July 9, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall I can think of all sorts of comments on this…but really, what can I say about this NARAL party flyer that it doesn't say for itself?
(HT: Justin Taylor)
Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Main Page, Politics 
6 Comments »
July 9, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton It’s not about whether you buy bonded leather or genuine
leather binding. We believe that the Bible is the inspired (or as 2 Timothy
3:16 would say- expired) Words of God. It’s the text before us that matters,
and specifically how that text is translated. With so many translations today
most Christians have no idea why one version might be better than another. As
Dr. Ryken suggests, we typically decide on a translation based on its
readability, not its accuracy.
Choosing a Bible is a 30-page booklet adapted from
Dr. Ryken’s The Word of God in English. The basic purpose of the booklet
is to argue against dynamic equivalence (hereafter DE) translations and for
essentially literal (EL) translations. DE is based on the idea that whenever
the original text may be unclear to the average reader, the text “should be
translated in terms of an equivalent rather than literally.” (7) This is
usually referred to as “thought-for-thought” as opposed to “word-for-word.”
Dr. Ryken offers five reasons why DE is not a good method
for translation. 1) Translators take liberties with the text that we would not
usually take with other documents. 2) DE destabilizes the text by bringing into
question the reliability of the translation. 3) DE gives us what the Bible
“means” to the translator instead of what the Bible says. 4) We expect to read
what the author intended us to read when we read a translation; however, DE
often fails to meet this expectation. 5) It is logically and linguistically
impossible to separate the thoughts in the Bible from the words in the Bible.
In contrast, 10 reasons why EL can be trusted are offered.
These are mostly the opposite of why DE can’t be trusted. Additionally, EL doesn’t
mix commentary with translation, it preserves theological precision, and it
preserves the dignity and beauty of the original text.
Being only 30 pages, this is not an exhaustive
treatment of the translation debate. However, Dr. Ryken’s concise writing is
clear, precise, and persuasive. Naturally much of the arguments could be
expanded, but for it’s size I don’t know of any other resource of this
excellent quality. I can think of a few theologically liberal friends I’d like
to give this to for them to chew on.
Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology 2 Comments »
July 9, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall Before anyone gets
offended, this post is not about arguing for a specific political
position; it's about calling for all of you to think clearly, debate
ideas, and to give people the benefit of the doubt rather than
assume those who disagree with you have secret, evil motives. If
you agree with me that the behavior I'm about to describe is wrong,
then I'm on your side whether you're conservative or liberal. If
you don't see a problem, then chances are you've heard liberals say
these things about conservatives so often that you've become used to
hearing them, and maybe even now believe them. If that's the case, then I ask you to reconsider your position as you read the following.
In making his case for “Why Democrats will smear any conservative court nominee,” Dennis Prager notes the attitude that most liberals have regarding conservatives: “On issue after issue, Democrats perceive Republicans as not merely wrong, but bad.”
Likewise in liberal
eyes, the Republican/conservative preference for lowering taxes can
only emanate from selfishness and apathy toward the poor. And
conservative support for the war in Iraq cannot emanate from love of
liberty and a moral desire to destroy Islamic totalitarians, but rather
from love of oil, commitment to American imperialism and macho
adoration of military might.
Some of you have expressed these same ideas. If
I can convince you of nothing else in all your reading of this blog, I
hope I can at least convince you that Republicans want to do good, just
as Democrats do. Read the complete article
to see how this misunderstanding of Republicans–coupled with an
inability of the Left to convince the majority of its ideas and promote
those ideas through democratic means–will continue to lead to lowered
public discourse and an ugly fight over any nominee for the Supreme
Court.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Politics 2 Comments »
July 7, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall “The contrast between what we've seen on the TV screens here, what's taken place in
Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Main Page, Politics 3 Comments »
July 7, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton A few weeks ago, while I was in one of my favorite
bookstores, a guy made a comment about how the Holy Spirit has been forgotten
in contemporary Christianity. I replied by suggesting that we haven’t forgotten
Him, so much as we have misunderstood Him. Whether we misunderstand or forget
Him altogether, it’s clear that we don’t have a robust understanding of the
Holy Spirit, or the Trinity in general.
Bruce Ware’s Father, Son, & Holy Spirit: Relationships,
Roles, & Relevance, seeks to provide us with the robust understanding we
lack. The brief 158 page book is an adaptation from a series of lectures Dr.
Ware gave at a conference in 2004 and is broken down into six chapters.
Chapter One addresses the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity.
”Would God have chosen to reveal himself to us as the one God who is Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit, unless he knew that this would be important to our
understanding of him and our faith?” (13) Chapter Two claims to be an
historical overview of the doctrine, though it’s really more of an analysis of
the Biblical evidence for the Trinity.
Chapters Three through Five are each on a different person
of the Godhead. Each chapter describes the unique roles of each person, how
they relate to one another, and what relevance each person’s roles has for our
lives.
The final chapter, six, concludes with ten “lessons for our
lives and ministries from the relationships and roles of the triune God.” (132)
Since we are made in God’s image, we must start with understanding of God in
order to understand ourselves. The applications include living in community,
the harmony of unity, the importance of authority and submission within our
families and churches, how to pray, and how to worship.
The book is a very easy read, though it is far from simple.
I still think James R. White’s The Forgotten Trinity is the best book available
in regards to the Biblical basis of the doctrine. However, Dr. Ware’s is the
best I’ve seen that explains the roles of each person and how the doctrine
should apply to how we live. For instance, “Here in the Trinity… we see
hierarchy without hubris, authority with no oppression, submission that is not
servile, and love that pervades every aspect of the divine life.” (157)
If you’re questioning the Biblical basis of the
doctrine, go read James White. If you are seeking a deeper understanding of the
Trinity and the relevance the nature of God has in your life, Dr. Ware’s book
is a must read. I know of no other book that explains these profound truths
with such clarity and warmth while maintaining their depth and weight.
Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology No Comments »
July 6, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall This article on “open-mindedness” by David Mills (HT: Timbo and Melinda) has some good thoughts on the need for answers. I've been concerned about the Youth Specialties decision to sum up one of the main values of their CORE training program with the statement, “Questions are better than answers.” Marko went so far as to say that questions are always better than answers, but I don't think this is true.
As Mills points out, “A man may open-mindedly weigh the merits of monarchy, but he may not, without branding himself a moral imbecile, open-mindedly weigh the merits of Hitler’s policies for the Jews.” There must be times when we come to conclusions and stand on answers. “The mind that is being used will often be closed. If it is working well, it will be closed more often than not. It will have closed on something solid, and be chewing it over. That is what minds do.”
Mills explains the motivation behind taking the approach of “questions are better than answers”–there is a great fear that strong convictions will lead to atrocities. Mills responds:
You don’t call off the family’s Christmas feast because Uncle George will drink too much and fall down in the front yard, and Cousin Filbert will eat too much and throw up on the carpet, and Cousin Wilhelmina will set the Christmas tree alight. You simply take precautions. You recognize the temptations you might face—intolerance, say, or fanaticism—and resist them.
Mills then offers an interesting critique of the demand by some for “open-mindedness.” He points out that this ideal is never really lived out–even by those who call for it, but instead becomes (most often unintentionally) a way of imposing a group's particular answers on the people who disagree with them. People use statements of “open-mindedness” to keep dialogue open on the issues they wish to change, but close down dialogue on the issues they want to be closed (by labeling those who disagree as closed-minded and unworthy of dialogue). “And thus the self-declared open-minded often respond to others with a closed mind and a closed fist.”
A perfect example of this (my example, not Mills's) is the recent campaign Sojourners had against the “religious right” during the last presidential election. They decried the intolerance and closed-mindedness of the religious right for saying God wanted us to vote Republican, and then they turned right around and detailed why God wanted us to vote Democrat (see here and here), explaining how Republican positions are against Scripture. So they proclaim their tolerance in empty words with the slogan “God is not a Republican…or a Democrat,” convincing us through our emotions that they're neutral, and then they slip in their agenda without people noticing. They did precisely what they complained the religious right did (said they were on God's side); they were just more clever and subtle about it. Mills notes that it's impossible to avoid this kind of hypocrisy when one adopts the rhetoric of “open-mindedness”:
The liberal has tried to solve the problems of our limited vision and avoid the dangers of intolerance through relativism and pluralism, but as his own rhetoric and actions show, he cannot do so with any success, because men must always believe something to be true, and must speak for and act upon these truths even though others object and protest. What is denied as conscious principle quickly reappears as unconscious ideology.
The willfully open mind is, as we have seen, often the most tightly shut. The sophisticate is often as sure that he has the truth as any fundamentalist, and more eager to impose his truth on others than most fundamentalists ever think of being.
As with the case of Sojourners, those who call for “open-mindedness” end up shaming others into taking their position through rhetorical language instead of openly arguing for their own position and allowing those on the opposing side to argue for theirs. How much easier it is to say nobody should argue or take stands on truth (shutting down the opposition) and then to quietly slip in your own arguments anyway than it is to openly debate the merits of your position!
Let's not hide behind language. Let's be open about our positions. Let's take stands for truth and charitably debate the merits of our ideas. And may the best ideas win!
Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page 32 Comments »
July 6, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton Some might expect (including myself) that such a title for a
post would be followed by a rant on how the church has been compromised by
modernism/capitalism. However, this is about Emergent- what’s typically dubbed
post-consumerist and post-modern.
A month ago Emergent issued an “Official Response to
Critics.” Aside from the fact that they really didn’t engage their critics, it
was especially interesting that they referred to it as an “official” response.
Most people I’ve talked to within emergent want to refer to it as a
conversation, not a movement. To label it “official” seems to fly in the face
of it merely being a conversation.
A few weeks ago Tony Jones was elected national director of
Emergent, however, that title was quickly changed for fear of coming off too
authoritative. Effective October 1, Tony Jones will be the first National
Coordinator of Emergent. They also expanded their Board of Directors and
expanded/reformed their Emergent Coordinating Group (ECG). Yet, they still want
to call it a conversation.
While browsing Baker Book’s website today I stumbled upon
their press release- “Baker Books and Emergent Sign a Multiyear Publishing
Agreement.” If you haven’t been paying attention, Emergent had a book deal with
Zondervan through their relationship with Youth Specialties. Now that Emergent
and YS have decided to divide a bit, Emergent has secured their own book deal.
Here are some interesting excerpts from the press release:
“The series will be targeted toward lay and vocational
church leaders and others who are interested in the “Emergent
conversation,” a movement of those seeking to explore the many
opportunities for Christianity in our time.”
“Emergent will continue to connect people through
conferences, events and the Internet, with Baker Books serving in a sponsorship
role. “We’re looking forward to publishing books that will extend this
conversation as widely as possible,” Chad Allen, acquisitions editor for
Baker Books, said.”
Even Baker’s confused about what Emergent is- “the Emergent
conversation, a movement…” I sincerely hope that Chad Allen’s statement
accurately reflects the future of Baker’s publishing relating to Emergent.
There are only four books currently in print that contain criticisms of the
emerging church (Carson’s Becoming Conversant, Reclaiming the Center, The
Emerging Church, and Christianity and the Postmodern Turn). Of the four, 2 are
more of an interactive exchange between both sides. Baker did recently publish
the last one on the list, Christianity and the Postmodern Turn, but I’ve yet to
see a single person interact with anything that’s discussed in the book. I know
of only one book on its way to print that’s critical- R. Scott Smith’s Truth
and a New Kind of Christian– due out in September on Crossway (I’ll be
interviewing Dr. Smith when it comes out). So that will make 5 books that are
at all critical, while I’ve got some 30 books on my shelf that embrace the
movement, and I figure I have maybe half of them out there- and there’s plenty
more on the way.
Timbo called it a “moversation.” Whatever you want to
call it, it’s exceedingly obvious that Emergent is more than voices. The
question is, how open are they really? Whose voices are being heard? Is there
room in the discussion for those who disagree? If Baker really wants to “extend
this conversation as widely as possible,” will they be publishing works
critical of the emerging church? If they’re looking for other critical authors,
they can reach me at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.
Posted in Emerging / Emergent Church, Main Page, Roger's Posts 2 Comments »
July 5, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall Micah rightly pointed out yesterday that we do not always experience the delight of God. There are times when we can only persevere and trust that God will again revive us. I was reminded of this poem by C.S. Lewis from The Pilgrim's Regress that I've been meaning to post:
My heart is empty. All the fountains that should run
With longing, are in me
Dried up. In all my countryside there is not one
That drips to find the sea.
I have no care for anything thy love can grant
Except the moment's vain
And hardly noticed filling of the moment's want
And to be free from pain.
Oh, thou that art unwearying, that dost neither sleep
Nor slumber, who didst take
All care for Lazarus in the careless tomb, oh keep
Watch for me till I wake.
If thou think for me what I cannot think, if thou
Desire for me what I
Cannot desire, my soul's interior Form, though now
Deep-buried, will not die,
–No more than the insensible dropp'd seed which grows
Through winter ripe for birth
Because, while it forgets, the heaven remembering throws
Sweet influence still on earth,
–Because the heaven, moved moth-like by thy beauty, goes
Still turning round the earth.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Miscellaneous, Theology 2 Comments »
July 4, 2005 Posted by Amy Hall Alistair Begg recently wrote:
The life of the believer is described as a delight in God, and we are reminded of the great fact that genuine faith overflows with happiness and joy. Ungodly persons and mere professors never look upon religion as a joyful thing; to them it is service, duty, or necessity, but never pleasure or delight. If they attend to religion at all, it is either because of what they might get or because they are afraid of the consequences of neglect. The thought of delight in religious exercise is so strange to most men that no two words in their language stand further apart than holiness and delight. But believers who know Christ understand that delight and faith are so wonderfully united that the gates of hell cannot manage to separate them. Those who love God with all their hearts find that His ways are ways of pleasantness, and all His paths are peace. The saints discover in Christ such joy, such overflowing delight, such blessedness that far from serving Him from custom, they would follow Him even though the whole world rejected Him. We do not fear God because of any compulsion; our faith is no shackle, our profession is no bondage, we are not dragged to holiness, nor driven to duty. No, our piety is our pleasure, our hope is our happiness, our duty is our delight.
This country began with people who were seeking to fulfill this pleasure, happiness, and delight through piety, hope, and duty; and on this day, the Fourth of July, I celebrate the fact that I live in a country that continues to allow me to freely pursue the incredible joy and delight of knowing, loving, and serving God. Unlike many, I do not believe it is wrong for you to specially love your own country any more than it is wrong for you to specially love your own family to whom you owe and give so much–even though neither is perfect and there are many more countries and families out there in the world who are loved by God. So I say without shame that I love this country, and I'm grateful for my freedom. On this birthday of the
Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Miscellaneous 6 Comments »
July 3, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton Yet another remake… I vaguely remember reading War of the
Worlds a number of years ago. I do recall it actually being a fairly good read.
I wonder if Spielberg read it, or if he just took some major (loose) plot
points…
Anti-psychiatry guru Tom Cruise stars as a father who
doesn’t know how to father, Ray Ferrier. His daughter, Rachel- played by Dakota
Fanning, is the real star. Ray also has a son, Robbie, played by Justin Catwin,
but I began to hope he would be incinerated- even though he was wearing a Red
Sox hat (he was that bad).
War of the Worlds has some good action sequences, great
special effects- especially the flower at the end, but it really has no
significant plot. Obviously there’s a problem, the world is being attacked by
aliens, and the problem’s resolved, but there are so many holes in the plot
it’s like watching Matt Lauer interview Cruise about psychiatry. In fact, I
could have sworn I saw Ray lecturing his son about the history of psychiatry at
some point. If you take psychiatric medication, you may end up like the loony
character played by Tim Robbins, who was also only decent. The ending was
predictably cheesy and irreconcilable with the plot.
Cruise was okay. Justin Catwin insulted me by wearing
the Sox hat; he was horrible. Dakota Fanning was spectacular. It’s too bad her
and Morgan Freeman (narrator) had to be tied to this flick. The great effects
and Fanning’s acting can’t redeem this rather mediocre film. Perhaps George
Lucas rubbed off on Spielberg and he lost his senses. It was not worth the $10
and I don’t think it’ll be worth a few bucks to rent either. Maybe it’s worth
borrowing if you have a friend who’s duped into buying it. While it’s probably
too frightening for children, nothing in it frightened me. There’s also some
language. Go see Revenge of the Sith or Batman Begins again instead of this
one.
Posted in Main Page, Movie Reviews, Roger's Posts 3 Comments »
content rss
Recent Comments