Mark Steyn on the P.C. Police

There's nothing like a brisk Mark Steyn article and a forceful, yet playful, cup of Scottish Breakfast tea to start the morning. Or, uh, the other way around.

Zarqawi: The Insecure Jihadist

Boy, this lady's got an ax to grind (Hat tip: Real Clear Politics). At least she has imagination; for how little we are supposed to know about Zarqawi's background, she fills in the picture pretty admirably. My favorite part of the article is how at first she goes out of her way to claim that Zarqawi had no intimate relationship with Al-Qaeda, because, as all his good buddies know, he respects no man (except the prophet, of course) and prefers to cut his own path; when it becomes necessary for her to demonstrate that the U.S.' actions drove Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda into each other's arms, suddenly Zarqawi is someone who needs Osama bin Laden's approval desperately. His is the case of the loner, who on the outside is standoffish, but who inwardly really craves the acceptance of others. Very, what's the word, inventive.

Wanted: New Shortstop

Read this bit of good news on espn.com. I'm not greedy anymore. As long as the new SS can either hit or field, I'll be happy. He doesn't have to do both.

Peggy Noonan on . . . Anything

I love Peggy Noonan. There's something about her writing that is at the same time personal and profound. Agree or disagree with her point of view--I agree most of the time--you know that it is worth serious consideration because she's the person who espouses it. She has a way in drawing out and highlighting the essential human component in a story that is often held captive to political interests. Of course she's not averse to commenting on politics--she has, after all, served in Republican administrations--but she seems genuinely to attempt an analysis of a given issue at its root level. You know that if the party strays fr om its principled stand on that issue for political reasons, she will call it like it is. Check out her column in today's Wall Street Journal to see what I mean. (HT: Real Clear Politics)

Another Shoe Bomber?

Yeah, this is what I want to hear before traveling for the holidays. Found this on Drudge. Be careful everyone.

Sin as Breach of Covenant

I've been reflecting a lot these last few days, admittedly in a haphazard way, on the nature of sin vis-a-vis the covenantal relationship with God. Rikki Watts, in his article, "Making Sense of Genesis 1," (HT: Jason) points out that (at least part of) what it means for man to be created in the image of God is that humans are created as vice regents, charged exercising dominion over creation as God himself would and does. This responsibility, needless to say, implies a close relationship b/w God and Man. William Dumbrell's study, Covenant and Creation, bolsters this claim, by demonstrating (through Hebrew word/phrase usage) that the first covenant was initiated in the act of creation.

All this is to state the obvious: there is a covenantal relationship that is at the heart of who we as human beings are. (Now, the nature of how the full covenantal benefits are mediated to individuals seems to change as the covenants are "tweaked.")

Lately, I've been examining my thought process as I engage in sin--usually afterwards. Not that anyone really wants to know what I'm thinking as I yell at my wife or ignore the homeless man on the street, but I find it interesting how I know that I'm doing wrong even as I do it. Because I am overly introverted and introspective, I rarely engage in "big" sins without being aware of it. Some people, being extroverts, just "lose it." Anyway, I've noticed that I'm able to ignore the voice of conscience when I reflect that what I'm doing is wrong. It's almost as if by putting the prohibition into simple word form--"don't do this, it's wrong"--I make the sin easier. However, when I am able to consider the breach of relationship that occurs with God as King and my fellow men as fellow vice regents (ok, I don't actually use those words in my thoughts), it's easier to see the ramifications of my actions and thus change course. Perhaps this is why the so-called Ten Commandments actually begin with God reminding Israel of the covenant relationship, which was enacted by Him through grace.

(Speech-Act) Theory in Practice

Yum, minestrone. Speaking of the group blog and theology, Kelly L. has a great post on what taking speech-act theory seriously might look like in our interpretive reading of Scripture. Check it out.

Canonical--Christological?--Theology

Today is one of those brisk wintery days that I love so much. My eyebrows, beard, and, dare I say, nose hairs froze the instant I stepped outside. You gotta love it!

Blogging has been way to light these last few days; I hoping to pick things up a little once I finish with a little freelance job that's been tying up all my free time. Unfortunately, I'm a news, information, and idea junkie, so when I'm huddled down with work--as I am now--I get anxious after a while, because I feel like I've been cut off from the world that's out there. If I go too long like this, I get depressed. Not sure what this has to do with frozen nose hairs, but there you have it.

On a group blog, I'm discussing with friends--ok, mostly reading their thoughtful comments--the book, The Drama of Doctrine, by Kevin Vanhoozer. It's been a great read so far and has opened wide the floodgates of conversation for us. Though I'm not too far into the book as of yet, it seems pretty clear that central to his Canonical-Linguistic approach to theology is the Christ-event. The book is mostly concerned with reconceptualizing theology as a dramatic enterprise based on God's own speech-act that culminates in Christ.

Without discussing the book's main ideas here, I'm curious whether there might be dangers to viewing the whole of Scripture from a Christologically-centered standpoint? Don't get me wrong: I'm not talking about what we affirm about Christ but rather the hermeneutic we use in our understanding of the canon of Scripture. Perhaps starting with Christ is a given for a canonical approach. I'm curious what others might have to say . . .

Not Just Another Gorilla

Wow, King Kong brilliant? Here's a favorable--to say the least--review of Peter Jackson's upcoming film. Jack Black, cast in the film as Carl Denham, thinks highly of the primate:

"He is the king of all the monsters, even better than Godzilla. Kong is stronger and smarter than Godzilla, who's just a stupid, slimy lizard."

My hope is that this will prompt a remaking of Godzilla and, after that, King Kong versus Godzilla. Two monters battling it out while insignificant humans run for cover never gets old. It's much more entertaining than Freddie versus Jason.

Is There Absolute Truth? Yes, No, or Wrong Question?

Check out the great post and conversation (in comments) about where absolute truth fits into the Church's ministry in the post-modern climate at On the Way. And ignore my asinine comment there.