The goal

My emphasis here is on the ultimate goal of the calling, which Paul makes clear is not believers’ justification, contrary to much of Protestant post-Reformation theology. The goal is a redeemed people through whom God brings redemption to the rest of the cosmos. The embedded structure of Romans 8:28–30 makes this clear.—Conformed to the Image of His Son, 230–31 (emphasis original)

<idle musing>
A helpful reminder, isn't it? Post-Reformation theology gets hung up on the penultimate goal, forgetting what the reason for salvation is in the first place. God's ultimate goal hasn't changed: He gave humanity the imago Dei to be his stewards on earth; the method has changed because of sin and rebellion, but the goal remains the same.
</idle musing>

Speech does not equal writing

The assumption that writing exists solely to represent speech is also gravely mistaken. As Coulmas has observed, “Writing is for readers who have little need for minute phonetic information because they know the language that is written and, therefore do not depend on such information for identifying meaningful units in the text.” Moreover, as Coulmas notes that the origins and development of writing are independent of spoken language: “writing did not evolve as a means to record speech but as a system of communication” (2003: 15). The purpose of writing is to communicate meaning, not sound.—William Schniedewind, in Advances in Biblical Hebrew Linguistics, 113

<idle musing>
I need to be reminded of that every now and then…
</idle musing>

But we see Jesus…

In short, what I have argued here in Romans 8:29-30 is that Paul sees that those conformed to the image of the Son are those who, though once participants in the Adamic submission to the powers of sin and death, now participate in the reign of the new Adam over creation. Mankind’s position on earth as God’s vicegerents to his creation is now restored, though now through the image of the Son of God, who reigns as God’s preeminent vicegerent. The depiction of humanity being crowned with glory and honor and established with dominion over creation in Psalm 8 is now again a reality, through both the Firstborn Son of God and those who participate in his exalted status, that is, his glory. Byrne notes that this is the “full arrival at the goal of God’s intent for human beings” in Romans 8:29. Those conformed to the image of God’s Son participate in the Firstborn Son’s sovereign position over creation as adopted members of God’s eschatological family and, as such, as a reglorified humanity.—Conformed to the Image of His Son, 226–27

Tozer Tuesday

Double dose today!

I do not believe that evangelical truth necessarily must accept any one theory of inspiration as long as we believe that the holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. “For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matt. 5:18 [KJV]). This, I believe, fulfills the requirements for belief concerning inspiration of Scripture.—A.W. Tozer, Living as a Christian, 29

And

It is usually the case in the Word of God that there are a multitude of applications, so that if one man says it means this, and another man says it means that, and three others say it means some other thing, they are not contradicting each other; they may easily be complementing each other’s interpretation. I have no objection to various interpretations provided they do not say, “Accept my interpretation or I rule you out.” That mindset is too narrow and legalistic.—A.W. Tozer, Living as a Christian, 30

<idle musing>
Isn't that a refreshing viewpoint? You could call it a generous orthodoxy. Quite the change from the heresy hunting and boundary-drawing activities of some today!

May those of his tribe increase while the heresy hunters decrease. The church (and world) would be a better place!

Just an
</idle musing>

Who's leading the show?

Rom 8:30 should first (not only) be read through a disciplined lens of biblical theology, in which we strive to let the text inform our system rather than (in an unhealthy way) our system inform the text. To be sure, it is not only impossible but undesirable to read any given text without a systematic framework. Yet our mindset must be one of self-consciously letting the text tinker with the framework rather than the framework with the text.—Dane Ortlund, Inaugurated Glorification: Revisiting Romans 8:30 JETS 57 (2014): 128 (emphasis original); cited in Conformed to the Image of His Son, 225

<idle musing>
But how often is it the other way around? Far too often we go to scripture seeking a proof text for our chosen position, rather than going there with an open mind. Yes, we all have frameworks (presuppositions), but they must be open to modification if we intend to grow spiritually (as well as intellectually and emotionally).

Back in the day, we used to call that inductive versus deductive reading. Not sure what they call it now, but the principle remains the same: Let the text dictate what you find, not the other way around.

To share a story: Many years ago, another person and I used to get together to sight-read in the Greek New Testament. One day, the person I was reading with said something to the effect that they were truly amazed because I let the text dictate how I translated and interpreted it. I asked them what they meant. They replied that they had been taught to go to the text with a firm idea and then find it there—and this person was seminary-trained! Yikes!

As the title of the post asked, "Who's leading the show?" I hope and pray you let God, through the Holy Spirit, direct what you find in any given text, not what your presuppositions/framework/theology dictates has to be there or can't be there.
</idle musing>

Self-righteousness, the ultimate false hope

443 S. M.
Self-righteousness destroyed

A GOODLY, formal saint,
   I long appeared in sight;
   By self and Satan taught to paint
   My tomb, my nature, white.
   The Pharisee within still undisturb’d remain’d;
   The strong man, arm’d with guilt of sin,
   Safe in his palace reign’d.

2 But, 0, the jealous God
   In my behalf came down;
   Jesus as himself the stronger show’d,
   And claim’d me for his own.
   My spirit he alarm’d,
   And brought into distress;
   He shook and bound the strong man,
   arm’d in his self-righteousness.

3 Faded my virtuous show,——
   My form without the power;
   The sin-convincing Spirit blew,
   And blasted every flower:
   My mouth was stopp’d, and shame
   Cover'd my guilty face;
   I fell on the atoning Lamb,
   And I was saved by grace.
                                  (1870 Methodist Episcopal hymnal)

What do you do with that εἰκόν [eikon] in Romans 8:29

How then should one understand Paul’s use of εἰκόν [eikon] in Romans 8:29? It should be noted first that, as Philip Hughes rightly suggests, τῆς εἰκόνος [tes eikonos] and τοῦ υἱοῦ [tou huiou] in Romans 8:29 should be taken as mutually explicative, so that the verse reads “be conformed to the image (that is) [God’s] Son” (see 1 Cor 15:49). The image is neither external to the Son nor an attribute of the Son that can theoretically be removed or replaced; the image is the Son himself, the perfect representation of Sonship.—Conformed to the Image of His Son, 193

<idle musing>
For those of you paying close attention, you'll see over a hundred page jump here from the last one. That's because she has been laying a lot of foundational and literature review work (it's a revised dissertation after all!) that, while important to the study, doesn't lend itself very well to extracting a paragraph here and there. I recommend you look at the book if you are really interested. A word of warning though: If you aren't quite proficient in Greek, you will have a terrible time of it! She quotes large sections of the LXX without translating it.
</idle musing>

Jesus, I am resting

1 Jesus, I am resting, resting
   In the joy of what Thou art,
   I am finding out the greatness
   Of Thy loving heart.
   Thou hast bid me gaze upon Thee,
   And Thy beauty fills my soul,
   For by thy transforming power
   Thou hast made me whole.

Refrain:
   Jesus, I am resting, resting
   In the joy of what Thou art,
   I am finding out the greatness
   Of Thy loving heart.

2 Oh, how great Thy loving-kindness,
   Vaster, broader than the sea;
   Oh, how marvellous Thy goodness
   Lavished all on me
   Yes, I rest in Thee, Beloved,
   Know what wealth of grace is Thine,
   Know Thy certainty of promise
   And have made it mine. [Refrain]

3 Simply trusting Thee, Lord Jesus,
   I behold Thee as Thou art,
   And Thy love, so pure, so changeless,
   Satisfies my heart,
   Satisfies its deepest longing,
   And supplies its every need,
   Compasseth me round with blessings:
   Thine is love indeed. [Refrain]

4 Ever lift Thy face upon me
   As I work and wait for Thee;
   Resting 'neath Thy smile, Lord Jesus,
   Earth's dark shadows flee.
   Brightness of Thy Father's glory
   Sunshine of Thy Father's face,
   Keep me ever trusting, resting,
   Fill me with Thy grace. [Refrain]
    By Jean Sophia Pigott, hymnary.org

<idle musing>

As an aside, read the author bio at hymnary.org. Seems Hudson Taylor found this hymn to be of great comfort. Personally, I can see why. It summarizes very well the power of looking to Jesus.

I'm fairly certain I learned this hymn from the Methodist Hymnal, but it isn't in the United Methodist one I have (1964 edition, w/O for a Thousand Tongues to Sing as #1). And I searched the index of the 1935 Methodist Episcopal Hymnal (Holy, Holy, Holy as #1) at hymnar.org, which was the hymnal I grew up with until about 1969, and it doesn't seem to be there either. So, I honestly don't know where I picked it up. Nevertheless, God brings it to mind frequently when I'm feeling stressed. Just like Hudson Taylor, I find comfort in its words; I hope you do too.
</idle musing>

Genesis—yes, but which part?

The point of Romans 1:23 is not the fall into sin of the primal pair from Genesis 3, particularly through idolatry, which thus affected either Gentiles specifically or humanity more generally, but humanity’s (אדם ['adam]) “exchange of the glory of the immortal God” in terms of its failure to fulfill its created purpose or identity as creatures made in the image of God, having dominion over creation as vicegerents of the Creator God—hence Paul’s obvious allusion to Genesis 1:26–28 and not Genesis 3:6. Dane Ortlund rightly argues that Paul’s reference here is not to God’s own glory, which then implies an “exchange of worship,” but that “it is probably human glory (the divine image) that is in view.” Humanity’s rejection of its created purpose throughout history took the form of idolatry—a form found in both Gentile and Jewish history—and resulted in a humanity that existed in their actions and desires as shadows of their created selves (Rom 1:24-32). Though the fall narrative of Genesis 2–3 is not implicit in Romans 1:23, Genesis 1:26-28 certainly is. Moreover, though the name “Adam” is not mentioned in Romans 1, the created purpose or identity of corporate humanity (“adam”; אדם) in Genesis 1:26-28 is undoubtedly of central importance in Romans 1:23.—Conformed to the Image of His Son, 93–94

<idle musing>
Interesting idea, which I really like and think is probably correct. I don't follow Romans' scholarship very closely, so I don't know how common this view is, but let's let her run with it. It ties in nicely with Second Isaiah's idea of a recommissioned humanity via the Servant.
</idle musing>

My faith looks up to thee

1 My faith looks up to Thee,
   Thou Lamb of Calvary,
   Saviour divine;
   Now hear me while I pray,
   Take all my sins away,
   O let me from this day
   Be wholly Thine.

2 May Thy rich grace impart
   Strength to my fainting heart,
   My zeal inspire;
   As Thou hast died for me,
   O may my love to Thee
   Pure, warm, and changeless be,
   A living fire.

3 While life's dark maze I tread,
   And griefs around me spread,
   Be Thou my guide;
   Bid darkness turn to day
   Wipe sorrow's tears away,
   Nor let me ever stray
   From Thee aside.

4 When ends life's transient dream,
   When death's cold, sullen stream
   Shall o'er me roll,
   Blest Saviour, then, in love,
   Fear and distrust remove;
   O bear me safe above,
   A ransomed soul
Words by Ray Palmer, The Book of Hymns (Methodist Hymnal, 1964), 143

Tozer for Tuesday

Not only does a Christian believe in the invisible world but he also counts on it. He acts, plans and lives as one who counts on the reality of the invisible. On the opposite side, the man of the earth does not believe in another world, or if he believes in it, he nods dutifully toward the belief in another world, but he does not let it change his plans any. He acts just the same as if there were no other world. He lays his plans precisely the same as if there were no invisible world, and he continues to live as if heaven is a myth and does not exist.

But the Christian counts on the other world, so that the invisible presence of God in His eternal kingdom, and the spirits made perfect in the holy church of the first-born, and the Holy Ghost and the invisible world actually influence his life. The invisible actually shapes his plans, determines his habits, comforts, consoles and supports him..—A.W. Tozer, —Living as a Christian, 21

<idle musing>
How many who call themselves Christian can fit into Tozer's category of the "man of the earth"? Too many I fear : (
</idle musing>

Unfortunate reversal

Behind the line of argument here [Rom 1:23] would seem to be the biblical tradition, stemming from Gen 1:26–28, where human beings, created in the image and likeness of God, are given dominion over the rest of creation (fish, birds, animals, reptiles), a motif given more poetic expression in Psalm 8 (esp. vv 5–8). Idolatry represents the summit of “futility” (v 21) in that it has human beings submitting themselves in worship to the creatures over which they were meant to rule. This perverts the whole raison-d'étre of the non—human created world, subjecting it to “futility” (8:30).—Brendan Byrne, Romans, Sacra Pagina (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007), 38; quoted in Conformed to the Image of His Son, 93

What amazing words of grace!

294 C. M.
Sufficiency and freeness.

WHAT amazing words of grace
   Are in the gospel found!
   Suited to every sinner’s case,
   Who knows the joyful sound.

2 Poor, sinful, thirsty, fainting souls,
   Are freely welcome here;
   Salvation, like a river, rolls,
   Abundant, free, and clear.

3 Come, then, with all your wants and wounds;
   Your every burden bring:
   Here love, unchanging love, abounds,——
   A deep, celestial spring.

4 Whoever will—O gracious word!—
   May of this stream partake;
   Come, thirsty souls, and bless the Lord,
   And drink, for Jesus’ sake.

5 Millions of sinners, vile as you,
   Have here found life and peace;
   Come, then, and prove its virtues too,
   And drink, adore, and bless.
                                          Methodist Episcopal Hymnal 1870 edition

How does the LXX use δοξάζω?

Two points of significance are notable here. First, in each of the examples for δοξάζω above [Daniel, Esther, 1 maccabees, Isaiah, and Sirach], the aorist active idicative third-person singular form is used—the same form used 1n Romans 8:30 for God's glorification of humanity. Second, in nearly every instance of humanity's glorification in the LXX (the exceptions being Ex 34:29-30, 35; Sir 50:15), δοξάζω refers primarily to a status or position of honor, authority, being radiant or brought into the presence of God.—Conformed to the Image of His Son, 50

<idle musing>
Remember that! It will be important later in the book.
</idle musing>

It's tautological

Put another way, according to the presentation of the identity of God by the translators of the LXX, the identity of God is irreducible to his presence. God is presented as a God who reigns because he is omnipotent and, as an omnipotent God who ranks above all idols and other gods, he therefore reigns as king.—Conformed to the Image of His Son, 45–46

'Tis metaphorical, you see

All God-talk, all theology, even ours, is metaphorical, describing God in terms that properly belong to the human sphere. It cannot be otherwise, as human words, like human thought, belong this side of creation, and cannot begin to describe its other side, God as he is in his own interior life. Such knowledge as we have of God is not of God as he is, but as he shows himself towards human beings.… When we say that God saves, redeems, pities us, is our Father, our shepherd, our King, we are using metaphors or images drawn from human life and experience. In other words, we are using anthropomorphisms, ascribing to God human actions and human feelings.—J. C. L. Gibson, Language and Imagery in the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998), 22; cited in Conformed to the Image of His Son, 28

<idle musing>
Starting a new book today, Conformed to the Image of His Son. I picked it up at AAR/SBL a few years ago, and it languished on my bookshelf until recently.

Today's snippet might seem to contradict the previous post from Tozer about God being near, but not really. We use anthropomorphisms, but they accurately reflect God to a degree. The danger is to forget they are metaphorical, trying to describe what is beyond human comprehension.
</idle musing>

Tozer for a Tuesday (ok, it's Thursday; I forgot!)

So the believer accepts and believes in a real world of which God is the King, an eternal kingdom, an eternal world, a spiritual and invisible world co-existing with and touching and accessible to this world. Heaven is not so far away that we must take a jet and continue through light years of travel to get to heaven. The average Christian thinks of heaven as being so far away, and only by accommodation do we sing about heaven being near and “glory coming down our souls to greet.”—A.W. Tozer, —Living as a Christian, 17

<idle musing>
Sadly, he is correct. Too many Christians see God as "out there"—a great chasm separating us from him. That's not the biblical witness! God is close at hand, nearer than you realize; in fact, living inside you in the form of the Holy Spirit.

If we would internalize that understanding, it would transform how we live, wouldn't it? Lord, make it so!
</idle musing>

Freedom; it's not what you think

One can hardly imagine a greater contrast to what Luther meant by “the freedom of a Christian”: living in paradoxical bondage to selfless, loving service of your neighbors, tirelessly tending to their needs whatever they might be, as a result of gratitude for the unmerited gift of God’s saving grace. Freedom as understood by Luther, as well as by the other Protestant and Catholic reformers of the sixteenth century, was based on a radically different understanding of what human beings are, what the point of human life is, and how one ought to live. No wonder it seems so alien today to most Westerners.—Rebel in the Ranks, 262

<idle musing>
And that's also what Jesus, the apostles, and Paul all meant by the freedom of a Christian. It's the freedom to serve. The freedom of not fearing your neighbors or enemies, but instead loving them and serving them.

There's always been a shortage of that kind of freedom, but I suspect it's at an unusually low point right now in our society.

I saw a new word yesterday, "angertainment," the use of anger to entertain people. It seems a sad but apt descriptive word for our society.

Again, a good meditation for advent, leading up to the Deliverer's birth.

Just an
</idle musing>

The Goods life?

To judge by most people’s actions today, they believe the goods life is the good life, and they devote themselves to this whether or not they also believe in God or engage in worship or prayer. In public culture and society as a whole, in both the United States and Europe, the consumption of goods and pursuit of enjoyment has essentially replaced religion. Whether you happen to be religious has no effect at all on the dominant culture. This would have horrified—if perhaps not surprised—Luther and Calvin and other sixteenth-century Protestant reformers.—Rebel in the Ranks, 255

<idle musing>
I like that, the "goods life." He is correct, we've exchanged a good life in Christ for a goods life of consumerism—and it doesn't fulfill. We need to consume more to attempt to fill that hole in our souls, which of course feeds the cycle of consume and throw away, leading to an ever warmer and more unstable climate.

Seems an appropriate meditation this advent season for why we need a savior.

Just an
</idle musing>

A different look at Adam Smith

I read an interesting review article over the weekend about Adam Smith on the New York Review of Books (via Libby from my local library). I haven't read any Adam Smith for almost 50 years (back in high school), but maybe I should take another look. Here's a brief little snippet that I found interesting:

Once we enter society and start trading with one another, Smith thought, material goods take on a social meaning. Now we are as concerned with how those goods make us appear to others as we are with the goods themselves. Once we enter an economy with others, which is the only economy there is, we cease to think and act in a strictly economic sense. When “everyone began to look at everyone else and to wish to be looked at himself,” wrote Rousseau, “public esteem acquired a price.” Smith’s theory is an attempt to make sense of that price.

Seems there's a lot more going on than I remembered (and than most people talk about when they discuss Adam Smith). The above quotation should make the Chicago school of economists recalculate. They assume a Robinson Crusoe (article's words) approach: No societal pressure, therefore a person will make a logical decision. When's the last time someone did that!!? Right, Robinson Crusoe, but even he was influenced by his cultural background (I know, he's a literary figure, but the point stands).

If you can access the article via Libby, I recommend it; otherwise, try interlibrary loan (an independent scholar's best friend!).

By the way, the book reviewed is Being Me Being You: Adam Smith and Empathy, by Samuel Fleischacker, University of Chicago Press, 216 pp., $105.00; $35.00 (paper). The paperback is actually affordable!

Advent

Advent Sunday! Christmas has pretty much taken over the Advent season; it used to be a preparation time for the coming of the "Long-Expected Jesus." Now, it's rare to hear an advent song; you mostly hear Christmas carols. Don't get me wrong; I love Christmas carols! But I would love to hear more Advent songs. Here's one that is probably the best known: O Come, O Come, Immanuel (various spellings of Immanuel; I prefer Emanuel myself). I didn't know the back story on this until I read about it on The Anxious Bench the other day. Fascinating! Anyway, here's the hymn, and please, do yourself a favor and look through a hymnal at some of the other Advent hymns an reacquaint yourself with the build up to the arrival of Messiah!

1 O come, O come, Immanuel,
   and ransom captive Israel
   that mourns in lonely exile here
   until the Son of God appear.

Refrain:
Rejoice! Rejoice! Immanuel
shall come to you, O Israel.

2 O come, O Wisdom from on high,
   who ordered all things mightily;
   to us the path of knowledge show
   and teach us in its ways to go. Refrain

3 O come, O come, great Lord of might,
   who to your tribes on Sinai's height
   in ancient times did give the law
   in cloud and majesty and awe. Refrain

4 O come, O Branch of Jesse's stem,
   unto your own and rescue them!
   From depths of hell your people save,
   and give them victory o'er the grave. Refrain

5 O come, O Key of David, come
   and open wide our heavenly home.
   Make safe for us the heavenward road
   and bar the way to death's abode. Refrain

6 O come, O Bright and Morning Star,
   and bring us comfort from afar!
   Dispel the shadows of the night
   and turn our darkness into light. Refrain

7 O come, O King of nations, bind
   in one the hearts of all mankind.
   Bid all our sad divisions cease
   and be yourself our King of Peace. Refrain

I could use more of this attitude. Could you?

556 S. M.
The spirit of prayer

THE praying spirit breathe!
   The watching power impart;
   From all entanglements beneath,
   Call off my peaceful heart;
   My feeble mind sustain,
   By worldly thoughts oppress’d;
   Appear, and bid me turn again
   To my eternal rest.

2 Swift to my rescue come;
   Thine own this moment seize;
   Gather my wand’ring spirit home,
   And keep in perfect peace:
   Suffer’d no more to rove
   O’er all the earth abroad,
   Arrest the pris’ner of thy love,
   And shut me up in God.
                                      —Charles Wesley

Clement of Alexandria and hymns

It's funny the things you see when you page through a book as opposed to just doing a search on the internet. I was leafing through The Book of Hymns, The 1966 edition of the Methodist hymnal, and ran across two hymns by Clement of Alexandria. They must be some of the oldest hymns around outside the Bible; he lived from ca. AD 160–220, so he was born roughly 130 years after Christ's ministry, death, and resurrection (and ascension!); to put that in modern comparisons, compared to the Revolutionary war, he would have been born around 1900, or compared to the Civil War/War between the States, he would have been born in 1990.

Anyway, this particular hymn, number 86 in The Book of Hymns, appears in over 200 hymnals according to Hymnary.org. The lyrics below were taken from there; the Methodist hymnal uses an older translation and is missing verse 2 (Why? It's a great verse!). Enjoy!

1 Shepherd of tender youth,
   guiding in love and truth
   through devious ways,
   Christ, our triumphant King,
   we come your name to sing
   and here our children bring
   to join your praise.

2 You are our holy Lord,
   Christ, the incarnate Word,
   healer of strife.
   You did yourself abase
   that from sin's deep disgrace
   you might now save our race,
   and give us life.

3 You are the great High Priest,
   you have prepared the feast
   of holy love;
   and in our mortal pain
   none calls on you in vain;
   our plea do not disdain;
   help from above.

4 O ever be our guide,
   our shepherd and our pride,
   our staff and song.
   Jesus, O Christ of God,
   by your enduring Word
   lead us where you have trod;
   make our faith strong.

5 So now and till we die
   sound we your praises high
   and joyful sing:
   infants and all the throng
   who to your Church belong,
   unite to swell the song
   to Christ, our King!

Hymnary.org

Now Thank We All Our God (duplicate!)

A bit too unbelieving, with a God who is "out there" as opposed to living within via the Holy Spirit, but still good sentiments for a Wednesday before Thanksgiving Day:

1. Now thank we all our God,
   with heart and hands and voices,
   who wondrous things has done,
   in whom this world rejoices;
   who from our mothers' arms
   has blessed us on our way
   with countless gifts of love,
   and still is ours today.

2. O may this bounteous God
   through all our life be near us,
   with ever joyful hearts
   and blessed peace to cheer us;
   and keep us still in grace,
   and guide us when perplexed;
   and free us from all ills,
   in this world and the next.

3. All praise and thanks to God
   the Father now be given;
   the Son, and him who reigns
   with them in highest heaven;
   the one eternal God,
   whom earth and heaven adore;
   for thus it was, is now,
   and shall be evermore.

United Methodist Hymnal (1989) # 102, via Hymnary.org

I just realized that I had posted this earlier. Sorry about that! Still good sentiments, and I could always say with Peter that it is not tiresome to me and good for you to be reminded of these things!.

Musings on Hebrews 3–4

484 C.M.

The believer’s rest.

LORD, I believe a rest remains
   To all thy people known;
   A rest where pure enjoyment reigns,
   And thou art loved alone.

2 A rest where all our soul’s desire
   Is fix’d on things above;
   Where fear, and sin, and grief expire,
   Cast out by perfect love.

3 O that I now the rest might know,
   Believe, and enter in;
   Now, Saviour, now the power bestow,
   And let me cease from sin.

4 Remove this hardness from my heart;
   This unbelief remove;
   To me the rest of faith impart,—-
   The Sabbath of thy love.

Tozer for a Tuesday

I've decided to bring back Tozer for a Tuesday; it's been a few years, but I think I need to read him again. Here's today's snippet, from Living as a Christian.

If he or she is honest, the average Christian will sing, “See how I grovel here below, fond of these earthly toys,” rather than sing, “The waves of glory roll, my shouts I can’t control.” How can we become the ones who sing in honesty “My shouts I can’t control”?

The Christians Peter writes about saw the invisible, believed in it and rejoiced with “joy unspeakable and full of glory.” I do not know how to tell you how to get it; I only know how they got it. They got it by believing in what they could not see, and that is the only way that you and I will ever have joy unspeakable and a shout that we cannot control.—A. W. Tozer, Living as a Christian, 17

The church's one foundation

1 The Church's one foundation
   Is Jesus Christ her Lord;
   She is His new creation
   By water and the Word:
   From heaven He came and sought her
   To be His holy bride;
   With His own blood He bought her,
   And for her life He died.

2 Elect from every nation,
   Yet one o'er all the earth,
   Her charter of salvation
   One Lord, one faith, one birth.
   One Holy Name she blesses,
   Partakes one Holy Food,
   And to one hope she presses
   With every grace endured.

3 Though with a scornful wonder
   Men see her sore opprest,
   By schisms rent asunder,
   By heresies distrest,
   Yet saints their watch are keeping,
   Their cry goes up, "How long?"
   And soon the night of weeping
   Shall be the morn of song.

4 'Mid toil, and tribulation,
   And tumult of her war,
   She waits the consummation
   Of peace for evermore;
   Till with the vision glorious
   Her longing eyes are blest,
   And the great Church victorious
   Shall be the Church at rest.

5 Yet she on earth hath union
   With God, the Three in One,
   And mystic sweet communion
   With those whose rest is won:
   O happy ones and holy!
   Lord, give us grace that we,
   Like them, the meek and lowly,
   On high may dwell with Thee.

Methodist Hymn and Tune Book (1917)

Amen! Good preaching!

I don't know if you follow Roger Olson's blog or not. If you don't you definitely need to take a look at today's post, on economic theory and Christian ethics. Here's a short snippet, but you definitely need to read the whole thing (and the preceding post as well for context and indentifying the theorists):

Nozick’s theory of justice as entitlement has no way of guarding against price gouging even in a catastrophe. Nor has it any way to ameliorate the growing gap between rich and poor in a capitalist society. In fact, I will go so far as to say his theory of justice is unjust and evil. Nozick may not have been a Social Darwinist, but this I will say about it: If I were a Social Darwinist I would find Nozick’s theory of justice as entitlement an ally and I would use it to promote my Social Darwinist beliefs. As a Christian ethicist, I unequivocally condemn Nozick’s theory of justice as entitlement even if Nozick himself inconsistently with his own theory offered qualifications that make it appear as if his theory has “place” for compassion. In his theory, charity is left to individuals and organizations and government has no obligation to help the poor, the indigent, the vulnerable, the weak, or the helpless.

<idle musing>
Amen and amen! Good preaching!
</idle musing>

Now thank we all our God

1 Now thank we all our God
   with heart and hands and voices,
   who wondrous things has done,
   in whom his world rejoices;
   who from our mothers' arms
   has blessed us on our way
   with countless gifts of love
   and still is ours today.

2 Oh, may this bounteous God
   through all our life be near us,
   with ever-joyful hearts
   and blessed peace to cheer us
   and keep us in his grace
   and guide us when perplexed
   and free us from all ills
   in this world and the next.
  

3 All praise and thanks to God
   the Father now be given,
   the Son, and him who reigns,
   with them in highest heaven,
   the one eternal God,
   whom earth and heav'n adore;
   for thus it was, is now,
   and shall be evermore.

Hymnary.org

Fairest Lord Jesus

1 Fairest Lord Jesus,
   ruler of all nature,
   O thou of God and man the Son,
   Thee will I cherish,
   Thee will I honor,
   thou, my soul's glory, joy, and crown.

2 Fair are the meadows,
   fairer still the woodlands,
   robed in the blooming garb of spring:
   Jesus is fairer,
   Jesus is purer
   who makes the woeful heart to sing.

3 Fair is the sunshine,
   fairer still the moonlight,
   and all the twinkling starry host:
   Jesus shines brighter,
   Jesus shines purer
   than all the angels heaven can boast.

4 Beautiful Savior!
   Lord of all the nations!
   Son of God and Son of Man!
   Glory and honor,
   praise, adoration,
   now and forevermore be thine.

United Methodist Hymnal, 1989 (taken from hymnary.org)

When I was in first grade, we lived in Columbia, MO while my dad was finishing up his doctoral work. We went to a large Methodist church, well it was large by 1960s standards anyway! (As an aside, the pastor there later went on to become a bishop.) One of the highlights for me was that I was able to sing in the primary youth choir, made up of first, second, and third graders. This was one of the songs that we would sing and it became one of my favorite hymns. I've also heard it called Beautiful Savior instead of Fairest Lord Jesus, like the first line of the fourth stanza.

A hymn for Wednesday

864 C. M.
I shall be satisfied when I awake in thy likness.

JESUS, the all—restoring Word,
   My fallen spirit’s hope,
   After thy lovely likeness, Lord,
   Ah! when shall I wake up?

2 Thou, O my God, thou only art
   The Life, the Truth, the Way;
   Quicken my soul, instruct my heart,
   My sinking footsteps stay.

3 Of all thou hast in earth below,
   In heaven above, to give,
   Give me thy only love to know,——
   In thee to walk and live.

4 Fill me with all the life of love;
   In mystic union join
   Me to thyself, and let me prove
   The fellowship divine.

5 Open the intercourse between.
   My 1onging soul and thee,
   Never to be broke off again
   To all eternity. (Charles Wesley)

Citing a YouTube video

This was a first for me. I needed to know how to cite a YouTube video!

According to Chicago Manual of Style, it gets cited as follows:

Hays, Richard B. “Did All the Gospel Writers Believe Jesus Was Divine?” Streamed live on Dec 4, 2014. YouTube video, 52:41. https://youtu.be/XHE6rWTcQW0.

To get the short YouTube url, you need to click on the Share button and then copy that.

Simple, isn't it? But note that this is in their FAQ, not in the actual CMS17 itself.

Use this url to access the CMS site for questions: https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-1.html. I use it all the time to find the paragraph numbers and then consult the physical book. You need a subscription to access the online version of the manual.

See all the copyediting stuff here.

Vain attempt

“People who present themselves as the embodiment of order become the embodiment of nothingness and ‘emptiness.’” John Goldingay, The Message of Isaiah 40–55: A Literary-Theological Commentary (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 57

A hymn for the second Sunday in November

Yes, I'm on a hymn kick right now. Here's one that came to mind as I was brewing a pot of tea this morning:

1 God of grace and God of glory,
   on the people pour thy power;
   crown thine ancient church's story,
   bring her bud to glorious flower.
   Grant us wisdom, grant us courage,
   for the facing of this hour,
   for the facing of this hour.

2 Lo! the hosts of evil round us
   scorn thy Christ, assail his ways!
   Fears and doubts too long have bound us;
   free our hearts to work and praise.
   Grant us wisdom, grant us courage,
   for the living of these days,
   for the living of these days.

3 Cure thy children's warring madness,
   bend our pride to thy control;
   shame our wanton, selfish gladness,
   rich in things and poor in soul.
   Grant us wisdom, grant us courage,
   lest we miss thy kingdom's goal,
   lest we miss thy kingdom's goal.

4 Save us from weak resignation
   to the evils we deplore;
   let the search for thy salvation
   be our glory evermore.
   Grant us wisdom, grant us courage,
   serving thee whom we adore,
   serving thee whom we adore.

The United Methodist Hymnal #577

You can find more info, including author and alternate wording at hymnary.org.

This hymn seems appropriate for the strife-ridden culture consuming the US right now. May all who name the name of Christ, whether right or left, allow God to "cure [his] children's warring madness, bend our pride to thy control; shame our wanton, selfish gladness, rich in things and poor in soul" and "Grant us wisdom, grant us courage, lest we miss thy kingdom's goal."

Tempest in a teapot

Aparently there has been a big dust up on Twitter about translators not being named on the cover of a book. Jim West has a post on it and I posted a comment. Because Jim moderates his comments (wise choice), it may or may not be posted, so I provide it here:

As Jim Eisenbraun pointed out to you on Twitter, it is normal for publisher not to display the translator on the cover. And, I'd like to point out that K.C. is an editor at W&S, so he might have had some input on that.

The cover is for selling the book. The title page is where the important stuff is. Worldcat, the librarians tool, usually only displays the translator in the (now hidden) details screen.

The only exception is where the translator is in some way a "big name" and having his/her name on the cover will help sell the book. Because that's what covers are for—to catch people's eyes so that they will buy the book. Period. Actually, exclamation point. Covers are a selling point—which is why the old-style stamped cloth cover is not around much anymore. It's usually on over-priced books that only need to sell 100 copies to libraries to make money. Popular-priced books need a cover to attract the nonlibrarians. If having the translator on the cover helps sell the book, then it will probably appear there. If not, too bad, so sad.

Sorry if I sound cynical, but with the proliferation of illegal sharing sites and people just not buying books, selling the few that a publisher does is what the cover is all about. (And note, too, that libraries are cutting way back on buying books.)

Sorry if you don't like my comment, but it's the truth. Not dissing translators in any way, shape, or form. They do difficult and necessary work, but if the book doesn't sell, their work will be in vain. And publisher will go away, which some of you may think is a good thing, but when I look at some self-pub stuff, with egregious factual, grammatical, and other obvious errors, I suspect the wild, wild west of self-pubs might not be the utopia that some seem to think it is.

Tell me I'm wrong…

Just an
</idle musing>

Hymn for a Friday

I woke up with this hymn on my mind:

1 All glory, laud, and honor
  to you, Redeemer, King,
  to whom the lips of children
  made sweet hosannas ring.
  You are the King of Israel
  and David's royal Son,
  now in the Lord's name coming,
  the King and Blessed One.

2 The company of angels
  is praising you on high;
  and we with all creation
  in chorus make reply.
  The people of the Hebrews
  with palms before you went;
  our praise and prayer and anthems
  before you we present.

3 To you before your passion
  they sang their hymns of praise;
  to you, now high exalted,
  our melody we raise.
  As you received their praises,
  accept the prayers we bring,
  for you delight in goodness,
  O good and gracious King!

This is an old hymn, written around 800 (in Latin, of course). You can read about the author and the translator at Hymnary.org. I might note that I remember it in the Methodist hymnal version, which is a bit different (you can use hymnary.org to compare and see).

Another year

I put the garden to bed for the winter the other day. After a cool fall, the last few weeks were unseasonally warm. We had a hard frost in September, two weeks earlier than normal and a month earlier than last year. Then, it stayed cold for a while before warming up.

They say that Halloween was the warmest in 22 years! And my Brussels sprouts loved it, as did my kale. I had forgotten to pull out the growing tip on the Brussels sprouts at the end of August. You do that to stop the plant from putting all its energy into growing taller; it redirects that energy into fattening up the existing sprouts. I didn't do it until the frost, so three-to-four weeks late. I figured I wouldn't get very many this year. But, the warmer weather in late October and early November sure helped! I ended up with over double what I thought I was going to get! (You can leave them on the stock until late December–early January, but I usually harvest them in early November in case of snow—the garden gate won't open once it snows.)

The only thing in the garden now is some late-planted kale that I'll keep harvesting for my soup each day until snow blocks the garden gate. It might survive the winter and be around for early spring; that's happened before. But, I don't count on it and start some in the basement in March to transplant in April. Meanwhile, I've frozen enough to keep me supplied until May.

In general, it was a good garden year. I froze sufficient broccoli, beans, tomatoes, summer squash, and bok choi for the winter. We ate more than our fill of peas fresh off the vine; the raspberries gave us enough to eat, but not enough to freeze. I have onions and garlic enough for most, if not the whole winter. We ended up with around twenty delicata, so we'll be eating that until the end of December. I have rhubarb in the freezer, too, for some nice tart rhubarb sauce on a cold winter morning.

So, the garden to bed, last night I started looking through the latest Johnny's catalog, making a list of stuff I need to try or reorder. Next, I'll go through Fedco's catalog and compare. I like to order my seeds before January—for two reasons: (1) to avoid stock-outs in the spring (this year my green beans were back-ordered until just before planting date; I was concerned), and (2) so I can start stuff in the basement in March.

I also like to order from other seed companies, like Baker Creek, and a few others I can't recall right now.

A hymn for a Thursday in November

I'm having a lot of fun randomly reading through this 1870 Methodist hymnal. Here's one that jumped out at me today, under the heading of "His Priesthood and Intercession":

158 C. M.
King of kings and Lord of lords.

THE head that once was crown’d with thorns,
   Is crown’d with glory now;
   A royal diadem adorns
   The mighty Victor’s brow.

2 The highest place that heaven affords,
   Is to our Jesus given;
   The King of kings, and Lord of lords,
   He reigns o’er earth and ‘heaven—-

3 The joy of all who dwell above,
   The joy of all below,
   To whom he manifests his love,
   And grants his Name to know.

4 To them the cross, with all its shame,
   With all its grace, is given;
   Their name—an everlasting name,
   Their joy—the joy of heaven.

5 They suffer with their Lord below,-——
   They reign with him above;
   Their everlasting joy to know
   The myst’ry of his love.

The more things change

The more they stay the same. Take, for example, these verses from Revelation 16:

and they cursed the name of the God who had power over these plagues. But they didn’t change their hearts and lives and give him glory.… and they cursed the God of heaven because of their pains and sores; but they didn’t turn away from what they had done.… They cursed God… (Rev 16:9b, 11, 21b, CEB)

Nope, nothing has changed. Blame God, but don't change your life. How's that working for you? Yeah, that's what I thought. It never has worked.

Consider repenting—changing your heart and mind, as the Common English Bible translates it.

Friday's hymn

As I mentioned the other day, I've been randomly reading in an 1870 Methodist hymnal lately. You can see why most of them haven't survived in today's hymnals, but there are some real gems of theology in most of them. Today's is one of them.

483 C. M.

The good pleasure of his will.

I KNOW that my Redeemer lives,
And ever prays for me:
A token of his love he gives,—
A pledge of liberty.

2 I find him lifting up my head;
He brings salvation near;
His presence makes me free indeed,
And he Will soon appear.

3 He wills that I should holy be!
What can withstand his will?
The counsel of his grace in me
He surely shall fulfil.

4 Jesus, I hang upon thy word;
I steadfastly believe
Thou wilt return, and claim me, Lord,
And to thyself receive.

5 When God is mine, and I am his,
Of paradise possess'd
I taste unutterabie bliss,
And everlasting rest.

By the way, in case you don't know what the notations are next to the hymn number: In the old hymn books they don't have music, just lyrics. Nowadays a hymn usually has become attached to a particular tune, but back then, they would just use one that had the same meter. And the tunes also had names (even in today's hymnals, you can usually see the tune name and composer listed). So, to use today's as an example: It is C.M., which means common meter, so the music leader would say, let's sing hymn number 483 to (some tune with a common meter, like "O, For a Thousand Tongues to Sing"). Another common one is L.M., which means long meter, or S.M., which means short meter. You can find a short explanation on this Wiki page, explaing what the poetic feet are, if you're into that. The hymnbook I'm reading has about thirty "peculiar meters." I'm not sure where they list what those are, but an experienced music leader in those days would know them.

Lord, haste the day!

Reading in Revelation this morning and this verse jumped out at me:

And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea—I heard everything everywhere say,

“Blessing, honor, glory, and power
belong to the one seated on the throne
and to the Lamb
forever and always.” Rev 5:13 (CEB)

Note that it says "everything, everywhere" is praising God. Lord, haste the day!

Necessary but not sufficient

There's a saying that I learned while I was a manager, "Necessary, but not sufficient." It means that without that quality/substance/whatever, the business won't function. But, that by itself is not sufficient. You need that plus something else.

Scot McKnight posted a devotional excerpt on John 2 from his next book. He ends with this paragraph:

Why did Jesus refuse to commit himself to these people? Because he perceived like no other what was in humans (2:25). His signs divide the audiences (9:16; 11:45-48; 12:37). Some surrender to him because of signs (2:11; 3:2; 6:2; 20:30-31); others accept the reality of the miracle but do not see through it to the identity of Jesus; yet others repudiate him completely. To see his miracles as signs one must perceive the identity of Jesus beyond the material miracle itself. One could say then that sign-faith is a first but not final step in the journey of true faith (Thompson, John, 67–68). True faith abides over time in trusting Jesus who abides over time in nurturing the believer.

In other words, necessary, but not sufficient. I fear that's where a lot of "signs and wonders" Christians are at. They see the signs and wonders, and they believe them, but don't press on further to the point of abiding in Christ. They sit by the door, admiring, but don't go "further up and further in" to quote from The Last Battle.

It would make an intersting DMin project for someone to follow up on those who were converted via a signs and wonders presentation and see what percentage stuck with the faith. And then compare it with a control group who were converted via a mass presentation like a Billy Graham crusade.

The Billy Graham people used to say that less than 5 percent of the "decisions" made at a crusade stuck. Do you think the number would be higher in a signs and wonders presentation?

I honestly don't know.

Both or neither

Written well over a century ago, but still true (sadly, and not just England!). From Wilde's A Woman of No Importance:

if a man and woman have sinned, let them both go forth into the desert to love or loathe each other there. Let them both be branded. Set a mark, if you wish, on each, but don’t punish the one and let the other go free. Don’t have one law for men and another for women. You are unjust to women in England. And till you count what is a shame in a woman to be an infamy in a man, you will always be unjust, and Right, that pillar of fire, and Wrong, that pillar of cloud, will be made dim to your eyes, or be not seen at all, or if seen, not regarded.

Hymn for a Tuesday

484 C. M.
The believer's rest.

LORD, I believe a rest remains
To all thy people known;
A rest where pure enjoyment reigns,
And thou art loved alone:

2 A rest where all our soul’s desire
Is fix’d on things above;
Where fear, and sin, and grief expire,
Cast out by perfect love.

3 O that I now the rest might know,
Believe, and enter in:
Now, Saviour, now the power bestow,
And let me cease from sin.

4 Remove this hardness from my heart;
This unbelief remove:
To me the rest of faith impart,—
The Sabbath of thy love.
(Charles Wesley, 1840)

Hymn for "the Lord's day"

701 C. M.
Safety in union

JESUS, great Shepherd of the sheep
To thee for help we fly:
Thy little flock in safety keep,
For O! the wolf is nigh.

2 He comes, of hellish malice full,
To scatter, tear, and slay;
He seizes every straggling soul
As his own lawful prey.

3 Us into thy protection take,
And gather with thine arm;
Unless the fold we first forsake,
The wolf can never harm.

4 We laugh to scorn his cruel power,
While by our Shepherd’s side;
The sheep he never can devour,
Unless he first divide.

5 O do not suffer him to part
The souls that here agree;
But make us of one mind and heart,
And keep us one in thee.

6 Together let us sweetly live,—
Together let us die;
And each a starry crown receive,
And reign above the sky.
(Charles Wesley; from Methodist Hymns, 1870)

Hymn for the day

I have a small, saddlebag-sized Methodist hymnal from 1870 (the 1848 edition) that the local bookstore gave me a while back. I've been reading a hymn or two a day out of it for about a week. Today I ran across this one. I hope you enjoy it.

126 26th P. M. '76, '76, 76, 76.
The glory of His kingdom.

HAIL, to the Lord’s anointed,
Great David’s greater Son!
Hail, in the time appointed,
His reign on earth begun!
He comes to break oppression,——-
To set the captive free;
To take away transgression,
And rule in equity.

2 He comes, with succour speedy
To those who suffer wrong;
To help the poor and needy,
And bid the Weak be strong;
To give them songs for sighing,——
Their darkness turn to light,
Whose souls, condemn’d and dying,
Were precious in his sight.

3 He shall descend like showers
Upon the fruitful earth,
And love and joy, like flowers,
Spring in his path to birth:
Before him, on the mountains,
Shall peace, the herald, go,
And righteousness, in fountains,
From hill to Valley flow.

4 To him shall prayer unceasing,
And daily vows ascend;
His kingdom still increasing,-—
A kingdom without end:
The tide of time shall never
His covenant remove;
His name shall stand forever;
That name to us is Love.
(by James Montgomery, 1821)

Morning praise

The other day I woke up with this hymn running through my mind:

1 When morning gilds the sky,
our hearts awaking cry:
May Jesus Christ be praised!
in all our work and prayer
we ask his loving care:¹
May Jesus Christ be praised!

2 To God, the Word on high,
the hosts of angels cry:
May Jesus Christ be praised!
Let mortals too upraise
their voices in hymns of praise:
May Jesus Christ be praised!

3 Let earth's wide circle round
in joyful notes resound:
May Jesus Christ be praised!
Let air and sea and sky
from depth to height reply:
May Jesus Christ be praised!

4 Be this, when day is past,
of all our thoughts the last:
May Jesus Christ be praised!
The night becomes as day
when from the heart we say:
May Jesus Christ be praised!

5 Then let us join to sing
to Christ, our loving King:
May Jesus Christ be praised!
Be this the eternal song
through all the ages long:
May Jesus Christ be praised!

¹ The United Methodist Hymnal has "To Jesus I repair," which I like better, but maybe that's because I grew up singing it that way. My favorite hymnal is The Book of Hymns, copyright 1964, 1966 and published by the Board of Publication of The Methodist Church, where it occurs as #91. (This is the hymnal that has "O for a Thousand Tongues to Sing" as #1; the hymnal I remember the most has "Holy, Holy, Holy" as #1, but I don't have that one anymore; it fell apart many years ago.)

There's a bit of history on this translation here. The lyrics shown above are from hymnary.org, which also offers a bit of background on the translator.

As an aside, this time of year, morning gilds the sky pretty late; today the sun rose at 7:41, and according to my weather app, dawn was at 7:13. But because of the bluff out our back window, it doesn't actually start looking like dawn until about 7:30.

James 1:5

The word order in the Greek of James 1:5 has always fascinated me. It just doesn't come across very well in any English translation. But, today I was reading it in the Common English Bible and it jumped out at me. I've read it in the CEB multiple times, but for some reason today I realized it did the best job of any of catching the nuance of the Greek word order. Enjoy!

But anyone who needs wisdom should ask God, whose very nature is to give to everyone without a second thought, without keeping score. Wisdom will certainly be given to those who ask.

Jesus loves me, but…

I follow Seedbed. Among other things, they have a daily devotional. Today's really spoke to me. Here's the relevant paragraph that I found the most meaningful, but as always, do read the whole thing.

Jesus’s awareness of and attention to us precedes our awareness of and attention to him. In fact, the former is what germinates and generates the latter. His love for us precedes our love for him and for others. This is perhaps the most fundamental place of our brokenness. We can imagine Jesus’s awareness of, attention to, and love for someone else, just not for ourselves. This is what fuels all striving—the deep-seated, distorted belief that we must do something to generate Jesus’s awareness of us and to win his attention to us. Most, if not all, of this comes from our broken family systems. We carry a deeply ingrained and even generational belief that the attention, affection, and secure attachment of our parents is the fruit of our striving, achievement, and advancement in life.

<idle musing>
That hits pretty close to home, doesn't it? God loves everyone unconditionally, but… God is in control, but…

I read somewhere, many years ago, about the "holy but"—where we state a scriptural truth, and then immediately qualify it with "but…" That's just plain unadulterated unbelief.

There's other good stuff in that little post, so do go and read it. Just an
</idle musing>

A Warning

Seedbed has been excerpting from Jack Deere’s new book. Today’s pointed out something I never noticed before in 1 Sam 18.10.

The next day an evil spirit from God came forcefully on Saul. He was prophesying in his house, while David was playing the lyre, as he usually did. Saul had a spear in his hand and he hurled it, saying to himself, “I’ll pin David to the wall.” But David eluded him twice. 1 Samuel 18:10–11

Did you catch that? I had to check the Hebrew and other translations to make sure he got it correct. He did. Saul was prophesying in a bad/evil spirit!

The excerpt also has some good advice on other stuff, even if you don’t especially believe in the way modern “prophets” act, which would be yours truly. I firmly believe in the gift of prophecy and that it is active today; I think I’ve even experienced it personally. But, the more I see it being used/weaponized today, the more I think 1 Sam 18.10 is a good warning...

By the way, the first time I experienced the Spirit give me a prophetic word, the Lord also directed me to Jeremiah 28, specifically Jer 28:17 (look it up). It was a warning that I've never forgotten. Hananiah gave a false prophecy with national ramifications—and he died for it later that year. May today's crop of "prophets" take heart.

Seventeen years!

Saturday marked seventeen years of blogging, all on Blogger, all under "Idle musings of a bookseller." I've posted over six thousand times; deleted only two of the posts that I put up (although I probably should have deleted a lot more!), and seen most bloggers that I followed either quit or migrate to either Facebook or Twitter, which is too bad. I miss their voices (I don't do social media).

And I've been less consistent in blogging this year. For a while I even considered quitting. I still might. My posts get read by fewer and fewer. But, if that's why I'm blogging, then I should quit! It shouldn't be about who reads or doesn't read them. Plus, I find it a handy "day book" for thoughts. And I, at least, refer to my copyediting post quite frequently. It's sometimes easier than consulting and digging through CMS or SBLHS2.

Promise for some, trouble for others

Those who pay close attention to the poor are truly happy!
    The Lord rescues them during troubling times.
2 The Lord protects them and keeps them alive;
    they are widely regarded throughout the land as happy people.
    You won’t hand them over to the will of their enemies.
3 The Lord will strengthen them when they are lying in bed, sick.
    You will completely transform the place where they lie ill. Ps 41:1–3 CEB

<idle musing>
And that's not an isolated example, either. The Bible is full of concern for the poor, the widow, and the orphan. But, if you listen to the spokepeople for the modern US evangelical movement, you wouldn't know it, would you?

Fear, while it might sell and motivate people to your cause, clouds your vision. You start seeing enemies where there aren't any. You start closing people out and excluding them. Fear consumes you and doesn't give anything back. Fear will kill you.

Love, on the other hand, sees needs and meets them. Sees problems and helps solve them. Love cares about people—yes, even "those" people, whoever "those" might be. As John says, love casts out all fear. And, as Paul says, love never fails and never passes away.
</idle musing>

Writing history

Ancient history is a messy, uncertain enterprise. We cannot claim to be revealing the definitive, objective truth about the past. Rather, as my graduate mentor Bill Murnane told me, we are having an ongoing conversation, offering up a “best guess” about what may have been and how it might have occurred. We must accept that most of the distant past is lost to us, and be thankful for what we have.—Ramesses II, Egypt's Ultimate Pharaoh, x–xi (forthcoming)

Differences between CMS and SBLHS in multiple authors

This is a reminder to myself more than anything, but you might find it helpful. This is for bibliographies, not notes!

First, CMS (§14.76):
1. For books/articles with up to six authors/editors, list them all.
2. For books/article with more than six authors/editors, list the first three and then et al.

SBLHS2 handles things a bit differently (§6.2.3):
1. All names are generally listed in the bibliography—but…
2. Using et al. following the first author's name is permissible.

With some of these archaeological articles that have forty-two or more authors, I think I'll go with option 2 if I'm following SBLHS2!

Table of contents for copyediting stuff.

Updated as an afterthought:
One publisher I work for has a general rule of thumb that if the list of authors is more than ten, they use et al. I think that's a handy one and I use it when following SBLHS2, regardless of the publisher, unless their style sheet says otherwise.

Am I Balaam?

Recently, I was given the opportunity to copyedit a manuscript that they were willing to pay me almost double my normal rate. I heard the Lord say that it wasn't for me. It wasn't that the manuscript was bad or wrong, and it was even in an area that I have an interest in. It was just not for me.

But, I struggled to turn it down. Why? Because of the pay. Bottom line. Was I going to follow the example of Balaam, and go for the gold? Or would I obey?

Again, let me say that the analogy is not direct. Balaam was asked to do something wrong. There was nothing "wrong" with the manuscript. It was a matter of obedience, nothing more (this sentence is doing a lot of work!).

Long story short: After a bit of struggle, I said no.

I hadn't become Balaam, but I can now understand his struggle a bit better.

Another reason to restrict hand guns

I haven’t even mentioned the biggest example of how our inability to understand suicide costs lives: roughly 40,000 Americans commit suicide every year, half of whom do so by shooting themselves. Handguns are the suicide method of choice in the United States—and the problem with that, of course, is that handguns are uniquely deadly. Handguns are America’s town gas. What would happen if the U.S. did what the British did, and somehow eradicated its leading cause of suicide [coal gas/town gas]? It’s not hard to imagine. It would uncouple the suicidal from their chosen method. And those few who were determined to try again would be forced to choose from far-less-deadly options, such as overdosing on pills, which is fifty-five times less likely to result in death than using a gun. A very conservative estimate is that banning handguns would save 10,000 lives a year, just from thwarted suicides. That’s a lot of people.—Talking to Strangers, 276 note

No real conflict

That means, however, that there are points of conflict between Christian faith, understood as a worldview, a metaphysical vision of reality, and certain theories proposed and even claimed as knowledge by scientists and philosophers. None of those, however, are necessary, provable, or certain. And Christian scholars, working within Christian organizations dedicated to Christian faith as a worldview, ought to avoid teaching them as truth insofar as they actually do conflict with and undermine it. What it does not mean is that every interpretation of the Bible or traditional belief held by Christians is sacrosanct and impervious to criticism and need for revision in light of the material facts of science and logic. Faith-learning integration depends on Christians holding lightly to traditional beliefs and interpretations that are not crucial to the metaphysical vision of reality required by the biblical story.—The Essentials of Christian Thought, 248 (emphasis original)

<idle musing>
And therein lies the rub, doesn't it? Far too many people hang onto their interpretation of the Bible as what the Bible must say, little realizing how culturally conditioned it is. And that's where a liberal arts education is so important—as is the willingness to be instructed. And, most importantly, to listen to the Holy Spirit in a humble, teachable way.
</idle musing>

Oops!

I forgot about the appendix. There are two good snippets there. Here's the first; the second will appear tomorrow. Enjoy!

There is no necessary conflict between faith in revelation and proper use of reason; conflicts between faith and philosophy arise when philosophy claims to answer life’s ultimate questions relying on reason alone. Brunner’s whole point was that there is nothing essentially, necessarily wrong with secular reasoning in science and philosophy in and of themselves; where they go wrong and create conflicts with Christian truth is in their hubris, their tendency to place sole faith in reason alone and forget that, for example, reason alone, including both science and philosophy, cannot answer life’s ultimate questions (including about evil).

What it all comes down to, then, is that the integration of faith and learning does not preclude genuine scientific (wissenschaftlich) research or real philosophical analysis and even speculation—so long as these do not claim absoluteness, overstep their boundaries, or make metaphysical claims that cannot be proven and conflict with essential elements of the Christian view of life and reality rooted in revelation.—The Essentials of Christian Thought, 248

Free!

In the biblical story, then, humans are damaged goods. Their nature is good because it was created by God in his own image and likeness with a supernatural destiny, but they are damaged by their own infidelity to God’s calling and purpose for them. They are responsible for their damaged condition, not because they violate reason with rebellion, but because they devise rebellion in their hearts and their minds, and actions follow the disposition their hearts have created. Tresmontant, Cherbonnier, Brunner, and others intent on going back to the source—the biblical story—for Christian metaphysics and anthropology agree that responsibility requires freedom. Cherbonnier spoke for all of them (and numerous other Christian thinkers) when he wrote that

The Bible consistently acknowledges human freedom. It is presupposed by all its key words, such as sin, repentance, forgiveness, love, and covenant. Consequently, though not intentionally philosophical, it contains by inference what is probably the most thorough understanding ever written of what it means to be a free agent.

According to Brunner, freedom and responsibility together comprise the “formal image of God” not destroyed by or lost in the fall of humanity into sin. He distinguished this from the “material image,” which he defined as “right relationship with God.” Sin, beginning freely in the heart, alienates the human person (and all of humanity in general) from God against reason. Therefore, the material image is forfeited responsibly. But the formal image can never be destroyed; it is why the human person is able to hear and believe the Word of God and it is what makes him or her full of dignity and value above the rest of creation.—The Essentials of Christian Thought, 212–13 (emphasis original)

<idle musing>
That's the final snippet from this book. I hope you enjoyed it. As I said back at the beginning, the book is a very good introduction in that it assumes very little knowledge of theology. Consequently, if you do know something, it can feel redundant at times. And there were times I wish he had gone a bit deeper—but that's not the book he set out to write! He wrote an introduction to Christian thinking. And using that as the standard, he did a very good job.

I highly recommend it to anyone desiring to understand what it means to "think Christianly" about life. If you haven't also read The Universe Next Door, by James Sire (now in its 6th edition!), then I recommend you read that and this book in order to get a better view of what a Christian worldview looks like.

Of course, once you've read both those books, then you should jump into Brunner : ) But that's just an
</idle musing>

Meritocracy in the university setting

The Atlantic has an interesting article about the myth of meritocracy in the university setting. It got me to thinking. Read the article to understand my

<idle musing>

No doubt a mixed bag, at best. I’m not sure where I stand. Both my parents taught at a state university, but hardly an elite one; my dad regularly gives to his alma mater, a state school. I went to multiple undergraduate schools: University of Wisconsin-Stout, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Asbury College (now University), as well as graduate schools: Asbury Seminary, University of Kentucky, and University of Chicago. I regularly receive donation requests from about half of them. I’ve never given, feeling my cash goes further in supporting homeless shelters, etc., than in supporting the already upper-middle-class attendees of those schools.

But, I wonder if I believe in meritocracy? I think I do, to an extent. But, I also have no doubt that there is someone currently working a low-paying job who, with the options I had would be much better than I am at what I do. There was a study back in the 1980s (I forget now where I read it—it was years ago) where some college professors went into the inner city and ran a summer program for disadvantaged youth and uncovered multiple people with genius-level intelligence who would never get the opportunity to develop it because of cultural limitations. And the current admissions scandals don’t exactly encourage belief in meritocracy, do they?

I had read elsewhere about the just-world hypothesis. I see it, but NIMBY tendencies keep anything from happening to fix it. Common good seems to be a diminishing commodity : (

Just a Sunday morning
</idle musing>

Both and

Most thoughtful Christians, reflecting on the biblical story, would say that God’s purpose for creation is both to display his glory and to display his love. However, inquiring minds tend to move in one direction or the other—as the controlling or main purpose. Those in the Augustinian-Calvinist tradition tend to read Scripture as emphasizing God’s glory and power and the world as the place for displaying them. The result can be an interpretation of everything in the world, even evil, as purposed by God for his glory. Those in the Arminian-Wesleyan tradition (and also going back to the Greek church fathers before Augustine!) tend to read Scripture as emphasizing God’s love and desire for relationship and the world as the place for experiencing them. The result can be a softening of God’s lordship and a sentimentalizing of God as needing the world for his own fulfillment. The solution, of course, is to hold the two purposes of God in creation together in tension.The Essentials of Christian Thought, 192 (emphasis original)

<idle musing>
I tend (who am I kidding—I do!) read scripture through the Wesleyan-Arminian lens. But, I don't soften God's lordship! God created the world because he wanted to, not because of any need on his part!

And, the fact that prior to Augustine's arguments w/Pelagius, no church father (or mother) read it through a predestinarian lens just confirms in my mind that it is the correct one. But that's just an
</idle musing>

Stop it!

And God intends to liberate the world from this “bondage to decay,” which is evidence of God’s continuing care for creation. In the meantime, humans live out their likeness to God by having dominion over the world, which means nurturing it, not dominating and exploiting it. The ecological crisis, insofar as it is humankind’s doing, which science indicates it is, is a violation of the ethical implications of the biblical narrative even if caused partly by Christians. Christianity itself, understood as what the Bible reveals about God and the world, forbids rape of the environment.—The Essentials of Christian Thought, 189

But don't worship it!

Ethically, then, the point of the creation story of Genesis and the entire Bible’s witness is the call to care for God is good creation while avoiding worshiping it. Idolatry is a major theme of the biblical narrative; it is the very root of sin and evil—setting creation or some part of creation up as God and worshiping it is wrong because God alone is Lord and creation belongs to him. At the same time, denigrating nature or any part of it as evil and/or exploiting it is wrong because it belongs to God and caring for it is part of what it means to be human.—The Essentials of Christian Thought 188 (emphasis original)

<idle musing>
And this is the flipside of Friday's post. We don't exploit, but we don't worship creation either. We are stewards, called to care for it.
</idle musing>

Stop the exploitation!

God’s assignment of the human to have dominion never hints at permission to exploit, let alone ruin, nature; it remains part of the “image and likeness of God” and there is a call to care for creation and be God’s created cocreator in restoring it to its original intention.—The Essentials of Christian Thought, 188

<idle musing>
Indeed. I have never understood the mindset that thinks that because it is all going to go up in smoke anyway, let's assist in the destruction. From the time I was young, I was taught to conserve nature, to treat it with respect, to leave things better than I found them.
</idle musing>

And the greatest of these is…

All of this presupposes something that sets biblical-Christian metaphysics radically apart from other belief systems about ultimate reality. Tresmontant stated it most concisely: “Christianity is a metaphysic of love." This is something speculative reason alone cannot know about ultimate reality—that its very being is love. And this is the reason behind and Within God’s self-limitations, self-determinations, and self—actualizations: God’s being as being-for-others. Does that mean, then, that God must create to have “others” to love? Not at all. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity, itself rooted in biblical narrative, even necessitated by it, means that God’s creative activity, including his self-limitations in relation to creatures, is a free expression of the fullness of the love between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in eternity. If God were not triune, however, then creation would be necessary for God insofar as God is conceived as love.—The Essentials of Christian Thought 169 (emphasis original)

So, can God really change his mind?

Classical Christian theism, born in the cauldron of philosophized Christianity in the second and third centuries in the Roman Empire, reached its zenith in Anselm and Aquinas. Aquinas agreed that God, being absolute and ultimate in terms of reality, cannot change in any way and therefore cannot suffer—including feeling emotions such as compassion and sympathy. But classical Christian theism is not limited to early or medieval Christian thought; it still has its defenders in the twenty—first century in spite of being embattled. Very few Christian theologians except out-and-out liberal Protestants (e.g., process theologians) reject classical Christian theism entirely. Rather, following Dorner—a pioneer in attempting to return the Christian doctrine of God to biblical thought, separating it from Greek metaphysics that conflicts with that——many simply want to adjust Christian metaphysics “back to the Bible.” Most, this writer included, gladly affirm broad areas of agreement between the best of Greek philosophical theology and biblical revelation of God. At the same time, however, together with Dorner, Brunner, Cherbonnier, and other Christian critics of classical theism, I believe it important to base Christian metaphysics on the biblical narrative and not allow Greek or any other metaphysical thought to draw it away into extrabiblical speculation.—The Essentials of Christian Thought, 132

What do you believe?

The biblical narrative holds within itself an original, organic, synoptic worldview that answers life’s ultimate questions differently than numerous alternatives—most of which are still swimming around in our pluralistic culture and too often being soaked in by Christians and inappropriately mixed and mingled eclectically with their own native, biblical—Christian worldview.—The Essentials of Christian Thought, 82

<idle musing>
This is the foundational thesis of the book: There is a biblical metaphysic, and it is discernable. And that biblical metaphysic does not align with most secular metaphysics. Despite the fact that most Christians seem to think they can adopt whatever metaphysic they want, that is not a true Christian metaphysic.

I would say that most US Christians, of whatever variety, are default natualists in their metaphysic. They might say that they believe in God and Christ—they may even pray—but their default way of life betrays them. They don't really expect God to "show up." And when he does, they are surprised.

If you pray and don't expect to see an answer, what does that say about your faith? Or, worse yet, you don't bother because you think it's too trivial for God's attention, what does that say about your faith?

Ponder that as we continue through the book…
</idle musing>

About that unmoved mover of yours…

A most interesting narrative in Isaiah is about God’s responsiveness to a king’s plea to extend his life (chapter 38). God sends the prophet to inform King Hezekiah of his impending death. The king begs God for more years of life and God listens and relents, changing what he decreed would happen, giving Hezekiah fifteen more years to live (38:5). Again, this is often chalked up to anthropomorphic speech by philosophically minded interpreters who bring to the text baggage borrowed from extrabiblical philosophies. According to most extrabiblical metaphysical schemes, ultimate reality cannot be affected by finite beings. Plato’s “Form of the Good,” Aristot1e’s “Unmoved Mover” and “Thought thinking itself,” Hegel’s “Absolute Spirit”—a1l are incapable of changing his (or its) mind in response to events in time, space, and history. But God, the ultimate being, the absolute person of biblical revelation, is intensely personal, self-limiting, and self-determining, and can voluntarily change his mind in response to his covenant partners’ pleas.—The Essentials of Christian Thought, 60

<idle musing>
The key here is "self-limiting." God is omnipotent and omniscient (and the other omni-s!), but he willingly self-limits himself to allow his creatures genuine self-determination. Truly amazing!
</idle musing>

It's personal!

The Bible presents a different picture of ultimate reality than extrabiblical, rational, speculative metaphysics. It elevates personhood (as described earlier) to ultimacy: the source of all finite reality, of nature and all it contains, is revealed as irreducibly personal and not just an impersonal (or even suprapersonal) force, power, or principle. Can reason alone establish this? Perhaps not. But one deleterious effect of depicting ultimate reality as impersonal is the demeaning of personal reality, of relationship and community, and a tendency to elevate as “like the ultimate” the isolated, static, unchangeable individual.—The Essentials of Christian Thought, 56

How do you describe ultimate reality?

I've been reading through Roger Olson's The Essentials of Christian Thought recently. As I said to a friend, it's a good book, but at times a bit redundant, as he wants to make sure his reader understands what he is trying to say. It would make a good introductory text paired with something like The Universe Next Door, a book he references. He also, to his credit, frequently cites Emil Brunner, probably the best twentieth century theologian (as you know if you have been reading this blog for very long, I prefer Brunner and Bonhoeffer to Barth).

I'll be excerpting from the book for the next two to three weeks. Here's the first one:

Nothing could be clearer to the unbiased Bible reader than that it depicts ultimate reality as not a thing or object or mere force or power but as someone who thinks, deliberates, acts, enters into relationships with others, and has freedom to determine himself. And it depicts ultimate reality—that which is beyond appearance, upon which all else depends, the source of all that is—as more than nature, not part of nature, even the author of nature who is free to intervene in it. What words are better suited to describe such an ultimate reality than personal and supernatural—even if they are inadequate and problematic?—The Essentials of Christian Thought, 54 (emphasis original)

Thought for today

This is the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were proud, had plenty to eat, and enjoyed peace and prosperity; but she didn’t help the poor and the needy. (Ezek 16:49 CEB)

Let those who have ears to hear, hear!

Understatement of the year

Blurb on the back of a massive commentary (700+ pages!) on the Aeneid, book 6:

This is Horsfall's fifth large-scale commentary on the Aeneid, and as his earlier commentaries on books 7, 11, 3, and 2, this is not a commentary aimed at undergraduates.

Yep. I would say that it gives grad students a good run for their money, too!

Canoe ride!

Four weeks ago, Ryan (our son) and I took my 90-year-old dad for a canoe ride down the Red Cedar River again. Unlike last year, when the water was so low we had to do a few lift-overs, this year the only thing that happened is that Ryan missed seeing a rock and we ended up being turned around and going backward for a bit. Fortunately, it was an isolated rock, not part of a rough water section (which is probably why he missed seeing it!), so no danger.

Here are a couple of pictures.

Ready to go

On the water

Mission accomplished!

That river has many good memories for both my dad and me. We have canoed it countless times over the years, both as a family and as a scout. It's been fun the last two years to canoe it again with him. Besides, it's not every son who can say that he and his 90-year-old dad went for a canoe trip together!

Thought for the day

Your prophets gave you worthless and empty visions.
They didn’t reveal your sin so as to prevent your captivity.
Instead, they showed you worthless and incorrect prophecies. (Lamentation 2:14 CEB)

Let those who have ears to hear…

Thought for the day

4b “The Lord proclaims: I’m breaking down everything I have built up. I’m digging up that which I have planted—the entire land. 5 You seek great things for yourself, but don’t bother. I’m bringing disaster on all humanity, declares the Lord, but wherever you go I will let you escape with your life.” (Jer 45:4b–5 CEB)