Some news items from National Review

Three members of Bucknell College’s Conservative Club were dressed down for their use of “offensive” language. Their offense? In an e-mail promoting a speaker, they wrote, “Where were you during the months following September 11? Major John Krenson was hunting terrorists” in Afghanistan. The offending part isn’t immediately clear, but it turns out that in the cosseted world of Bucknell the phrase “hunting terrorists” is verboten. University president Brian C. Mitchell called it “unfortunate language” and said that he wished to “prevent this from happening again.” Got it: Next time, make it, “Krenson was trying to start a useful dialogue on sensitive issues with freedom fighters subjected to U.S. imperialism.”

An interesting example of cultural cross-fertilization showed up on our TV screens the other day when Martha Stewart, our national icon of middle-class domesticity, played hostess on her talk show to rapper and pop-music entrepreneur — he is the founder of Bad Boy Entertainment — Sean Combs, a.k.a. “Diddy.” Mr. Combs taught hip-hop slang to Ms. Stewart, and watched with approval while she rapped: “It’s Miss Martha from Jersey City / I’ll bake you a cake and make your crib look pretty . . .” Ms. Stewart’s venture into street culture seemed to us to fall into that category of performances famously remarked on by Doctor Johnson: It was not done well, but one was surprised to find it done at all. We doubt Ms. Stewart will have much of a career as a rap singer. The other side of the exchange was more promising. Mr. Combs learned how to make Chinese dumplings, how to personalize wrapping paper, and the proper way of watering house plants, accomplishments that will no doubt enrich his future life, broaden his horizons, and elevate his standing among his peers.

On October 3, 1995, O. J. Simpson was acquitted of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman. On September 30, 2005, Simpson was back in Los Angeles, autographing sports memorabilia for a horror-movie convention. “I don’t keep these dates in my head,” Simpson remarked of the near-coincidence, no doubt because his pursuit of the real killers has been all-consuming.

From National Review, OCTOBER 24, 2005, VOL. LVII, NO. 19

Thanks for reading!

The worth of a blog

My blog ain't worth much evidently. There's a blow to the head! Ah well, I'll write anyway.

My blog is worth $0.00.
How much is your blog worth?

Some thoughts and Sarah Kelly

This week has been a bit of a blur. I've been a bit overwhelmed in my mind and heart by circumstances and events, some of which are quite beyond my control. I haven't quite been sure how to put things into perspective lately. My heart hurts for friends in Waco, my mind swirls with a hundred possible scenarios to make that hurt go away, and yet I know that sometimes life just has pain. The hope that comes to me first looks a bit like the sun at dawn. It peeks over the fog and the dark clouds of the night. It seems almost timid, not sure whether or not to make its presence known. Then, the bright light pierces some part of the darkness. That little bit of light brightens the space, makes it seem lighter, more accessible.

Hope has been like that to me the past few days. By God's grace I see hope peeking into a dark time of life. The sun has not fully risen to its zenith, but there is a shaft of light shining into a dark place, making it livable and alive. In the midst of this darkness, I have taken solace in some music. One song that has encouraged me is "Take Me Away" by Sarah Kelly. It can be found on her album by the same name. Here are the lyrics:

no more weary teary eyes
just sunny skies
never have I felt so alone
my how I've grown
maybe that's the way it's supposed to be
as I'm walking down this street
maybe if it's just you and me
we'll never even miss a beat
maybe

Take me away
Take me away
All that I love is you, is you

captured by your love
I'm such a fool for you
the day you laid your hand upon my heart
tore my world apart
there's been so many times that I have prayed
to hear you speak my name
and though I've never seen you face to face
I search for you everyday

Take me away
Take me away
All that I love is you, is you

come what will and come what may
I know your love will remain
through the joy and through all the pain
I surrender and it makes me want to fly

Take me away
Take me away
All that I love is you, is you

I have this sense that God is there. He cares. I want to run away to him, to be in his lap for a few minutes. I want the ugliness of this fallen world to disappear, just for a minute. I want to experience the joy of Narnia without any evil. I know that a day will come, a day unlike any other, a day when we can tread the streets with no names and find what we are looking for. That hope is what drives me today. I'm not depressed, I'm sad that the ugliness of this world necessitates the death of so many who are too young to die. Kyle is an isolated event and a friend, but he isn't alone in the tragedy of human existence. God is beyond that tragedy. He is there. I turn to him, he is my hope. Without him, it just isn't worth the work, it isn't worth the effort, I'd just stay in bed.

Thanks to God for hope, thanks to God for his inexpressible gift. The sun will rise, life will continue, good will happen. Joy comes in the morning. I look forward to joy.

Thanks for reading!

Tragedy

Today I am in a rather somber mood. I received an e-mail from a friend in Waco, TX (Hello Kyle!) regarding a tragic event in the life of many Baylor students and the Waco Christian community at large. I'm not real clear on all the details, but I wanted to write my friends in the blogosphere to ask your prayers for this situation. Here is the story:

Yesterday morning (Sunday, October 30), University Baptist Church in Waco was getting ready to observe a baptism. As the pastor, Kyle Lake, began his descent into the baptism pool, he evidently reached up to adjust a microphone used for baptisms. The microphone caused a spark of some sort that resulted in the electrocution of Pastor Lake. Emergency help was summoned, but Kyle was declared dead at 11:30 a.m. at Hillcrest Baptist Memorial Hospital. He leaves a wife and three young children.

Kyle Lake was not a close friend. I knew him from my work as a bookstore manager. He was loved by many, at any rate, and he died at the age of 33.

33?

You gotta be kidding me, right?

Regular readers here will know of my grief over the loss of a cousin this past summer (You can read it here if you missed it--It isn't Fair. The feelings are the same now as then). Drew was closer to my age, but he was still young.

I feel so (what's the word?) angry, upset, sad. . . . I'm not sure what to say.

I'm still confident in God's character.

I know God is faithful and good.

But this whole thing just seems so wrong.

I hate death.

Yes, I hate it.

On the day when Death and Hades are kicked into the bottomless pit, I will stand and cheer. I will dance about wildly, flinging my arms and body in all sorts of direction in praise of a great accomplishment--greater than any touchdown, homerun, or pay raise. I will celebrate madly the final death of Death. I long for the day.

I know, I know, it's time to turn off the rant. Please pray for the Lakes and the others from UBC and the surrounding community who are hurting now.

Thanks for reading!

Some rambles about T Bone Burnett songs . . .

I'm kinda in a funk today, so instead of rambling aimlessly, I thought I'd offer some thoughts on the songwriting of one T Bone Burnett. Burnett is married to the former Leslie (now Sam) Phillips, and he is not only a prolific songwriter, he is quite a producer as well. At any rate, he put out an album in 1988 entitled "The Talking Animals." On this album are two songs I want to share with you. The first one (called "The Wild Truth") is about human need for truth. Here are the lyrics:

you never said it was a bed of roses
but you never said it was a bed of nails
you never told me 'bout the rubber hoses
or how unsteady were the justice scales

i need the wild truth

on the street there are a billion people
they got no love, they got no hope
they got no youth, they got no beauty
they're looking backwards through a telescope

they need the wild truth

whatever happened to the man walking down the street
with his hands in his pockets whistling a tune?
science fiction and nostalgia have become the same thing

i don't know how to make any choices anymore i mean,
who do i vote for? i get the feeling that as soon as
something appears in the paper it ceases to be true

i have to meet the man who can crack this world of justice
like a safe. someone with the courage to allow room for
good things to run wild

into the wild truth

we don't need no voodoo stories
from no magic president
who tries to make a dream a fait accompli
by using phantoms for his evidence

we need the wild truth

i tell a hundred thousand lies that twist me
into the noise where i hide my sin
my shame and scandal pull me down and kiss me
i can't live a life that might have been

i need the wild truth

are we supposed to take all this greed and fear and hatred
seriously? it's like watching dust settle it never changes
it's too consistent

mercy is not consistent it's like the wind
it goes where it will. mercy is comic, and its the only
thing worth taking seriously

i need the wild truth

This song strikes me as though the writer is seeking for something to make a difference in his life. Kind of like "I still haven't found what I'm looking for" by U2, this song says that we need something that will not only take us by surprise, but that will also make sense of the nonsense around us. We need "wild truth" that turns our evil into good and our anger to mercy. We need Mercy, we need Grace, we need the Wild Truth.

The second song is "Relentless" and is about love. You may want to debate with me regarding the origin of the love in the song, but I think the writer is talking about both the love of God and love between humans. Let me know what you think.

i stand and tremble in the driving rain
while your love rages like a hurricane

i can't break the silence as you still the wind
but i can hear you breathing underneath my skin

i am relentless almost senseless you are relentless

i reel and stagger in the blinding light
while your love flashes like a lightening strike

so i find the darkness where i grow afraid
but i cannot shake you and the blackness fades

i am relentless almost senseless you are relentless

you are relentless
this mercy convulses my pride
you are relentless
i find you wherever i hide
you are relentless
i have got nothing to win
and so i give in

i run and stumble as the mountains shake
while your love blazes like a world in flames

to shoot all fear into the desert sky
as stars fall like water through the dead of night

i am relentless almost senseless you are relentless

Thanks for reading!

The human dilemma . . .

Today I wanted to offer you something to think about that comes from Francis A. Schaeffer. I've been perusing his The God Who Is There lately, and I came across the following material that I found both shocking and culturally relevant to post-modern Christians in a twenty-first century world. Let me know what you think. The quotes below come from pages 193ff of Schaeffer's book.

The historic Christian position is that man's dilemma has a moral cause. God, being non-determined, created man as a non-determined person. this is a difficult idea to anyone thinking in twentieth-century terms because most twentieth-century thinking sees man as determined. He is determined either by chemical factors, . . . or by psychological factors . . . . In either case, or as a result of the fusion of these two, man is considered to be programmed. If this is the case, then man is not the tremendous thing the Bible says he is, made in the image of God as a personality who could make a free first choice. Because God created a true universe outside of Himself (not as an extension of His essence), htere is a true history which exists. Man as created in God's image is therefore a significant man in a significant history, who could choose to obey the commandment of God and love Him, or revolt against Him. There is no reformed theologian, however strong his reformed theology might be, who would not say that Adam in this way was able fundamentally to change the course of history.

This is the wonder of man and the wonder of history. . . . Man can understand and respond to the One who, having made him and communicated with him, called upon him to show that he loved Him by simple command, 'Don't do this'. . . . This is the infinite-personal God calling on personal man to act by choice. . . . He could so act by choice because he was created to be different from the animal, the plant and the machine.

To ask that man should have been made so that he was not able to revolt is to ask that God's creation should have ceased after He created plants and animals. It is to ask that man should be reduced to machine programming. It is to ask that man should not exist.

If one begins to consider the Christian system as a total system, one must begin with the infinite-personal triune God who is there, and who was communicating and loving before anything else was.

That's a lot to take in for one day, but I wanted to add a postscript. This morning in philosophy class I acknowledge that the only true knowledge of God begins with God's initiation. That is, God is reaching out to me to communicate to and relate with me. That is the record of Scriptue, and, I argue, the record of human history and experience. I cannot come to God on my own abilities or knowledge, even though those things may be gifts from that same God. No, the only way to have a relationship with God is through the initiative he shows to us all in the grace of Jesus. Chew on these things for a while and let me know what you think.

Thanks for reading!

T-Shirts . . .

Today I wanted to post the lyrics from a song by Derek Webb. The song is entitled "T-Shirts (what we should be known for)" and comes off of Derek's "I see things upside down" album. The song is a take off of John 13:34-35. Good stuff! Chew on this:

They'll know us by the t-shirts that we wear
They'll know us by the way we point and stare
At anyone whose sin looks worse than ours
Who cannot hide the scars of this curse that we all bare
They'll know us by our picket lines and signs
They'll know us by the pride we hide behind
Like anyone on earth is living right
And isn't that why Jesus died
Not to make us think we are right

Chorus:
When love, love, love
Is what we should be known for
Love, love, love
It's the how and it's the why
We live and breathe and we die

They'll know us by reasons we divide
And how we can't seem to unify
Because we've gotta sing songs a certain style
Or we'll walk right down that aisle
And just leave 'em all behind
They'll know us by the billboards that we make
Just turning God's words to cheap cliches
Says "What part of murder don't you understand?"
But we hate our fellow man
And point a finger at his grave

Chorus

They'll know us by the t-shirts that we wear
They'll know us by the way we point and stare
Telling 'em their sins are worse than ours
Thinking we can hide our scars
Beneath these t-shirts we wear


So, what do you think?

Thanks for reading!

What is my problem? Some rambles . . .

I sit here listening to the greatest hits of DC Talk and grading Philosophy worldview papers, but my mind continues to wander to other things. What is my problem?

I have tried for almost 2 weeks to get through the worldview of Augustine. Heck, it took three classes to cover Plotinus, and only God knows how long I took on Aristotle. I certainly enjoy the discussions we have in class (if any of you are reading this post, thanks for asking questions, it makes my day!), but some days I get bogged down in (what seem to me) unnecessary details.

Ever have one of those days?

Like Wednesday, we had a great discussion of the old "free will" versus "sovereignty of God" debate. I don't know if we settled anything, but I think we as a class framed the argument well and asked the right questions. Maybe some of life is simply a mystery to which we can't always find specific answers. Heck, I'm a philosopher, I ought to know this stuff! What is my problem?

I understand that I am human, I am not perfect. I know that the search for Truth (with a capital "T") is a lifelong pursuit. Dang, if it was easy, then everyone would do it, right? I guess today I am just a bit anxious that I didn't offer help in pursuing the issues. My desire is to provide a place where questions can be considered with openness, honesty, and reason. I want to help others to think critically about the important things in life--especially the things of God.

Hey, don't we all want to be the hero? Right?

Is this thing on?

Is anyone out there?

Sometimes I think I hear God in the back of my mind whispering encouragement. He offers tantalizing evidence of his love and watchcare by quietly speaking in the darkest reaches of my heart. I hear it, but sometimes it is too faint. I run to look at it more closely, yet I often take a wrong turn. Anyone else ever feel that way?

What is my problem?

It is Friday, I want to go home and play with my kids, and I'm feeling too introspective.

God help us when we get too introspective.

A note of interest that relates to nothing above--on Monday a friend of mine will come by the house to build a sukkoth to celebrate the Jewish feast of Tabernacles. My family will join his family (hi Joe!) and others (Hi Wayne!) to offer thanks to God for his provision for us. I'm looking forward to it. Wednesday night I had the privilege of participating in Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) services with the same folks. It was quite impressive.

To think that God cared enough for me to provide a covering for my relationship to him. He loved us in such a manner as to give us a relationship with him through the sacrifice of his own Son. When I get down or introspective (like today), it is good to remember this fact. God loves me! Yes, he loves you too!

I may not know what is my problem today, but I know that God loves me. Thanks for listening to me ramble.

I appreciate you all.

Thanks for reading!

Problems with the media, reality TV . . . and more Muggeridge

Those who are familiar with Malcolm Muggeridge already know that he was a journalist. If you didn't know that, you may wonder how it is possible for a journalist to be a Christian (grin), but that's a discussion for another day. The fact is that Muggeridge was a journalist, and in his lectures that later became the little book, The End of Christendom, Muggeridge notes some problems with the media. Here is the quote from pages 38-39.

"A strange thing I have observed over many years in this business of news gathering and news presentation is that by some infallible process media people always manage to miss the most important thing. It's almost as though there were some built-in propensity to do this. In moments of humility, I realize that if I had been correspondent in the Holy Land at the time of our Lord's ministry, I should almost certainly have spent my time knocking about with the entourage of Pontius Pilate, finding out what the Sanhedrin was up to, and lurking around Herod's court with the hope of signing up Salome to write her memoirs exclusively. I regret that this is true. Ironically enough, as the dramatization of the public scene gains impetus, so we move farther and farther from the reality of things and become more and more preoccupied with fantasy."

That last line gave me pause. Here is Muggeridge, speaking in 1978, addressing the problem of news and reality. I understand this paragraph to be saying that even in '78, Muggeridge saw signs of the media's "dramatization of the public scene" as opposed to the straightforward reporting of "the reality of things." Is this some kind of reference to "making the news" versus "reporting the news"? Perhaps, but more to the point is the reference to the danger of becoming "more and more preoccupied with fantasy." This remark certainly sounds a lot like "reality" TV, doesn't it?

Think about it--we neglect our "real" lives to tune in to shows that purport to show us "reality" on TV. Yet these very shows are more interested in the dramatization of an "unrealistic" setting than in offering us "reality." We strand a bunch of people on an island, encourage them to stab each other in the back, film the results, edit that film, and then call it "reality!" Does anyone else appreciate the irony?

We take the desire among most humans for a loving relationship, find some single guy, set him up with a choice of several gorgeous women, and then film their responses as the fat hits the fan. Then we call it "reality" TV!

We put a bunch of has-been celebrities together in a house, encourage them to participate in shenanigans, then we call it "reality."

Why are we obsessed with this stuff? Could it be that our own "reality" is so mundane that we want a substitute reality for it?

We all know that (like TV wrestling) most of these "reality" shows follow a script and are edited to elicit a certain response, yet we persist in calling them "reality" TV!

Muggeridge was practically prophetic here. Look at the major cable "news" networks--don't you see basic "dramatization" of events instead of a reporting of "things"? Why does the coverage of MSNBC, CNN, and even Fox look the same? We are living in the age of reality dramatization predicted by Muggeride almost 30 years ago!

What do you think?

More Muggeride to consider

Here are a couple more quotes from Malcolm Muggeridge for you all to chew on.

“Words can be polluted even more dramatically and drastically than rivers and land and sea. There has been a terrible destruction of words in our time.” The End of Christendom, p. 2

“As Pascal says, faith is a gift of God. It is different from the proof of it. It is the kind of faith God himself places in the heart, of which the proof is often the instrument. Faith that makes us think of credo (I believe), rather than of scio (I know). He says of it, too, that it is the heart which is aware of God, and not reason. That is what faith is: God perceived intuitively by the heart, not by reason. . . . Faith does indeed tell us what the senses do not tell, but does not contradict their findings. It transcends but does not contradict them. Pascal repeats, ‘Faith is the gift of God.’” The End of Christendom, p. 6

"Because (Pascal) understood how important humility is and because he could recognize the arrogance that was growing up among scholars and learned people, he foresaw the dangers that the Enlightenment would bring. He knew that as never before in history a choice was going to confront man between seeing the whole future of mankind in terms of man shut up in his physical being--as we say today, in his genes--and the alternative of accepting in humility and contrition a role in the purposes of a loving God." The End of Christendom, pp. 7-8

I look at the world some thirty years after this lecture and shudder to think that Muggeridge may be right. Like C. S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man, Muggeridge almost speaks prophetically to us, warning us of the dangers of unrestrained and proud science. If the whole of human existence is wrapped up in our genes, and if we are able by science to alter that structure as we see fit, who then determines what is an improvement or a defect? Who gets to say what is the "ideal human" or the perfect man or woman? As Lewis notes, the only ones left to make this decision are also human, and as such, subject to the same potential "evolutionary" changes in their genes as the rest of us. What makes this "elite" group more capable to decide what is proper or not in human genetic development? Who gets to decide?

What do you think?

Thanks for reading!

How 'bout some Baptists?

Having grown up in the Southern Baptist version of Christianity here in America, I have a special love for all things Baptist. One thing I have tried to do with fair regularity is to learn something about the various groups of Baptists that exist around the world. One of my favorite names is the Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists (imagine that on a softball shirt!). These folks trace their roots to the Waldenses and began in America in the eighteenth century with the protests of one Daniel Parker against missions and Sunday School. Yep, you read that right, protests agains missions and Sunday School.

Parker evidently had a genuinely negative view of the Arminian doctrine of the Methodists and based his dislike of the missionary effort and church schools on what he called his Two-Seed doctrine. Briefly stated, this doctrine holds that two seeds entered the life stream of humanity in the Garden of Eden. One seed was good, the other evil. Every child is born with one seed or the other and thus predestined to either salvation or damnation depending on which seed the child has. Mission activity is therefore useless, as each child has within them the "seeds" (pardon the pun) of salvation or destruction! The seed is in the spirit, not in the flesh of humans. At any rate, I thought you all might be fascinated with this information.

I've taken to calling this group the Dead Sea Scrolls Baptists given the similarity in doctrine to some of the materials found at Qumran. Nonetheless, I would be curious as to whether any of you have encountered these folks. They were a small group when I first looked into them in the mid 1980s, so if you can find any info on them, post it here. Oh, if you want to read my source for the material above, I found it in Frank S. Mead's Handbook of Denominations in the United States.

Thanks for reading!

And now a word from Malcolm Muggeridge . . .

I've been reading parts of Muggeridge's The End of Christendom lately, and I thought you might benefit from some quotes. This first section is a description of Pascal in Muggeridge's words. Muggeridge says:

"Like all true believers, (Pascal) was deeply skeptical. His intelligence was wonderfully astringent and critical. It is one of the fantasies of the twentieth century that believers are credulous people, sentimental people, and that you have to be a materialist and a scientist and a humanist to have a skeptical mind. But of course exactly the opposite is true. It is believers who can be astringent and skeptical, whereas people who believe seriously that this universe exists only in order to provide a theatre for man must take man with deadly seriousness. I believe myself that the age we are living in now will go down in history as one of the most credulous ever. . . . The truth is that the farther our faith reaches, the more doubts it encompasses, as from the highest hills there are the fullest vistas." (pp. 4-5, The End of Christendom)

What do you think? Is Muggeridge right? Does faith include some element of doubt? Do cynics make good believers? It is something to ponder, huh?

And now, to balance the thought, let me quote Pascal himself from Pensees, p. 149:

"It is in vain that you seek within yourselves for the cure for your miseries. All your insight only leads you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good. The philosophers promised them to you and they have not been able to keep their promise. . . . Your principle maladies are pride, which cuts you off from God, and sensuality, which binds you to earth. And they have done nothing but foster at least one of these maladies. If they have given you God for your object, it has been to pander to your pride. They have made you think that you were like him and resemble him by your nature. And those who have grasped the vanity of such a pretension have cast you down in the other abyss by making you believe that your nature is like that of the beast of the field and have led you to seek your good in lust, which is the lot of animals."

Well, I think that these quotes are enough for today. Chew on them. Think about them. Then, if you want, share your insights with the rest of us.

Thanks for reading!

A word from Derek Webb

I've been listening to Derek Webb's "She Must and Shall Go Free" album today, and I wanted to share a provocative song entitled "Nothing (Without You)."

I've got the dress; I've got the ring
I've got a song that I can sing
I've got the bread; I've got the wine
But I've got the life I left behind
I've got everything but I've got nothing without you

I've got the law in my heart
I've got your love tearing me apart
I've got a vow that I can't keep
But I've got your promise getting me to sleep
I've got everything but I've got nothing without you

I've got your works and I've got my faith
I've got all the wine that you can make
I am the kiss of your betrayer
But I've got your grace on every layer
I've got everything but I've got nothing without you

'Cause you see it's all just a show
And you either hate it or you don't
And only time will tell the difference
If you get it clearly or with interference

Because I've got the race; Got the election
But win or lose I've got protection
I found a lobbyist in the devil
And I've got salvation in a rebel
I've got everything but I've got nothing without you.

Let me know what you think of this song.

Thanks for reading!

A word to Atheists . . .

I've been reading C. S. Lewis' Surprised by Joy recently, and several quotes have gotten my attention in this account of his conversion from atheism to Christ. So, with some comments, here are the quotes.

"In reading Chesterton, as in reading MacDonald, I did not know what I was letting myself in for. A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere--'Bibles laid open, millions of surprises,' as Herbert says, 'fine nets and strategems.' God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous." (p. 191)

I love the image painted here. Lewis is trying his best to maintain a reasonable atheism as his philosophy of life, but even in the realm of literature he seems to butt up against the idea of God constantly. He cannot escape the divine person he calls "the Adversary." In fact, I think this image is appropriate. God, the creator of the universe, is constantly trying to "trap" us in the net of his grace. He wants a relationship with us so much that he is willing to be (in Lewis' words) unscrupulous in his pursuit of us. Atheists be warned, God has laid a trap for you. He is on the hunt, and reason will not keep you safe from him. In fact, as Lewis describes it, reason itself is one of the traps God uses to catch us.

"Really, a young Atheist cannot guard his faith too carefully. Dangers lie in wait for him on every side. . . . For the first time I examined myself with a seriously practical purpose. . . . Idealism can be talked, and even felt; it cannot be lived. It became patently absurd to go on thinking of 'Spirit' as either ignorant of, or passive to, my approaches. Even if my own philosophy were true, how could the initiative lie on my side? My own analogy, as I now first perceived, suggested the opposite: if Shakespeare and Hamlet could ever meet, it must be Shakespeare's doing. Hamlet could initiate nothing. . . . The real terror was that if you seriously believed in even such a 'God' or 'Spirit' as I admitted, a wholly new situation developed. . . . I was to be allowed to play at philosophy no longer. It might, as I say, still be true that my 'Spirit' differed in some way from 'the God of popular religion.' My Adversary waived the point. It sank into utter unimportance. He would not argue about it. He only said, 'I amd the Lord'; 'I am that I am'; 'I am.' . . . . People who are naturally religious find difficulty in understanding the horror of such a revelation. Amiable agnostics will talk cheerfully about 'man's search for God.' To me, as I then was, they might as well have talked about the mouse's search for the cat." (pp. 226-227)

Lewis had come to the philosophical conclusion that a "Spirit" existed beyond mere natural existence, and now that very "Spirit" was interfering with Lewis' life and thought. The very idea unnerved him. He did not want such an interference, he wanted his soul to remain his own personal possession. Now, however, he was coming to the reasonable conclusion that such a wish is practically impossible. He could not live without interference from the divine. Lewis continues:

"Doubtless, by definition, God was Reason itself. But would he also be 'reasonable' in that other, more comfortable, sense? Not the slightest assurance on that score was offered me. Total surrender, the absolute leap in the dark was demanded. . . . The demand was not even 'All or nothing.' I think that stage had been passed, . . . Now the demand was simply 'All.'" (p. 228)

Given his own thoughts and attempts to live his rational philosophy, Lewis ended in one of God's traps. He could not find a way around the practical conclusion that if a divine "Spirit" existed, he/she/it had the right to demand something of humans. At least, that is how it reads to me. This realization of God's all encompassing claim on humanity caused a crisis for Lewis. What to do? He even uses the words "That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me." His response?

"I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England. I did not then see what is now the most shining and obvious thing; the Divine humility which will accept a convert even on such terms. . . . who can duly adore that Love which will open the high gates to a prodigal who is brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance to escape? The words . . . compel them to come in, . . .properly understood, . . . plumb the depth of Divine mercy. The hardness of God is kinder than the softness of men, and His compulsion is our liberation." (pp. 228-229)

I love the way Lewis expresses himself here, and I am inclined to agree with him. Lewis the atheist has come face-to-face with the realization that Someone may be there, Someone who has a prior claim on humanity. It subsequently frightens him and concerns him, but he sees no recourse but surrender. Is he right?

What do you think?

I encourage you to get this frank book and read a description of a conversion that is quite unlike that of St. Augustine.

Thanks for reading!

Are you there yet?

Phil 3:12-15
12 Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. 13 Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. NASU

2 Cor 3:18
18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit. NASU

Today I feel drawn to these words of Paul. I like both the humility and the possibility inherent in these words—the wonderful “not yet” and the strangely exciting “one day.” I find it interesting the Paul did not consider himself a person who had figured out all of God’s plans. Paul did not think of himself as someone who had “made it,” as someone who had “already obtained it” or “become perfect.” Yet, this same fellow could remind us of the wonderful opportunity to look at the glory of the Lord directly through the mediation of Jesus Christ. Paul also often told us to imitate him, even though he had not yet apprehended or comprehended the full counsel of God on every issue.

How unlike us today! We want others to think we have a corner on God’s market. We want others to respect us for our degrees, or our learning, or our Bible knowledge. We can quote Scripture, we understand eschatological charts, we can look up Greek and Hebrew words, we have done exegesis! We are worthy of emulation, we are excellent exemplars of the kind of person God respects, right?

But . . .

I think God is more interested in whether or not we do his Word, not just in how much we can quote. God is more concerned with our obedience than with our knowledge. Application and practice seem to be priority items in heaven.

That shouldn’t be taken as a knock against knowledge. Not at all! But knowledge that isn’t acted on is useless. If I know how to fix my own car, but then I insist on paying someone else to do it, then I am in some ways being foolish. Knowledge is important, but practice makes knowledge better.

Finally, I don’t want to sound too negative about learning or degrees (I have a few myself). My point is this—God wants the company of humble men and women. Folks who know stuff, but recognize their status compared to the Lord of the universe. As Isaiah says, God likes to be around the humble and contrite, folks that have an honest assessment of their worth, i.e., one that is based on God’s value system rather than a human one.

God values each of us, that is why he gave Jesus in our place. We have not really done much to get ourselves to the point of success in which we find our lives today. In reality, God is the one who has driven things to this point. He alone rules all the details.

Yet, he values our cooperation with him. He wants us to work with him, to be his partners in the enterprise of loving other people and showing his grace for all.

Are we willing to humble ourselves and join him? Can we be partners with God, all the while letting him be the one in charge? I hope so. Nothing else seems worthwhile to me anymore.

Thanks for reading!

Be careful little hands what you do . . .

Luke 20:17-18
17 But Jesus looked at them and said, "What then is this that is written:

'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,
THIS BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone'?

18 " Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust." NASU

Ex 14:13-14

13 But Moses told the people, "Don't be afraid. Just stand where you are and watch the LORD rescue you. The Egyptians that you see today will never be seen again. 14 The LORD himself will fight for you. You won't have to lift a finger in your defense!" NLT

How comfortable I become in my laziness and in my lax approach to life! I am given so many advantages compared to others, and yet instead of pursuing excellence, I seem to pursue mediocrity. Bill Lane once told me that he was a child of God first and a scholar second. His scholarship was his gift to God for the grace God had given him. I wonder if we take seriously the tasks that God has set before us. Think about it! In James 4:17, we are told that if we know the right thing to do, but then refuse to do it, we are willfully committing sin. Then, Colossians 3:24-25 tells us that the person who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong done, and that without partiality. I’m not talking about a form of Christian legalism here, I have in mind the idea that we need to remind ourselves on a regular basis that our acts, our deeds, are as important as our lives. What we do or don’t do can weigh heavily against us or for us.

Take some time to contemplate that. God cares what you do.

In the parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus distinguishes between the two groups by what they did or didn’t do. The book of Revelation reminds us that all humans will be judged for their deeds. How many times do we have to be told to watch what we are doing before we actually start “watching” what we are doing? Even our choice to do nothing is an action that has consequences.

God, forgive your people for substituting inactivity for real activity. Forgive us for substituting mediocrity for excellence. Remind us of the great grace and kindness you have shown us. Remind us so that we will feel that holy obligation to be and to do that which will bring you glory.

Some random notes, stuff I've been doing lately . . .

I want to post here, but sometimes I'm not real sure what to say. I recently submitted some reviews of three books in the Journal of the Study of the New Testament Supplement series. Each book was, in its own right, an interesting read. The one that really grabbed my attention was entitled Scalometry and the Pauline Epistles. The author is George K. Barr, and he proposes using a measure of scale to understand and to interpret texts. Barr contends that the Pauline materials (as well as other texts) evidence a surprising range of scale that could be important for determining not only the importance of certain elements in a text, but also for the possibility of determining authorship of various disputed works. For Barr, scale exists in written texts as surely as in art, music, and architecture. The presence of scale in a text informs the reader with regards to the importance of certain materials, lending a sense of immensity to major themes and an aura of the mundane to less important materials.

Now, this idea intrigued me because I had no idea how to measure scale in a text. Fortunately for me, Barr spends a great deal of time not only defining the concept of textual scale, but also he describes a method whereby the scale of a text can be graphed and studied. Now, if you are graphically challenged like me, this material may not be the most exciting reading you have ever done. Nonetheless, Barr delineates an approach that has a feel of objectivity to it and yields some fascininating conclusions. Simply stated, Barr discovers 6 basic levels or models of scale in Pauline materials. Applying these models to books that are not universally accepted as Pauline, Barr discovers that they show the same range of scale as the undisputed Pauline materials. That is, they chart the same graph of scale as other works considered definitely by the hand of Paul.

Now, you may have turned off your computer at that point, but I think it is interesting in this way--working as I do in conservative Christian circles, the view has long been that Paul wrote all those epistles directly attributed to him. In other scholarly circles, however, the opinion has long been that Paul only wrote a handful of the 12 or so epistles bearing his name. If Barr's method checks out, then there will be a sort of graphical or scientific evidence that the conservative is correct. In fact, Barr believes so strongly in his conclusions that he calls for a radical change in sholarly consensus about the Pauline epistles. His call is similar to Luther's nailing the 95 theses on the door of the church in Wittenberg.

At any rate, I found it interesting that after all this time, an academic work could have a different or fresh approach and hold my attention. It might not be fascinating to you, but I certainly enjoyed the challenge of learning the language and use of scale in texts. Ah well, I've rambled enough. If you want more, feel free to ask.

Thanks for reading!

What I'm listening to this morning . . .

I'm feeling nostalgic, so I have on two classics from the rock group Kansas:

1. Leftoverture

2. The Point of Know Return

Remember, we are all "dust in the wind," so we should "carry on" in what we have to do today! (smile)

Thanks for reading!

What I'm listening to today . . .

1. Altar Boys, "Against the Grain"

2. Tonio K, "Romeo Loves Jane"

Thanks for reading!

Some thoughts from Spurgeon

An excerpt from a devotional by C. H. Spurgeon:

"I have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the earth." --Ecclesiastes 10:7

"Upstarts frequently usurp the highest places, while the truly great pine in obscurity. This is a riddle in providence whose solution will one day gladden the hearts of the upright; but it is so common a fact, that none of us should murmur if it should fall to our own lot. When our Lord was upon earth, although He is the Prince of the kings of the earth, yet He walked the footpath of weariness and service as the Servant of servants: what wonder is it if His followers, who are princes of the blood, should also be looked down upon as inferior and contemptible persons? The world is upside down, and therefore, the first are last and the last first. See how the servile sons of Satan lord it in the earth! What a high horse they ride! How they lift up their horn on high! Haman is in the court, while Mordecai sits in the gate; David wanders on the mountains, while Saul reigns in state; Elijah is complaining in the cave while Jezebel is boasting in the palace; yet who would wish to take the places of the proud rebels? and who, on the other hand, might not envy the despised saints? When the wheel turns, those who are lowest rise, and the highest sink. Patience, then, believer, eternity will right the wrongs of time.

"Let us not fall into the error of letting our passions and carnal appetites ride in triumph, while our nobler powers walk in the dust. Grace must reign as a prince, and make the members of the body instruments of righteousness. The Holy Spirit loves order, and He therefore sets our powers and faculties in due rank and place, giving the highest room to those spiritual faculties which link us with the great King; let us not disturb the divine arrangement, but ask for grace that we may keep under our body and bring it into subjection. We were not new created to allow our passions to rule over us, but that we, as kings, may reign in Christ Jesus over the triple kingdom of spirit, soul, and body, to the glory of God the Father."

What do you think?

Thanks for reading!