Recent Acquisition

Cokesbury comes through again! Every so often we stumble onto a phenomenal sale at Cokesbury (located right behind Hooters on Battlefield for those in VA Beach - yes it's a terrible landmark, but you know right where I'm talking about :-) This time Julie discovered a 50% off inventory reduction sale and was gracious enough to let us know. Ok, I was with her husband when she called, but he could have lied and said he had to tend to a family emergency (I wouldn't put it past him :-) Anyway, this was one of my treasures, acquired for just $10. I couldn't wait to at least page turn through it (the typical fate of most of my books) so I gave it a go yesterday afternoon (which we spent at the beach...I love VA in January!). Suffice it to say, this is one of the first books I've ever come under conviction through from just flipping through the pages and randomnly stopping. I can hardly wait to read the whole thing (silence, you scoffers). Just consider this representative quote from his synthesis:

"Again, Jesus; model of ministering to people of all backgrounds challenges us to cross the culture-gap between the Christian sub-culture of cozy meetings and holy talk and the pagan culture of our local community. The task of identification with and incarnation into our contemporary paganism, of all kinds is one of the biggest tasks confronting the church. If Jesus was right, and the prevailing view in ancient Judaism wrong, so that holiness can be more contagious than impurity, then we need not fear such activity. the sad examples of Christians being corrupted and adopting the sinful practices of their non-Christian acquaintances with whom they associate is a testimony to thier unwillingness to rely on the Spirit's power and not a disproof of the viability of Jesus model" (p. 173).

Now that's not Nate Mihelis talking (though I've been trumpeting the last sentence since I burst the bubble of Bible College after graduating from such a sub-culture), nor is it even Driscoll. It's Craig Blomberg, as a summation and application of 160 plus pages of wrestling with OT, NT and Intertestimental texts! Good stuff, though it's bound to step on your toes. Gotta love those United Methodists (especially their book sales)!

Repentance from What?

I hesitated to post this because I'm embarassed to reveal just how slow my progress in JVG has been. Nevertheless, I thought it was significant enough to bare all. I came across something I strongly disagreed with Wright about...I know, brace yourself...it's a historical moment. Many thought it wouldn't happen, but here it is.

In dealing with "Stories of the Kingdom" Wright examines Jesus' call to repentance under the heading of Invitation. While I appreciated much of what he says, when he comes down to defining repentance, I had some issues. His approach is mostly inductive, but when he comes out and defines it, he suggests two emphases to Jesus' message of repentance: "returning to YHWH so that exile may come to an end; renunciation of nationalistic violence. It was an eschatological call, not the summons of a moralistic reformer. And it was a political call, summoning Israel as a nation to abandon one set of agendas and embrace another" (JVG, 251). Contextually, he is setting Jesus call to repentance off from the ahistorical, timeless, moralistic call to individualistic piety (all words he uses). The first move is to say it's eschatological (the call to Israel to return to YHWH and bring about the real return from exile) and the second is to say that it's political - the turning from revolutionary violence against Rome and/or Herod.

Here's my beef: On the first emphasis, I am in total agreement with his description of Jesus' call to repentance as being eschatological in nature. Yes, He is calling them to return to YHWH and it most certainly is a historically occaisioned call. The problem I have is that this does not inherently set it apart from a call to individualistic piety; that would be a false dilemma or an either/or fallacy. True, the call may have more nationalistic overtones, but what does it mean for the nation to return to YHWH? Either faith driven Torah observance, or more likely in the present context, adherence to Jesus. No matter how you slice it, this is a call to individual ethical holiness. After all, the New Covenant is designed to foster Spirit enabled obedience, yes for Israel, but Israel, no matter how you define it, is composed of individuals.

However, it is the second emphasis that really got my biscuits burning. Wright suggests that bound up within the meaning of the term metanoia itself, is the idea of "abandoning revolutionary zeal" (p. 249-250). His reasoning here rests heavily on an occurence in Josephus. Josephus says, of a brigand chief whom he discovered was plotting to kill him, "that I was not ignorant of the plot which he had contrived against me...; I would, nevertheless, condone his actions if he would show repentance and prove his loyalty to me. All this he promised..." (Ibid). The form here is actually the infinitive, rather than the noun I mentioned above, but that matters little. Wright points out that many commentators on the synoptics ignore this occurance when wrestling with the meaning of repentance, while he says "It is, I suggest, of considerable significance. This is what those words meant in Galiliee in the 60's [i.e. Josesphus day]; by what logic do we insist that they meant something rather different, something perhaps more personal, inward or religious, in Galilee in the 20s and 30s?" (still p. 250). By what logic you ask? Well for starters, that's NOT what it meant in Josephus day either. In my humble (though it may not sound that way, that's how I mean it) opinion, this is a raging exegetical fallacy.

For starters, metanoia and metanoeo simply mean "repentance" or "turning" and "to repent" or "to turn" respectively. What exactly is to be turned from depends on the context in which it is used. To import what it is that one is turning from in a given context into the lexical meaning or semantic range of the word is just plain wrong. It's sloppy lexicography. Further more, to take that imported meaning and apply it to all other contexts, especially those that clearly indicate something explicit that is to be turned from is even more dangerous exegetically, not to mention theologically. Let me offer a modern day example: Say you read the Mapquest directions that I recently used to get from VA to NH. You would see something to the effect of "turn right off of St. Luke's Blvd on to Great Bridge Blvd." Suppose you wanted to determine just what I meant by "turn." Well, a little historical/geographical research reveals that St. Luke's Blvd is a dead end side street and Great Bridge is a major thoroughfare. You conclude that "turning" is a technical term used for street navigation and is particularly useful in describing the move from a lightly traveled street to a major road. This is fine and good, until you hear someone ask to "turn the light off" or "turn in your assignments" or "tossing and turning" etc ad nauseum.

I don't think this is an unnecessary caricature of what Wright has done here. I grant that he is primarily gunning for existential theologians like Bultmann who demythologize the history right out of the Gospels and turn them into a collection of timeless aphorisms (you would be aware of this too if you read the essay linked to below about Wright :-). Doubtless, he is aware of and not apologetic for the fact that it also steps on the toes of many evangelical interpretations too. Yet, I am convinced that he has swung the pendulum too far. I grant his historically occaisioned appeal, as noted above; in fact, this sort of appeal is one of the things that I have learned most from any and all of his writings. However, I'm convinced his methodology is flawed here and the result is just plain wrong. If Jesus says He's come to call sinners to repentance, then there is substantial reason to assume that they must turn from there sin. Granted, perhaps some of the sin that some of the people (maybe even many of them) needed to turn from was their violent revolutionary zeal; however, for all the times we read Jesus saying "go and sin no more" I'm not convinced every time He was addressing a political zealot. The burden of proof would lie on Wright here, and the various contexts just don't sustain this.

Now, please don't misunderstand: I still love the guy, I still love Jesus and the Victory of God and I am learning a TON from it. In fact, I wish there were the forum for him to respond to what I've said; he's far more intelligent than I and he may blow me away with additional data I've not considered. However, maximalistic approaches to language (a la TDNT) just rub me the wrong way. I am and probably always will be a minimalist here to the core.

Wow.

And to think I almost went to school here. Only click here if you're ready to cry. At least one reason to be thankful for my alma mater (I still don't know if I got that right).

(HT: Justin Taylor)

What's Right or Wrong with Wright?

There it is again...another terrible pun. At least I'm predictable. A number of people have asked me what I think about Tom Wright, both on and off of this blog. By now, I'm sure it's more than apparent that I'm a fan, but I've heard various questions about his views in various areas that a general pattern seems to be developing. While I'm inclined to say Wright is like a Glock - you either love him or hate him - the truth of the matter, as is often the case, is probably not so black and white. However, most people who haven't read much by him, often ask one of two questions (depending on what they've read/heard): 1) What's wrong with him? or 2) What's so great about him? How one person can generate such extreme conclusions within so many circles can be a bit confusing, I admit. One of the most helpful "essays" I've read that accounts for this spectrum appeared on another blog a while back. I don't frequent the blog (not because I don't want to but because I already read too many) so I can't preface much about the author, other than to say that what he wrote squared almost perfectly with my experience of reading Tom Wright and his friends and foes. He does an excellent job of introducing the reader to the context in which Wright is carrying on his ministry...after all grammatical historical exegesis is just important with 21st Century documents as it is with 1st Century documents. I've actually linked to it twice now in the comment sections of this blog, but since it keeps coming up, I've been meaning to link it on an actual post. So, check it out here.

***P.S. Do I really need to include somewhere that I don't agree with EVERTHING he says? :-)

Dangerous Devotions: Reflections on the Bifurcation of Faith and History - Part 2

First off, be reminded that blogs post in reverse order listing the most recent post first; in other words, do yourself a favor and scroll down and read Part 1 if you haven’t already. Now to the point: I ended the last post with the suggestion that fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism (the parts of the Body I am most familiar with) have unwittingly been guilty of creating a bifurcation between faith and history not altogether unlike that of academic liberalism, albeit unwittingly and with no ill intent. This expression of this division in conservative circles that I have in mind is the division or distinction between the head and heart or theology and practice or however you may have heard it expressed on a popular level. Such division often comes to fruition in a desire for a devotional reading or approach to the Scriptures…hence the title of this miniseries.

Please don’t misunderstand me, the intentions are all benevolent; certainly we want to read the Scriptures with an eye to obedience and increasing our affections for the Sovereign Lord Whom they reveal. The problem is that at the “devotional” level, a righteous impatience to cut to the chase and find out what it is I am to do or be, often results in an end run around the often laborious exegetical process. Pastorally this may seem great because such believers are following the Lord with zeal, when in reality, this zeal may be no different from that of the Israelites described in Romans 9-11. The result is that the “Devotional Jesus” may bear just as much resemblance to the Jesus of Testimony (i.e. the Jesus of the Scriptures, a la Richard Bauckam) as does the Jesus of liberal protestant scholarship. Likewise, such readings of God may do more to shape Him in our image than to transform us into His. The bottom line is it takes time and effort to read the Scriptures aright and grasp them in their contextual (historical/linguistic/cultural/etc.) setting. If we spend 45 minutes in a given morning, it just might not be enough time to figure out what’s going on in our given text, especially if we’re outside the Psalter or the Pauline corpus. This observation is not intended to deter folks from reading their Bibles, but rather to portray the task as it really is. It will require some holy sweat.
Now, up to this point, I assume the majority of the people who read this blog would be more or less in general agreement with what I’ve said…even those of you who lurk in the shadows and never comment (remember there is a site meter on this blog and it does give a geographical breakdown; not to make you paranoid or anything J). However, in the next segment, I want to give a few specific examples to drive home my point that may be a bit less agreeable (I hope that doesn't sound theatric). Please give feedback if this happens; that’s the whole point of this blog. The areas I plan on sketching out (at this point, anyway) are: 1) the head/heart distinction in a little more detail 2) sermon structure and delivery and 3) popular level views of the apocrypha. Who knows, maybe more will come to mind and there will likely be some concluding thoughts, but that’s where I’m headed over the next few days.

Dangerous Devotions: Reflections on the Bifurcation of Faith and History - Part 1

It’s hard to read very long under the heading of Jesus/Gospel Studies without confronting the division (okay, I just thought bifurcation was a cool sounding word and wanted to use it) between faith and history, or more specifically the “Jesus of History” and the “Christ of Faith” also commonly expressed as the “Quest for the Historical Jesus.” The attempt to apply historical critical methods to the Gospels as an outgrowth and application of Enlightenment epistemology led to this division in New Testament studies, especially those in Germany during the last few centuries. This bifurcation has continued into the present in academic NT studies via Bultmann and his successors on the continent and the Jesus Seminar here in the states. Recent fascinations with the historical Jesus have only become more popular due to best sellers like the Gospel of Judas and the Da Vinci Code not to mention the works of Ehrman and others. The ultimate application that comes from many writing from such a vantage point is typically one of two extremes: 1) Reject the Christian faith as historically groundless OR 2) Leave historical inquiry for the academy (the historical Jesus) and cling blindy to the teaching of the “church” (the Christ of faith).

What I’ve enjoyed so much about reading Wright in Jesus and the Victory of God is that he exposes such thinking for exactly what it is…a false dilemma. Christianity has NOTHING to fear from history and historical inquiry. While some “historians” may be overcome by their supposed objectivity that is actually saturated with ignored or suppressed presuppositions, the fact remains, Christianity ultimately rests on historical fact. Faith is not ultimately blind, but instead in historical evidence…namely the revelation of God in the Bible. It is neither contra history nor ahistorical. What does this have to do with the title? Glad you asked. While fundamentalism and conservative evangelicals have always avoided and confronted such liberal assumptions, my concern (and experience) is that they have frequently been guilty of the very same bifurcation via false dilemma…albeit for different reasons and with nothing but the best of intentions. But this post is already long enough, so I'll save that charge in it's specificity and unpacking for Part 2.

Mike Bird on the SBC and Fundamentalism

About a year ago now, I researched and wrote a paper on the conservative resurgence in the SBC for Baptist History. My primary motivation was to discover first hand just how conservative the SBC really was. I kept hearing from fundamentalists that the resurgence was largely overexagerated and the majority of the SBC was still liberal. My own exposure to the SBC seemed to suggest otherwise, particularly seeing most of the books I was reading were by professors from within the SBC schools. Having begun to come to grips with the realization that the trajectory I was on would put me outside of the fundamentalist orbit before too long, I was interested in seeing if the SBC would be a good place to plug in. After several weeks of reading and almost 30 pages of writing I came to the conclusion that not only was the conservative resurgence genuine, but perhaps the pendulum had swung a bit too far. I began to suspect that the SBC was moving culturally in the direction of fundamentalism and that a move to the SBC would result in little forward progress. This assumption was largely confirmed when the convention took the unbiblical position on alchohol that exploded in the blogoshpere last year.

While I may not have spent too much time online in the last two weeks, I did make time to keep up with Euangelion and Jesus Creed. Though I recognize the post I'm about to reference is a week old, it's significant enough to point out, especially since I'm assuming that I'm not the only one who was out of the blogosphere last week. As I read Mike Bird's post on Russell Moore's evaluation of the SBC, fundamentalism and evangelicalism I was encouraged (though perhaps ultimately discouraged) to see that my conclusions on the convention were not too wide of the mark (according to both Bird and Moore). You can read Mike Bird's response here if you haven't yet (I reccomend you print it off; it's pretty long), though I suggest you start by listening to Moore's lecture first here.

Boanerges 3.0

Finally, Boanerges gets the facelift that was sooooo long overdue. A new look for a new year. Dawn and I have been in NH for the last week or so visiting family and the week before, I was working 10 hour days (with 2 mandatory 1hr breaks) so I was gone for most of the time I wasn't sleeping. Hence the silence in cyberspace over the last few weeks. I was wanting to make a few changes to my blog anyway, so I figured I'd change it up before making any new posts. In addition to the new template modifications, I've upgraded to the new version of blogger and STRONGLY reccomend that you do so if you haven't yet. It's soooooo much better. I've also added a few new links that were long over due. Russell White (OT-Wannabe) is finally using his blog for something other than a blogging ID now. His template looks pretty cool and his posts are regular and substantive. Also two relative newbys from the Bible Believer's body began blogging (sorry, throwback to my fundy aliteration days) - Josh Jones (J to the 3rd power) and Scott Osborne (Scott's OT Corner) have been churning out some good posts in recent days. Both Scott and Russell bost blogs with special interest in OT studies which puts them in a small minority in the blogosphere (and perhaps the church universal) and fulfill a long overdue need.

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!

The Real Jesus?

For those who haven't seen it yet, the latest edition of US News and World Report claims to be "In Search of the Real Jesus" on the cover. Of course why try the novel approach of searching the scriptures, right? Alright, forgive my sarcastic pessimism but since the Da Vinci Code (both book and movie) and National Geographics marketing of the Gospel of Judas (Ehrman probably deserves honarable mention in such a list too), the popularization of alternative christianities has become almost naseuating in the mainstream media. It's not as if these things are cutting edge issues that have never been considered before in the history of Christiainity. Furthermore, some of the extremes (I have Dan Brown in mind here) don't even deserve the attention they've earned. Though I was silent in the blogosphere back when The Davinci Code was the hot button, suffice it to say I haven't seen the movie yet. Not due to conscience, but due more to the fact that it got terrible reviews. Since I did read the book (at least the half I could stomach) and concluded without finishing that it sucked (historically, theologically and as most of all masquerading as work of literature), I saw little need of seeing a movie that even those who liked the book disdained.

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.

Letters Along the Way

I recently received a voicemail from a college guy I've been "discipling" with questions regarding the issue of Predestination. While I did not go into the depths of exegetical/theological wrestling, I thought it was an interesting enough discussion to post here and see who I could get riled up. I thought it better to respond, rather than a 30 second voicemail, with an email that I've included the text of below:

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? :-)

- Nate

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.

Symbolic Suggestions

While this doesn't quite parallel the poll I took on our family blog, I would like some input from any of the regular readers of this blog. If I were to get a tattoo (wow, I never thought I'd start a sentence that way :-) I'm convinced of what I'd want it to say:

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?

The Way I See It # 95

Now that Barker has liberated my conscience, I'm back to blogging :-) (See the previous post's comment section if you don't know what I'm referring to) I have a few quotes off of Starbucks' cups that I was wanting to blog on. Since we're into the X-mas season, there probably won't be too many more for a while. Furthermore, GOOD quotes on Starbucks cups are few and far between. Nevertheless, I think #95 was pretty interesting if you allow me a few reader-response tweaks and adjustments.

"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

Getting it Wright from an Early Age

Okay, I think I've established the point that it's virtually impossible for me to bring up Tom Wright on this blog without a junior highishly overdone pun...nevertheless, that's part of who I am :-) I thought I'd demonstrate just how seriously I take the responsibility of parenting by posting a picture of me recently reading Noah a "bedtime story." As you can see this young scholar in training is far more engrossed in the current volume than his post-grad dad.


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. 

Woman may not preach, but they sure can blog!

I thought I'd give a shout out to my wife and do a little shameless advertisement for our family blog. Dawn has posted her first "substantive" post with some expositional thoughts on Phil 4 and worry here. She doesn't consider herself much of a writer, but I think she's got some great reflections on the text. Be sure to check out the pics too...we've got some shots of Noah's contribution for election day.

Barth on Evil

Since several who are also reading up on Barth right now have already posted, I felt compelled by the peer pressure to toss in my two cents. Ok, so that's not exactly the case but I thought I would pass on a quote or two that particularly stood out. I've been reading John Webster's introduction Barth: Outstanding Christian Thinkers (recommended by Barth fan Ben Myers on the reading list on his blog) and am just about finished (I know, I know... finally I've finished something other than Driscoll and Clancy). The book is pictured at the right and despite the fact that the latest cover makes it look like a kid's book, it's been a good read. Don't misunderstand me, I don't claim to understand all that Webster's saying (let alone what Barth says) but it has served as a helpful intro in view of my lacuna with reference to neo-orthodoxy. Regardless of what you may think of Barth, he definitely has some great things to say at times. I liken Barth to a Glock pistol. For the non-shooters out there, glocks are double-action only and have a 5.5lb trigger pull. The result is that most people shoot them and either love them or hate them; there's no in between. Likewise with Barth (at least for me so far)...you read something he's said and either love it or hate it. Granted, on occasion, there may be an additional category (i.e. you just don't plain understand it), but I think the comparison fits. Anyway, Barth seems to be the only person I'm aware of that places a greater emphasis on Freedom and Sovereignty that Scott Logan (perhaps there's a connection there somewhere :-0) and I find it quite refreshing. I thought the following words on the problem of evil were excellent:

"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!

Unbelieveable Resource

Check out this site for some incredible online resources. Access is free until the end of the year and a nominal fee will be charged for those who can afford it after that point. If you're tempted to ignore my suggestion and NOT click on the link, let me give you just a teaser but pointing out you can access the full text to the volumes of the Word Commentary series free. It shouldn't take much more than that...

(HT: Dave Griffiths)

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.