Filed under: Philosophy
I picked up a copy of Francis Schaeffer’s excellent God Who Is There and stumbled upon this quote:
“The Christian is not rationalistic, he does not try to begin from himself autonomously and work out a system from there on. But he is rational: he thinks and acts on the basis that A is not non-A. However, he does not end up with only rationality, for in his response to what God has said his whole personality is involved. Yet, if the control of defined verbalisation is lost, then we lose our way. There is no longer any means of testing the spirits, the prophets or experience. All of this then becomes merely the Greek shade in the upper storey of the new theology about which we spoke earlier.”
I think Schaeffer would have felt more comfortable drinking with Basinger than Van Til (…except for that whole open theism thing…)
Filed under: Philosophy
Awhile back, I ordered a series of lectures Peter Leithart gave on postmodernism. They are fantastic. I agree with Alastair of Adversaria that they are “a welcome change from many of the overly positive and negative treatments that one generally encounters.”
Leithart’s discussion of postmodernity is unique because he uses the thought of Shlomo (aka, Solomon) to understand it. He begins by noting three images found in the book of Ecclesiastes: 1) everything is meaningless; 2) everything is a chasing after the wind; 3) nothing is gained under the sun (NIV).
Leithart shows that two of these translations are incorrect. Life as meaningless would best be rendered as life is vapor. It is temporary imagery. The Hebrew for chasing after the wind makes more sense when it is translated as someone trying to shepherd the wind. The imagery given is of one trying to sculpt mist. Leithart believes the NIV has appropriately translated the Hebrew when it says that nothing is gained under the sun. All three images are found in Ecclesiastes 2.11:
“Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done and what I had toiled to achieve, everything was meaningless (everything is vapor), a chasing after the wind (a trying to shepherd the wind); nothing was gained under the sun.”
Leithart says that modernity is an attempt to control the vapourishness of life. Postmodernism is the realization that the attempt to control the vapor has failed.
Interesting.
Way cooler than McLaren.
Filed under: Humour
This is hilarious! How to save the world by using Ebay.
Filed under: Uncategorized
On Saturday I had the privilege of attending the Epiphaneia Conferenceat the Meeting House in Oakville. I didn’t have thechance to stay for the whole conference, but I did get a chance to see Ron Sider, which made my weekend.
Sider began his talk by describing three current realities on poverty:
1) Current levels of poverty in the world are deplorable. Sider cited statistic after statistic to verify this. One of the most poignant was that 3 billion people live on $1 – $2 / day.
2) The Christian scriptures speak repeatedly and consistently on the issue of poverty. Without delving into every proof text, they clearly show that a) God is on the side of the poor and b) God acts to pull down the powerful and rich (see the Magnificat). God does this because sometimes the rich become rich via oppression or because they don’t share their wealth with the needy (Isaiah 3; Matthew 25).
3) Church giving is on the way down, not up.
Sider demonstrated that sin can be both personal and institutional (Isa. 10). Amos 2 shows both of these themes in play at once. Looking at Isaiah 10, Sider showed how legalized oppression (i.e. depriving workers of fair wages) is just as bad as sins that evangelicals typically get worked up about, such as sexual sin.
To clarify the issues he was discussing, Sider defined justice as “when every person has access to productive resources so if they act responsibly they can become dignified members of society.” This is significant because in a market economy, the market lets people without capital die. Sider believes that we should therefore make sure everybody has access to basic capital.
Sider was quick to point out that he is no communist. This is something that he has been regularly accused of in his career. Gary North claims that this was not always the case. In 1997, North wrote that Sider’s politics had changed to the point where is now advocating free market solutions to economic problems. North claims that Sider has said he didn’t know much about economics when he published his first work in 1977. After looking at North’s critique and early editions of Sider’s work it does seem that he has moved significantly away from his earlier recommendation of broad state intervention.
In terms of what we can do personally, Sider recommends three things:
1) Live simply. Give as much away as we can. One example Sider gave was that of microloans to third world countries. From what he said, these look promising. Sider also recommends using our skills to help empower the poor (e.g. teaching literacy).
2) In the church develop small group networks to help support one another be accountable to living simply and generously.
3) We need to continually ask the why question in the world of politics. In so doing we can change structural injustices through the political process.
At the conference, I picked up Just Generosity. It looks like a promising read.
Filed under: Politics
While reading Rob Dreher’s Crunchy Con blog, I came across an interesting post by F.J. Sarto entitled “Don’t look left.”
Sarto laments the failure of modern American conservatism. The Bush administration has betrayed all of the governing principles of conservatism. These include fiscal responsibility, limited government, individual rights, and prudence in foreign policy. Not only that, but it seems that Republicans have abandoned their pro-life litmus test with the running of Giuliani.
Sarto is quick to point out that the left offers no better alternative. They do have a more realistic position on the Middle East (at least the far left does), and they are not a fan of Bush’s expansion of government powers. But besides that, numerous problems abound.
Sarto looks at where the cultural left has triumphed in the world and the effects are deplorable:
“In Quebec, a proposed government policy would forbid private Christian schools from teaching Biblical sexual ethics.
A law with similar intent is pending in Brazil, which according to Zenit News “seeks to criminalize anything considered a condemnation of homosexuality, including priests who speak against the practice in homilies. Priests could face two to five years imprisonment for preaching against homosexuality. And a rector of a seminary who refuses admission to a homosexual student could face three to five years.”
In Britain, the “anti-discrimination” regulation which will prevent Catholic and other serious Christian adoption agencies from placing children only with married, heterosexual couples will also restrict the teaching of Christian sexual ethics in schools, according to the non-partisan, secular news site MarriageDebate.com.
In Germany, where home-schooling was outlawed by Hitler and the law left on the books, the parents of 15-year-old Melissa Busekros lost custody of the girl for teaching her at home. She is now being held at a psychiatric institution—diagnosed with “school-phobia” at an undisclosed location, with no access to her parents. In the German state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, laws restricting religious garb—which were aimed at the Moslems that country unaccountably allowed to settle there—are now being used to strip teaching nuns of their habits.
In Poland and Ireland, the democratically-passed laws restricting abortion on demand may well be stricken from the books by the diktat of unelected judicial bureaucrats of the European Court of Human Rights—who by the way, ruled against the parents of the abducted German teenager.”
Money quote:
“To what does this all add up? The fact that the secular Left, around the world, is engaged in a systematic persecution of Christianity, per se—even as it bends itself into knots to accommodate other religions, and every conceivable lifestyle perversion.”
Are things bad in the U.S. under the Republicans? Yes. Might things get worse under the Democrats? I don’t think so right away, but if there is any correlation between leftist thought in the U.S. to Brazil, Germany, Quebec, etc. then the answer is definitely yes.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Tommorrow I’m going to the Evolving Church Conference at the Meeting House. It should be interesting. Chris Lewis, my ex-roommate, is running it through his company, Epipha-something or other. Apparently 600 people are going to attend. Should be a good time. I’ll take some notes and blog about it around Monday probably. I’m coming into the conference already disagreeing with Jim Wallis and Claiborne over various issues, but hey, I’m sure they’ll have some good things to say. Also, I really want to hear Ron Sider speak. I remember enjoying hearing him interviewed by Russell Moore on Al Mohler’s radio show.
Filed under: Literature
Here is a funny and unique little short story courtesy of Esquire magazine and Nathan Wilson.
—–
Here is another one by Nathan Wilson, recently published by the Chattahoochee Review.
Thanks to Fulford for introducing me to Jim Jordan and Peter Leithart.
From Genesis 2:15 we learn that Adam was to “guard” and work” the Garden of Eden. This is significant because those same Hebrew words are used to describe the work of priests. Levitical priests were to “guard” the Lord’s house (Num. 1:53; 3:8). Also, the same Hebrew word used for the “service” of worship is used in Genesis 2:15 (Num. 8:15; Deut. 7:4, 16).
Adam’s sin was that he failed to guard the garden. He let a serpent enter the garden and tempt Eve while he stood by and watched (Genesis 3:6).
It’s clear from Genesis that God intended Adam to be a king. Apparently, God also wanted Adam to serve as His priest in His “house” (the garden).
There have to be ramifications of this for current women’s ordination issues. What do we do with 1 Timothy 2 now?
Here is an excerpt from the third volume of Walter Hooper’s edition of C.S. Lewis’ correspondence:
”I take it as a first principle that we must not interpret any one part of Scripture so that it contradicts other parts . . . . The real inter-relation between God’s omnipotence and Man’s freedom is something we can’t find out. Looking at the Sheep & the Goats every man can be quite sure that every kind act he does will be accepted by Christ. Yet, equally, we all do feel sure that all the good in us comes from Grace. We have to leave it at that. I find the best plan is to take the Calvinist view of my own virtues and other people’s vices; and the other view of my own vices and other peoples virtues. But tho’ there is much to be puzzled about, there is nothing to be worried about. It is plain from Scripture that, in whatever sense the Pauline doctrine is true, it is not true in any sense which excludes its (apparent) opposite. You know what Luther said: ‘Do you doubt if you are chosen? Then say your prayers and you may conclude that you are.’” (pp.354-355).
I’m not sure whether Lewis would agree with Basinger or Frame, but sound advice nonetheless. (HT)
Filed under: Uncategorized
Well, after years of donating money to Starbuck’s via overpriced latte’s and macchiato’s, I finally purchased an espresso machine … from Starbuck’s. After getting permission from the woman, I am now the proud owner of a stainless steel Barista machine via Saeco. If this doesn’t improve my quality of life, I don’t know what will. Thanks to the mighty Googlor.
