Another new book: Dave Ramsey’s Financial Peace Revisted

So my mom sent us a bunch of stuff from Dave Ramsey’s ministry – Financial Peace, Total Money Makeover, a couple videos on dumping debt and managing cash flow, and a envelope system.  Should be good and helpful stuff.  My only problem at the moment is the cash flow part (or the lack there of).  If I can get that down I think we could get headed in the right direction – the problem is I got laid off from the job I was working due to low hours and low tourism in the winter months (Christmas excepted) and everywhere else is also not hiring – unemployment isn’t responding at the moment so we’re kind of stuck. 

But hey, all this talk about being relevant in church or having a relevant church – you want to have one?  Forget the coffee stand in the foyer or the round tables replacing the pews with candles and icons and stuff – start offering ways for people to improve their lives with things like offering the Financial Peace University classes or even just a money management class.  Start up a Celebrate recovery class or Cleansing Stream if you or the Pentecostal/Chariamstic strand to help people work through life issues – that is being relevant – not so much the painting of walls and making the evnironment feel hip – but helping people change their lives for the better like getting handle on finances, or relationships and the like.   If you can paint the walls and have coffee too, great but more important is helping people connect to God and connect to others and to manage their lives and relationships!  That is a relevant church!

New Book: The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt

This the lone book I got for Christmas this year.  A couple months back my computer crashed and so a new computer was an early Christmas present.   They are selling this book and the second one in the series Theodore Rex at the General Store here at the Grand Canyon Village. I once did a report on TR when I was in elementary school so I’ve always liked him and what I learned of him.  Also, I think I did mention wanted to take some time and read the biographies of some of the better Presidents such as Washington, Adams, Lincoln, Grant, T. Roosevelt, Truman, Reagan, etc.

My favorite passage so far: 

He never tires of reminding people that his famous aphorism “Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick” proceeds according to civilized priorities. Persuasion should come before force.  In any case it is the availability of raw power, not the use of it, that makes for effective diplomacy. Last summer’s rebellion in Cuba, which left the island leaderless, provided Roosevelt with a textbook example. Acting as usual with lightning swiftness, he invoked an almost forgotten security agreement and proclaimed a U.S. backed provisional government within 24 hours of the collapse of the old.  While Secretary of War William H. Taft worked “to restore order and peace and public confidence,” American warships steamed thoughtfully up and down the Cuban coastline. The rebels disbanded, Taft returned to Washington, and the big white ships followed.  Cuba is now assured of regaining her independence, and the Big Stick has been laid down unbloodied (xvi, Prologue). 

Ha Ha!  I love it!  What has happened to this kind of leadership in America?

blogging break

As King Solomon once said, there is a time for everything.  I will be taking a blogging break until at least after the New Year.  Blogging to me means reading other blogs, commenting on other blogs, or posting or viewing my own blog. 

I hope you all have a Blessed and Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

How to Read a Book: Agreeing or Disagreeing with an Author

I wanted to get my series on How to Read a Book done before the end of the year.   Now on to the blogging break.

I have been sharing parts of Adler and Van Doren’s How to Read a Book: The Classic Guide to Intelligent Reading (Simon and Schuster, 1972).

How to Read a Book: Index (for all related posts).

This will be the final post sharing points of what Adler and Van Doren call Analytical Reading. Analytical Reading is the third level of reading which the authors discuss in helping their readers understand the task of reading a book which involves more than simply decoding words but also understanding what is being read. Use of quotation marks or use of block quotes (more than two full lines of a quote) mean I quote the authors directly and then I summarize their explanations of the rules. Brackets and bolds are mine. Italics are original unless otherwise indicated.

This post will focus on the final section in which Analytical Reading.  A reminder from the authors:

The first thing a reader can say is that he understand or that he [or she] does not.  In fact, he must say he understands, in order to say more.  If he does not understand, he should keep his peace and go back to work on the work (152). 

If one does not understand, with enough solid support from the book itself, this could itself be a critical remark.   But again, support is needed.  In fact, “to the extent that a reader can support his charge that the book is unintelligable, he has not further critical obligations” (152). 

If one can say I understand, and all is well, then the author has succeeded in his or her writing of the book.  However, often the case is that disagreements and differing perspectives will arise.  So what to do about the disagreements?  How should they be expressed?

To the extent that suthors argue with their readers, and readers argue back, the good reader must be acquainted with the principles of argument.  He must be able to carry on civil, as well as intelligent, controversy.  “Not simply by following an author’s arguments, but only by meeting them as well, can the reader ultimately reach significant agreement or disagreement with his [or her] author” (153).

Now, let’s assume you have read a book, you understand the arguments therein, but have some disagreements.  How do we proceed?  Three conditions must be met if a disgreement is to be well conducted:

The first is, it is necessary the acknoweldge the emotionsone brings to a dispute (154).   Some disagreements are and can be highly charged.  A lot of emotions get involved.  From a biblical studies view I think the whole debate between complementarianism and egalitarianism (the core issue is, can women be pastors or not?) can get quite heated and intense.  Many feelings have been hurt over this controversial issue. 

Second, you must make your own assumptions explicit (155).  One should be aware of one’s own predjudices, or personal biases, are.   If one is a complementarian, then be honest about it. Same with if one is an Egalitairan.  Adler and Van Doren argue, “Good controversy should not be a quarrel about assumptions.”   If an author asks a thing be taken for granted, that rquest should be honored. 

Third, an attempt at imparitality is a good antidote for the blindenss that is almost inevitable in partisanship.  Controversy without partisanchip is, of course, impossible.  To mimimize the intensity of the controversy, it is wise to attempt to at least see the others point of view.  The authors argue, “if you have not been able to read a book sympathetically, your disagreement with it is probably more contentious than civil” (155). 

According to Adler and Van Doren, these three conditions are, ideally, the sine qua non of intelligent and profitable conversation.   

Now on to expressing disagreement: There are four ways a book can be fairly criticized.   The first three have to do with judging [or evaluating] an suthors soundness.  The fourth with an authors completeness. 

1) Uninformed.  To say an author is uninformed  is to say that he [or she] lacks some piece of knoweldge that is relevant to the problem he is trying to solve [or that pertains to the discussion at hand] (157).   To support the claim an author is uninformed, you must be able yourself  to state the knowledge that the author lacks and show how it is relevant, [and] how it makes a difference to the authors conclusions.   Many who insist that “biblical archeology” proves the Bible is true are simply uninformed.     

2) Misinformed.  To say an author is misinformed is to say he asserts what is not the case (157-158).  It involves making assertions that are contrary to fact.  Perhaps one example might be in the area of Bible translation.  Some insist that literal is more “accurate” when nothing could be further from the truth.  Why?  Because in translation theory, it is literally impossible to translate idoms and figures of speech literally without missing their meanings.  A literal (word for word) approach would miss all kinds of literary aspects of the Biblical languages.

There is some relation in these first two points of criticism.  People who inisist literal is more accurate can e both uniformed and misinformed.  The same is true of those who insist that “biblical archeology” proves the Bible is true. 

3) Illogical.  To say an author is illogical is to say that he ahs committed a fallacy in reasoning (158).   In general, there are two fallacies: non sequitor, which means that what is drawn as a conclusion simply does not follow from the reasons offered.  Inconsistancy, which means that two (or more) things the author has tried to say are incompatible.  To make either of these criticisms, the reader must be able to show the precise respect in which the author’s agreement lacks cogency, that is, with regard to the major conclusions. 

Here it is imortant to understand that unless you can effectively show an author to be uninformed, misinformed, or illogical on relevant matters, you simply cannot disagree.  Otherwise, disagreeing “just because” shows one may be more committed to certain ideals than one is willing to listen and understand what another is saying. 

Adler and Van Doren state: The first three remarks are related to an authors terms [how he is saying things], propositions, and arguments.  These are the elements he used to solve the problems that initiated his efforts.  The fourth remark – that the book is incomplete – bears on the structure of the whole (161).  Italics mine.

4) Incomplete.  To say that an author’s analysis is incomplete is to say that he has not solved all the problems he started with, or that he has not made as good a use of his materials as possible, that he did not see all their implications and ramifications, or that he has failed to make distinctions that are relevant to his undertaking (161). 

As the athors argue, “there is no point in making this remark, therefore, unless the reader can define the inadequacy precisely, either by his own efforts as a knower or through the help of other books” (161).   So, this forth criticism is simply not a basis for disagreement.  All it is saying is that not all that could or should be said, has been said in relation to whatever the author said he or she would do.  This is a structural issue and not so much an argument issue. 

There it is folks!  You now have all the steps to analytical reading!  Happy reading!

on the occurance of emotions in corporate worship

So Damian has a post on emotions and worship -

He says in part:

I came to think about the corporate worship that occurs in many Assemblies of God-type churches in the style of Hillsong. The feelings often experienced are certainly self-transcending (often being confused with the ‘presence of God’), and bind the group together. They fit the elevation criteria in other ways as well – they are stronger in larger groups, in order to support social collectives. In the past I’ve questioned whether this confusion between emotion and spirituality is healthy.

….. If this kind of elevation emotion is coming to play in corporate worship, it bringing the members of the congregation together, but more importantly it is alienating those outside of the congregation. It seems ridiculous. Their chests feel constricted (similar symptoms occur with heart attacks and claustrophobia). They can feel sickened and nauseated. And those within the congregation also feel these feelings for those without. This opposite emotion, unlike ‘elevation’ is quite easy for us to identify – and there’s far more research on it: Disgust. “Disgust is probably the most powerful emotion that separates your group from other groups,” says Keltner. And it doesn’t bode well for evangelism or Christian witness when those within congregations and those without suffer serious physiological symptoms due to the elevating effects of corporate worship.

He seems to feel that exepreincing emotion in corporate worship is in some sense inappropriate if it leads to the alineation of outsiders?  Am I understanding his point?

Here was his summary:

That was quite dense, so I suppose I should summarise: It is possible that certain kinds of corporate worship not only alienate non-Christians, but generate uncontrollable physiological reactions of disgust, nausea, fear, and symptoms common to claustrophobia and heart attack. They can also cause these reactions in members of their congregations when faced with outsiders – certainly not a Christ-like reaction that should be encouraged. These reactions are caused by the same emotional and physiological process that causes the feelings of self-transcendence (’elevation’) that many associate with corporate worship and the ‘presence of God’.

I don’t know what can be done about this kind of thing – for many, this kind of elevation is the only feeling they associate with God. But if it has these effects, it cannot be something that is an aid to spreading the Gospel or to being a Christian witness to unbelievers. And it is likely a barrier. These concepts should be deseminated, if ever these barriers are to be torn down.

Here is my response:

I guess I see it differently – first off AG worship is far from uniform – you can have a variety of worship experiences in any different AG church you attend – some go over the top with Hillsongs, others are heavy on hymns – yet others somewhere in between.   Some are powerful a lot and others only have powerful worship experiences every so often, still others, it’s been a while, a long while.

The “emotional” worship you describe doesn’t happen every week every week – it is more sporadic – the highly emotional service occurs once a month if even that.  I realize there are some worship leaders who try to do a repeat of the last “WOW” service every week and really try to get things worked up – but even as an AG pastor, I don’t think that is right. 

But I think there is confusion in thinking that truely spiritual worship can’t have some element of emotion in it – when some one loves another emontions will be involved, unless I am missing your point altogether.

I see the point about group dynamics and the effects it has on emotions but what else does one expect?  If one gets too emotional should one excuse oneself from the worship venue?  To me that would be silly.   That would be like excusing oneself from a Football game becuase one just got too emotional about a goal!    Will you want to leave the coming worship service of the eschaton when it happens in heaven because emotions are invovled?  Good grief. 

Of course experiencing emotions does not equate the presence of God – God is everywhere – even in so-called dead worship services – but how one “senses” or “expriences” the Lord’s presence will be different – but I can be pretty sure that in some fashion or another emotions will be involved, be it greatfulness, joy, dare I say estatic feelings, love, or even repentance or sadness knowing one has erred. 

You said in another post:

I feel that if my worship at church is any greater than my personal worship then there’s gotta be something wrong…

….It suggests therefore that in massive groups it is rather mob psychological effects on emotion that are at play than God’s presence being superior there. This worries me a little. I don’t like the idea that the psychological pressures and loss of identity involved in being a member of a large crowd could be one and the same as what many Christians identify as ‘the Presence of God’.

I think this might be misunderstanding something – I think it is the other way around – how worship goes at church should reflect one’s personal worship experiences.  One can tell almost right away at any given worship serivce if people in the congregation have been having daily devotions with the Lord during the week.  When the majority of a congregation is spending time with the Lord on a daily basis in whatever fashion, it will carry over to the corporate worship service – meaning it’s going to be powerful!   But if not, then it’s most likely it won’t be as powerful.

Powerful worship experiences aren’t going to happen every week, but I think they should happen somewhat regualry – it builds faith.  The rest of the time we worship in faith – obviously we are always to worship in spirit and in truth but from time to time this is going to be awesome when the congregation does it together!  And I think that is okay, necessary even. 

Nothing wrong with emotions in worship – but if your point is that people idolatrize the emotional feelings experiences in worship – then of course that is wrong.  But there is nothing wrong with desiring more frequent powerful worship experiences. 

Am I missing something?

Snow at the Grand Canyon

Here are a few shots of the Grand Canyon when snow comes to visit: 

 

 

 

Does the Pope blog?

Go here and see if you can figure it out.   It would be amazing really, if he did.   Let me know. 

Plus, go here to see the Pope’s take on Justification He said “Sola Fide” is true!

Source:  Confessing Evangelical

To judge or not to judge

In John 3:17 Jesus says to Nicodemus:

“God sent his Son into the world not to judge the world, but to save the world through him.” (NLT)

but then in John 9:39 Jesus tells the blind man he just healed:

“For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.” (NIV)

then yet again in John 12:47 Jesus said,

“As for those who hear my wordsbut do not keep them, I do not judge them.  For I did not come into the world to judge the world, but to save the world.”  (TNIV)

What gives?

Jeff added a comment from D.A. Carson:

Some find it difficult to reconcile this verse [John 3:17] with 9:39, where Jesus declares. ‘For judgment (krisis) I have come into this world. . . .’; indeed, John insists that God has given Jesus ‘authority to judge (krino) because he is the Son of Man’ (5:27). Two factors alleviate the difficulty. First, in these two passages the meaning of krino/krisis is neutral. Anyone familiar with Daniel 7:1,14 would not be surprised to learn that the Son of Man has authority to pronounce judgment, and that he came for that purpose. That is rather different from saying he came to pronounce condemnation. Second, and more important, the Son of Man came into an already lost and condemned world. He did not come into a neutral world in order to save some and condemn others; he came into a lost world (for that is the nature of the ‘world’, 1:9) in order to save some. That not all of the world will be saved is made perfectly clear by the next verses (w. 18-21); but God’s purpose in the mission of Jesus was to bring salvation to it. That is why Jesus is later called ‘the Saviour of the world’ (4:42; cf. 1 Jn. 4:14).”

John Hobbins on the Ideal Translation

The ideal translation of the Bible in my book is not one that simplifies and paraphrases the source text with the unattainable goal of allowing “the modern reader to hear the text in the same way the original readers heard it” (Mark Strauss). An excellent translation of the Bible will be intelligible on its own, stretch the resources of the English language beyond the bounds of “normal, idiomatic English” in the interests of bridging the distance separating one cultural context from another, and, in the process, draw attention back to the argument, structure, and language of the source text.

Source.

Think upon this, share in the comments.

Bible Review: 24/7 A One Year Chronological Bible

Thanks to Laura Bartlett for sending along Tyndale’s newest edition of the NLT Bible: 24/7 A One Year Chronological Bible. Tyndale, 2008.  

First off, this edition is in a unique format.  It is more or less in a square shape with the dimensions 6.5 x 5 x 1.8 inches.  So, it’s trendy, and probably, it will appeal to a younger crowed.  

Secondly, there are historic Christian symbols throughout that are connected to the Christian Faith – these are new woodblock prints specially commissioned for this edition of the NLT.   This adds to the visual appeal of the Scriptures in a similar manner that I imagine Icons do for those of the EOC and related communions.

Thirdly, in a manner similar to the typical One Year Bible format, in the margins are what they call “verse callouts” that are more or less “Scriptures of the day” highlighted in bold.  Often these are the typically “important” verses or are ones that most recognize as being significant in one way or another.   The intent is for folks to think upon the slected verses in times of meditation and throughout the day.

Finally, the most significant feature is the Scriptures in chronological order, as is understood by the editors.  

My thoughts:

When asked if I wanted to review a chronological Bible for Tyndale, to be honest at first I hesitated.  If I’ve been listening properly on the biblical studies e-list the whole concept of a chronological Bible can be a bit noxious, especially with the Old Testament.  So much of what was written when is hotly debated and often not always conclusively verifiable.  In fact, one lister argued that “only Evangelicals” would put an early date on Daniel, etc.  This is less so with the NT but still there is debate as to which Gospel was first and which was Paul’s first letter and so on.  

Let me share an example.  Jan 2, one reads Genesis 4:1-5:32; 1 Chronicles 1:1-4; Genesis 6:1-22.  The last part of the first Genesis reading has the genealogy from Adam to Noah – then the Chronicles reading has another brief listing of Adam and Noah’s descendants.  Then you carry on with the Flood account.   This might be interesting but the problem I have is, there is a reason Chronicles falls where it does in the Hebrew Bible – some may not know this but in the Hebrew Scriptures, Chronicles comes last – its more theological than historical but is believed to be written for a post-exilic Israel to help them get back on track with the Lord – there is lots of idilic language (note: it does not account David’s adultery with Bathsheba, even Menassah is shed in a positive light as an example of the benefits of repentance) but I am not sure the genealogy of Adam and Noah from the Chronicles belongs with the Genesis account of the same in a chronological Bible – the purpose of the genealogy in the Chronicles is to remind the people of Israel who they were and are and are to be.   So, I guess that is one problem I have with how the editors of this edition of the NLT structured the chronology.   Does reading Job fit well between Genesis and Exodus?

Another example would be that the “historical” books of Samuel – accounts of David are blended with Psalms attributed to David (The Kings only have a couple of Psalms blended in, a Psalm of Solomon and David). Some of the Psalms are clearly Davidic and obviously written by him such as Ps 51 for example. The problem is the superscriptions (read: titles) are all believed to be post-exilic, meaning many of Psalms are anonymous.  Certainly Hebrew tradition knew certain psalms belonged to certain folks but for the most part the Hebrew “lamed” functions as a preposition meaning “to, for, by or of” so plugging them in certain places in the historical accounts can be a bit subjective.  A Psalm can be to David, for David, of David, or by David.  For a Psalm to be “Davidic” it has elements of similarity to Psalms known to be written by King David.  Otherwise, because the superscriptions are late, there is no real way to know who wrote what Psalm when.   But to be fair, looking at the reading schedule, it seems the editors took care to be sure that Psalm 34 belonged appropriately with the reading of 1 Samuel 20:1-21:15 (April 15).   

The Gospels are read more or less like a harmony.  They do the same with the historical books in the OT with I&II Samuel, I&II Kings, and I&II Chronicles but I would probably have done that only with Samuel and Kings since they both have a pre-exilic message (this is why Israel went into exile), Chronicles should be separate, as I see it, since it is clearly post-exilic.  Some of the Prophets are also blended into the Samuel and Kings narratives.  

In regard to Paul, being a South Galatians guy, I was pleased to see the editors put Galatians first in the reading of Paul’s letters.  I do believe he visited Galatia before he went to Thessalonika.  Typically in any NT Survey book the Thessalonian correspondence is believed to be Paul’s first letters.  Paul’s letters are blended into the Acts narrative, so the Thessalonians come after the account of Paul being at Thessalonika and so on.    

With the Johannine writings I expected that since the Fourth Gospel is typically dated late (80’s-90’s) that it would come at the end the readings, well after Paul’s letters, and not blended in with the Synoptics, but in fact, all four Gospels are blended and all come before Paul’s letters. which is interesting since chronologically, a significant majority of Paul’s letter were written well before Mark even got started.  In fact, if you’ve read Strobel’s, The Case for Christ, you know that Paul is the best witness to the validity of the Gospels since he was prior to them.  

So I suppose the 24/7 Chronological Bible is really only chronological to a point – if the Editors were technical about it, they would have had Paul’s letters first, then the Synoptics (Luke-Acts together) then the rest of the NT, and then the Johannine corpus would close it out, if I understand NT Chronology in a basic sense.  Blending Paul into the Acts narrative does seem to help put his letters in “context.”  But strictly speaking, Paul was before even Acts was written.  

So, you can see the potential problems of putting together a Chronological Bible  and why it would be hard to read in some sense and how in some sense it could be potentially misleading.  

All that aside, I think it probably will be fun to read through the Bible in an imaginative way as to how God’s redemptive story plays out in history!   And of course reading all that in the NLT!  

Thanks again to the folks at Tyndale for the opportunity to review the 24/7 Chronological edition of the NLT!