make Him known. The book is a kind of Hebrew Symposium, a book of love, minus homosexuality that defaces all of Greek humanism. It is the true humanism about the true man who makes the new world.

So, John is relevant to our humanistic world that makes "man the measure of all things." It corrects humanism by agreeing with this maxim, but pointing out that it is the True Man in Jesus who is the measure of all things, and then his "friends" who are the makers and builders and inheritors of the new world.

Any thoughts?

Who Wrote the Bible?

2007-02-03T21:56:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine (who happens to be in the hospital right now in a lot of pain, and could use your prayers) and I frequently get to talking about what the Bible is. We have lamented how so many Christians consider the Bible to be a sort of magical book that just fell out of the sky, or that some deistic god just took over the minds of various authors, and forced their hands to pen the words that we find in the Old and New Testaments.

Another friend of mine recently asked me what I thought of N.T. Wright's book, Simply Christian, and I told him that it was disappointing. After having given this low view of one of my favorite author's books, I thought I better reread it afresh to make sure that I still agreed with my assessment. To my delight, I found it a wonderful read the second time. To make a long story short(er), while rereading this book I found a passage where Wright puts so eloquently what I have been trying to express regarding scripture, so I thought I would post it here, and see what you all think:

Supposing scripture, like the sacraments, is one of the points where heaven and earth overlap and interlock... In particular, it enables us to say that the writers, compilers, editors, and even collectors of scripture were people who, with different personalities, styles, methods, and intentions, were nonetheless caught up in the strange purposes of the covenant God--purposes which included the communication, by writing, of his word. It enables us to speak about God the creator (the one we know supremely through the living Word, Jesus) being himself (so to speak) a wordsmith. [It] enables us to insist that, though words are not the only thing God specializes in, they are a central part of his repertoire. It also helps us see that when this God is going to work within his world, he wants to work through his image-bearing human creatures, and that, since he wants to communicate with and through them verbally--in addition to, but also as a central point within, his many other ways of getting things said and done (182).

Any thoughts?

American Idol/Japanese Silence

2007-01-24T08:29:00.000-08:00

Though I am no fan of American idol, I have usually dismissed the ridicule dished out by its judges as somehow justified because I assumed that the people auditioning were simply trying to get on TV….perhaps reproduce William Hung’s success. However, I heard an interview with an American Idol producer which said that this year they are specifically targeting the “deluded wannabees.”

As I sat in my car letting these words reverberate with me as I drove to work, I realized what the producer was saying. “We are looking for people who have either been lied to or failed to realize themselves that they are not good singers. We are going to put them on national TV, humiliate them, dash their dreams, rip their hearts out, and reduce them to tears. Why, do you ask…because the viewing audience at home will get a laugh out of it.”

As I realized that the a major part of the appeal is the shameful joy we take in mocking other people, I was reminded of a quote from the book Silence by Shusaku Endo:

“Sin, he reflected, is not what it is usually thought to be; it is not to steal and tell lies. Sin is for one man to walk brutally over the life of another and to be quite oblivious of the wounds he has left behind.”

American idol trashes people’s lives and justifies it because it is done in an entertaining and humorous way. It is teaching us to savor other people’s misery. Or, perhaps, it is just selling us the misery we want to see. Either way, you can count me out.

So what do you think?

Relative Objectivity?

2007-01-14T23:16:00.000-08:00

This sort of relates to Drewdog's last post...

It seems to be a common phenomena that two people can agree on the Bible as the supreme source of truth and yet come to opposite conclusions on a wide variety of issues. Some examples are:

Age of the earth/Genesis flood
Modern application of the Old Testament laws
Moral issues such as alcohol, abortion, gambling, dancing
The correct content for a Gospel presentation
Role of women in the Church
Speaking in tongues
Style and content of corporate worship
Method of observing Christian "Holidays"
Mode of baptism
End times events and timing
The ultimate hope of the Christian
And much, much more...

Pose these questions to 10 well-read Christians (people who are not Biblically illiterate) and I'm sure there will be anywhere from 2-10 different answers. What's more, in many cases, there will be bitter animosity and suspicion towards those who hold opposing views.

In response, the counsel I hear most often from respected Leaders is:

In Christianity, there are essential and non-essential beliefs. In the spirit of unity, we should not divide over non-essentials.

So the essentials are undeniable, right? Well, most mainstream Christian Churches express generally similar beliefs about the Trinity, Resurrection, Bible, and Eternity, but even here there is some variation (Grace, BBC, Saddleback) and a lot of subjects are not addressed.

But assuming that the essentials are basically similar, the net effect is that almost all of Christian faith and practice is defined by the individual. This isn't quite relativism (because Christians generally that truth is objective), but for all practical purposes, it is very wishy-washy. At the end of the day, it seems that everyone is pretty much on their own.

There have been selected times in the past when believers were more unified, but perhaps, this is the way things are meant to be at this time. Each person is accountable to God for their actions. Yet, the chaos seems to be somewhat unsatisfying.

I hope my analysis is way off and one of you wise guys can help.

Kyrie Eleison

2007-01-04T14:54:00.000-08:00

I recently heard two different sermons from two very different churches, and I was appalled at both of them. In one of the sermons, the pastor nonchalantly told a story of his lesbian sister and the trials and doubts she faced while trying to adopt a child with her partner. Need I say more? In the other sermon, the pastor mentioned that abortion is not mentioned in the Bible and is therefore a matter of opinion, over which Christian brothers and sisters can reasonably disagree. Again, need I say more?

Here's the deal: The first sermon I mentioned was at a mainline church, and the second was at an evangelical church. I happened to be with friends at both of these services, and I was amazed at the disparate responses of my friends to each sermon. Let me explain. When the priest mentioned his lesbian sister, my friends were so upset that they wanted God to exact His wrath upon the man right then and there, but when the evangelical pastor asserted that the genocide of millions of precious unborn human persons (my exact words, not his) is a matter of opinion, these same friends didn't even bat an eyelash!

Why was I one of the only guys in that evangelical service who wanted to tear my clothes and heap ashes upon myself? Why does it seem so clear to me that the abortion statement is just as, if not more, heinous than the lesbian statement?

Please hear what I'm not saying. I'm not saying that since abortion isn't that big a deal, therefore homosexuality shouldn't be a big deal. Nor am I letting the episcopal priest off the hook for making his statement. Rather, I think the fact that both of these ideas are present in the Church (no matter what type of church utters them) should be a cause for serious lament among all Christians.

Kyrie Eleison.

Any thoughts?

Finding a Way Around an Impasse

2006-12-12T21:28:00.000-08:00

“[As for the misunderstandings between us], I suggest that the fault may not lie with ourselves but with our messengers. Let us bring them to trial, cut off their heads, mutilate their bodies, and live henceforth in perfect friendship.”

-Hattusilis III of the Hittites (letter to the King of Ahhiyawa, ca. 1260 BC)

I guess as long as there have been people, people have had a hard time communicating and have had an equally hard time finding ways around the hard time they have communicating.

It bears mentioning that neither the Bird and Babe nor its individual contributors advocate the aforementioned Hittite method of disagreement resolution. We prefer the twin modern approaches of either "Showering your interlocutor with condemnation until your voice is hoarse," or "Taking your ball and going home."

Who Cares about Resurrection?

2006-12-07T16:24:00.000-08:00

I recently heard a pastor say, “Many theologians believe that the soul is the part of us that lives into eternity.” Now, correct me if I’m wrong but I believe these theologians have a name: Gnostics. What is even scarier to me is that I don’t think this is just the belief of a few theologians; I think it is the common view held my many American evangelicals.

I happen to believe that, just like Jesus (who is the first fruits according to Paul), the part of us that lives into eternity is us- brains, bones and all! That’s what the resurrection of the Son of God is all about.

Here’s what I find interesting about all of this: most evangelicals say that someone like Marcus Borg isn’t a Christian because he denies the physical resurrection of Jesus, while he holds to a “spiritual” resurrection. But if the only part of us that lives into eternity is the soul, why would it need to be any different for Jesus? What then is the point of Jesus’ physical resurrection; what did it accomplish?

Any thoughts?

Intended for Wine!?!

2006-12-02T19:33:00.000-08:00

Okay, so I learned a fun new fact the other day: the yeast which is used to ferment wine occurs naturally on the skin of the grape while it hangs on the vine. Take grapes; crush them; leave them alone; and in a little while you will have made wine. No additions required. The more I thought about this fact the more I came to realize that it is a lot harder not to make wine than to make wine. Grape juice takes work. Wine is the grape's natural liquid state. It's as if the grape was intended for wine. Hmmm. Nice Thought.

What do you think?

The Culinary Argument Against Dualism

2006-11-09T16:32:00.000-08:00

Okay, so I just started reading one of the most witty and brilliant books I have laid eyes on in quite a while... and it's a cookbook! Rather than explain how this is such a great book, let me quote Robert Farrar Capon at length from the preface:

"There is a habit that plagues many so-called spiritual minds: they imagine that matter and spirit are somehow at odds with each other and that the right course for human life is to escape from the world of matter into some finer and purer (and undoubtedly duller) realm. To me, that is a crashing mistake--and it is, above all, a theological mistake. Because, in fact, it was God who invented dirt, onions and turnip greens; God who invented human beings, with their strange compulsion to cook their food; God who, at the end of each day of creation, pronounced a resounding "Good!" over each of his concoctions. And it is God's unrelenting love of all the stuff of this world that keeps it in being at every moment. So, if we are fascinated, even intoxicated, by matter, it is no surprise: we are made in the image of the Ultimate Materialist."

Later he writes:

"Food these days is often identified as the enemy. Butter, salt, sugar, eggs are all out to get you. And yet at our best we know better. Butter is... well, butter: it glorifies almost everything it touches. Salt is the sovereign perfector of all flavors. Eggs are, pure and simple, one of the wonders of the world. And if you put them all together, you get not sudden death, but Hollandaise--which in its own way is not one bit less a marvel than the Gothic arch, the computer chip, or a Bach fugue. Food, like all other triumphs of human nature, is evidence of civilization--of that priestly gift by which we lift the whole world into the exchanges of the Ultimate City which even God himself longs to see it become."

Good stuff.

Thoughts on Advent

2006-09-14T14:09:00.000-07:00

The human race has always lived according to the seasons. As spring comes, we plant. Then summer arrives, and we tend the fields. In the fall we gather the harvest. And in the winter, we live off of the year’s bounty, and prepare for it to happen all over again.

Although this seems like a never-ending cycle, we should also note that we humans mark out certain days and seasons of feasting to remind us of events that happened at one singular point in history, and which forever changed the future. We call these days “holidays” (from the marriage of the two words “holy” and “day”). The word “holy” means “set apart,” and hence we can see that within the never-ending cycle of seasons, we set apart certain days as unique and worthy of being noted and remembered.

Not surprisingly, we Christians inherited this practice from our forefathers, the Hebrews. Ever since the Exodus out of Egypt, the Hebrews set apart special days in the spring to remember their salvation from exile and slavery. This holiday is known as the Passover. And every time we Christians celebrate the Lord’s Supper, we remember that Christ took that Passover meal, and transformed it into the meal that it was always meant to be: a meal that looks back at Christ’s act of atonement for sins, and looks forward to His redemption of the whole universe.

Another great time of remembrance is upon us even now, and so we set apart a season of anticipation; of Advent. The word Advent means “coming,” and we are reminded each year at this time, that we await the Savior of the world, not only in remembrance of His first coming, but also that we are living in the time between His first and second Advent. As we prepare for the wonderful holiday we call Christmas, let us realize that in similar fashion to the Lord’s supper (and its attending holiday, Easter), we are looking back at that pivotal moment when God became flesh in the birth of Jesus, and we are looking forward to that glorious moment when He returns, and every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Is Belief in God Properly Basic?

2006-09-06T06:34:00.000-07:00

After posting my previous post I have been inspired to consider matters in Reformed Epistemology (call it RE). Alvin Plantinga's book pictured above is a hallmark book as it applies to this topic. RE might roughly be defined as a theory of knowledge which is sympathetic to the Protestant tradition going back to John Calvin.

Traditionally, it has been asserted that belief in God is either irrational or intellectually irresponsible because there is insufficient evidence for it (call them AT for A-Theology); or belief in God is rational or intellectually acceptable because there is sufficient evidence for it (call them NT for Natural Theology). It is the case that both AT and NT accept belief in God if and only if there is sufficient evidence to warrant that belief.

Now, I think that both AT and NT are rooted in classical Foundationalism, Plantinga deals with NT and claims that it is rooted in classical Foundationalism (dating back to Plato and Aritstotle). Classical Foundationalism simply says that one's belief is based (founded) upon other beliefs so that I believe proposition A (It is raining outside) on the basis of proposition B (The sidewalk is wet) and proposition C (Dark clouds have formed in the sky) etc. Now, there are some beliefs which are not accepted on the basis of any other beliefs and these beliefs are called "basic". They are basic because they do not require a basis for their acceptance. For instance, I believe that 1+1=2 and I do not believe it on the basis of anything else.

The question then arises "What makes a belief basic?" When is a belief properly or rightly acceptable or warranted? That is, what makes a basic belief properly basic? NT, and many other classical foundationlists, have said that a belief is properly basic if and only if that belief is incorrigible ("I exist") or self-evident (A cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense). Now, NT says that belief in God is not incorrigible nor self-evident therefore one is justified in believing that God exists if and only if one has sufficient evidence for believing that God exists. That is, proposition D (God Exists) must be based upon some other propostion(s) which serve as a foundation for D. We might say then that NT is rooted in Evidentialism (the belief that one must have evidence to believe in God's existence).

This is where the RE comes in. RE holds that belief in God is properly basic. That is, it is rational or intellectually acceptable to believe that God exists without accepting it on the basis of any other belief or proposition. It is important to understand that RE does not reject NT as many of the Reformers did. Rather, RE holds that a theist is entirely within his intellectual rights in believing that God exists even if the theist does not know any good arguments or hold any good arguments for God's existence, or even if any such arguments exist (please understand this distinction).

If I went on to give Plantinga's arguments (or any other RE arguments...e.g. Alston or Wolterstorff) for epistemic warrant, it would probably take more pages for me to write than the 500+ pages that Plantinga wrote in W.C.B. I will hope that my readers have read it, or at least heard about, or will read it and can talk intelligently about it. I am interested to hear your thoughts on this.

Surprised by Joy

2006-08-29T15:39:00.000-07:00

There are many so called "arguments for the existence of God"; there are the cosmological, the teleological, the ontological, the axiological arguments, among others. Now, I do not think that we can prove the existence of God any more than I think we can prove the existence of man. Descartes missed one thing in his cogito. Namely, that he was assuming his existence (I) before he even began to think. One has to be a fool, or perhaps a philosopher, to deny one's existence. Similarly, "the fool has said in his heart there is no God."

There are some things (which for C. S. Lewis was Joy), I think, which might lead us to God. I think this is how we should view the so called arguments for the existence of God. It is not that God exists once we have demonstrated His existence. God always exists. Rather, I think it might be that we "exist", at least a different kind of existence, once we have discovered God.

One such demonstration is C. S. Lewis' argument from Joy (found in Surprised by Joy, p.220...which I recently finished reading). Lewis begins with the premise that a desire is not turned to itself, but is turned to its object. In fact, "it owes all its character to its object." It is the object that either makes the desire desirable ("sweet" or "choice") or not desirable ("harsh" or "coarse"). My desire for my wife is not turned to the desire itself, but to my wife (and this is sweet not hash, choice not coarse!).

The second premise of Lewis' argument says that everyone has a desire for Joy. This is almost assumed for Lewis, and he likens his joy to the words "good" and "love." As we, naturally I suppose, desire good things, and most of all love, so too we have a desire for joy.

The problem for Lewis, being an atheist, at this point, was seeing what conclusion followed from these premises. He had a desire for something and therefore there must be some object to which his desire is turned. Lewis says, "I was wrong in supposing that I desired Joy itself. Joy itself, considered simply as an event in my own mind was of no value at all."

Naturally this begs the question, "To what was his joy turned?". Lewis says that the object of joy cannot be his own mind or body for he had tried that, and failed. Thus, "in a way" he had "proved this by elimination." What was it then? Lewis said that this Joy was proclaiming to him "You want--I myself am your want of--something other, outside, not you nor any state of you."

Lewis said that this gave him a sense of awe as he realized that "in deepest solitude there is a road right out of the self, a commerce with something which, by refusing to identify itself with any object of the senses, or anything whereof we may have biological or social need, or anything imagined, or any state of our own minds, proclaims itself sheerly objective. More objective than bodies for it is not, like them, clothed in our senses, the naked other, imageless (though our imagination salutes it with a hundred images), unknown, undefined, desired."

No wonder Lewis, a staunch atheist at this point, was surprised!

Toil

2006-08-21T12:33:00.000-07:00

I was recently reading Peter Kreeft's marvelous book Three Philosophies of Life, in which he explores the significance of Ecclesiastes, Job and Song of Songs. In presenting Ecclesiastes, he explains that the book of Ecclesiastes presents the greatest question that can be asked, while the rest of the Bible is the answer to that question. He also states that this particular book is essentially trying to make sense of life without faith in God.

One thing I love about Kreeft is how clear and logical his writing is. One particularly helpful insight made in this book is that the whole book of Ecclesiastes can be broken down into a logical syllogism:

1. All “toil” is “under the sun”.
2. And all “under the sun” is “vanity”.
3. Therefore, all “toil” is “vanity”.

Upon inspection of this syllogism, we can see that it is indeed valid. But, asks Kreeft, is it sound? In other words, the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, but are the premises true? Kreeft suggests that premise 1 is false, and I agree.

As I was reading Ecclesiastes, and kept encountering the word "toil," it occured to me that I had been struck by this word somewhere else in the Bible: “Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord.”

That's it, not all "toil" is "under the sun." There is a "toil" that is beyond the sun, it is a heavenly toil; the "toil in the Lord." It is any toil whose end or purpose is "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

How fitting that Paul would mention this at the end of 1 Corinthians 15, one of the greatest passages on the resurrection. Paul is emphatically telling Christians that life is not vanity of vanities, that there is hope, and that our hope is the resurrection. Therefore, work hard and persevere with hope, knowing that your "toil" is not "under the sun" and therefore "vanity," since it is "toil in the Lord."

It makes me think that perhaps he had Ecclesiasastes in mind when he wrote this. Thoughts?

The Intolerance of Tolerance

2006-08-02T09:25:00.000-07:00

In 1987 Professor Allan Bloom of the University of Chicago published a book entitled The Closing of the American Mind in which he argues that the so called “openness” that our culture demands is really a great closing, and it’s a closing of the mind. To be “tolerant” is really to be intolerant.

Francis Beckwith, in a lecture I heard him deliver on “The Deconstruction of Liberal Values,” sarcastically remarked that professor Bloom’s book is one of the only philosophy books that have actually sold! He said further that his wife asked him “Why don’t you write something like that?”!

In an often quoted line from the book, Bloom writes “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative.”

In Al Mohler’s latest blog,here, he quotes from the London Times article on Britain’s new proposed school policy,here,

Schools would no longer be required to teach children the difference between right and wrong under plans to revise the core aims of the National Curriculum.

Instead, under a new wording that reflects a world of relative rather than absolute values, teachers would be asked to encourage pupils to develop "secure values and beliefs".

I actually enjoyed reading this beautiful rhetoric! Teachers are “asked” (no, required) to “encourage” (no, demand) that pupils be “secure” (no, absolutely sure) in their values and beliefs (so long as they value and believe in relativism). Come on! How much more intolerant can you get?

Gluttony and Winebibbing

2006-07-06T23:37:00.000-07:00

I posted the following on my personal site blogical fallacy back in January; and since it seems to be a hot topic right now, I figured I'd offer it up here for some fun discussion in the pub. Enjoy!

The Bible records in various places specific occasions where it is appropriate to eat more than would be healthy (if it were to be done on a regular basis). These special occasions are called "feasts." During a feast, it seems that the point is to celebrate by eating rich food (and drink) in abundance to the glory of God. This should not be associated with gluttony (which, by the way, is obviously considered a sin in the Bible). Gluttony comes in when someone adopts the lifestyle of feasting (often enough to show that his belly controls him), even when there is no feast to celebrate. I think the same goes for drunkenness. A drunk is not someone who occasionally drinks to the glory of God (and may or may not feel the effects); while a drunkard is one who drinks in excess as a lifestyle, and is thus out of control of himself.

It is noteworthy that when Jesus turned water into wine at the wedding feast, he did so after all of the good wine (and the not-so-good) wine had been drunk. This was seen as extraordinary, because the best wine is always served first, when your taste buds and brain cells are working at their best. After the guests have lost some of their critical tasting skills, the lesser wine is brought out. But Christ then made the best wine of the evening after even the worst wine had been drunk! Certainly this implies that at least some people were a little loosey-goosey when Jesus performed the miracle. After all, it was a "feast."

That being said, let me make it clear that I am not claiming that it follows that since some people were drunk at the marriage feast, Jesus condoned drunkenness. Rather, it seems clear that Jesus condoned drinking "a lot" by making more wine after all was drunk. Note that the passage records nothing about a shortage of wine (less than would be customary at a wedding feast, or due to an over-abundance of unexpected guests), so his miracle allowed for even more consumption than a typical feast. Therefore, it follows from this that for the Christian, wine is a worthy drink to imbibe in abundance for purposes of celebration.

Jesus was accused of being a glutton and a winebibber for a reason. This was not just pulled out of thin air. Everyone agrees that it was culturally and religiously accepted to drink wine, yet Jesus was singled out as a winebibber. I wonder why this would be if he simply did what every other religious leader did. I'm not implying that Jesus was indeed a lush (obviously), but He must have been one who was known for His participation in feasting on good food and strong drink.

I don't think we should ever seek to eat or drink ourselves into dissipation, but I wonder if the occasional feast which leads to a very full stomach and a glad heart (one of the beneficial effects of wine mentioned in the Bible) is not appropriate and, in fact, biblical.

Reductio ad Absurdum

2006-06-21T14:41:00.000-07:00

Recently, the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution regarding alcohol (I'm not trying to tick off any of my many Southern Baptist friends). Below I have placed the text of that resolution, followed by my own resolution regarding sex, using the SBC's logic. This is one of my longer posts, so I'll apologize for that now.

On Alcohol Use In America

Whereas, Years of research confirm biblical warnings that alcohol use leads to physical, mental, and emotional damages (e.g., Proverbs 23:29-35); and

Whereas, Alcohol use has led to countless injuries and deaths on our nation's highways; and

Whereas, The breakup of families and homes can be directly and indirectly attributed to alcohol use by one or more members of a family; and

Whereas, The use of alcohol as a recreational beverage has been shown to lead individuals down a path of addiction to alcohol and toward the use of other kinds of drugs, both legal and illegal; and

Whereas, There are some religious leaders who are now advocating consumption of alcoholic beverages based on a misinterpretation of the doctrine of "our freedom in Christ"; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-24, 2006, express our total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and consuming of alcoholic beverages; and be it further

Resolved, That we urge that no one be elected to serve as a trustee or member of any entity or committee of the Southern Baptist Convention that is a user of alcoholic beverages; and be it further

Resolved, That we urge Southern Baptists to take an active role in supporting legislation that is intended to curb alcohol use in our communities and nation; and be it further

Resolved, That we urge Southern Baptists to be actively involved in educating students and adults concerning the destructive nature of alcoholic beverages; and be it finally

Resolved, That we commend organizations and ministries that treat alcohol-related problems from a biblical perspective and promote abstinence and encourage local churches to begin and/or support such biblically-based ministries."

On Sex In America

Whereas, Years of research confirm biblical warnings that sex leads to physical, mental, and emotional damages (e.g., Romans 1:26-32); and

Whereas, Sex has led to countless injuries and deaths in our nation's cities and towns; and

Whereas, The breakup of families and homes can be directly and indirectly attributed to sex by one or more members of a family; and

Whereas, Sex as a recreational activity has been shown to lead individuals down a path of addiction to pornography and toward the practice of other lascivious acts, both legal and illegal; and

Whereas, There are some religious leaders who are now advocating homosexuality based on a misinterpretation of the doctrine of "our freedom in Christ"; now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the messengers to the Bird and Baby Public House meeting in Blogsford, Internetland, June 20-21, 2006, express our total opposition to the manufacturing, advertising, distributing, and practicing of sexual intercourse; and be it further

Resolved, That we urge that no one be elected to serve as a contributor or member of any entity or committee of the Bird and Babe Public House that is a practicer of sex; and be it further

Resolved, That we urge Christians to take an active role in supporting legislation that is intended to curb sex in our communities and nation; and be it further

Resolved, That we urge Christians to be actively involved in educating students and adults concerning the destructive nature of sex; and be it finally

Resolved, That we commend organizations and ministries that treat sex-related problems from a biblical perspective and promote abstinence and encourage local churches to begin and/or support such biblically-based ministries."

The Significance of the Canon of Scripture

2006-06-12T08:29:00.003-07:00

I am preparing to write a paper on the canonization of Scripture. I want to deal with the method of canonization, but most importantly, I think, I want to deal with the meaning of the canon of Scripture. That is to say, what does the canon of scripture mean for my life?

In my studies I have come across a puzzling phenomenon among some Christians, and I want to hear your thoughts on the matter. Perhaps this will aid me in achieving my intended goal of receiving an A on the paper, a job well done.

It is interesting to me that when we discuss events in Bible history (like the Creation of the universe, or the calling of Abraham, or the Exodus of the Israelites, or the coming of the Messiah, or the death and resurrection of the Messiah, or the supernatural works of the apostles and the beginning of the church), we think of these events as real events which took place in real time. However, when we discuss these events, often times we look beyond the event itself and we look to its significance in God’s overall plan of redemption. For instance, when we discuss the Exodus we tend to focus, rightly, I think, on the significance of that event rather than the fact of that event. That the Passover lamb represents the Messiah, and the Exodus itself represented God’s redemption of mankind from sin (this is not to say that the fact of the event is not important).

However, when we discuss the canonization of Scripture we talk about it as an event, a rather long event, in history, but we never take the time to look at its significance in God’s overall plan of redemption. We think that it merely contains a record of God’s plan of redemption, but we never think that it is part of the plan itself. That God, in His sovereignty, by the Holy Spirit through His chosen people, rightly assembled and preserved those writings which are His intended and complete revelation to mankind. This has a huge impact, I think, on God’s overall plan of redemption and should not merely be examined as a historical event.

Often time’s people question the canon and wonder if the canon of Scripture that we now possess contains the books that rightly belong in it. I think that this is a failure to trust in the faithfulness of God, and a failure to see how the canon of Scripture rightly fits (i.e. is part of) into God’s overall and complete plan of redemption. Furthermore, if God is faithful to lead His people out of bondage would He not be faithful in making sure that His people have all of His words which He intended them to have? What if God missed some writings? Is it right to assume that this same God would allow His people to miss some of His intended words for over 2,000 years?

Just some preliminary thoughts…what do you think?

"My Preciousssss!"

2006-05-27T07:57:00.000-07:00

One of my favorite, if not thee favorite of mine, books to read is Lord of the Rings. I can remember as a little boy hearing of stories about hobbits and elves and wizards and dwarves; of Bilbo Baggins and his adventures; of Frodo and his quest to destroy the One Ring. Although I must say that it has only been in recent months that I have been able to read through Tolkien's masterpiece and enjoy it for what it is.

Why do I love this book so? Perhaps C. S. Lewis says it better than I will ever be able to; "Here are the beauties which pierce like swords or burn like cold iron."

One of those beauties which burns like cold iron is Tolkien's profound ability to explain the themes of Pity and Mercy. Indeed these two themes are seen throughout the book, especially in regards to that despicable creature Gollum. To be honest, a creature, in many ways, no different than myself (although I like to think I am a little more handsome than Peter Jackson portrayed him!).

The themes of pity and mercy can be seen in the following dialogue between Frodo and Gandalf,

"What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature, when he had a chance!'

'Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that he took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity.'"

Interestingly, as a reader reading from an omniscient viewpoint I disagreed with this at first. An evil creature like Gollum, who only does evil continuously, certainly deserves to die. It may be true that Gollum leads Frodo and Sam to Mount Doom, but in the end it is Gollum who turns on Frodo and tries to take his precious back. Certainly, we should not allow this creature to live. There must have been someone else who could have led these two hobbits to Mordor and Mount Doom?

Tolkien answers these questions if you read on. Gandalf says to Frodo,

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, for good or ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many—yours not least."

Perhaps there are some parallels here between the mercy of Bilbo and the mercy of God (This is not to make light of God's mercy; indeed, God's mercy goes beyond the mercy of a mere hobbit)?

Pity and Mercy, Gandalf says, is to stay one's hand. To not strike without need. This is precisely what we see in the Bible when God exercises His mercy. It is God withholding His Just Wrath. Grace, as one of our pastors has said before, is receiving something you do not deserve. Mercy is not receiving something that you do deserve.

Notice further how much more merciful God is. Gandalf says we should be merciful because even the very wise cannot see all ends. But God can see all ends and yet he still exercises His mercy.

Why is God merciful? Because like Gollum, whether for good or ill, we all have a part to play in this grand narrative. God withholds His judgment perhaps to see one "cured before he dies"? Perhaps God may withhold his judgment to lead someone to Mount Doom to carry out His will?

There are a number of reasons that God may withhold His judgment. When I think about this, and I think about God withholding His judgment on me, I think that Gandalf may not have been so wrong after all!

What are your thoughts?

Good Quote

2006-05-25T07:41:00.000-07:00

I came across this quote from Aristotle, and when I read it many thoughts came to me. The biggest thing that this quote does, I think, is forces a great deal of introspection...

"It is a mark of an educated man to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Curious to see if any of you have any thoughts concerning this???

Winking One-eyed Wonders

2006-05-12T10:52:00.000-07:00

There's a very helpful post over at Pyromaniacs entitled "Sister, Have Mercy." I commend it to you, particularly to those of you (1) who have daughters who need some extra help in avoiding the clueless condition of their peers, (2) who have sons or brothers who need a lesson in how to combine candor and grace in discussing a touchy topic; or (3) who occupy positions of spiritual responsibility in your church or other ministerial settings.

As the father of four daughters who learned modesty from their beautiful and modest mother, I am well aware of the extra challenges, hurdles, and impediments to modesty that are faced by even the youngest girls. The sections of the main-line department stores (Dillard's, Foley's, Penny's) in our area are known in our house as majoring in the "Little Miss Ho" line of fashions. We have other colorful names for this style, but I hesitate to name them here, lest I trip any smut-filters that may be monitoring your internet use.

At any rate, the link above says it all, and it says it with grace and clarity, a rare combination these days, particularly in this topic.

BQ

The Holey Grail

2006-05-09T22:42:00.000-07:00

I don't read fictional novels very often, but because "everyone" is doing it, I decided to see what the Da Vinci Code is all about. I couldn't bring myself to buy the book, so I borrowed it from a friend last week.

The constant suspense and mystery combined with a lot of dialogue made the book a real page turner - I had no problems finishing the 400+ pages in just under 2 days. I imagine the upcoming movie will be an exciting mixture of Mission Impossible and National Treasure.

Without going into great detail, I can summarize the "secret" of the book by quoting a few passages.

The threat Mary Magdalene posed to the men of the early Church was potentially ruinous. Not only was she the woman to whom Jesus had assigned the task of founding the Church, but she also had physical proof that the Church's newly proclaimed deity had spawned a mortal bloodline. (254)

...you must understand the Church's powerful motivations to conduct such a cover-up. They could never have survived public knowledge of a bloodline. A child of Jesus would undermine the critical notion of Christ's divinity and therefore the Christian Church... (254)

...Jesus was a Father...Mary Magdalene was the womb that carried His royal lineage. The Priory of Sion, to this day, still worships Mary Magdalene as the Goddess, the Holy Grail, the Rose and the Divine Mother. (255)

This is where Dan Brown shoots himself in the foot. Assuming that all the facts are correct about Mary Magdalene's marriage to Jesus, I see 3 ways of interpreting the relationship:

1. Jesus is God > His wife might be someone to honor
2. Jesus is just another mortal prophet > His wife might be special but not because of her marriage to Jesus
3. Jesus's supposed deity is a conspiracy of the Church > His wife is Divine and worthy of worship

Either #1 or #2 might be consistent beliefs to hold (assuming their facts are true), but option 3 is silly - if the Priory of Sion knew Jesus was not Divine, why would they or anyone care about Mary Magdalene? Not only that, if Christ is only important because the Church conspired to make him divine, then Mary is only important because of the Church they are trying to discredit. By denying Jesus' divinity, Dan Brown completely destroys the meaning of the conspiracy he is suggesting.

So, even granting that all of the facts in the Da Vinci Code are true (and they are not), the main premise of the story is nonsense at best.

-Vijay Swamidass

Someone Post Something!

2006-05-08T10:46:00.000-07:00

2006-05-03T13:07:00.000-07:00

As you've probably noticed, I have been offline for quite some time now. I'm just writing to let you all know that I'm still around, and to let you know why I have been absent as of late.

My daughter, Karis, has been quite ill lately, and to be honest, I'm a little worried about her. She has had a fever of over 105 for the past three days now, and much of our time has been spent at Kaiser trying to get treatment. She has had two catheters, eight vials of blood drawn, a throat culture, spinal tap, two very painful antibiotic shots, and is currently getting a chest x-ray.

After all of this, the doctors still don't know what is going on, and my wife is struggling to keep her spirits up. We would appreciate your prayers at this time.

UPDATE- Thank you all for your prayers, emails, phone calls, etc. It is great to know that so many people are praying and thinking of our little one. It appears that Karis' health is improving. This morning her fever was considerably lower than it has been since Sunday night, and her doctor was pleased with her vitals and her demeanor. Bekah and I are relieved that she is in much less pain, and we are hoping that she makes a full recovery soon. We still have no idea what caused all this, but hopefully it was just a stubborn virus that is on its way out. I'll keep you posted.

2nd UPTATE- Well, it looks as if Karis is out of the woods. Her temperature is back to normal, and she is back to her joyful self. Thank you all for your prayers; we are forever grateful. I'll let you know if there's any more info, but for now, it looks like she's made a full recovery!

Cheers.

Duped by Da Vinci?

2006-04-26T16:00:00.000-07:00

So in case you have not noticed, Dan Brown has become a very rich man. I have read that he has sold over 40,000,000 copies (translated into 44 languages) of his latest novel, THE DA VINCI CODE; not to mention the movie coming to the big screen in a couple of weeks, I believe.

Why is his book so popular? Well, I have read the book and all I can say is that he is a literary genius. I picked the book up on a Saturday afternoon at the Barnes & Noble by my house, and I finished it sometime the following morning. It is simply a book that is very hard to put down. Vince Flynn, author of Separation of Power, said “THE DA VINCI CODE sets the hook-of-all-hooks, and takes off down a road that is as eye-opening as it is page turning. You simply cannot put this book down. Thriller readers everywhere will soon realize Dan Brown is a master.”

What has been “eye opening” for me is the number of Christians I have read about who have seemingly begun to question the Bible, the historical Jesus, and their faith as a result of this book. It makes me want to scream, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN THIS IS A FICTION NOVEL. Sadly, Dan Brown does nothing to help in this regard. Interestingly, right at the beginning of the book he says FACT: … “All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.”

Really? Hold on just one minute. All documents in this novel are accurate? Well, except of course the Bible!

I mean after all does not the story hinge on the following “facts”:

1. JESUS NEVER CLAIMED TO BE GOD.

4. JESUS WAS MARRIED TO MARRY MAGDALENE.

5. THEY HAD A CHILD.

6. THE HOLY GRAIL IS NOT THE CHALICE OF THE LAST SUPPER, BUT THE ROYAL BLOOD LINE FOUND IN THEIR OFFSPRING.

7. THE NEW TESTAMENT IS A PRODUCT OF MEN WHO WANTED TO ACHIEVE A POLITICAL AGENDA.

8. THEREFORE, JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING WE HAVE BEEN TAUGHT CONCERNING JESUS IS ONE BIG COVER UP!

Consider some of the things Brown says concerning the Bible.

1) “The Bible is the product of man, my dear. Not of God. The Bible did no fall magically from the clouds. Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book” (231).—Man there is a lot of straw in this statement!

2) “Jesus Christ was a historical figure of staggering influence, perhaps the most enigmatic and inspirational leader the world has ever seen…Understandably, His life was recorded by thousands of followers across the land…More than eighty gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relatively few were chosen for inclusion—Matthew, Mark, Luke and John among them…The Bible, as we know it today, was collated by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great” (231).—I think he needs to check his facts!

3) “Fortunately for historians…some of the gospels that Constantine attempted to eradicate managed to survive. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1950’s hidden in a cave near Qumran in the Judean desert” (234).—I think he should check his facts again!

This is just a taste of what you will read when you read Dan Brown’s latest. The sad thing is that many people think that Dan Brown has discovered something new! Reading this book was a reminder to me why we need to do apologetics.

First, we do apologetics because we are Commanded to—1 Peter 3:15 says we must always be ready to make a defense of the faith, Jude 3 says contend for the faith, Philippians 1:7 says we are partakers in defense of the gospel. Doing apologetics is not a suggestion, it is a command. Second, we do apologetics because we need to Answer false teaching—2 Corinthians 10:5-6 says we destroy argument and lofty opinions raised against the knowledge of God, Colossians 4:5-6 says we are to conduct ourselves wisely toward outsiders so that we may know how to answer each person, 2 Timothy 2:24-25 says that the Lord’s servant must correct his opponents. Third, we do apologetics because Reason demands it—In Isaiah 1:18 God says “Come now let us reason together”, Jude 10 says don’t be like unreasoning animals, Matthew 22:37 says to love God with all of your mind. Fourth, and finally, we do apologetics because we need to Save Christianity from attack. If you do not think that Christianity is under attack, just read THE DA VINCI CODE.

And remember the words C. S. Lewis told us in the Weight of Glory,

To be ignorant and simple now, not to be able to meet the enemies on their ground, would be to throw down our weapons and betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.

Intelligent Design

2006-04-26T09:22:00.000-07:00

Fox News ran a piece this morning about a scientific discovery concerning the shapes of letters and symbols in all languages here. It is argued, in this report, that the shapes of letters and symbols in all languages appear to be derived from a common form in nature.

The idea came about as a result of a study of how robots see the world. Robots “employ object-recognition technology to navigate a room by recognizing contours. A corner is seen as a "Y," for example, and a wall is recognized by the L-shape it makes where it meets the floor.”

Mark Changizi, a theoretical neurobiologist at Caltech, and one of the scientists involved in this study, said that he did not think it a coincidence that the shapes of these letters, which the robots employ, look like the things they really are in nature. Changizi, and his colleagues, think that all languages throughout the ages use these common symbols which humans are good at seeing.

"Evolution has shaped our visual system to be good at seeing the structures we commonly encounter in nature, and culture has apparently selected our writing systems and visual signs to have these same shapes," Changizi said.

What is the point of this study? To show that “the figures we use in symbolic systems and writing systems seem to be selected because they are easy to see rather than easy to write," he concludes. "They're for the eye.”

Can a phenomenon like this be explained from a purely naturalistic worldview? I suppose it can, for intelligent people like Changizi think that it can. I think there is an issue of fundamental importance lying beneath the surface of this new discovery, however. It’s the issue of information, or code, or language. Why is it the case that this code or structure is common in all shapes of letters and symbols? Notice it is assumed that this is a result of evolution. Can evolution account for this rather uniform and highly complex system?

I suppose that the structure and uniformity of the shapes of letters and symbols is rather similar to the structure and uniformity of the DNA code. Thus, perhaps I can use a rather similar argument concerning this new study with one that I use for DNA. I think it is a rather widespread assumption that information cannot arise spontaneously. In order for information to arise it is necessary that there be an expenditure of energy, as well as an act of intelligence. Energy is what places the letters into the code, and intelligence is what directs the sequence. For instance, energy is required to write into the sand, but intelligence is needed to write “Help, we are stranded with no food or water and we are going to die!” (Or even something as simple as S.O.S. is just as complex). If we throw a bagful of letters in the air we wouldn’t expect the letters to land on the ground and be arranged into the sentence “In a hole in the ground, there lived a hobbit”. The throwing of the letters into the air requires energy; the arranging of letters into an intelligible sequence requires intelligence.

I suppose, further, that we would think it rather absurd that anything other than intelligence could explain or account for an event like throwing a bag full of letters into the air and having them hit the ground arranged into a sentence like the one noted above. I even suppose we would think it absurd that anything other than intelligence could explain for the arrangement of the letters S.O.S. (the arrangement, as well as the ability to “see” or perceive and understand what these letters mean).

What if we gave the thrower of the bag of letters, or the writer in the sand, enough time, as well as random assortment of letters? I suppose that this is a rather difficult question to answer. How much time is needed? How would we be able to prove, still, that it was the result of something other than intelligence? How can we be sure that with the passing of time the code would become more complex so that it reached the point of perfect complexity (S.O.S. or “In a hole…”)?...and so many more questions.

If we wouldn’t assume that these two events are a result of anything other than an intelligent agent performing the act, then why would we assume that the complex and uniform code inherent in anything else (say DNA, or this new discovery concerning the structure of the shapes of letters and symbols) is something other than a result of an intelligent agent performing the act?

I suppose this is a good place to end the discussion. Thoughts?

A Hero With a Thousand Meanings?

2006-04-24T13:48:00.000-07:00

Don't worry this is not some sort of Joseph Campbell--Luke Skywalker equals Jesus Christ which equals your mama--kind of a thing. Rather, I have a confusing question, or perhaps a perplexing paradox, or perhaps a muddled mystery, and this is where all of the B&B faithful and unfaithful alike come in.

Since I was a little boy I have always loved the term HERO. I love everything about this word: I love how it sounds when it rolls off one’s tongue; I love what this word represents and who has represented this word. Allow me to name a few of my favorites: Heracles and Theseus, Hector, Achilles and Odysseus, Aeneas, Beowulf, Arthur and his Knights, Robin Hood, Aragorn and Frodo, Hester Prynne, and Alyosha Karamazov.

You will notice, as I did when I was preparing this list, that these are perhaps all fictional characters (although I like to think that these are all real people in a real world that I would like to travel to someday). Interestingly, when I was trying to think of Heroes who have lived in our time, though there are many, I could only think of one name; Mother Theresa. Now, certainly Mother Theresa looks nothing like these people I have listed above. However, I consider, and will always consider, her a hero, or perhaps a saint. Perhaps with the dawning of the Christian world and the evolution of words, the term hero has become synonymous with saint? Nevertheless, I think that Mother Theresa is a hero.

What makes Mother Theresa a hero? More importantly, did Mother Theresa know she was a hero? It is the latter question which I wish to discuss. I suppose I would think it strange that Mother Theresa would have called herself a hero. I've never heard her say any such thing, nor have I read any such thing that supposes or quotes Mother Theresa saying such a thing. But I think such a thing is true of Mother Theresa, and were she to say such a thing I would not consider her any less a hero for having said it.

This is an interesting point, I think. Mother Theresa never considered herself a hero. I suppose if you were to ask Mother Theresa if she were a hero she would have said “Of course not…I am just doing my duty” or something quite like this. This is not true of the heroes above (except perhaps Frodo—I will come back to this in a minute). The heroes, especially the heroes of the Greeks, believed that they were heroes and declared themselves to be such. One of my favorite lines in the Iliad is just after Andromache begs Hector to stay with her and not go back to the battle, Hector says,

Wife, I too have thought upon all this, but with what face should I look upon the Trojans, men or women, if I shirked battle like a coward? I cannot do so: I know nothing save to fight bravely in the forefront of the Trojan host and win renown alike for my father and myself. (Book VI)

I don’t suppose that Mother Theresa thought like this. Although she did, perhaps, have her heavenly father’s renown in mind, I don’t think that she cared about hers. She would have thought it foolish to even suppose that what she was doing, in her small world in India, mattered at all to anyone else in the world. She did not do these things to be a hero, and yet I consider her a hero for having done these things.

I suppose that this is different from Homer’s heroes and the rest of the Greek heroes, as well as the Roman hero Aeneas. I suppose this is even different for Beowulf, Arthur and Robin Hood, Aragorn, Hester Prynne (in a way) and Alyosha Karamazov. Perhaps the one exception to this is Frodo who considered the ring to be more of a burden than a blessing, and who at times wished he had never been given the ring. I think it was through Frodo’s weakness (humility perhaps is a better word) that he became the hero (quite unlike the rest of the heroes listed above).

There is a distinction going on here. I don’t know if you see it, but it is an interesting one. Allow me to put it in the form of a question, and I will leave our discussion at this point. Why is it the case that we suspect the heroes of our imagination to believe they are heroes and declare themselves to be heroes, but we would consider those, not in our imagination but in reality, who believe that they are heroes (at least on the scale of Heracles and Beowulf) to be LUNATICS? And those who would declare themselves to be heroes we would consider to be LIARS? Blinded by their own hubris? Why is it the case that those who seek to be heroes are not considered heroes, but those for whom the whole hero idea is the last thing on their mind we would consider to be heroes? This, for me, is puzzling and I have yet been able to solve it.

About that Wounded Side ...

2006-04-18T22:07:00.000-07:00

I don't want to take attention away from Drewdog's attempt to engage us on the “ontological” aspect of what a Christian is. I'm mulling on how to tackle that one. But, while I muddle through that one, I thought I'd toss out a datum on the collateral discussion of the bodily resurrection.

Like every other minister of the gospel of any kind whatsoever, this past Sunday I had some things to say about this. All of them were, I trust, utterly orthodox, conventional, traditional, Biblical; no Marcus Borgian hoohaw about bodiless resurrections.
Without going into a full-blown apologetic for the bodily resurrection of Jesus, I pointed to a couple of facts that argue powerfully for this notion.

On one hand there is the scandalous particularity of the incarnation itself. When the Eternal Son of God becomes incarnate, it's a whole 'nuther ballgame – theologically, philosophically, every-other-wayically. God now has hair on a head and a beard. He has eyes, and they have a color, as does his hair and beard. God has arms and legs, hands and feet, flesh and blood. And, it's not just any old flesh and blood. It's Jewish flesh and blood, taken from the body of His mother. God has a mother now! She birthed him in a scandalously particular place named Bethlehem, at a specific time in history.

You don't go very far with these ideas before you create enough hostility, scandal, and outrage to get yourself crucified. And, then there's the ultimate (up to that point) particularity – God dies.

This kind of thing will spin off in all sorts of directions for fruitful meditation. But, I want to keep the focus on the body. Without a body, there's not death. Jesus gets a body in the first place, precisely so he can die. Spirits don't die; bodies do. Bodies live because a spirit united to them (see Genesis 2 for the details). The spirit departs and the body's dead, as James tells us (Jas. 2).

Ooooookay. The particularity of the Incarnation doesn't “prove” the bodily resurrection, but it is powerfully ... uh ... suggestive, right? I mean what kind of “recovery” or “victory” over death is it if it doesn't entail a bodily resurrection?

And, it is a resurrection of a particular body (in Jesus' case), not a recreation or a renovation or a resuscitation. The body that died is the body that rose from the dead.

How do I know that this is what the Apostles are reporting?

Well, several things – there is sufficient gross continuity between Jesus' body before death and after resurrection that he's recognizable. He was a male before death, and a male after death. His visage either side of death is so similar that the disciples on the Emmaus Road must have their faculties of perception hindered, lest they recognize Him before He pleases.

And, then there's that business with the nail prints in his hands and feet – acquired before death, but present after resurrection. If that's not continuity between the pre-death body and post-resurrection body, I don't know what is.

And, here's the datum I'm still pondering, as I've never seen it treated before – the wound in his side. THAT, dear readers, was acquired AFTER his death but before his resurrection. Yet, it's still there after his resurrection. What do you make of that?

Maybe there's not much to make of that, other than this: that the body of Jesus, his “bodiedness” is so critical, so necessary, so irreducibly a part of his identity that in the resurrection he cannot have a body that lacks this detail, even though he never had it when alive.

What do you make of this?

BQ

What Does It Mean To Be a Christian?

2006-04-13T22:10:00.000-07:00

A Christian, simply put, is a person who follows Jesus Christ. Luke 9:23 records Jesus stating that "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow me." Thus, being a Christian involves repentance, allegiance, and imitation.

The gospel is the good news that the crucified and risen Jesus is indeed the Lord of the world, and that He is reconciling all things to himself. A Christian is one who recognizes the Kingship of Jesus, and willingly submits to Him (by the work of the Holy Spirit) now, knowing that one day every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

I know that I am a Christian because I have acknowledged my sinfulness before God and have repented of it; I have placed my life in submission to King Jesus; and I am committed to extending His kingdom as I am increasingly conformed to His image by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Any thoughts?

When do 2 become 1?

2006-04-08T13:44:00.000-07:00

For a while now, I have wondered when exactly a couple is considered married. Let me offer 3 points and a conclusion.
1) Biblical View
First, sex without a public commitment is not a marriage:

16 If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins. - Exodus 22

A couple that has the cart before the horse must make their marriage public by the standards of their culture.

On the other hand, neither does marriage consist only of a ceremony:

10The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry." 11Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." - Matthew 19

Jesus says there are 3 types of people who don't marry:
1. Those who were born unable to marry
2. Those who were disabled from marriage in some way after birth
3. Those who have chosen not to marry

This is strange - How can someone be born unable to marry if marriage is simply a public ceremony? What disability can prevent someone from standing before witnesses and pledging their lives to one another? The answer, of course, is nothing.
However, if sexual union is required for marriage, then those who are physically unable to join with the opposite sex are therefore unable to marry. (I'm sure there willl be debate about this point)

2) Possible Implications
If marriage is just a lifelong commitment to love one another, exchange of rings, and a ceremony, what necessarily prevents two men or two women from marrying? On the other hand, if sexual intercourse is foundational to marriage, then only a man and woman can be married.

3) To Consummate
What is the definition of "consummate" in the context of marriage?

To complete (a marriage) with the first act of sexual intercourse after the ceremony (Dictionary.com).

Consummation is not an optional bonus - it is the completion of the marriage. In other words, by this definition, a couple isn't married until the marriage is consummated.

Conclusion - I see that marriage requires two essential components - public commitment and private consummation.

As always, I could be wrong. If you disagree with this post, let's chat!

Mystery of a Different Sort

2006-04-05T19:14:00.000-07:00

Will someone please explain a great mystery to me?

I was in Hastings a while ago, searching for a murder/mystery writer I had not read before. I found a goodly selection of his stuff, and wanted to read the back cover copy. If that looked promising, I planned to search for the order of publication and start at the beginning of a series.

What goobered it all up for me was a very loud piece of combination rap-rusty-jagged-metal-music playing loudly over the store's PA system. “Surely, it's just some demanding customer, insisting on a preview,” I thought.
Nope. When I circled the long aisle to peer into the CD section, there was no one there but a glassy-eyed blank-faced slouchy clerk of ambiguous gender. If I had been in an ornier mood, I'd have requested a full-volume preview of the 1812 Overture, the last section with the cannons, dontcha know. Or maybe the climax of Stravinski's Rite of Spring. Or, which Shostakovich symphony is it that is about 90 percent timpanis? That would work. Volume cranked up to where it would crack a bank vault door.

Ok. Here's the mystery I don't understand. Why or how do marketeers suppose that filling the air with trash sound is supposed to make customers purchase stuff? Is there research to support this idea? I don't seem to be able to go anywhere without encountering a boiling sea of noise. Wal-Mart – curse their marketeers – have just installed this blaring speaker at every checkout line. When I complained to the checker, she just rolled her eyes. “Others complain too?” I asked. “We all hate it. Everbody hates it.” Her look was flinty.

Restaurants are some of the worst offenders. I refuse to eat in any Chili's, or Johnny Carino's, especially if I have company with me. I have to shout across the table to be heard. Once I insisted on ordering in a quiet voice. The waiter couldn't hear me. When he asked me to speak up, I mouthed at him, “No. Get the manager over here. Now.” When the manager said, “I can't hear you,” I softly said back at her, “Why not??” The customer's always right, huh? She turned the music down. I never went back. And never will.

What, exactly, is the big deal? Am I the only customer who is NOT deaf?

BQ

So, What about Chivalry?

2006-04-03T18:05:00.000-07:00

The background of this bit is a review of Harvey C. Mansfield's book Manliness by Christina Hoff Sommers in The Weekly Standard, 10 April 2006, Volume 011, Issue 28. For a while, you may read the whole thing here, or drop me a line and I'll send you a copy that I've saved.

Ms. Sommers is the author of The War on Boys which got some folks' blood-pressure up a while ago. Google the title and you'll find pro and con reviews galore.

She begins her review of Mansfield's book with these words:

One of the least visited memorials in Washington is a waterfront statue commemorating the men who died on the Titanic. Seventy-four percent of the women passengers survived the April 15, 1912, calamity, while 80 percent of the men perished. Why? Because the men followed the principle "women and children first."

The monument, an 18-foot granite male figure with arms outstretched to the side, was erected by "the women of America" in 1931 to show their gratitude. The inscription reads: "To the brave men who perished in the wreck of the Titanic. ... They gave their lives that women and children might be saved."

Today, almost no one remembers those men. Women no longer bring flowers to the statue on April 15 to honor their chivalry. The idea of male gallantry makes many women nervous, suggesting (as it does) that women require special protection. It implies the sexes are objectively different. It tells us that some things are best left to men. Gallantry is a virtue that dare not speak its name.

Since the Pub seems occupied by the manlier sorts of persons, I thought I'd ask what you think of chivalry (Sommers uses the term "gallantry" rather than chivalry, but this is what she's talking about, I'm pretty sure). Is it outdated? Do you think men today seek to be chivalrous? Or do they avoid being chivalrous? Don't men today have a clue as to what chivalry (or gallantry) is?

The Pub Welcomes Brother Quotidian

2006-03-30T13:30:00.000-08:00

Greetings from St. Athanasius Anglican Church in Waxahachie, Texas. Don't worry. Texans more than 100 miles away can't pronounce it either. Waxahachie, I mean. And, the locals can’t pronounce Athanasius. For the phonetically curious, they sound like this: WALKS-uh-HATCH-ee and ATH-uh-NAY-shus.

By Drewdog's gracious invitation, I will contribute here from time to time. Before I do and to set what I say in some context, I thought I’d offer a self-introduction.

I’m pretty much an ecclesiastical mongrel. I came to faith in a Southern Baptist church revival as a boy. I really woke up spiritually in college after returning from Nam (I'm also a jarhead).

I took a Th.M. from Dallas Seminary majoring in Hebrew. Afterwards I pastored Bible-church ministries for the next decade. My last pastorate in that run was the International Chapel of Vienna, in Vienna, Austria. Now that was hardship duty for sure.

I departed vocational pastoral ministry to care for aged parents, and took the opportunity to test the spiritual waters in a communion that was sacramental in its spirituality and liturgical in its worship. Our local ECUSA parish was the first place that fit the bill (as it was acceptably orthodox as well; it might not have been so somewhere else, of course). And, after 15 years in that parish, our family departed when the House of Bishops consented to consecrating an active homosexual as Bishop of New Hampshire.

By this time, I was a confirmed Prayer Book Christian, and the options locally were nil. So, I started knocking on doors, seeking some continuing jurisdiction that would take me on as a candidate for holy orders and for planting a new parish here in town. The United Anglican Church was the first to say "yes". I was ordained to the diaconate in November 2004, and to the Anglican priesthood in September of 2005.

The photo shows me prostrate during my ordination to the priesthood. The man in gold is my bishop. The fellow across the way is the UAC archdeacon, the fellow in the white surplice is an old friend who served as chaplain to the Bishop during the service. He doesn’t have something growing out of his head. That’s the Bishop’s staff leaning on the far wall of the sanctuary. The red band around my middle is my deacon’s stole. During two portions of the service, while prayers are made for me by the Bishop and the congregation, I lay on the floor in that position, about 10 minutes one time, about 15 minutes a second time. Yes, it was uncomfortable – my shoulder hurt more than anything! – but, at the same time, I was so grateful our chapel is carpeted. It might have been linoleum. Or marble.

In the interests of full disclosure, “Brother Quotidian” is the name under which my Blogger account was created. If you want to know more, drop me a line.

Looking forward to batting ideas around,

Brother Quotidian

Against Panmillenialism

2006-03-28T12:37:00.000-08:00

I think it's high time we talked a little about eschatology here at the pub, therefore I refer you to what I think is a pithy primer on postmillenialism. Read it here if you wish, and then chip in your $.02.

My favorite quote from this post (in case you're too lazy to click on the link and read a lengthy post) is the following:

"The problem with panmillenialsim, premillenialism, and amillenialism is that they miss the thrust of God's program from the beginning. From the beginning, God's program was to 'heavenize' earth through His image bearers. Man's task was to take the 'raw material' of the world and press down God's heavenly pattern upon it according to His Word. When man fell from this purpose through sin, God restored them to that purpose through the resurrection of the second Adam. "

-The Boneman

Let's remember to be charitable, and to attack ideas and not people.

is history bunk?

2006-03-21T22:52:00.000-08:00

My very intelligent self and my truly very intelligent wife were just talking about something that i would like all of you fundamentalist evangelicals out there to answer for me. here goes: what do you make of the church history that surrounds and bolsters your faith if you would not readliy consider Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Coptic Christians... Christians? i've read evangelical literature that excludes these different branches of the church in their count of "Christians" in certain nations. what of the early Church fathers? are they not considered Christians due to the fact that the Protestant Reformation simply hadn't happened yet?

(there, i posted!)

Random Thoughts

2006-03-17T10:41:00.000-08:00

These are some random thoughts in response to some questions from a class I am taking.

Make a logical link between the Biblical Definition of a what a Godly Person really is (as taught in Lecture #5)

The professor made a good point about what a Godly person is not. A person who follows God’s rules is not necessarily a Godly person. Pharisees followed God’s rules, but this certainly didn’t make them Godly. However, a Godly person will follow God’s rules. Obeying God’s commands is necessary but not sufficient to make one Godly. Sometimes, I think, we base our “Godliness” on the same principles that the Pharisees based their Godliness. Anyone can be a Pharisee. Not everyone can be Godly. There is a deeper question involved. It’s not “what does this person do or fail to do?” but “what is this person?” Being Godly penetrates deeper than mere outward acts to the very essence of our soul. One must be Godly. Godliness is an ontological status not an ethical one. Paul says in Ephesians 4:1 to “walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called…” Notice that the Christian is called, and then they are to walk in a manner that reflects that calling. Indeed, one who is called will walk in a manner worthy of that calling, but one who walks in a worthy manner is not necessarily called. Being Godly is not about what you do; it is about who you are. A Godly person is one who has been called out by God and who, as the professor pointed out, therefore willingly submits to God’s ways.

one point of content that you found intriguing, interesting, thoughtful, novel in Lecture #6

The point that I found most engaging was the professor’s interpretation of Ephesians 4:17-19 and his 6-step digression. It’s interesting to me that spiritual sickness begins with the “vanity (futility) of your minds.” I was reminded from this that ideas have consequences. Bad actions stem from bad thoughts. A philosopher that I read fairly often, Peter Kreeft, once said: If you sow a thought you will reap an act. If you sow an act you will reap a habit. If you sow a habit you will reap a character. If you sow a character you will reap a destiny. I don’t think we put enough emphasis on the power of the subtlety of ideas. Ideas do indeed have consequences. It follows, therefore, that bad ideas have bad consequences. If you sow a bad thought you will reap a bad act. If you sow a bad act your will reap a bad habit. If you sow a bad habit you will reap a bad character. If you sow a bad character you will reap a bad destiny.

one point of content that you found intriguing, interesting, thoughtful, novel in Lecture #7

The professor made a good point in regards to the story of the prodigal son. Because of his unbelief the prodigal son was denigrated and forced to eat pig food. Unbelief can have stinging consequences, as the professor pointed out. Interestingly, these consequences are not necessarily something that the unbeliever considers in his choice to not believe. When talking with an unbeliever I always like to bring up Pascal’s Wager. Blaise Pascal understood that a failure to believe in God would have damning consequences. Therefore, he argued that it is better to believe than to not believe. Although I don’t think that fear of the consequence is a sufficient condition to believe in God; nevertheless, I do think that it does add credence to a cumulative case that belief in God is more reasonable than non-belief. Just like my fear of my fathers belt was not a sufficient condition for me to obey him; nevertheless, it did add credence to the cumulative case that obeying my father was more reasonable than not obeying my father.

explain how it will/should change your future attitude toward your own need to develop spiritually

Everyone goes through trying times in their lives. The reason is simple; there is real sin in the world. The 3 R’s that the professor gave from Revelation 2:5 are a good formula to help us through these times. Remember “from where you have fallen,” Repent and Repeat “the deeds that you did at first.”

What are your thoughts?

I'll Bet You're Sinning

2006-03-06T14:01:00.000-08:00

I just took a friend of mine to the airport. He is one of those important businessmen who have to travel to exotic locations and stay in swanky hotels. His destination this time is Rhode Island (exotic?) and his swanky hotel this time turns out to be a casino.

On the drive to the airport, the subject of gambling came up, and my friend asked me if I had heard any good biblical arguments against gambling. We're not talking about gambling in excess, or as an obsession of any sort, just recreational gambling. I told him that I had only heard the typical fundamentalist arguments (which, by the way, go double for drinking and smoking).

"If you gamble a little, but you have a friend with a gambling problem who finds out about it, you might cause him to stumble." To which I always like to reply "What if you have sex with your wife, and your wife gets pregnant, and you have a friend who has a problem with sex and lust, and he finds out that you've been having sex (because your wife's tummy is growing), and you cause your friend to stumble?"

Or I've heard, "It's just a waste of money in any amount. All things are permissible, but not all things are profitable. It's poor stewardship." Okay, well so is ice cream, starbucks, and baseball games.

The other one I could think of was "If you gamble, you are supporting evil people who are trying to ruin poor peoples' lives by sucking them dry." But I think my reply to that would be "I suppose you're right. So when are you planning to stop using credit cards, watching television and movies, shopping at Target, or buying anything from anyone who has mass-marketed their product?"

So since my buddy asked me the question, and I couldn't answer it, I pose it to you: Are there any good biblical arguments against gambling?

Fidelity

2006-02-24T23:44:00.000-08:00

At Drewdog’s prompting and his lending to me Doug Wilson’s book ‘Fidelity’ (I was too cheap to buy it), I will throw out some thoughts about plural marriage in the Bible.

First of all, I was impressed by Doug’s honest look at the subject. Many things he says in the book are radical and unlike any I have ever seen in print. Here are a few examples:

The polygamist and all his wives, if they profess faith, should be received into the membership of the church.

Polygamy cannot be considered a sin in the same way that adultery is.

… the church should forbid leadership to polygamists and reluctantly tolerate membership for polygamists.

I think these statements are good, consistent statements that do justice to the whole counsel of scripture, not just isolated sections.

There are also some arguments he makes that are very common and orthodox, but may commit some fallacies.

“We should start by understanding that monogamy is required by Creation Norm” - Hasty Generalization, Non sequitor
Perhaps polygamy was not intended before the fall, but that is irrelevant. The fall altered everything, and this side of resurrection, we cannot truly regain what was lost in the Garden:
- Most Christians don’t live in nudist colonies.
- Most Christians are not Vegetarians (Or Vegans, Gen 1:29-30)
- Incest is not allowed today as it would have been at that time.
Adam and Eve's marriage as an archetype should extend only as far as other passages (i.e. Matt 19) point to the first marriage as an ideal.
It seems strange to me that the cornerstone of such a major doctrine depends primarily on interpretation of a narrative and not a clearer, didactic teaching passage.

“If polygamy were a positive good, there would be no reason to restrict it.” (referring to the OT Law) - False Dilemma?
Food and Drink is a positive good, but there are limits.
Sleep is good, but the sluggard or lazy person is foolish.

"When a man is polygamous, it puts him in a position where he can father more children than he can be a father to." - Slippery Slope and Contradiction
If children were a positive good, there would be no reason to restrict it. Fathering children, of course, is a positive good, but Doug is adding restrictions to fathering children.

“God Forbids polygamy in the ordinances of creation and redemption, but polygamy may be tolerated only among those not suitable for leadership in the church.”
Polygamy has always been sinful...most of the time...

Much, much more could be said, but I don't want this post to get too long.

I'll just close by saying that polygamy is a tricky subject to harmonize in Scripture, and Doug Wilson's piece is the best I have read from a mainstream Christian scholar.

As Requested

2006-02-19T22:00:00.000-08:00

Looking down Giles street, past the Giles' St. Cafe is the B & B.

Unfortunately, pubs being darkly decorated and dimly lit, pictures from the inside weren't useful with my camera. I think that means one thing if you want to see the inside...Road Trip!! Come on, what think ye? Let's get going.

Name that Place

2006-02-16T23:31:00.000-08:00

I have nothing pithy to say at the moment, so in honor of some of the pub's favorite authors, I thought I'd post a few pictures taken in 2004.

I'll let you guess the locations.

Textual Reliability¹Historical Reliability

2006-02-13T09:51:00.000-08:00

As Christians, we believe that we have good evidence to believe the New Testament was accurately copied (e.g. # of MSS; early dating of those MSS; and accuracy of those MSS). From this evidence, often times, some Christians assume that somehow this proves that the Bible is true and warrants our belief. Not everyone agrees with this. Some people, namely skeptics, claim that the New Testament was not accurately copied, that it contains too many errors. Therefore, some skeptics assume that the New Testament cannot be trusted, and therefore Christianity must be false. I think both of these cases are simply a case of "it doesn't follow." Consider:

1) Many skeptics have claimed that the New Testament is "full of errors" (200,000 of them) and cannot be trusted. From this claim, many people fear that if this were true then somehow Christianity must be false. Now, we know that this simply isn't true, the Bible isn't "full of errors" and in fact of all the textual variants that we have none of them affect a major doctrine.

This is beside the point, however. To say that Christianity must be false because there are 200,000 errors in the New Testament simply doesn't follow. Let's suppose that someone could prove all 200,000 errors. This would indeed invalidate the textual reliability of the New Testament, but this wouldn’t invalidate the historical reliability of the New Testament. There is still plenty of external evidence (e.g. archeology, early Christian writers, ancient secular sources)which would support the claims of Christianity. If these supposed errors were true it would only prove that we have an unreliable text.

2) After going through all of the evidence for the textual reliablity of the New Testament some think that this is enough to warrant belief in what the New Testament says. However, this is a category mistake since it (again) confuses textual reliability with historical reliability. The question isn't "Do you believe what the New Testament says?" but "Do you believe that the New Testament is accurately copied?"

What is my point? Perhaps it might be to make sure that you don't try and prove more than the evidence suggests. What are your thoughts?

Uncle Steve

2006-02-06T21:39:00.000-08:00

Well, one of the pub's best friends, Uncle Steve, just paid us all a visit out here on the left coast; and it was so good to see him and his family. Steve and his wife were recently blessed with a beautiful baby girl, and this was our first chance to meet her.

If you've ever met Steve, then you know that he always has a good story to tell, and his last visit did not disappoint. One anecdote that stuck with me was the following: Steve and his family, as well as his siblings, went to his parents' house for the holidays, as they do most years. When his sister first saw the newest addition to the family, she said to Steve, "Wow, she looks exactly like you." Steve replied, "Really?" His sister promptly added, "Oh don't worry, it looks good on her."

We miss you guys already.

Paulindromeemordniluap

2006-02-06T16:36:00.000-08:00

Hey Paulindrome, I know that you have some good things to say. Your deadline is up; therefore, please brew up some good thoughts and poor them out in a post soon. Noos tsop a ni tuo meht roop dna sthguoht doog emos pu werb esaelp, erofereht; pu si enildaed reuoy. Yas ot sgniht doog emos evah uoy taht wonk I, Emordniluap yeh.

Our Ultimate Hope

2006-02-02T10:06:00.000-08:00

What is the ultimate hope of the Christian? I’ll give you a hint; it’s not heaven. Now hear me clearly: I’m not saying that we don’t look forward to heaven (a term that will be fleshed out in later blogs); we do indeed. But the ultimate hope of the Christian is more than just the idea of heaven-- it is inextricably tied to Christ and His work. The ultimate hope of the Christian is resurrection. Consider Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 15:20-28:

But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death…. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

Paul here is saying that Christ is the type or model of every Christ follower. He is the first fruits. You’ll recall from the Old Testament that the practice of giving the first and best crop to God in thankfulness for his provision is always followed by the harvesting of the entire crop. In the same way, just as Christ (the first fruits) has been resurrected and glorified bodily, so shall we (the entire harvest) be resurrected bodily. Our hope is not that we will someday enjoy eternal disembodied bliss, floating around on clouds in the presence of God. Our hope has to do with the final and eternal defeat of sin and death, and the resurrection of all creation! I would like to emphasize here the point that eternity will not be less physical, it will me more physical. Let us not forget that God created the heavens and the earth, and everything therein, and it was very good. And when Christ returns, not only will we be resurrected, but there will be a redeemed heaven and earth. One way you can think about this is that not only do Christians get to go to heaven, but creation gets to go too.

In his book entitled, The Resurrection of the Son of God, N.T. Wright says of this text, “Paul is trying to teach the Corinthians to think eschatologically… of the way in which the future has already burst into the present, so that the present time is characterized by a mixture of fulfillment and expectation, of ‘now’ and ‘not yet’, pointing towards a future in which what happened at the first Easter will be implemented fully and the true God will be all in all” (333, Italics added).

May we be inspired by the truth that we are living between the First and Second Advent of Christ. May our prayer be that of Jesus; that His kingdom may come and His will be done on earth as it is in heaven. May our hope be the resurrection.

The King Is Appearing

2006-01-28T20:46:00.000-08:00

I am currently reading Paul: In Fresh Perspective by N. T. Wright. It appears that everyone who is faithfully reading this blog is, by now I am sure, at least some what familiar with the Bishop of Durham. Thus, I will probably make more assumptions than any non-regular would like. Nevertheless, I have been instructed to “keep this pithy.” So I will do my best. The following is not an argument per se; rather, it is my best summary of someone else’s argument. I am interested to hear your thoughts on the matter. Any mistakes or misunderstandings are due to solely to my ignorance.

In chapter three of his book Wright argues that Paul’s theology can be characterized as an “inaugurated eschatology.” That is, “a sense that God’s ultimate future has come forward into the middle of history, so that the church is living within—indeed, is constituted precisely by living simultaneously within!—God’s new world and the present one. The age to come has already arrived with Jesus; but it will be consummated in the future” (57).

Wright says we might view Paul’s theology as a “covenantal and apocalyptic theology.” This covenantal and apocalyptic theology can be understood as God having “unveiled his plan, his character, and not least his saving, restorative justice through the events concerning Jesus the Messiah, and would complete this revelation once for all at Jesus’ final appearing, his eventual royal presence” (57).

It’s important to understand that these are not mere assertions disguised by beautiful rhetoric. This is a conclusion from a very convincing argument that Wright has just laid out. Wright argues that this inaugurated eschatology can be found in Paul’s writings, particularly in his use of the word parousia and more particularly in his use of the word parousia in 1 Thessalonians 4.

Wright makes three points about this language of “coming.” First, he argues that the word parousia (usually interpreted as “coming”) actually implies “presence” as opposed to “absence.” This is understood more fully when one understands that in the cosmology of apocalyptic Judaism, heaven and earth are not “different locations within the same spatial continuum.” Rather, it is better to think of heaven and earth as “interlocking dimensions.” Thus, “what matters is not Jesus’ ‘coming’ as though from a great distance, but his ‘personal presence,’ or indeed ‘royal presence’ since this is how parousia was often used in relation to the emperor or other monarchs.” Wright argues, and I agree as I have recently discovered this myself, that Col. 3:4 and 1 John 3:2 use a better verb (phaneroo) to refer to this same event. The verb means “to appear,” and thus the verb used to refer to this same event is not “when he arrives,’ but ‘when he appears’—when he is unveiled, when, in the coming apocalyptic moment, the final secret of the world, already announced in the gospel, is made clear to all people, when every knee shall bow at his name.” This parousia is not a secret event, but it is a glorious revelation!

Second, Wright argues that 1 Thessalonians 4 should not be treated as if it predicts a rapture in which “God’s people will be caught up literally into mid-air, leaving homes, cars and family behind and escaping for ever the space-time world as it goes spinning off to its doom.” Rather, 1 Thessalonians 4 was meant to comfort the mourners of those who had already fallen asleep. Consequently, “Paul’s main aim is to insist that those who have died, and those who are still alive when Messiah appears in his royal presence, will together inherit the new age which he will usher in.”

Third, Wright beautifully argues that the parousia discussed in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 “evokes the scene…of a king or emperor paying a state visit to a city or province. As he approaches, the citizens come out to meet him at some distance from the city, not in order then to hold a meeting out in the countryside, but to escort him into the city. ‘Meeting the Lord in the air’ is not a way of saying ‘in order then to stay safely away from the wicked world.’ It is the prelude to the implied triumphant return to earth where the Messiah will reign, and his people with him, as Lord, savior and judge.” Wright insists that we must keep this context of imperial rhetoric alive. What Paul is arguing is that “Jesus the Messiah claims to be the reality of which Caesar’s empire, with all its trappings, is simply a parody.”

“The age to come has already arrived with Jesus, but it will be consummated in the future. The church must order its life and witness, it holiness and love, along that access.”

Forgive me for not keeping this pithy. I suppose I am not a pithy person…just ask my wife!

New Feature

2006-01-25T12:51:00.000-08:00

We've added a new feature to the pubsite which will hopefully make your sampling of our brews a bit easier. You'll notice at the bottom of each post the words, "Read more." In order to keep you from having to scroll and scroll to get through our longer posts, we have truncated them on the main page. If the post you're imbibing tickles your fancy, and you'd like to take in the whole imperial pint, click on the "Read more" link at the bottom and you'll be redirected to the entire post.

Test it out by clicking on the words below this post:

Congratulations, by clicking the "Read more" link, you have just installed the Gullible Blogger Virus, and in order to clean it off your computer you must leave a tip within the next 45 seconds or your computer will self-destruct. Have a nice day.

Beware of Philosophy?

2006-01-25T11:12:00.000-08:00

The following are some initial thoughts toward a passage of scripture which I am going to prepare a sermon from for one of my classes. Your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated and perhaps considered as I prepare my outline.

In Colossians chapter 2 beginning in verse 8 Paul begins to give several warnings to the cosmopolitan church at Colossae. He begins by warning them to beware of philosophy and empty deceit which follows the tradition of men and the elementary principles of the world, and thus stands opposed to Christ (is this a good summary?).

When I was a kid I used to pass out flyers to homes for my father’s business. Whenever I would go near a house, the first thing I would look for was the notorious sign (usually found on the fence) “Beware of Dog.” Now, when I saw this sign I would immediately jump into my fight or flight mode. I would purposefully remain completely aware of my surroundings hoping (no, praying) that some huge dog wasn’t going to bust through the fence and come running after me. However, it’s important to understand that just because a house had the infamous sign doesn’t mean that I avoided the house altogether. Rather, I simply was cautious in my approach.

I believe that Paul is making a similar point. Paul is telling us to (blepo) watch out, be alert, be discerning, pay careful attention. Paul uses this word in 1 Cor. 1:26 to say “consider your calling.” In other words, weigh the evidence; don’t jump into this blindly. For the same reason that we don’t blindly walk up to a fence that says “Beware of Dog,” we shouldn’t approach philosophy in this manner either.

There have been a lot of poor interpretations of this text. Many have written that Paul is telling us to stay away from philosophy, and by philosophy usually these people mean Philosophy. That is, philosophy as a discipline or as a means of gaining knowledge. I don’t think Paul is saying that we should avoid Philosophy. First of all Paul is not referring to philosophy in the etymological sense. For indeed if he were, this would be a contradiction to other passages of scripture which teach that wisdom is something to be sought after and gained. Indeed, wisdom (sophia) and right-mindedness (phronesei), along with redemption, is something which God has freely given to those whom he has predestined before the “laying down” (kataboles) of the world (cf. Eph 1:4-8). Further, this would render his statement self-refuting since he is arguing that we need to use wisdom to avoid the search for wisdom. In other words, it is self-refuting to assert that we should be discerning about avoiding discernment. It’s like saying “Watch out, you should never write a sentence that contains more than three words.”

If Paul is not referring to Philosophy then what is he referring to? He is referring to a specific philosophy. Namely, philosophy which is empty and deceptive. This empty and deceptive philosophy is philosophy which is patterned after the “tradition of men” and the “elementary principles of the world.” Notice two things. First, this philosophy is patterned after “tradition.” Paul goes on to talk about this tradition which we might broadly refer to as “legalism.” Second, this philosophy is patterned after the elementary principles of the world which Paul goes on to talk about, and we might broadly refer to these elementary principles as “Gnosticism.”
It is these two kinds of philosophies which stand opposed to Christ and therefore warrant our utmost caution and care. Good philosophy should take “every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.” This really is the issue. Paul is not commanding us to avoid Philosophy, but he is warning us to beware of philosophy which ultimately does not “seek the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God” (Col. 3:1).

Of course, I can keep going but I think that this will suffice. Comments, corrections, and contributions are desired and welcomed.

Andrew's Top 5 Beers

2006-01-24T16:57:00.000-08:00

In an effort to keep the conversation here light (unlike good beer), I'm posting my 5 favorite beers (in no particular order) and why I love them:

1. Shiner Bock- crisp, refreshing, and surprisingly full of flavor. This beer is perfect for drinking on the patio (barbecuing is optional) with compatriots on a hot summer day... or any day for that matter.

2. 1554 Black Ale- full bodied, packed with flavor (with a finish that reminds me of coffee/peanut butter; trust me, it's good). This is a great beer to enjoy in the pub with friends after a long day of work.

3. BJ's Jeremiah Red- bitter and sweet at the same time, full-bodied, refreshing; in a word, superb. I love drinking this beer while enjoying BJ's Buffalo Chicken Pizza. My mouth waters just thinking about it.

4. Belhaven Scottish Ale- creamy, smooth, with a finish that lasts and lasts. I enjoy this beer with any meal, but it especially compliments a good plate of fish and chips.

5. Young's Oatmeal Stout- Dark, thick, and sweet. This is a great stand alone beer; perfect for warming you up on a cold winter's eve.

I could go on and on (I hate to leave out Pyramid Snow Cap & Amberweizen, Buffalo Bill's Ricochet Red, XX Amber, BJ's Tatonka Stout, Smithwicks, Downtown Brown, Pete's Wicked Ale, etc.), but I need to stop somewhere.

Let us know your what your favorite beers are and why by leaving a tip!

Reformed Catholocism

2006-01-20T22:16:00.000-08:00

On my personal blog, I recently lamented the current state of the catholic (notice the lowercase "c") Church with all its division and infighting. In case you were wondering, I wrote the word "infighting" on purpose, even though I realize that most fundamentalists refuse to believe that members of, say, the eastern orthodox church are "in" with them. When I hear this kind of talk, it brings up the image in my mind of a family sitting around the table, with the little brother who thinks he's always right telling his older brother to get up from the dinner table and go eat outside, and that he really isn't even a part of the family; he doesn't belong there. My response is 1) this isn't helpful, and 2) it isn't necessarily true.

With all of these thoughts constantly on my mind as of late, I wanted to plug a blog that I think is working hard to reunite the Church. They don't think they have all of the answers, but they know what to pray for: unity. Anyway, if you would like to see what others are doing to try and reunite the Church in the Truth, check out Reformed Catholicism, and then come back here and let me know what you think of it.

Emerging Armor

2006-01-18T09:18:00.000-08:00

Finally, be passionate in the Lord, and in the transparency of His authenticity. Put on the authentic accoutrement of God, that you may be able to appear relevant within the spirit of the age. For our struggle for relevance is not against flesh and blood, but against steeples, against propriety, against the dry doctrines of denominations, against the spirit of inauthenticity within our stodgy churches. Therefore, take up the accoutrement of God, that you may be able to be passionate at the coffee shop, and having done everything, to appear relevant. Be relevant therefore, having pierced your eyebrow with the mark of latent rebellion, and having recently ordered a double-shot vanilla latte, and having put on your lower leg the preparation of a tattoo; in addition to all, taking up your copy of The Emerging Church, with which you will be able to extinguish all the inauthentic non-missional impulses of submergent critics. And take the BlackBerry of connectedness and the iPod of background noise which is “word up, Dog.”

Ephesians 6:10-17 (sort of)

NEWSFLASH

2006-01-17T17:48:00.000-08:00

I'm excited to annouce (alright, I'm actually giddy!) that the Great Roberino (may he live forever) has decided to join the Blinklings. The word on the street is that he's actually going to post something tomorrow; so be sure to check back soon! Until then, let me entertain you with a poem that best articulates my thoughts at the moment:

Rob, Rob, Rob, Rob
R-O-B-E, Rob....
D'oh!

Collect of the Day: Second Sunday after the Epiphany

2006-01-16T11:30:00.000-08:00

Almighty God, whose Son our Savior Jesus Christ is the light of the world: Grant that your people, illumined by your Word and Sacraments, may shine with the radiance of Christ's glory, that he may be known, worshiped, and obeyed to the ends of the earth; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

Morning Prayer Rite II, Book of Common Prayer

Freedom of the Will in Light of the Problem of Evil

2006-01-15T16:46:00.000-08:00

Ok, since it appears that we are lacking in sufficient posts to consider ourselves a blog (i.e. nobody is blogging), I have decided to publish a thought which I've been inspired to mull over the past few days. Consider:

I am pretty sure that most people are aware of the problem of evil with its many different arguments and subarguments. One such argument concerning the problem of evil is the argument something to the effect:

1. If God is all good then he would destroy evil.
2. If God is all powerful then he could destroy evil.
3. Evil has not been destroyed.
4. Therefore, this God doesn't exist.

There have been numerous responses to this argument. To be sure, some have denied that God is all good. Others have denied that God is all powerful. Still some have affirmed the existence of an all good and all powerful God while denying the existence of evil. Most Christians, however, affirm the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God and still maintain that evil exists. Traditionally there have been two counterarguments to this argument.

The first argument, let's call it (1), says that evil cannot be destroyed without destroying free will. And since free will is a necessary condition for love, and since love is the greatest good, then it follows that to destroy free will is to destroy the greatest good.

The second argument, let's call it (2), says that the original argument places an unnecssary time constraint on God. That is to say, just because evil has not been destroyed it doesn't follow that evil will not one day be destroyed. And indeed if God is all powerful then it follows that he can destroy evil, and if God is all good then it follows that he will destroy evil. Most Christians believe that this will happen on the final judgment day.

Now, for the sake of the argument lets suppose that all of us affirm both of these counterarguments. Let's say that we believe both of these counterarguments are valid arguments...

Question: Does it follow that when God destroys evil, let's say on the day of judgment, our free will will also be destroyed as well?

Let me clarify; if, as argument (1) shows, to destroy evil is to destroy free will then does it follow that when God destroys evil, as argument (2) assumes, God will destroy our free will as well?

If this is the case then does it follow that on the final judgment day God will not only destroy evil, but he will also destroy the greatest good; namely, love?

The Blinklings

2006-01-11T14:49:00.000-08:00

Welcome to a blog devoted to discussing mere Christianity, and of course, drinking beer.