Saturday, May 19, 2007
The Best Heroic Films
John Mark Reynolds writes: "Could we relate a set of great texts to a series of low-brow and high-brow film explorations of the “hero and savior?” (read post)
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Another book meme
I like this one:
1. Grab the nearest book.
2. Open it to page 161.
3. Find the fifth full sentence.
4. Post the text of the sentence along with these instructions.
5. Don't search around and look for the coolest book you can find. Do what's actually next to you.
Here it is:
"Their island is perfect for wet rice cultivation, and rice is the fountainhead not only of Balinese prosperity, but of its culture and religion as well."
The instructions don't say whether to give the title of the book. So I won't.
(via RightReason blog)
1. Grab the nearest book.
2. Open it to page 161.
3. Find the fifth full sentence.
4. Post the text of the sentence along with these instructions.
5. Don't search around and look for the coolest book you can find. Do what's actually next to you.
Here it is:
"Their island is perfect for wet rice cultivation, and rice is the fountainhead not only of Balinese prosperity, but of its culture and religion as well."
The instructions don't say whether to give the title of the book. So I won't.
(via RightReason blog)
Monday, May 07, 2007
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Surprising News
Well known Christian philosopher, Francis Beckwith, has become a Roman Catholic, a return to the church of his youth. He has written extensively on pro-life, cultural, and political issues. I confess to being sympathetic to his move. The intellectual and artistic riches in the Catholic tradition are undeniable. My own reservations are theological (though I confess my limited knowledge of R. Catholicism theology). But I also have some reservations about being a Presbyterian (or at least attending a Pres. church). That church's guiding creed, the Westerminster Confession, contains a section equating papists with infidels and idolators, and the pope with the antichrist. Since I don't believe these to be true, perhaps I should leave the Presbyterian church for another denomination. On the other hand, I wholly accept the ecumenical creeds (Nicene, Chalcedon, Athanasian). I also have some problems with the whole free will/presdestination issue. I wonder if joining the Anglican church could allow me to have a foot in both worlds. Of course, stepping onto an apparently sinking ship is probably not the smartest thing to do right now.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Are we crossing that (a)bridge(ment)?
Is the new trend to shortened classics a case of cutting fat or meat?
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Death in the City - chapter eight
Death in the City Ch. 8 – The Justice of God
Schaeffer asks: “Is God really just in judging the man without the Bible?” He undertakes a thought experiment where a newborn baby has a tape recorder placed around his neck. The recorder works only when moral judgments are being made. Throughout the person’s life, every moral act or thought is recorded. After he dies, he stands before God. God then pushes the play button and the person hears his own moral judgments as they were expressed throughout his lifetime. There are thousands of these moral judgments. At the end of them, Schaeffer has God ask, “On the basis of your own words, have you kept these moral standards?”
What can a man say in response to such a question? He can do nothing else but be silent. “God says, ‘I will judge you upon your own moral statements (those judgments upon which you have bound and condemned others), even if they are lower than moral statements should be. Are you guilty or not guilty?’ No one will be able to raise his voice.”
Men will be judged based not on what they did not know but on what they did know. “So all men must say, ‘Indeed I am justly condemned.’”
Schaeffer quotes Luke 12:2-3: “For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.”
So is God just? If He judges based on the standards that we judge others, then His judgment is indeed just. But judgment is not the end when mercy also exists. Schaeffer states: “God has provided a way that no philosophy would have thought of. It is a way that would take us by surprise if we were not just thinking by evangelical habit. There should be everlasting surprise in it. I stand here. I am significant. God must be holy. Is all lost now that I have sinned? The answer is no! God has provided a propitiation, a substitute. There whole of God’s answer rests upon the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ. Because of who He is, His death has infinite value; it can cover every spot; it can remove true moral guilt (and not just the guilt feelings that exist) in the presence of God as the perfect Judge of the universe. Thus three great things fall into place: God’s holiness, man’s significance, and the possibility of man’s redemption. I don’t know about you, but I believe it is time to stand up and sing the doxology. Here is an intellectual answer that nothing else has ever presented!”
Schaeffer asks: “Is God really just in judging the man without the Bible?” He undertakes a thought experiment where a newborn baby has a tape recorder placed around his neck. The recorder works only when moral judgments are being made. Throughout the person’s life, every moral act or thought is recorded. After he dies, he stands before God. God then pushes the play button and the person hears his own moral judgments as they were expressed throughout his lifetime. There are thousands of these moral judgments. At the end of them, Schaeffer has God ask, “On the basis of your own words, have you kept these moral standards?”
What can a man say in response to such a question? He can do nothing else but be silent. “God says, ‘I will judge you upon your own moral statements (those judgments upon which you have bound and condemned others), even if they are lower than moral statements should be. Are you guilty or not guilty?’ No one will be able to raise his voice.”
Men will be judged based not on what they did not know but on what they did know. “So all men must say, ‘Indeed I am justly condemned.’”
Schaeffer quotes Luke 12:2-3: “For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.”
So is God just? If He judges based on the standards that we judge others, then His judgment is indeed just. But judgment is not the end when mercy also exists. Schaeffer states: “God has provided a way that no philosophy would have thought of. It is a way that would take us by surprise if we were not just thinking by evangelical habit. There should be everlasting surprise in it. I stand here. I am significant. God must be holy. Is all lost now that I have sinned? The answer is no! God has provided a propitiation, a substitute. There whole of God’s answer rests upon the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ. Because of who He is, His death has infinite value; it can cover every spot; it can remove true moral guilt (and not just the guilt feelings that exist) in the presence of God as the perfect Judge of the universe. Thus three great things fall into place: God’s holiness, man’s significance, and the possibility of man’s redemption. I don’t know about you, but I believe it is time to stand up and sing the doxology. Here is an intellectual answer that nothing else has ever presented!”
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Favourite Hymn #6
When life gets tough (which has been frequently so lately), I often turn to this hymn. And especially now, I dedicate it to a friend from church whose granddaughter is in critical condition in the hospital.
Be Still My Soul
Be still, my soul: the Lord is on thy side.
Bear patiently the cross of grief or pain.
Leave to thy God to order and provide;
In every change, He faithful will remain.
Be still, my soul: thy best, thy heavenly Friend
Through thorny ways leads to a joyful end.
Be still, my soul: thy God doth undertake
To guide the future, as He has the past.
Thy hope, thy confidence let nothing shake;
All now mysterious shall be bright at last.
Be still, my soul: the waves and winds still know
His voice Who ruled them while He dwelt below.
Be still, my soul: when dearest friends depart,
And all is darkened in the vale of tears,
Then shalt thou better know His love, His heart,
Who comes to soothe thy sorrow and thy fears.
Be still, my soul: thy Jesus can repay
From His own fullness all He takes away.
Be still, my soul: the hour is hastening on
When we shall be forever with the Lord.
When disappointment, grief and fear are gone,
Sorrow forgot, love’s purest joys restored.
Be still, my soul: when change and tears are past
All safe and blessèd we shall meet at last.
Be still, my soul: begin the song of praise
On earth, believing, to Thy Lord on high;
Acknowledge Him in all thy words and ways,
So shall He view thee with a well pleased eye.
Be still, my soul: the Sun of life divine
Through passing clouds shall but more brightly shine.
Be Still My Soul
Be still, my soul: the Lord is on thy side.
Bear patiently the cross of grief or pain.
Leave to thy God to order and provide;
In every change, He faithful will remain.
Be still, my soul: thy best, thy heavenly Friend
Through thorny ways leads to a joyful end.
Be still, my soul: thy God doth undertake
To guide the future, as He has the past.
Thy hope, thy confidence let nothing shake;
All now mysterious shall be bright at last.
Be still, my soul: the waves and winds still know
His voice Who ruled them while He dwelt below.
Be still, my soul: when dearest friends depart,
And all is darkened in the vale of tears,
Then shalt thou better know His love, His heart,
Who comes to soothe thy sorrow and thy fears.
Be still, my soul: thy Jesus can repay
From His own fullness all He takes away.
Be still, my soul: the hour is hastening on
When we shall be forever with the Lord.
When disappointment, grief and fear are gone,
Sorrow forgot, love’s purest joys restored.
Be still, my soul: when change and tears are past
All safe and blessèd we shall meet at last.
Be still, my soul: begin the song of praise
On earth, believing, to Thy Lord on high;
Acknowledge Him in all thy words and ways,
So shall He view thee with a well pleased eye.
Be still, my soul: the Sun of life divine
Through passing clouds shall but more brightly shine.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Monday, April 02, 2007
Death in the City - Chapter Seven
Death in the City Chapter 7 – The Man Without the Bible
There are a few instances where Paul addresses people who did not have the Bible such as Lystra (Acts 14) and Mars Hill (Acts 17). Romans 1 is addressed to a church made up mainly of Gentiles and possibly a significant minority of Jews. Though the Jews had scriptures, the gentiles would not have; so Romans 1 & 2 constitute an extended discussion about God based not on a written revelation but on the evidence from within (conscience) and without (nature). His example is important for us who deal with a generation which has never read a bible. How does one start to speak to a person like this, by quoting Bible passages? Paul didn’t (even though, interestingly, his words later became part of the bible).
There is, Schaeffer says, a moral law in our universe which corresponds to the character of the Almighty Himself. He writes: “There is no law behind God that binds God. Rather God Himself is the law because He is not a contentless God but a God with a character….when a man sins, he sins against the character of God, and he has moral guilt in the presence of the Great Judge.”
In knowing the truth, albeit suppressed, man is different from animals. He has “moral motions, [a] need for love, [a] fear of non-being, and [a] longing for beauty and for meaning.” All men, even a Marquis de Sade who says there is none, by their actions and in their writings, demonstrate what they deny, namely that an objective morality exists. Schaeffer writes: “I have always enjoyed the thought of Kruschev sitting at the United Nations, pounding on the table with his shoe and shouting, ‘It’s wrong. It’s wrong.’ Isn’t that an interesting thing for a materialist to say? He didn’t mean that something was merely counter to the best interests of the Soviet Union. He was saying something was wrong.”
Schaeffer makes reference to several thinkers: Levi-Strauss’ work which showed that all men, from primitive peoples to cultured societies, think in the same fashion; Michael Polanyi’s (in response to Francis Crick’s determinism) view that DNA’s chemical and physical properties alone cannot explain what a man is; Mortimer Adler’s view that man knows within himself that he is not the same as non-man.
Paul’s words in Romans is as applicable today as it was in the first century: men suppress the truth of what they know. All men, primitive, cultured, ancient, modern, eastern, or western know that man is more than what their theories explain.
He writes: “What Paul is stressing here is that when you turn away from God and follow other presuppositions, the more consistent you are to your presuppositions, the further you get away from reality itself….Therefore, a breakdown in morality occurs. God says to man in this position: You are under my judgment. And so these questions arise; ‘How are men without the Bible going to be judge?’ and ‘Is this just?’”
There are a few instances where Paul addresses people who did not have the Bible such as Lystra (Acts 14) and Mars Hill (Acts 17). Romans 1 is addressed to a church made up mainly of Gentiles and possibly a significant minority of Jews. Though the Jews had scriptures, the gentiles would not have; so Romans 1 & 2 constitute an extended discussion about God based not on a written revelation but on the evidence from within (conscience) and without (nature). His example is important for us who deal with a generation which has never read a bible. How does one start to speak to a person like this, by quoting Bible passages? Paul didn’t (even though, interestingly, his words later became part of the bible).
There is, Schaeffer says, a moral law in our universe which corresponds to the character of the Almighty Himself. He writes: “There is no law behind God that binds God. Rather God Himself is the law because He is not a contentless God but a God with a character….when a man sins, he sins against the character of God, and he has moral guilt in the presence of the Great Judge.”
In knowing the truth, albeit suppressed, man is different from animals. He has “moral motions, [a] need for love, [a] fear of non-being, and [a] longing for beauty and for meaning.” All men, even a Marquis de Sade who says there is none, by their actions and in their writings, demonstrate what they deny, namely that an objective morality exists. Schaeffer writes: “I have always enjoyed the thought of Kruschev sitting at the United Nations, pounding on the table with his shoe and shouting, ‘It’s wrong. It’s wrong.’ Isn’t that an interesting thing for a materialist to say? He didn’t mean that something was merely counter to the best interests of the Soviet Union. He was saying something was wrong.”
Schaeffer makes reference to several thinkers: Levi-Strauss’ work which showed that all men, from primitive peoples to cultured societies, think in the same fashion; Michael Polanyi’s (in response to Francis Crick’s determinism) view that DNA’s chemical and physical properties alone cannot explain what a man is; Mortimer Adler’s view that man knows within himself that he is not the same as non-man.
Paul’s words in Romans is as applicable today as it was in the first century: men suppress the truth of what they know. All men, primitive, cultured, ancient, modern, eastern, or western know that man is more than what their theories explain.
He writes: “What Paul is stressing here is that when you turn away from God and follow other presuppositions, the more consistent you are to your presuppositions, the further you get away from reality itself….Therefore, a breakdown in morality occurs. God says to man in this position: You are under my judgment. And so these questions arise; ‘How are men without the Bible going to be judge?’ and ‘Is this just?’”
Friday, March 23, 2007
Favourite Hymn #7
Be Thou My Vision
Be Thou my Vision, O Lord of my heart;
Naught be all else to me, save that Thou art.
Thou my best Thought, by day or by night,
Waking or sleeping, Thy presence my light.
Be Thou my Wisdom, and Thou my true Word;
I ever with Thee and Thou with me, Lord;
Thou my great Father, I Thy true son;
Thou in me dwelling, and I with Thee one.
Be Thou my battle Shield, Sword for the fight;
Be Thou my Dignity, Thou my Delight;
Thou my soul’s Shelter, Thou my high Tower:
Raise Thou me heavenward, O Power of my power.
Riches I heed not, nor man’s empty praise,
Thou mine Inheritance, now and always:
Thou and Thou only, first in my heart,
High King of Heaven, my Treasure Thou art.
High King of Heaven, my victory won,
May I reach Heaven’s joys, O bright Heaven’s Sun!
Heart of my own heart, whatever befall,
Still be my Vision, O Ruler of all.
Be Thou my Vision, O Lord of my heart;
Naught be all else to me, save that Thou art.
Thou my best Thought, by day or by night,
Waking or sleeping, Thy presence my light.
Be Thou my Wisdom, and Thou my true Word;
I ever with Thee and Thou with me, Lord;
Thou my great Father, I Thy true son;
Thou in me dwelling, and I with Thee one.
Be Thou my battle Shield, Sword for the fight;
Be Thou my Dignity, Thou my Delight;
Thou my soul’s Shelter, Thou my high Tower:
Raise Thou me heavenward, O Power of my power.
Riches I heed not, nor man’s empty praise,
Thou mine Inheritance, now and always:
Thou and Thou only, first in my heart,
High King of Heaven, my Treasure Thou art.
High King of Heaven, my victory won,
May I reach Heaven’s joys, O bright Heaven’s Sun!
Heart of my own heart, whatever befall,
Still be my Vision, O Ruler of all.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Death in the City - Chapter Six
Death in the City: Chapter 6 – The Significance of Man
Educated men of the modern era have increasingly turned to determinism as an explanation for our existence. Determinism is usually expressed as one of two varieties: chemical determinism, where life is just the outcome of chemical forces, and psychological determinism where humans are not responsible for what they do or who they are. Man has been reduced to simply a cog in the giant machinery of the cosmos.
Schaffer emphasizes that the biblical view is radically different. Quoting Romans 1:21-22, “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” he states that if man can truly turn away from the truth, then man is wonderful: he “can really influence significant history.” A creature made in God’s image cannot be trapped in determinism. Man’s ability to choose, even to turn away from his creator shows his greatness.
Naturalistic humanism leads to a lessening of man’s significance. Only the biblical view can produce a real humanism, one that recognizes man’s greatness. Humans are not part of a theatrical play where the lines are set. Humans are responsible beings. Their choices influence history. To be sure, man is lost; but he is great. He matters.
Christianity is not Platonism which views the body as bad and the soul as the only thing that matters. God made the whole man; therefore “the whole man is to know salvation, and the whole man is to know the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The great teaching of the resurrection of the body is not just abstract doctrine; it stands as a pledge and reminder of a very important and a very hopeful fact.” God made humans with both body and soul, so He is concerned with both. He made man with intellect and so He is concerned with the intellect. He created man to be artistic so He is concerned about the creation of art and beauty through such creative capabilities.
Salvation, then, is not concerned with just a small area of our lives. It applies to every part, every division of our being. “Man is separated from God…he is separated form himself, thus the psychological problems of life…he is separated from other men, thus the sociological problems of life…he is separated from nature, and thus the problems of living in the world, for example, the ecological problems. All these need healing.”
Educated men of the modern era have increasingly turned to determinism as an explanation for our existence. Determinism is usually expressed as one of two varieties: chemical determinism, where life is just the outcome of chemical forces, and psychological determinism where humans are not responsible for what they do or who they are. Man has been reduced to simply a cog in the giant machinery of the cosmos.
Schaffer emphasizes that the biblical view is radically different. Quoting Romans 1:21-22, “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” he states that if man can truly turn away from the truth, then man is wonderful: he “can really influence significant history.” A creature made in God’s image cannot be trapped in determinism. Man’s ability to choose, even to turn away from his creator shows his greatness.
Naturalistic humanism leads to a lessening of man’s significance. Only the biblical view can produce a real humanism, one that recognizes man’s greatness. Humans are not part of a theatrical play where the lines are set. Humans are responsible beings. Their choices influence history. To be sure, man is lost; but he is great. He matters.
Christianity is not Platonism which views the body as bad and the soul as the only thing that matters. God made the whole man; therefore “the whole man is to know salvation, and the whole man is to know the Lordship of Jesus Christ. The great teaching of the resurrection of the body is not just abstract doctrine; it stands as a pledge and reminder of a very important and a very hopeful fact.” God made humans with both body and soul, so He is concerned with both. He made man with intellect and so He is concerned with the intellect. He created man to be artistic so He is concerned about the creation of art and beauty through such creative capabilities.
Salvation, then, is not concerned with just a small area of our lives. It applies to every part, every division of our being. “Man is separated from God…he is separated form himself, thus the psychological problems of life…he is separated from other men, thus the sociological problems of life…he is separated from nature, and thus the problems of living in the world, for example, the ecological problems. All these need healing.”
Monday, March 12, 2007
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Should I go to seminary?
No. (Though, if I had the money, I wouldn't mind taking a few courses). But I think those who want to be pastors and church/parachurch leaders (never mind theologians) should. Read John Stackhouse's take on this
Monday, March 05, 2007
C.S. Lewis's Case for Christ
C.S. Lewis’s Case for Christ by Art Lindsley (IVP, 2005)
Lindsley’s book takes a brief and concise but quite thorough look at the thought of Lewis and the importance it has for those today who are seeking for answers to the meaning of life. It covers Lewis’ views on myth and imagination, rationalism and miracles, chronological snobbery, the problem of evil, belief in God as wish fulfillment, postmodernism, relativism, non-Christian religions, and death and immortality. The discussion on all these topics hinge on the person of Jesus Christ whom Lindsley, through the lens of Lewis’ writings, considers to be worthy of trust and commitment
Each chapter begins and ends with the narrative device of a Lewis seminar given at a bookstore (such as, say, Chapters or Borders bookstore). This allows for some discussion between a cast of characters (e.g., an atheist, a pluralist, etc.) that gets the ball rolling for the main body of text. The exposition that Lindsley provides is quite good. He gets Lewis’ main points without getting lost in the smaller details. Given the short and succinct, yet satisfying, nature of his explanations, this book would make a great introduction to Lewis for those who are asking the question: “Why should I believe in Christ?”
And those familiar with Lewis should find this book interesting as well.
Lindsley’s book takes a brief and concise but quite thorough look at the thought of Lewis and the importance it has for those today who are seeking for answers to the meaning of life. It covers Lewis’ views on myth and imagination, rationalism and miracles, chronological snobbery, the problem of evil, belief in God as wish fulfillment, postmodernism, relativism, non-Christian religions, and death and immortality. The discussion on all these topics hinge on the person of Jesus Christ whom Lindsley, through the lens of Lewis’ writings, considers to be worthy of trust and commitment
Each chapter begins and ends with the narrative device of a Lewis seminar given at a bookstore (such as, say, Chapters or Borders bookstore). This allows for some discussion between a cast of characters (e.g., an atheist, a pluralist, etc.) that gets the ball rolling for the main body of text. The exposition that Lindsley provides is quite good. He gets Lewis’ main points without getting lost in the smaller details. Given the short and succinct, yet satisfying, nature of his explanations, this book would make a great introduction to Lewis for those who are asking the question: “Why should I believe in Christ?”
And those familiar with Lewis should find this book interesting as well.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
More on the Jesus Tomb
Ben Witherington has a second great post on the Jesus tomb.
One note: Christians who, when confronted with this controversy or the Da Vinci Code, should remember that the purveyors of these controversies are presenting their side of the story only. It's easy to make a case for something when you only present one set of evidence, the set that supports your viewpoint. But, orthodox Christianity has evidence on its side too, lots of it. We ought to weigh the evidence on both sides and see which fits the facts the best.
There are plenty of books one could read, for example, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig Blomberg; and there are plenty of internet resources such as this article by W.L. Craig, The Historicity of the Empty Tomb, as well as various articles at Tekton Apologetics
One note: Christians who, when confronted with this controversy or the Da Vinci Code, should remember that the purveyors of these controversies are presenting their side of the story only. It's easy to make a case for something when you only present one set of evidence, the set that supports your viewpoint. But, orthodox Christianity has evidence on its side too, lots of it. We ought to weigh the evidence on both sides and see which fits the facts the best.
There are plenty of books one could read, for example, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig Blomberg; and there are plenty of internet resources such as this article by W.L. Craig, The Historicity of the Empty Tomb, as well as various articles at Tekton Apologetics
Friday, March 02, 2007
Morris on Books
Philosopher Thomas V. Morris has written a couple of articles on the value of reading good books.
Reading Great Books and Living the Good Life
Reading Great Books Part 2
Reading Great Books and Living the Good Life
Reading Great Books Part 2
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Fly the flag at half mast
I've decided, due to financial constraints, to not renew my subscription to Books and Culture. Fortunately, they're online (that's how I found out about the Plantinga review; otherwise, I would have waited for the paper issue to arrive, usually by the third week of the month in question). But still, it's nice having the actual thing in my hands (at least, it was nice). I highly recommend the magazine to all lovers of books.
Plantinga's Review of Dawkins
Is there anyone who can write like Alvin PLantinga? I enjoy reading even the stuff of his I don't understand (which is lot...anyhoo). Here's his review of Richard Dawkins' latest book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)