Great summer reading

After reviewing The Big Book of Adventure Stories, a collection of short stories mostly from the pulp era, Allan Massie recommends "five fine novels of adventure." Here are four of the five (I haven't read the fifth), and any of them would make good summer reading:

The Three Musketeers
By Alexandre Dumas (1844)
The king of Romancers: Everyone else follows in Dumas's train. My French translator, Jean Bourdier, thinks Twenty Years After—the sequel to The Three Musketeers—the greatest French novel. Stevenson's favorite was Le Vicomte de Bragelonne, which took the story still further. Nevertheless one ought to begin with the moment the young d'Artagnan sets out for Paris to make his fortune on a yellow pony that invites such mockery. Adventure is piled on adventure with speed, wit and panache, and the fearsome Cardinal Richelieu is the most intelligently drawn villain in fiction.

Treasure Island
By Robert Louis Stevenson (1883)
Irresistible from the moment the drunken "old sea dog" Billy Bones takes up his abode in the Admiral Benbow. The horror of Blind Pew and the "black spot," a splendid, attractive villain in Long John Silver and a resourceful boy-hero—what more can you ask for? It was indeed written for a boys' magazine, but it is a story for all ages, and, once embarked, you won't be able to put it down.

Greenmantle
By John Buchan (1916)
Disturbingly prescient with its warning of resurgent Islam, and the best of the Richard Hannay novels, Greenmantle is the story of four resourceful friends solving an intelligence riddle while traveling in disguise behind enemy lines during World War I. They save the day—and the empire. This rapid narrative is shameless in its use of coincidence, but also the most comforting of adventure novels. Read it by the fireside with whisky to hand.

Nerve
By Dick Francis (1964)
The former steeplechase jockey became the finest English writer of adventure fiction of the last half-century. Nerve, his best novel, has a particularly engaging hero, a young steeplechase jockey from a family of virtuoso musicians. His career is threatened by a TV presenter pathologically jealous of jockeys. The horse-racing setting should not deter readers with no interest in the sport. Two of Francis's warmest admirers were Kingsley Amis and Philip Larkin, neither a frequenter of the racetrack.

Book Review: The Big Book of Adventure Stories - WSJ.com

Born on the Fourth of July

On the birthday of our nation, some quotations from the President also born on this day:

Self-Government: “Government cannot relieve from toil. The normal must take care of themselves. Self-government means self-support.... Ultimately property rights and personal rights are the same thing.... History reveals no civilized people among whom there was not a highly educated class and large aggregations of wealth. Large profits mean large payrolls."

Morality: “We do not need more intellectual power, we need more moral power. We do not need more knowledge, we need more character. We do not need more government, we need more culture. We do not need more law, we need more religion. We do not need more of the things that are seen, we need more of the things that are unseen. If the foundation be firm, the foundation will stand.”

Faith: "The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country."

The Constitution: “To live under the American Constitution is the greatest political privilege that was ever accorded to the human race.”

Progress: "It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning cannot be applied to this great charter.

• If all men are created equal, that is final.
• If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final.
• If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.

No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction cannot lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers." [emphasis added]

Happy Birthday, Cal! - Ricochet.com

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

As we approach the anniversary of American independence, Kenyn Cureton celebrates the contribution of a pastor:

.... [Rev. John] Wise (1652-1725) served a Congregational church in Chebacco Parish in the southeastern part of Ipswich, Massachusetts for most of his ministry. He was the first son of an indentured servant to graduate from Harvard, and was an impressive preacher and a forceful writer. ....

...[H]is masterwork in 1717, [was] A Vindication of the Government of New England Churches, in which he dealt with the basis of both religious and civil government.

What Wise said was so forward-thinking and so appropriate to the time leading up to the Revolution that when his books were reprinted in 1772, they quickly sold out and were reprinted again. In these works, Wise demonstrated from the Bible that:

• God created all men equal and every man must be acknowledged by the state as equal to every man.
• The end of all good government is to promote the happiness of all and the good of every man in all his rights: his life, liberty, estate, honor, etc.
• The consent of the governed is the only legitimate basis for government.
• Taxation without representation is tyranny.

....[I]n his book Seedtime of the Republic, Cornell University historian Clinton Rossiter traces six individuals that he considers the most influential thought leaders of the American Revolution. Interestingly, two were political leaders but four were ministers of the Gospel. Among those, Rossiter lists Wise, whose pulpit and pen provided some of the soaring thoughts in America’s founding document, thoughts that compose the very foundation of our republic.

Whether Wise was a good biblical scholar I would leave to those who are qualified to judge and have read him. But his first assertion is fundamental to our Revolution and we have been working out its meaning ever since. G.K. Chesterton made the same argument in 1922: "The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man."

Declaration of Independence | The man who inspired the Declaration of Independence | The Daily Caller

Kyrie eleison

Via Trevin Wax:

God, be merciful to me, On Thy grace I rest my plea; Plenteous in compassion Thou, Blot out my transgressions now; Wash me, make me pure within, Cleanse, O cleanse me from my sin.	Broken, humbled to the dust By Thy wrath and judgment just, Let my contrite heart rejoice And in gladness hear Thy voice; From my sins O hide Thy face, Blot them out in boundless grace.
My transgressions I confess, Grief and guilt my soul oppress; I have sinned against Thy grace And provoked Thee to Thy face; I confess Thy judgment just, Speechless, I Thy mercy trust.	Gracious God, my heart renew, Make my spirit right and true; Cast me not away from Thee, Let Thy Spirit dwell in me; Thy salvation’s joy impart, Steadfast make my willing heart.
I am evil, born in sin; Thou desirest truth within. Thou alone my Savior art, Teach Thy wisdom to my heart; Make me pure, Thy grace bestow, Wash me whiter than the snow.	Sinners then shall learn from me And return, O God, to Thee; Savior, all my guilt remove, And my tongue shall sing Thy love; Touch my silent lips, O Lord, And my mouth shall praise accord.
Psalter, 1912

God, Be Merciful to Me : Kingdom People

Uncool

Writing at RELEVANT Magazine, Rachel Held Evans tells us that she is uninterested in a church that is trying hard to be relevant. From "Is Your Church Too Cool?":

People sometimes assume that because I’m a progressive 30-year-old who enjoys Mumford and Sons and has no children, I must want a super-hip church—you know, the kind that’s called “Thrive” or “Be,” and which boasts “an awesome worship experience,” a fair-trade coffee bar, its own iPhone app and a pastor who looks like a Jonas brother.

While none of these features are inherently wrong (and can of course be used by good people to do good things), these days I find myself longing for a church with a cool factor of about 0.

That’s right.

I want a church that includes fussy kids, old liturgy, bad sound, weird congregants and—brace yourself—painfully amateur “special music” now and then.

Why?

Well, for one thing, when the Gospel story is accompanied by a fog machine and light show, I always get this creeped-out feeling like someone’s trying to sell me something. It’s as though we’re all compensating for the fact that Christianity’s not good enough to stand on its own so we’re adding snacks.

But more importantly, I want to be part of an uncool church because I want to be part of a community that shares the reputation of Jesus. Like it or not, Jesus’ favorite people in the world were not cool. They were mostly sinners, misfits, outcasts, weirdos, poor people, sick people and crazy people. ....

RELEVANT Magazine - Is Your Church Too Cool?

Trinity II: In fear and love

O LORD, who never failest to help and govern those whom Thou dost bring up in Thy steadfast fear and love; Keep us, we beseech Thee, under the protection of good providence, and make us to have a perpetual fear and love of Thy holy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. [Thomas Cranmer]

MARVEL not, my brethren, if the world hate you. We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoso hath this world's good, And seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth. And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things. Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God. And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. [I John III]

Naked as from the earth we came,
And crept to life at first,
We to the earth return again,
And mingle with our dust.

The dear delights we here enjoy,
And fondly call our own,
Are but short favors borrowed now,
To be repaid anon.

'Tis God that lifts our comforts high,
Or sinks them in the grave;
He gives, and, blessed be his name!
He takes but what he gave.

Peace, all our angry passions, then;
Let each rebellious sigh
Be silent at his sovereign will,
And every murmur die.

If smiling mercy crown our lives,
Its praises shall be spread;
And we'll adore the justice too
That strikes our comforts dead.
[Isaac Watts, 1674-1748]

Defining "Baptist"

At Books & Culture, Mark Noll, in "So You're a Baptist," reviews two books about Baptist identity, concluding that the most significant thing the diverse groups known as "Baptists" have in common is our history.

.... They agree that Baptists should be considered offshoots of the Puritan movements that insisted on scriptura sola as the sole reliable basis for faithful Christianity and the most effective source of correction for the halfway reforms in the national Church of England. A very high view of biblical authority has remained central to almost all later Baptist movements, but even more distinctly Baptist was how this loyalty to Scripture was practiced. Baptists, that is, pushed the logic of "the priesthood of all believers" beyond where most of their fellows, even most of their Puritan peers, wanted to go. In their view, a properly functioning Christianity required not just diligence in following Scripture, but the personal and intentional commitment of each church member to practice that diligence. For Baptists, common Protestant teaching about the lordship or kingship of Christ was taken to mean that no intermediate authority should stand between God and the gathering of his people to worship and serve him.

.... These earliest Baptists were "General" because they believed in the potential efficacy of Christ's death for all humans. .... Before long, however, they were joined by "Particular" Baptists who maintained the era's standard Calvinist teaching that Christ died particularly for the elect rather than for humanity as a whole.

Within a generation from their founding, both "Generals" and "Particulars" would begin baptizing by immersion, the standard practice that has continued for Baptist churches around the world to this day. In this early period, adult baptism upon personal profession of faith was only partly a conclusion drawn from "the Bible alone." Even more, this approach to baptism represented a protest, as Mennonites and other Anabaptists also protested, against the idea of inherited or bestowed Christian identification symbolized by the traditional practice of infant baptism. To be a follower of Christ meant to commit oneself personally rather than to rely on the mediation of family, church, or a supposedly Christian society. Extensive biblical arguments for both baptism upon profession of faith and baptism by immersion soon appeared within Baptist ranks. But the broad pre-conviction underlying specifically baptismal practice was a positive vision of the self's individual responsibility under God and a negative vision of human institutions or traditions as distorting that personal relationship.

...[B]eyond the common approach to baptism itself, these prominent Baptist principles did not lead to a common theology, common church practices, or common attitudes to social engagement.

Almost inevitably, the very principles that Baptists shared made it difficult for Baptists to agree among themselves. And so within less than a century of organized Baptist existence, differences emerged in response to a number of questions that led to the formation of separate Baptist denominations: Was the atonement universal as Generals claimed or specific as Particulars urged? Should adults who were baptized also receive the laying on of hands? Should the day for public worship be the Sabbath/seventh day (Saturday) or the first day/Resurrection (Sunday)? Should local leaders accept the validity of adult baptism done elsewhere? Should they require the re-baptism of those who had received infant baptism? Should Baptist fellowships have confessions of faith? Should churches follow Christ's command literally to wash one another's feet? Should Baptists take part in politics or hold aloof? Should conferences of Baptist churches or leaders of those conferences be given any authority within local congregations? For each of these questions, and for many more that would come later, sincere believers were able to cite biblical chapter and verse that were completely convincing to themselves but that did not convince other Baptists. .... (more)

"Completely convincing to themselves" but unpersuasive to other Baptists — not a bad summary of Seventh Day Baptist efforts regarding the Sabbath.

So You're a Baptist— | Books and Culture

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag...and to the Republic for which it stands..."

As Independence Day approaches, a depressing article [especially to a retired social studies teacher], "American Amnesia" by William Damon:

The New York Times headline from May could not have been more compelling: "Failing grades on civics exam called a 'crisis.'" The accompanying story reported bleak news from the latest National Assessment of Student Progress (widely known as the "nation's report card"). Among our present crop of high school seniors, only one in four scored at least "proficient" in knowledge of U. S. citizenship. Of all the academic subjects tested, civics and the closely linked subject of history came in last: "a smaller proportion of fourth and eighth graders demonstrated proficiency in civics than in any other subject the federal government has tested since 2005, except history, American students' worst subject."

For the past ten years or more, virtually every glimpse into American students' views on citizenship has revealed both a lack of understanding and a lack of interest. An American Enterprise Institute study earlier this year found that most social studies teachers doubted that their students grasped core U.S. citizenship concepts such as the Bill of Rights or the separation of powers. A recent Department of Education study found that only nine percent of U.S. high school students are able to cite reasons why it is important for citizens to participate in a democracy, and only six percent are able to identify reasons why having a constitution benefits a country. The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) has reported a decades-long, step-wise decline in interest in political affairs among college freshmen—from over 60 percent of the population in 1966 to less than half that percentage in our current period.

For the past ten years, our research team at Stanford has interviewed broad cross-sections of American youth about what U.S. citizenship means to them. Here is one high school student's reply, not atypical: "We just had (American citizenship) the other day in history. I forget what it was." Another student told us that "being American is not really special….I don’t find being an American citizen very important." Another replied, "I don’t want to belong to any country. It just feels like you are obligated to this country. I don’t like the whole thing of citizen...I don’t like that whole thing. It’s like, citizen, no citizen; it doesn’t make sense to me. It’s like to be a good citizen—I don’t know, I don’t want to be a citizen...it’s stupid to me."

Such statements reflect more than an ignorance of citizenship—though they may provide us with clues about the source of students' present-day lack of knowledge. Beyond not knowing what U.S. citizenship entails, many young Americans today are not motivated to learn about how to become a fully engaged citizen of their country. They simply do not care about their status as American citizens. Notions such as civic virtue, civic duty, or devotion to their country mean little to them. This is not true of all young people today—there are exceptions in virtually every community—but it accurately describes a growing trend that encompasses a large portion of our younger generation. .... [more]

American Amnesia | Hoover Institution

Salvation by self-help

Chuck Collins [guest posting for Tullian Tchividjian] on "My Biggest Regret":

.... Perhaps my biggest regret...is that for much of my 30 years of ordained ministry I have not preached “the gospel.” By-and-large I have been a nice man standing in front of nice people, telling them that God calls them to be nicer (S. Brown). And just about none of it was life-changing.

I have come to see that there are really just two ways to preach: one is the gospel, the other is get-better messages. The first is based on God’s goodness; the second on self-improvement. ....

For more years than I care to think I preached get-better messages. I cringe thinking about my old sermons. I regret the lost opportunities of those messages that pounded home the idea that we just need to be better, try harder, pray and give more, read the Bible every day, attend church every week, and be nicer. It was plain ole Phariseeism, works-righteousness under the guise of preaching – “an easy-listening version of salvation by self-help” (M Horton). ....

When you get to church to find out that the preacher is in the third of a 10-sermon series on “10 steps to cure depression” get up and run out of there as fast as your depressed legs can take you. It’s self-help, not the gospel. Chalk it up to a well meaning preacher who hasn’t yet realized that our real hope is in God, in the sufficiency of his work on the cross and in the salvation that is not found in get-better sermons. [more]

Thanks to Bob Spenser for the reference.

My Biggest Regret – Tullian Tchividjian

"And all will be well..."

Peter Berger writes about demographic studies indicating that "the more intensely religious have more children." He speculates here about at least one possible reason:

.... For a believing Jew, Christian or Muslim, the future of the world, his own future, and that of his children lies in the hands of a compassionate God. Every mother, of any faith or of no faith at all, will get up in the night to comfort a crying child. She may not speak. Her presence and her holding the child may be enough comfort. If she does speak, it is likely to be some variation of saying “everything is all right” or “everything will be all right”. This may well be true at the moment. In a purely secular perspective, these formulas are finally not true. The mother, the child, and everyone and everything they care about are fated to perish. Religious faith gives a cosmic validation to the mother’s comforting words. It is no accident that the most famous lines of Julian of Norwich, that elusive medieval mystic, are reminiscent of a lullaby: “And all will be well. And all will be well. And every manner of thing will be well”. [more]

Why do Godders have so many kids? | Religion and Other Curiosities

"People, get ready..."

Via Ray Ortlund, Beck and Sting – People Get Ready, Also One Eternal Day: There's a train comin'

Telling nonsense

An early and important insight gained as a teacher was the importance of being willing to admit error. A review by James V. Schall of Johnsonian Miscellanies [1897], includes this account of the great man:

.... In one of the short accounts, a niece of Sir Joshua Reynolds, a Miss Johnson, no less, was dining with her uncle, Johnson, and a large crowd. This young lady loved music. The conversation turned to music. “Johnson spoke very contemptuously of that art.” He added: “No man of talent, or whose mind was capable of better things, ever would or could devote his time and attention to so idle and frivolous a pursuit.”

At this view, Miss Johnson whispered to her neighbor: “I wonder what Dr. Johnson thinks of King David?” So it helps to know Scripture to understand conversations of our culture. Johnson overheard this whisper. He responded with “good humor and complacency.” He said to the young lady: “Madam, I thank you; I stand rebuked before you, and promise that, on one subject at least, you shall never hear me tell nonsense again."

The time probably will never come when great men do not sometimes “tell nonsense.” But it is the mark of a gentleman also to accept rebukes, especially literary ones from young ladies. King David sang and danced before the Lord. Johnson’s disparagement of music needed correction. He thanked the young lady and promised not to “tell such nonsense again.” ....

The University Bookman: Memories of Johnson

Take me to the water...

Craig Blomberg on the importance of baptism:

.... I don’t for one minute want to argue for baptismal regeneration—the belief that you must be baptized to be saved. But I do want to insist that, if not normative, believers’ baptism by immersion as soon as feasible after conversion was the normal practice of the New Testament church and it should be ours also.

My concern in this blog, however, is not so much to debate those friends of mine who practice infant baptism, not for salvation but as a ritual on the part of parents and a congregation indicating their intentions to do their best to raise a child as a Christian, while recognizing that some day he or she will have to confirm it for themselves with their own saving faith. Most Baptists believe that should be done too, and many even dedicate babies with almost the identical theology that paedobaptists use at infant baptism. The only debate is whether the water should be applied earlier, in small drops, or later, in larger doses!

My concern here is rather the inordinate number of young adults (and a few older ones) I meet these days who seem to think baptism is just no big deal. And if they weren’t raised in a church that prescribed a certain way for it to be done, they may never have been baptized at all. And if they have had faith in Christ for many years already, it really seems to them to be unnecessary. Or, if they do go through with baptism, it is just, they say, “ because Christ commanded it and we need to obey him.” But they can’t give any particular reason for why he should have commanded it. ....

With or without words, baptismal immersion testifies to our identification with the crucified and risen Christ. With words, with the appropriate “pledge of a clear conscience toward God” (1 Pet. 3:21), produced by already existing saving faith, baptism includes a promise to follow Jesus all the days of our lives. .... [more]

“We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” (Rom. 6:4 NIV)

Denver Seminary > Blog

Klavan's "The Final Hour"

I enjoy Andrew Klavan. I like his political videos, his columns, his adult thrillers, his sense of humor, his Christian convictions, and I have particularly enjoyed his first series of thrillers intended for younger readers, especially, I would think, boys. The books are best read in order. The first three books in his "Homelander" series are already in print: The Last Thing I Remember, The Long Way Home, and The Truth of the Matter. The fourth, and final, book in the series, The Final Hour is about to be published. I will read it, and then I will pass it along to someone else much older than the target audience, because adults can enjoy them, too. The books are a suspenseful fast read ["Action sequences that never let up...wrung for every possible drop of nervous sweat." Booklist], and affirm good values without being preachy - a combination not all that common in books for readers in the early teens [School Library Journal suggests grades 7-10].

Klavan, at his website provides The Final Hour, Chapter One:

Most people have to die to get to hell. I took a shortcut.

I was in Abingdon State Prison. Locked away for a murder I didn’t commit. Waiting for the men who were coming to kill me. With nowhere to run.

It was the worst thing that had ever happened to me.

I’d been there for two weeks. Two weeks of smothering boredom and strangling fear. When I was locked in my cell, the minutes seemed to lie like dead men, to decay like dead men—so slowly you could barely tell it was happening. When I was out in the exercise yard or in the cafeteria or in the showers, there was just the fear, the waiting. Waiting for the killers to make good their threat, the words one of them had whispered in my ear as I stood in the dinner line one night:

"You’re already dead, West. You just don’t know it yet."

Alone in my cell, I stared at the tan wall. I felt a black despair surrounding me, closing in on me. I did everything I could to fight it. I did push-ups. I read my Bible. I prayed. The prayer gave me some comfort, some relief.

But then the buzzer would sound, loud and startling. The cell door would slide open. A guard would shout from the end of the tier:

“Yard time!”

Then the waiting and the fear would begin again. .... [Chapter 1 of The Final Hour]

The Final Hour, Chapter One

Trinity I: Help us to serve Thee

O GOD, the strength of all those who put their trust in Thee; Mercifully accept our prayers; and because, through the weakness of our mortal nature, we can do no good thing without Thee, grant us the help of Thy grace, that in keeping Thy commandments we may please Thee, both in will and deed; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. [Thomas Cranmer]

BELOVED, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. We love him, because he first loved us. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also. [I John IV]

If thou but suffer God to guide thee
And hope in Him through all thy ways,
He'll give thee strength, whate'er betide thee,
And bear thee through the evil days.
Who trust in God's unchanging love
Builds on the rock that naught can move.

Be patient and await His leisure
In cheerful hope, with heart content
To take whatever thy Father's pleasure
And His discerning love hath sent,
Nor doubt our inmost want are known
To Him who chose us for His own.

Sing, pray, and keep His ways unswerving,
Perform thy duties faithfully,
And trust His Word: though undeserving,
Thou yet shalt find it true for thee.
God never yet forsook in need
The soul that trusted Him indeed.

[Georg Neumark, 1641, translated by Catherine Winkworth]

C.S. Lewis online

Via Joe Carter's "Thirty Three Things" today, a site that has collected links to online editions of works by C.S. Lewis as of October last year. Below are a few that I have looked up — all the links I checked were still good. Lots of good stuff:

• Mere Christianity [pdf]
• The Abolition of Man
• The Screwtape Letters [pdf]
• "Meditation in a Toolshed" [pdf]
• "We Have No 'Right to Happiness'"
• "The Trouble with 'X'"
• "On the Reading of Old Books" [pdf]
• "Modern Translations of the Bible"
• "Man or Rabbit?"
• "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment"
• "Fern Seed and Elephants" also known as "Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism"
• "The Weight of Glory" [pdf]

The message and the medium

Read Mercer Schuchardt, a professor of "media ecology" at Wheaton, on "Taming the Image":

The band is rockin', arms are swayin', and you're about to come on screen in high definition with such stunning visual clarity that even people in the nosebleed seats can see your perfect smile.

Is this a rock concert? A beer commercial? Or just a typical Sunday morning?

These days, it could be any of the above.

Whether you're a questioning congregant, a concerned pastor, or a perplexed professor studying the effects of media on religious practice (like me), the use of technology in the worship setting is worth considering.

Media are not neutral. Like ideas, they have consequences, especially in the church. And some of these consequences should give us pause. In Technopoly media theorist Neil Postman writes, "A preacher who confines himself to considering how a medium can increase his audience will miss the significant question: In what sense do new media alter what is meant by religion, by church, even by God?" ....

After noting quite a few ways that the medium affects the message, Schuchardt concludes:

While our culture is dominated by Image, historically the church has always been dominated by Word. Image has an undeniable immediacy, but it tends to reveal only the surface of things. The Word is better able to cultivate deep reflection and precise, critical thought. Trading the Word for the Image is no incidental move. It changes what we say, as well as how we say it. Yet given the culture's wholehearted adoption of the Image, does the church have any choice but to follow suit? Must we accommodate the culture by imageizing our churches? Or do we defy the spirit of this age and do something truly countercultural—reinvest in the Word at a time when it is becoming less and less popular? [emphasis added] .... [more]

There have always been images in the Church, of course — statues, stained glass, paintings — and for the illiterate those may have had more immediacy than the words they heard, especially when the words were in languages they didn't understand. But Protestantism was critical of that and re-emphasized the the importance of the Word, in some cases by eliminating images altogether.

Taming the Image | Out of Ur | Conversations for Ministry Leaders

"Joy, Joy, Joy, tears of joy"

John Piper thanks Pascal:

Blaise Pascal was a French mathematical genius who was born June 19, 1623. After running from God until he was 31 years old, on November 23, 1654 at 10:30 pm, Pascal met God and was profoundly and unshakably converted to Jesus Christ. He wrote it down on a piece of parchment and sewed into his coat where it was found after his death eight years later. It said,

Year of grace 1654, Monday 23 November, feast of St. Clement...from about half past ten at night to about half an hour after midnight, FIRE. God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of philosophers and scholars. Certitude, heartfelt joy, peace. God of Jesus Christ. God of Jesus Christ. "My God and your God."...Joy, Joy, Joy, tears of joy...Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ. May I never be separated from him.

.... Here’s how Pascal blew away my resistance to joy.

All men seek happiness. This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end. The cause of some going to war, and of others avoiding it, is the same desire in both, attended with different views. This is the motive of every action of every man, even of those who hang themselves.

I suspected this was true. But I always feared that it was sin. That wanting to be happy was a moral defect. That self-denial meant renouncing joy, not renouncing lesser joys for greater joys. ....

Via Jared Wilson

Thank you, Blaise Pascal - Desiring God

Discussing Sabbath

Fred G. Zaspel reviews a book that may be of particular interest to Seventh Day Baptists: Perspectives on the Sabbath, in fact, four perspectives, each presented by an advocate:

• Skip MacCarty, pastor, Pioneer Memorial Church, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan, representing the Seventh-day Adventist position;
• Joseph A. Pipa, president and professor of historical and systematic theology, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, representing the “Christian Sabbath” position;
• Charles P. Arand, chairman, department of systematic theology, Concordia Seminary, representing the confessional Lutheran position;
• Craig L. Blomberg, distinguished professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary, representing the fulfillment view.

Following the established “views” and “perspectives” approach, each author’s case is presented in turn, followed by responses from the others. One helpful innovation in this book is the space given to the author, then, to give a final word of response, rounding out the discussion well. ....

And his review is interesting, given his confession of bias [i.e. Blomberg is right]. Later, Zaspel suggests something he wishes Blomberg had addressed:

It might have been helpful to Blomberg’s case if he had addressed more fully the question of why Christians worship on Sunday. He highlights this up front in his article, and in most respects his answer is sufficient. However, more would be helpful for those looking on from a Sabbatarian perspective. There are of course good reasons for “going to church” on Sunday, even if these reasons are not tied to the Sabbath command. It would serve a non-sabbatarian position well to cover this base as thoroughly as possible in order to satisfy questions and concerns Sabbatarians inevitably will have. ....

Indeed, why choose any particular day? And if one must be chosen, whether as a Sabbath or simply a day to go to church, why not the one for which God has indicated a preference?

Zaspel has provided an interesting review of a book which he compliments as a genuinely good model of civil discourse: "I should mention something also in regard to the pleasant tone that prevails in this volume.... Their interaction is direct and pointed at times, as it must be in a book like this, but the mutual respect remains. The disagreements among Christians on this issue are not likely to go away, but in this regard the authors helpfully model ongoing discussion"

Since the position, a seventh day [i.e. Saturday] Sabbath, is here represented by an Adventist, one does wonder whether it is argued as a Seventh Day Baptist would present it.

Perspectives on the Sabbath - TGC Reviews

Is cannibalism just a matter of taste?

Peter Wehner has been re-reading Isaiah Berlin and considering where human rights come from. He argues that Isaiah Berlin, although he believed in them, couldn't offer a convincing justification for their existence:

.... In what is morality grounded? For Berlin, it was grounded in general principles of behavior and human activity, in norms, in a consensus of what constitutes decency and right and wrong. That can work for a time, as people act on an existing moral accordance and intuition. But in the end that is never enough. Norms need to be grounded in permanent rather than provisional truths. Otherwise, we have only our own cultural consensus on what constitutes human rights, which makes it next to impossible to define a universal set of such rights. It also means we have no good justification for telling other societies, or for that matter even our own children, why they should hold to our particular consensus.

As Michael Gerson and I argue in City of Man, philosophers have tried for centuries to formulate a firm, secular theory of human rights. None has gained broad, much less universal assent, and none seems equal to the challenge of Nietzsche: if God is really dead, what is to stop the radical, destructive human will?

Berlin’s theory – liberalism without natural rights – is hung on a peg in midair. To care for and to sacrifice for the rights of other human beings, merely because they are human beings, requires an immutable moral and even metaphysical basis.

So why do human beings possess inherent value? People of the Jewish and Christian faith have an answer: Men and women are created equal in worth, in the image of God. They believe in a human nature, which demands human rights.

Without some transcendent basis, human rights as a doctrine cannot defend itself from attack. Strauss understood the fallacy of historicism – the belief that all standards are determined by cultural circumstances and each society should be judged in its own terms rather than measured against a universal standard – was both self-contradictory and relativistic. For historicists there is no ground on which one could prefer a liberal regime over a totalitarian one. Everything, including justice, is arbitrary. “If all values are relative,” Strauss famously said, “then cannibalism is a matter of taste.” For Strauss, a refugee from Nazi Germany, this debate was not simply an abstract one. .... [more]

Rights Must Be Grounded In Eternal Truths « Commentary Magazine