Sunday, December 31, 2006
A few new years resolutions should help me pick up the pace a bit on my blogging. I'm aiming to finish at least 1 solid book a month this year. By solid, I intend several things: 1) Over 200 pages in length 2) Not written by Tom Clancy or in a genre he might inspire 3) Not written by Mark Driscoll nor containing any of the language so common to his vernacular (this might also rule out Luther's Stein and Thomas Colloquims). Also I want to get back up to at least 3-4 regular posts a week. An additional resolution here is for les typos fore Logan to profreed this yaer :-) Here's to a new year of substantive blogging!
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Anyway, this rant is sourced in the ridiculously slanted piece of so called journalism in the aforementioned latest edition of USNWR. While this periodical is typically fairly conservative politically (at least relatively speaking), they apparently could use a new religion editor. The article is punctuated with slanted phrases like "In that struggle -- arguably the most improtant waged by self-styled correct believers againt the so-called-heretics," "soldiers of orthodoxy," "the prominent second century hersy hunter, Bishop Irenaeus" and a picture of NT Wright in full clerical garb and an somber expression that makes him look a morbid misanthrope (or perhaps the 20th century heir to Irenaeus, the heresy hunter).
To be fair, I still need to finish the article, though I've already skimmed the remainder of it. However, the opening few pages had me so heated, I thought I'd vent a few words online. These issues have been on my front burner in recent days as I've been reading through Jesus and the Victory of God and am anticipating dipping into Bauckham's most recent treatise soon. Furthermore, due to a recent rebuke from reading Euangelion, I've been wading my way through some of the apocryphal and gnostic literature (Tobit, 1 Maccabeas and the Gospel of Thomas in the last few days). Anyway, all of this has put me in the frame of mind to want to gag while reading this sort of yellow journalism parading itself in the name of objective reporting. Instead, the article is guilty of the very sort of ideological imperalism that it accuses early orthodox christianity of. Nevertheless, it affirms the necessity of familiarizing oneself with the extra-canonical (if you'll excuse such a subversive, repressive term) literature. These issues are becoming more and more common in mainstream media and it is only fitting that believers have an informed answer.
**Postscript - I finished the article and it ends with more substance than it begins. There are some good quotes from Wright and Luke Timothy Johnson. However, the conclusion does not salvage the first half in such a way to make me retract anything I've said above.
Friday, December 08, 2006
I thougth it may be easier and more helpful to respond to you via email. I hope all is going well, and look forward to seeing you in a week or two!
Regarding the "election" of the unsaved:
This is a VERY touchy area theologically. My view is different from most at CBTS, but I'll describe both. The question is essentially "Does God elect people to damnation in the same way that He elects people to salvation." I say "yes" but be advised I'm in a SMALL minority. Most, even the most Calvinists say "no."
Those who say no, even the calvinists typically describe this topic (commonly referred to as reprobation) in terms of God "passing over" those He hasn't elected. In other words, some He chooses to salvation and this is CLEAR from Scripture (remember Ephesians 1?). The rest, He simply doesn't choose...that is, He leaves them to go their own way, in there depravity. Without His intervention, they naturally don't choose Him (Rom 1:18, 3:11) and thus spend an eternity under His condemnation. Since scripture does NOT explicitly say that He elects them to damnation, this option supposedly provides what theologians refer to as a theodicy, that is a justification or vindication of God. I infer (perhaps they imply) that it would be morally wrong, or evil of God to elect people to damnation; entirely capricious. Since it is all of grace that He chooses ANY to salvation, He is not compelled to choose all; hence those He doesn't choose, will never choose Him.
The problem I have here is that I'm not convinced this "vindicates" God (as if we had to). [Editorial note - My wife's somewhat less theologically nuanced, though equally satisfying response to this argument was: "That's stupid! It doens't solve anything."] If He COULD have done something and He DIDN'T, I don't see how this makes Him anymore benevolent or less capricious. Furthermore, I think there are at least two scripture passages that have direct bearing here:
Romans 9:17-23 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth." 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.....22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory...
1 Peter 2:6-8 For this is contained in Scripture: "Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner stone, And he who believes in Him shall not be disappointed." 7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe. But for those who disbelieve, "The stone which the builders rejected, This became the very corner stone," 8 and, "A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed.
These verses are pivotal for me. I emboldened the most significant phrases, but in the larger context, they are even that much more persuasive. To be sure, others don't ignore these texts and would offer up alternate interpretations or ways of getting around them. Bottome line: you must wrestle with the texts and correlate them into your understanding of the doctrine of God. The reason why it's such a touchy issue is because of what some people infer (which is different from imply) from this doctrine. Many think to come to the conclusion that I do is to impune God with with evil actions or motives. However, it comes back to your understanding of sovereignty (which is a worldview shaping doctrine). Here's a quote from Karl Barth that I recently posted on my blog (be forewarned though, quoting Barth at [his college] won't do much but get you in more trouble :-)
"From the act of atonement that has taken place in Jesus Christ, it is clear that in evil we do not have to do with a reality and power which have escaped the will and work of God, let alone with something that is sovereign and superior in relation to it. Whatever evil is, God is it's Lord."
That last statement in bold is fantastic and thoroughly biblical. I grant you this is a short and perhaps slanted response, but that's the nature of email. Let me know if you have more questions or if there are other texts in particular that you're wrestling with. Of course none of this rules out moral responsibility. Yes we do make genuine choices that have eternal consequences, but NONE of this is outside of the sovereign control of God. "Whosoever will may come?" Yes. But be sure to balance it with "No one comes unless the Father draws them" (John 6:44). There is a tension to be sure, but who ever said theology was easy? :-)
PS, I think I'm going to post a copy of this on my blog, if you don't mind. You've raised an excellent question that I think is worth wrestling with in a public context.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Post Tenebras Lux
Translated from Latin, the phrase means "after darkness, light" and was one of the battle cries of the Reformation (and there would probably be a little double entendre if it were to be scripted on my arm). Google it if you want to see more. The problem? I don't think I just want a script. So I'm looking for some good ideas for a symbol to put it on or with. Think in terms off it being on a shoulder. I've surfed the web for some ideas and come up wanting. A cross is about the only offering and unless it was a decent graphic, crosses may be overdone. So, any ideas?
Friday, November 24, 2006
"Our species survival depends on how fast we embrace the moral shift from 'patriot' to 'global citizen.'" - Chris Anderson, creator of TED a conference of leading thinkers in technology, entertainment and design.
The "tweaks" are probably fairly obvious: I'm not too concerned about the survival of our species. But if you were to christianize the thought - that is, sift it through a christian worldview - I would posit it something like: "Our stewardship of the Gospel demands we embrace the moral (or perhaps cultural) shift from patriot to global citizen. " In other words, the world around us is rapidly making such paradigmatic shifts, of course largely as a result of technology. Sadly, too many believers have confused Christianity with Americanism and resist such shifts. The result is that much of the American church is behind this shift, rather than leading on the cutting edge of it. After all, Christianity is NOT about baseball, the fourth of July and apple pie. Sure, America is a GREAT place to live; but as believers we should have long ago recognized our place as global citizens. Our citizenship is not of this world, but to be sure we will inherit the earth. Thus, we ought to be global citizens in the truest sense of the word. After all:
"And they sang a new song: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth." -Revelation 5:9-10
Saturday, November 18, 2006
However, don't let his apparent interest deceive you; he only sat still long enough for me to read him about a page and a half. After that his attention could only be maintained through other means...
I've been out of the blogosphere for a little over a week due to internet problems (those dang neighbors need to upgrade their connection). Things seem to be back on course now, and I should be back to regular blogging (whatever that is) soon.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
"From the act of atonement that has taken place in Jesus Christ, it is clear that in evil we do not have to do with a reality and power which have escaped the will and work of God, let alone with something that is sovereign and superior in relation to it. Whatever evil is, God is it's Lord."
- (IV/1 p. 408 as cited in Webster, Barth, p. 125)
I LOVE IT!!! however, you want to define evil, metaphysically or ontologically or however else you want of speak of it...whatever else you want to say about the the nature and existence of evil in this world -- it does not, cannot escape the dominion of Jesus. God IS it's Lord!
Sunday, October 29, 2006
(HT: Dave Griffiths)
Friday, October 27, 2006
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Galatians 3:14-16 Through the work of Christ Jesus, God has blessed the Gentiles with the same blessing he promised to Abraham, and we Christians receive the promised Holy Spirit through faith. 15 Dear brothers and sisters,1 here's an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or amend an irrevocable agreement, so it is in this case. 16 God gave the promise to Abraham and his child. And notice that it doesn't say the promise was to his children, as if it meant many descendants. But the promise was to his child -- and that, of course, means Christ.
Galatians 3:26-29 So you are all children1 of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 And all who have been united with Christ in baptism have been made like him. 28 There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female. For you are all Christians -- you are one in Christ Jesus. 29 And now that you belong to Christ, you are the true children of Abraham. You are his heirs, and now all the promises God gave to him belong to you.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Why is this significant? Because issues of style and culture affect how you live your life, how you worship God, and how you will be perceived by lost people in your culture. In practical terms, your cultural preferences help determine the way you dress, where you live, what you drive, the enterntainment you enjoy, whom you trust , what friends you have, and how you perceive and communicate the gospel.
-The Radical Reformission, p. 101 (emphasis mine)
I was captured by this quote because I realized this is the danger of overdeveloping a Christian subculture. To be sure, believers and the the Church are to be a countercultural presence in the world, but unfortunately many fundamental and yes, even conservative evangelical churches have confused this with creating a subculture. Most of our time is spent with Christians: Our friends and kids' friends are christian, we read christian books, listen to christian music, watch christian movies, go to christian mechanics, buy from christian sellers (real estate, cars, etc) and speak christianeze, etc. The dress and worship style of many churches in this category is a continuation of the 1950's leave it to beaver with few variations. What's wrong with all this? Well, for starters, it may mean that we're not taking risks by rubbing shoulders with unbelievers, but that's another post. More importantly, we are so insulated from the culture we have little idea how to contextualize the gospel in our culture(s). We have learned and perpetuated the christian subculture in our attempt to avoid worldliness (which we should avoid) but largely because we have misunderstood what worldliness is. As a result we fail to be countercultural, because we are so out of touch with our culture. I would suggest this represents a fundamental misunderstanding (if not inversion) of what it means to be "in the world, but not of the world" or "light in the darkness." The solution? Repent and resurge (to put it in Driscollian terminology).
Monday, October 09, 2006
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Friday, September 29, 2006
Receited a number of times, at crucial moments throughout the film, the thematic proposition was not exactly subtle. At length it goes:
‘Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond imagination. It is our light more than our darkness which scares us. We ask ourselves – who are we to be brilliant, beautiful, talented, and fabulous. But honestly, who are you to not be so?
You are a child of God, small games do not work in this world. For those around us to feel peace, it is not example to make ourselves small. We were born to express the glory of god that lives in us. It is not in some of us, it is in all of us. While we allow our light to shine, we unconsciously give permission for others to do the same. When we liberate ourselves from our own fears, simply our presence may liberate others.’
While some have attributed this quote to Nelson Mandela, a bit of brief research on the internet inclines me to believe that he likely said it in a speech, but was citing Marianne Williamson in Return to Love: Reflections on a Course in Miracles.
There are two lines in the quote that I agree with: 1) [If] You are a child of God, small games do not work in this world. 2) We were born to express the glory of God that lives in us. However, the context of both of these sentences obviously invalidates them (unless I apply a post-modern hermeneutic, which may just be culturally acceptable). Yet, even here, my aim is not heavy theological analysis. It's the opening two sentences that really rub me the wrong way, primarily because they defy common sense and experience. Furthermore, they were the lines that stuck out the most in both the movie and its promotion. What I dont' understand is who in the world could fall for such nonsense? Show me ONE person in the world who does not fear that they are inadequate in some capacity. This is the essence of all insecurity. Besides that, what is there to fear in being omnipotent (if indeed one considered this a genuine trait of all human beings)? Are you starting to see where the title of the post comes from?
Anyway, that's my rant. No epistemologically rigorous worldview analysis here, no theological sparring, just a rant. Don't misunderstand me, if you haven't seen it, I'd encourage you to rent it. Wholesome, feelgood movies are few and far between. Just be aware that it is put out by Starbucks Entertainment. Thus, it's kind of like Starbucks: tastes great, but philosophically less filling. In other words, I love their coffee and atmosphere, but I reject much of their worldview. So it is with Akeelah and the Bee.
Monday, September 25, 2006
"What, then, is it to understand the Bible? As the Yale school has pointed out, there are many 'spirits' of understanding--historical, literary, sociological. The Christian understanding, however, is the one that follows the Word. 'Following' has at least two senses. We can follow an argument, or an explanation , or directions, or a story. But the other sense of following is the kind Jesus wanted when he said, 'Follow me.' The difference is, I think, the same as between explanation and application. The meaning of the Bible's promises, warnings, commands and so forth 'lies plain before their eyes,' but the are suppressed in unrighteousness. The most profound kind of understanding, however, has to do with cultivation of the ability to follow the Word of God, not just in our reading but in personal response to what we have read. 'One who understands a text will be able to make use of the text in ways that demonstrate--and in some sense constitute--understanding.'* Understanding is our ability to follow the Word."
-First Theology p. 228
* Wood, Formation of Christian Understanding, p. 17
Saturday, September 16, 2006
"...perceptions, not total descriptions, pointing beyond themselves toward the greater mystery of God Himself."*
This does not imply that they are not accurate or adequate; rather only that they are not exhaustive in their articulation. After all, this is really nothing more than a corollary of the hermeneutical spiral (you could even say a necessary corollary, but that's a whole nuther issue). Perhaps a greater appreciation for this observation would foster greater unity in the body.
* From Genesis of Doctrine, p. 17 as cited by Kevin Vanhoozer in First Theology p. 148.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Monday, September 11, 2006
(HsO: Justin Taylor)
* Since there was a hat tip to Taylor on the last post and it seems terribly lazy blogging to generate two consecutive posts that are recapitulations of someone elses link, I put an HsO. The link was just too good not to post and I DEFINATELY wasn't going to just link to Wilson as if I had stumbled across it randomly online. HsO you ask? If HT is a hat tip, then HsO is hat's off to Taylor for his recomendation on this one :-)
Sunday, September 10, 2006
On the other hand...the SBC drifts towards fundamentalism? Maybe so. If the position on alcohol didn't convince you, check out this story.
(HT: Justin Taylor)
Friday, September 08, 2006
Okay, so most of the above paragraph was dramatic overstatement dripping with sarcasm as well. In fact, I think a family blog will be kind of fun and I know the grandparents are thrilled :-) It's actually a blog that I've been using for the last several months strictly for posting pictures for use online. Then it kind of morphed into a storage site for pictures of the baby so that family could see the lastest shots (it's actually easier/more efficient to blog them than it is to email them). That may help explain the web address as well as why the archives go back so far when he's only six weeks old today. I decided to just transpose it into a family blog by cleaning it up a bit and giving it a name. In fact, family blog may be a bit of an overstatement, since most if it will be devoted to stories about and pictures of the little stud. Anyway, I'm putting a link in the margin with the other blogs, but if you're interested you can check it out here.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Thursday, August 31, 2006
10. 50% of the population does NOT know what a "spouse" is.
9. Apparrently the other 50% that do, think it sounds remarkably similar to "cell phone."
8. It doesn't sound as cool as you think when on your answering machine you try and make it sound like it's really you an not just a recording.
7. You are the only person in the world that thinks it's cute to let your child record the message on your answering machine in gibrish.
6. A surprising number of people think that credit card collectors don't actually realize what day it is when they call on Sunday.
5. An even greater number of people who don't think you should call them on the Lord's day, have absolutely no problem taking His name in vain when the tell you as much.
4. Despite what you may think, people actually will set up a check by phone in the tub, on the john and with the police waiting outside (I speak from experience here).
3. Strangely, not everyone knows what "personal" means when it's used to modify the phrase "business matter".
2. Hanging up DOESN'T actually stop the calls (for the uninitiated - it increases them :-)
and finally, the number one lesson I've learned as a professional collector is one I had already learned during my stint in construction:
#1 The "F-word" can be employed as any part of speech if the customer's angry enough (verb, noun, adjective, preposition, etc...).
Now THAT was cathartic :-)
Friday, August 25, 2006
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
A Guest Post by Annalisa Wilson
1) One book that changed your life: To avoid repetition of Desiring God, I’ll go with another – my dad’s Greek NT. I couldn’t actually read it at the time, but because I wanted to so badly, it changed my life. Books that changed my theology: Ladd’s Coming of the Kingdom, and Edwards’ Religious Affections.
2) One book you’ve read more than once: I was obsessed with Victor Hugo in Jr. High and High School and subsequently read Les Miserables four times, I think.
3) One book you’d want on a desert island: Can’t decide between NASB or NLT. At first I thought I’d go with G and opt for a Morse code manual or survival guide of some kind. But then I got realistic and realized that I’m so wimpy that my chances are slim even with such assistance. So I’d rather prepare for death than pathetically delay it.
4) One book that made you laugh: I’m sure there’s been others, but most recently My Life in France, a posthumous memoir by Julia Childs about a big Texan girl who grew up on roast beef and canned vegetables moving to France as a newlywed. I laughed out loud in B&N and embarrassed myself.
5) One book that made you cry: Mary Pipher’s Reviving Ophelia: Saving the Selves of Adolescent Girls. Also embarrassed myself in B&N with this one, but by crying. Anyone with a daughter needs to read this book. I also remember crying through Sing Me to Heaven a theology PhD student’s memoir of her husband’s death from AIDS.
6) One book you wish had been written: A Theology of Femininity: Bringing 1 Tim 2, Priscilla, Junia and Prophetesses Together by Paul. I would actually give everything I own, lose a limb, maybe even my life to bring this into existence. (which would actually be pointless, because then I could just ask Paul…)
7) One book you wish had never been written: Tragedy of Compromise. Grrr…
8) One book you’re currently reading: The Price of Motherhood, a Pulitzer-prize-winning-economist’s look at my future job, Blue Like Jazz, on and off, because I want to see what all the fuss is about, and about 25 various volumes on the Sermon on the Mount as class prep (which Joel Dailey will probably take my husband for ransom for soon…)
9) One book you’ve been meaning to read: Wright’s Resurrection of the Son of God and anything by Driscoll. I’m wondering if I can fit both a baby and Resurrection on a boppy… can you ask Dawn about that for me? =)
Post Script: Sorry, but Dawn said, "Don't count on it, at least during the first 3 weeks! See if you can get it on audio." :-)
Sunday, August 20, 2006
*Post Script: Before you get too excited, it looks like most of them are power point slides. I thought only dispensational fundamentalists pulled that :-)
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Friday, August 18, 2006
Friday, August 11, 2006
We were discussing Paul's prayer at the end of Chapter 1 recently, and I brought his attention to the inheritance in verse 18. The text reads:
pefwtisme,nouj tou.j ovfqalmou.j th/j kardi,aj Îu`mw/nÐ eivj to. eivde,nai u`ma/j ti,j evstin h` evlpi.j th/j klh,sewj auvtou/( ti,j o` plou/toj th/j do,xhj th/j klhronomi,aj auvtou/ evn toi/j a`gi,oij
- Ephesians 1:18
A few interpreters have emphasized the fact that the inheritance spoken of here is His inheritance, not ours. Personally, I think the syntax is flexible and could go either way (even in English). Without going into a detailed argument let me briefly give you my thought on the matter. First of all, every other time Paul speaks of an inheritance in Ephesians and Colossians (Eph 1:11, 1:14, 5:5,
Monday, August 07, 2006
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Two of my favorite authors going at it over one of my favorite topics to study!
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
*Interestingly enough this means I like Greg Boyd's statements (Never thought I'd be typing those words); at least as quoted by McKnight (I didn't read Boyd's article -- once again my political lethargy surfaces).
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Yesterday morning I rolled into the hospital around 9 am in order to help Dawn get her stuff together and bring our new born bundle of joy home. I arrived just as she finished feeding the little man and was preparing to shower. Of course this provided the perfect opportunity for father son bonding and I scooped the little guy into my lap. Shortly thereafter, I noticed a ripe aroma wafting under my nostrils. I thought it might be something in the trash can and it soon dissipated only to return a few minutes later. As I looked around the room, I lovingly and tactfully queried my bride: "Honey, was that you?" She assured me it wasn't. Shortly thereafter, I heard a squeaking noise and assumed it was Noah's foot rubbing against his diaper. That is, until my senses were barraged a third time with an odiferous assault. I looked down at the little guy sitting in my lap with his head by my knees and the business end by my waist and began to consider the precarious position I had placed myself in. I asked the mother of my child what she had eaten recently, only to discover that her breakfast had consisted of a cinnamon roll, cheerios and...you may have guessed it already...EGGS.
Now I'm well versed in firearms safety owning several guns myself (SKS, 12 ga. pump, Glock 23 and a Colt .22). I know that you never look down the barrel of a gun and you always assume it's loaded. Yet here I was with the little one locked and loaded and the buisness end just under a foot from my face and he had been poppin' off SBD's all morning (Silent But Deadly for the uninitiated). I hadn't previously considered this possibility; call me weird, but it never occured to me that a little person only 36 hours old could fart, let alone do so repeatedly with a sent that hits you like a brick wall. But I had to come to grips with the facts: My wife had born me an 8lb 20 inch farting machine. I laid down the law for my darling wife, who was quick to agree: No more eggs until he's weaned! It took him the better part of the day to fully empty himself out and it was not a pleasant process, to say the least. Lesson learned and please learn from our mistakes.
I thought I'd bring this piece of hortatory narrative to a close by forming an inclusio of sorts. I point you back to the picture that I opened with. Were you oooohing and aaaahing about his increasing cuteness? While I did want to offer a more current picture, I think it is now appropriate to introduce the fuller meaning/significance of the picture. Let's just say the shutter wasn't all that was going off when I snapped this picture : -) Now that's what I call sensus plenior.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Next, the big stud...okay, the Daddy and the little stud:
And of course, our first family portrait:
Finally, the little stud all by himself, posing no less :-)
Check the guns and the neck! It's already been predicted that he's going to take after his Dad and be a wrestler (spare the singlet comments Baylor :-) Furthermore, his personality in the nursery brought to mind that melodic refrain from the great poet/philosopher George Thorougood:
On the day I was born, the nurses all gathered round...to gaze with wide wonder and the joy they had found. The head nurse spoke up....said leave this one alone....they could tell right away...I was bad to the bone!
Yes, when I got him out of the nursery, the nurse who works in there was all too happy to see him go. It appears he's a cute little bundle of depravity and he was throwing fits. However, he calmed right down in our room, so we like to think he just wanted to be with Mom and Dad.
Finally, the stats: Noah was born at Saturday July 29, 2006 at 4:17 pm weighing 8lbs even and measuring 20 inches. Feel free to visit us at Chesapeake General Sunday afternoon/evening!
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
In the odd event that anyone's still reading my blog, I thought I'd offer an explanation as to why I haven't posted anything in almost two weeks. Really there's no legitimate excuse other than to say that I've been lazy. This is my first time online in the last week or so, and I haven't even been reading other blogs. Basically, we've just been taking it easy/getting ready for Noah. Sometimes those two things overlap and sometimes they don't. That is, sometimes we just take it easy (hang out at the beach for the day, go to a movie, sleep in 'till 11, etc) because we know we won't be doing some of those things again for the next few months (hence taking it easy is a way of getting ready for Noah). Other times, we're actively doing things to get our apartment ready (read ENTIRELY rearranging everything but the kitchen). In fact, our bedroom is beginning to resemble a library (all my books are in there now) and the rest of the apartment is beginning to look more like a nursery (see picture on the left). I'm convinced that though he remains to be born, he still has more places to sit (swing, car seat, pack and play, crib, basssonet, another car seat, several varieties of jumpy seats, etc) and more clothes than Dawn and I combined. The swing pictured above was a result of the cooperate efforts of me, Dawn and my Mom who was down for the baby shower (at which we and/or Noah were royally spoiled!).
My literary liasons have continued, much along the same lines. My latests trysts have included a few chapters out of The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Text?, a chapter and a half out of The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society, and more of a long term relationship with Babywise. This last selection is, of course, a volume born out of necessity (if you'll pardon the terrible but intentional pun :-) With Noah on the way, I thought it best to peruse a standard volume, and I only have two chapters left (I'm planning on finishing up on Friday). Ironically enough, I think this will be the first book I've finished this summer. Oh, well...
Speaking of the little, guy, Dawn has begun to have some mild contractions, though I doubt we'll see him before this weekend. If nothing happens by Friday night, the doctor plans on inducing her beginning at 6 am Saturday morning. So keep your eyes on Boanerges over the next few days. If we go early, I'll shoot out a brief post announcing the fact (my laptops coming to the hospital with us). More importantly, though Dawn refuses to let me liveblog the birth (even she draws the line somewhere), I will most certainly post pictures of the little guy within an hour or two of his birth. Ah, the wonders of modern technology...
Friday, July 14, 2006
Saturday, July 08, 2006
"The doctrine of the image of God in his human creatures was never the belief simply that humans were meant to reflect God back to God. They were meant to reflect God out into the world. In Romans 8, therefore, we see quite clearly what the end of this process will be: when God's people are finally renewed completely, in the resurrection, then the whole creation will itself be set freee from its bondage to decay, and share the glorious freedom of Gods' children. In the meantime, the mission of the church means announcing God's kingdom in all the world. Paul went about (according to Acts 17:7) saing that there was 'another king, namely Jesus'. He expects his followeres to do the same.
- WSPRS p. 148-149
"The critical thing is that the church, those who worship God in Christ Jesus, should function as a family in which every member is accepted as an equal member, no matter what their social, cultural, or moral background. The very existence of such a community demonstrates to the principalities and powers, the hidden but powerful forces of prejudice and suspicion, that their time is up, that the living God has indeed won the victory over them, that there is now launched upon the world a very different way of being human, a way in which the traditional distinctions between human beings are done away with."
"Clearly, the existence and flourishing of such a community is the thing that is going to reveal to the pagan world that the gospel of Jesus Christ is what it claims to be. That is why, when writing 1 Corinthians, Paul builds up his argument step by step showing at point after point the way in which this community is radically different from its pagan neighbors until at last he reaches chapter 13, when, like the chorale theme in Sibelius' 'Finlandia', the clear poetry and praise of love, agape, rings out, and we realize that this was all along the subtext of the entire letter:
Love is patient; love is kind;
love is not envious or boastful
or arrogant or rude.
It does not insist on its own way;
it is not irritable or resentful;
it does not rejoice in wrongdoing,
but rejoices in the truth.
It bears all things,
believes all things,
hopes all things,
endures all things...
- WSPRS p. 146-147
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Now I have remained loyal, thus far, to my plan with the dictionaries, having read a few select articles from both of them. However, this is hardly bibliomonogomy since it is a compilation of authors on a variety of topics. Neither volume requires a significant attention span. NTPG is about the only one I've stuck with to this point, but even that is a bit embarassing. I'm somewhere around page 150 (roughly a third of the way through the book). Sad to say, that means I've just completed the introduction, which isn't as bad as it sounds. 150 pages of introduction you ask? Remember, it's the introductory volume of a major project projected somewhere around six volumes I believe. Furthermore, much of what he is doing is clearing the field of anticipated objections of pagan critics in order to establish the methodology he will be employing the remainder of the series. Anyway, 150 pages isn't bad, though I refuse to disclose when I actually started it and in my defense, you have to remember its single spaced text is probably about a 7 point font and I'm a slow reader to begin with. Anyway more on NTPG to follow in subsequent posts - it has been excellent food for thought.
At this point you may think that my problem is with committment rather than promiscuity. However, I've neglected to point out that in the face of all of these unfinished and abandoned tomes I've aslo accquired a few new volumes. I'm a little over a third of the way through Jesus Creed (though I haven't read from that volume in a few weeks), I just began The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society a few days ago and have plans to begin The Right Doctrine From the Wrong Text, if Logan ever gets through with it. I have also flirted with a few additional texts in recent days including: Confessions of a Reformissionary, Reading the OT (by Barton - as recommended by Baylor), The Birth of Christianity, and The World is Flat. I'll spare you from detailing the trysts I've enjoyed, working my way throught the new release and religion sections at Barnes and Nobles on many a lunch break. I apologize if my imagery is too blogan for your taste. Perhaps I should seek counseling, but the bottom line is I'm a biblioinfidel.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Monday, June 26, 2006
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Gettin' pretty big huh (Noah, that is:-)? Since so many were impressed with my wife's gutsy willingness to let me post the last picture of her belly, I decided to see if I could talk her into another update. Here it is, with her permission of course, though the idea was definately mine and not hers. As her belly continues to grow, his kicks, cartwheels and sommeraults continue to get more powerful. Sooner or latter, he should get stuck in place for lack of room, but he's not there yet. His current hobbies include, keeping Dawn up all night, refusing to kick when people are watching and frequently employing Dawn's bladder as a trampoline. It's hard to believe that, Lord willing, it's just a little over a month until he'll be born. In some ways, it seems like we're not ready, while in other ways, we can hardly wait. For those interested I'll be live blogging the birth. Ooops...Dawn just read that over my shoulder, I guess I won't be live blogging the birth. Too bad, I know. I also thought I'd include a self portrait of the three of us (thanks to the timer on my dig. camera) below. As you can see, being out of school and working only 40 hours a week has been good for my tan, though Dawn's not too far behind, especially considering how light her complexion is. Since I'm not framing this summer, it's the first summer in 5 that I've had feet that were as brown as my legs.
Finally, for those of you who could care less about bellys and babies (in other words any guys reading this) I figured you could find consolation in the backdrop. The first picture above is the better of the two, for in it you'll find three of my most precioius worldy possesions 1) My wife 2) My son and 3) Most of the NT section of my library. And yes, that IS the order of importance.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
* Post script - When I was establishing the link to Goodacre's site, I noticed he too commends the article and posts some quotes from it. Now even Mihelis is vindicated...sort of.