Archives For March 2011

NPR yesterday ran a story about capital punishment in Connecticut. Apparently, the state may possibly get rid of the death penalty just as a notorious double murder—a wife and daughter brutalized and killed for no reason—goes to trial.

This has made for an interesting confluence of events that I, at least, hope will lead to capital punishment remaining on the books. The state, the Bible says, has the power of the sword.

But not everyone sees it my way:

State Representative GARY HOLDER-WINFIELD (Democrat, CT): I recognize what that trial does to public opinion. I recognize what it does to inflame the passions of people. But whether or not people are feeling a certain way, I don’t think has anything to do with whether or not I should be looking to do what I think is the right thing.

He’s surely correct that one should do right no matter how other people feel about it. But I think there’s an implication he’s likely leaving that isn’t right, namely that strong feelings and passions invariably (?) lead people in the wrong direction.

Feelings are fallen, but so are thoughts. And the two are not finally separable, anyway. John Frame has an excellent discussion on this—the “Organs of Ethical Knowledge”—in his Doctrine of the Christian Life.

In this case, my deep moral feeling  is that people who are “viciously violent and create wanton destruction” (in the words of the father and husband of the murdered women) ought to pay with their lives. Because God gives people consciences (Rom 1–2), many of those who don’t share my view of Scripture share that feeling.

And our feeling is right, no matter what Gary Holder-Winfield thinks.

Augustine on Love

March 28, 2011 — Leave a comment

Do not for the sake of reward love God; let Him be the reward.

—Augustine (Philip Schaff, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. VII, 25)

A Baby Story

March 28, 2011 — 1 Comment

DSC_9960 Last week my wife was sick. So sick that she could hardly get off the couch for about three days. So sick that that she never entered the kitchen. This is a first for her—and for me. I had to feed the baby and myself. I had to clean stuff. I changed all diapers and mixed all formulas. For three days I became Daddy-Mommy. I had to do the job of two parents.

My one-year-old son formerly had the habit of calling his mother with an upward inflection—like “ma-MA, ma-MA”—indicating that he wanted something. He called out his father’s title with a dreamy “DA-daaaaa, DA-daaaaa”—indicating adulation. But as I became the purveyor of all things culinary, that changed. I heard, “Da-DA, da-DA, da-DA!”

And when I wasn’t quick enough with all things culinary, “Da-DAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!”

Finally my wife emerged from her stupor and stumbled up to the door of the kitchen. She peered in.

“Hmm…” she said. “I can tell I haven’t been in the kitchen for three days.”

I replied with mock indignation, “Hey, who’s the mommy around here!”

At that very moment, my son in his high chair exclaimed with a big smile on his face, “DA-DA!”

DSS will be happy to know that I have relinquished my role as Daddy-Mommy and have returned to “DA-daaaa” status.

image

I have a system of highlighting that I have used for several years now that helps me. It’s a free country, so you, of course, can do what you want (except Democrats or Communists do appear to control the choice of highlighter colors; you really can’t get anything but the standard  eight). Just take my model as a suggestion, then, a starting point.

Briefly, I use yellow for anything that strikes me. I use pink for ordinals—first point, second point, third point, etc. The yellow helps me see what’s valuable when I flip through the book later. The pink orients me to the flow of the argument both later and even while I read.

I started doing something similar in Logos 4, setting up my own set of highlighter pens along with my own keyboard shortcuts (see at left)—which was a keystroke of genius on Logos’ part. I don’t like using any highlights that cause the leading (the space between lines) to increase, so I eliminated them all and even created a few of my own styles.

But I found I was still lacking one of the most important portions of my highlighting system. I needed at times to write 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. in front of pink outline points.

I came to realize that Logos 4 can do just this, and I created my own highlighter pens to do it. You can see them in the screen shot.

Now I can highlight lists like the other screenshot. My special pens add a 0., 1., 2., etc. in front of whatever text I have selected to highlight.

Good work, Logos.

blogpostlogos

Update: A reader asked how to do this. Right click inside the highlight window, choose “Crate a new palette.” Name the palette. Now right click inside it and click “Create style.” Then mimic what I did below. (If I did not expand an arrow, then there’s nothing to do under that arrow.)

label

The Toolshed Quote

March 21, 2011 — 3 Comments

I was standing today in the dark toolshed. The sun was shining outside and through the crack at the top of the door there came a sunbeam. From where I stood that beam of light, with the specks of dust floating in it, was the most striking thing in the place. Everything else was almost pitch-black. I was seeing the beam, not seeing things by it.

Then I moved, so that the beam fell on my eyes. Instantly the whole previous picture vanished. I saw no toolshed, and (above all) no beam. Instead I saw, framed in the irregular cranny at the top of the door, green leaves moving on the branches of a tree outside and beyond that, 90 odd million miles away, the sun. Looking along the beam, and looking at the beam are very different experiences.

—C.S. Lewis

QCNT

March 19, 2011 — Leave a comment

If you aren’t meticulous in your note-taking, always using quotation marks and saving your full citation, you might accidentally do this:

One of the distinguishing marks of the child of God is love, a love that originates in God, displays itself in actions of self-sacrifice, and is evidence of eternal life.

Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John, The New American Commentary, (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 161.

What’s wrong with this 2001 commentary on 1 John? Well, read John Stott’s 1988 commentary on the same verse (3:18):

Love characterizes the church, whose prototype is Christ. It originates in God, issues in self-sacrifice, and is evidence of eternal life.

John R. W. Stott, The Letters of John: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988), 146.

Each of these sentences is the last in the section on 1 John 3:18 in its respective commentary.

Plagiarism? No. Listen to Danny Akin in this edifying interview, and you’ll be convinced he didn’t plagiarize. He just goofed. It happens to all of us.

Then again, there is a third explanation that is perhaps even more likely. A Q commentary! F.F. Bruce probably wrote it some time in the 1940s, and only select evangelical scholars have been given access to it over time. It is no doubt housed inside the Ark of the Covenant deep within the vaults at Tyndale House, Cambridge. We’re bound to have verbal overlap in such a situation.

Blog-o-morph-o-sphere

March 16, 2011 — 3 Comments

I’ve watched the blogosphere morph and grow over time; I think I became a regular blog-reader in 2001 or 2002. (I had a blog then, too, but it didn’t last—mainly because I did not think I had anything worth saying publicly; I wanted to get some education.)

You know people’s (only) criticism of Twitter? “I don’t care what someone had for breakfast this morning!” That used to be a not-uncommon attitude toward blogs. “Why would I want to read someone’s journal?” But I don’t remember that attitude lasting long. People saw that blogs could do something powerful. Only, in the beginning, the people around me at least seemed to think that power was almost wholly destructive. Bloggers were ignorant undergraduates who rushed to post their mean-spirited criticisms of things they didn’t really understand.

But things kept morphing. Blogging had its moment when it was credited with taking down Dan Rather of CBS in 2004. That power was destructive, certainly, but it also showed that blogging could be responsible. Bloggers could and would do investigative legwork that vaunted CBS journalists failed to do. Blogging earned some real cred in the public eye.

And now the New York Times says blogs are morphing again. Or waning. Or both.

Small talk shifted in large part to social networking, said Elisa Camahort Page, co-founder of BlogHer, a women’s blog network. Still, blogs remain a home of more meaty discussions, she said.

“If you’re looking for substantive conversation, you turn to blogs,” Ms. Camahort Page said. “You aren’t going to find it on Facebook, and you aren’t going to find it in 140 characters on Twitter.”

Substantive conversation on blogs? People didn’t think so in 2002. Things have changed.

Here, briefly, is what I think: blogs fitting more or less in my portion of the blogosphere are good for 1) pithy devotional or theological (or linguistic!) points, 2) concise cultural criticism, 3) linking to little-known resources, and 4) an occasional article-length argument. Those I put in no particular order. Some blogs can be places of helpful public discussion. But not many, if you ask me.

Still, I’m happy to get comments. I do sometimes wonder who you all are. It’s true what one lady said in the Times article: “Blogging can be a very lonely occupation; you write out into the abyss.”

nyt.png

The New York Times’ Jon Pareles today in a perceptive article:

It’s some kind of milestone: Three of the Top 10 hits on last week’s pop music chart have choruses that can’t be played uncensored on the radio and won’t have their original lyrics quoted in this family newspaper. All three use variations on a familiar, emphatic, percussive four-letter word.

The offending syllable is right in the titles of two of the songs, deployed as an imperative by Cee Lo Green and as an adverbial participle by Pink. Mr. Green’s song was nominated for a Grammy Award, where its televised listing was coyly phrased, “The Song Also Known as ‘Forget You.’ ” Pink’s song, a self-help power ballad assuring insecure people that they don’t have to be (emphatically) perfect, also has a cuss-free version. There’s an airplay-ready variant of Enrique Iglesias’s hardcore hit discreetly titled “Tonight (I’m Lovin’ You).” But it’s the bluntness of his original chorus — which is prefaced by Mr. Iglesias singing, “I don’t mean to be rude” — that got the song noticed in the first place.

Of course he means to be rude! Pop songs fight to be noticed in an arms race of sentiments, gimmicks, sonic manipulation and promotional strategies. For Mr. Iglesias, trading pop’s usual affectionate euphemism for the bluntly physical verb couldn’t be more calculated; as a pop lover-boy, Mr. Iglesias decided that the crudity would turn on more fans than it would drive away. It’s a cheap shot that worked. (He has also released a video clip set in a strip club, complete with topless women in a cage.)

….Shock value is viral, and probably a selling point.

….Mr. Green, Mr. Iglesias and Pink got their competitive advantage by making a relatively early breach of pop’s (thinly maintained, mostly illusory) decorum. But any kind of bandwagon effect is going to get boring fast, even if radio stations never play that scary word. Deploying the f-bomb also defuses it; give or take a few copycats in the months to come, it’s going to sound about as potent as a popgun.

myers.png

So Ken Myers was right in 1989. Let’s all admit it. And I’ve hardly ever read a book in which I highlighted more lines:

Since it is the purpose of most forms of popular culture to provide exciting distraction, we should not be surprised that over time, television programs, popular music, and other forms become more extreme (and more offensive) in their pursuit of titillation. Folk culture has the capacity to limit extremes, since it is the expression of the values and aspirations of a community. Popular culture, on the other hand, presupposes the absence of community of belief or conviction.

And someday soon, perhaps, another prediction of the American future will come true.

220px-Newton_j A minister, about to write an article criticizing a fellow minister for his lack of orthodoxy, wrote to John Newton of his intention.

Newton replied as follows (the text has been edited by IIIM Magazine for archaisms).

Dear Sir,

As you are likely to be engaged in controversy, and your love of truth is joined with natural warmth of temper, my friendship makes me solicitous on your behalf. You are of the strongest side; for truth is great, and must prevail; so that a person of abilities inferior to yours might take the field with a confidence of victory. I am not therefore anxious for the event of the battle; but I would have you more than a conqueror, and to triumph, not only over your adversary, but also over yourself. If you cannot be vanquished, you may be wounded. To preserve you from such wounds as might give you cause of weeping over your conquests, I would present you with some considerations, which, if duly attended to, will do you the service of a great coat of mail; such armor, that you need not complain, as David did of Saul’s, that it will be more cumbersome than useful; for you will easily perceive it is taken from that great magazine provided for the Christian soldier, the word of God. I take it for granted that you will not expect any apology for my freedom, and therefore I shall not offer one. For methods sake, I may reduce my advice to three heads: respecting your opponent, the public, and yourself.

As to your opponent, I wish that before you set pen to paper against him, and during the whole time you are preparing your answer, you may commend him by earnest prayer to the Lord’s teaching and blessing. This practice will have a direct tendency to conciliate your heart to love and pity him; and such a disposition will have a good influence upon every page you write. If you account him a believer, though greatly mistaken in the subject of debate between you, the words of David to Joab concerning Absalom, are very applicable: “Deal gently with him for my sake.” The Lord loves him and bears with him; therefore you must not despise him, or treat him harshly. The Lord bears with you likewise, and expects that you should show tenderness to others from a sense of the much forgiveness you need yourself. In a little while you will meet in heaven; he will then be dearer to you than the nearest friend you have upon earth is to you now. Anticipate that period in your thoughts, and though you may find it necessary to oppose his errors, view him personally as a kindred soul, with whom you are to be happy in Christ forever. But if you look upon him as an unconverted person, in a state of enmity against God and his grace (a supposition which, without good evidence, you should be very unwilling to admit), he is a more proper object of your compassion than of your anger. Alas! “He knows not what he does.” But you know who has made you to differ. If God, in his sovereign pleasure, had so appointed, you might have been as he is now; and he, instead of you, might have been set for the defense of the gospel. You were both equally blind by nature. If you attend to this, you will not reproach or hate him, because the Lord has been pleased to open your eyes, and not his. Of all people who engage in controversy, we, who are called Calvinists, are most expressly bound by our own principles to the exercise of gentleness and moderation. If, indeed, they who differ from us have a power of changing themselves, if they can open their own eyes, and soften their own hearts, then we might with less inconsistency be offended at their obstinacy: but if we believe the very contrary to this, our part is, not to strive, but in meekness to instruct those who oppose as taught in 2 Timothy 2:25, “If peradventure God will give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth.” If you write with a desire of being an instrument of correcting mistakes, you will of course be cautious of laying stumbling blocks in the way of the blind or of using any expressions that may exasperate their passions, confirm them in their principles, and thereby make their conviction, humanly speaking, more impracticable.

By printing, you will appeal to the public; where your readers may be ranged under three divisions: First, such as differ from you in principle. Concerning these I may refer you to what I have already said. Though you have your eye upon one person chiefly, there are many like-minded with him; and the same reasoning will hold, whether as to one or to a million.

There will be likewise many who pay too little regard to religion, to have any settled system of their own, and yet are pre-engaged in favor of those sentiments which are at least repugnant to the good opinion men naturally have of themselves. These are very incompetent judges of doctrine; but they can form a tolerable judgment of a writer’s spirit. They know that meekness, humility and love are the characteristics of a Christian temper; and though they affect to treat the doctrines of grace as mere notions and speculations, which, supposing they adopted them, would have no salutary influence upon their conduct; yet from us, who profess these principles, they always expect such dispositions as correspond with the precepts of the gospel. They are quick-sighted to discern when we deviate from such a spirit, and avail themselves of it to justify their contempt of our arguments. The Scriptural maxim, that “the wrath of man works not the righteousness of God,” is verified by daily observation. If our zeal is embittered by expressions of anger, invective, or scorn, we may think we are doing service of the cause of truth, when in reality we shall only bring it into discredit. The weapons of our warfare, and which alone are powerful to break down the strongholds of error, are not carnal, but spiritual; arguments fairly drawn from Scripture and experience, and enforced by such a mild address, as may persuade our readers, that, whether we can convince them or not, we wish well to their souls, and contend only for the truth’s sake; if we can satisfy them that we act upon these motives, our point is half gained; they will be more disposed to consider calmly what we offer; and if they should still dissent from our opinions, they will be constrained to approve our intentions.

You will have a third class of readers, who being of your own sentiments, will readily approve of what you advance, and may be further established and confirmed in their views of the Scripture doctrines, by a clear and masterly elucidation of your subject. You may be instrumental to their edification if the law of kindness as well as of truth regulates your pen, otherwise you may do them harm. There is a principle of self, which disposes us to despise those who differ from us; and we are often under its influence, when we think we are only showing a becoming zeal in the cause of God. I readily believe that the leading points of Arminianism spring from and are nourished by the pride of the human heart; but I should be glad if the reverse were always true; and that to embrace what are called the Calvinistic doctrines was an infallible token of a humble mind. I think I have known some Arminians, that is, persons who for want of a clearer light, have been afraid of receiving the doctrines of free grace, who yet have given evidence that their hearts were in a degree humbled before the Lord. And I am afraid there are Calvinists, who, while they account it a proof of their humility, that they are willing in words to debase the creature and to give all the glory of salvation to the Lord, yet know not what manner of spirit they are of. Whatever it be that makes us trust in ourselves that we are comparatively wise or good, so as to treat those with contempt who do not subscribe to our doctrines, or follow our party, is a proof and fruit of a self-righteous spirit. Self-righteousness can feed upon doctrines as well as upon works; and a man may have the heart of a Pharisee, while his head is stored with orthodox notions of the unworthiness of the creature, and the riches of free grace. Yea, I would add, the best of men are not wholly free from this leaven; and therefore are too apt to be pleased with such representations as hold up our adversaries to ridicule, and by consequence flatter our own superior judgments. Controversies, for the most part, are so managed as to indulge rather than to repress his wrong disposition; and therefore, generally speaking, they are productive of little good. They provoke those whom they should convince, and puff up those whom they should edify. I hope your performance will savor of a spirit of true humility, and be a means of promoting it in others.

This leads me, in the last place, to consider your own concern in your present undertaking. It seems a laudable service to defend the faith once delivered to the saints; we are commanded to contend earnestly for it, and to convince gainsayers. If ever such defenses were seasonable and expedient they appear to be so in our own day, when errors abound on all sides and every truth of the gospel is either directly denied or grossly misrepresented. And yet we find but very few writers of controversy who have not been manifestly hurt by it. Either they grow in a sense of their own importance, or imbibe an angry, contentious spirit, or they insensibly withdraw their attention from those things that are the food and immediate support of the life of faith, and spend their time and strength upon matters that are at most but of a secondary value. This shows, that if the service is honorable, it is dangerous. What will it profit a man if he gains his cause and silences his adversary, if at the same time he loses that humble, tender frame of spirit in which the Lord delights, and to which the promise of his presence is made? Your aim, I doubt not, is good; but you have need to watch and pray for you will find Satan at your right hand to resist you; he will try to debase your views; and though you set out in defense of the cause of God, if you are not continually looking to the Lord to keep you, it may become your own cause, and awaken in you those tempers that are inconsistent with true peace of mind, and will surely obstruct communion with God.

Be upon your guard against admitting anything personal into the debate. If you think you have been ill treated, you will have an opportunity of showing that you are a disciple of Jesus, who “when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not.” This is our pattern, thus we are to speak and write for God, and “not rendering railing for railing, but contrariwise blessing; knowing that hereunto we are called.” The wisdom that is from above is not only pure, but also peaceable and gentle; and the want of these qualifications, like the dead fly in the pot of ointment, will spoil the savor and efficacy of our labors. If we act in a wrong spirit, we shall bring little glory to God, do little good to our fellow creatures, and procure neither honor nor comfort to ourselves. If you can be content with showing your wit, and gaining the laugh on your side, you have an easy task; but I hope you have a far nobler aim, and that, sensible of the solemn importance of gospel truths, and the compassion due to the souls of men, you would rather be a means of removing prejudices in a single instance, than obtain the empty applause of thousands. Go forth, therefore, in the name and strength of the Lord of hosts, speaking the truth in love; and may he give you a witness in many hearts that you are taught of God, and favored with the unction of his Holy Spirit.

I am, &c.

I need your help.

If not now, when?

If not you, who else? The other reader of this blog?!

But you kind of have to know a little Greek—or at least know the letters and basic ideas about conjugation.

BDAG.png

Here’s my problem: BDAG, the standard Κοίνη Greek lexicon, is telling me that someone used the word ἀγάπη in an inscription a long time ago, and a transcription of that inscription is in an 1885 book, Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini Graecae et Latinae, edited by B. Latyschev (isn’t Google Books amazing!).

BDAG also says that that the inscription is to be found at “359, 6″ within this volume. But I can’t find any 359s! There’s no page 359. There’s no inscription 359! And in that case, what would the 6 be doing? I even did a search inside the volume for “359.” I can’t figure it out. One free book from my secret stash to anyone who can!

P.S. Here is what BDAG says in full: “[Ἀγάπη's] paucity in general Greek literature may be due to a presumed colloquial flavor of the noun (but see IPontEux I, 359, 6 as parallel to 2 Cor 8:8 below). No such stigma attached to the use of the verb ἀγαπαω.”

P.P.S.: Here are links to the other two volumes of that series, volumes II and IV (volume III, BDAG says, was never published). I did wonder if BDAG got the volume number wrong. Apparently not, as best I can tell. But I’m still stumped.