Archives For February 2009

First Things will never be the same without Richard Neuhaus. His proto-blog at the end of every issue provided great insight—and, admittedly, some juicy quotes about Catholic doctrine for those of us who still oppose it. But here’s an excerpt from a recent First Things blog article that I have to take a little exception to (though I invite interaction from Touchstone‘s David Mills):

Our eldest, then about two years old, one day announced “I want . . .” but did not finish the sentence. My wife and I waited for her to tell us what she wanted — to be picked up and rocked? a cup of milk? her stuffed bear? — but again she said only “I want” and let her voice trail off. She said it a third time, still sounding equally unsure about what she wanted. And then, with a look of enlightenment on her face, said in a loud, firm voice, “I want!”

There, I thought, was the fallen human condition expressed. We are creatures of ravenous, indiscriminate desire. We want this and we want that, but most of all, We Want.

Limiting desire is a common theme in Protestant preaching, too. But it’s simply wrong. Wanting isn’t bad. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst. It’s the object that matters: we ought to hunger and thirst after righteousness.

It’s hackneyed by now, but C. S. Lewis’ comment in the “The Weight of Glory”—a sermon (or “sermon”) I think about often—is apropos:

Our Lord finds our desires, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.

The First Things blog article was pointing out, on its way to an endorsement of Lent, that we are too tightly attached to earthly things. Amen. But the answer is not going without coffee for 40 days (hence giving you a more ravenous desire for it, as the article shows!). It’s asking God to graciously give us a taste, a heart, a mind for divine things. For heavenly things. Where Christ sits at the right hand of God.

I encourage you to do that with me right now.

New CSS

February 26, 2009 — Leave a comment

You complained. I answered.

Thanks, old friend miahz, for updating my style sheet!

Now links are much more easily distinguished from regular text, and a few other colors look better, too.

My Kindle arrived today! It’s very cool. I hope to liberate a lot of texts on my hard drive that I’m not reading.

But I’ve been reading Neil Postman’s Technopoly , and these lines struck me:

“Every technology is both a burden and a blessing…. Technology giveth and technology taketh away.” 4–5

I know what Kindle giveth, I think. But what doth it take away? Let me offer an example and then ask you. This book is on my Amazon wishlist:


I can get it for $15.17 with free Super-Saver Shipping, or I can get it for $7.99 on my Kindle.

What would you do?

I saved this when it came out last week and just got around to reading it. I highly recommend you take a look!

In recent months, dioceses around the world have been offering Catholics a spiritual benefit that fell out of favor decades ago—the indulgence, a sort of amnesty from punishment in the afterlife—and reminding them of the church’s clout in mitigating the wages of sin.

—the New York Times

Don’t Miss the Mess!

February 20, 2009 — Leave a comment

Thanks to Phil Gons for an enriching discussion about Lexicographical Prescriptivism. I encourage others to check it out!

Phil always made any class we took together much better by his trenchant questions.

Let me remind everyone, too, that I believe this little topic is very important because it has such a distinct bearing on Bible interpretation. I hope to give examples in a future post.

Please Peruse this Post-Post

February 19, 2009 — 3 Comments

Note to a recent commenter on the issue of Lexicographical Prescriptivism: I don’t think we can limit our usage surveys to “educated people.” That’s a slippery category.

I could, however, add that usage should ideally be “unselfconscious”: as soon as you ask people a usage question they’re liable to fall back into Lexicographical Prescriptivism!

Also, there are different levels of formality. Usage agrees—right now—that “whole nother” is appropriate for casual speech but not for formal discourse or writing. But that could change.

Note: I sent this post to Lecrae’s record label (I was unable to locate his e-mail address in repeated attempts), and received no reply in several months. I don’t blame them; I’m sure they’re busy! But this is a public issue calling for public comment. I think you’ll see that I hold Lecrae in high esteem as a true Christian brother. But his leadership in the Christian community is creating confusion.

Rebel_(web).jpg

My heart is with Lecrae. I watched him give an interview to Mark Driscoll, and I love so many of the same things he does, preeminently the glory of Christ! He is intelligent, and he’s not after worldly success. Perhaps his most popular track tells everyone not to waste their lives by going after merely temporal things. Lecrae in the interview was gracious, theologically knowledgeable, passionate. And Judging by the iTunes comments on his latest rap album—and by that track so many of them were praising—he’s a brilliantly good rapper. (It pains me to say such a thing, but I have no doubt that it’s true!)

However… music communicates something apart from any lyrics that are placed with it. The lyrics can complement the music, or they can stand in contrast to it.

In the case of theologically-informed rap like Lecrae’s, the lyrics and the music are communicating two very different messages, and the result is sadly ridiculous: “Submit to Christ!” says the “rebəl.” “Be humble,” he preaches with bravado.

Bravado. That’s just it. Rap music screams bravado; it’s intrinsic to the genre. A bunch of young guys waving their arms around martially and shouting “Yeeeah! Yeeeah!” in ultra-masculine tones—preaching Christ?

Look at these lines, rapped on Lecrae’s album by guest rapper “Dwayne Tryumph:”

Persecution lets go! // Tribulation lets go!

He seems to be saying “If you follow Christ persecution and tribulation will come—so bring it on!” That’s mixing the humility and trust proper to a Christian with the machismo of rap music.

Here’s some more, this time rapped by Lecrae himself:

So I know I got life
Matter fact better than I know I got Christ
If you don’t see His ways in my days and nights
You can hit my brakes you can stop my lights
Man I lost my rights
Lost my life
Forget the money cars and toss that ice
The cost is Christ
And they could never offer me anything on the planet that’ll cost that price.

Bravado/machismo music + theologically astute (though kind of corny, to my ears) rap lyrics = confusion.

“Don’t be conformed to the world,” Paul commands. I believe that that passage applies strongly here.

P.S. I found these comments from iTunes reviewers interesting:

Picture 2.png

Faithful readers, accept my heartfelt thanks for your interaction. I really do appreciate it. I’m actually glad my blog is not popular enough to attract nasty commenters!

For those who didn’t participate in the “peruse” discussion, check out how the discussion fared at the polling page.

Oxford vs. Oxford

February 18, 2009 — 4 Comments

Why yesterday’s poll on the meaning of “peruse”?

Well, a respected friend of mine recommended I write a post on the way people mistakenly use “peruse” when they should use “skim.”

Unfortunately, my good friend’s complaint smelled to me like Lexicographical Prescriptivism! “LP” is one of the great foes of this blog—because it is such an enemy of good Bible interpretation! So I looked into the matter.

Get out your LP detector, because here’s the New Oxford American Dictionary’s usage note on “peruse” (the NOAD comes standard on every Mac and Kindle):

The verb peruse means ‘read thoroughly and carefully.’ It is sometimes mistakenly taken to mean ‘read through quickly, glance over,’ as in: later documents will be perused rather than analyzed thoroughly, a sentence that technically makes no sense.

What business does a dictionary have telling us what a word should mean? Does that question shock you? Then you’ve fallen into Lexicographical Prescriptivism. Here’s the Oxford English Dictionary’s usage note, which (in agreement with Merriam-Webster) avoids LP by doing its job, namely polling English users:

Modern dictionaries and usage guides, perhaps influenced by the word’s earlier history in English, have sometimes claimed that the only ‘correct’ usage is in reference to reading closely or thoroughly…. However, peruse has been a broad synonym for read since the 16th cent., encompassing both careful and cursory reading; Johnson defined and used it as such. The implication of leisureliness, cursoriness, or haste is therefore not a recent development, although it is usually found in less formal contexts and is less frequent in earlier use (see quot. 1589 for an early example). The specific sense of browsing or skimming emerged relatively recently, generally in ironic or humorous inversion of the formal sense of thoroughness. Cf. SCAN v. for a similar development and range of senses.

I think yesterday’s poll demonstrates that among the (predominantly young?) readers of this blog, the once ironic use has become the standard use. An older generation may constitute a separate usage community (hence Dr. Bob Bell’s predilection for the older use?). But I think you’ll actually invite misunderstanding, even with many of them, if you try to use that older sense. Two contradictory but related senses are difficult to maintain except among pedants like me and you (if you’ve read this far!). The usage panel in my brain agrees with the poll: the “skim” sense is winning overwhelmingly.

The moral of the story is this: words mean whatever most people mean when they use them. If enough people mean something that is technically wrong, then that something is no longer wrong.

Be My Usage Panel

February 17, 2009 — 1 Comment

The poll below is not a trick question. Answer honestly right off the top of your head:


Tune in tomorrow for an explanation!