We went to my brother-in-law's to meet their newest addition to the family and our newest nephew. Here's a video of him with my father-in-law, S. He was told that if he removed his shirt his grandson would be more responsive to him. I know, it sounds weird. It seemed to work, though, as our nephew didn't really open his eyes much until he was laid against the bare chest.
And here's P. with her new nephew.
Oh, and he's only two days old.
1.13.2008
Scot McKnight on Infant Baptism in Calvin's Institutes
Scot Mcknight has been posting his reflections on Calvin's treatment of infant baptism. Such thoughts are helpful to me as my old church is Presbyterian, my wife grew up Presbyterian, and I have many Presbyterian friends. I, on the other hand, grew up in a baptist church and attended Baptist seminaries. (To be clear, McKnight is referring to Calvin's views, not necessarily infant baptism as a legitmate practice.)
Here are his posts (not yet completed): Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.
Here are his posts (not yet completed): Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.
Huckabee and Evangelicals
The NY Times has an article on how Mike Huckabee's candidacy is splitting evangelicals. Check it out here.
1.12.2008
The Mysterious Butt Abscess
This will make for hilarious congressional hearings. How embarrasing. Poor Roger.
1.09.2008
New Hampshire
Interesting result coming out of New Hampshire's primaries. The Republican outcome, if you consider the polls in the few days preceding the casting of ballots, wasn't a huge surprise. Unfortunately for Romney, it was significant reversal considering he had put so much energy into campaigning there.
What will be fascinating to see is how the Iowa and New Hampshire results carry over to the rest of the primaries. One commentator reckons Romney for dead, given that the candidates overall strategy seemed tied to his doing well, that is, winning, in the two early states. However, someone else remarked that we might see a lot of "one hit wonders," Huckabee in Iowa, McCain in New Hampshire, etc., before it becomes really clear who will be the frontrunner. This assessment is attributed to the supposed lack of any die hard conservative candidate who can command wide acceptance as the nominee to go up against the Democratic nominee, who will certainly be on the far liberal side of the party.
As for the Dems, it's the conventional wisdom is that older women and Republicans are celebrating today after Hillary's victory. The question is, though, how did she win after momentum seemed to be going Obama's way after Iowa and polls seem to corroborate this feeling. Daniel Finkelstein lays out 6 possible explanations to Hillary's "comeback" win over at the Times Online (HT: Pajamas Media). Which do you think is most likely?
What will be fascinating to see is how the Iowa and New Hampshire results carry over to the rest of the primaries. One commentator reckons Romney for dead, given that the candidates overall strategy seemed tied to his doing well, that is, winning, in the two early states. However, someone else remarked that we might see a lot of "one hit wonders," Huckabee in Iowa, McCain in New Hampshire, etc., before it becomes really clear who will be the frontrunner. This assessment is attributed to the supposed lack of any die hard conservative candidate who can command wide acceptance as the nominee to go up against the Democratic nominee, who will certainly be on the far liberal side of the party.
As for the Dems, it's the conventional wisdom is that older women and Republicans are celebrating today after Hillary's victory. The question is, though, how did she win after momentum seemed to be going Obama's way after Iowa and polls seem to corroborate this feeling. Daniel Finkelstein lays out 6 possible explanations to Hillary's "comeback" win over at the Times Online (HT: Pajamas Media). Which do you think is most likely?
1.07.2008
Reflections on Philippians 1.3-8
1. Paul prays for others a lot. I don't think the opening sections of his letters are a mere formality. Here he begins by claiming to give thanks "to my God in every remembrance of you" (3). The following phrase, I think, either explains when he gives such thanks or the means he uses. He says "always in every prayer of mine on your all behalf, I make my prayer with joy" (4). It's one thing to be thankful of another person or persons in the course of our daily lives, as many of us are; it's quite another matter altogether to invest considerable effort in expressing thanks to God as Paul seems to do. Why is this so tough?
2. For Paul, one's consistent identification with the gospel is evidence of God's hand at work in a person's life. Paul gives thanks for the Philippians "because of" their partnership "toward the [goals of the] gospel from the first day until now." Even when things got tough, the steered toward a course charted by the gospel message. I think Paul is not just talking about affirming the truth of the gospel, but committing to a way of life that is determined by the gospel.
Because the Philippians have exhibited such consistency in their dedication to gospel living, Paul is able to say with confidence that he is persuaded that "the one who began a good work" in the Philippians "will bring it to completion until the day of Christ Jesus" (6), which is simultaneously a day of deliverance and judgment. Consistency in life commitment to the gospel evidences the reality of God's work in a believer's life.
3. Paul's confidence in and affection for the church is not built around some superficial connection but rather in their identification with him in advancing the gospel. Paul explains (7) that it is right for him to feel this confidence ("this way"--could point back to Pauls' thankfulness (3), but I'm taking it here with v. 6) because he holds them in his heart because they are "partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel" (7). He expounds on this by calling upon God to witness to his true yearning for them, yearning with affection which "proceeds (or has its origin) in Christ Jesus" (8).
Does my life bear witness to a consistent commitment to the goals of the gospel?
How can I more consciously and proactively live out the truths of the gospel and identify (and parnter) with causes and activities and people that seek to further the gospel's redemptive work in our world?
2. For Paul, one's consistent identification with the gospel is evidence of God's hand at work in a person's life. Paul gives thanks for the Philippians "because of" their partnership "toward the [goals of the] gospel from the first day until now." Even when things got tough, the steered toward a course charted by the gospel message. I think Paul is not just talking about affirming the truth of the gospel, but committing to a way of life that is determined by the gospel.
Because the Philippians have exhibited such consistency in their dedication to gospel living, Paul is able to say with confidence that he is persuaded that "the one who began a good work" in the Philippians "will bring it to completion until the day of Christ Jesus" (6), which is simultaneously a day of deliverance and judgment. Consistency in life commitment to the gospel evidences the reality of God's work in a believer's life.
3. Paul's confidence in and affection for the church is not built around some superficial connection but rather in their identification with him in advancing the gospel. Paul explains (7) that it is right for him to feel this confidence ("this way"--could point back to Pauls' thankfulness (3), but I'm taking it here with v. 6) because he holds them in his heart because they are "partakers with me of grace, both in my imprisonment and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel" (7). He expounds on this by calling upon God to witness to his true yearning for them, yearning with affection which "proceeds (or has its origin) in Christ Jesus" (8).
Does my life bear witness to a consistent commitment to the goals of the gospel?
How can I more consciously and proactively live out the truths of the gospel and identify (and parnter) with causes and activities and people that seek to further the gospel's redemptive work in our world?
1.06.2008
Theology Weekend
I'm really excited about this. The first week of February Thomas Schreiner is coming to participate in a series of events, involving lecture, debate, Q & A, and homily. This will be an awesome time for anyone exploring the significance of Jesus--whether you're a Christian or not. Though very learned, Schreiner is humble and approachable, which, I think, will make the Q & A time enjoyable and will keep the debate substantive and good humored.
1.05.2008
Weekend Movies
We watched a couple good movies this weekend. Normally, it's rare for us to watch two movies in a week--and I never can understand it when I go into the video store and see people checking out a whole stack of movies; what's up with that?!--but P. gave me the freedom to choose what to watch and I couldn't decide between two so, guess what, I rented them both. I was feelin' crazy!
If you haven't seen Reign Over Me, check it out. Adam Sandler pairs up well with Don Cheadle in this anything but funny movie. Okay, it does have a few funny parts.
And tonight, we saw Once, a modern musical as the back of the box describes it. I had heard about this film back in Boston and was further interested in viewing it since I had heard it was set in Dublin. It's really a fantastic film. Very fun. And amazing considering that neither leads really had any acting experience prior to shooting this film. Good thing they can sing. Actually, the lead actor is Glen Hansard of The Frames. Oh, and in keeping with the location of the film, I decided to have a nice Black and Tan which I made myself. Turned out pretty nice, huh?
If you haven't seen Reign Over Me, check it out. Adam Sandler pairs up well with Don Cheadle in this anything but funny movie. Okay, it does have a few funny parts.
And tonight, we saw Once, a modern musical as the back of the box describes it. I had heard about this film back in Boston and was further interested in viewing it since I had heard it was set in Dublin. It's really a fantastic film. Very fun. And amazing considering that neither leads really had any acting experience prior to shooting this film. Good thing they can sing. Actually, the lead actor is Glen Hansard of The Frames. Oh, and in keeping with the location of the film, I decided to have a nice Black and Tan which I made myself. Turned out pretty nice, huh?
Thanks for holding the glass, honey.
1.04.2008
Noonan On Iowa
An interesting take on the Iowa caucus results can be found in Peggy Noonan's editorial here. I especially love her lines regarding Obama :
His takedown of Mrs. Clinton was the softest demolition in the history of falling buildings. I think we were there when it happened, in the debate in which he was questioned on why so many of Bill Clinton's aides were advising him. She laughed, and he said he was looking forward to her advising him, too. He took mama to school.
His takedown of Mrs. Clinton was the softest demolition in the history of falling buildings. I think we were there when it happened, in the debate in which he was questioned on why so many of Bill Clinton's aides were advising him. She laughed, and he said he was looking forward to her advising him, too. He took mama to school.
1.03.2008
Dems in Iowa
Reports indicate that Obama has brokered a deal with Richardson for second choice votes "in caucuses where the New Mexico governor can’t clear the threshold for competition." That might be a lot of caucuses. (HT: Politico)
If Obama picks up Richardson and Kucinich voters like this, it looks like he might run away with Iowa, leaving Hillary, can you believe it, in third place. However, Cooper over at the Huffington Post notes that much of Obama's projected support relies on the young vote, which is notoriously all talk and no show. And Edwards and his supporters are clearly hoping those silly young'uns stay home to get an early start on their weekend kegger.
If Obama picks up Richardson and Kucinich voters like this, it looks like he might run away with Iowa, leaving Hillary, can you believe it, in third place. However, Cooper over at the Huffington Post notes that much of Obama's projected support relies on the young vote, which is notoriously all talk and no show. And Edwards and his supporters are clearly hoping those silly young'uns stay home to get an early start on their weekend kegger.
Nephew and Niece
Probably the best thing about going home for the holidays was the opportunity it afforded P. and I to visit our nephew and niece, J. and J. Aren't they cute?
1.01.2008
CSI and Relationships, Part 2
Warrick has the tendency like some of us to try to internalize all his struggles and usually ends up spiraling out of control because he has no healthy vent for the angst he feels. Having just been separated (divorced?) from his wife, he's experiencing all kinds of emotional pain, on top of which he's had a bad day at work. In order to "stay on top of his job" Warrick starks popping pills to keep alert. Enter Nick, who noting that Warrick has also been downing pills so he can sleep through the night, seizes the pills and discards them in the trash, prompting a near heated moment between the CSIs (friends?). Warrick tells Nick to mind his own business but the latter refuses to back down and let Warrick handle his problems in his own way. It's really fairly riveting because of their near fight but also because Nick becomes very emotional (nearly tearing up) and because Warrick finally recognizes that Nick is right and essentially admits his need for help.
What strikes me about this encounter is how true to life this episode is. Many of us do try to cope with problems--or bury them--by turning to addictive agents (chemical or otherwise); we resist calling out for help, even to the point of lashing out at those who come to our aid. Strangely enough we have an acute awareness of our problems, which cause us to turn to all kinds of "cures," but we are extremely upset when someone else, even (especially?) friends, acknowledge our problem and need as Nick does Warrick's. In fact, our actions seem to suggest that we don't really want friends to be the sort that know the deepest recesses of our hearts.
Also interesting to me here is Nick's involvement both because of what he does and what it demonstrates about his character. First, he doesn't care how Warrick wants (on a superficial level?) him to respond, but rather how Warrick needs him as a friend to respond. Nick realizes that real love should compel him to reach beyond the sort of help that the drugs provide--insofar as they really act only to temporarily dull and distract from the pain--and intervene in illuminating the real problem. (Granted, Nick really only shows Warrick that he has a problem and needs to avoid the abusive relief that the medication might provide, and he doesn't go much beyond this; but this is, after all, only television, so what can we expect.) Second, we see that what at times seem to be a character flaw in Nick--his annoying habit of empathizing with those involved in cases he's investigating--here shines forth in a heroic way. He is relentless in his concern for Warrick even up to a willingness to come to blows.
As a Christian committed to Jesus Christ, I have to ask myself whether I've forged friendships with others seeking to walk the same path of obedience that are equally committed as Nick and Warrick's is, as illustrated in this episode. What does this even look like? Being bound to Christ in my estimation also means being bound to others who are also bound to him. This involves us in a mutual commitment to seeing God's kingdom evinced in our lives and sometimes, perhaps under only very specific circumstances, this might require that we intervene in very uncomfortable ways--and possibly against our brother/sister's desires--out of love. I'm not sure that I either engage my Christian friends with such accountability or allow myself to be thus engaged. How is such a relationship forged, I wonder, and what biblical principles invigorate it?
What strikes me about this encounter is how true to life this episode is. Many of us do try to cope with problems--or bury them--by turning to addictive agents (chemical or otherwise); we resist calling out for help, even to the point of lashing out at those who come to our aid. Strangely enough we have an acute awareness of our problems, which cause us to turn to all kinds of "cures," but we are extremely upset when someone else, even (especially?) friends, acknowledge our problem and need as Nick does Warrick's. In fact, our actions seem to suggest that we don't really want friends to be the sort that know the deepest recesses of our hearts.
Also interesting to me here is Nick's involvement both because of what he does and what it demonstrates about his character. First, he doesn't care how Warrick wants (on a superficial level?) him to respond, but rather how Warrick needs him as a friend to respond. Nick realizes that real love should compel him to reach beyond the sort of help that the drugs provide--insofar as they really act only to temporarily dull and distract from the pain--and intervene in illuminating the real problem. (Granted, Nick really only shows Warrick that he has a problem and needs to avoid the abusive relief that the medication might provide, and he doesn't go much beyond this; but this is, after all, only television, so what can we expect.) Second, we see that what at times seem to be a character flaw in Nick--his annoying habit of empathizing with those involved in cases he's investigating--here shines forth in a heroic way. He is relentless in his concern for Warrick even up to a willingness to come to blows.
As a Christian committed to Jesus Christ, I have to ask myself whether I've forged friendships with others seeking to walk the same path of obedience that are equally committed as Nick and Warrick's is, as illustrated in this episode. What does this even look like? Being bound to Christ in my estimation also means being bound to others who are also bound to him. This involves us in a mutual commitment to seeing God's kingdom evinced in our lives and sometimes, perhaps under only very specific circumstances, this might require that we intervene in very uncomfortable ways--and possibly against our brother/sister's desires--out of love. I'm not sure that I either engage my Christian friends with such accountability or allow myself to be thus engaged. How is such a relationship forged, I wonder, and what biblical principles invigorate it?
CSI and Relationships, Part 1
I'm a big fan of CSI--really, my wife and I both are--the original, CSI, that is. We do enjoy CSI New York from time to time but almost never watch CSI Miami, which, in my humble opinion, is awful. Sometimes, P. doesn't want to tune in even to the original CSI because of the disturbing nature of some of the crimes. I hate to miss the show on the other hand.
What really draws me in to the show--even above the crime solving--is the personalities and relationships that have developed throughout the show's running. Above all CSI characters, I would have to say I most enjoy Warrick Brown and perhaps this is because I feel like I can sort of identify with his flaws, including his struggle with addiction in various forms (a prominent addiction for him has been his attraction to gambling). A fellow CSI, Nick Stokes, has his own unique character traits, one of which is his very personal approach to his job, which sometimes gets him into trouble. Nick has a tendency to empathize with those close to crimes; sometimes this blinds him to potential manipulation and causes him to underestimate the enormity of evil that can reside within the human heart. (Being buried alive, though, has a way of curing this.)
[One question that comes to mind when watching a show like CSI is how representative are such shows in depicting characters and relationships as they really are? Perhaps CSI is not a favorite, but are there any other programs out there that do a particularly good job of focusing on such matters?]
What's been particularly enjoyable and thought provoking of late has been to watch the way relationships among the CSIs have developed over time. One specific episode really struck me powerfully because of its implications for relationships in general and in particular for relationships among Christians who, in addition to being committed to Jesus as Lord, are also thereby committed to each other. . . .
What really draws me in to the show--even above the crime solving--is the personalities and relationships that have developed throughout the show's running. Above all CSI characters, I would have to say I most enjoy Warrick Brown and perhaps this is because I feel like I can sort of identify with his flaws, including his struggle with addiction in various forms (a prominent addiction for him has been his attraction to gambling). A fellow CSI, Nick Stokes, has his own unique character traits, one of which is his very personal approach to his job, which sometimes gets him into trouble. Nick has a tendency to empathize with those close to crimes; sometimes this blinds him to potential manipulation and causes him to underestimate the enormity of evil that can reside within the human heart. (Being buried alive, though, has a way of curing this.)
[One question that comes to mind when watching a show like CSI is how representative are such shows in depicting characters and relationships as they really are? Perhaps CSI is not a favorite, but are there any other programs out there that do a particularly good job of focusing on such matters?]
What's been particularly enjoyable and thought provoking of late has been to watch the way relationships among the CSIs have developed over time. One specific episode really struck me powerfully because of its implications for relationships in general and in particular for relationships among Christians who, in addition to being committed to Jesus as Lord, are also thereby committed to each other. . . .
12.30.2007
O Little Town of Bethlehem--No, Not That Bethlehem
Leading up to Christmas I was going through Matthew and Luke's birth narratives with my eighth graders. In order to give the students an appreciation of how arduous the journey may have been for Joseph and Mary to trek all the way down to Judea from Nazareth, I googled (yes, I know, very hard-core research) something like "distance from Nazareth to Bethlehem."
Imagine how surprised I was when a site popped up indicating the total distance as 7.4 miles. Perhaps I should have known this, but there is actually a second Bethlehem actually situated in Galilee, which means of course, that the journey would have been much more amenable to Joseph and his young wife. Who cares about that silly little business about Jesus being born in the city of David.
Clicking on one of the links that came up, I actually did discover that some scholars do in fact advocate that Jesus was born in the Bethlehem of Nazareth. Jim Davila, over at PaleoJudaica, came upon an article about an Israeli archaeologist who argues just that. Read Davila's excerpt from the article as well as his accompanying comments here.
Imagine how surprised I was when a site popped up indicating the total distance as 7.4 miles. Perhaps I should have known this, but there is actually a second Bethlehem actually situated in Galilee, which means of course, that the journey would have been much more amenable to Joseph and his young wife. Who cares about that silly little business about Jesus being born in the city of David.
Clicking on one of the links that came up, I actually did discover that some scholars do in fact advocate that Jesus was born in the Bethlehem of Nazareth. Jim Davila, over at PaleoJudaica, came upon an article about an Israeli archaeologist who argues just that. Read Davila's excerpt from the article as well as his accompanying comments here.
Younger Leaders and the SBC
Here's an illuminating--ok, not really that illuminating for people who are familiar with SBC life--article from LifeWay about the declining percentage of younger leaders participating at the Southern Baptist Convention.
Here's what Stetzer has to say: "Of course, facts don’t convince everyone. My hope is that now, finally, we will stop debating and instead ask the hard question: ‘What is causing so many young leaders to stay away?’"
Maybe if the powers that be in the SBC would simply ask some of those younger leaders, they might gain a unique, though perhaps unwanted, glimpse into what at first glance might be judged apathy. (HT: Subverting Mediocrity)
Here's what Stetzer has to say: "Of course, facts don’t convince everyone. My hope is that now, finally, we will stop debating and instead ask the hard question: ‘What is causing so many young leaders to stay away?’"
Maybe if the powers that be in the SBC would simply ask some of those younger leaders, they might gain a unique, though perhaps unwanted, glimpse into what at first glance might be judged apathy. (HT: Subverting Mediocrity)
12.29.2007
Brewing Controversy
Our Church--Karis Community--has just made the news again. Gotta love the title of the article.
12.28.2007
Gone Baby Gone and Male/Female Decision Making
Has anyone seen Gone Baby Gone? Recently P. and I went to view this movie bc quite superficially we had heard it is set in the Boston area, albeit a rough neighborhood, and wanted to take a walk down memory lane. Despite the depressing content, we enjoyed the movie, finding it to be very thought provoking. Oh, and by the, Casey Affleck is a much better actor than Ben. Ben actually directed this film, which has an incredible cast, notably Michelle Monaghan, Ed Harris, and Morgan Freeman.
Ok, here's the point: the movie concludes with the main characters forced to make a morally ambiguous (as the film wants us to see it) decision. The two protagonists, a male and female, are split to disheartening effect in how they frame the issue. While Monaghan's character focuses on the human consequence of the decision, Affleck's attention is fixated on the question of law and principle.
Interestingly enough, in discussing the issue afterward, P.'s and my perspectives seemed (though to a somewhat lesser degree) to reflect the same difference observed in the film between the lead characters. I wonder, is this a common male/female issue, whereby the male is drawn to the abstract while the female inclines more toward the personal? I certainly do not mean to stereotype nor to suggest that one extreme or the other by itself presents the whole picture. It's just a question that struck me.
If you haven't watched the film, do so when it comes out on DVD.
Ok, here's the point: the movie concludes with the main characters forced to make a morally ambiguous (as the film wants us to see it) decision. The two protagonists, a male and female, are split to disheartening effect in how they frame the issue. While Monaghan's character focuses on the human consequence of the decision, Affleck's attention is fixated on the question of law and principle.
Interestingly enough, in discussing the issue afterward, P.'s and my perspectives seemed (though to a somewhat lesser degree) to reflect the same difference observed in the film between the lead characters. I wonder, is this a common male/female issue, whereby the male is drawn to the abstract while the female inclines more toward the personal? I certainly do not mean to stereotype nor to suggest that one extreme or the other by itself presents the whole picture. It's just a question that struck me.
If you haven't watched the film, do so when it comes out on DVD.
From Anime to Pakistan
Just taking a break from reading about anime in a freelance job I'm working on. I have a new appreciation for Japanese animation, I'll tell you that.
Winer, along with others at the counterterrorism blog, continue to provide analysis of the situation in Pakistan, including whether al-Qaeda affiliated elements may have been involved--as the government has naturally suggested. Should the infamous terrorist network be behind the assassination of Bhutto, the implications, Winer suggests, are chilling as they are extremely suggestive of al-Qaeda's intent: "they intend to take Pakistan and make it their kind of state."
Winer, along with others at the counterterrorism blog, continue to provide analysis of the situation in Pakistan, including whether al-Qaeda affiliated elements may have been involved--as the government has naturally suggested. Should the infamous terrorist network be behind the assassination of Bhutto, the implications, Winer suggests, are chilling as they are extremely suggestive of al-Qaeda's intent: "they intend to take Pakistan and make it their kind of state."
I think we all know what that looks like. Just look at Taliban-run Afghanistan. Let's hope matters don't come to that and that some other democraticizing figure(s) step forward who can at once claim legitimacy and can wield power in an effective manner. Let's hope for a miracle, in other words.
12.27.2007
Death in Pakistan
Benazir Bhutto was killed today in a suicide bombing in Pakistan. This is a sad day, not only because of the violent death of a former leader, but also because of the setback that this event probably represents for democracy in Pakistan.
MORE:
Here's an assessment both of Bhutto and what the assassination attempt means for Pakistan's--and indeed the region's--future over at the counterterrorim blog.
Elsewhere, the speculation centers on who was responsible--directly or indirectly--for Bhutto's murder.
MORE:
Here's an assessment both of Bhutto and what the assassination attempt means for Pakistan's--and indeed the region's--future over at the counterterrorim blog.
Elsewhere, the speculation centers on who was responsible--directly or indirectly--for Bhutto's murder.
12.26.2007
Latest From Iowa
Ha ha. Looks like my Iowa (and New Hampshire) predictions may fall flat, as this latest info from CNN suggests. I wish people would just make up their minds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
