Simpsonian Apologetics

This is actually the third attempt on this post, that is if you're reading it. Who knows, maybe it will actually be 5 or 6 by the time it posts. Anyway, you've probably heard of classical and presuppositional apologetics; the title of this post is not an attempt to offer a third alternative, but rather to answer the excellent question raised by Lyndsey in the comments section of the previous post. The ever present question..."What about the Simpsons?" In other words, the ensuing discussion is intended to be a defense of The Simpsons, more or less. I've actually never addressed this topic in a public forum and this seemed like an excellent opportunity to do so. After all, I am always ready to give an answer for the...well, never mind. I'll get right to the point: In order to "interpret" or appreciate The Simpsons, you have to recognize the show's genre. Are Bart and Homer terrible role models for our children? Yes. Definately. Of course. However, The Simpsons was never intended to be taken on par with Aesop's Fables or even Sesame Street. The show is straightforward, simple satire and nothing more. Virtually every episode I've ever seen (and I've seen a few, courtesy of syndication and double episodes on the WB) satires at least one (though typically more) aspect of contemporary culture. In fact, it's almost become a sort of status symbol to be mocked by the Simpsons. From political figures like Bush and Carter to pop cultural icons like The Rolling Stones and Tom Petty, numerous culture brokers have done cameos over the years, some more than once. Everyone from Steven Hawking to Steven Speilberg have been sketched into their episodes. Their primary tools for the satirical undertaking are sarcasm, irony and hyperbole (are their anyothers?). However, ignorance of the contemporary culture may cause viewers to miss these elements. In fact, I would suggest this is the primary reason there has been a reaction among fundamentalists and other social conservatives over the years. But stop and think: Homer is the quintissential portrait of a blue collar worker - wears blue jeans and a collared shirt everywhere; that is except when he's walking around in his tighty whiteys. Beer drinking, job sleeping, head of the household that's run by his wife. He is the essence of a blue collar worker - at least in a hyperbolic sense. He's a characterization and that's intentional. That's what satire's all about. And that's one of the reasons it's T.V.'s second longest running show (second to 60 Minutes I believe). One more good-diddly-ood example should suffice: you guessed it -- Ned Flanders. While the writers may not be believes (I don't know), they've certainly run into enough fundies to satire the fundamentalist christians. I've even heard good ole Ned leading his kids in songs we've sung in children's church. Is it malicious and satanic? NO! It's just satire. Get over it. Better yet, learn from it. They're exaggerating all the quirky things that different elements of society embody. I could go on with the doughnut eating Chief Wiggins, the philandering mayor of Springfield, Marge's two chain smoking single sisters, etc. So what's my point? Am I offering a full scale endorsement of The Simpsons? Of course not. I am suggesting, however, that you know and understand what you're condemning before you condemn it. And no, this logic doesn't lead to justifying porn; that's a ridiculous logical fallacy. Porn is not a liberty issue in Scripture; satire is. In fact, Jesus was willing to use some of the elements mentioned above in his own teaching. Finally, I do want to offer a few qualifications: 1) Don't be confused by the fact that The Simpsons is a cartoon -- it is not a children's show. Most kids don't have the intellectual tools and discernment to distinguish between fodder for emulation and satire. In fact, some adults don't either. 2) Even I think some episodes are in appropriate. Some of their religious satire deals with God and Jesus and crosses into what I would consider blasphemy. But it's satire right? Heck no! I shut these types of episodes off faster than you can say "Doh!" 3) Don't violate your conscience. If you think it's sin--Don't do it! That's my paraphrase of Paul in Romans 14. Life will go on just fine if you never see an episode of The Simpsons. However, know why you do what you do and don't do what you don't do. Above all, when trying to evaluate elements of culture, yes base it on Scripture. Duh. Obviously. But also make sure you understand the elements for what they are.

Heroes?

It's Sunday night and I've been sitting for the last hour and a half watching some of the Heroes marathon. While the title and some of the trailers mays suggest that it's an attempt to cash in on the age old superhero genre, the plot seems far more pomo. As I understand it, the show is taken from the graphic novel genre, which I readily admit I'm not too familiar with; nevertheless, two episodes have left me with what I think is a pretty good feel for the show. Amidst other things, it appears that the program is wrestling with/advancing the notion that contemporary heroes are not as perfect as those of bygone eras. Sure Superman had his kryptonite, but this isn't the type of weakness this show wrestles with. All the superhero's from my day (it's sad that I can date myself already) though they may have grappled with occasional physical infirmities, were upstanding at all time in their moral character. NBC's new program grapples with the darker side of their heroes. For example, the narrator of the storyline is a man who can see the future and is mapping out the fate of the characters through his paintings...which are composed during his heroin induced trips. Likewise, the wholesome cheerleader who apparently cannot die and gladly saves a stranger from a burning train wreck also kills the boy who tried to take advantage of her by racing his car (with him in the passenger seat) into a concrete wall at 80 plus miles per hour. The gentle Asian man who can stop time to save a young girl from being hit by a truck, also uses the same skills to beat the house in Vegas. I grant that it's still early in the season and perhaps these moral dilemmas will be righted...however, I suggest postmodernity has struck again...this time deconstructing the superhero. Either way, the show is certainly intriguing.

Taking Another Look at Galatians 3

Jessie Trach and I were talking recently about Galatians 3 and he raised some interesting questions that caused me to sit down and take a look at the text again. I found myself with my NLT in my lap as I flipped open to this familiar chapter, only to find that I saw it through different (fresh) eyes. As I looked at it a second time, I concluded that the primary things that caused me to see this text afresh throught the lenses of the NLT were the rending of seed as child and sons as children. Certainly both legitimate translations, from a functional perspective, this nuanced difference gripped me in a new way. Needless to say, by the time I was done in the text, I found myself "singing a different tune" about Father Abraham :-) I've included some of the more significant verses from the NLT below for your own reflection.

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.

My Latest Adventure

I just posted some pictures with my latest enjoyment of the "culture" over on our family blog. Rather than double post it, I figured I'd just post a link here.

The Danger of Creating a Christian Subculture

Since I praised Driscoll's books without end below, I thought I'd post a choice quote from the first installment (pictured at the right). Having noted how crucial it is that Christians understand and grapple with culture, he applies his observation with the following words:

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).

Finally Finished!

I've finally broken my pattern of philanderous reading habits and seen not one but two books through to the end! This past week I plowed through Driscoll's two books The Radical Reformission and Confessions of a Reformission Rev. I highly commend both to anyone interested in either culture or pastoral ministry. By the time I finished Confessions (which incidently, I read first, out of order) I was ready to jettison my post-grad plans and go plant a church somewhere....almost :-) Seriously, both are great reads that will leave you in stitches, convicted and probably at some point offended. Driscoll defines himself as theologically conservative and culturally liberal and it's certainly an apt description. The man loves Jesus and is not afraid to take risks...even if it means he fails at times (hence the title and cover of the second volume pictured here). Driscoll knows he's not perfect, but also knows he's accepted because Jesus was (perfect). If you haven't read either, you owe it to yourself to read one. They're both easy reads and hard to put down once you start. The first volume is a little more formal; each chapter follows almost a sermonic structure (intro with a story, 3 alliterated points with illustrations and a conc). The second is primarily a narratival tracing of the development of Mars Hill (their church) and the senior pastor (him). Of the two, this was my favorite, but both are great. Read, but be ready to be challenged, shocked (at least for the culturally conservative) and encouraged!

It's In!!!

My free copy's in (and has been since last week)! If you ordered yours off of my link, yours should be in soon too. If you didn't, repent in sackloth and ashes and scroll down to the link and see if it's too late! I've already skimmed several of the chapters and it seems excellent. It's classic christian hedonism put on a level that a high schooler could grasp, yet definately profitable for even the most seasoned christian.

McKnight on "Calminians"

Scot McKnight has been doing an interesting series of posts over at Jesus Creed on Calvinism and Arminianism. Though he is no Calvinist, the posts are excellent and needed; especially if you're a "Hiper" Calvinist (yes logan, that's intentionally spelled wrong - I'm referring here not to those who forbid freely preaching the Gospel to all, but to calvinisits who are hiper about it [you know, of the Adam Thomas variety]). Since I include myself in this category and many who read this blog are also, I've linked to one of the posts here. I love the last sentence because it's soooo true and most attempting to straddle the fence won't admit it. Nevertheless, he brings a very good balance (even though I hate that word :-)

Akeelah and the B.S.

Since one of the express purposes of this blog is to interact with cultural issues, I thought I'd post some thoughts on a movie we recently enjoyed. Yes, I did say "enjoyed" regardless of what you may be presupposing based on the post title. Akeelah and the Bee is a very wholesome movie that also very enjoyable; it's both positive and uplifting, as far as entertainment goes. However, it was the philosophical proposition that undergirded the movie that I would suggest is metaphysically bankrupt - hence the title of the post.

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.

New Link Added

I just checked out the website Apollos for the first time and was so impressed I wanted to add it to my links immediately. If you haven't seen it yet, spend a few minutes exploring the articles they have online...you won't be sorry!

(HT: Mike Bird)

Interview with Ehrman

For those who havn't seen it yet, there's an intersting interview with Bart Ehrman over at Evangelical Textual Criticism done by Pete Williams. I just skimmed it, but it looks good. Pete is an excellent evangelical scholar (and a young guy at that) and just about everybody knows who Ehrman is nowadays. Kinda like ying and yang...

Boanerges Gets a New Look

I was just as surprised as you may have been when I saw the new template on my blog this morning; it didn't look like that when I went to bed last night! I was messing around with other templates, but it kept throwing my sidebar down to the bottom, so I gave up before I saved anything...or so I thought. However, it appears the new template stuck. I'm not sure what I think, I just wanted to try a change and this was one of the few templates I hadn't seen used a lot that I thought looked decent. Let me know what you think in the comment section. Which looks better, the old look or the new?

Following the Word

I'm still plowing my way through Kevin Vanhoozer's First Theology and am enjoying it immensely. Though it may not be an easy read, Vanhoozer is consistently insightful and remarkably quotable. His observations below on what it means to understand the text are worth quoting at length:

"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

On the Nature of Doctrine

I came across an incissive quote by Alister McGrath on the nature of doctrine that I think certainly fosters humility in theological pursuit and thought I would pass it on. He asserts that we must remember that doctrines are:

"...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.

Upcoming Conference

The sister school of my alma mater (I still don't think I spelled that right...I guess I should just stick to Greek and English) is hosting a 50th aniversary conference. Some of the lecture titles look interesting but there's two that stand out in my mind: 1) Rolland McCune: What happened to the New Generation, and Why? I'm hoping this isn't a talk on former interns (I say that in complete jest!!!). The second is Charles A. Hauser: Does Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology Hold to a Different Gospel? This one SCARES me (I say that in complete seriousness and sobriety). First, the answer had better come out as no, but then why do a lecture on the topic. I don't know Dr. Hauser though, so I want to give him the benefit of the doubt. Second, if the answer is yes, then I'm really scared of the implications for dispensationalists. Depending on the outcome, A.T. may have a new ax to grind :-)

Post Grad Studies in American Universities

Since doctoral studies are looming on the not so distant horizon for me and a number of my peers, I thought some might find this article at the online version of First Things to be informative and interesting. In the spirit of US News and World Report's recent ranking of universities and colleges, Reno has ranked doctoral programs in states. Strangely enough, this seems to be a frequent topic of discussion in the blogosphere in recent days. A number of my friends (at least three of them) will be pleased to see that TEDS is the only evangelical seminary named, and primarily because of Vanhoozer at that. Interesting food for thought, but I still say cross the pond!

(HT: BW3)

Active Obedience as the Thematic Structure of Matthew's Gospel

If that title arouses your attention the way it did mine, the opening line on the short essay by that title here will probably also crack you up. This is an appetite whetting piece by Doug Wilson (prof at WTS I believe) that intrigued me. It's a short read and well worth the time. The imputation of active obedience has been frequently undercut in recent days on the grounds that there is no scriptural support that can withstand exegetical scrutiny; in other words it's an improper logical inference. Either way, Wilson proposes a more holistic presentation that's...well at the risk of repetition...intriguing.

(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 :-)

Encountering Theological Drift on the Internet?

The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association drifting towards Calvinism? Maybe not but it's a great way to get a FREE BOOK BY JOHN PIPER. If you don't already own Don't Waste Your Life by John Piper PLEASE click on this link...no matter who you are. It's absolutely free and it's excellent!

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)

Crossing the Rubicon

As usual the title to my post is probably a bit of an overstatement; nevertheless, I've come to a moment of truth. We are finally introducing a family blog. Though I love publicly journaling my musings on and exploits with Baby Noah, I''ve found it more than a little depressing to embrace the fact that the posts that get the most hits and comments are those that have pictures of the little man. Not that that's depressing in and of itself, but when a blog is supposed to be devoted to wrangling about cultural and theological issues and more of my friends' wives are reading it for updates about Noah than my friends are for theological banter, then I know it's time to cross the Rubicon. I've been hesitant to introduce a family blog...but the time has come.

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.

Long Overdue

It has been suggested on several occaisions that I may be guilty of a sort of blogo-snobbery in my neglect to link to Dave Wetzel's blog :-) Perhaps the real reason is the name: Boan-head-erges - Sons of Blunder. I'm not sure if I should feel flattered or mocked - probably a combination of both :-) Either way, I admit it has been long overdue, though not for any of the above reasons; rather because I'm lazy and other than updating my link to Euangelion, I haven't modified my links since I started this blog. Anyway, you'll notice Dave's blog in the links on the left margin and get some genuine enjoyment out of his posts if you check it out. Wetzel, to make up for the wait, I have dedicated this entire post to your blog :-) Cheers!

Lessons Learned Along the Way

I've been out of the blogosphere most of this week due to the end of the month flex schedule at work. The good news is that I get a 3 day holiday weekend...however it comes with a price. This week calls for a six day work week (Sunday-Friday) so what little spare time I have has been spent playing with Noah and sleeping. However, with my increased time at work and increasing boredom with the same old same old, I began to reflect on what I've learned over these last four months as a professional bill collector (boy it hurts just saying it out loud...but it's probably cathartic...somehow). Be forewarned: unless you have experience in collections or a call center, you may think most of these points are stupid or that they don't make sense; you may just want to skip down to the last two. However, if you've smiled and dialed 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, etc....well, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. It's kind of like the parable of the sower - let those who have ears to hear...Anyway, here's the top ten list of things I've learned as a collector:

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 :-)

Updated Link

For those who aren't already aware, Euangelion has a new address with the addition of Joel Willits (I think I spelled that right). Just thought I'd mention that I've updated my link accordingly for your surfing pleasure.

Boanerges Gets an Upgrade

Boanerges 2.0??? Okay, maybe not, but I did make two new additions. First of all, Dave Griffiths long time ago asked me to syndicate my blog in order to make it more easily accessible. Though I'm not exactly sure how it all works, Boanerges has been syndicated (at least I think so, someone who uses the features, please let me know in the comments section if I succeeded). There's a link to the site feed just under the rest of my links in the left hand margin. Second, I added a site meter. From time to time I find out that somone has been reading my blog without ever commenting. That's not a problem, but each time I hear about someone I didn't know was reading it, it causes me to wonder how many more people are out there reading in the shadows :-) So, this second addition was more or less just to satisfy my curiosity. There may be more changes in the future, for example I'd like to hunt down a cooler looking template, but for now these upgrades have more than satisfied (perhaps exhausted) my technological appetite.

Another One Book Meme

She took me up on the offer and said Dave laughed when he saw I mentioned his blog :-)

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." :-)

Poythress on Hermeneutics

If you haven't seen this yet it looks like a great resource: Poythress' notes on Hermeneutics from WTS. He's also got a syllabus on Revelation, but I've already got too many amill friends...I'll let the rest of you hunt that one down on your own (HT: Justin Taylor). I'm inclined to print them off now in case the link disappears.

*Post Script: Before you get too excited, it looks like most of them are power point slides. I thought only dispensational fundamentalists pulled that :-)

100th Post!!!

I was updating the pic for my profile (I've finally tired of Baylor's remarks about the sweater vest enough to change the picture, though I'm sure the legacy will live on) and I noticed on the dashboard that the last post (The One Book Meme) was the 100th post composed on Boanerges. Though, I'm not sure it quite calls for a celebration, I still thought it was kinda cool seeing I had no idea as to whether or not I'd stick with this blogging thing 6 months ago (a half year anniversary as well). Well, the excitement is getting the best of me, I think I'll call it a night and head to bed.

I've Been Tagged

Though I've read a few, I was convinced I'd be able to steer clear of the One Book Meme; however I was reading Dave Griffith's blog this morning and realized it wasn't meant to be. So here's my go round:

1. One book that changed your life: Easy...and predictable for anyone reading this blog. Desiring God by John Piper (and maybe the first few chapters of Future Grace) have influenced me far beyond anything I've ever read, the book of Romans, excluded. I read it my Jr. year in college and it became a second conversion (to Christian Hedonism, of course) or a 2nd work of grace, if you will.

2. One book that you've read more than once: Shadow of the Almighty - Elizabeth Elliot's biography of her former husband Jim Elliot. I used to read it every fall when I went back to school. Also a life changing experience.

3. One book you'd want on a desert island: The Bible (NIV or nau 27 NT). Maybe something by Tom Clancy too, if it's going to be a long stay.

4. One book that made you laugh: I don't really read much that would fall into this category; however, there was a footnote in Five Views of the Law that cracked me up. Bahnsen, in his typically brash, sarcastic style, was responding to "Strickland's misrepresentation of theonomy" in footnote 4 pg 297. He says "Space restrictions prevent me from elaborating on Strickland's misrepresentation of theonomic ethics as denying that Israel was uniquely a nation with God as its supreme ruler and that she was set apart by God or guided by him in a special way. Years ago Meredith Kline courageously tackled the same straw man." I LOVE IT! "courageously tackling a straw man" -- Ok, so maybe you think I have a strange sense of humor, but I've employed that line in several papers since!

5. One book that made you cry: Be Ye Holy: The Call to Christian Separation, by Fred Moritz. You could also include here other books of the like that attempt to defend from the scriptures the practice of separation as implemented by most fundamentalists today. I'm not sure if I actually finished Moritz' book, but just the thought of advancing this sort of schism in the body is something I find more and more disturbing and upsetting.

6. One book you wish had been written: Engaging Culture: A how to manual by the Apostle Paul.

7. One book you wish had never been written: Balancing the Christian Life by Charles Ryrie. The title is an entire misnomer, for the book presents a two step approach to sanctification. There is little more destructive to genuine christian growth (unless the second step is the one alluded to under question 1 above :-)

8. One book you're currently reading: The New Testament and the People of God - N.T. Wright.

9. One book you've been meaning to read: The Gospel in a Pluralistic Society by Leslie Newbigin (sp? I'm actually plinking through it a few pages a month).

10. Tag 5 others: Osborne, Baylor, Barker, Thomas, and G. I'll also add a sixth with an invitation: Annalisa - if you'll do one and email it to me, I'll post it as a guest blog on mine, unless you guys are using Dave's.

AND.... I'm going to add another category:

11. Name one book you've read that really sucked: The Da Vinci Code. Above and beyond the blasphemy, Brown's writing style was extremely painful to read. Apart, from the controvesy surrounding it, I'm not sure how it became a best seller. To categorize it in the genre of dime store novels would be EXTREMELY generous (though perhaps dishonest). I never even made it half way through it was so cheesy.

Oooops...

I forgot to include the picture on the previous post, so here it is. I thought I'd also include one of the cutest one's we've obtained so far.

Update on Noah

It's been a few days since I've said much about the little guy, so I figured it was time for an update. Just so you know, we've been going to great lengths to make sure he's being raised appropriately: He's been receiving a fairly steady dose of breast milk, Jazz (he likes Norah Jones) and Reformed Theology (thanks to the Baylor's S.G. cd's and a little Derek Webb). Is there any better combination for raising a little one? We took him to church last Sunday night and he slept through the first 15 minutes of Jim's sermon, then faked me out. He started to let out a squeal/wimper (you have to hear it, it's pretty funny) that normally gives us a 45 second heads up that he's about to let go with some loud screaming. I balked and scooted him out of the auditorium only to find out that he was just playin me. He slept for the rest of the message...typical baptist.He's also already enjoyed two highly significant field trips: the day before he turned 1 week old, we took him to Starbucks (you can't start them too young). Then today, before he turns three weeks old, we took him to the beach. Since these two places are his Daddy's favorite places to hang out, I thought it only appropriate to get him there before he reaches the ripe old age of 1 month. I accidently deleted the Starbucks' pic, but thought I'd include a pic of us from the beach below. Though it may look like I'm going to immerse him, I thought it only fair that I mention that he christened me. A couple nights ago, he decided he wanted to give Dawn a rough night and keep her up. She had some milk in a bottle for me to feed him and relieve her for a couple hours. By the time I got him he'd fallen asleep and I had to wake him up. He hates having his diaper changed, so I thought that would be a good way to get his attention, only he got the last laugh. His diaper was dry and clean, so I cinched it back up, only not as tight as I should have. Apperently the "seal" around the right leg wasn't snug enough, for when I snuggled him in to offer the bottle, he proceeded to empty his bladder into his diaper which in turn poured freely out onto my chest and belly, completely soaking my shirt. I'm thoroughly convinced he did it on purpose. I guess this puts me even closer to the presbys than A.T. :-0

Whose Inheritance is it Anyway?

Since I haven't posted anything original in a few months, I thought it was high time. This summer I've been meeting on Wednesday mornings with a teenage guy I taught Greek to last school year. I thought the best way to introduce him to syntax was by reading the text with him and commenting as we go (go figure, what a novel approach...I know you're thinking I'm a radical). We chose the book of Ephesians (since I was familiar with it from my exegesis course last spring) and have been meeting at Starbucks Wed. mornings for about and hour to an hour and a half working through the Greek text (my kind of Bible Study and discipleship - studying the text in the agora!).

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, Col 1:12 and 3:24), he is speaking of the inheritance we receive. Second, the other three aspects of the prayer are directed towards us (true it is His calling, but we are the ones who receive his calling; likewise, His power is toward us). Finally, I have a hard time understanding Paul as praying that the believers would understand the wealth of God’s inheritance. I assume this would imply that the believers are God’s inheritance; does this mean that Paul wants them to know how valuable they are (as God’s inheritance)? This sounds more to me like a self-esteem psychology rather than Pauline theology. I think it is probably better to understand the phrase, “His inheritance” as the inheritance that has its source in Him. So the inheritance is ours (we will receive it) but its value or wealth lies in the fact that it comes from God. If this helps you –great! If you think I’m nit-picking or being overly technical, that's fine too. That's the beauty of syntax (with a healthy dash of postmodernism)!

More From Around the Web

Since I have little time between diaper changes to do my own significant/sustained critical thinking these days (okay, I'm already using my son as an excuse, I've never accomplished such a feat :-) I've been pulling some "cheat posts" that reflect some of the great stuff I've found on the web lately. Here's the latest. If you're not already regularly reading Mark Driscoll's blog, it's worth looking into. He only posts a few times a week, so it's not too hard to keep up with, and when he posts, they're usually good. Here's an exceptional example that looks like a jackpot. He's posted a number of interviews with the speakers for the upcoming DG conference on PoMo. Though I haven't listened to them all yet, some of the titles look intriguing. Check it out here.

Forthcoming Commentary on Acts - Not Mine

Speaking of books I can't wait to get my hands on (see the post below), here's the official word from the man, himself: Bock has completed the manuscript on his commentary on Acts (BECNT) and is hoping it will be out late '07 early '08. It's only one volume and a mere 1000 pages, but you don't have to take my word for it (sound like reading rainbow?) you can read all about it at http://dev.bible.org/bock/trackback/40

Report from Piper

I took a quick gander around the blogosphere and hadn't seen this on anyone elses blog (At least not locally, [HT: Between Two Worlds]). Since all of us love and appreciate Pastor John's ministry I thought it might be worthwhile posting this link to this report on how he's been using his time on sabbatical. Particularly intriguing is his engaging N.T. Wright's view on Justification. I can hardly wait to read it and will pay top dollar to anyone who can provide a bootleg edition:-)
Two of my favorite authors going at it over one of my favorite topics to study!

Christians and Politics

This is an area I've been quasi interested in for the last few years, but never interested enough to think it through to clarity. I still haven't and I know some people may think I'm an unfaithful steward of the Gospel for admitting such a verity. However, if pressed I would probably espouse something similar to what Scot McKnight has posted here.

*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).

An Updated Picture of Noah - And the Most Important Lesson I've Learned About Parenting So Far...

I thought I'd post a more recent pictue of Noah, since it was difficult to see him in some of the other pictures. So far we think blue's his color :-) I also thought I'd impart some of the latest parenting wisdom I've gained for the benefit and entertainment (trust me...keep reading) of any current or prospective parents of newborns. My arsenal of parenting wisdom is growing exponentially each day (seeing I started at zero a just a few days ago any gain is significant). However, without question, I learned the most important lesson about parenting so far yesterday (Monday) morning. What is it you ask? Let me get right to the point: Husbands don't let your wives eat EGGS and breastfeed your babies. Now let me elaborate...

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.

Introducing Noah John Mihelis

Finally, the preliminary pics are IN!!! First, a word of apology: I promised these would be up much sooner than they were. Sadly, though the maternity ward and L&D wing of Chesapeake General are phenominal in there nursing care (and I mean that; they were all AWESOME!), our beloved hospital is still in the dark ages. You guessed it...no wireless. Even sadder, no houses in the neighborhood had a strong enough signal to steal from :-) Oh well...here they are. Introducing....Noah John Mihelis (and family). First the lovely mama and the little stud:


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! 

Why I Haven't Been Online Lately

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...

A Great Way to Learn Hebrew

Wanna learn Hebrew...in Israel? Randall Buth is offering an opportunity for exactly that. Check out the link here. Buth would be a sweet guy to study with too, Klem had us read some of his articles on Text Linguistics for our class last summer. Though Niccacci was my personal favorite, Buth is certainly no slouch! Anybody up for a road trip?

Questions of Authority

Discussions about the authority of the scriptures have crossed my path more than once in the last few weeks. It's an interesting topic that I think is crucial to the health of the Church and currently under the microscope (and up often up for grabs) in the academy. However, my interest is in precisely how the questions relating to the topic are framed. Often the question is posed in terms of "Do you believe the scriptures are authoritative?" While this is an important question, and may be especially timely for broad evangelicalism (in the loosest way the term may be conceived) I would suggest that it may not be the most important question. One of the reasons I love reading Tom Wright is for the questions that he poses. Though I may not always agree with his conclusions, he is definitely asking the right questions. As I've been working my way though NTPG, one of the most significant issues he addresses in the Introduction pertains to this issue. But rather than ask "Are the scriptures authoritative?", he frames the question: "How are the scriptures authoritative?" This is something I believe conservative evangelicals have a hard time dealing with. While most believe they are authoritative, not many have cogently articulated how they are. I would suggest that this is one of the most troubling issues for laymen as well as they wrestle with the OT and the Gospels especially and perhaps a difficult issue for unbelievers to grapple with as well. The problem lies primarily in dealing with Narrative. I'll summarize Wright's excellent soldier analogy: When a soldier reports for duty, he expects to find his orders from his commander posted on the bulletin board. He anticipates finding a list of commands and instructions. How would the soldier respond if instead, he read the "orders" only to find that they began with the words, "Once upon a time..."? Surely he knows they are from his CO, but how does he obey a story? The analogy is very good in many ways. I think this is exactly the dilemma the laymen finds himself in when attempting to "obey" the vast narrative portions of the Bible. Surely he believes it is authoritative...it's the word of God! But how do you obey something that begins with, "In the beginning God..." The imperatives are few at times, and certainly far between. You feel the weight of the word, but are somewhat unsure what to do with it. Likewise, the unbeliever hears the Christian appeal to the authority of the Bible, but how can a document thousands of years old have any relevance or authority over a post-modern society? Sadly, I don't think many of those who trumpet the Bible's authority most loudly have not gone very far in articulating the nature of its authority. So here's the question I'm posing (or perhaps relaying) - How are the scriptures (particularly the vast narrative portions authoritative?

The Zeal of Renewed Humanity - Mission

And this last quotable quotebrings my first mini-series to a close:

"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 Coherence of Renewed Humanity: Love

I thought I'd finally get back to finishing my 5 part series on Wright's quotable quotes on God's renewed humanity. Since it's been a while, here's a quick review: The Centre of Renewed Humanity - Worship; The Goal of Renewed Humanity - Resurrection; The Transformation of Renewed Humanity - Holiness and now The Coherence of Renewed Humanity - Love. Here's two excellent selections:

"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

Problems With Promiscuity

Don't worry, it's not what it sounds like. The problems are mine, but I'm referring to my reading habits and patterns. I have a hard time staying faithful to one book and reading it all the way through. The dreaded question came Saturday at the beach when Dave Wilson asked me what kind of progress I was making on the reading list I posted at the beginning of the summer. Ahh...dreaded accountability. Here's the score. I 'm a little over halfway through Wild at Heart which has more or less stalled out. Though I was intrigued at the beginning, it's gotten to the point that I've figured out the big idea and gotten board with the continuos development of it. Freakonomics while fascinating (even beyond it's blogan sounding title) was on the best seller list, which means it could not be renewed from the public library. Having returned it, I just couldn't work up the urge to check it out again. Now hear me, the problem is not in the book...it is quite engaging. The fault resides solely in my perpetual tendency towards biblioinfidelity.

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.

An Open Invitation--to the Beach

This Saturday a bunch of us from HSBC all have the day off due to the end of the month schedule. The weather looks like it's supposed to be pretty nice...hot and sunny. With that in mind, Dawn and I were thinking about going to the beach and spending the late morning-early afternoon up there. I've been mentioning to friends as we pass in the hallways, but I know I won't see everyone and not everyone works there. Therefore, if I haven't caught up with you yet and you're in the Hampton Roads area this weekend, come and join us! We're going to be up at Virginia Beach of necessity. Noah's so regularly on Dawn's bladder that we can't go to Sandbridge. VA Beach is the only one with enough outhouses to accomodate her frequent trips :-) We always hang out at 34th street...it's far enough from the crowds at the pier that there's room to spread out. There's free parking on 33-37th streets two blocks back from the beach if you park on the side of the road. We'll probably be there by 10:30 am at the latest. I've already had a few couples say they will probably make it and I'll be bringing a frisbee, soccer ball and football. If you can make it, please join us!

On Breaking Fellowship with Believers

Though such a title may sound strange coming from my lips (or fingertips, as is the case), there's an interesting post by Mark Roberts on that very topic here. If you're not aware of the controversy currently rocking the PCUSA, you may want to read some of the other articles in this series. Roberts writes from an interesting standpoint having received all of his formal philosophical and theological training from Harvard, having taught at Fuller and pastored in the PCUSA for a number of years.

Why Mark Driscoll Bothers You (or Not)

This is an excellent post that gets me excited about body life and pastoral ministry. If you don't know much about Mark Driscoll, "Why Mark Driscoll Bothers You (or Not)" is a great intro. Even if you are familiar with him, it's a great read from the iMonk. I was convicted by how shallow my life and ministry seemed after reading it (which is probably a shallow observation at that).

Da' Belly - Take Two

It's been a while since I've given an update on Dawn and Noah, so here it is...

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.

Now Bruno's Vindicated Too! Sort of...

Following the observation about AT, Jack Bauer and Typology, Chris Bruno posted a link at CRBlog to Mark Goodacre's site regarding typology in the new Superman movie (with which Bruno indicated he could more readily identify). Now most people would probably consider Goodacre more of a sholar than Driscoll, and thus one could argue that Bruno has already been vindicated (or was never of it since he was just posting a link to someone else's site). However, I couldn't help but continue the goofiness a little longer. Anyway, for those interested in typology in Superman, there's an interesting article in this weeks edition of Time here.

* 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.

Identity vs. Reputation

Here's a great quote from Scot McKnight's book Jesus Creed (not to be confused with his blog by the same name which I have referenced recently):

"Sometimes the implications of listening to the voice of God is that we ruin our reputation in the public square. Loving God, as the Jesus Creed teaches, involves surrendering ourselves to God in heart, soul, mind, strength--and reputation. The minute we turn exclusively to the Lord to find our true identity is the day reputation dies."
- Jesus Creed, p. 79.

What's the distinction he's making between identity and reputation you ask (or may have already figured out)?

"Our reputation (what others think of us) is not as important as our identity (who we really are). Spiritual formation begins when we untangle reputation and identity, and when what God thinks of us is more important than what we think of ourselves, or what others think of us."
- Jesus Creed, p. 76.

Now that's a quotable quote; it's also something the Lord has been (and still is) dealing with me on a number of levels in recent days.

Some Helpful Advice

Since several who read this blog are in the same scenario as I am, you may be interested in reading: Applying for Doctoral Work When You're From a Small School. The author is a PhD candidate at the University of Edinburgh and originally from (you guessed it) a small school. Nothing earth shattering, but there are definately some good thoughts here.

Who ya' gonna call? You might be surprised.

I hesitate to post on this only because by putting it in a public domain, it increases the odds of my coming across it more often. However, the humor and irony of it all demand that I share it. I called someone at work today who had a history of hang ups noted. The person who answered was actually quite pleasant and though he informed me the individual I was calling for was not available, if I could hold a minute, his wife would get me an alternate number where I could reach the person I was looking for. After a few minutes of waiting, he asked me how I was doing today. I told him I was fine and asked how he was. "Fine" he responded. Right about then, the lady of the house came on the other line and said she had the number. "248-262-6861," I was pleasantly informed. "That's not a cell phone is it?" I queried, not wanting to call a cell without the owner's permission. "Not as far as I know" she responded. I thanked them and hung up.

Now, if your begining to wonder what in the world I'm doing publically offering private information, like someone's phone #, you've been had, just like I was. Though the number I listed above is the number I was given, it is by no means a private listing for someone's residence (I'd NEVER put that type of stuff in a public forum). No, the number listed above, I discovered both to my dismay and delight, is the number for the rejection hotline. Don't believe me? Give it a call. If it says all circuits are busy, be patient and try again until you get through. Trust me, it's worth it.

The Transformation of Renewed Humanity: Holiness

Remember, posts on a blog appear in reverse order; if you read this, I suggest going back and beginning with "God's Renewed Humanity - WSPRS." It will probably make more sense. On to the quotes of the day:

"Paganism is a self-destructive mode of being human; Paul offers, instead, the fulfilment of the Jewish vision of humanity, a humanity characterized by wisdom and holiness."

- WSPRS, p. 143.

On the Galatians' struggle with embracing Torah:

"They have seen their former pagan idolatry and immorality for what they are, and are determined to go instead for the way of true humanity, of holiness and worship. The 'agitators' (those who infiltrated the Galatian community after Paul had left) have told them that they can achieve this end by embracing Torah. Not so, says Paul: if you do that you will simply be emphasizing that which binds you to the old humanity, to the flesh...as a result, you will again be in the self-destructive mode of human existence. If you want the genuine article, you must walk by the Spirit, whose fruit is love, joy and peace."

- WSPRS, p. 144.

The Goal of Renewed Humanity: Resurrection

Yet another great quote, this time a bit shorter:

"If the road to true humanity is true worship, the end and goal of God's renewed humanity is of course resurrection...the basic point I wish to make can be stated as follows. When Paul is expounding the resurrection hope of God's people in Christ he is again offering a reality of which (in his view) paganisim is the parody; and again, announcing the reality to which Judaism had pointed."

I love the description of paganism as the "parody" of the reality discovered in Jesus!

Reading List on the Emerging Church

Since the Emerging Church has come up in discussion lately, when I came across this post, I thought I'd pass it along. The post is entitled The 50 Books on My Emerging Church Bookshelf and includes a section introduced with "Here are the Top Ten Books that I consider essential reading on the emerging church." TSK (Andrew) is a leader in the UK emerging church movement and thus an interesting authority for an "essential reading list".

The Centre of Renewed Humanity: Worship

The whole point of the long paragraph which begins in Romans 1:18 is that Gentiles are idolaters, and that therefore their humanity self destructs. Idolatry, Paul is saying, is seriously bad for the health of your humanity. The pagan world knows God, because in creation pagans can see his eternal power and deity; but they refuse to honour him as God or worship him, and turn instead to worship images of birds, animals and reptiles. As a result (since humans become like what they worship; this is a basic spiritual law), they cease to exhibit true and full humanity, reflecting the image of God. They exhibit, instead, all the signs of a humanity that is coming apart at the seams:

They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless (Romans 1:29-31 NIV)."

- Tom Wright, WSPRS, p.138.

"What then is the solution? God as called into being a new community...there is, then, a people that worships God in truth. This people is the true humanity, the people that Israel was supposed to be but had failed to be. Paul will zealously announce this one true God, and summon people to worship him, knowing that in so doing he is confronting pagan idolatry on the one hand and fulfilling the destiny of Israel on the other."
- Ibid, 138-139

Piper calls preachers to "labor to find language that is worthy of God." I think the statements bolded above are fantastic examples of powerful language. Describing idolatry in terms of a self destructive lifestyle and humanity coming apart at the seams both connects with contemporary cultural expressions and accurately describes what's going on in Romans 1.

Interesting Stuff Online

Some interesting reads if you have a few minutes:

Scot McKnight on the perpetual virginity of Mary - I think you might be surprised at some of the theologians who held this view.

From the Thoughts and Adventures Blog - Mohler and Patterson on Election (hint: they're not on the same side).

Not to mention a crazy collage of headlines on CNN's home page:

• Alberto evacuations ordered | Video | Path
  
• Fake ID beats Homeland Security's security
  
• Poll: Zarqawi death bumps war opinion | Interactive
  
• Sniper hunted after judge shot at court
  
• Pilot killed when plane crashes into house
  
• Has Ann Coulter gone too far?
  
• Missing boaters call may be a hoax
  
• 'Rock star' Clinton delivers cash and crowds
  
• CNNMoney: Stock in wrestling stars soars
  
• Stripper stabbed to death at bachelorette romp
  
• SI.com: Steelers QB seriously injured in bike crash
  
• Gay man's dad revamps church policy
  
• Study: Warming turns bears into cannibals

Wow...what a combination!

God's Renewed Humanity - WSPRS

As I've been thinking about the Gospel while reading the gospels, my mind was drawn back to Chapter 8 of What Saint Paul Really Said. The chapter is entitled God's Renewed Humanity and contains some of the best reflections on anthropology I've ever read (I just reread it yesterday in between calls at work - nothing better than getting paid well to read good stuff :-). Since this section is so good, I thought I'd take a few posts and list the main points followed by a choice quote or two that is representative of the section. The major divisions are as follows:

1) The Centre of Renewed Humanity: Worship (incidentally Logan, that's not a typo, it's British spelling :)

2) The Goal of Renewed Humanity: Resurrection

3) The Transformation of Renewed Humanity: Holiness

4) The Coherence of Renewed Humanity: Love

5) The Zeal of Renewed Humanity: Mission

BTW: for those who might not be big Wright fans, WSPRS stands for What Saint Paul Really Said. For some reason, his fans (and some foes) have taken to abbreviating all of his books that way (and being a fan, I have followed suite). Thus, NTPG stands for The New Testament and the People of God, JVT = Jesus and the Victory of God TRSG (I think it is) = The Resurrection of the Son of God. I know I was confused by some of the abbreviations at first (I confused TRSG with TSKS from Wallace, but that's another story), so I thought this might be helpful.

Adam Thomas is Vindicated!!! Sort of...

Adam Thomas, friend, fellow framer, former fundamentalist (okay, the "f"s were just rolling off my fingertips) of Thomas Colloquiums fame had been berated and mocked repeatedly by Tim Baylor (Luther's Stein) regarding his (AT's) addiction to and alleged typology of Jack Bauer and 24. However, AT has recently been vindicated by a similar observation from Mark Driscoll (a significant leader in the Emerging Church Movement, for those who aren't familiar with him). For the details, see Is Jack Bauer a Type of Christ?

Incidently, my favorite quote from the post is:

"24 is easily the best show on television despite the many reasons it conceivably should not be."

He's right!

McKnight on "Works of the Law"

Scot McKnight has been blogging on Romans, while working through Tom Wright's commentary over at Jesus Creed. He recently posted on the ongoing discussion regarding the phrase works of the law that I'm linking to here. It's an excellent intro/overview to the difference between the traditional reformed view and the NPP view. While there may be room for a via media, his post is a a very helpful introduction for the uninitiated while the comment section will prove fantastic grist for those already familiar with the conversation.

Reading the Gospels

As I've alluded to in some of my recent posts, most of my time in the Scriptures lately has been spent in the Gospels. To be frank and to my shame, this is an area I used to shy away from for several reasons: 1) The epistles more readily lined up with the perception of Christianity and Evangelism that I had grown up with. 2) I perceived there was a greater hermeneutical gap to the Gospels than there was to the epistles. 3) Narrative can't be anywhere near as theological as prose or epistolary literature, right? Whatever! (though I really did secretly harbor this presupposition) 4) I was intimidated by the potential "problems" that I would encounter in Gospels studies if I probed too far beneath the "devotional level" (read: superficial level). Things like the synoptic problem, arguments for and against historical reliability, issues pertaining to historical Jesus studies, etc. all intimidated me because I was not very well accquainted with them and deep down inside somewhere, I think I was afraid they might rock my world (O me of little faith) if I faced the questions head on (though I probably never would have admitted this).

My interest was recently renewed and I knew I had been depriving myself of some serious mediation on the life and ministry of Jesus, so I decided to begin my own (informal) "quest", if you will. In the providence of God, He brought some reliable guides across my path in the form of recent book acquisitions. The New Testament and the People of God has been helpful in slaying the beast of intimidation regarding historical reliability and critical issues. Wright is a terrific guide here in terms of method. The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels had proven a fantastic tool to get me up to speed on many of the issues I knew by name, but never really understood what all was at stake. Finally, since my time has primarily been spent in Luke's gospel lately, Bock's two volume commentary has already been repaying fantastic dividends.

I'm greatful the Lord has brought me on this journey, as it has been a refreshing and revitalizing time meditating on the life of Jesus. In many ways, I feel as if I'm exploring a new frontier and it's exciting. I'm amazed at how much I have (in the past) been guilty of trying to force the gospel narratives into the grid of what I considered Christianity to be about, rather than letting my understanding of Christianity be shaped by the gospels; I certainly have a good deal of theological baggage. The epistles (where I used to hide out) are invaluable for shaping the Christian worldview; however, the terms of discipleship are never clearer than in Jesus' own call to the task. At the risk of an extremely overused cliche, I think I HAVE been guilty of putting Jesus in a box... or even FORCING Jesus into a box. There's more to be said, and I'll probably follow with some specific ways my thoughts are being remolded in the near future. However, if anyone out there has neglected the Gospels for similar reasons to the ones I identified above, I encourage you to get over it and get into them.

Textual Criticism Conference? Smells like a road trip...

For anyone not regularly reading the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog, you'll want to check out the post on June 02 (they don't have trackbacks to make it more specific). The focus topic will be on the ending of Mark and the speakers include Wallace, Bock and Black. The conference will be hosted at SEBTS in April '07 and there's a link to their web site here. It's amazing how much Bock resembles Steinman and Wallace resembles Mills with a mustache. Anyone up for a road trip?

Jesus In Context - heads up on a good resource

I recently accquired this volume when I ordered Bock's BECNT on Luke. When I bought it, I wasn't sure exactly what it was, but having thumbed throught it and incorporated it into my scripture reading, I thought I'd point it out for those who haven't seen it yet. If you're familiar with C.K. Barrett's New Testament Backgrounds: Selected Documents, it's similar, only more specific. After a brief overview of primary sources, the synoptic gospels are treated, followed by the fourth gospel. With each pericope covered, excerpts are offered from revelant primary sources that would inform the reading of a text historically/contextually. In the introduction, they refer to it as a "poor man's Strack and Billerbeck" (in English, obviously). I think I paid under $15, definately a great price for a valuable resource.

Wild at Heart: Some initial thoughts

It's been so long since I've posted in the blogosphere that I almost feel like I need to reintroduce myself. We continue to have internet access issues and we've decided to get a connection. I just haven't had the opportunity to see who has the best deal out there. For those in the VA Beach neighborhood, we're thinking about going with Cox's value plan. Any thoughts?

Anyway, on to more important matters...while I haven't finished the book yet, I'm almost halfway through John Eldridge's book Wild at Heart (WAH from here on). I thought I'd give a preliminary review (as per the first 100 pages).

The premise is actually quite simple to sum up: There is a question that haunts everyman - Do I really have what it takes (or Am I man enough)? The insecurity that many (he may say "all") feel that causes them to pose such a question and be fearful of the negative is a result of a "wound" (psychological - lack of affirmation) inflicted, most likely by the father. Within the heart of everyman are three desires: 1) A battle to fight 2) A beauty to rescue 3) An adventure to live. Up to this point, one might be inclined to agree to these general premises, but wonder what this has to do with theology. At least, that's where I came out. Eldridge maintains that these three desires, as well as the general state of affairs (other than the wound) are the result of the fact that man is created in the image of God. Just as God is a warrior (and thus, wild at heart, so to speak), man reflects that warrior image and craves the three things listed above. Though this is a bit simplistic, this is the gist of what he's covered to this point in the book.

While I admit, it's not terribly wise to judge a book prior to finishing it (nor to judge a book by it's cover, which as Thomas pointed out, may lead many to abandon this one), there is enough that has been said to this point to make some preliminary observations.

The Pros
Overall, I think WAH connects with many of the basic desires within the heart of most men. What man doesn't desire a battle to fight, a beauty to rescue, and an adventure to live (Baylor excluded)? Furthermore, his portrayal of the characteristics of masculinity are refreshing in this day and age. WAH calls for men to be men and to raise their boys to be men. The quotes at the beginning of each section are also worth the price of the book alone. My personal favorite is the quote from Teddy Roosevelt right after the introduction regarding the credit going to "the man in the arena." While the book needs to be read with discernment, I have found many of it's pages to be challenging and liberating.

The Cons
Despite these pros, I would commend this book only to those with a good theological footing. While Eldridge's prose is captivating and ought to be emulated in style, some of his theological conclusions lack sufficient justification and imho amount to non sequitars (how'd I do Logan?). I offer one example from pg 8: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Gen. 1:27). Now, we know that God doesn't have a body, so the uniqueness can't be physical. Gender simply must be at the level of the soul, in the deep and everlasting places within us." Those of you who read my post a few months back regarding the image of God, understand that I find this conclusion less than satisfactory (for lack of accounting for all the data). While I don't expect everyone to agree with me here, to say "such and such simply must be such and such" without considering ANY other options is a bit too assumptive imho. Likewise, to jump from the image of God to gender being at the level of the soul, is a bit of a jump (not to mention ignoring some significant anatomical data [Uncle Victor excluded-see the road trip comments if you're confused here]).

In addition to this, I would add my concern regarding the theological position advocated in WAH. Eldridge comes across as an arminian, which does not ipso facto render it useless (despite what AT might think). It is instead, the statements regarding foreknowledge that I find disconcerting. Eldridge states "...for those who are aware of the discussion, I am not advocating open theism" (32). However, he is not so clear on what distinguishes his positon from open theism. If you didn't sense it coming from the overview above, the reason he maintains that we love taking risks is because we are made in the image of the Risk Taker. "God's relationship with us and with our world is just that: a relationship. As with every relationship, there's a certain amount of unpredictability, and the ever-present likelihood that you'll get hurt. The ultimate risk anyone ever takes is to love...but God does give it, again and again and again, until he is literally bleeding from it all. God's willingness to risk is just astounding..."(32). This statement is representative of the theology unpacked in chapter 2.

Conc
All of this is why I say it is worth the read for the theologically discerning. Unfortunately, from what I've seen, it's more often targeted at young men (jr. high and high school) without the theological ability to discern between good prose and good theology. It's an easy read and the portrait painted of masculinity is refreshing in so many ways. In fact, had the book been written sans the theology or by secular psychologist, I probably would enjoy it more. Much of what is said about masculinity rings true, I'm just not convinced that the theological connections that are intended to support it are on par. If things change as I finish the book, I'll let you know. Otherwise, I think I've "called out" enough individuals for today (Baylor, Logan, AT, Vic, and sort of Eldridge).