marklwardjr

I love keyboard shortcuts. When I was a child, I eschewed DOS in favor of the wonders of GUI! I thought: why type on the keyboard when you can click with a mouse! But—as the green lady in C.S. Lewis’s Perelandra would say—”I am older now,” so I use the keyboard for as much as possible. My skills even came in handy in a life-or-death situation when I forgot to bring a mouse to hook up to my iMac to run my wedding photo slideshow at our reception!

But keyboard shortcuts only go so far because they can usually do only one thing. For that reason, there are command line interfaces. BibleWorks was probably my first great command line love. But Quicksilver has now come into my life, and other utilities are vying for my key depressions.

For example, yesterday (read: three months ago in Internet time), Mozilla released Ubiquity, a command line utility for Firefox.

My verdict? I don’t like it. But I’m intrigued by one of its key features: it automatically pulls live Internet content into your launch window while you type. That has real potential. I’m watching, I’m watching…

Why Don’t You Like It, marklwardjr?

Why don’t I like it? It’s too verbose. I have to type too much to do what I’ve already been doing with Firefox’s keyword search (watch for a future post on that).

What Do You Use, marklwardjr?

I use Quicksilver for launching almost everything, for moving files, and even for quick e-mails.

I also use Spark, because it can record macros and it’s always in the background. I use it to Pause/Play iTunes while another program is running, to output my e-mail signature, even to input my username, a tab, my password, and enter so I can quickly get past a login screen.

What Do You Not Use, marklwardjr?

I don’t use Google Desktop Search. I did on my old Dell, but the indexing was taking up noticeable processing power. Spotlight does just fine or better, and it’s more integrated. I thought I might miss having cached versions of documents. That saved me a time or two on my Dell. But I haven’t needed that. I haven’t even really needed Time Machine, for that matter—though I use it just in case.

What Would You Use if You Had a Windows Machine?

Well, I do run Windows, but only for Bible software and word processing. But if Windows were still my main OS, I’d use Launchy:

I’d also use Enso, though it, too, is more verbose than I care for a launcher to be:

Stay tuned for an exciting list of keyboard shortcuts for Firefox. If you’ll patiently try what I suggest in that post, you’ll amaze your friends and family and, if you’re single, be married to the girl of your dreams very soon. Hey, it worked for me.

I picked up this free commentary within minutes of its release, but I neglected to tell you… Please forgive me!

It looks like a slightly beefed up BKC, or maybe a slightly beefed down EBC. Looks, in fact, like a Tyndale series commentary (some of which, especially in the OT, are fantastic no matter what level of scholarship you’re working on).

Bock, of course, is someone whose work in the Gospels I have come very much to appreciate (see his blog and this two-volume Luke commentary). He’s a public face for sound evangelical scholarship. I’m not familiar with Turner, however.

HT: Phil Gons

The Israeli Antiquities Authority is going to put the Dead Sea Scrolls online in amazingly high-quality digital format. In addition, the half-century-old infrared photographs will go up. Have you never read the romantic story of the release of the Dead Sea Scrolls by Marty Abegg, Biblical Archaeological Review, and the Huntington Library? Don’t miss it!

Something else you may have missed: Sinaiticus is already out there on a very cool site. Have you never read the romantic story of the finding of Sinaiticus by Constantin von Tischendorf? Don’t miss it!

This comes from a high school Bible textbook (teacher’s edition, in this case) which I read recently:

The unsaved, and even some Christians, tend to view love as an emotion. Biblical love, however, involves commitment. It desires the best for others, and gives selflessly so that others may prosper. Without love, all Christian service is worthless (I Cor. 13:1-3). Love is the very essence of God’s law (Rom. 13:8-10). Note to your students this difference between the worldly and biblical views of love.

In accordance with findings in my dissertation research, I would suggest instead this paragraph:

Liberal scholars and Christians influenced by them (and ultimately by Kant and other Enlightenment thinkers) sometimes view love as merely volitional. They think that love is only a choice and not an emotion. They often define love as a selfless commitment to do what is best for others—despite how you feel. But in 1 Cor 13 Paul makes it clear that all the volition and self-sacrifice you could muster means nothing if you do not have love. So love must not be identified with volition and self-sacrifice; instead it should produce them.

The ESV Study Bible comes out soon. Check it out.

Click below.

Again I’m not sure if I’m going to spend my book budget on this, but I do want my family to have it. Maybe I can persuade my wife to spend part of the (i.e., her) furnishings budget on it!

My eyes widened in disbelief as I began to realize just what Linda Hirshman was arguing in this Slate article. I’m a bit of a late-comer in Internet time: I had saved it for a few days in order to include it in the newsletter I write.

Hirshman calls evil good and good evil. Her argument is astounding… horrific. She has suppressed the truth and is now worshiping and serving the creature—woman, in this case—rather than the Creator.

Just read Romans 1:28-32. I see Linda Hirshman’s arguments predicted throughout:

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

Now match Hirshman’s arguments to a few of the words of Paul:

“give approval to those who practice them”

The AIDS epidemic motivated and enabled gay people to tell the world why their behavior was moral.

“Ruthless”

… barely more than half of the moderate centrists would allow [women] to decide whether to abort—even in face of a physical or mental defect in the prospective child.

“Insolent”

The Democratic platform of 2008 offers an opportunity to put an end to this self-destructive cycle of Safe, Legal, and Rare, otherwise known as regret, depression, and self-denigration. In its place, it can finally argue for the value of women’s lives. Above rubies sounds about right to me.

Hirshman argues that not only is abortion not wrong; it is a positive good. She appeals to science and to a (merely this-world) eudaemonism for her main support:

There is no serious scientific evidence . . . that a remotely cognizable percentage of the 18 million to 30 million living American abortion recipients have suffered regret, severe depression, and loss of esteem.

I am truly taken aback. May God have mercy on me and on Linda Hirshman.

Mainline denominations can now promote greater gender equality with an alternative to the masculine-sounding “hymn” book. The new collection of sacred songs put out by the United Lutheran Church of America is called the “Her” Book. “We thought about it a lot,” says Rev. Deborah Granville-Chin-Rodriguez, the editor for the Her Book, “and we tossed around some other names. I mean, what can you call a feminine hymnal? ‘Hernal’ just wasn’t doing it for us. You know?”

The new set of hymns—(or “hers”?)—actually includes no gender-neutral language, unlike other attempts to right the theological sexism of the past. Instead, Ms. Rodriguez actually feminized every single pronoun and name in the whole Her Book. “Let Us Bow Before Him,” predictably, has become “Let’s Give it Up for Her.” Even “Joyful, Joyful We Adore Thee” had to be adjusted, replaced with “Yeah, Yeah, You Go, Girl!”

Wow, check this out if you need commentary recommendations.

Visually cool virtual shelf included!

“I think it clearly and abundantly evident that true religion lies very much in the affections,” wrote Jonathan Edwards in his classic The Religious Affections. I’m going to post his ten supporting points for that assertion in three installments. I put the scriptural supporting points in a smaller, lighter font. I considered taking them out, but they’re really the meat of what he says.

I urge you to feed on some of this scriptural meat!

Edwards Goes Right to Scripture

1. “That religion which God requires, and will accept, does not consist in weak, dull, and lifeless wishes, raising us but a little above a state of indifference.” 27 Rom 12:11—Be fervent in spirit. Deut 10:12—What does the Lord require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul? Deut 6:4-5 “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your might.” The new covenant includes a new heart: Deut 30:6 And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart…to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart.” “True religion is called the power of godliness, in distinction from the external appearances of it” 28: 2 Tim 3:5

Edwards Offers Two Empirical Arguments

2. “The Author of the human nature has not only given affections to men, but has made them very much the spring of men’s actions.” 29 This is true not just in religion but in business and even in sin. “Take away all love and hatred, all hope and fear, all anger, zeal, and affectionate desire, and the world would be in a great measure motionless and dead; there would be no such thing as activity amongst mankind, or any earnest pursuit whatsoever.” 29

3. “The things of religion take hold of men’s souls no further than they affect them.” 30 “In a word, there never was anything considerable brought to pass in the heart or life of any man living, by the things of religion, that had not his heart deeply affected by those things.” 31

It was still the most spectacular show I’ve ever seen.

Spurgeon told the pastors in his Pastor’s College:

In order to be able to expound the Scriptures, and as an aid to your pulpit studies, you will need to be familiar with the commentators: a glorious army, let me tell you, whose acquaintance will be your delight and profit. Of course, you are not such wiseacres as to think or say that you can expound Scripture without assistance from the works of divines and learned men who have laboured before you in the field of exposition. If you are of that opinion, pray remain so, for you are not worth the trouble of conversion, and like a little coterie who think with you, would resent the attempt as an insult to your infallibility. It seems odd, that certain men who talk so much of what the Holy Spirit reveals to themselves, should think so little of what he has revealed to others.

He’s a little more sardonic than I would be, but he earned that right.

I’ve thought of these lines—especially the last—many times through the years.

I like Gentium so much that I’m using it for my dissertation.

Gentium looks like this if you’re not already seeing it:

So why download and use yet another font?

Yes, as the Gentium site says, “The design is intended to be highly readable, reasonably compact, and visually attractive.” I agree completely.

But an even better reason is Unicode. I could write a whole post about it, but let me instead just you Mac users my keyboard layouts folder, including icons I made myself. And also let me give you a link to a few someones who can explain it well. If you ever type in Greek and Hebrew you really need to learn this.

The opening ceremonies to the Beijing Olympics were the most spectacular human achievement I have ever witnessed. My wife and I agree; they’re a must see even in this brief life of ours.

Some multiple of four years ago, I watched a portion of another opening olympic ceremony, and I thought it was the silliest waste of time possible. Feel-good frippery. But this past Friday’s ceremony was invested with significance for me because I have been tracking (thanks to the New York Times) China’s peaceful rise as a world economic (et cetera) power. China was making a very expensive statement with this show.

Humans are amazing creatures, but little did most (?) of those 15,000 jaw-dropping Chinese performers know that they were expressing God’s image in them through their creativity, strength, and beauty. How sad that man suppresses the knowledge of the Creator whose impulse still causes them to rise to new heights and push the outer limits.

Despite the truth contained in Benjamin Franklin’s little witticism about his one-time ill-fated plagiarizing pastor . . .

I rather approved his giving us good sermons composed by others, than bad ones of his own manufacture.

. . . don’t let someone else write your sermons.

Honestly, I think the authors of this sourcebook would say the same thing.

But I’m a little afraid to ask!

Last night my wife and I watched what little we could crib off the Internet of the Olympics opening ceremonies. The spectacle was extravagant, and we saw only the drummers. I thought as I watched, “This is like Babel.” I told my wife, “This is beautiful bravado.”

We don’t want to be entirely negative. By God’s common grace, the Chinese produced something truly beautiful—again, what little of it we saw!

After watching that little portion with our bird, Matt, we decided to troll around the Internet for more. Those crazy Brits have a wild Gorillaz-like (?) Olympics cartoon we didn’t quite follow (we thought the pig was probably America). But no more opening ceremonies footage. None. I felt my Internet rights were violated.

But we did find this…

….apparently a tourism video sponsored by Beijing’s tourism board. The video itself, like the rest of the Chinese efforts to welcome the world, was a massive undertaking. Dozens of what appear to be famous Chinese performers sing, “Beijing welcomes you.” See if you can keep the tune out of your head afterwards. Matt was quite taken with the song, especially anything high-pitched.

But catch these line, repeated several times:

Beijing welcomes you to the start of [sic] new chapter like the creation of heaven and earth. The flowing enchantment and charms are filled with youthful spirit and vitality.

Beijing’s Babelish, beautiful bravado.

So he disagreed with John Piper. At least, Piper responded strongly to his CT article on divorce (click here).

But David Instone-Brewer wasn’t out for controversy, it appears. And he sends smashing theology tech tips from across the pond. Check him out.

I recently ran across this from the Henry Center:

The Carl F. H. Henry Center for Theological Understanding of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School is excited to announce that on October 9th, 2008 at 6:30pm, it will host a Trinity Debate at the TEDS Chapel (Deerfield, IL) featuring Drs. Bruce Ware (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) and Wayne Grudem (Phoenix Seminary) versus Drs. Tom McCall (TEDS) and Keith Yandell (University of Wisconsin-Madison) on the question:

“Do relations of authority and submission exist eternally among the Persons of the Godhead?”

It reminds me of a point of caution Mike Riley made effectively in his paper on the Trinity at the Bible Faculty Leadership Summit: We shouldn’t let the tail wag the dog. Our views on gender (whether complementarian or egalitarian) must not determine or adjust our view of the Trinity!

I’m not at all saying the Henry Center debaters are guilty of this, only that it’s a problem of which we should stay aware in these fractious times.

Here is one of the hermeneutical fallacies John Walton identified as common in children’s lessons in a recent Koinonia post.

1. Promotion of the Trivial: The lesson is based on what is a passing comment in the text (Josh 9:13, they did not consult the Lord), a casual observation about the text (Moses persevered in going back before Pharaoh over and over) or even a deduction supplied in the text (Joshua and Caleb were brave and strong). The Bible is not being properly taught if we are teaching virtues that the text does not have in focus in that passage. We would like children to be virtuous, but we dare not teach virtues rather than the Bible. The plague narratives are not teaching perseverance nor is the feeding of the multitude teaching sharing (as done by the little boy in one of the accounts).

One young friend of mine (a truly good fellow, but young to biblical studies!) was recently planning to preach a message encouraging teenagers to be faithful in their labors no matter how mundane. Why? Because David, if you read 1 Samuel, kept going back to his sheep even after serving in the court of the king!

He overheard me talking about biblical theology and OT interpretation, and to his great credit he recognized that what I was saying called his message into question.

So he asked some relatives of his about it. They supported his initial plans. One argued that his sermon was perfectly justified because, after all, “The whole Bible is profitable for doctrine!”

So let’s get some feedback from my target audience, seminary-students-younger-than-me.

1. What do you think I said about biblical theology that made my young friend think twice about his message?
2. Was his relative right? If not, wouldn’t that mean that some details of the biblical text are insignificant? Doesn’t that shoot our doctrine of inspiration?

Check out this post from Zondervan’s new blog, Koinonia. It describes common errors of Bible interpretation committed against the weakest among us: children.

The post is right: children’s Bible lessons fly under the hermeneutical radar. I should know; I edit and write them for a living.

I predict that most teachers of children would respond to a post like this with, “But these are just kids! We can’t give them high theology! We just need them to connect with simple Bible stories. They can learn the finer points later!”

Simple Bible stories… That’s just it. Kids are renowned for loving stories—and paying close attention to the details! When I was a kid listening to bedtime stories, my father would purposefully mix up details or read things incorrectly. I was constantly saying, “Read right, Dad!” If I had heard the story, I knew he was altering it!

The Bible tells a big story. Surely kids from Christian families should come out of their childhood with a grasp of this story, at least in its overall sweep. Right now their understanding is too often atomistic and moralistic: David and Goliath have nothing to do with Jesus or grace and everything to do with my five smooth stones of Bible memorization, prayer, church attendance, and… was it no video games?

For more on this, see Graeme Goldsworthy’s Gospel and Kingdom.

As you can see, I’ve already praised WTS Books on this blog before. I wrote just days ago:

Looks like Westminster Bookstore is really vying for my book dollars! I’m impressed with their store layout, their graphic design, their selection, and their sales.

Now I’m participating in their BlogPartners program. I’m happy to promote them—and to get some books out of it myself! I just wanted to release one of my motives from the ulterior!

I, of course, would never recommend a book unless I truly believe it to be worthwhile.

WTS Books has had several sales which, even with shipping, beat Amazon.

Here’s another quotation from an evangelical (!) commentary which inclines me to think that playing on liberal academic turf is neither right nor safe:

For convenience, the author of 1 Peter will be referred to throughout the commentary as “Peter.” This practice does not imply that the issue of authorship is by any means settled, yet the question of whether Peter was actually the author cannot be avoided. The author unmistakably introduces himself as “Peter, apostle of Jesus Christ” (1:1). The only personal references after this initial self-introduction are the first person verbs, “I appeal to you” (with παρακαλῶ) in 2:11 and 5:1a (the latter elaborated by a self-designation as “fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a sharer as well in the glory about to be revealed,” 5:1b), and a final self-reference in 5:12–13: “I have written you these few lines through Silvanus, (whom I consider a faithful brother), to make an appeal [παρακαλῶν] and to bring testimony that this is true grace from God” (v 12; he adds in v 13 a greeting from “Mark, my son”).

With these exceptions, the author consistently keeps his personality out of the letter. He is content to let his arguments stand on their own merit, without taking advantage of his supposed identity as the apostle Peter.

J. Ramsey Michaels, vol. 49, Word Biblical Commentary: 1 Peter, lv (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002).

But the Word Biblical Commentary isn’t all bad! Of course, even in the 1 Peter volume there is plenty of helpful exegesis. Beyond that, other volumes make downright evangelical statements in their prefaces:

The similarity of Jonah and Jeremiah is far more cogently attributable to the univocal nature of divine revelation throughout the Scripture than to a borrowing from Jeremiah on the part of the book of Jonah.

Douglas Stuart, vol. 31, Word Biblical Commentary: Hosea-Jonah, 433 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002).

A few months ago I mentioned that one of the most powerful choral experiences I have ever had was during a visit to my school of the choir from Adam Mickiewicz University in Poland. They gave an impromptu concert in the student center. I stood right in front of them and heard them sing powerfully and skillfully in a beautiful, challenging arrangement: “Kyrie, eleison! Kyrie, eleison!” It was very moving: these people my age, most of them almost certainly far from God, were crying out, “Lord, have mercy!” without any idea on their usually expressive faces of what they were saying. I did try to speak with some afterwards; they stayed only a short time.

I just discovered that my wife was only a few feet from me during that concert. I don’t even think I knew who she was then.

Well, here they are on YouTube singing that song! The recording quality isn’t so great, but you’ll get a good idea. Eastern European choral groups seem to have a full-throated way of singing, and this the UAM choir has what I would call a pleasing tinge of that style.

Adam Mickiewicz is the most famous Polish poet. If you’ve ever tried to read or sing any Polish like I have, you will feel just what I do about Adam Mickiewicz.

Awe.

I have tried to read the paragraphs below as generously as I can, but I am still saddened by them. Please do correct me if I have been uncharitable.

Here’s an example of what self-identified fundamentalists may become if we don’t learn lessons from the 20th century history of our brothers. This comes from Graham Twelftree in (historically evangelical) InterVarsity Press’s Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (emphasis mine):

4.2. Was Jesus an Exorcist? Although the view is occasionally advanced that Jesus was not an exorcist, or that it was an insignificant aspect of his ministry, there is ample evidence that he had a reputation for being extremely successful in expelling evil spirits from people. First, the exorcism stories associated with Jesus in the Gospels . . . , which recent research has shown belong to the bedrock of reliable data about the historical Jesus, are the most compelling evidence of Jesus being an exorcist.

Second, there are sayings of and about Jesus that presume his ministry of exorcism and which are also generally regarded to belong to the bedrock of historical material: the charge that Jesus cast out demons by Beelzebul (Mk 3:22 [par. Mt 9:34 and 12:24; Lk 11:15]); the saying that Jesus exorcised by the Spirit or finger of God (Mt 12:28 [par. Lk 11:20]) and the parable of the strong man, which is a picture of exorcism (Mk 3:27 [par. Mt 12:29; Lk 11:21–22]; cf. Gos. Thom. 35). It is difficult to be certain of the origin of Jesus’ warning to Herod in which exorcism is mentioned: “Go tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course …’ ” (Lk 13:32). But it is likely to be authentic, for it is difficult to see why such a situation and saying should be constructed.

….

4.3.1. Familiar Techniques. In dealing with the demons, historical investigation shows that Jesus’ technique involved a number of features. First, there was an initial dramatic confrontation between Jesus and the demon(iac). For example, in Mark 1:23 the man screams out when he meets Jesus in the Capernaum synagogue so that it is suddenly obvious that he is a demoniac (cf. Mk 5:6–7; 7:25; 9:20). The historical reliability of this feature in the story is all but assured by the existence of this feature in other literature (Philostratus Vit. Ap. 4.20) and the Gospel writers show no consistent use of it.

Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 166 (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992).

Last week I attended the Bible Faculty Leadership Summit at Bob Jones University. The highlight for me was the address Kevin Bauder gave on fundamentalism and scholarship. His talk was based on his recent twelve-part series of “In the Nick of Time” posts.

His talk gave rise to fervent (and actively ongoing) discussion. There has been broad agreement, I feel, but a few questions have been raised (not least by Bauder). Here are two:

• How do we fundamentalists avoid the catastrophic failure of the many evangelicals who have willingly betrayed their Lord for a A Place at the Table? (Examples from the history of German, British, and Scottish scholarship are relevant here, too.)
• Will fundamentalists be allowed to play in the big leagues if they insist on avoiding doctrinal compromise? For example, will we be allowed to argue from inspiration and not merely from historical probability when it comes to the truth of the Gospels? Will we be allowed to deny some of the assured results of form criticism?
• Following that, can we join societies like SBL, engaging in cordial, professional relationships with men and women who are not merely unregenerated but who are wolves in sheep’s clothing?

I’m not a scholar by nearly anyone’s definition (even my mother’s: I’ve got to finish the dissertation first!), but I hope to serve Christ’s church by teaching and writing. It behooves me to ask these questions.

See my next post for an example of what fundamentalists may become if they don’t find God’s answers for our situation.

When I’m in Windows I use AutoHotkey to perform several common macros. It’s very cool. Try it! After you install, go down to your system tray and right click on the AutoHotkey icon. Choose “Edit Script.” Place these scripts in your file, and make sure to click the icon again (after saving the file) and “Reload Script.” If you make any cool scripts I’d love to have them. I admit that I’ve tried and failed to make a script that will type my username, tab, my password, and return for getting past the Novell Border Manager at work. I can do that in OSX just fine with Spark.

;Type “=d” and this script sends the date (07/19/2008). I use it mainly for dating BibleWorks notes.
:*:=d::
FormatTime,OutputVar,,(MM/dd/yyyy)
SetKeyDelay 0
Send %OutputVar%
return

;This script sends a long line of hyphens if I type “]d”—I use it mainly for BibleWorks notes.
:*:]d::
SetKeyDelay 0
Send ———————————————————————
return

;This is for making an em dash via Alt+-.
!-::
SetKeyDelay 0
Send —
return

;This sends a degree° symbol via Alt+0.
!0::
SetKeyDelay 0
Send °
return

;This causes Windows+Esc to send Alt+F4. A lot easier on your fingers. This is a good one.
#Esc::Send {Alt Down}{F4}{Alt Up}

Ouch! This is what the Oxford English Dictionary’s American counterpart (the OAD) offers on Jonathan Edwards:

“Extreme Calvinism”? Nothing about theological or intellectual profundity? None of his pastoral heart?

Very sad. If you are faithful to the Lord, then in this world you will have tribulation. If you’re very faithful you may get tribulation even after you enter the next.

I take too much delight in things like this… In the space of two days, I ran across dueling malapropisms, one in an e-mail and the other in an Amazon review. And both concerned someone named Ron!

I need to coin a term better than “dueling malapropisms.” I’ll save that for another substantive (ahem) post.

E-mail:

“Last year I preached the funeral service for Ronald Pasch in Oswego. . . several people shared interesting antidotes about Ron.”

Amazon review:

“Dr. Ronald Horton’s book is a welcomed anecdote to those condemning a life with (persistent) sorrow.”

Take a look at this paragraph from Robert C. Robert’s Spiritual Emotions .

What do you think of defining emotions as “concern-based construals”? I hope to offer a minor refinement of his view in my dissertation, but I think he’s on to something important (not that he would necessarily agree with all of the following!).

Your emotions are a result, he’s saying, of a collision between your ultimate concerns and your perception of your circumstances. What are your ultimate concerns? Well, you love your life. You love yourself (Mat 22:39; Eph 5:29). These loves are part of your nature. If love for God is one of your ultimate concerns, then you are one of those people to whom God has given a new nature.

You can’t change your nature, but you can change your perception of how your circumstances are colliding with your natural concerns. That’s why I subscribe to what Matthew Elliott calls the “cognitive” view of emotions. I appreciate the emphasis of Roberts in the paragraph above, however, taking us back one step further than cognition.

I had been wanting to call my view the “affective-cognitive-affective” view to show that basic affections lie underneath cognition, producing affection. However, I’m thinking “natural-cognitive-affective” may be more helpful—even though I’m not denying that the ultimate concerns of my nature are themselves affections.

On a blog you can get away with saying this: My thinking is a work in progress.

Andy Naselli just posted an interview with Tom Schreiner on JT’s blog. Andy asked a few of his friends to suggest questions, and I suggested question 12 (Andy actually wrote all the rest). You need to read question 11, however, to understand 12:

11. What people (e.g., theologians, biblical scholars, pastors) have had the most influence on you as reflected in this book?

Along with Ladd, Piper, and Carson, Schreiner mentions N.T. Wright:

4. Tom Wright’s writings have been helpful because he looks at the big picture in a way that is enormously helpful, but I differ from him on many things too, especially re the new perspective on Paul.

I knew he’d expressed appreciation for Wright, so I was curious:

12. Is there anything else in Tom Wright’s work that you have found especially helpful, perhaps something reflected in your NTT?

Schreiner’s answer was helpful, if only apophatically:

Actually, I can’t think of anything off the top of my head.

Schreiner’s answer tells me that one conservative theologian I respect has read Wright and profited from him (as I am beginning to), but that his major profit was in the area of the story of Scripture. That’s worth something.

For those of you who attended my afternoon Logos session at the Bible Faculty Leadership Summit (and for anyone else who’s interested), I’m posting my Logos toolbar. It began life as Phil Gons‘ toolbar, then I made some additions and deletions.

Click here to download.

Here are instructions for installing this toolbar (make sure to start with Logos shut down):

1. Download the file.

2. Unzip the file, placing the contents (Mark Ward’s Toolbar.lbxctb) inside UserFiles/CustomToolbars in your Logos directory (which is probably under Program Files). UPDATE: If you can’t find this directory, open Logos and go to Tools > Options > Power Tools > User Files to see where you have your user files.

3. Start Libronix, right click on the empty gray space below the top menu bar, and click “Customize.”

4. Make sure you check “Mark Ward’s Toolbar.” Then click “Close.”

The toolbar should be ready for use!