Finally, we have returned to mediocrity. Enough bottom-dwelling for us.

Week Four: vs. Quakers

Recap: We finally came out strong. Jeremy, one of our best outside shooters, drilled a three on our first possession, and while it wasn’t all that smooth, that certainly set the tone. We were never behind for more by three or four and managed to remain in control throughout the entire second half. Behind strong defense, improved rebounding and a more cohesive offense, Rational Animals ran away to win 43-30.

Matt’s line: Four points again–I missed two or three good looks, but did a better job taking the ball to the hole. However, as I ran out of energy I became less involved in the offense. With five or six rebounds, three or four assists, and four steals (of which I am proudest), it felt like a solid step toward providing the all-around game I think I can. Hopefully the scoring will improve next week. But I said that last time.

For sale:  star in a children’s book and send Hilary Clunkton to jail.  WorldAhead Publishing, a local conservative political publisher, is selling the opportunity to be featured in one of their hit “Help! Mom!” books.  It’s a fascinating opportunity; the possibilities are endless   “Have lunch with Michael Jordan!”  “Watch Barry Bonds take steroids” (okay, that’s a low blow). “Be in a movie with Nicole Kidman!”

In all seriousness, this is an intriguing marketing and money-making strategy and I sincerely hope people take notice.  It would be interesting to see movie makers put plot decisions up for the most amount of money so that fans could vote with their dollars.  If the show had a strong enough cult-following, like Firefly, my hunch is that people would pay to have their voice heard.  In  business, cultishness generally equals an evangelistic zeal and more money, so engendering a sense of slavish devotion is crucial.  In a savvy move, WorldAhead Publishing may have taken a step toward doing that.

Fred Sanders’ post on Middlebrow outing nine art errors in that atrocious, yet very popular and profitable novel, The Da Vinci Code is a gem. I had plenty of reason to disbelieve Dan Brown’s far-fetched historical claims, but I didn’t have much ammo about the art stuff. I thought there was something fishy about it! I really must remedy my ignorance about art.
Funny and informative is the post – which is also a decent way to describe Dr. Sanders. Check it out.

Jacques Chirac’s crusade against English has led him to storm out (with aides right behind!) of a European Union meeting.

When M Seillière, who is an English-educated steel baron, started a presentation to all 25 EU leaders, President Chirac interrupted to ask why he was speaking in English. M Seillière explained: “I’m going to speak in English because that is the language of business.”

Without saying another word, President Chirac, who lived in the US as a student and speaks fluent English, walked out, followed by his Foreign, Finance and Europe ministers, leaving the 24 other European leaders stunned. They returned only after M Seilière had finished speaking.

The hilarious part is the attempt by French diplomats to explain the childishness away:

Embarrassed French diplomats tried to explain away the walk-out, saying that their ministers all needed a toilet break at the same time.

A potty break? That was the best they could come up with? Hilarious. (HT: the Instapundit)

Over at the fantastic blog Mere Comments, Dante translator Anthony Esolen wrote a piece urging the church to “raise the stakes” in the debate on homosexuality in the church by “blistering and frank condemnations of fornication — based on a keen insight into what that sin can do to a human soul.” This would solve the problem by climbing back up the slippery slope the church has fallen into on sexual morality. It would also remove the oft-used argument in Christian-leaning homosexuals who say undue condemnationis brought on them by a finger-pointing church. The proverbial finger would still be pointed, but now broadened to take in all sexual sins.

Great idea, right? Well, I think so too, but there is one problem…

(more…)

In Boethius’s Consolation of Philosophy, Lady Philosophy informs the desperate Boethius that there are two kinds of goods: false goods and true goods. False goods are anything that can be lost. If one seeks is happiness in something fleeting, he is bound to be unhappy because a) he will eventually lose it, and/or b) he will live in anxiety about the prospect of losing it. The wise man, therefore, should seek his happiness in the Good that is eternal, unchanging, and supreme. Boethius’s unhappiness stems from his adherence to false goods, and he need only turn toward the sumum bonum to find the stability and peace he seeks.

This is sound advice. As many will be quick to point out, Jesus, St. Paul, St. Augustine, Thomas a Kempis and others would say similar things.
Why should I nitpick?

(more…)

I have met many theologians who are skeptical of or even hostile to what is commonly called natural theology–in short, the discipline that seeks what knowledge of God might be known apart from special revelation.

An objection to natural theology would run something like this: since the God of the gospel is a Trinity of Persons, and since no natural theologian claims this as a deliverance of his arguments, the god revealed through natural theology is not the God of the gospel and hence not God at all.

This criticism is completely off base. It argues from from principles that the natural theologian, ex hypothesi, does not accept. Natural theology proceeds by reason alone, aided by the best that the sciences and metaphysics have to offer.Special revelation has no jurisdiction over natural theology, and where scripture does refer to it, natural theology is quite obviously affirmed (Romans 1:19-21), contra Barth.

As Aquinas pointed out, there can be several ways of approaching the same conclusion. Arguing that God is good is easy when your interlocutors are Jews or Muslims or Christians: refer them to the scripture you share. Arguing the same to atheists is more difficult: you must use the only authority you share, reason. If best reason points to a being who is the creator and sustainer of the universe, then fooey to the Barthians.

My computer is no more. Blogging is light because, well, I have no computer. No computer=no internet=no blogging. As my students would say, “It’s a matter of logic.”

Nicholas Pileggi, on converting a book to a movie:

“The book is the book. You gotta remember. The book is the book. I think a lot of writers miss out on this. You write the book. I am the director of the book. I mean I should have a shot person, a beraue, a writing crop. I am the monstroheim of my book, that’s my book. I put the music in if I want music, I cast the book, that I describe the characters. The movie has nothing to do with the book, except [the book] is the basis.

But the vision of it and the mood of it and the color, the real casting for the movie, all of that is the real work of the director. What the author has to do, since you already own the book, that’s yours, its on a shelf, no one can touch that – you have to, if you’re smart, I think, help in every way you can, to allow that director to fulfill his vision of your your book can be turned into a different art form. It’s a different artform.

You can’t say, “Wait a minute, that wasn’t in my book, I want it in the movie.” Get out of there! You can do all you want in the book… leave the movie alone, let the director do it. Now it’s easy for me to say ’cause I’m working with Martin Scorsese. A lot of directors maybe aren’t up to it, and a lot of writers kind of, ready to throw themselves off bridges because of that. I had the opposite experience, it was really a fascinating experience to watch.”

-Nicholas Pileggi, Author of best-selling novel “Wise Guys” and co-writer of the Academy Award Winning Motion Picture “Goodfellas”

As always in war, this success is mixed: the battleground has shifted from targets in the West to the soil of Iraq. Of course we would rather the war went away all together and that radical Islam would perish, but as it is the war is currently not waged by terrorists in America. Terrorists vs. civilians is not a matchup that we like. Now, however, the battle is fought between our professional soldiers – who happen to be the most elite combatants in the history of the world – and the insurgents in Iraq, the odds of which are much more in our favor.

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that the insurgents will re-focus their efforts on America until they once again have influence in Iraq or until they are convinced victory is not possible. The war promises to last a long time because neither of these ends are in sight. Unless Iraq is overthrown by radical Islamists we will either be dealing with the terrorist problem in the Middle East itself (i.e. not in America) or we will have helped Iraq to become a stable, democratic-looking nation. These two options are by far more favorable than letting Iraq become instable. Which, of course, is why suggestions of pulling out based on any timetable are foolish. As soon as Iraq has the infrastructure to combat insurgents and terrorists themselves, then we have won and can leave.

By the way, the reason to believe insurgents won’t let up on Iraq any time soon is simple: Iraq’s strategic location and rich land/oil deposits. It would be a huge victory for Islamic terrorism if they had such a gold mine in their possession – or at least under their influence. They apparently enjoyed these privaledges under Saddam and want them back. Yesterday, on the Hugh Hewitt show, he interviewed Stephen Hayes who did a story on documents of communication between the Iraqi ambassador to the Phillippines and Saddam’s regime that clearly demonstrate some sort of link between the Iraqi government and terrorism. See the interview here. It’s very important stuff that has received little coverage in the media.) This is why they, like the eye of Sauron, have turned all their attention to Iraq and haven’t seemed to do much else. The proof is in the pudding: no attacks on American soil post 9/11. The London attacks appear to have been caused by insurgents within the UK.

This success, of keeping the war in Iraq, away from America, requires continued efforts on our parts. I hope the American people know what they are doing when only 40% of them support the war. It’s not fun and it’s not good, but in our broken world it is what’s best.

A few weeks ago some friends engaged me in a discussion regarding an article by Joel Belz of World Magazine. The article offered the reader the opportunity to imagine himself as the president of a Christian college who had been approached by a group of Muslims requesting permission to come on campus in order to have a cultural and religious exchange with students and faculty. It would be an opportunity for people from very different backgrounds and communities to interact with and learn from one another. He went on to change the scenario slightly. Instead of a group of Muslims, imagine it was a group of self-proclaimed evangelical Christian homosexuals. This situation is no longer an imaginative exercise of armchair philosophizing for Dr. Clyde Cook and the faculty of Biola University. (more…)

In response to my earlier post and some astute questions by Mere-O’s own, Mr. Buhler, a writer named Soarin’Blonde took up the cause of the Vienna Circle and Logical Positivism. I respond to excerpts below:

First of all, Mr. Selby and Mr. Buhler, death, and the non-propagation of one’s theories, is no means of evaluation for the truth-status of those theories! While intellectual fecundity is a positive sign, it is by no means a sure sign of validity or truth.

To begin, this was very well put, which was typical in this well-written post. I agree with the writer that to label a belief false because very few people hold to it anymore is certainly not logically valid. I didn’t mean to make such a claim in my description of the history of the Vienna Circle. Rather, I intended to show that the death of the Vienna Circle was caused by the major problem of incoherence in the foundational premise of this school of thought. (more…)

In my last post, pointed out that Jesus’s authority as witness of the Father is unique in that He and the Father are one.  In this case, the thing being witnessed about (the Father) and the one who witnesses (Jesus) are ‘in’ each other.  When Phillip asks Jesus to show them the Father, Jesus replies,

“Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip?  Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.  How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?  Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me?  The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.  Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves” (14:9-11).

But what bearing does this have on our interpretation of the Gospel of John?  The marks of Jesus’s union with the Father are twofold:  his ‘works’ (which I take to include the ’signs’) and the words that he says.  Jesus is the Word (John 1:1) who from the beginning ‘was with God’ and ‘was God.’  His mission is to make manifest the very charachter and essence of God the Father, a mission that can be fulfilled because of his union with the Father.

John writes his gospel ’so that you may believe.’  But what are the grounds for belief that John offers?  Clearly John offers eye-witness testimony to the events that transpired–he was, after all, “the beloved disciple.”  But his retelling is clearly very different from the Synoptic Gospels–the language Jesus uses sounds more like 1 John than Matthew or Mark (except for occasional instances, of course).  While it’s easy to overstate the differences between the Gospel, some differences do exist.

The Gospel ends with a remark about the author:  “This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.”  John is not merely witnessing to the life and words of Jesus Christ as a bystander witnesses a crime–rather, he is witnessing to the authority of Jesus because he has been brought into the unity of the Father-Son relationship through the Spirit (i.e. post-resurrection).  As Jesus says in John 14, “In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you inn me, and I in you.”  Jesus prays in John 17, “I do not ask for [the disciples] only, but for all who believe in me through their word, that they may all e one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me.”  The authority of a Christian’s witness rests upon their union with the Father and Son through the Spirit.

John’s abiding in Christ is related to his extensive familiarity with the words of Jesus.  As Jesus says in 15:7, “If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.”   Jesus’ words bear the substance of His deity–hence, in John six, “the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.”  Through his fellowship in the Triune Divinity, John’s own words and testimony become authoritative–they themselves bear the substance of the Divinity.

This is not to suggest that John’s Gospel is not historical.  With Jesus, we are asked to believe on account of the works themselves as well if we cannot on the basis of his words.  When John recounts the Resurrection of Jesus, he does so with an eye for the historical details, so as to demonstrate the historical veridity of the works of Jesus as well.

This idea that John’s authority as witness comes from his union with Christ and his subsequent ability to proclaim the words of Christ is not without historical precedent.  In his first commentary on John, John Chrysostom writes,

For the son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom with much confidence,¹ this man comes forward to us now; not as an actor of a play, not hiding his head with a mask, (for he hath another sort of words to speak,) nor mounting a platform,² nor striking the stage with his foot, nor dressed out with apparel of gold, but he enters wearing a robe of inconceivable beauty. For he will appear before us having “put on Christ” (Rom. xiii. 14; Gal. iii. 27), having his beautiful “feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace” (Eph. vi. 15); wearing a girdle not about his waist, but about his loins, not made of scarlet leather nor daubed outside³ with gold, but woven and composed of truth itself. Now will he appear before us, not acting a part, (for with him there is nothing counterfeit, nor fiction, nor fable,) but with unmasked head he proclaims to us the truth unmasked; not making the audience believe him other than he is by carriage, by look, by voice, needing for the delivery of his message no instruments of music, as harp, lyre, or any other the like, for he effects all with his tongue, uttering a voice which is sweeter and more profitable than that of any harper or any music. All heaven is his stage his theater, the habitable world; his audience, all angels; and of men as many as are angels already, or desire to become so, for none but these can hear that harmony aright, and show it forth by their works; all the rest, like little children who hear, but what they hear understand not, from their anxiety about sweetmeats and childish playthings; so they too, being in mirth and luxury, and living only for wealth and power and sensuality, hear sometimes what is said, it is true, but show forth nothing great or noble in their actions through fastening⁴ themselves for good to the clay of the brickmaking. By this Apostle stand the powers from above, marveling at the beauty of his soul, and his understanding, and the bloom of that virtue by which he drew unto him Christ Himself, and obtained the grace of the Spirit. For he hath made ready his soul, as some well-fashioned and jeweled lyre with strings of gold, and yielded it for the utterance of something great and sublime to the Spirit. 

Seeing then it is no longer the fisherman the son of Zebedee, but He who knoweth “the deep things of God” (1 Cor. ii. 10), the Holy Spirit I mean, that striketh this lyre, let us hearken accordingly. For he will say nothing to us as a man, but what he saith, he will say from the depths of the Spirit, from those secret things which before they came to pass the very Angels knew not; since they too have learned by the voice of John with us, and by us, the things which we know.

There are various interpretations of the doctrine of inspiration–Chrysostom’s suggests that the relationship between John’s words and the Word of God is as a lute to the music played on it.  John sounds different from the other Gospels because John is a different person than the other Gospels and he has spent years preparing the lute to be played.

Through the Spirit the words of the Gospel can reveal to us the very essence of God in Jesus Christ because of John’s ability to ’speak what he hears.’  This notion is obviously contentious and still under-developed, but defensible.  It also has profound implications for us as readers of the Gospel, implications that I will explore in my next post.

The Key to the Gospel of John
The Key to the Gospel of John:  Part Two
The Key to the Gospel of John:  Part Three
The Key to the Gospel of John:  Part Four