blog of danny

update

2009-01-08T11:50:00.003-05:00

I'm not sure if anyone still checks this, though I do find people clicking on the link to Boston Bible Geeks on an almost daily basis, so at least a few people are still coming to this blog. Anyway, the main reason why I am posting is that Lisa and I now have a family blog, Life with the Pierces, up and running. It's our duty, as soon-to-be parents. Obviously we haven't posted much, because there isn't a ton to say at the moment. But we'll be updating it more regularly as we get closer to the launch date.

I've had a few people ask me about my plans for the blog of danny. I'm not entirely sure. Eventually I may get back to posting thoughts not related to the Bible (which is what BBG is for) and family (LwtP). And since I don't blog about politics, that pretty much leaves sports and a couple other random things. So, perhaps I'll get around to posting on those things, but don't bank on it happening regularly.

important announcement for blog of danny reader(s)

2008-09-03T10:08:00.000-04:00

Hey everyone, you may have noticed that I disappeared for a bit. Or maybe you didn't. Either way, it's largely due to a new project that I'm working on with Brian that is being launched today. That project is called "Boston Bible Geeks." It's a team website/blog that we hope will prove useful to those wanting to learn more about the Bible, theology, missions, etc.

Essentially, it comes down to this. I want to be able to use the internet, specifically a blog/website format, to aid in learning the Bible, and to supplement my teaching at church. That wasn't really being accomplished here, and truth be told, this may not be the best place. So, we switched to wordpress, since there you can have a "pages" feature, which makes it more website like, and still costs us nothing.

Also, neither Brian nor I manage to keep our blogs updated with any kind of consistency, as you've probably noticed. Honestly, it takes both of us to keep up with one normal blogger. We're busy and sometimes it's hard to justify spending so much time on a blog that no one reads. So, we decided to join forces.

As for the blog of danny, I'll keep it up and running for now. I may still post stuff about sports, although Bruce is the only one who reads that stuff and even then he never comments. So check back here, and give me some feedback. I may still be able to salvage this thing.

But for now, we'd really appreciate it if you go and check out Boston Bible Geeks, or "BBG" as we like to call it. My desire is that BBG will be a better place for interaction with those who read our blogs. Thanks so much for reading, hope to see you over at BBG.

5.5 random things: good reading edition

2008-08-16T09:55:00.000-04:00

5.5. This post is dedicated to those who were praying for my wife and me as I was sick and had to miss out of one of our summer mission trips. Thank you so much.

5. As someone who is part of the "charismatic" movement (understanding that the term is defined with difficulty), I found this article from Charisma magazine on the Lakeland "Revival" to be instructive, one that everyone ought to read and think about. I have much I could say, but I'm not sure I will. If you want some follow up, let me know.

4. One of my weekly delights is checking out the "Songs, Hymns and Spiritual Songs" posts from Sojourn Community Church in Louisville, KY. These are posted every Monday, and consist of a rundown of the Sunday setlist at the church, with some thoughts given on each song. Here is the setlist from August 10. I highly recommend this blog.

3. In the "I Can't Wait Until This Book Comes Out" category, you'll find Greg Beale's upcoming release, We Become What We Worship. It's a study of the Bible's teachings on idolatry. Looks terrific. In fact, here's the cover, see for yourself.

2. There's been some debate on a couple blogs recently about the TNIV, but I won't link to them largely because they end up in arguments over quasi-related items in the comments section. Instead, I'll link to an article written by Craig Blomberg about the TNIV, one of the best things to read on this subject. I can no longer find the pdf of this article, but if someone has it, I'd love to get it. It's long, but worth the read.

1. Congrats to my good friends, Bruce and Morgan, as they announce that they will be having their second child. These two are dear friends, and their son Elijah is one of my favorite children in the world. I miss them dearly.

Book Review: How Africa Shaped the Christian Mind

2008-08-13T09:14:00.000-04:00

Thanks to Adrianna of IVP for a review copy of this book.

It is still a prevalent but hopefully decreasingly common (thanks to the efforts of scholars such as Phillip Jenkins) view that Christianity is a “Western” (American or European) religion. Whereas Jenkins spends most of The Next Christendom showing that Christianity is growing most in Latin America, Africa and Asia, Thomas Oden’s new book, How Africa Shaped the Christian Mind, helps show the long history of Christianity within Africa, arriving long before both Islam and the camel. But Oden’s goal isn’t simply to show that Christianity has existed, or even thrived, for centuries in some places within Africa. Such a thesis isn’t remarkable for those who have even a superficial knowledge of church history.

Instead, Oden sets out to show that “Africa played a decisive role in the formation of Christian culture” (p9). Historians have been getting it wrong for some time by claiming that the greatest achievements in the early church were from Europe, especially Rome. Oden argues: “Well-meaning European and American historians have a tilted perception of the relation of African and European intellectual history in the third and fourth centuries, and thus at the apex of African influence” (p31).

“This is what the book is about: to state the African seedbed hypothesis in a measured way and begin to sort out the facts that support it” (p31). In doing so, Oden hopes to swing the pendulum back to appreciating Africa’s vital role in shaping Christianity as we know it.

In “Part One: The African Seedbed of Western Christianity” (chapters 1-5) Oden lays out the foundation of the rest of the book. Topics covered include the need to recover ancient texts and excavate ancient Christian sites in Africa (chapter one) and “Seven Ways Africa Shaped the Christian Mind” (chapter 2). He also argues for his definition of “African”, rejecting the idea that skin color should be the determining factor, but rather “if a text was written in Africa it will be treated as African” (p69). The same goes for the theologians/monastics/bishops he surveys. If they were from Africa (whether North African or Sub-Saharan), he counts them as African.

Oden wants his reader to understand that he is not trying to overstate his case, or to discount non-African contributions to the formation of Christianity. His desire is “ecumenical” (which he’ll admit is a bad word in some circles). His desire is to include Africa and Africans into the conversation, allowing their voice to be heard, not create an insular spirit among African believers. “If Africans were saying that they want their sources to come from Africa alone and not from anywhere else, then that would be deficient in the catholic spirit. But this is not the direction of African expectations. They seek a fair hearing for valid arguments based on evidence” (p93).

I’ll admit that this section of the book became a bit repetitive at points. Barely a page goes by without the reader being reminded that Christianity has long existed in Africa, that Africans were dealing with theological and pastoral issues before Europeans made them famous and so on. All valid points, to be sure, and indeed this is the very thesis of the book; but the repetition could have been avoided and trimmed this section a bit more.

In “Part Two: African Orthodox Recovery”, Oden points out why the retrieval of early African Christianity is important. “It is precisely from the ancient African sources that global Christianity can relearn that the church guided by the Spirit is never irretrievably fallen away from the truth” (p103). Rediscovering early African Christianity can also be instructive for the various forms of emerging African Christians. “They now have the benefit of learning about conflict resolution from their ancient African mentors. From that history they learn that not every difference of opinion is demonic and not every union is of God” (p107). As African Christianity grows, “The brilliant instruction and guidance of early African Christian texts and witnesses stand ready to nourish this regrounding” (p109).

For example, Oden notes that many of the early martyrs in the church were Africans, such as Perpetua and Felicitas in Carthage (modern day Tunisia). These African martyrs helped propel the church throughout the world. Also, the early African martyrs can prove inspirational to modern African Christian suffering persecution. “The meaning of the struggle of the early African martyrs begs to be understood in modern Africa” (p120).

Oden ends this section of the book with a biographical note of his growing interest in African Christianity, as well as an impassioned plea for others, particularly Africans, to pick up his vision of voicing the strength of early African Christianity. He confesses he’d love to do more, but admits his life “may be shortened by congestive heart disease” (p141, though we pray this is not true). He actually has helped set up a consortium called the Center for Early African Christianity (website: earlyafricanchristianity.com), to help facilitate this study.

Herein lies the true goal of the book, to spur on the next generation of African scholars to take up the challenge of studying early African Christianity. Oden makes many assertions throughout this book, but admittedly offers only a small amount of evidence to support his claims. What he does offer is provocative and enough to admit that he is probably correct. But much more needs to be done. For instance, it is one thing to show that African church leaders dealt with a certain issue a century before the Europeans did, it's another thing to show the European church leaders relied on the Africans in forming their decisions. This book is a challenge, a shot across the bow of young historians. If Oden is correct, that Africa did in fact play a more decisive role in the formation of Christianity than just about everyone realizes, then the Church will profit from the investigation he calls for.

This is a tremendous book and is worthy of being read by anyone who enjoys church history, or even African history. Thomas Oden has served the Church over the last few decades by editing the Ancient Christian Commentary Series (through IVP) and reminding us of the necessity of remembering our roots in the early church. This book continues his service to us all, may his vision be realized soon.

An Old Testament Theology: Book Review, Part I

2008-07-24T10:28:00.001-04:00

Thanks to Chris at Zondervan for the review copy of this book.

Bruce Waltke’s book, An Old Testament Theology, is a massive undertaking, not just for the author, but also for the reader. Reading it is a commitment of time and energy, physical (at least when you’re sick like I am right now), mental and spiritual. But it’s a rewarding experience, as you feel like you understand the Old Testament, and God as revealed in the Old Testament, even better.

Because of its size and quality, I’ve opted to review and interact with this book over a longer period of time than the normal book review. I’ll actually skip most of what he has to say about methodology, not because it’s unimportant or boring (it is neither of those things), but quite frankly, something has to get cut.

Waltke has divided his book into “blocks” of OT literature: “Primary History”, dealing with the Pentateuch and Historical Narratives, and “Other Writings”, with the Prophets, Psalms and Wisdom Literature falling into this category. Oddly enough, he opts to leave Song of Songs out of his analysis in this book. This strikes me as a bit arbitrary, though I realize that it is not a theologically heavy book. But granting that, doesn’t it say something about who God is, even if indirectly?

For Waltke, the theological center of the OT is the “irruption (breaking-in) of the Kingship of God.” The continuing story of how God (Waltke uniquely refers to God as “I AM” throughout the book) brings His kingdom to earth is the story that drives the Old Testament, and continues right on into the New Testament (“All the previous irruptions of the kingdom of God were but a shadow of its appearing in Jesus Christ”, p145). “To put it another way, the Bible is about God bringing glory upon himself by restoring Paradise after humanity lost it through a loss of faith in God that led to rebellion against his rule” (p144).

I found it refreshing, though, that he doesn’t try to cram all theological statements from each book into this category. “To systematize, however, all the biblical materials to the procrustean bed of this message, would falsify their intention. The proposed center accommodates the whole, but the whole is not systematically structured according to it. A cross-section approach to develop that message through various stages in Israel’s history would not do justice to the rich biblical material” (p144). The idea is that the kingdom of God is the central theme of the OT, but the goal is to show the message of each book, even the parts that don’t fit under this theme perfectly.

Chapter 6, entitled “The Bible’s Center: An Overview”, is worth slowly reading and digesting. Honestly, it’d be great for anyone looking for a relatively short overview of the Old Testament teachings on the kingdom of God (it comprises pages 143-169 of the book). One of the strengths of this chapter is showing how narratives are linked by related concepts. For instance, in the history of Israel, we see how God creates a people, giving them the law, providing them with the land and a king to rule over them. However, Israel rebels, which causes God to punish their sin by forcing them into exile, yet leaves them with the hope of restoration.

We see the same pattern in the Garden of Eden. “God also creates a people (Adam and Eve), gives them a garden as the land to sustain and refresh them, hands down the law not to eat the forbidden fruit, and makes them kings to keep his garden. But they rebel against God and disobey him, and as a result, they are banished from the garden, exiled from their home. Yet in the punishment comes a promise and a hope; a ‘seed of the woman’ will triumph over the Serpent on humanity’s behalf” (p150, all italics are original).

Thus, in the Garden story and in Israel’s history, we see the need for the irruption of God’s kingdom (man’s sin has marred creation, Israel’s sin has left them in exile) and receive a glimpse of how the irruption of God’s kingdom will happen (through the “Seed”, through the King or “son of David”).

So, I’ll be posting thoughts as I go through the book and show how Waltke develops this theme of the irruption of God’s kingdom throughout his book. My intention is that the nature of the posts will vary. Sometimes I’ll simply report what he says that I find particularly helpful or interesting. Other times, I may interact with what he says, perhaps even daring to disagree on occasion. I hope you’ll find learning from Waltke vicariously through me to be a rewarding experience, and may you even be encouraged to purchase the book for yourself.

Bruce Waltke & OT Theology

2008-07-23T12:02:00.001-04:00

I have always had an interest in Bruce Waltke, the famed OT scholar. I was first introduced to him (not literally) in undergrad by one of my OT professors who studied under Waltke at Dallas Seminary back in the 1970's. There were three things that stuck out to me then, that have been reinforced since, which separate Waltke from so many other Bible scholars.

Waltke is wicked smart.

First, we read an article written back in the 1960's about the "colophones" of the Psalms (the little notations "Written for the director of music. Of David", etc). He argued that our current understanding of how these colophones were used is incorrect. Have you ever noticed that in Habakkuk 3 the "For the director of music" notation comes at the end of the psalm rather than at the beginning (as in our book of Psalms)? Well, Waltke argues that Psalms should be understand that way as well (and pulls in outside sources like Egyptian poetry to buttress his position). This was one of my earliest introductions to evangelical scholarship, thus it has stuck in my mind ever since.

He also coauthored An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, a monster book we used in Intermediate Hebrew. It weighs in at almost 800 pages, and is bigger (dimensionally) than your standard book. It was also surprisingly easy to use for such a difficult subject.

Waltke also holds two doctorates, one in the OT (Dallas Seminary) and one in the NT (Harvard).

These three things stood out in my mind as showing that this man is incredibly intelligent (which is a nice non-Bostonian way of saying "wicked smart").

Waltke is a student of Scripture.

Waltke once taught at Dallas Theological Seminary, which is (arguably) the bastion of dispensational academics in America (probably the world). However, at some point (and I'm not entirely sure when) he underwent a change of theology, leaving behind dispensationalism. Depending on what side you stand on this issue (and I'm on the non-dispensational side), you may or may not like this. But what it said (and still says) to me is that he is a scholar who doesn't mind reexamining his position. Considering how many of us (scholars or laypeople) cement our feet in place and refuse to rethink our current theology, I find this aspect of Waltke's scholarship refreshing.

Since then, I ran across a quote (which I can no longer find) from the early 1990's where Watlke said something to the effect of "I don't think I really understood the OT until I began to read it narratively." It amazed me that someone who was a widely respected scholar (and not just by evangelicals), who had helped teach the Bible to thousands of students from the 50's on, could think he hadn't really understood the Bible.

All this to say, Waltke is a scholar who is constantly learning. It seems that his role as a student of Scripture has never ceased, no matter what "heights" in the scholarly world he has reached. Again, this attitude is a trait all-too-uncommon in the Church today (no, not just in the academy).

Waltke loves the Lord.

My professor once told us that when Waltke was teaching at Dallas, the beginning of the class period would be packed with people not enrolled in the class who would come just to hear Waltke pray. Now, I know of very few people I would go out of my way to hear pray. This says a lot about who Waltke is and the respect he commands, not just as a scholar, but as someone who loves the Lord.

These 3 things conspire together and cause me to admire not just the scholarship, but the humility and service of Bruce Waltke. And so, it's with excitement that I have been reading his new book, An Old Testament Theology. I'll be posting thoughts over the next couple months as a multi-part review/interaction. I do this in part because I get more out of the book because of it, but also because I know that some of my readers may never pick up a 1000 page book on OT Theology. Waltke wrote this book for the Church, so I'd like for everyone to glean from it's teachings. As Waltke says on page 19, "After all, this people has more at stake in understanding the Bible's message than anybody else- they are the ones committed to live out fully the implications of that message to the point of dying for its truth."

why am I here?

2008-07-23T09:50:00.000-04:00

You might be thinking after reading the title of this post that I'll be discussing the deeper thoughts on life that we are all prone to have on occasion. Alas, such is not the case. Some of you may have remembered that I said I wouldn't be around much this summer because I had 2 mission trips and a vacation planned.

Well, we got back from Peru last week. Then I got sick. 104 degree temperature. Fainted. Went to the hospital. Stayed at the hospital. Pneumonia. Stupid doctor said I can't go on my second mission trip, the one my wife and I were supposed to lead.

So, my team is on the other side of the world, without me. I'm home, resting, reading and preparing for the coming year at church. It also means that I'll be posting more regularly, so stayed tuned (oooh, the suspense!).

The Resurrection of the Body: Part V of V

2008-07-22T11:12:00.000-04:00

Check out parts 1, 2, 3 and 4.

This final post deals with some of the "so what?" questions that come up in my mind as we talk about the resurrection of the body. Many people can't figure out why it matters, so I hope to deal a little bit with that.

Some qualifying thoughts…

1. In this whole discussion of future benefits of Christ’s resurrection, we should not lose sight of the fact that there are present benefits as well. Since Christ has defeated sin, we can be free from sin today. Romans 6 carries out this thought. Paul hints at this in 1 Cor 15:17.

2. None of this is to deny the temporal nature of “the way things are.” We are told time and time again not to cling to the temporary pleasures of today.

What does it matter?

1. Because the Bible says so. This may appear flippant, but it really isn’t. If the Bible says that we will be resurrected, then we ought (at the very least) assume that it is important. This is especially true when we consider that this is the very completion of our salvation!

2. True reversal of what happened in the Garden of Eden. This is clearly seen in Revelation 22. “On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. No longer will there by any curse” (22:2-3). God’s plan is to reverse the curse that was levied against Adam and Eve in the Garden. The imagery of the New Jerusalem in Rev 21-22 intentionally echoes the Garden- and is even better!

3. God is not settling for plan B. By affirming that God’s original proclamation of creation as “good” and His desire to restore creation, we affirm that God is not simply a troubleshooter who had His plan thrown off track by those pesky humans. True, humans have marred creation with their rebellion. But even man’s worst rebellion has not ruined the inherent goodness in creation and its original worth to which God will restore it.

4. Helps reclaim eschatology in the Church. Much of the discussion on eschatology in American Christianity is dominated by talk about dates, tribulation, the Anti-Christ, the rapture, etc, that the hope that permeates the NT can be lost. Throughout the NT, Christ’s 2nd coming is seen as something to be longed for and a motivator for action. While most would agree, they still seem to get stuck on details the NT gives little information about and miss the victory that comes at the end. I find it heartbreaking the discussion of the “end times” tends to lead to confusion, fear or apathy (or some combination of these)- yet none of these were ever the intention of the NT authors!

5. There is comfort in knowing where we are going. It is interesting to note that where we go when we die is not where we will live forever. Where we go when we die is an intermediate state. Granted, it seems to be a wonderful place in the presence of God (Phil 1:23, 2 Cor 5:8). But that should make us long for what is beyond even that. If dying and going to heaven right now is better than this life, then how much better will living in a re-created world be!

In Romans 8, we see that Paul finds comfort during present sufferings in the fact that is “glory that will be revealed in us” (v18). But, note that the glory he is referring to is the redemption of our bodies- not simply dying and going to heaven right away (as true as that is). How different this is from the consolation we often give to others in suffering!

In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, we see that Paul comforts those who have lost loved ones- not by informing them that “they’re in heaven now”, but by reminding them that someday, Jesus is coming back and all His people will be reunited forever. This is, essentially, 1 Corinthians 15 in miniature. Yet, we consistently comfort those who mourn with thoughts about them being in heaven, which is comfort, to be sure. But, we are comforting them with something less than what God has planned!

6. There is value to the created order. In much of Greek philosophy the created order was something to be looked down upon. There was a higher spiritual existence that fair exceeded what we see here on earth. When one dies, their souls are transported to some disembodied existence where they remain forever. However, in the Bible, God values what He has created. This, of course, shouldn’t be surprising since He declared it all “good” when He first created it. Apparently, He values it enough that He was to see it completely redeemed.

This has some practical implications. First, in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20, Paul deals with the Corinthians who thought that the physical body was meaningless, therefore one has the right to do what they want with it (good Greeks that they were). Paul counters by pointing out that God is “for the body” and intends to raise us as He rose Christ from the dead (v14). Since God places such value on the body, so ought we.

Second, by analogy, we can make the same connection to creation as a whole in Romans 8. If God cares enough about the created order to redeem it fully, then we ought to care enough about it to honor it now, just as we should with our own bodies.

7. We share what belongs to Christ. This is, in my opinion, one of the most underrated aspects in modern Christianity. Those who are in Christ are “co-heirs with Christ” (Rom 8:17). Christians have an inheritance with Christ (because of Christ). This is seen here in resurrection. Christ has won victory over death, and shares that victory with His people- that is, they are raised from the dead just as He was.

There are other places with similar ideas. For instance, in Daniel 7 the Son of Man receives an eternal kingdom and is worshipped by the nations. In that same chapter, the saints also receive the kingdom- but are not worshipped. In Ephesians 1, Paul says that Christ was raised from the dead and seated at the right hand of God in the heavenlies. In chapter 2, Paul says Christ’s people are also seated in the heavenlies- but not at the right hand of the Father. The examples of Daniel 7 and Ephesians 1 show us that Christ shares in His victory, although there are certainly limits. In the same way, Christ shares His resurrection with His people.

In Philippians 2:10-11, Paul says that he wants to participate with Christ in His sufferings and “somehow attaining to the resurrection from the dead.” In the next chapter, Paul talks about how Christians “eagerly await” Christ’s return when He “will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body” (3:20-21). This echoes what Paul says in Romans 8:17- “if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.” Christ shares His glorious resurrection with His people. That is what it means to be “in Christ.”

8. Treats death for what it really is- an enemy. There are hints in the church of the popular notion that death is just the beginning of a new journey (see Gandalf in LOTR). While our life as Christians certainly doesn’t end at death, the Bible itself treats death as an enemy that must be defeated. Death is not a part of God’s original plan for creation, it was the consequence of human sin. We know this by nature as well; death doesn’t simply feel like a new beginning. It hurts. It should; it’s a consequence of rebellion against God.

9. The resurrection points to the total view of the kingdom of God. “The kingdom of God” is the primary focus of Jesus’ preaching. Contrary to much of popular Christian opinion, this kingdom is not simply a matter of collected souls for some disembodied existence. Rather, it is His kingdom here on earth. This kingdom is inaugurated in Jesus, and is carried out through the Church. This kingdom involves feeding the hungry, healing the sick, etc. In understanding that God’s people will be resurrected in (imperishable) bodily form, we see that this is the final “installment” of the kingdom.

Part of Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom was His healings; these 2 things cannot be separated. In God’s kingdom, sickness & demon possession are seen for what they are- not a part of God’s original plan. In Jesus, these problems begin to reverse. As Jurgen Moltmann stresses, the kingdom of God- when it has fully arrived- is the restoration of the natural (original) order of things: “Jesus’ healings are not supernatural miracles in a natural world. They are the only truly ‘natural’ thing in a world that is unnatural, demonized, and wounded” (The Way of Jesus: Christology in Messianic Dimensions p99). These miracles point to what is to come- Moltmann says “But in the framework of hope for the coming of God and his kingdom, Jesus’ healings become inextinguishable reminders of this future” (In the End, the Beginning: The Life of Hope p65). Resurrection is ultimate healing- it fully restores what has been destroyed.

10. Avoids an “incomplete redemption.” The common view of “life after death” understands redemption as souls going to heaven. However, God’s plan of redemption is far more complete than that. He has not only given people souls, but bodies. Those bodies are affected by sin just as the soul is. God’s plan is not to discard what has been marred by sin, but to redeem it and set it free.

Book Review: The Majesty of God in the Old Testament

2008-07-19T10:16:00.000-04:00

Thanks to Caitlin at Baker Publishing for the copy of this book to review.

Walter Kaiser’s new book, The Majesty of God in the Old Testament: A Guide for Preaching and Teaching, sets out to help reclaim the subject of the majesty of God in our churches. This book, as the subtitle indicates, is geared towards preachers and teachers, though I imagine it would be useful for small group discussion leaders, as well.

The book is broken down into 10 chapters, each covering a different passage focusing on a different aspect of God’s majesty. Here’s the breakdown:

1. Magnifying the Incomparability of Our God (Isaiah 40:9-31)

2. Magnifying the Greatness of Our God (Daniel 4:1-37)

3. Magnifying the Word of Our God (Numbers 20:1-13)

4. Magnifying the Wonderful Name of Our God (Jeremiah 31:1-44)

5. Magnifying the Pardoning Grace of Our God (Micah 7:11-20)

6. Magnifying the Holy Spirit from Our God (Zechariah 4:1-14)

7. Magnifying the Awesome Character of Our God (Psalm 139:1-18)

8. Magnifying the Glory of Our God (Ezekiel 1:1-28)

9. Magnifying the Grace of Giving from Our God (1 Chronicles 29:6-19)

10. Magnifying the Holiness of Our God (Isaiah 6:1-13)

Now, his actual sermon style and outline is not necessarily something you have to copy, though I suppose you could (but cite your source!). But his outlines, especially, are useful for understanding how a passage is shaped. For those of us who’ve heard Dr Kaiser preach (he was President at Gordon-Conwell when I was there), you can see him throughout the book, from the sense of humor (dealing with Num 20:3-5 he notes that the Israelites “now let their cattle ‘horn in’ on the argument”, p58) to his use of interrogatives and keywords.

What will probably be the most helpful aspect is his ability to bring various aspects of biblical studies into the sermon preparation. To give some examples, he uses archaeology to help us understand just how great Babylon was in the time of Nebuchadnezzar and how that helps us understand Daniel 4:1-37 better. I know I didn't realize how massive and beautiful Babylon must have been, it helped me better understand Nebuchadnezzar's pride. He shows how word studies can be useful, especially in discussing the importance of “name” (ch 4) and “word” (ch 3). His thoughts here can be invaluable and I highly recommend them.

There were a couple weaker points, though part of that is merely a matter of interpretation. But still, he tries to argue that the Holy Spirit indwelt believers in the OT, yet only proves that the Holy Spirit was active amongst God’s people prior to Pentecost, which isn’t really up for debate. He makes much out of Moses saying “must we bring water out of this rock?” (Num 20:10), arguing that Moses was including himself in God’s activity when he should not have been. Kaiser asks, “Who said anything about Moses and Aaron bringing water out of the rock?” (p60)

Um, actually God did, right there in v8: “You will bring water out of the rock....” Moses clearly did something wrong in this passage, but confusing his personal pronouns was not the problem.

But those points shouldn’t detract from an otherwise helpful book. In fact, the first chapter, on Isaiah 40, was terrific; I plan on utilizing it in the future. And I’m in complete agreement with Dr Kaiser that the majesty of God is an underdiscussed topic in our churches today. I’m grateful he has written this book to help us in that deficiency.

On a final note, here’s hoping Dr Kaiser has many more healthy years ahead of him. He has been such a strong encourager and servant of the church for so many years; I pray that the Lord continue to use him in his (semi)retirement.

Book Review: Simple Spirituality

2008-07-16T11:11:00.000-04:00

Thanks to Adrianna of IVP for the copy of this book for review.

Christopher Heuertz is the International Director for World Made Flesh, an organization dedicated to showing the love of Jesus through advocacy and ministering among the poorest people in the world. He is a man who lives out some of the most challenging verses of the Bible- those that call us to help those in need (not just feel bad for them) and sacrifice what we have on behalf of others. While not written for this purpose, I came away respecting Heuertz: he is a man who practices what he preaches. Too few have that honor.

There are 3 things to keep in mind while reading Simple Spirituality:

1. It is largely autobiographical. It is not a true autobiography, but contains stories of Heuertz's journey to "see God" and understand things the way they really are. Hence, the subtitle of the book, "Learning to See God in a Broken World."

2. It is a call to help the poor. Again, that is not the entire point of the book, but this comes across page after page. This book is a very real, very powerful call to take seriously Jesus' words and example.

3. It is a book on spiritual disciplines, 5 in particular: humility, community, simplicity, submission and brokenness. It is not a spiritual disciplines book in the classical sense, like Richard Foster's Celebration of Discipline, but it sees the disciplines in light of Heuertz's own story and the global (poor) community.

Keeping these 3 points in mind is helpful because it allows you to read the book for what it is, rather than hoping for something it is not. Thus, it is not a treatise on helping the poor, though it contains elements of that. It is not an in depth look into the biblical teachings of the disciplines, though that's in there too. And it is not a book about the life of Christopher Heuertz, though he writes time and time again of his own journey. These 3 elements are combined throughout this book, and I, for one, thought it was refreshing.

There were a few terrific points, some of which ought to go without saying, but alas, they need to be said anyway.

1. Heuertz notes that "As I learned to love GOd, my love was not motivated by fear or the threat of hell (not even the promise of paradise), but rather by the character of the One who is by nature lovable" (p36). It's true that much of American Christianity is based on the fear of hell or the hope of heaven, which is fine to an extent. But what about serving God because He is worthy to be served, not because of what He can do for us (or against us)? Isn't He worthy of being followed regardless of reward or punishment?

2. Throughout the book there is a simple (that's a big word for this book) following of Jesus' commands. If Jesus says "feed the poor", then, well, go and feed the poor!

3. "The worth of a person is directly related to the fact that he or she is created in the image of God" (p54). Thus, "our dignity comes from God, allowing our identity to be found in God" (p55).

4. "Many of us think that our personal geographical context justifies our disengagement from the hurt and pain of the rest of the world. ...fellow believers in the Sudan or Sri Lanka or Peru are as much an intrinsic part of the body of Christ as are the Methodists, Presbyterians, or Catholics down the street" (p81).

5. His chapter on simplicity was great; for instance, "essentially, simplicity is letting God truly be God, surrending to that in all areas of life as an act of submission to God and humanity" (p84).

6. On brokenness, he states, "We are broken when we recognize our utmost need for God and leave everything behind to have our needs met in God" (p129, italics original).

7. Finally, I'll quote one full paragraph from the chapter on community (p72). Next to it I wrote the word "OUCH."

While Christianity is fractured, the Muslims, who are famous for their brotherhood, take the appealing edge. Poor people know their need for community. They affirm their need for one another. They find strength in numbers. How can the church expect those on the margins to join it if the church can't offer them the one thing they know they need?

Heuertz is able to draw lessons from life and call us rich folk (yes, even us lower middle class Americans are rich in comparison to the majority of the church) without being condescending or manipulative. That is no small feat, given the tendency of many to use guilt trips in attempt to spur God's people into action. I think Heuertz is able to accomplish this because his story is about he came to learn these lessons. You get the sense that he simply wants the reader to learn the lessons he has learned.

I did have a few questions throughout the book that weren't answered, though I suppose that's bound to happen.

He calls the church to help the poor, citing Jesus' words and example. But, do they (Word Made Flesh, his organization) call the poor to "go and sin no more"? Heuertz doesn't answer this, but I'll admit this isn't the point of the book. But still, you can cure an idolatrous leper of his leprosy, but his greatest sickness remains: his idolatry.

Who are the "children of God" (p55)? Who makes up "Christ's body" (p140)? He often blends Christians and non-Christians into these definitions, yet I'm not sure, biblically speaking, we can include non-Christians into these terms. Certainly not "Christ's body", but I'm not even sure the Bible ever refers to non-Christians as "children of God." I may be wrong, and I'm willing to have someone point examples out to me, but that particular term seems to be reserved for those who are in the covenant people of God. With that being said, I'm not sure it matters too much when it comes to who we help- we're called to help whoever is in need (see the parable of the good samaritan). But it's a question worth asking.

Both of these questions are not answered, and I can't expect them to be, I suppose. This is especially true of the first question; this book is not about the practices of Word Made Flesh, so I can't wait around for him to tell me about how his organization handles such situations. But, if I ever have the pleasure of talking with Chris Heuertz over a cup of coffee, I'll ask him.

Finally, I'll point out that the Bible teacher in me would cringe periodically with his "what is the ___ (Goliath, 5 stones, etc) in your life?" style of hermeneutics.

This book was interesting to read on a plane ride to Peru, where I went on a short trip to help a poor town, and a church in that town, in the middle of the Andes Mountains. It was a helpful reminder that the comforts and treasures of our culture are fleeting and unnecessary. It was a reminder that those I was travelling to help are no less important than I am, not less made in the image of God.

If you're looking for a book that teaches you about the classic spiritual disciplines, then maybe you should go with Foster's book. If you're looking for a biblical teaching on possessions and money, I'd recommend Craig Blomberg's Neither Poverty Nor Riches. But if you want a book that combines some of both, Simple Spirituality is a great choice. It's an insightful look at how we can approach and learn the disciplines from the perspective of helping those in need, wherever they are.

Lead Us Back: Songs of Repentance

2008-07-01T22:10:00.000-04:00

I’ve felt for some time that one aspect of biblical worship that is largely missing from our modern worship is songs of repentance & confession. In some cases that’s because we generally prefer our songs to be “uplifting”- we want people to connect with God, not feel bad about themselves. In other cases, it may be that we just don’t have that many good songs of repentance. I can understand that, song writers probably write songs of repentance, but those songs may be too personal for corporate worship.

The “uplifting” concern worries me, largely because such encouragement is ultimately shallow. We want the feel-good benefits of the grace of God, without acknowledging why that grace is needed in the first place. But without knowing how great our sin is, how can we ever know how great God’s grace is?

This morning I was listening to some songs from an album called Before the Throne, put out by Sojourn Community Church in Louisville, KY. You can download 4 of the songs from that album for free; I highly recommend you do so soon. I’ve grown to love these songs, as evidenced by the fact that “In the Shadow of Your Glorious Cross” is the most played song on my iTunes. In this case, though, it was the song “Lead Us Back” that was particularly powerful. It is a song of corporate repentance and lament over our sin. The lyrics are by Bobby Gilles and Brooks Ritter. This song has its finger on the pulse of the church, and poetically describes some of our shortcomings. I found myself convicted of the sins mentioned in this song; and convinced of my need for God’s grace. I hope you take the time to read these, listen to the song and reflect.

Falling down upon our knees
Sharing now in common shame
We have sought security
Not the cross that bears Your name
Fences guard our hearts and homes
Comfort sings a siren tune
We’re a valley of dry bones
Lead us back to life in You

Lord we fall upon our knees
We have shunned the weak and poor
Worshipped beauty, courted kings
And the things their gold affords
Prayed for those we’d like to know
Favor sings a siren tune
We’ve become a talent show
Lead us back to life in You

You have caused the blind to see
We have blinded him again
With our man-made laws and creeds
Eager, ready to condemn
Now we plead before Your throne
Power sings a siren tune
We’ve been throwing heavy stones
Lead us back to life in You

We’re a valley of dry bones
Lead us back to life in You
We’ve become a talent show
Lead us back to life in You
We’ve been throwing heavy stones
Lead us back to life in You

Book Review: Worship Matters

2008-06-28T10:22:00.003-04:00

Thanks to Denise & Shantay of Crossway for the review copy of this book.

Despite my lack of musical or vocal talent, worship is one topic I've always been interested in. I've written about it before, and I've had plenty of other thoughts that have never made onto the blog of danny (at least not yet). I find myself in a weird position: someone who loves hymns and theologically rich songs, yet I'm actively involved in a charismatic church (and wouldn't have it any other way). Can't I have both? Now, there'll be some who think I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too. Then again, what's the point in having a cake if I can't eat it? And in this ridiculous metaphor, which is the cake: theology or charismata? Let's move on.

Thankfully, Bob Kauflin exists.

Bob Kauflin has been a pastor and worship leader for over 20 years and is the author of the popular worship blog Worship Matters, which is also the name of his new book. Worship Matters: Leading Others to Encounter the Greatness of God is a collection of wisdom from a man who has been around. He's a member of a reformed charismatic group of churches, Sovereign Grace Ministries, now serving as Director of Worship Development. His book covers a wide range of topics related to worship, and despite the relative brevity of each section, he manages to provide helpful insights that show his years of wisdom (I promise, I'm not trying to make him sound old).

Kauflin divides his book up into 4 sections: The Leader, The Task, Healthy Tensions and Right Relationships. The breakdown is fairly natural and allows him to discuss each section with relative ease. While this book is not a biblical overview of worship (he does recommend other resources for that), he has sprinkled throughout the book biblical insights. One aspect of his 4-part division that I appreciate is that it allows him to weave theology into each section, rather than dealing with theology in one section and “more practical” matters in another. Kauflin truly does attempt to have his theology inform all matters of his book.

The first section, The Leader, is divided up in discussions on the heart, mind, hands and life of the worship leader. Here he deals with the worship leader himself before anything else, and doesn’t let them off the hook. You may not be the pastor of the church, but you are responsible before God and your church to take care of your own walk with the Lord, all facets of it. And Kauflin has no room for a division between head and heart (a division that I don’t feel is particularly biblical anyway).

If our doctrine is accurate but our hearts are cold toward God himself, our corporate worship will be true but lifeless. Or if we express fervent love for God but present vague, inaccurate, or incomplete ideas of him to those we’re leading, our worship will be emotional but misleading—and possibly idolatrous. Neither option brings God glory. (32)

He also deals with the issue of skill, offering wisdom in an area often breezed over. Kauflin, an accomplished musician himself, is aware of the tension between needing a certain skill level, but not allowing skill to override the worship. He notes,

Our varied skills should function like the frame around a classic painting. If the frame is too bold or extravagant, we’ll hardly notice the picture it displays. On the other hand, if the frame is cheap, shabby, or married, we’ll wonder why such a masterpiece is surrounded by junk. The right frame complements the picture in all the right ways, directing our eyes to the brilliance of the artist, not to the frame. (38)

The second section, The Task, answers the question: “So what does a worship leader do?” I’ll give you the multi-part answer as it’s broken down in the book so each element will stand out:

A Faithful Worship Leader…
…Magnifies the Greatness of God…
…In Jesus Christ…
…Through the Power of the Holy Spirit…
…Skillfully Combining God’s Word…
…With Music…
…Thereby Motivating the Gathered Church…
…To Proclaim the Gospel…
…To Cherish God’s Presence…
…And to Live for God’s Glory.

Kauflin deals with each portion of the answer as it’s own chapter, with “With Music” taking up two chapters (one on “What Kind?” and one on “Planning Sunday’s Songs”). Again, he manages to weave theology, practical wisdom and advice throughout the chapters rather seamlessly. To give a couple quick highlights:

Not surprising for someone from Sovereign Grace Ministries, I found Kauflin coming back to one point over and over again: Jesus Christ died for our sins. This truth “assures us that our worship is acceptable to God” (p74) and he also notes, “if we help people focus on what God did two thousand years ago rather than twenty minutes ago, they’ll consistently find their hearts ravished by his amazing love” (p75-76).

In regards to God’s presence during worship, he discusses an often presumed aspect of modern worship: we worship to “usher in the presence of God” (not a phrase he uses, but one that I’ve heard more times than I can count). Kauflin, though, brings in the wisdom of D A Carson: “He warns that if we start thinking it’s our worship activities that bring God’s presence near, ‘it will not be long before we think of such worship as being meritorious, or efficacious, or the like’” (p139). I realize that many people when they assume such things are speaking phenomenologically. Suffice it to say, I think using this kind of language can breed more problems than it’s worth.

Ultimately, all this is done for God’s glory. This isn’t mean to be some abstract notion of giving glory to God, but has practical implications. Kauflin quotes Allen Ross, “If worshipers leave a service with no thought of becoming more godly in their lives, then the purpose of worship has not been achieved” (p149).

The third section of the book deals with “Healthy Tensions”, such as God’s transcendence and immanence, planning and allowing room for spontaneity, and whether or not worship is for the church or for unbelievers. I appreciate Kauflin’s desire not to lose balance between each of the “extremes” (though I hesitate to call them that in all cases). But often times in trying to stay balanced, people end up with neither. I don’t think Kauflin ever does that, but I’m not so sure others will be as skilled.

In order to keep these healthy tensions, in my opinion, the worship leader needs to rely on others. So, I think Kauflin’s final section of the book is especially helpful. He deals here with the relationships the worship leader has: the church, the team and the pastor. Here we see two aspects of Sovereign Grace Ministries coming out (and these are good things): a great love for the local church and a great respect for the pastor. The worship leader, though a leader, serves the church and needs to hear from it. The worship leader is also ultimately under the leadership of the pastor and may need to submit when necessary. In fact, Kauflin’s final chapter is written to pastors as some words of advice, perhaps the best being, “A church’s response to God’s greatness and grace rarely rises above the example of its pastor” (p251).

All in all, Kauflin has written a terrific book. He does a great job of blending biblical insight, personal anecdotes and wise advice throughout the book. As for who should read it, I think it’d be a great idea for worship leaders to glean from it. Pastors, too, ought to read it as a reminder of the purpose of worship in the church. And though I am neither, I gained so much from this book. I intend to make use of Kauflin’s insights in my teaching, as many of his points apply to that as well (which shouldn’t surprise us, since worship is a form of teaching). The truth is that any Christian can read this book and come away with something.

I suppose the one thing I wish Kauflin touched on was worship leading in smaller settings. While my church has one worship leader, we have many people who lead worship throughout the week in small groups, prayer meetings, etc. True, all of his points can be transferred over easily enough. But in the NT, especially in 1 Cor 14, Eph 5 and Col 3, we see that singing in church is an activity that all participate in: we bring songs to each other to teach and encourage. On Sunday mornings with 200 people (that’s my church’s size), that’s difficult to do. But it can be done on a smaller scale. But, ultimately, that isn’t the purpose of Kauflin’s book. Maybe he’s a secret reader of the blog of danny and will take up the challenge on his own blog.

This book did make me thankful for the worship leaders we’ve had at my church. I can’t say that I’ve loved all the songs we’ve sung or the style of music we’ve used on every song. But I can say with confidence that our worship leaders aren’t simply looking to create a nice feeling or get everyone hyped up. Our current worship leader often makes it a point to say that we continue worshipping after the songs are down, which reflects his (biblical) understanding of worship.

I hope this book encourages worship leaders and pastors to consider carefully the role of worship in the church. I hope they pick songs with greater care, since, as Kauflin quotes Gordon Fee: “Show me a church’s songs and I’ll show you their theology” (p101). I hope they remember that worship is not about us “connecting with God” or walking away feeling better about ourselves, though those are good things. Ultimately, worship is about praising God for who He is, as revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit dwelling in our lives.

Update on blog of danny

2008-06-27T16:53:00.000-04:00

I'd like to give a heads-up to my reader about what'll be happening over the next 6-8 weeks or so here at the blog of danny. You'll be getting more book reviews than anything else, for 2 main reasons:

1. It's the summer and I finally get to do some reading.

2. I'm travelling on a couple mission trips, which means I'll have plenty of time on plane rides to read. True, maybe I should be praying all through the plane ride to the other side of the planet, but I'm not as spiritual as you are. Sorry.

As for what I'm reading, I'm trying to branch out a bit beyond my traditional biblical studies and commentaries. So, I'm reading a couple books in church history, one on worship, one on "spirituality" (whatever that means), one on preaching & teaching and one on money and possessions. Unfortunately, one book I'm dying to read (on OT Theology) is so big (over 1000+ pages and hardback) that I won't be able to travel with it. Thus, though I've started reading it, the review itself will have to wait until sometime after I'm back and I can sit down with it.

I hope that you won't check out during this time, though. Instead, I hope you'll interact with the reviews, offering up some thoughts and reactions. In fact, it'll probably be better than the standard fare you've been getting around these parts.

So, stick around. Yesterday I posted some thoughts on Jesus Made in America, I'll probably post some thoughts on another book within the next couple days or so. Thanks for sticking around.

Book Review: Jesus Made in America

2008-06-26T14:06:00.000-04:00

Thanks to Adrianna of IVP for the review copy of this book.

A few weeks back I posted some thoughts on the Introduction of Stephen Nichols' book, Jesus Made in America, published this year by IVP. To be honset, I wish I were a full-time blogger, because I feel like this book deserves a post for every chapter. In fact, I hope to do a multi-part interaction with it someday, possibly in the fall. But of course, don't hold me to that.

Nichols does a terrific job combining careful insight, painful observations (painful for someone in the midst of evangelicalism) with a healthy dose of humor. Throughout the book are fascinating accounts and snapshots of how Jesus has been used (and abused) throughout American history in a more-or-less chronological arrangement, from "the Puritans to The Passion of the Christ", as the subtitle states. Nichols sets out to "unveil these pictures of Jesus in American evangelicalism, to tell the story of his American evangelical incarnations" (p13) as well as "to raise signification questions about the state of Christology in American evangelicalism" (p17). Even with my disagreements (see below), I have to say: Nichols' book is a success.

The Puritans stand as Nichols' best form of American Christology, the standard to which the rest of American evangelicalism is measured. Through the words of Edward Taylor and Jonathan Edwards, Nichols, rightly, shows that the Puritans were not simply a boring bunch (though I admit "boring" is subjectively defined), who totally confined religion to the intellect and rule abiding. In fact, they loved the arts and poetry. As much as they taught the deeper points on theology, particularly Christology, in their sermons, they were also capable of writing words like: "Here [Christ] comes to give us the caresses of his love, and lay us in his bosom and embraces" (p31-32). Update the language a bit, and you got yourself a Jesus Is My Boyfriend worship tune! Thus, the Puritans were not simply intellectuals, but passionate worshippers of God (contrary to popular belief).

He does have a criticism, however, and that is "Given their dexterity in articulating both an orthodox, creedal Christology and a heartfelt piety, they didn't always follow through with Christlike action" (p40-41). Mind you, I think he largely lets the Puritans off the hook here, as he spends far more time praising them than critiquing them on this very important point. I have some thoughts as to why this is so, but I'll save that for a later post.

What follows is essentially a lesson in how we tend to "create a Jesus in our own image." I remember reading Albert Schweitzer's comment made over 100 years ago, that the liberal scholars of his day were "looking for the historical Jesus down the well of history, only to see their own reflection." Nichols shows us how the early founders of America (specifically Ben Franklin, John Adams and especially Thomas Jefferson) were concerned not with a divine Jesus (hence Jefferson's cut & paste work on the Gospels). ). "What mattered most to Jefferson, especially for the new republic, was that Jesus was a virtuous man" (p57). These founding fathers help pave the way for the virtuous and moral Jesus, rather than the Jesus who is God and died for the sins of the world (p72-73).

In the 19th century, The frontier Jesus suited the non-educated men and women of the frontier, who did not want to bother with a God-man, but one who can be understood through personal experience and simple stories. The Victorian Jesus introduced the more feminine Jesus, as seen in John Sartain's picture "of the Victorian jesus, gentle, meek and mild, with flowing hair and high cheekbones, and a softness that only a womanly Savior can muster" (p84). Thus, "the prevailing contribution of the nineteenth century to American Christology is that Jesus...became captive to ideology" (p95).

Chapter 4 deals with the battle between early 20th century liberalism (such as Harry Emerson Fosdick) and orthodoxy (see J Gresham Machen). Nichols' quotes Machen's words, "Liberalism regards him as an Example and Guide; Christianity as a Saviour: liberalism makes Him an example for faith; Christianity, the object of faith" (p117). I think Nichols ought to have pointed out that Jesus is in fact an example for us to follow (1 Peter 2:21, Phil 2:1-11), but his main critique is correct: liberal Christianity has reduced Jesus to an example and removed His rightful place as God in the flesh and Savior of the world. The fallout of this period, though, is that "for contemporary American evangelicals... the tug of war between devotion to Christ, on the one hand, over precise thinking about Christ, on the other, often goes in the direction of devotion" (p120).

In more recent years (chapters 5-8), Nichols gives us an honest (and sometimes painful) look at Christianity. Here, we see the rise of "Jesus Is My Boyfriend" music (whoever invented that term is my hero, by the way), where "like a good boyfriend, Jesus shows up at the right moment, says the right thing and knows how to hug" (p140). While I felt that his dealing with movies about Jesus (in chapter 6) is his weakest of the book, he makes a good observation: that these movies tend to appeal to emotion and personal experience more than anything else.

Chapter 7 deals with the commercialization of Jesus and Christianity, whether through WWJD bracelets, t-shirts or Jesus action figures. Perhaps his greatest point is during his discussion of The Shepherd's Guide: The Christians' Choice of Yellow Pages, which is a book for Christians to help them find other Christians in various types of businesses. Nichols states, "The Shepherd's Guide, not to mention CCM and even the union of Christian insurance agents, creates an insular world for Christians" (p185). Christians, ostensibly in an effort to witness by wearing Christian t-shirts or buying only from Christian businesses, have isolated themselves from the rest of the world, who tend to laugh at us more than weep in repentance. It makes me ask: what purpose do these products actually serve?

Chapter 8 deals with Jesus in American politics. This chapter, I would imagine, may have been the hardest to write, simply because there's so much to deal with. He's weakest when discussing the right wing portrayal of Jesus, largely because (in my opinion) there is less about Jesus and more about Christianity here. With that said, it's well known that the right wing of American politics has often appealed to Christianity to support its agenda. On the left wing, we see men such as Jim Wallis (which is spelled correctly and incorrectly- with the homophonical "Wallace"- multiple times in the same paragraph), who use the stories of the Gospels to show that Jesus cared primarily about helping the poor and the outcasts of society, which they claim lends support to the left wing cause. Ultimately, what happens is that we end up with a truncated Jesus (my term); a Jesus that does not take into account the whole of the Gospels.

There were a few points that stood out to me as particularly poignant from this book:

1. We haven't been especially strong in letting the depth of the Gospels come out. Nichols warns us that "we need not shrink back from complexity" (p226). It's true, we tend to keep Jesus limited to our experience (Jesus is my fishing buddy, etc) rather than allow the fullness of who He is (as seen in the Bible) impact us.

2. Interestingly, while we ignore (or fail to be impacted by) many of the stories about Jesus, we tend to "fill in the gaps." Time and time again throughout this book, Nichols shows how Americans have simply not been comfortable with letting the Gospel stories to speak for themselves. We want to know what Jesus' face looked like when He spoke to someone. We love to read Max Lucado stories, as he offers up imaginative stories that we do not find in the gospels (p78-79). The problem, however, is that these types of stories tend to provide the substance of the presentation of Jesus, rather than allowing the Bible itself to do so.

3. His treatment of "Jesus Is My Boyfriend" music is terrific. It's often true, that you can take many Christian songs and substitute "Jesus" with "baby" and end up with a love song fit for a cheesy romance movie. Many would consider this harmless, but Nichols makes a great point: "Even lovesick teenagers on the shores of life or shaking like leaves need more than a hug from Jesus. Even they need to know that he is the God-man. If they don't hear it in the songs, the locus theologicus of today, then where will they hear it?" (p145).

4. American Christianity, for the most part, does not care what the ancient creeds of the church say about Jesus. We think that we have come to the Bible with a blank slate and come away with a biblical portrayal of Jesus. We don't need some dead guys who spoke Latin to tell us what to believe. The problem is that Christians who do not learn from Christians of history will be more susceptible to cultural influences of their day. Nichols shows this time and time again.

5. We need to go back and revisit our idea of who Jesus is. Do we have a truly well-rounded and biblical idea of Jesus? What episodes of Jesus' life do we neglect at the expense of others? What aspects of Jesus' character do we think about / pray about / sing about / preach about? What are we leaving out? Are we being conformed to Jesus' image (Rom 8:29) or are we conforming Him to ours? I found myself asking these questions of myself over and over throughout the book.

To close, I really enjoyed this book. It's one of the best books I've read in some time, and even where I disagree with Nichols (and I certainly do at points), I found myself conceding that he had a point to consider. If you are at all interested in Christianity and culture, American religious history or how evangelicalism has evolved over the last few hundred years, you ought to read this book.

The Resurrection of the Body: Part IV of V

2008-06-14T13:36:00.001-04:00

Click to read Part I, Part II or Part III.

It is interesting to see how crucial the early church considered the resurrection of the body, compared to the relative lack of interest in today’s church. This is not to place these writings on the level of Scripture. I’m including these for 2 main purposes: to show how early Christians interpreted the Bible’s teachings on the resurrection of the dead and to see how crucial this belief was to those in the Church who taught and pastored the people of God through decades (if not centuries) of growth amidst persecution. Though this is a small sampling, and admittedly these quotes are pulled from various contexts, I think these show that the resurrection of the body was crucial. It seems to me that these men defended the resurrection of the body for two main reasons: to argue against those who denigrate the importance of the physical body in favor of the “spiritual” world and to draw encouragement in the middle of the persecution and afflictions of this life.

As you will see, I stuck mainly to the first 2 centuries, with the two major early creeds at the end. These quotes proceed in more-or-less chronological order; the dates given are the best guesses at the dates of their respective births and deaths. I hope that at least some of you will not simply read these quotes, but go back and check out the context to see what else these writers say. You can find the writings of Clement, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus here. For the Tertullian writings on the resurrection, click here (and follow the links to the left); for Origen's you can click here.

Clement of Rome (30-100 AD), 1 Clement Chapter 24: “Let us consider, beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future resurrection, of which He has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead.”

Justin Martyr (100-165 AD), Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 80: “I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. …For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth]… who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians.”

Irenaeus (120-202 AD)), Against Heresies Book2 Chapter 29: “And then the doctrine concerning the resurrection of bodies which we believe, will emerge true and certain; since, God, when He resuscitates our mortal bodies which preserved righteousness, will render them incorruptible and immortal.”

Tertullian (160-225 AD), On the Resurrection Chapter 1: “The resurrection of the dead is the Christian trust. By it we are believers.” These are the first 2 sentences of this writing; you could go on to read this entire document, as it defends the physical resurrection of believers from a number of standpoints.

Origen (185 -254 AD), Origen de Principiis Book 2 Chapter 10: notes that “some take offense at the creed of the Church, as if out belief in the resurrection were foolish, and altogether devoid of sense; and these are principally heretics.” Later he does note that there are “some of our own, who, either from feebleness of intellect or want of proper instruction, adopt a very low and abject view of the resurrection of the body.”

Apostles’ Creed (2nd century AD): “I believe in… the resurrection of the body.”

Nicene Creed (325 AD- I think this is the 381 AD form): “I look for the resurrection of the dead.”

I finish with the words of our earliest known non-canonical Christian writer, Clement of Rome (1 Clement Chapter 27):

“Having then this hope, let our souls be bound to Him who is faithful in His promises, and just in His judgments.”

5.5 random things: NBA Finals Edition

2008-06-05T11:11:00.000-04:00

5.5. This post is dedicated to childhood memories of Bird vs Magic, Parrish vs Kareem, McHale clotheslining Rambis and basketball players wearing uncomfortably (for those of us watching) short shorts.

5. No one on the Celtics will be able to stop Kobe Bryant, I don't think there's much arguing that. However, Kobe will, at times, settle for shooting jumpers, and if he does, the Celtics will have a legit shot at winning. If not, well, I'm not sure they'll pull it off. One of the great things about Jordan (I know, it's a tired comparison) was that he wouldn't allow other teams to force him to shoot jumpshots. He'd insist on taking it to the basket. Boston's defenders (my guess is it will be a rotation of Pierce, Allen and Posey) can't let Kobe do that. Otherwise, the Lakers will go home with the title.

4. The Celtics should have a strong edge in rebounding, which could work especially well if they can force Kobe to shoot jumpshots (thereby creating more rebounding opportunities). I'm assuming Perkins will play Gasol, which means Gasol will probably try to pull Perkins away from the basket. That may seem to work in the Lakers favor (since Gasol can score from the outside and Perkins is a better defender down low), but perhaps not. Gasol is a good offensive rebounder, and if he takes his offensive game away from the basket, that means it's up to Odom to outrebound Garnett (not going to happen), or Bryant crashing the boards (more likely, though harder if his defender can push him outside- see #5). This works even if Gasol is matched up against Garnett (Gasol will still try to pull Garnett away from the basket). At any rate, my point is: the Celtics ought to take advantage of this.

3. The Lakers, on the other hand, have a decided edge in the coaching department. I mean, really, Jackson vs Rivers? Has a coach that inferior to his opponent ever won?

2. I've heard a lot of people (here in Boston) saying that Rondo will be able to take advantage of his youth and quickness against Derek Fisher, giving Boston the edge in the point guard department. I'm not convinced. True, Rondo is younger, faster and more talented. But, the Lakers just beat the Jazz and the Spurs, who both have better points guards than Rondo (Derron Williams and Tony Parker, respectively). If Fisher didn't hurt them in those series, why would we think he would now?

1. The part that scares me the most (besides their coach being one of the greatest of all time and our coach being a solid TV analyst) is the problem of a clutch performer. Kobe Bryant plays well in the clutch, that's been seen over and over again. The Celtics don't have that consistent crunch time player. Garnett passes up the chance to take over, despite the fact that he's one of the top-5 players in the game. Paul Pierce has moments where he takes over a game: game 7 against Cleveland this year (41 points!) and Game 3 in the 2002 Conference Finals against the Nets (18 points in the 4th quarter to come back from 21 down). But he doesn't do this consistently. You know Kobe is going to come through in the clutch; the question is: will Pierce match him?

I've convinced myself that with the rebounding/low post edge, homecourt advantage and Paul Pierce having a monster series, the Celtics will win in 7, over my original pick of the Lakers winning in 6. That's a 2 game swing! Yes, the power of homer-delusion is that strong.

And now, I leave you with a video of the aforementioned McHale-Rambis clothesline. Ah, memories.

The Resurrection of the Body: Part III of V

2008-06-03T02:46:00.000-04:00

Click here for Part II, here for Part I.

I'm continuing this series with a look at 1 Corinthians 15, which has more to say about resurrection than any other place in the Bible. This is not a very in depth look at the chapter, more of a survey of the main points that concern this topic.

This chapter, in a nutshell, teaches that because Christ rose from the dead, we know that His people will rise from the dead as He did. It does not function primarily as a defense of Christ's resurrection (contrary to some, I tend to think the Corinthians did believe that Jesus rose from the dead- otherwise the foundational argument of vv12-19 makes little sense). 1 Corinthians 15 does give us an idea of what it means for believers to "attain to the resurrection from the dead" (to steal a phrase from Philippians 3:11).

Paul calls Jesus the "firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep" (v20, also in v23). I've said elsewhere that "first", being an ordinal number, requires a "second", otherwise Paul would say "only." Christ isn't the "only fruit of the dead" but the first, His people are the "secondfruits of those who have fallen asleep." When Christ comes back, "those who belong to Him" will be raised from the dead (v23).

Skipping to v35, Paul begins to give us an idea of what this will look like. He compares the current body to a seed, which will be planted and grow into a better body ("imperishable"- v42). I think where the hangup happens is when he states, "it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body" (v44). Because we tend to use the word "spiritual" to mean "unseen" or "disembodied", we assume Paul is thinking the same thing. However, that is not the way the Bible understands the word.

"Natural" and "spiritual" do not refer to composition or material (and I'm not sure how a body could be spiritual if it were referring to material composition). First, it's important to note that "natural" is from the word we normally translate "soul." If Paul were talking about the composition of the body (physical as opposed to immaterial), it would be awkward to refer to our present bodies as "soul bodies." Even in context, Paul quotes Gen 2, which states "the first Adam became a living being" (TNIV). "Living being" is the same word as a "soul." Clearly Gen 2 isn't referring to Adam's physical composition, as if it were saying that Adam became a soulish figure as opposed to a physical human being.

I hope I'm being clear here. When Paul contrasts "natural" and "spiritual", he isn't talking about how our physical bodies will someday be rescued from the physical world and brought into a disembodied existence. I stress this because most Christians have the idea that when we die, our souls go to heaven and that's it. But that is not what Paul is saying here. He is saying that there will be a day when Christ will return and our bodies will be raised from the dead in an imperishable body.

“Spiritual” is a term used for Christians elsewhere in Paul. He uses it in 1 Cor 2:15, indicating that there are those who are “spiritual.” Also, Galatians 6:1 instructs those who are “spiritual” to restore a fallen brother. This, coming right after the discussion of the fruit of the Spirit, means those who “live by the Spirit” (as evidenced by the fruit of the Spirit). Again, this is an indication that Paul isn't using "spiritual" to mean "immaterial." If so, those two verses take on an extremely different meaning, one that makes little sense.

What then does it mean to have a “spiritual body”? It means that while we are currently “spiritual”, the Spirit’s present work is not complete. After all, our bodies are still subject to decay. Of course, elsewhere Paul says we have the “firstfruits of the Spirit” (Rom 8:23), implying that there is more of the Spirit to come. Paul also refers to the Spirit as a “deposit” or “down payment” of what is to come (Eph 1:13; 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5). So, it seems that when Christ comes, our entire being- including our bodies- become “spiritual”- completely controlled and animated by the Spirit.

Contemporizing Theology in American Evangelicalism

2008-05-29T12:44:00.001-04:00

I just received a copy of Jesus Made in America by Stephen J Nichols (thanks to my new friend, Adrianna of IVP). It'll take a bit before I can actually review it, but I've read the first little bit and have already found it to be an interesting read. He observes that it is natural for Christians to bring their cultural understanding and expressions into their reading and application of the Bible. But, he claims, "there is something peculiar to the tendency to contemporize in American evangelicalism" (10). He lists 4 areas he sees as American tendencies to contemporize, which I'll summarize (these are found on pages 10-12).

"First, American evangelicals reflexively harbor suspicions of tradition." He notes that this tendency "leaves American evangelicals more vulnerable than most when it comes to cultural pressures and influences. In the absence of tradition, we tend to make up a new one, one not tested by time and more or less constructed by individuals or by a limited community."

Second, is the tendency to appeal to sola scriptura, one of the rallying cries of Luther's call for reformation. But, Nichols notes, "the mistaken conclusion is that because American evangelicals hold firmly and prize sola scriptura, it naturally flows that all of the beliefs of American evangelicals naturally flow from the pages of Scripture."

Third, "much of contemporary evangelicalism... operates under the assumption that we are neutral in the acquisition of knowledge. The upshot of all this is that our ideas or beliefs are not held as our ideas or beliefs but as the ideas or beliefs."

Fourth, "American evangelicals are strongly influenced by pietism, which emphasizes personal religious experience, and values devotion and practice over doctrine."

These four tendencies, Nichols claims, "all conspire to make American evangelicals quite susceptible to culture in the shaping of beliefs and interpretation of Scripture."

Now, I suppose it's open to debate that contemporary American evangelicals are any more susceptible to this than any other group of Christians in various times, places and cultures. The questions I ask you: do you think Nichols observations are true? What are the potential outcomes (good or bad) of these tendencies?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Free Book Giveaway

2008-05-22T12:54:00.003-04:00

Hey everyone, over at Challies Dot Com there's a promo going for a free book (and other goodies) giveaway from Monergism Books. I've entered and am encouraging you to do so as well. If you click on the banner below, you can earn me more ballots as well as enter yourself. So, in other words, help a brotha out! Thanks to both my readers.

The US $, Missions, and Priorities

2008-05-20T16:15:00.001-04:00

It's a fairly well known fact that the US Dollar is not doing so well these days. Now, I'm hardly an economist; in fact I don't know a whole lot about money. I've never really had a ton of money to care much about it (though I worry about it at times, I suppose), don't really balance my checkbook, and try to give more than I receive (which is actually impossible when you're on support, but anyway...). But, even I know that when the US $ does poorly, it hurts American overseas missionaries financially. I know of one missionary in India who has not lost a single supporter, but has lost 15% of his support because of the falling buck.

Now, I'd like for one of my economically knowledgeable readers (if I have one) to answer me a question. If the US $ begins to do better, does this necessarily mean that the currencies of other countries will do worse? Logically, it seems that this is true to my simple mind, but I want to be sure. If the US $ takes an upswing, does this automatically mean that other forms of currency (be it from China, the Euro, whatever) will take a plunge?

I ask this because I wonder if we ought not to be praying that the US $ do better for the sake of our missionaries. If it means that the currency of other countries will then do worse, I can't help but think that we shouldn't be praying for this to happen. I shudder to think that our prayers could be so American-centered that we'd actually pray for other countries, including those we send missionaries to, to falter a bit more economically, all for the sake of reaching them with the gospel. Again, I'm not sure this is necessarily true, which is why I asked the question in the above paragraph.

Either way, the success of American money ought not to factor into our missions thinking too much. If our priorities are in order, we wouldn't be shaken by this. Here are two things to keep in mind:

1. The success of the gospel does not ride on the US $ or American missionaries. True, the Lord has used American missionaries in amazing ways to see the Church grow. Yes, these missionaries were funded (more often than not) by faithful Christians giving their (American) money. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that we are the only show in town. And let's not confuse the tools with the builder. I've worked in home improvement retail- I've seen plenty of builders simply get new tools when their old ones stopped working as well.

2. We can always give more to help our missionaries. I've probably tired some of my friends with my talk of how I've felt an increased conviction to give to others, so I won't belabor the point here. It's amazing how much money we spend on things of little value, all the while passing up opportunities to give to something of eternal relevance. This is true for most of us even in financially difficult times.

At any rate, I'm hoping someone will be able to answer my question above. I'd love to be able to know how to pray. In the meantime, I really need to work on my priorities.

Reader's Hebrew Bible: A Review

2008-05-14T16:11:00.003-04:00

After years of playing baseball, I ended up being a pretty decent fielder. I had a much better glove than I did a bat; I found turning a double play easier than hitting a curveball. Part of why I became a good fielder was my hatred of running. You see, in practice during my teen years, my coaches would make us run every time we made an error. Botch a ground ball- start jogging. Overthrow the cutoff man- run some laps. I hated running laps. So, my thought was: I don't want to run, so I'll become a better fielder. It worked well (and I'd like to think I had some natural ability).

I took the same mentality to learning biblical languages in undergrad and in seminary. Most of us studying Greek and Hebrew grew weary of looking words up all the time, especially if you had to bring a huge lexicon with you to the library. There were 2 main options for handling this dilemna: (1) using something like BibleWorks to look up the definitions or (2) learning the vocab necessary to translate. I always felt that option (1) was cheating a bit, and truth be told, most who relied on BibleWorks (or other similar programs) didn't really learn the language. I preferred option (2), though possibly more due to my pride rather than my industrious nature.

So, I'll admit to some initial hesitation in using the Reader's Hebrew Bible because it feels a bit like option (1). You see, the RHB gives the Hebrew text (from the Westminster Leningrad Codex), with vocabulary helps. Every word that occurs less than 100 times is footnoted and given a gloss from HALOT and BDB, probably the top 2 Hebrew lexicons around (they do use a couple others, but these are the primary ones). Proper nouns that occur less than 100 times are shaded grey rather than footnoted, which I'll be extremely grateful for if I ever decide to translate Chronicles. (For the Aramaic portions, it's anything used less than 25 times, but I don't know Aramaic so I can't comment on those portions).

Swallowing my pride and receiving help on the vocab is a good idea for me right now, since my Hebrew has slipped significantly. My understanding of grammar is mostly still there, but that only means so much if you don't know what any of the words mean, right? I started off by reading some of Ruth (which is generally one of the first books Hebrew students translate, often right after Jonah). I was certainly rusty, but the vocab footnotes really helped (and it doesn't hurt that there's a glossary at the back of the book for words used over 100 times- oh how far I've fallen!). Since then I've bounced around a bit to get a feel for different sections (prophets, Psalms) and get the sense that this is a really helpful resource for those of us whose Hebrew vocab has dwindled drastically.

Most book reviewers talk about the printing and binding and use words like "attractive" or "handsome", but quite frankly, I can't get into that. My wife is attractive. A book is a book. It looks cool, and I feel smarter having it in my possession, and the binding seems strong enough that it won't fall apart any time soon, which is good since it'll be costly to replace. The book is huge (weighing in at 1600+ pages), which means I probably won't be lugging it to church any time soon.

Note well, this is not really a tool for in depth translation or exegesis. Not to say it isn't useful for that, but the glosses given are possible (largely unnuanced) glosses, it cannot replace doing the hard work of a word/concept study, nor does it include any help in syntax. Also, there is not critical apparatus (textual variants), which one needs in order to do true translation work. There is an appendex that shows the differences between the WTC and the BHS, though that doesn't account for the DSS or the LXX (yes, I used all abbreviations to feel like a VIP, recall Good Morning Vietnam). None of this is a criticism, since that's not the point of the book (otherwise it'd be called A Translator's Hebrew Bible).

All this to say, it's a great resource, one I plan on using as I work my way back into the Hebrew language. But, as much as I like it, I hope to graduate back up to my much smaller BHS that doesn't have the vocab helps. I know I'll never reach the point where I'll know all the vocab, but it'd be nice to be able to read without having to stop and look up definition a couple times every verse. I feel like I'm running laps again, and I hate running laps.

Note: Thanks again to Chris for providing this review copy.

Is it a compliment? Episode IV

2008-05-08T19:23:00.001-04:00

Welcome to the newest installment of Is it a compliment? (the most popular game show in the blogosphere), where we look at a statement that someone directed towards me which may or may not be a compliment. Actually, in this case, it's not a statement but rather an action.

I have been teaching a class in church since September, but the other night I mentioned to my class that it would be the last night of the year that I'd be teaching.

One person in the class began to clap.

This is your chance to weigh in. Should I take offense? Or is it a compliment?

5.5 random things: book wishlist edition

2008-05-07T16:51:00.001-04:00

5.5: This post is dedicated to Chris at Zondervan, who recently sent me a couple books to review (just scroll down a couple posts). He now has me thinking about what books I'd love to have (I'm leaving out commentaries). So, here's a completely selfish post, in no particular order.

5: Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ. Don't worry, I'm not needing to be convinced of Jesus' place in the Godhead. But from a teaching perspective, to have a book that is (1) written so non-seminary trained people can read it and (2) contains great insights gleaned from top scholars would be so helpful. I first noticed this book because of those who give their endorsements, which is like reading a Who's Who of evangelical Bible scholars. At any rate, I think this can be a great book that would help so many in the church reap the benefits of scholarly insight without having to learn all the background of theological and exegetical discussions.

4: Worship Matters by Bob Kauflin. Bob Kauflin is involved with Sovereign Grace Ministries who seems (according to reviews I've read) to have written a book that is both theological and practical. As someone who is very interested in how worship through music is used in the church, I think this book has a lot to offer. It is difficult to write theologically yet offer simple advice for how to carry out a worship service. Apparently, Kauflin has succeeded.

3: How Africa Shaped the Christian Mind: Rediscovering the African Seedbed of Western Christianity by Thomas Oden. I want to read this book because it helps correct the Western-centric understanding many of us have of Christian theology. I've grown to love church history, especially as I've learned how much of a role African theologians have played (Augustine, Tertullian, etc). Oden is a top-notch historical theologian, so you know this has to be good.

2: I'm not familiar with the author, but I've heard a lot of good things about Jerry Bridges' Respectable Sins, a look at how we've allowed subtle, "respectable" sins to creep into our life. I think this could be an interesting book for a group study.

1: Stephen Nichols has a book out called Jesus Made In America: A Cultural History from the Puritans to "The Passion of the Christ" that looks very interesting. I'm always fascinated by how culture plays a part in our shaping of how we think of Jesus, this book takes a look at that throughout American history. In my opinion, studying the mistakes of history often helps us understand how we make those same mistakes ourselves. Plus, it looks like this book might be good for a laugh or two.

free books & another update

2008-04-29T11:11:00.000-04:00

A week ago I had a seemingly random post about the new Reader's Hebrew Bible, and made the statement that I'll write a review if I receive a free copy. That was because there was an offer on Between Two Worlds (Justin Taylor's blog) that if anyone would post about the Reader's Hebrew Bible, promise to write a review and e-mail some guy named Chris at Zondervan- and be one of the first 5 people to do all this- you'd get a free copy. I was the 3rd person. So, Chris at Zondervan agreed to send me a free copy for me to review.

He also mentioned that he might be able to send me other books as well under the same agreement- that I'd review them. So, I may have mentioned in passing that I was really interested in Bruce Waltke's new book, An Old Testament Theology. Well, both books came in the mail today! So, expect reviews of each of these. I'll do the RHB first, since that was the original deal, Waltke's book will probably take a little bit longer, but I am looking forward to reading it. The great part is that I now have an excuse to read books, free ones!

While I'm here, I'd like to point out that I added a new feature to the blog of danny, Joshua Project's Unreached People of the Day. The Joshua Project is an organization that attempts to collect information about people groups around the world and their level of reachedness (I just made up that word). I don't know if their definition of "people group" and "reached" are necessarily the perfect ones, but I like how they are at least trying to bring "definition to the unfinished task" (their words). I hope that maybe you'll take a few moments to pray for each people group as you see them here. May the gospel be preached to all nations in our lifetime!

why all the hype?

2008-04-26T16:56:00.003-04:00

I'm often pretty late to the ballgame when it comes to Christian trends. I don't know any of the newest worship music, except for that which is played in church on Sundays. I don't pay much attention to the newest popular preachers- the Matt Chandlers, Mark Driscolls, and so on. It's nothing personal, it's really more a matter of time. There are so many new things- preachers, worship leaders, books, etc- that I don't have time to keep up. I'd rather allow the business to settle down and I'll wade through the carnage and pick out what I want.

So, I say that to explain a bit about why I've just now read the bestselling book by Donald Miller, Blue Like Jazz (published 2003). Some of you, most of you, probably, have read this book by now, perhaps multiple times. I've been saying for some time now that I needed to get around to reading it. As I spend more time teaching in my church, the more I realize I need to be up to speed with what folks are reading. So, consider this a late book review, only it's not really a book review.

You see, the thought that kept coming to my mind as I read this was "why was this book such a big deal?" When I finished the book (which didn't take long, it's a very easy read), I found myself asking the same question.

But I mean that in 2 different ways. I wonder why some folks loved this book so much. Hearing from some made me think this book could be the best thing to happen to American Christianity in recent years. After reading it, I can't help but wonder if that is a tremendous overstatement. But, to talk to some other folks, you'd think this is a dangerous book, one that is fraught with awful theology and destined to lead some to heresy. Got to be honest- don't see that either. Not even close.

Let me say it this way: I found 25% of the book annoying, 25% really insightful, 50% just fine. One minor annoyance was his writing style- I wasn't sure if it was cool or childish. For instance, if he were writing about me, he might write something like this:

One of my friends, Danny the Red Sox Fan, is a good guy. He married this girl, Lisa. Lisa is way out of his league. Danny is obsessive about the Red Sox. Danny also has this blog that no one reads. He writes anyway, maybe because he's bored. I like Danny.

Miller is, at points, very insightful. He'll have an interesting way to look at things, especially on loving the broken and downtrodden. And contrary to what you might think from talking to his detractors, he does in fact believe people need to acknowledge their sin and repent. It seems to me that he emphasizes the need to love people before they get "fixed", not just after. I'd consider that a pretty good idea.

To be sure, there are things I don't like. It'd be easy to walk away from this book thinking that only Christians who cuss, don't like Republicans (or churches that do) and call everything "beautiful" are really cool. I'm not saying that was Miller's intention, but I could see how people might walk away from this book thinking that.

Anyway, I'd thought I'd throw out some thoughts on the complaints I've heard over the last couple years and my thoughts on them. First, is the claim he's simply anti-Republican. Yeah, that's pretty much true, and he has a major problem with churches that "toe the party line." I certainly think he's right that there's a problem when so many Christians are blindly Republican. But I personally find the blindly Democrat just as annoying (perhaps even moreso, since they make the same errors they speak against). But hey, it's his book, he can write what he wants.

Second, some say he doesn't have enough of a developed theology. Again, this is true, though there are some "theological" moments in the book- he just goes about them differently (his section on tithing, for example). For instance, Miller is a firm believer that all people have an inherent "sin nature" (his favorite term). He doesn't go about defending it through Scripture or theological reflections on total depravity. He reiterates the need to repent before God, though doesn't show how one goes from being sinful to being repentant (the regeneration/election of the Calvinist system, or the prevenient grace of Wesley). But again, he isn't pretending to be a theologian, and for some who aren't well-versed in Scripture, especially a non-Christian, he might present the idea better than most of us. No, he's not on the level of C S Lewis, but why should we expect him to be?

Third, some argue that he is too hard on the church. Again, I'll agree with this to an extent. I'm a huge believer in the local church. If I were to write a book of this sorts, I'd have tons to say about how much I love my church, warts and all. But Miller isn't anti-church, he's anti-some-churches. I think he's overly critical. If someone already struggles with anger against the church, this book could feed that.

But, I'd also point out two things. One, as critical as he is of others (and he admits as much), he's just as critical of himself throughout the book. Two, he does find himself a church he loves and is challenged by, and he spends a decent amount of time talking about it. I would have preferred he tempered himself a bit more, though. I guess I just think it's too easy to pick on the church, and a bit too trendy for my tastes. I will say, many who pick on churches will end up saying (in attitude as much as in their words) to non-Christians "but hey, we're not like that, we love Jesus and what we're doing is even better than what they're doing." To his credit, I don't think Miller ever goes that far.

Lastly, I found one part amusing, given the successful nature of the book:

Imago, our church, is made up of mostly artists and fruit nuts and none of us have any money, so Rick [his pastor] said if I was going to be a writer, I needed to write a bestseller so that the church could have some money.

In the end, it's what you would expect out of an autobiographical look on the Christian life (not properly an autobiography). At times I wondered how some of it ever got published. At times I was annoyed by his idiosyncratic outlook. At times I found his take on a subject uniquely refreshing. So read it (I'm sure you can borrow it from someone). Enjoy it. But don't believe the hype- either side of it.

The Resurrection of the Body: Part II of V

2008-04-24T11:11:00.001-04:00

For Part I of this series, click here.

In this post, we're looking briefly at the broader theme of God's restoration of fallen creation, and how resurrection fits into this plan. As always, this isn't an exhaustive look, but more of an overview of the subject in hopes to encourage reflection and further study.

When God first created all things, He proclaimed them “good.” Humans were given the responsibility of caring for the Garden and all living within it. However, Adam & Eve sinned, which damaged not only themselves, but the created order (see Gen 3:17-19). The created order as it presently stands is not the way it's supposed to be- full of decay and destruction.

God has, however, an overarching plan of redemption that includes creation itself. His plan is not simply to redeem individuals and fill heaven with their souls, but His intention is to restore creation (all of it) to what it was created to be. It was good, and it will be good again.

When we look at Romans 8:18-25, we see how God's plan of redemption for creation and mankind is tied together.

I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

Notice that creation is suffering decay, but there will be a time when that will no longer be the case- when the children of God will be revealed. Creation awaits redemption as we ourselves await "our adoption, the redemption of our bodies." Notice that Paul says "redemption of our bodies" rather than "from our bodies." It is not God's act of saving our souls from our bodies that we are to long for, but the salvation of our entire being. Just as human sin ushered decay into the created order, human redemption (the resurrection of believers) ushers in liberation from that decay. (That is not to say, of course, that it is human effort that brings this about- it is God's redemption of mankind.)

We see this again in Revelation 22, where John describes the New Jerusalem. In vv1-5 John says,

Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.

Now, even allowing for metaphorical and symbolic language, it is easy to see the theology of these verses. The comparisons to the Garden of Eden are obvious, but I want to point out two major things. First is the access to the tree of life. In Genesis 3:22-24 God denies Adam and Eve access to the tree of life "and eat and live forever." Expulsion from the Garden and denial of the tree of life are the climax of the curse against humans.

And that leads to the second important point: "No longer will there be any curse." The curse from Genesis 3 (incorporating humans and all of creation) is done away with. All of creation is renewed (and one could even say improved from Genesis 1-2). This is a picture of Paul's language from Romans 8- freedom from the bondage of decay.

In summary, God has a total plan of redemption, one that incorporates all of creation. The Lord will re-create, renew and restore what is broken. The resurrection of God's people ("the redemption of our bodies" in Paul's language in Romans 8) is a part- perhaps, one could say the key part- of that re-creation. We'll look a bit more at that point in the 3rd part of this series.

Reader's Hebrew Bible

2008-04-22T10:22:00.000-04:00

For those of us who haven't kept up with their Hebrew as much as we should (sorry, Dr Stuart), then the Reader's Hebrew Bible just might be the thing. It really should help with my ever-shrinking vocabulary, especially. And, if I'm lucky, I just may receive a free copy- I'll even write a review if I do.

HT: Justin Taylor.

The Resurrection of the Body: Part I of V

2008-04-19T11:31:00.001-04:00

I recently taught through 1 Corinthians in a class at my church, climaxing in my favorite chapter in the Bible- 1 Corinthians 15. I tried to whip some thoughts together on the importance of believing in the resurrection of the body- not just Christ's bodily resurrection, but the coming resurrection of all people. I'm not about to embark on an exhaustive study on this blog, but I'd like to post some thoughts.

I envision this as a 5-part series. This is the first post, simply laying out some thoughts on the issue. Part 2 will look at Romans 8 and Revelation 21-22 to see how the resurrection of the body is a part of God's total work of re-creation. Part 3 will look at 1 Corinthians 15, since this is the NT's longest discussion of the subject. Part 4 will be a quick look at some early Christian writers from the post-NT era, as well as a couple early Christian creeds. Part 5 will deal with the "so what?" question and give some reasons why we should even spend time thinking about this.

I've found that many American Christians (I can't speak for the rest of the world) are not even aware that the Bible teaches that God will raise people from the dead. Many feel that when believers die, they go to heaven and spend eternity there with God. This, however, is not really the teaching of the Bible. This isn't to deny that believers go to heaven when they die, it's just to say that the NT teaches that there is more to expect beyond this. As N T Wright has said (countless times at this point), the NT is concerned with "life after life after death", unlike we who tend to await "life after death."

While I'm tempted to pontificate why this lack of reflection exists, I think I'll spare everyone. I'll just simply note that this topic is largely ignored and I'd like to see that changed for reasons that will come up in the following posts (which may, of course, take me a few weeks to put up). I invite my reader(s) to comment as we go, though understand that no one post will contain everything within it. I will endeavor to explain what the NT teaches without forcing you to spend hours of your day scrolling through paragraphs of repetition.

I'll be dealing with the resurrection of believers more than unbelievers, for 2 main reasons. First, the Bible doesn't say much about the resurrection of unbelievers, but it says enough for us to know it will happen. Second, my audience is mostly Christian, and I want to encourage us through this study more than anything else.

And who knows, before I'm done working on this series, Christ Himself may return and we'll experience rather than reflect on what Daniel prophesied (12:2): "Multitudes who sleep in the dust will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." I would welcome the interruption.

5.5 random things: youtube edition

2008-04-06T16:32:00.000-04:00

5.5. This edition of 5.5 random things is dedicated to youtube, the greatest waste of time in modern history.

5. I don't know if you've heard of Improv Everywhere, but they do some funny stuff. Here's my favorite, you can follow the links to check out the rest of their videos.

4. I think I mentioned this a long time ago, but here's a fan video for Jars of Clay's song Mirrors and Smoke, which is one of my favorites.

3. Here at blog of danny, we won't sell out to any sponsor. But if we did, we'd want this kid doing our commercials.

2. Back in the day, the Boston Bruins were know as the Big Bad Bruins. Here's a 80 second clip to give you an idea, capped off by John Wensink challenging the entire Minnesota North Star bench to a fight (there were no takers).

1. Finally, for a little theology, here's a fun 43 second video entitled John Piper is Bad.

1 Corinthians: Parallels to Acts

2008-03-14T19:55:00.002-04:00

As I've been teaching Bible classes regularly the last couple years, I've found it helpful to tie together different sections of the Bible to show how the writings complement each other. As I teach the letters of Paul, I think it's good to go back to Acts as you read his letters and see if there may be any helpful information that Acts provides. So, in Luke's account of Paul's ministry in Ephesus (Acts 19), you learn that Ephesus has a strong community dedicated to the cult and magic. When you read Ephesians, you notice that Paul, more than any other letter of his, uses language of our victory in Christ in the "heavenlies" and strong language of "spiritual warfare" (Eph 6:12-20- maybe in another post I can talk more about this). No coincidence.

When I went back to Acts recently, I noticed a few parallels between its account of Paul's ministry in Corinth (Acts 18) and Paul's 1st letter to the Corinthians, some are minor, some helpful. I thought I'd list them out for my reader.

1. Acts 18:3 says that Paul worked in Corinth as a tentmaker, which fits with his account that he worked rather than have the Corinthians "pay his way" (1 Cor 4:12; 9:6, 18- see also 1 Thess 2:9- this seems to have been Paul's modus operandi).

2. Acts 18:5-6 note that Paul's ministry to the Jews in the synagogues was largely unsuccessful, so much so that he declared "from now on I will go to the Gentiles." Sure enough, it seems reasonably obvious that Paul's Corinthian audience is mostly Gentile.

3. Luke tells us that "Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized" (18:8). Paul mentions baptizing Crispus in 1 Cor 1:14.

4. While Paul was in Corinth, "the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: 'Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent. For I am with you, and no one is going to attach and harm you, because I have many people in this city" (Acts 18:9-10). It isn't a stretch to assume, then, that Paul was afraid. In Paul's own words, "I came to you in weakness with great and trembling" (1 Cor 2:3).

5. Luke also records the beating of Sosthenes, another synagogue leader, at the hands of an angry mob (18:17). He was, presumably, a believer, and eventual "cowriter" (using that term loosely) of Paul's letter to the Corinthians (1:1- I wonder if he left Corinth because of the beating?).

6. Finally, after they all leave Corinth, Priscilla and Aquilla, Paul's coworkers, meet Apollos in Ephesus. Luke tells us "He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures...and he spoke with great fervor" (Acts 18:24-25), who was then taught more thoroughly by Priscilla and Aquilla. After this, Apollos ministered in Achaia and Corinth (Achaia is the overall region where Corinth was located) and "vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate" (18:28).

Interestingly, this seems to have caused some unintended problems within the church at Corinth. We learn that some chose to follow Apollos, while some chose to follow others (1 Cor 1:12). It seems that some of the Corinthians had rejected Paul on the basis of his lack of "wisdom" and "eloquence" (1 Cor 1:18-2:16; see also 2 Cor 10:10). Could it be that after experiencing Apollos' rhetorical abilities and his knowledge that some had placed Apollos higher on the "spiritual" scale than Paul? It would seem that their love for wisdom and persuasive rhetoric would certainly make this possible, if not probable (1 Cor 1:22; 2:1-5). Of course, Paul doesn't blame Apollos; he was, after all, doing his job of watering the seed that Paul had laid down (3:6). And it's clear that Apollos was no longer in Corinth when this letter was written (16:12), so the divisions probably happened after his departure.

None of these 6 points, mind you, are necessarily crucial to understanding Paul's letter. In fact, it seems to me that numbers 3 and 5 are purely incidental, number 1 confirms what we already know in other letters, number 2 gives us a good understanding why Paul's audience in this letter seems so Gentile (and also confirms what we know from other letters- he was the apostle to the Gentiles, after all), and numbers 4 (on Paul's fear) and 6 (on Apollos' abilities) give us some interesting background that proves to be more helpful- especially the last point.

I've been tagged: Bible Meme

2008-03-13T00:20:00.002-04:00

Cousin Jeremy (who incidentally will be legally changing his name to Cousin Jeremy soon) tagged me for this. Now, apparently as I do one of these I'm under contractual obligation to make a disclaimer along the lines of "I normally don't do these things, but... (my excuse: I can't sleep tonight)", so please consider it done. Thank you.

1. What translation of the Bible do you like best?

Although a long time user of the NASB, I might have to go with the TNIV- I've become a big proponent. Sorry, Jimmy Dobson.

2. Old or New Testament?

I'm with Jeremy on this one- aren't they both the Bible? I'm tempted to say the Apocrypha.

3. Favorite Book of the Bible?

Oh gosh. 1 Corinthians, because it has so much going on in it, I love using it for teaching. Philippians because it's downright awesome. Revelation because it's so different. Isaiah because it carries so many of the major themes of the Bible. I could go on.

4. Favorite Chapter?

1 Corinthians 15. Without a doubt. Philippians 2 pulls into second place. Or maybe Isaiah 53. Or maybe Psalm 103. Or Daniel 7. Or Revelation 4. Or Revelation 5. Or...

5. Favorite Verse?

For now, 2 Peter 1:3- "His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness." (TNIV)

6. Bible character you think you're most like?

Daniel- because we share a name and are both prone to frequent angelic visitations.

7. One thing from the Bible that confuses you?

Only one? I have always wondered what Jesus really meant when he said "God is spirit, and his worshippers must worship in the Spirit and in truth." I've heard many explanations, but none have ever satisfied me.

8. Moses or Paul?

In a steel cage match to the death? Moses. But otherwise... let's break this down like a boxing match-

Moses & Paul: the Tale of the Tape

Canonical writings: Moses- the Pentateuch vs. Paul- 13 letters: advantage- even
Divine Encounters: Moses- the burning bush vs. Paul- the risen Christ: advantage- Paul
Guest Preacher: Moses- slow of speech & tongue vs. Paul- unimpressive: advantage- even
Miracles: Moses- 10 Plagues, parting the Red Sea vs. Paul- numerous healings: advantage- Moses
Helpers: Moses- Aaron, Miriam vs. Paul- Timothy, Silas, Barnabas, Luke, etc: advantage- Paul
Difficulties: Moses- rebellious, complaining people, dry desert air vs. Paul- ungrateful churches, imprisonment, beatings, "thorn in the flesh", eventual martyrdom: advantage- Paul
Movie Portrayals: Moses- Charlton Heston in The 10 Commandments vs. Paul- Anthony Hopkins in Peter & Paul: advantage- Moses
Winner: Paul

9. A teaching from the Bible that you struggle with or don't get?

The teachings on caring for the poor are something I struggle with, not in understanding them but what that looks like for a 21st century American.

10. Coolest name in the Bible?

Mephibosheth

So I have to tag 5 people? How about the Neaves, Andrew, Jan, Brian and Isaac, except I don't know if he has a blog, so he can put his answers in the comments section.

Oh, and the answer to #6 was a bit of a joke, in case anyone was wondering.

Guardian Angels?

2008-03-02T15:02:00.001-05:00

I've always kind of scoffed at the idea that there are guardian angels. I realize that the Bible teaches that angels do protect God's people (Ps 91:11), but I've never thought too highly of the view that God has assigned a specific angel (or angels) to guard a person. I've heard some interesting beliefs regarding this that are certainly nonbiblical. For instance, I remember hearing a sermon where the preacher went on about how our guardian angels even look like us. I had, in my mind, put guardian angels in the category of nonbiblical ideas that have crept into church theology over time and been assumed by many to be true without any Scriptural proof- along with receiving wings when we get to heaven and Satan's horns and pitchfork.

Recently, however, I read Matthew 18:10 (TNIV):

See that you do not despise one of these littles ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.

Now, I realize that this verse still doesn't necessarily have to mean that each child (person?) has one guardian angel assigned to them, though that is a possibility. But I admit, I was confused. Perhaps I've been wrong all this time, maybe the Bible does leave room for the possibility of guardian angels.

So I checked out D. A. Carson's excellent commentary on Matthew (page 401) to see what he had to say. I have to admit, with all due respect to a fine NT scholar, I found his explanation completely unconvincing:

The "angels" of the "little ones" are their spirits after death, and they always see the heavenly Father's face. Do not despise these little ones, Jesus says, for their destiny is the unshielded glory of the Father's presence. ...But can the word "angel" be pressed into this interpretation? Certainly Jesus teaches that God's people in the Resurrection "will be like the angels in heaven" as to marriage (22:30) and immortality (Luke 20:36). ..."their angels" simply refers to their continued existence in the heavenly Father's presence.

Really? Are Matthew's readers really supposed to pick up such a subtle nuance? Saying that believers will be "like angels" in the resurrection is quite different from saying they will be angels (and I'm sure Carson would agree, but he doesn't really deal with it here). Now, if there were some other connection between the two contexts in Matthew, he might have a point. But, one is about resurrection (Matthew 22:30), the other is dealing with a present issue ("their angels in heaven always see..."). Matthew 22 is dealing with the believer's "gender state" (for lack of a better term) at the resurrection, that idea is completely unrelated to Matthew 18. So what would ever prompt us to read that text back into Matthew 18:10? I fear that Carson has gotten too creative for his own good (and I will reiterate, Carson is a fine scholar and his Matthew commentary really is good).

In the end, I'd rather simply let the text mean what it says on the surface level- that these little children have angels in heaven. Does this mean they each have a guardian angel specifically assigned to them? Not necessarily, Jesus doesn't elaborate enough to make that a definite point. But it certainly leaves the door open for the possibility, in my opinion. And it means I can't just laugh it off anymore.

they do it in the Bible, so why can't I...

2008-02-23T10:48:00.001-05:00

Over the years, I've encountered some interesting attempts at justifying one's actions or thoughts with the use of Scripture. Almost always they involve digging in Scripture for analogies to defend our vantage point. I've decided to post some here, and invite you to comment or share your own. Note: I'm not necessarily talking about debatable doctrines or applications of Scripture. I hope you will notice the difference between that and what I'm posting here.

1. The "they use offensive language in the Bible, so why can't I" defense: A recent version of this can be seen in Tim Challies book review of Mark Driscoll's new work Vintage Jesus and some follow up comments he made on his next post. Challies takes exception to some of Driscoll's language (and anyone familiar with Driscoll will not be surprised), though is largely favorable to Driscoll's ministry. If you'd like to find out more, I highly recommend you read these 2 posts, I tend to agree with Challies' summary.

Here, Driscoll uses these words when talking about Mary and the sketchy circumstances surrounding her pregnancy: "Most people thought she concocted a crazy story to cover the 'fact' she was knocking boots with some guy in the backseat of a car at the prom." The problem that some have, naturally, is the use of the phrase "knocking boots", which is deemed crass and unnecessary. A commentor, however, argued that since some of the prophets use strong language denouncing Israel ("whore", etc), we can't really be upset at Driscoll's comments.

Regardless of whether or not you think his wording is offensive, I would think that the deficiency of this defense is obvious (and I've heard this numerous times over the years). The prophets use strong and vivid language to show the immensity of Israel's sin and God's punishment for that sin. The offensive language used in the manner like Driscoll here is not at all analogous to Ezekiel's language (or Isaiah, Hosea, etc). This type of offensive language is nothing more than an attempt to be funny. I won't speak about Driscoll, since I don't know him personally, but in my experience, most Christians who frequently use these types of terms and phrases (and I'm not talking about swearing when you drop something heavy on your foot) are doing so simply to be cool and "edgy." There's nothing really to be gained by doing it, and in fact, I find it to be sad and pathetic rather than cool. Anyway, the Scriptural justification is wanting.

2. I've seen people pull one verse out to justify actions, all the while ignoring the mountain of verses against them. For instance, as I've been teaching on the gospels lately, I remembered in undergrad how people would defend their churches spending a lot of money on various and assorted decorations for their church building. I mean, a lot. What always killed me was the common use of Jesus' words "You will always have the poor among you" (see John 12:1-8).

Now, Jesus spoke these words in response to the disciples' objection to Mary anointing Jesus for His burial. It was a one-time act of worship by a woman disciple who actually understood what Jesus was about to go through (unlike his closer disciples). Jesus wasn't laying out a theology of giving to the poor, He was commending this faithful follower for her act of worship. Building a waterfall in your church foyer is not the same, or even analogous to, as Mary's one-time act of worship before Jesus' death. Not even close. (Side note: yet none of these folks who defended their churches ever considered that maybe Jesus' command to the rich young ruler to sell everything he had and give to the poor was for them, they had "good" reasons to argue against that. That's what my former NT prof would call "hermeneutically dodging the bullet.")

Now, you may disagree with me on how money is to be spent for church decor and for the poor (though to warn you, I'm developing very strong opinions about this), but at the very least I hope you can see why this defense is so very weak.

3. Leading in the irony department, I remember a debate with someone who was coming from a liturgical church background. We were discussing spiritual gifts and their use in the church service. This person, who didn't believe in the continuing existence of spiritual gifts anyway, argued that liturgy should be used because excercising spiritual gifts is disorderly. After all, it was said, "God is not a God of disorder but of peace" (1 Cor 14:33). The irony, of course, is that Paul wrote this in the middle of discussing the proper use of spiritual gifts during a congregational meeting. It certainly is far removed from liturgy, isn't it?

4. I went to a Southern Baptist school in undergrad. As a Southern Baptist university, the school did not allow school-sponsored dances (what you did on your own time was up to you, I suppose). Now, many fought against this, understandably so, but used an interesting way to argue their case: David danced, so why can't we? Of course, David danced, no one argues that. But David danced before the Lord in worship. He didn't go to clubs or go line dancing. Mind you, I have no problem with dancing, at least not morally (I mean, I don't like dancing, but don't have a moral objection to it). But I didn't confuse dancing at my wedding with dancing before the Lord as the ark was being returned to Jerusalem. Again, poor analogy.

Anyway, I kind of breezed through these, but I hope you see the points I'm making. Any of your own? Oh, and if anyone would like to point out the plank in my eye, please do so. Thanks!

The Patriots Got Beat

2008-02-04T16:14:00.000-05:00

I've pretty much avoided writing about the Patriots this year on purpose. Other than some early stuff about the Spygate scandal, I haven't touched them. For the most part, I've been busy (getting married will do that) and I really didn't want to repeat everything that people have been saying. I mean, if you could go back over the season and read the columns writers put out, they just repeated themselves all year. I can't tell you how many "Bill Belichick is a jerk, but he's a great coach" and "The Patriots are the team you love to hate" columns that I ran across. Seriously, if I were a sports editor and one of my columnists turned something like that in, I'd throw it back in their face and tell them to go cover high school sports until they can be at least slightly original. Anyway, I digress...

I actually think last night's game is a very simple one to analyze. You can't really blame the Patriots defense, though it did cave a bit at the end. But, if you told anyone before the game that the Giants would score 17 points, 99% would have said the Pats would win. Other than Ellis Hobbs playing Plaxico Burress in single coverage near the endzone for the game winning TD, there weren't too many bad defensive calls (it just so happened that that decision was costly, I still don't understand it).

Some will point to Belichick's decision not to kick the 48-yard field goal in the 3rd quarter on 4th and 13 as a huge mistake. Obviously in hindsight, when you lose by 3 points, you wish you could have had a field goal in there. But people neglect 2 points: 1) Belichick has never followed conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom leads to punting rather than aggressive play calling, running on 1st down and so on. Much of the Pats success has been due to the coach's refusal to follow conventional wisdom. 2) Has anyone considered that Belichick didn't think Gostkowski could make that kick? Everyone considers it a gimme, but the Pats have never had that much faith in him (and sometimes justifiably). Again, conventional wisdom says go for the kick, but conventional wisdom doesn't take into account a shaky kicker vs the greatest offense ever.

No, the real analysis of this game boils down to one simple point: the Giants defensive line outplayed the Patriots offensive line. It's as simple as that. Some may try to claim Brady didn't play well, but I can't think of one quarterback in Super Bowl history who got hit that many times (not to speak of how often he was forced to throw off his back foot) and still played as well as he did. The Patriots line, revered all season long, looked overmatched.

I knew going in that the Giants had something the Patriots struggled against: speed. Stick him opposite a 310lb monster, and Matt Light could block him with one arm. Line him up against a speedy rusher like Osi Umenyiora, and he struggles. But I don't think anyone expected him to struggle that much. Even more surprising, in my opinion, was watching Logan Mankins get beat by Justin Tuck on the inside. I've maintained all year that Mankins is the best guard in football. But he absolutely did not look like it last night.

So, you really don't have to waste your time reading a bazillion articles written by the "experts" who have been in autopilot all season dribbling out the same crap every week. Nope, you've got all your analysis right here. The Giants defensive line beat up the Patriots offensive line, which always leads to beating up the quarterback. They deserved to win.

results from my theology quiz

2008-01-26T15:22:00.000-05:00

I rarely take quizzes such as these, but for some reason I did today. I'm not all that surprised that I scored highest in the "Wesleyan" category, since John Wesley happens to be one of my favorites. On the other hand, I have almost nothing in common with modern Methodists. Interestingly enough, I grew up in a charismatic church, and currently attend a church that would fall under that general category, yet didn't score very high in that department. I think the questions tended to fall under the category of older pentecostalism (importance of speaking in tongues, etc), so I guess that's why I scored lower.

I'm very surprised I scored so high on the Emergent/Postmodern category. I guess it's because I see the importance of what some might call "social action", though I'd probably approach it differently than these groups. And I place far less emphasis on personal experience than your normal postmodern. In fact, I'd have more in common with Reformed groups than this one. At any rate, these types of quizzes have almost no room for nuance, and for someone who insists on nuance, I should probably just stay away.

What's your theological worldview?
created with QuizFarm.com

You scored as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly by John Wesley and the Methodists.

Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

96%

Emergent/Postmodern

61%

Neo orthodox

57%

Fundamentalist

50%

Reformed Evangelical

43%

Charismatic/Pentecostal

32%

Classical Liberal

29%

Roman Catholic

29%

Modern Liberal

11%

a thought from my first trip to Texas

2008-01-26T09:57:00.000-05:00

I wish I could have put money on someone giving me directions that included the following: "then you'll go past Billy Bob's on the left." I'd be a rich man.

5.5 random things: links edition

2008-01-03T09:57:00.000-05:00

5.5: This post is dedicated to whoever invented the idea of posting links rather than troubling with developing an insightful post to educate, entertain or edify others. If someone can do your work for you, cite them and move on. Here they are, in no particular order.

5: J. A. Adande of ESPN had an interesting article about race and the Boston Celtics. I meant to link to this a while back but forgot to. I thought it was well written, but I admit my Celtics bias.

4: Cousin Jeremy takes on the view held by some evangelicals that the act of sex is necessary for a marriage to be properly considered a marriage. I have to give props to any man who takes time to write a blog post called "Sex as a Condition for Marriage" on Christmas Day and actually have a tie-in.

3: Leading the "I Wish I Had Written That" category is Tim Challies' post (all the way from November, see how slow I am!) It Was My Sin That Held Him There, on the hymn How Deep the Father's Love for Us. Read this, reflect on this. Please.

2: Bill Simmons had linked to this and I thought it was interesting. It's a short article by Joe Posnanski of the Kansas City Star about Tony Gonzalez playing for Bill Belichick in the Pro Bowl. There is a genius to his madness.

1: My favorite Bible scholar is Gordon Fee, a man who is comfortable not only in the classroom but also in the pulpit. Here is a little video to get a feel for his preaching (actually, it seems like it's only the intro to a sermon, but he manages to pack a lot into only 5 minutes). I'm not sure who added the various images, but I think this is very well done. Check it out if you're interested in what it means to be saved and in community.

Messianic Jews Respond to Hagee

2007-12-08T16:05:00.000-05:00

As a follow up to my previous post about John Hagee's new book, In Defense of Israel, I offer a few thoughts from the realm of Messianic Judaism. A friend, who is a Jewish believer, sent me a link to a statement put out by the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations (UMJC) regarding the book, in which he argues that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah for the Jewish people, only the Savior of the world (the world excluding the Jewish people, presumably). It's no surprise that they do not find his views favorable; I thought they did an admirable job of shooting his claims down (which is not hard to do, hence the short space it took them to do so).

But I found their final paragraph enlightening:

To teach that Jesus did not come as the Messiah for the Jews is ultimately anti-Jewish. Jesus becomes the savior of the world, but with no particular relationship to the Jewish people. If Jews want to respond to him as savior they have to leave Israel and its messianic hope and become part of something universal. In contrast, when we declare Jesus to be the Messiah of Israel, we do not invalidate Israel or the Jewish people. Yes, Jews need to respond to Jesus, as do all people, yet in this response they discover that he is distinctly Jewish, distinctly relevant to them, and very much a part of the Jewish story.

This was something I had not thought about, but is completely true if one takes Hagee's viewpoint. If Jesus did not offer salvation to the Jews, but only to the rest of the world, then for a Jewish person to follow Jesus, they would have to renounce Judaism, since Jesus never offered them salvation. They'd have to become a Gentile in order to follow Jesus. After all, as Hagee says in his promotional video, "how can the Jews be blamed for rejecting what was never offered?" (For the record, I am against "blaming the Jews" on some corporate level for rejecting Jesus, that's not the point I'm arguing). Turning Hagee's thought on its head, how can the Jews accept what was never offered? The answer (as the UMJC points out): cease to be Jewish.

I encourage you to read the fuller response written by Rabbi Russell Resnik, who handles a few more issues of interest.

I don't like to make the claim of heresy, but...

2007-12-05T09:33:00.000-05:00

it's hard to be kinder when watching this advertisement.

This is a man who pastors a church of almost 20,000 people. Thousands more watch his television programs, who knows how many people read his books. This isn't dispensationalism, this is outright denial of who Jesus is and claimed to be. Scary stuff.

He makes a couple true statements, or at least half true. I agree, it's hard to make the claim that the Jewish people "as a whole" denied Jesus as the Messiah, since the majority of the earliest Christians were Jewish. But really, that depends on how you define "as a whole" anyway.

And I agree that there was a "conspiracy" to kill Jesus, though I wouldn't include Rome within that conspiracy. The conspiracy more likely involved individuals within differing sects of Judaism (Pharisees and Sadducees) and even some of Herod's followers (Mark 3:6, 12:13). I'm not sure you can call Rome a co-conspirator, though clearly responsible for the death of Jesus (which admittedly gets underplayed in many circles).

But to claim that Jesus never claimed by word or deed to be the Messiah, well, that's outright unbiblical. In fact, I wonder if Hagee will come out with a book denying the divinity of Jesus as well, since that is even "harder" to argue from Jesus' teachings and actions (mind you, I don't think it's all that hard, but it's even less explicit than his Messiahship). I wonder what Hagee thinks the word "Christ" means. I was under the assumption that most know it is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Messiah (Anointed One). I suppose he could argue that Christ claimed to be the Anointed One, but not the awaited Messiah. However, it would be awfully hard to argue that a Jewish person in the 1st century would differentiate.

So, I leave you with the words of John (1 John 5:1):

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Messiah is born of God...

a newlywed Christmas lesson

2007-12-04T00:09:00.000-05:00

The other night, Lisa and I set up and decorated our first Christmas tree as a married couple. After we strung the lights and took out the box of ornaments (thank you, Bruce and Morgan), Lisa was about to put a random, non-descript ball on the tree. I stopped her and said, "wait, since this is our first Christmas tree, shouldn't we put a special ornament on first?"

"Great idea!" she responded. We both reached for what we considered a "special" ornament.

She proceeded to grab an ornament that was given to us as a gift by a family member for our first tree (it has "The Pierces" and various glittery things on it).

I, on the other hand, had a slightly different definition of "special" and proceeded to grab my new Red Sox ornament.

Guess who got their ornament put on first? I have much to learn.

I've died and gone to heaven

2007-12-01T13:46:00.000-05:00

This week was a monumental time for me, one that will go down in history as the week of 2 unexpected, life changing surprises (if I may use a little hyperbole, though not too much).

First, on Sunday, I received my favorite wedding gift of all, Gordon Fee's new (destined-to-become-a-classic) book, Pauline Christology. I love it so much, I'm giving you a picture:

Fee, as many of you know, is my favorite Bible scholar. God's Empowering Presence (on the Holy Spirit in Paul's writings) is my favorite biblical studies book, by a large margin. One point of interest for me in both of these books is that they were written largely because no one else has covered these subjects. Fee, while working on other projects, noticed that few, if anyone at all, have actually sat down to write books on these two topics, which is astonishing considered the centrality of Christ and the life in the Spirit in Paul's life and ministry (biblical studies has become such a "niche discipline" that the main points often get overlooked). I'm really looking forward to diving into this book (I've read the first 30 pages or so, which were enough to cause me to sit around and day dream about becoming a Bible scholar again).

So, thanks to my good friend who bought this book for me as a wedding gift (you know who you are). If salvation were obtained by good works, your ticket would be purchased and heavenly passport stamped.

My second unexpected blessing was the discovery of biblicaltraining.org. This is a site meant to provide opportunities for those who do not (or cannot) attend seminary to listen to classes given by scholars and professors. A number of my former profs are on here, including a class or two that I took in seminary. You have to register, but it is free. The classes can be listened to through Windows Media Player or Quicktime (for Mac users), and can be downloaded on MP3 (perfect for our iPod culture). Many of the classes have the lectures transcribed and outlined. They are adding more classes soon (I can't wait for some more Craig Blomberg).

I'd highly recommend Douglas Stuart's Old Testament Survey. I did not take this class in seminary, but I knew a few folks who said that this was their favorite class in their years at school, so I look forward to checking them out. Honestly, OT Survey wouldn't rank on too many people's list of anticipated classes, so if it this highly regarded, you know it has to be good. Also, I also want to give a plug for Tim Tennent's missions classes (there are more to be put up, hopefully soon). Tennent is, quite simply, one of the best professors and lecturers I've ever had the pleasure of hearing. You will be richer for listening to them.

As someone who teaches Bible classes in the local church, I've been looking for good online resources I can recommend to my classes (I teach 2 nights a week). For various reasons (maybe to be discussed in another post on another day), there has been a long standing rift between the church and the academy, one that I think is to the serious detriment of both. I seek to bridge that gap as best I can when I teach. More often than not, those in my class (I can't really call them my "students", that sounds way too formal for my teaching) have to rely on my own personal anecdotes and take my word for it that these scholars are not stuffy, ivory tower types (Doug Stuart is a great example of a world-class scholar who is anything but stuffy). This online resource enables me to point members of my church to specific lectures and classes to get a "scholar's take" on a topic. Some of the classes are even condensed to shorter classes (called "Foundations" on the site), so they don't have to listen to the full 30 hour version (though they may want to).

One feature I hope to utilize when I have more time is the "custom class" feature. I can pick lectures and classes that I want and set up a "class" for folks to log on to and listen. I may be able to supplement much of my own teaching (or am I supplementing them?). I can have a "listen to this" portion of a class, enabling folks to download them to their iPods and listen on their own time, and we can discuss the content in class. At any rate, I can't stop thinking about it and I'm beginning to become obsessed.

Yes, Christmas came a few weeks early for me this year.

God and His own glory

2007-11-21T15:54:00.000-05:00

One of my favorite NT scholars is Ben Witherington. While I can't say I always love his stuff, some of it is downright great (The Jesus Quest, his commentary on Acts). I've been reading his blog now for sometime (apparently everyone has a blog now), and I sometimes find myself shaking my head in disappointment at his periodic unfair characterizations of others and what seems to be hastily written posts. I guess I'm so disappointed because he can be such a terrific scholar (and one with whom I have many theological agreements), I hate to see him write stuff that is not up-to-par.

Thus, today, I find myself disappointed once again. In his latest post he refers to the prominent view (particularly in Reformed circles) that God is concerned with His own glory. His post is filled with unfair characterizations such as this one:

Let me be clear that of course the Bible says it is our obligation to love, praise, and worship God, but this is a very different matter from the suggestion that God worships himself, is deeply worried about whether he has enough glory or not, and his deepest motivation for doing anything on earth is so that he can up his own glory quotient, or magnify and praise himself.

It's funny, I'm not sure I've heard any proponents of the view he is opposing (John Piper, for example) who argue that God worships Himself (though I realize I haven't read everything on this topic). I'm also not sure I've come across any that paint the picture of God as sitting around worrying about this. Lastly, I know that I've never seen anyone argue that God is trying to "up his own glory quotient." Such condescending drivel is unbecoming of a first rate scholar.

Obviously this issue is too large for a short treatment here, but I want to point out two things from his post that caused me to scratch my head. First, on Philippians 2:5-11, he writes,

If the Son is the very image and has the same character as the Father, wouldn't we expect this text to say--'who being in very nature God, devised a plan to glorify himself through his incarnation' if God really is so self-referential? In other words I am arguing Christ, the perfect image of God's character, reveals that God's character is essentially other directed self-sacrificial love. God loves people, not merely as means to his own ends, but as ends in themselves.

What I find so confusing, especially coming from a NT scholar (who has written a commentary on Philippians, no less) is the complete lack of contextual reading. What we see in vv6-11 is a Cliff Notes version of Christ's story, which ends with this (9-11, NET):

As a result God exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow– in heaven and on earth and under the earth – and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

The passage doesn't end with Jesus' act of self-sacrificial love (though that is clearly an indispensable portion of the story), it culminates in God performing an action (exalting Jesus and giving Him a name above all names) and man performing an action (bowing and confessing that Jesus is Lord) resulting in God the Father receiving glory! Christ's sacrifice borne out of a heart of love is part of that story, but it is not the full story. The story doesn't end until God the Father is properly glorified!

Which leads me to my second criticism: Witherington acts as if those who propose the view that God is concerned with His own glory have no place for God being motivated by His love for His people. While I'm sure there are some who may minimize this too much, most will certainly give it its due. No one denies that Jesus died out of love for sinners. I agree that it would be wrong to say that Jesus' death on the cross is merely a means to an end of glorifying God (though it does do that, right!?!?!). And when Witherington writes "God it would appear is not merely a glory grabber, but rather a glory giver", I say "Amen!" God being motivated to act out of love is not incompatable with being motivated for His own glory.

Finally, I'd recommend you read Ezekiel 36 (among other places, another commentor on Witherington's post mentions Isaiah 48 as well), in particular vv22-23:

Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘This is what the sovereign Lord says: It is not for your sake that I am about to act, O house of Israel, but for the sake of my holy reputation which you profaned among the nations where you went. I will magnify my great name that has been profaned among the nations, that you have profaned among them. The nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the sovereign Lord, when I magnify myself among you in their sight."

Hymn of the Week: Great is Thy Faithfulness

2007-11-17T20:33:00.000-05:00

This is one of my favorite hymns, and has been since I was a kid. The words were penned by Thomas Obadiah Chisholm.

Great is Thy faithfulness, O God my Father
There is no shadow of turning with Thee
Thou changest not, Thy compassions they fail not
As Thou hast been, Thou forever wilt be

Chorus: Great is Thy faithfulness, great is Thy faithfulness
Morning by morning new mercies I see
All I have needed Thy hands hath provided
Great is Thy faithfulness, Lord, unto me

Summer and winter, springtime and harvest
Sun, moon, and stars in their courses above
Join with all nature in manifold witness
To Thy great faithfulness, mercy and love

Chorus

Pardon for sin and a peace that endureth
Thy own dear presence to cheer and to guide
Strength for today and bright hope for tomorrow
Blessings all mine, with ten thousand beside

Chorus

I find myself singing this particular hymn when I'm by myself; it seems to lend itself well to this. Some of the better versions I've heard are by Selah and Gary Chapman (who only sings the 1st verse and chorus on his cd Shelter). It's also one we sing periodically in church.

We've got some good scriptural allusions in here (James 1 in the 1st verse, Lamentations 3 in the chorus). And I think in light of Thanksgiving coming up, I'm encouraged to reflect on the Lord's faithfulness in my life. Admist the changes and transitions of life, God is unchanging. Despite my sin and rebellion, He provides peace and His presence. And, as the 2nd verse notes, God is even faithful to creation itself (ever thought about that?)! By the way, am I missing the significance to the number 10,000? It also reminds me of Amazing Grace ("when we've been there 10,000 years"). Is there a reason for that particular number? Any help would be appreciated.

This is one song I was hoping to sing at my wedding, but we couldn't really fit it in. But on that day (and since) I did reflect on God's faithfulness in getting me this far. I've tried, oh how I've tried!, to sabotage His work in my life, but despite by best (or worst) efforts, He has faithfully held on for dear life and showered me with new mercies every morning. I have much to be thankful for.

5.5 random things: a half-hearted defense of the patriots running up the score

2007-11-08T09:50:00.000-05:00

5.5: This post is dedicated to the most oversaturated topic in football. Let me state for the record, I don't think there's any denying that the Patriots are running up the score a bit this season. Being up by 5 touchdowns in the 4th quarter and still throwing the long ball qualifies as such. Any denial of this reeks of homerism (being a "homer" means that you are completely uncritical of your hometown team, despite incriminating facts). But it isn't as bad as some might think...I think. Let me give a few reasons:

5: In Game Practice- Supposedly the Pats have used these late-game blowouts as another practice. I heard one sports journalist say that some of the plays they ran in the Indianapolis game to win were practiced late in the Redskins and Dolphins blowouts. Plus, if you get into the habit of pulling your starters too early, they are more likely to tire out late in games that are close. If you play only 3 quarters in 14 games, but the 15th is close and you're still going hard late in the 4th quarter, you may not have the "in-game" conditioning that you need.

4: The Record Books- When the beloved Tony Dungy and Peyton Manning did this a few years ago, most praised them for gunning for the touchdown record. The Pats do it, and they are unsportsmanlike. Not a defense, really, just pointing out the hypocrisy. Along those lines, since when is it bad for a team to gun for the record books? The Pats are one of the greatest dynasties in football history, they are simply adding to their accomplishments. What they don't have is statistical dominance, and in sports, statistics mean are second only to winning (some seem to place them first and foremost). Now they have it. The team may set the all-time scoring record, Brady passing records, Moss receiving records, etc.

3: Brady's vs Manning- Again, along those lines, it's interesting that so many media members have claimed Manning to be the superior quarterback to Brady because of his statistical superiority. Others, like myself, have always claimed that Brady is a better quarterback, but with inferior receivers (come on, Troy Brown and David Givens are no Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne) could not put up the Manningesque numbers. Now Brady has his shot to place himself in the #1 spot, can you blame him for aiming for it?

2: The Vengeance Factor- Some of the teams really have brought this upon themselves. Coaches such as Wade Phillips made comments to the media about the Patriots spying scandal tainting their accomplishments. Of course Belichick is going to take his anger out on them? I'm not saying it's right, but this is nothing new to the Patriots. Mind you, this doesn't excuse the Pats running it up on the Joe Gibbs coached Redskins- Gibbs has never said a negative word about anyone.

1: Settling It Like Men- Finally, I had a thought come to me this morning. Often times, players and coaches carry out their rivalries through the media, taking cheap shots at each other that have nothing to do with the game. While this can be, at times, entertaining, it's often seen as unprofessional. After all, they are football teams, they should "settle it on the field" and not use the media as their weapon. Well, the Pats are doing exactly this. Belichick and the players aren't talking trash about other teams and coaches, even though the rest of the league is doing it to them. They are taking their anger out on the field. And everyone hates them for it.

Thus concludes my half-hearted defense of the Patriots running up the score.

what do we do now?

2007-10-31T11:02:00.000-04:00

For my second post of the day...

So the Sox have once again won the World Series, their 2nd in 4 years after an 86 year drought. Not bad. The lovable losers have morphed into the perenniel favorites. It's a weird feeling.

But the question always remains, what do we do now? Just in case Theo Epstein and the rest of the Red Sox front office are reading the blog of danny, here are some thoughts on the issues.

Resign Curt Schilling? Supposedly Schilling wants a one year deal at his current salary, somewhere around $13 million. I don't think there's any way you can pay him that much. That's too much money for a pitcher who is guaranteed to miss at least 10 starts next year, and pitch hurt in another 10. Yes, he's a proven postseason star and a self-proclaimed great mentor to the younger pitchers, but $13 million is more than he's worth. If he'll come back for less, and maybe work some incentives into the deal (extra money if he reaches 30 starts, etc), then you might keep him. Otherwise, he'll be bringing his decomposing body somewhere else. With that said, Schilling should never have to pay for a meal in this city again. He helped bring 2 championships to Boston and pitching in 2004 with the bloody ankle will go down in history as one of the gutsiest performances in sports. I'll love the man forever.

Resign Mike Lowell? This seems to be an obvious "yes", doesn't it? I mean, he led the team in RBI, played an outstanding 3rd base and was named MVP of the World Series. Quite a resume. But let me throw a damper on things, just for some perspective. One, this was a contract year, and there are a number of guys who had great contract years, signed for big money, then never produced like that again. It's a fact of sports (Adrian Beltre is a recent baseball example). Mind you, I don't think Lowell is the type to play hard only for the money, he takes pride in his game and is naturally competitive. I'm just pointing out the facts. Two, I don't think the Sox will end up resigning him, but not because they don't want to. They will be hesitant to offer him any contract longer than 3 years (with a club option for the 4th), and someone out there will give him more years. More years means more guaranteed money. If the Sox offer him a 3 year deal at $12 million per, and someone else offers him a 5 year deal at the same money, he'll take the second deal. Can you blame him? I hope they resign him, he's a valuable part of the team and one I'd hate to see get away. I'm just not sure it's going to happen. Which leads us to the next question...

Go after A-Rod? We Sox fans shudder at the thought of A-Rod wearing a Red Sox uniform. After all, purple lipstick doesn't coordinate well with Fenway green. He is what ever fan loves to hate: he get's paid more than anyone ever should, he's a prima donna, he plays in a way that is considered "bush league" (slapping the ball out of Arroyo's glove in 2004 [see picture], distracting an infielder on a popup this year), and worst of all, he doesn't perform well in the postseason. In the world of sports, those are good reasons not to like a player. No one can deny his statistics during the regular season, but when you pay someone that much money, you want postseason results. I hope the Sox take this into consideration.

Here are a couple things to think about. One, A-Rod is looking for a deal of $30 million per year for at least 5 seasons, probably more. For that money, we can resign Lowell and go after another pitcher or two to help our rotation/bullpen. Two, he would probably bring too much baggage into the clubhouse, and the Boston team thrives on a laid back, "we are family" type atmosphere. Even though I'm sure A-Rod isn't the incarnation of evil as some seem to suppose, he has never been known to help team chemistry. Three, we have won 2 World Series with A-Rod playing for our biggest rival in our own division! How valuable can he be? Do we really need him? Would Theo really tie up that much money in a guy we have won 2 titles without?

I hope the answer is "no." We don't need him, in fact, he needs the Sox more than the Sox need him. Let him go to Chicago, or LA, or LA of Anaheim.

Free Agents? The Sox could use another pitcher if Schilling leaves. We'll be bringing back Beckett, Wakefield, Dice-K, Lester and Buckholz, who could join the rotation next year. Wakefield is becoming more injury prone in his old age, the Sox will need some insurance for him. They could also use some help in the bullpen, since Timlin is only getting older, Gagne will be (thankfully) gone and Okajima, while great, can get worn out. As for the offense, I'd guess that Coco Crisp will end up being traded to make room for Jacoby Ellsbury, the man who won all of America a free taco (see picture). Unfortunately, Drew will be back, since no one will take him. If Lowell walks and the Sox don't sign A-Rod, then they'll have to fill the 3rd base position and have no one in the minors to do so anytime soon. They do have the option of moving Youkilis to 3rd, his original position, and signing a 1st baseman (Carlos Pena from Tampa Bay?). Either way, they are in a good position: they don't have to make any major moves other than figuring out what to do with Lowell. That's a good place to be in coming off a championship.

After 2004, the front office decided to shake things up. They let Orlando Cabrera go and signed Edgar Renteria, who they thought was an upgrade. They let Dave Roberts, one of their most important backups, walk and never found a way to replace him. They let two pitchers, Pedro Martinez and Derek Lowe, walk and never filled the whole. I hope they learned not to mess around this time. If you can win with this team as currently constituted, then there's no need to play around. Patch a few holes, let your young guys play and don't mess with success.

when "being myself" is a sin

2007-10-31T10:02:00.000-04:00

Lisa and I just got our wedding video the other day and had a chance to sit down and watch it. It was great to look the ceremony again, relive some of our favorite parts (the hymns, of course, rank near the top of the list), and see our friends and family who attended. Most importantly, there is no video evidence of me making a fool of myself on the dance floor, therefore it may never have happened. Nice.

But there was something in the video that helped me see something I did not know about myself. During the ceremony, I looked completely unemotional. Honestly, my facial expressions barely changed throughout, it was eye-opening to me. What disturbs me is that I loved the ceremony and was genuinely moved throughout, there were a few times where I thought I would end up crying (and did, during How Great Thou Art). I can point those times out in the video, but if you didn't know me, you'd probably never think that was the case. After running this revelation across a few other people, I've been informed that this is often the case with me.

There's nothing wrong with looking unemotional, of course. I'm not a guy who wears his emotions on his sleeve, though I'd bet I'm more emotional than some might think. But this also brought to mind something I felt conviction over this past summer. You see, I was a part of a faithgroup (small group) in our church led by my good friends Matt & Pam. Every week Pam would prepare a time of worship through singing for us, but most of us rarely sang. It basically turned into the Matt and Pam Family Singalong, with a couple others singing in a barely audible voice.

I was convicted, however, in my failure to worship as a part of the community in these times. See, I often like to listen to the congregation worship on Sunday mornings. Hearing the voices of God's people singing can be a powerful experience. I also like to spend more time thinking about the words and what they teach us about God. These are both perfectly acceptable ways to worship.

However, in a smaller corporate worship setting, it may be inappropriate to do this all the time. Here's why: corporate worship, by definition, is a time for a group of people to worship the Lord in unity. While we may "connect with God" personally, that is not the primary goal of corporate worship (see some thoughts on corporate worship here and note in particular Jeremy's comment). In a smaller group, it can actually be selfish, and it certainly was for me. Sure, I can trot out the "I have a horrible voice, I'm saving you from the pain" argument (which is true, to be sure), but that again is selfish. If my silence causes discouragement for someone else, in particular the leaders, then my worship is self-focused, not blessing God or my brothers and sisters.

I can't turn myself into someone who suddenly shows every emotion on his face: I wouldn't even know how, and it would probably be dishonest to do so. However, I can, especially in corporate worship times, do a better job of promoting unity in the Spirit by participating more. A lack of participation is not "being myself", it is being selfish. And that is a sin.

5.5 random things: world series edition

2007-10-27T10:00:00.000-04:00

5.5: This post is dedicated to the handful of folks who still read this blog. It's funny, I think the least favorite posts on this blog are ones about sports, yet I managed to churn them out far more regularly than any other subject. Why is this? I'll give you the primary reason- they take little thought. I can pump out a Red Sox post in 20 minutes (most of which is spent checking my facts anyway), whereas a post on a biblical passage or theological issue requires much more thought and precision. So, I can assure you the quantity of posts on a given subject is not proportional to the importance I place on that subject, in fact, the inverse may be true.

5: Winning the first two games of the World Series was obviously important, but one reason I haven't heard anyone mention yet is this: we don't have to pitch Josh Beckett on 3 days rest in Game 4. Even if the Sox lose tonight, they still have a 2-1 lead going into Game 4, and you would only pitch Beckett if it were a must win game.

4: It was weird seeing Schilling walking off the mound on Thursday night and think that it may have been the last time he does that in a Red Sox uniform. Yes, he has fallen quite a bit over the last couple years as a pitcher, but that is largely due to him pitching with his ankle all sown up in 2004. The question some are asking now: is Schilling a Hall of Fame pitcher? Here are my thoughts, in a nutshell. If you are looking purely at stats and comparing them to Hall of Famers, then no, he shouldn't be elected. But when you consider that pitching statistics have changed so much over the years, I'm not sure that should be the deciding factor (just at hitters with impressive stats today should automatically be elected). His postseason exploits are legendary, and that has to count for something. And think about this: Jim Bunning, Don Drysdale, Bob Lemon, Hal Newhouser, Gaylord Perry, and Don Sutton are all in the Hall of Fame. Are any of those guys really better than Curt Schilling?

3: Some of Francona's decisions made throughout the year have been proven to be genius. Two that stand out as particularly sucessful: giving Papelbon frequent rest throughout the season, and shutting down Okajima for a month near the end of the season. Both look extrememly healthy and sharp right now, and the numbers bear it out. They have been practically unhittable, and I'm beginning to wonder if Okajima could win Series MVP (even without a win or a save) if he has another game like Game 2 (7 batters, 7 outs, including getting out of a Schilling jam).

2: Francona has been put in a difficult position of choosing between Mike Lowell, Kevin Youkilis and David Ortiz to play in Colorado (where there is no DH). He has opted to sit Youkilis, at least for part of their time there. That's a tough decision, and even though Youkilis is their hottest hitter, I think it may be the correct one. Sitting Lowell is difficult, his defense is outstanding and he's been swinging a great bat. I'm not sure how you can sit Ortiz, he's the best clutch hitter of his generation and hitting just fine. Youkilis is obviously a better defensive first baseman, but that rarely comes into play (and he'll get in late in the games when defense becomes especially important). And while Youkilis is hitting the cover off the ball, let's not forget he's doing so in large part due to Ortiz and Manny hitting behind him. Take Ortiz out of the equation, and I'm not sure Youkilis is batting over .500. Anyway, Francona may consider sitting Ortiz in game 5 with the left handed pitcher.

1: A few things that have stuck out to me:

I can't believe Matt Holliday got picked off first in the 9th the other night. That has to be the biggest baserunning blunder in the World Series since Jeff Suppan's brain lapse in Game 3 of 2004.

Coco Crisp has fallen so far that the Sox will barely be able to get anything for him in a trade this offseason. Can you say "package deal?"

Dice-K has recently been described as a "power nibbler", which I think is pretty accurate. He's hoping he stops nibbling and starts pitching tonight.

Can you believe JD Drew is the team leader in hitting and slugging in the World Series?

The Sox scored 15 runs in 2 games, and the only homerun was from Dustin Pedroia.

Comparing the pitching staffs: Sox pitchers have given up 3 walks and 11 hits in Games 1&2, Rockies pitchers have given up 15 walks and 23 hits.

There's an old saying in baseball: momentum is only as strong as the next day's starting pitcher. The Rockies can turn this around quickly if they get a strong performance from Josh Fogg tonight.

more from the wedding

2007-10-24T09:32:00.000-04:00

Some of you may have heard that I got married to a wonderful young lady named Lisa on October 6 (see my post a few days ago). The wedding was perfect and the reception was tons of fun. I'll throw a few pictures up with some comments.

Here we are during one of the hymns, you can see our pastor, Sean, in the background. You've heard mention the Charles Wesley Corollary before (my old roommate, and fellow newlywed, Jonathan calls it the Hymns-Spirit Theorem). The thought is that "the power of the Spirit evident in any given meeting is proportional to the quality and quantity of hymns that are sung." Lisa and I aimed high for our wedding, singing 3 of my favorites: Be Thou My Vision (click the Corollary link for some thoughts on that hymn), Come Thou Fount and How Great Thou Art, my favorite hymn of all. Well, the Corollary held true in our wedding, it was a powerful time of worship for everyone. Part of our goal for the wedding was to honor God by celebrating His goodness and grace, and I felt like we were able to do that during this time.

Sorry to post a picture of us smooching, but it was part of the ceremony, so what do you want from me? You'll see my best man, Ryan, giving his approving smile in this picture. You may remember Ryan from a post from a little over a year ago entitled I went to a worship service and a wedding broke out, which was my running diary of his wedding weekend. I had the pleasure of being his best man, so I was happy to return the honor. He was a great best man; I was psyched we were able to continue our tradition of going to Dunkin' Donuts on Saturday morning (as we did in seminary, and on his wedding day).

So here we are for our first dance, with Direct Effect playing Ray LaMontagne's song Hold You in My Arms. I don't mind slow dancing, but I hate any other form of dancing. But, as a good husband ought to do, I made a fool of myself on the dance floor for the sake of my wife, who happens to love dancing. Don't worry, I was repaid by being able to watch the Red Sox and Patriots on our honeymoon. See, we're learning how to compromise already!

In all seriousness, the wedding turned out to be exactly what we wanted it to be: a celebration of the goodness of our God. We gave Sean one simple instruction: preach the gospel. At the very least, we wanted folks to come away with an understanding that there is a God in heaven who is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love. We chose our Scripture reading accordingly: Ephesians 2:1-10 and Psalm 103. We had so many folks come up to us and tell us how blessed they were by the service, and many mentioned how moved they were during How Great Thou Art. Lisa and I were so honored to know that the character of God was proclaimed clearly in both the preaching and the hymns, and we're thankful for the opportunity to worship the Lord in this setting.

Red Sox vs Rockies: 2007 World Series thoughts

2007-10-23T10:03:00.000-04:00

For the 2nd time in 4 years the Red Sox have made the World Series. For the 1st time in their relatively short existence, the Rockies are making an appearance. I realize the oddsmakers are practically handing the Sox the title, but I'm not sure how anyone can dismiss a team that has won 21 of their last 22, including sweeping the first 2 rounds of the playoffs. Maybe it's the pre-2004 Sox fan still grumbling within me, but I'm not that confident. Here are some thoughts about what I think is not going for them, followed by a list of things working in their favor.

What is working against the Sox:

Colorado's hot streak.
Inconsistent offense
4 inches of snow in Denver
Inconsistency from any starter not named Beckett
Gagne-Lopez-Delcarmen (8 2/3 innings, 10 runs in the postseason)
Setting a record for hitting into double plays
Manny's grasp of the English language
Papelbon dancing in spandex

What is working for the Sox:

Josh Beckett
An offense that finally came alive (example: Youkilis batting .500 in the ALCS)
Putting Jacoby Ellsbury in for Coco Crisp
Homefield advantage (a big deal for this Sox team)
Timlin-Okajima-Papelbon (17 innings, 0 runs in the postseason)
Schilling remembering he's a clutch pitcher (may forget by his next start, though)

We have the advantage of pitching Josh Beckett in game 1, which gives Francona 2 options: pitch him on 3 days rest for games 4 and, if necessary, 7 or more likely pitch him on regular rest for game 5 and in relief after that (if necessary, of course). There is no doubt that Beckett is the most valuable player on this team for the postseason. He is the only starter with any sort of consistency, someone who is quickly turning his postseason exploits into legendary status. In 8 career postseason starts he has thrown 3 shutouts. This year he has walked only 1 batter in 23 innings allowing only 15 baserunners in those 23 innings. If I'm Colorado, I'm a little worried about facing him to start the series. You can't plan on scoring a lot of runs on him, so you have to make him throw a lot of pitches early and get to the bullpen (note the Gagne, Lopez, Delcarmen trifecta of crappiness).

If I'm Francona, I'd drop Gagne from the roster for the World Series and put Tavarez back on. Hopefully you won't need him, but he certainly can do better than Gagne, especially if you need a pitcher to go a few innings in an extra-inning game. I'd also leave Ellsbury in for Crisp (that's a no brainer) but not fall to the tempation of benching Lugo for Cora (who, contrary to the belief of some, would not be any better).

To be honest, I'm not sure what all there is to say about this series. I feel like at this point in the season we know what we are getting from everyone involved. The question is this: will the proven clutch players on the Sox (Beckett, Schilling, Ortiz, Manny, etc) keep it up or will this be the year that the younger, unknown players from the Rockies begin to make a name for themselves. The Sox just faced a similar team in a similar situation in Cleveland (who could be great for years to come), and proved that their experience was able to overcome. Here's hoping the same happens in this series.

Prediction: Red Sox in 6, Manny Ramirez World Series MVP #2, repeating his famous line after the 2004 World Series victory "I don't believe in curses, I believe you make your own destination." (Note, I actually think Beckett will win MVP, but I wanted to fit the Manny line in here somewhere.)

October 6, 2007

2007-10-20T10:15:00.000-04:00

Best. Wedding. Ever.

2007 baseball awards and other thoughts

2007-10-01T19:41:00.000-04:00

It was a bit of a wild ending for the 2007 baseball season, especially with the Mets 1978-Red-Sox-esque collapse and the one game playoff between the Rockies and the Padres. Too bad no one cares because they're in the National League. Anyway, here are my thoughts on the season awards, at least the ones that matter.

NL Rookie of the Year: I'm not going to lie, I had to look this up. It looks like Troy Tulowitzki of the Rockies will win it. 101 runs scored and 98 RBI is a heckuva rookie season. See Holliday above, however, for demerit points.

NL Cy Young: This is a no-brainer, Jake Peavey from the Padres. He ended up with the pitcher's triple crown (leading in wins, stikeouts and ERA), and led in ERA by .65 runs. Great season.

NL MVP: There are a number of people on the Jimmy Rollins bandwagon, and for good reason. Finishing with 139 runs, 212 hits and 20+ doubles, triples, homeruns and stolen bases is pretty remarkable. But I think I'm going with Matt Holliday. There's something about leading the league in batting average, and finishing 2nd in RBI and slugging, 3rd in OPS and leading with 91 extra base hits that strikes me as an award winning season. The point against him, however, is that he plays in Colorado, which means every offensive stat is inflated a bit. Now I'm talking myself out of this pick.

AL Rookie of the Year: Any other year and Delmon Young of the Devil Rays might win this award: 93 RBI and a .288 average is pretty good for a rookie. Unfortunately for him, he started the same year as Dustin Pedroia of our beloved Red Sox. Pedroia: .317 average, 86 runs scored and only 6 errors all season (!) for a .990 fielding percentage. That's a Gold Glove caliber year, except for a man named Placido Polanco of Detroit who made 0 errors in almost 700 chances! When you consider that Pedroia batted .182 in April, his season is even more remarkable. He batted .333 from the beginning of May, making Red Sox fans feel stupid after calling for his benching.

AL Cy Young: I felt that this was Josh Beckett's award to lose going into his final start of the season, and he did. He is the only pitcher to win 20 games in either league, and the first since 2005. He was barely behind in ERA going into that start, but got beat up enough that he ended outside of the top 15. Seeing as how CC Sabathia, John Lackey and Fausto Carmona all finished with better ERAs and 19 wins, Beckett didn't distance himself enough to take the award in my opinion. I say it should go to Sabathia, even though Carmona, his teammate, and Lackey finished with slightly better ERAs. My reasoning: of those 3 guys, who would you most want to pitch for you. I'd take Sabathia any day.

AL MVP: I really want to give this award to Magglio Ordonez of the Detroit Tigers. He won the batting title batting .363, drove in 139 runs (2nd place) and even led the league in doubles with 54. David Ortiz finished strong, batting .332, slugging .621 (3rd place), and 2nd in OPS (1.066). Though, Mike Lowell for the Sox was just as valuable this year, driving in 120 runs. In the end, this award has to go to Alex Rodriguez, who led in runs scored (143, 20 over the next guy), homeruns (54), RBI (an amazing 156 in 158 games), slugging (.645) and OPS (1.067). Mind you, he's still not even the guy I fear the most in the Yankees lineup in clutch situations, but what an amazing season. This will be his 3rd MVP, though I personally think he didn't deserve the other 2 (the 1st in 2003 with the awful Rangers and the 2nd in 2005 with the Yankees when Ortiz should have won it). Anyone who doesn't think A-Rod is the best player in baseball is lying, which is why he'll probably get $30 million per season this winter.

As for the postseason, it's a tough call. The NL is tough to figure, since they haven't even filled their playoff spots with the Rockies-Padres game tonight. I'll pick the sentimental favorite, the Cubs because I love Sweet Lou Pinella.

As for the AL teams, all of them have major flaw: Angels- offense, Indians- little postseason experience, Yankees- starting pitching, Sox- timely hitting. The truth is that the Indians are probably the most well-rounded team, but they don't play well against the better teams. I think that's due more to their inexperience in pressure situations, which is where the Sox and Yankees thrive.

So this is what I'm thinking for the AL: the Sox beat the Angels in 4, Indians beat the Yankees in 5. The Sox then beat the Indians in 6, then go on to beat the Cubs in 7 with Ellsbury stealing home to win it all. Okay, that last part won't happen, but I'll predict the Sox leaving Cubs fans in misery one more year.

5.5 random things: random things numbering 5.5

2007-09-22T09:38:00.000-04:00

5.5. This post is dedicated to Panera Bread, whose wi-fi and limitless coffee have provided me an office away from my office (for the record, I don't really have an office...yet).

5. In all the writings about Cameragate (and there are far too many), I read 2 that were particularly awful. The worst was Gregg Easterbrook's piece on ESPN, which I've heard (rightly) blasted by some in the media. Two aspects stand out to me as especially heinous. First, his insistance that Bill Belichick was "stonewalling" investigations, an accusation for which he offers no proof. Belichick, by all accounts, did comply with Commissioner Gooddell's request for all videotaping and has been cleared of any further charges. Doesn't sound like stonewalling to me. The only thing that Belichick may be stonewalling is the media's desire to know all information. Unfortunately, "freedom of press" for some members of the media means that they are entitled to total access to the thoughts and actions of public figures. I'm proud of Belichick on this one. Second, his column is full of terms like "perhaps", "maybe" and "might be." The Patriots might be stealing offensive calls by installing microphones on their defenders' jerseys. The Chargers defensive coordinator used to coach for the Bills and Jets, and he may have been using the same exact signals last week as he used years ago and the Patriots knew them all (of course, if he hasn't varied his signal calling over the years, he's an idiot). Let's quit with the "potentials" and stick with the facts. Easterbrook, you're an idiot.

4. The second worst article I read came from an otherwise good football writer (also of ESPN) and member of the Hall of Fame's media wing: John Clayton. He argued that the punishment on the Patriots ($500,000 personal fine for Belichick, $250,000 fine on the team, loss of 1st round draft choice) was too lenient. His premise: "Here's the problem with Goodell's decision: Whether by design or not, the Patriots had themselves covered for such a penalty because they are so good at what they do. They acquired the 49ers' first-round pick in a trade that enabled the 49ers to select Joe Staley. They have an additional third-round pick from the Raiders in another trade. They have enough draft choices to survive the loss of one first-round choice." The problem with Clayton is that he's wanting to punish the Patriots for more than their cheating, he wants to punish them for being good. Look, the penalty for cheating ought to be the same no matter how good or bad the team is. The Patriots are the best franchise in football and have been since the beginning of the decade. Don't punish them for being better, the punishment fit the crime just fine.

3. Josh Beckett is well on his way to winning the Cy Young Award this year. It's certainly not a lock, but he'll probably be the only pitching with 20+ wins and is trailing in the ERA lead by only .11, with probably one more start before the end of the season. He's been the only consistent starter this year for the Sox, wrestling (without much of a fight) the position as ace of the staff from Curt Schilling. Terrific season.

2. Danny's Fantasy Football Update: 1-1, with my loss coming only by 1 point. I'm never happy about losing, but when you consider that LaDainian Tomlinson has only rushed for 66 yards in 2 games and Drew Brees has only thrown 1 TD, that's not too bad. Both guys are too good to keep down for very long, eventually they'll play well and my team should be doing fine. In the meantime, I'm thankful for the midget receiver named Steve Smith, who has 217 yards receiving and 4 TDs in only 2 games. My best decision of the draft was picking him up.

1. Upcoming book release alert: Rediscovering Paul, coauthored by one of my former professors, Rodney Reeves. Reeves is a quality professor, and a strong man of God who insisted on making NT studies (with all its focus on Greek Grammar, cultural backgrounds and theological insights) applicable to the church today. The book is geared more towards and undergraduate audience, rather than an upper-level textbook, which plays right into Reeves' strength (I don't know the other authors, so I can't comment on them). Craig Blomberg gives it a good review, which is enough to put it on my wishlist.

Wild Card Baseball: Stealing the Heart of September

2007-09-20T09:05:00.000-04:00

The Red Sox are currently manufacturing a terrific collapse. All season long, they have dominated the American League East. Their lead over the Yankees in late May was 14.5 games; it's been in double digits for most of the season. On July 5 their lead was 12 games (Toronto was in 2nd place at that time). Yet here they are, on the morning after being swept in Toronto, with only a 1.5 game lead. In less than 4 months, their lead has dropped 13 games.

And they don't really care.

I'm not saying they want to lose or anything like that. But there's one major reason why they don't have to worry about losing this lead to the Yankees: they will still make the playoffs. Thanks to our friendly wild card playoff system, the team with the best record that doesn't win their division will still go to the playoffs. I remember when this was instituted, the argument was that it would create more excitement because it allows for another race to make the playoffs. In my mind, it was the "race for the best 2nd place team."

Now, I know there are some who will point out that the Red Sox would never have won the World Series in 2004 if it weren't for the wild card system. In fact, they wouldn't have made the playoffs in over a decade if it weren't for the wild card system. So do I think the Sox' World Series championship is invalid?

No, I don't. And here's why: the wild card system is necessary because of the arrangement of the leagues. With a 3-division format, you need the wild card for at least two reasons. 1) You have an uneven number of playoff teams and 2) there's no guarantee that the 2nd best team is one of the 3 division winners (in fact, this has often been the case with the Sox, in '99, '03 and '04). With the current system, the wild card has to happen. It does help in making sure the top 2 teams get into the postseason. In 2004, there is no doubt the Red Sox were one of the top 2 teams in the AL (in all of baseball, actually). They had every right to be in the postseason. But the wild card also assures us of the possibility that a team will take 2nd place rather than fight it out for 1st place.

And that is exactly what is happening this September. The Sox don't have any real reason to fight the Yankees for the division. Sure, they could get homefield advantage. There's always pride in beating the Yankees. But honestly, if you ask Terry Francona (and if he's being honest), he'd rather rest his guys and have them ready for October rather than risk wearing them out, even if that means losing the division.

You can't blame him, of course. He's just taking advantage of the system. Major League Baseball has arranged the leagues in such a way that the wild card is a necessity. Short of dropping teams, the wild card must stay. But this year, it hasn't created another playoff race, it's created apathy.

cheaters never prosper...unless you're the Patriots

2007-09-13T16:56:00.000-04:00

I have to be honest, I found the whole CameraGate scandal funny. When I found out about it, I laughed because the Pats got caught doing something that every team does in some form or another, namely, stealing signals from the other team. It's funny because that stuff happens in every sport, and everyone knows it. It's funny because the Patriots were dumb enough to get caught, which is astonishing for such an intelligently run team. Even more astonishing when you consider that they were specifically told not to do this during the off-season by the league. Gosh, Bill, you didn't think anyone was paying attention to that guy standing on the field pointing a camera directly at the other team's coaches after they told you they were going to be looking for it? Strikes me as a bit arrogant, to be honest.

But I find this less funny as time goes on, though not because of the crime, but because of the reaction. Listen, folks, there are worse problems going on in sports. Stealing a signal, which has to be deciphered accurately and quickly in order to work (which would really take quite a while, given the complexity of NFL defenses), is far less cheating (if you'll permit me gradations of cheating) than taking steroids or punching guys in the groin in the middle of a pile. It is far less worrisome than chop blocking a guy, a move which could potentially wreck a man's legs.

I'm not trying to excuse it with the "everyone's doing it" cry, although everyone is doing it (like I said, in some form or another). I'm not sure how this could taint the Patriots legacy. Check out this Bill Simmons article where he chats with Aaron Schatz of Pro Football Prospectus about this and other cheating scandals. Shoot, the Broncos have two major ones: they cheated to get around the salary cap in their 2 Super Bowl championship seasons, and their coach, Mike Shanahan, admitted to having people on staff who specifically use binoculars to steal opposing teams signals and lip read. Where's the outcry? Where's the tainted legacy of John Elway?

What bothers me the most, and this is what Simmons gets to, is that this gives folks even more reason to hate the Patriots. I hate the fact that many people treat them like they treat the Yankees- people hate dominate franchises. These two franchises are completely different. The Yankees won because they outspent everyone and changed (some say "ruined") the financial situation of Major League Baseball. The Pats have the same salary cap as the rest of the NFL, yet manage to win. They have the same restrictions, they just have better coaching and better scouting. Hating someone because they win by writing checks is one thing (though there are plenty more reasons to hate the Yankees); hating someone because they are better than your team playing within the same rules reeks of jealousy (speaking of jealousy, check out Andrew's post on Brady .

The Patriots deserve to get punished. I'll be willing to bet that the league will handle this appropriately. They cheated, they got caught, they should face the penalty without complaint. But let's not go crazy, they haven't been winning all these years because of their ability to interpret hand signals. They've won because Tom Brady can engineer a game-winning drive with time winding down, because Adam Vinatieri can't miss a clutch kick if he tried, because Belicheck can get the most out of his (sometimes average) players.

Seriously, you'd think that Ellis Hobbs was able to run the second half kickoff 108 yards only because they stole the Jets' signals and discovered they were going to be kicking off to the Patriots. What if they didn't steal signals, would Hobbs known to have run? Did stealing signals tell the Patriots to be patient with Tedy Bruschi as he made the slow adjustment from a small defensive end to middle linebacker? Did stealing signals tell them that Mike Vrabel, dwelling on the practice squad and special teams in Pittsburgh, would turn into one of the most intelligent and most underrated linebacker in football?

They didn't need to cheat, but unfortunately, they did. And they deserve to be punished. But let's not go witch hunting.

The Legend of Jason Varitek

2007-09-02T18:25:00.000-04:00

I suppose there are probably some around the country who look at Jason Varitek and wonder why a .260 hitting catcher with average power numbers is in the middle of a 4 year, $40 million contract. Why would you spend that much money for someone who produces so little.

If you watched Clay Buchholz's no-hitter last night (in only his 2nd game), you'd understand why. This is the 3rd time Varitek has called a no-hitter, the other two being Hideo Nomo and Derek Lowe (in 2001 and 2002, respectively). The Nomo game sticks out because it was his first start in a Red Sox uniform, yet he didn't shake off Varitek until something like pitch number 63. Buchholz knew better than to question Varitek. If Varitek calls the pitch, chances are it's well-informed. His preparation is unparalleled. He studies the hitters, their tendencies and their weaknesses. He knows the opposing lineup better than anyone else on the field.

Consequently, he gives the Red Sox an advantage every time they take the field. The pitchers and coaching staff can have the confidence that the pitches called by Varitek are more than likely the correct call. Granted, the pitcher still has to make the pitch, as Varitek is known to say, "I just drop the fingers, they have to make the pitch." And I'm sure Varitek has made his share of mistakes, but there is no other catcher in all of baseball who can call a game like Varitek.

Take the example of Curt Schilling. He has always been known for his preparation, with multiple 3-ring binders of notes on hitters he's faced. When he came to Boston, however, even he had to defer to Varitek. On occasion, he does not, but I think he's learning his lesson. As noted, Varitek has caught 3 no-hitters, but he should have had a 4th. Earlier this season Schilling was one out away from recording his first career no-hitter. He shook off Varitek, thinking he knew the opposing hitter better than his catcher. He proceeded to lose his no-hitter, and chances are slim he'll get that close again.

In my opinion, Varitek earns his money. His leadership is unquestionable- being named captain of the team a few years back (I believe he's one of only 4 captains in all of baseball). Sure, he won't blow too many away with his bat, though it's not like he's useless at the plate. But he gives a competitive advantage to his team with every game he pitches. He's valuable to the younger pitchers because the can ease into learning the opposing hitters. At the same time, the veterans can take comfort in knowing that their catcher knows their repetoire and how that matches the scouting reports.

Clay Buchholz knows firsthand the benefit of pitching a game called by Jason Varitek. He joins an elite group of only 2 other rookies who have thrown a no-hitter in their 1st or 2nd game. He ought to be commended for having incredible command of all 3 of his pitches, and if he can throw like that he'll have a long and successful major league career. But I'll bet when his career is done, he'll look back and be thankful he had the chance to let Jason Varitek call his pitches. He's in the record books because of it.

Romans 8:15 in the TNIV

2007-08-17T08:41:00.000-04:00

I've been using the TNIV for a while now and really enjoy it. I used it originally because I was teaching a class using a book that speaks highly of the TNIV and I wanted to check it out. For a couple terrific reviews, check out Craig Blomberg's review and one by a guy named Rick Mansfield (ht: Jeremy).

But this morning I was reading in Romans 8 and ran across v15, which reads like this:

The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father."

It caught me off guard because I'm used to something like the NIV, which reads, "For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear..." Part of the reason why I like reading different translations is that it offers different renderings that cause you to go back and look at what Paul is really saying, which is what happened here.

I'll tell you what I don't like about the TNIV rendering: it causes an unnecessary tension with other passages where Paul clearly tells us that we are slaves (or servants, they are the same word in Greek). For instance, in Romans 6:22 Paul says, "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." So the question is: are we slaves or not? The answer, of course, is that we are slaves, but to whom? This is the key to understanding the difference between slavery in 6:22 and in 8:15.

But if one read Romans 8:15 in the TNIV in isolation, they would assume that Paul has no place for "slavery" in the Christian life. However, when you read 6:22, and even note that Paul starts this letter with "Paul, a slave [servant] of Christ Jesus", you realize that Paul is quite comfortable with such language (as is the rest of the New Testament). Being both slaves and sons, servants and children, is an apparent paradox, but nonetheless a powerful truth. I think that the TNIV muddies the waters a bit when it doesn't have to, but perhaps I'm missing something. Can any of you think of a reason why the TNIV translation is preferable in this instance?

on passing out tracts

2007-08-11T09:15:00.000-04:00

I don't know too many folks who prefer to pass out tracts as their means of sharing the gospel. I do know of a few, but I wonder if it's a generational thing. My friends and I are reticent to use this form of evangelism, yet I know of some folks older than I who carry them around just in case. We have all sorts of reasons for not liking to pass out tracts, but most, I would imagine, center around our cowardice.

Late last night, my good friend Bruce and I went out and passed out water and tracts to folks cruising the bar scene in Allston. It was fairly simple, we had a folding table set up with some water and tracts. As people walked by, we offered them free water, if they stopped and took a tract, great. If not, we just said "have a nice night" or "God bless" or something like that, pretty harmless. I don't think either of us were expecting to shake the whole area or anything. No bars closed down, no healings, no mass conversions- just meeting a simple need (hydrating folks who drink too much alcohol) and offering a tract.

Now, I don't think that passing out tracts is necessarily the best form of evangelism. I think that we're better off sharing the gospel through consistent friendships and lifestyles. Generally speaking, if someone observes you and talks with you over a longer period of time, they are more likely to be impacted by what you say than if they are handed a tract by a random stranger on the street corner.

But I think we ought to reconsider our reticence. One, I don't think the damage done is nearly as bad as we would like to think. We make excuses about "scaring people off" and "leaving a bad taste in their mouth", but let's be honest: very few, if anyone, walks away from receiving a tract or pamphlet thinking "now I'll never believe in Jesus." Most are willing to walk away and throw away the tract and leave it at that, and will probably never give it another thought.

Two, it's true that the percentage of people who receive a tract and actually follow Christ is probably pretty small. Obviously we can't know that for sure, but I'd be willing to grant that point. But who cares? For little-to-no risk, if anyone is impacted isn't it worth it? I realize the "if one person comes to the Lord..." saying is as cliche as they come, but there is some merit to it. Besides, take a look at all the people you interact with any a fairly regular basis: family, friends, coworkers, corner market employees, neighbors, mailmen, coffee shop workers, etc. What percentage of these folks are coming to Christ by our "friendship evangelism" method? If it's fairly high in your life, God bless you and please share your secret. But most of us probably aren't doing too well, so we can't use the "how effective is it?" excuse regarding tracts. (Oh please Lord, help me.) While you're at it, take a second and read Mr Genor's Testimony. You can probably find the audio, I just found this transcript.

Three, there's something to be said for forcing us to do something that makes us uncomfortable. Last night I absolutely did not want to go out. Bruce and I had talked about it, and when I was more pumped up with zeal earlier in the day I was all for it. By the time 11:30pm had rolled around, I was ready to go to bed. I called Bruce and asked him what he wanted to do, to which he replied "let's go out." I think my answer was something like "that was not the answer I was rooting for" and Bruce replied "same here." Neither Bruce nor I are extroverted people, we don't strike up conversations with complete strangers on a regular basis. I'll give Bruce credit, he really pushed us out there and took the lead. Both of us wouldn't choose this form of evangelism, but it forced us to be more reliant on the Spirit than we normally would. If nothing else, we took a chance we normally wouldn't take. But, you never know, maybe one drunk frat boy will wake up this morning and read that little pamphlet two strangers handing out water gave him.

Boston Trades, Part I: the Red Sox

2007-08-04T09:50:00.000-04:00

Note: this past week was an exciting week to be a Boston sports fan, with both the Red Sox and the Celtics making trades and generating excitement all throughout the city. These 2 posts are some thoughts I have on those deals and the implications of them.

It's interesting that a team can lead their division by 8 games and everyone in Boston is wondering what deal they'll make to help their team. But, that's Red Sox Nation. The consensus is that they had 2 needs: a right handed reliever and a right handed power hitting outfielder. They were unable to pick up a right handed hitter, although they tried to get Jermaine Dye from Chicago. The Sox had the advantage of not needing to make a trade involving one of their big prospects (Jon Lester, Clay Buchholz, and Jacoby Ellsbury), which is probably what Chicago was asking for. While getting another bat would have been nice, it isn't worth trading a major prospect for a .220 hitting rental.

They did, however, fill the need of a right handed reliever. It seems odd to say that they had a bullpen need, since they have what is widely regarded as the best bullpen in baseball. But there are potential problems with this bullpen: Hideki Okajima (the best setup man in baseball right now) has surpassed his highest number of innings pitched and it's the first week in August, Mike Timlin is hurt again, and Donnelly is out for the rest of the season. Papelbon is secure as the closer, though you have to be concerned with him wearing down.

What surprised me, though, is that the Sox went out and got a guy who has always been a closer. Eric Gagne was one of the best closers in baseball in Los Angeles, but he's been hurt the last couple years. His contract only runs through the end of this year, so we aren't stuck with a huge salary hit for years to come. Apparently he was willing to come and take a different role in order to have a good shot at winning a World Series, and you can't blame him. That gives us 3 guys in the bullpen who may finish with sub-2.00 ERAs. If the Sox have the lead going into the 7th, it'll be tough to come back on them.

Actually, this team now reminds me of the 2002 Angels, who won the World Series that year. Their starting pitching was good, but their bullpen was unhittable. Their offense was good enough to win, but nothing that blew you out of the water. The Sox should have a better offense than that, but they've been shaky, especially in clutch situations (which has been their area of expertise the last few years). I'm hopeful now that Manny is hitting well again that things will turn around, but they still need some more help (if only JD Drew would actually hit something...anything).

So this trade helps them solidify their place at the top of the AL East and keeps them among the top 2-3 teams in the AL. The other contenders (Tigers, Angels, Yankees, Twins) did nothing at the deadline to help their teams, which is odd. And while I'm sad to see Kason Gabbard go (I loved keeping score a couple weeks ago when he was pitching and looking at the scorecard to see so many ground ball outs, what a great performance), the trade was a good move. Now if our bats can hit enough to get us a lead by the 7th inning we should be all set.

Boston Trades, Part II: the Celtics

2007-08-04T09:20:00.000-04:00

I'm sure you all recall last Saturday's post where I discussed the rabid obsession the city of Boston has with offseason sports talk. Normally, this involves the Red Sox and the Patriots, but this past week the Celtics finally made some waves. For the past few years, most of the city couldn't care less about the Celtics during the season, nevermind talking about them at the beginning of August. That all changed with two words: Kevin Garnett.

Here's a little background for those of you who aren't too familiar with the Boston Celtics. The Celtics have won 16 titles, the most of any NBA franchise. But there hasn't been a championship since 1986. Prior to that point the dominated the 50's-60's, won 2 titles in the 70's, and 3 more in the 80's. They had the greatest center of all time (Bill Russell), the point guard that changed the game (Bob Cousy), one of the most underrated superstars of all time (John Havlicek, who scored over 26,000 points without a 3-point line), one of the greatest clutch performers in sports history (Larry Bird) and the genius who ran the whole show (Red Auerbach). Secondary performers on this team would have been "the man" in many other places (Kevin McHale, Sam Jones). The Celtics were the best franchise in basketball, hands down, perhaps the most successful franshise in all of sports.

But in 1986 the Celtics drafted Len Bias from Maryland with the number 2 pick, then he promptly died a couple days later of a cocaine overdose. After that the stars starting getting injured, with McHale playing on a bad foot that troubles him to this day, and Bird sitting in traction all day for his back then showing up to play a game at night. They looked like they had a chance with Reggie Lewis in the early 90's, but he died suddenly with a heart condition. They've struggled in mediocrity ever since, becoming irrelevant on the Boston sports scene.

Danny Ainge returned a few years ago to help rebuild the franchise and make them a contender. He opted, understandably, to go young and give a few years to rebuild. He drafted Al Jefferson, who will be a superstar, and a few other youngsters to team up with Paul Pierce. This method didn't work too well and the Celtics have been mired in mediocrity and the apathy of their fanbase. The problem: the Red Sox and Patriots won titles and contended most years while the Celtics were irrelevant.

On May 22 the Celtics didn't get one of the top 2 picks in the draft and the general feeling was that they had lost out on their chance to become relevant again. But, give Ainge credit, the "go young" plan was thrown out the window and they traded for Ray Allen on draft day, a high scoring shooting guard from Seattle. I wrote on June 30 that the Celtics had to make another deal to get themselves into title contention. I also wrote "Thankfully, Jefferson is, as of right now, still a Celtic. If you're guaranteed a title by trading him, then maybe it would be okay; but that isn't likely to happen, so the best thing they could do is keep him."

I was right, the Celtics did have another deal to make, and it involved Jefferson. While they aren't necessarily guaranteed a title (which I suppose is impossible anyway), they are now front runners to do so. They got Kevin Garnett, one of the top 10 players in the game today, probably top 5. That gives them 2 of the top 15 (Pierce and Garnett), and 3 of the top 25 players in the game (with Ray Allen). They are the best team in the East on paper, and easily in the top 5 of the entire NBA (I'd say 4th behind San Antonio, Phoenix and Dallas). They are relevant.

There are problems, or at least potential problems. Outside of the big 3, they have a young and not-quite-ready point guard (Rajon Rondo), a starting center who would be a solid backup (Kendrick Perkins) and not much else. Oh yeah, they still have a shaky coach in Doc Rivers (though Bill Simmons has pointed out that the lack of decent players may help solve Doc's inability to come up with a consistent rotation- by only having 7 NBA-quality guys he can't really mess it up). I think the big 3 is enough to win the East, I'm not sure they're enough to beat the top teams of the West, especially if one of them gets injured.

What I love about the big 3 is the "hunger factor." All 3 have had disappointing teams: Pierce has always had to carry an undertalented team, Allen has been stuck in places like Milwaukee and Seattle, and Garnett has been exiled with awful teams in Minnesota. These are 3 All-Stars who have never seriously contending for a title, and now that they are in their early 30's, they are dying for the opportunity to win it all. It bodes well that we now have 3 highly competitive veterans who are hungry to hoist the championship trophy.

I'm sad to see Jefferson go, and I hope he tears it up in Minnesota. But the bottom line is that if you have a chance to win a title soon, you make the necessary moves to do so. Give Ainge credit, he tried the youth movement and failed, so he ditched it and was able to pull off two deals to put themselves in a position to contend. Boston is now a place where veteran free agents want to play, which 2 months ago was unthinkable. And Boston is talking about the Celtics in the middle of the Red Sox leading the division and the Patriots starting training camp with an amazing roster. That was unthinkable not only 2 months ago, but for the past few years.

a couple small changes

2007-07-28T10:47:00.000-04:00

Every now and then I get the inspiration to update the links/pictures on the right of this page. Since I rarely even get the inspiration to post something, I figure making changes ought to be celebrated, no matter how small. So, I organized my links slightly differently. I start with blogs of people I know, but now have alphabetized them by first name (a couple of you may not have known I even read your blog), note that A-Rock's first name is actually Aarik, hence being first in my list..

From there I separate my links into 2 more categories: sites I quasi-regularly visit regarding Christianity or theology (this is broadly speaking, admittedly) and other sites I visit that don't fall under either of the other 2 categories. The first of these are in no particular order, the second in alphabetical order. Why am I not consistenly in my alphabetizing? Because this is my site and I'll do what I want, that's why. I'm assuming I don't have to say this, but just because I link to something doesn't mean I wholeheartedly endorse everything (or anything, for that matter) those sites contain. It just means I find them interesting enough to read.

I also try to update the pictures of books I'm reading and cds I'm listening to every few months or so. The books are fairly up to date, and at some point I really want post some thoughts on the "How to Read the Bible..." books now that I've used them in teaching for the last year. The cds are somewhat up to date. Truth be told, I don't listen to nearly as much music as I used to, largely because I rarely have time to sit down and listen anymore. I've added "Whole 'Nother Deal", "Photographs", and "Jazzy Jeff & the Fresh Prince Greatest Hits" to the list, which have been my companions on the car lately. That's right, DJ Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince have made my cd rotation. You'd have to understand that I go way back with these guys. It's not so much the music as it is the trip down memory lane that I appreciate. A little nostalgia is good for the soul.

At any rate, there you go. I keep hoping I'll post more, but you know how that goes. This is, however, my second post of the day, even if this one doesn't really count. Small victories, my friends, small victories.

ah, preseason football

2007-07-28T08:59:00.000-04:00

In a city like Boston, offseason sports talk can be just as exciting as regular season sports talk. This is especially true for the Red Sox and the Patriots. Baseball may end in October, but that doesn't stop everyone from calling in radio shows and making ridiculous trade proposals or predicting how the Sox will dominate/flop. In fact, the love for speculation has grown so powerful that I heard a guy call up a popular radio show the other day and offer thoughts on next year's pitching rotation! It's July, the Sox have a 7.5 game lead over the Yankees, we have the potential to win another World Series, and some local yokel is worrying about who is going to be our number 5 starter next season! Ah, Boston.

While the Sox normally dominate offseason speculation, the Patriots are giving them a good run for their money this time around, and for good reason. The Pats were one 1st down away from making another trip to the Super Bowl. They had no receiver who could make a defense pay for leaving them in single coverage. They didn't have a linebacker who could stop a run up the middle or provide coverage in the middle of the field (poor Tedy Bruschi has lost a step or two). They had obvious holes, but still they were this close to going to the Super Bowl (and probably winning it).

So, the Pats made a splash this offseason. For receivers, they added Wes Welker, Dante Stallworth and Randy Moss. Welker is the speedy slot receiver, the kind of guy Tom Brady loves. Stallworth and Moss give them legitimate downfield threats. All 3 of these guys are upgrades from anyone they had last year. So, on paper, they seem to have advanced significantly.

Here are the potential problems: Stallworth has a history of substance abuse problems. Moss has a history of not trying hard in practice or in the game. These are not typical Patriots guys. Patriots guys are like Bruschi or Vrabel. They are "less talented" players who have worked their butts off to learn the most difficult system in football and give up their personal stats for the sake of winning. Stallworth may be okay, but Moss is the biggest concern. He may be the most physically talented receiver in the history of football, and that's not an exaggeration. But he doesn't care. In the Patriots offense, it's unlikely he will catch more than 70 passes, and I'm not sure it'll be that many. I think Welker may end up with more catches in this offense. Will Moss survive the season not being the center of Brady's attention? As I heard someone say this week, "Brady's favorite receiver is whoever's open." He won't take a chance 50 yards downfield if there's someone open over the middle. How will Moss feel about that?

At linebacker, they added Adalius Thomas, one of the most versatile linebackers in the league. This guy, at least from a physical attribute standpoint, is a classic Belichick guy. Belichick loves guys who can play multiple roles (Troy Brown, Mike Vrabel, Richard Seymour), and Thomas has more raw skills (strength, speed) than any other linebacker they have. The questions are: can he learn the system and will he pass up personal glory for the sake of the team? I don't know enough about him to offer up an opinion, but I will be watching.

So on paper this team looks like it should go to the Super Bowl. In fact, most experts have written their name down in ink rather than pencil, which is enough to make me worried. As a Boston sports fan, it's in my nature to downplay my team's chances so as not to be disappointed. But the truth is this team should go to the Super Bowl. We have the best coach, the best quarterback (who now has weapons), the best defensive line, an improved linebacking core, and so on. All this for a team that was one 1st down away from going to the Super Bowl. But training camp will tell us a lot. Will Moss even get through (I'm not convinced he will, I wouldn't be surprised to see him get cut at the first sign of trouble). Will the new additions mesh well with the veterans? It makes preseason a lot of fun (but not quite as much fun as the real thing).

Red Sox midseason report

2007-07-13T19:46:00.000-04:00

So we're coming off the All-Star break with the Sox leading Toronto and New York by 10 games in the AL East. So am I worried? Of course, but for more than the typical "I'm a Sox fan and I'm always worried" reasons, although that's true enough. But despite the large lead and impressive performances, I think there is grounds for concern.

Those grounds start with the fact that this team is built to win the World Series, not just the division. If all we cared about was winning the AL East, we'll be fine. I don't think it's overconfident to say that the Sox will probably win the division. Yes, the Blue Jays are good, but they don't have the firepower in the rotation or in the lineup to overcome the Sox. The Yankees have floundered, but they have played better as of late and you know they'll have to get better. But, in all honesty, I don't think they have the pitching to pull off a comeback. Of course they could, you can't count them out, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Red Sox Nation, however, shouldn't be content with winning the division. We're passed the stage of being happy with just beating the Yankees, our payroll is too big for that. Besides, we already did that in the single greatest comeback in the history of sports in 2004. Remember when the Sox were down 3-0 against the Yankees, then Dave Roberts stole second, Bill Mueller drove him in with a clutch single off the greatest closer of all time, Mariano Rivera, and the Sox went on to beat the Yankees the next 4 games and sweep the Cardinals for their first World Series victory since 1918? Remember that? Yeah, that was awesome. (Now pause for a second and recall your favorites 2004 memories).

Anyway, so here's the deal: the Sox aren't really beating the best teams around, particularly Detroit. That scares me. There's no reason for us to be swept by the Tigers, this team is built too carefully to be able to lose like that. Yet, heading into the All-Star break, that's exactly what happened. Sure, we look great against Tampa Bay. Who cares? Unless the Devil Rays receive some special invite to the playoffs it doesn't matter.

The pitching has been great, 2nd in the AL in ERA, with the best bullpen in the game. No one can complain about it. Yet, I still find myself being a little worried. Sure, Okajima and Papelbon are the best setup-man/closer tandem in baseball. But do we have a righty out of the bullpen we can trust? Delcarmen has looked great recently, but we can't put all our stock in a 23 year old with a spotty track record for the last couple years. I love him, and I think he'll do well in the future, but for now I don't necessarily think he's our guy (though part of me hopes he is, he's a local kid making it big, gotta love that).

I've also spoken about my doubts of Curt Schilling. Yes, he almost threw a no-hitter. But then he stunk his next few starts and is now on the disabled list. He ain't a kid anymore. And Wakefield has been solid, but not great, same for Tavares (who I love, if for no other reason than his resemblance to Nosferatu, I will stand by this forever). So that leaves us with Beckett and Dice-K, which is awesome. But can we beat the Tigers with that tandem? Are they better than Verlander/Bonderman/Rogers? I'm not sure. And that worries me.

Our offense has been fairly flat. Manny and Ortiz haven't hit for power, Drew is proving to be a bust (I'd point out that I predicted that, but that wasn't exactly difficulty), Lugo can't hit any better than I can, and Coco has only recently decided to make contact with the ball. Youkilis has been phenomenal, so has Pedroia (after a horrific start), Lowell and Varitek have both been solid. All this to say, this is the area of need. They may not have to make a deal, that is, if Manny and Ortiz step it up. That would be enough. On paper this is a great offense, but they just haven't worked out so far. I'd rather not have to make a deal, since I don't want to see any prospects go.

So here's where I stand. We are actually the 2nd best team in the AL, behind Detroit. If Manny and Ortiz, particularly Manny, step up with the production (Ortiz has a decent average, but his power numbers are way down), we may not have to trade a prospect for another bat. We may need to make a deal for another starter if Schilling doesn't come back. Sigh. I hate it. My favorite team in the whole world is dominating their division and I'm still looking over my shoulder. 86 years is hard to overcome...

Hymn of the Week: Rock of Ages

2007-07-07T09:54:00.000-04:00

Has it really been 6 months since my last Hymn of the Week post? Yikes! A few weeks back we sang this hymn in church during communion time (at the request of fellow hymnophile JP). It's an 18th century hymn written by Augustus Montague Toplady in Britian. It's not necessarily one most of us sing very often or even know, but it is a terrific hymn. Check out the lyrics:

Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in Thee;
Let the water and the blood,
From Thy riven side which flowed,
Be of sin the double cure;
Save from wrath and make me pure.

Not the labour of my hands
Can fulfil Thy law’s demands;
Could my zeal no respite know,
Could my tears for ever flow,
All for sin could not atone;
Thou must save, and Thou alone.

Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to the cross I cling;
Naked, come to Thee for dress;
Helpless, look to Thee for grace;
Foul, I to the fountain fly;
Wash me, Saviour, else I die.

While I draw this fleeting breath,
When my eyelids close in death,
When I soar to worlds unknown,
See Thee on Thy judgement throne,
Rock of Ages, cleft for me,
Let me hide myself in Thee.

Note: the line "when my eyelids close in death" originally read "when my eyestrings break in death." I'm not sure when this line was changed, but I do have to wonder why "eyestrings" was ever a word.

You'll note how the lyrics are strongly theocentric- it places the work of salvation (presented in various metaphors and pictures) in God's hands. I've read that Toplady wrote this in response to the perceived man-centered approach of John Wesley (an assessment I disagree with). I'm quite certain that an Arminian/Wesleyan could sing this hymn without any trouble (nor more than one who is reformed singing And Can It Be).

This song, like a number of others I've mentioned, ends with an eschatological view. Many of the great hymns conclude with the hope of eternity with the Lord. I like how the hymn begins and ends with the hope of God protecting us (anyone who has heard me teach will be quick to point out that this literary device is called "inclusio") because it helps us to see that the same loving God that covers us now will continue to cover us for eternity.

One concept in this song that many may struggle with is the inadequacy of anything we can offer God. This is a song about what God has done/is doing/will do rather than what we will do. The actions that we do in this song (for example, "come to Thee", "look to Thee") are accompanied by descriptions of our inability to offer anything good on our own- "naked","helpless."

Any thoughts you'd like to share?

thoughts on the Celtics draft day

2007-06-30T10:30:00.000-04:00

No matter what happened on Thursday night, all of us Celtics fans were going to be slightly disappointed (or more than slightly) because we weren't getting one of the top 2 picks. It's even more deflating considering the Celts did everything they could in the last couple months to ensure they ended up with an awful record to help their chances in getting a top-2 pick. Alas, the ended up picking #5, which is generally really good in a deep draft like this. But, if management wants to win pronto, that pick wasn't going to help. Thus, I, like many others, felt the Celtics (with Danny Ainge at GM and Doc Rivers at head coach) would trade this pick and pick up a veteran in attempt to win soon.

And the Celtics did just that. They traded the #5 pick (Jeff Green of Georgetown), point guard Delonte West and Wally Szczerbiak to Seattle for all-star guard Ray Allen and the #35 pick (they got Big Baby Davis from LSU, a solid big man). Granted, Kevin Garnett would have been preferable to Ray Allen, but that deal wasn't going to happen on draft day. So, Ainge pulled the trigger on this deal; the question is: was it the right deal?

In assessing any deal the Celts were going to make, the number one concern for me was retaining Al Jefferson. Jefferson is one of the best young big men in the game, a soon-to-be perennial All-Star. There was plenty of trade talk regarding him, since he is one of the most coveted young players in the game, but I felt like trading him would be a panic move. In other words, Ainge and Rivers would be fearing getting fired if they don't win immediately, so they trade the future for the present. Thankfully, Jefferson is, as of right now, still a Celtic. If you're guaranteed a title by trading him, then maybe it would be okay; but that isn't likely to happen, so the best thing they could do is keep him.

So the goal was to make the team a legit contender in the East right away without giving up Jefferson. I guess the Celtics did that by getting Ray Allen. That gives them 3 legit scoring threats in Paul Pierce, Jefferson and Allen. Actually, that's more than "legit scoring threats", they are bonafide scorers. However, one of the biggest areas of concern is the lack of defense on this team, and Allen does not help in that department much at all. Then again, Szczerbiak is one of the worst defenders in the league. So, this team will score a lot of points, and they will give up a lot of points.

But they are better than they were going into the draft. I think this deal puts them somewhere around the 4-5 best team in the East. The problem is that they aren't likely to be much better than that unless they make another deal or somehow steal a great draft pick in next year's draft. This team will not contend for a title as they are presently constituted, that's all there is to it. But they are better.

Some decry this deal because of Ray Allen's age (he's turning 32 next month). For sure this has to be a concern, since most shooting guards begin to falter at about this time. Others decry this deal because of injury concerns, since Allen missed time last year due to ankle problems. I'd simply point out that he missed more time than he needed since Seattle was, just like the Celtics, attempting to lose games in order to gain a better draft pick (unlike the Celtics, they succeeded, grabbing Kevin Durant at the #2 pick).

So here is the starting lineup for next year, subject to change if they make more deals:

Point Guard- Rajon Rondo
Shooting Guard- Ray Allen
Small Forward- Paul Pierce
Power Forward- Al Jefferson
Center- Kendrick Perkins

The weakest spot here is Perkins, who is a serviceable big man, not really a center you can win a title with. The also have little help off the bench. Allan Ray (not to be confused with Ray Allen) is their best defender off the bench. If they want to go small, they could go with a combination of Rondo, Ray, Allen, Pierce and Jefferson (and that's awfully small). They don't really have a backup point guard, either, which is a shame seeing how young Rondo is. I suspect they'll make another trade, packaging Theo Ratliff, Gerald Green and some future draft pick for another veteran sometime during the season (and probably Sebastian Telfair and his gun-wielding posse, too).

All this to say, I think the Celtics made their team better. But they've locked themselves into winning with the next 2-3 years or else. If not, Pierce and Allen will be too old or gone and they're left with Jefferson and a core of mostly role players. The other option would have been to trade Paul Pierce and go completely young, like the Bulls have done (to some success). That's dangerous because you simply stockpile young players who aren't likely to win a championship in hopes that they'll stick with the teama few years down the road rather than jumping ship.

So I think this team will win about half of it's games, scoring a bunch and giving up even more, and will get bounced in the second round of the playoffs. They won't contend for an Eastern Conference title this year, but maybe the following. Of course, this is all subject to change if they make another deal, and they probably will. I give them a "B" for draft day.

messages to the 7 churches: background info for Revelation

2007-06-16T09:21:00.000-04:00

This past spring (I guess it's still technically spring) I had the joy/challenge of teaching 4 weeks on Revelation. I've studied Revelation on and off for a few years (took an exegesis course on it in seminary, read a few books, etc), and have come to be a firm believer that John was writing not only to give a glimpse into the end of time, but to address specific circumstances of his readers. Chapters 2-3 give us the 7 churches to whom he wrote (though many feel the number 7 here is more symbolic, which is probably true, but at the very least we can say that his audience did include these 7 churches), and I discovered some interesting background data that help us see how Christ tailored His message to them through John. Following are some notes I jotted down as I was researching, some I learned a while ago, some recently, some I probably learned a while ago and had to relearn due to my failing memory.

To the church in Ephesus (2:1-7)- I learned the least about this city, mainly because I came in with more knowledge of it. It was very important in the NT times: Timothy was stationed there when Paul wrote his letters to him, Luke dedicates an entire chapter to the events in Ephesus in Acts 19, Paul wrote a letter to Ephesus (or least the churches in that area, see the textual problem of Ephesians 1:1), and church tradition says that John lived in Ephesus later in his life, which means that his gospel and his letters may have been written for Christians there. Ephesus also would have been the first stop for John's letter carrier, so naturally it would be addressed first.

To the church in Smyrna (2:8-11)- John addresses a problem with the Jewish-Christian relations in Smyrna. It's interesting to note that around 155 AD some Jewish people of Smyrna endorsed and even assisted in the killing of one of the great early Christian martyrs, Polycarp. That's about 60 years after Revelation was written, so it seems that this could have been a lasting problem for Christians in this city. The martyrdom of Polycarp is one of my favorite non-biblical stories, you can read it here.

To the church in Pergamum (2:12-17)- Pergamum was the capital of Asia at this time, and was the center of Emperor worship in this region, hence John calling this place "where Satan has his throne." It also had a large altar to Zeus, which I read was about 120 feet by 112 feet, which seems ridiculously huge. It's easy to see how this could be considered the home of Satan. Regarding the promise of a "white stone with a new name written on it", I read that in some places, when a person was found guilty of a crime they were given a black stone, but when found innocent, they were given a white stone. This may have been in mind here.

To the church in Thyatira (2:18-29)- This seems to have been the least important and least exciting of the 7 churches. It was a city of merchants, though the various metal workers present there may explain the emphasis on "burnished bronze" in v18 and the "iron scepter" of v27. The Romans called the planet Venus the "morning star", which was a symbol of victory, which may be why Christ promises to give them in "morning star" in v28.

To the church in Sardis (3:1-6)- Christ's main message to this church is one of readiness. He tells them to "wake up!" in v2 and threatens to "come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you" (v3). What is interesting is that Sardis had a great citadel which was never taken in battle. However, it was twice overtaken by sneak attacks at night. The residents of this city knew all too well the dangers of being unprepared for what might come, Christ's message to them must have hit home.

To the church in Philadelphia (3:7-13)- My Revelation professor (Dr Sean McDonough, not related the baseball announcer of the same name) pointed out that Christ's promise to make the Philadelphians "pillars in the temple of my God" may have had special meaning to them. This city had apparently suffered bad earthquakes that caused a lot of damage to the buildings there. The promise to become part of the unshakable structure of the Lord's temple would have been particularly powerful for these believers.

To the church in Laodicea (3:14-22)- This city was home to many famous banks and medical schools, which may explain why they felt so proud of their own accomplishments (v17). Some geographical background info may also explain some often misunderstood verses. Vv15-16 are often thought to mean that Christ would rather someone be completely on fire for Him or completely against Him (hot or cold), rather than someone who wavers (lukewarm). In reality, it is much more likely that Christ chose this aquametaphor specifically for this group because of their water problems. Laodicea lacked its own good water supply. It was located in between Hierapolis, which had a hot water supply used for medicinal purposes, and Laodicea, which had a natural cold water supply used for drinking. The waters mixed near Laodicea and made lukewarm water, which was good for nothing. Jesus is speaking more about usefulness than He is the level of one's commitment towards Him. The picture of a person spitting out lukewarm water would have been familiar to a Laodicean, even if we misunderstand it.

welcome to the world....

2007-06-03T06:46:00.000-04:00

I'd like to say congrats to my good friends, Matt and Pam, and welcome to the world their baby boy, Gideon Matthew Neave. This little guy is as cute as can be, and I really mean that. I have no problems saying if a baby is ugly (not to their parents, of course), so you can rest assured I am not paying lip service when I say Gideon is absolutely adorable. This makes something like 8 babies born in our church since the beginning of 2006, which is a fairly high number considering we only run about 200 people. And we have a couple more pregnant, too (I just reread that sentence and it sounds like I'm saying we have a couple more babies pregnant, which is obviously not true, but I find the ambiguity funny so I'm leaving it). Exciting times. Blessings to the Neave family.

5.5 random things: sports edition

2007-05-26T09:15:00.000-04:00

5.5: This post is dedicated to the sports radio morning personality who recently said to his cohosts, "True or false: name the top 7 hitters in the American League." Yes, he was serious.

5: There's a lot of talk around Boston about the Celtics not "winning the lottery" this past week when they didn't draw one of the top 2 picks in the upcoming draft, instead getting number 5. There is no doubt this franchise seems unlucky, this is the 10th anniversary of them not getting the number 1 pick (despite having the best odds) which went to San Antonio, who took Tim Duncan and have since won 3 titles (and will probably win a 4th this year). Personally, I think they ought to look into trading the pick along with a couple young players for a veteran. There are teams out there who would like to unload a large salary. In an ideal world, we'd find a way to rescue Kevin Garnett from Minnesota and keep Paul Pierce and Al Jefferson. I think it's possible, but we might have to unload a future draft pick along with our first pick this year and a young talent such as Gerald Green. I'd make that trade any day.

4: Since so much of this week has focused on the luck (or lack thereof) of the Celtics, many seem to have forgotten that even if you can't control luck, you can control stupidity. So my question is this: why did the Celtics sign Doc Rivers, a coach with little upside other than being a great guy, to an extension? What signs of hope has he given over the last 3 years? It amazes me how dumb some franchises can be. This reminds me of the 2003 series between the Red Sox and the Yankees, where many people blamed the Curse of the Bambino for the Sox blowing game 7. I say "no way," we were cursed with a stupid manager, who left Pedro in far too long. You can't control injuries or ping pong balls or anything like that, but you can control not making indefensible decisions.

3: Well, the Red Sox are firmly in 1st place, and much of the town is gloating over the Yankees demise. I'm comfortably in the camp of waiting to see what happens, you have to think that the Yankees will pull something together at some point. I don't think they are a World Series caliber team, by any means, but they are still the Yankees and they can still find a way to win.

2: With that said, signing Clemens was a dumb move for them. First, what makes anyone think that a 5-6 inning pitcher in the National League (a very pitcher friendly league) will suddenly come in and be an ace in the American League (a very unfriendly league for pitchers)? Here's a tip: an ace of a staff must be able to go more than 6 innings on a consistent basis. Second, by signing him to $20 million+ you make it more difficult to trade and sign players around the trading deadline. I realize that they are the Yankees, with deeper pockets than anyone else in baseball, but at some point money has to play a factor. Will Steinbrenner really spend more money on a sinking ship? Actually, yes, he probably will.

1: When will the "Kevin Youkilis for MVP" talk start? He currently leads the team in hitting (.349, 4th in the AL) by 20 points (over Mike Lowell, off to another hot start), runs scored (1 run more than David Ortiz), hits (6 more than Ortiz), he's second in On Base Percentage (behind Ortiz), and 3rd in slugging (even better than Manny Ramirez). On top of that, I read earlier this week that he hasn't made an error at first base since last July! I don't really think that he'll be this good at the end of the season, but there is no doubt that the Sox would not be where they are without him. They've been able to bat him in the number 2 hole, where his ability to get on base is paramount, and even in the 5 spot, where he provides some protection for the big bats. Not bad for someone making $424,500. Compare that to other first basemen in the league: Paul Konerko (.213, $12,000,000); Shea Hillenbrand (.231, $6,000,000); and Richie Sexson (.180, $15,500,000). I won't bother looking into the NL; that's just comparing a few AL first baseman, not including Jason Giambi, who makes over $20,000,000 but plays more DH than anything else. Here's hoping Youk makes the All-Star team this year.

why I am a premillennialist: some thoughts in progress

2007-05-08T22:48:00.000-04:00

One of the most debated passages in the Bible is Rev 20:1-6. What do we make of the "1000 year" reign of Christ and His people? I cannot pretend to have figured this passage out perfectly; it seems to me that each position has its share of problems. Here are the main views taken by scholars, all of which have a good history of interpretation within the church:

Postmillennial- this view sees the millennium happening at the end of the "church age", preceding Christ's return. To put it simply, the world will be essentially Christian before Christ returns and His followers are resurrected.

Amillennial- this view sees the millennium beginning with Christ's first coming and continuing until His return, the picture of Christ and His people reigning in Rev 20 is a present reality. In my opinion, the best recent commentary on Revelation is Greg Beale's commentary, who is an amillennialist.

Premillennial- this view sees the millennium as a future time after Christ returns to this earth and His followers are resurrected. Within this view are 2 main camps: dispensationalist (one form of which can be seen in the Left Behind series) who add their own distinct flavor (pretribulational rapture, distinction between the Church and Israel), and historical premillennialists, who essentially hold to what I just said above.

I would be classified as a historical premillennialist, but a slightly odd one, because my reading of Revelation often looks more like something an amillennialist would hold (I won't bother getting into this now, just trust me). I had a friend in seminary who describe me this way: an anti-dispensationalist historical premillennialist with amillennialist tendencies. I'd say that's pretty accurate.

Anyway, I want to state from the outset that I think each of these 3 views are well within the realm of orthodoxy. This is not a hill I want to die on, I think we can find ways to coexist just fine (though I admit my pleasure in taking shots at dispensationalism). But the millennium, whatever we make of it, is in Scripture so I figure it's worth at least forming an opinion, no matter how tentative. I'll say a couple quick things before I begin my short list: 1) I don't take the 1000 years literally, I think it is a symbolic number just like the other numbers in Revelation; 2) I'm trying to restrict my comments to Revelation 20:1-6 and other passages in this book, since I could go on forever by including every conceivably important verse in the Bible; 3) I do think there are plenty of holes in the premillennial position- it's just that I think it has fewer big holes than the other positions. Without further ado, here you go:

1 And I saw an angel coming out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2 He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3 He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time. 4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshipped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy are those who have part in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

1) The issue of Satan no longer deceiving the nations. I've often heard a caricature of the premillienial position that we sit in fear of the devil and his schemes. I'd rather say, in the words of one of my pastors, that we are "in awe of God but aware of the devil" (this, of course, can be true of any of these millenial positions). Elsewhere in the NT Satan is seen as active in our time (1 Peter 5:8-9), which may be enough to see Satan being bound happenig in the future. But even more convincing is Revelation 12:12, where Satan is said to be filled with anger because he has little time left. So, as the following verses show us, he decides to wage war on God's people. That is hard to reconcile with the picture of Satan being bound for a long period of time and his powers of deception being taken away. It is said by some that the words and picture in Rev 20 do not necessarily have to mean that all of his powers are thwarted (Beale gives his reasons for this in his commentary). But I wonder what language John would use if that were exactly the picture he wanted to draw. If he wanted to show that Satan's powers were no longer useful, what would he say, since apparently "seized", "bound", "locked and sealed... to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore" are not strong enough? (And it can't be something along the lines of "annihilated" since that doesn't happen until later in the chapter.)

2) Witnesses or judges? Throughout Revelation God's people are called to be and are portrayed as witnesses in this world. The word "witness" recalls the courtroom, where witnesses offer evidence which may assist in convicting or acquiting someone. God's people act as witnesses in that they testify for God, and their testimony condemns the world (or can vindicate some if they repent). Throughout this book God's people are called to be faithful witnesses unto the very end, even if that means their death (that is, after all, following in Christ's footsteps, see 1:5). However, in Rev 20 they are now seen as judges with Christ. This reflects a change in the Christian's current state and their state to come. This change comes when Christ returns and takes His throne on this earth, and His followers reign with Him.

3) The martyrs under the altar or reigning with Christ? Ben Witherington points out that the martyred souls in Rev 6:9-11 are under the altar awaiting the judgment of those responsible for their deaths. In Rev 20, the souls of the martyrs are seen as reigning and judging with Christ. In Rev 6, they are told to wait. In Rev 20, they don't seem to be waiting for anything, they are finally fulfilling their roles as a "kingdom and priests" that is seen in Revelation. In other words, there is a change in their position, a change which is a result of the resurrection.

4) Addressing Beale's claim that beheaded souls must refer to non-material bodies. Beale claims that psuche (traditionally translated "soul") does not have to refer to a physical body (as it does in Rev 8:9, 12:11, 16:3- in these passages "living body" may be the best translation), and this is true (Rev 6:9 is a perfect example of this). He also claims that it cannot refer to a physical body here because these folks were beheaded: "an awkward picture emerges: 'bodies of beheaded people'" (pg 998). This, however, is not a problem if you see these folks as those who have been resurrected. In other words, John sees "the souls of those who had been beheaded" but were now resurrected (therefore no longer missing their heads).

5) If "came to life" refers to physical resurrection in v5, then it is likely to in v4. Beale argues that the meaning of this verb can change within one verse, which is true. But one must provide strong evidence that this is the case. It is possible John changes the meaning that quickly, but doing good exegesis in difficult passages isn't about proposing what is possible but what is most likely.

6) The problem of "resurrection." In v4, the "souls" of the martyrs "come to life" and reign with Christ. This is, in John's words, "the first resurrection" (v5), as opposed to when the "rest of the dead" come to life. For an amillenial or postmillenial interpretation to work, "come to life" and "resurrection" in v4 have to be taken in a "spiritual" sense (though I hate that term, because I don't think that's how the Bible uses "spiritual" at all, but it's the common lingo so I'll adopt it here) rather than physical. If "first resurrection" refers to a non-material resurrection, then when does the physical resurrection take place? I guess I have a problem with any view that sees "resurrection" as anything other than a bodily resurrection (to be clear, amillennialists and postmillennialists do believe in a bodily resurrection of believers, they just don't think that's what's in view here).

You'll notice that one of the common themes in these is the change in these verses from the rest of the Book of Revelation. The way the martyrs are described is different from elsewhere in the book. God's people have now come to life and are resurrected. Satan's work is described differently here than elsewhere in Revelation (see chapter 12). Something has changed to make all this happen. In my opinion, the best explanation for this is that these verses are speaking of a different time from the rest of the book of Revelation. We are still waiting for these verses to be fulfilled, when Christ will return and His followers will be resurrected just as He was.

Is it a compliment? Episode III

2007-04-23T20:04:00.000-04:00

Welcome to the third installment of "Is it a compliment?", the favorite gameshow here at Blog of Danny. The basic jist of the game is this: I give you a comment someone has recently made to me that may or may not have been a compliment (and of course the ambiguity is heightened by the lack of context or voice inflection), and you weigh in with your opinions/contextual conjectures. You can check the "Is it a compliment?" link to the right to see previous episodes. This has been a popular feature thus far, I trust it will continue to be. Anyway, here is this week's quote:

"Well... you have hair."

my top 5 NT studies books

2007-04-21T11:53:00.000-04:00

Those who know me well are aware of my affinity for books, especially books in the realm of biblical studies. A while back I decided to post my favorite 5 NT books from my own personal library, but I'm just now getting around to it. Please note, these are only from my personal library, there may be (and probably are) some out there that would make it on the list but I don't own them. Also note that these are not commentaries (maybe I'll get around to that), but rather books that cover a particular topic or theme. These are not necessarily in any particular order, except that my favorite is last, because I believe in saving the best for last (which is why I eat the edges of my Pop-Tarts first, as well as the crusts of my sandwich).

So my first one is actually an honorable mention, which is kind of cheating (maybe I should have called this my top 6). The Bible Background Commentary on the New Testament by Craig Keener is technically a commentary, so it doesn't fit the criteria for my list. However, I feel that I can't leave it off because I have found it to be an indispensable resource (I just realized after I typed this sentence that those exact words are on the cover of the book, weird). The truth is that most of us never study ancient history or ancient cultures, so our knowledge of important background information is limited. We often get the sense that there is something going on that we don't understand because the NT culture is so far removed from our own. So whether you're dealing with head coverings or Jewish dinner customs, Keener has given us a crash course in ancient culture all in one book going passage by passage. I personally think that if someone learns the basics of exegesis and hermeneutics (see the Fee and Stuart books pictured on the right), then the most important resource for them is a good book on background information. Keener fits that bill.

Back in my senior year of college I took a class on the Life and Teachings of Jesus. One of the books assigned to us was this book, The Jesus Quest, by Ben Witherington III. I suppose it isn't so much an NT studies book as it is a book about NT studies and studiers. Witherington is a master of making clear what is often confusing, especially when it comes to the view points of other scholars. In this book he takes on what is known as the "Quest for the Historical Jesus." He gives an overview of various scholarly opinions, from those of the Jesus Seminar (his chapter is great for those who aren't familiar with this group) to more serious scholars, such as John Meier and N T Wright. He gives solid critiques of the views presented, but also is able to pull away some good lessons to learn from just about any scholar. It would be nice if he would update this book to include some of the recent works (such as that of James Dunn), but if you're one of those who watch all those "Jesus specials" on TV (I'm raising my hand) and wonder who these scholars are, chances are Witherington will talk about them.

I've always found Richard Hays to be an absolutely fascinating scholar. Though I often disagree with his approach, he never ceases to challenge my reading of a text. At least one of his books has become something of a modern classic (Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul) that is referred to frequently by NT scholars. Simply put, he's one of those scholars that you must deal with even when you disagree. That is how I approach this book on NT ethics, The Moral Vision of the New Testament. Hays will no doubt infuriate those from a strong conservative viewpoint (that would be me, by the way) because he doesn't really take an "inerrancy" point of view, but if you read him carefully you'll find that he presents strong cases for his arguments. He often comes away with conservative stances (abortion is wrong, homosexual intercourse is wrong, etc), but is probably not strong enough for some. In a rare touch for Bible scholars, he even includes some personal stories, which I find refreshing (his story about his good friend who was gay was particularly touching). His chapter on war and pacificism (he's a pacifist) was, to be honest, challenging. I'm not saying he turned me into a pacifist, but he certainly made me think. All this to say, I highly recommend this book, but only for those who are well grounded in Scripture. For someone who is still trying to figure out where they stand on some issues and struggle with the authority of the Bible in our lives, this is not the book for them.

One of the hardest things about making this list is choosing only one N T Wright book. I could just as easily have chosen his book on Paul, The Climax of the Covenant or even better is his phenomenal treatment of the resurrection, The Resurrection of the Son of God, which is probably his best book. I have opted, however, to go with Jesus & the Victory of God because it was this book that introduced me to Wright's scholarship and made me a fan. Mind you, there are plenty of points of disagreement, but he often forces me to rethink my position. Wright is probably the most consistent scholar I've ever read, even if consistent to a fault. For example, Wright opposes much of popular Christian writing on Jesus by arguing that Jesus did in fact have a message to preach to His original hearers, not just a timeless system of salvation (this is easily misunderstood, Wright certainly believes in salvation for all ages). Wright reads the gospels in light of this understanding, which I agree with. However, being stubbornly consistent in this has led Wright to take some unlikely interpretations, such as the notion that Jesus never refers to His second coming. Those references in Mark 13 (and parallels) to Christ coming on the clouds of heaven are Christ's judgment on Jerusalem in 70AD rather than Him returning some day (again, Wright does believe Jesus is coming back from other texts, notably Paul, he just doesn't think Jesus Himself predicts it). I tend to think that runs contrary to the words of the angel in Acts 1:9-11, spoken a mere month and a half after Jesus uttered His words. At any rate, Wright is masterful in placing Jesus within His historical context and explaining His message in His own time (which does, in turn, help us understand it more clearly, rather than confusing it as some might suppose). Wright is also quite adept at pointing out the fundamental flaws in some scholars (such as Crossan & the Jesus Seminar). If you get nothing else out of his writings, you should pay attention to his methodology and his critiques of other's presuppositions. You will learn more than you counted on.

As with N T Wright, I had trouble choosing which Richard Bauckham book I would add to this list. Interestingly, my favorites are two small books. I could have chosen God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (a mere 89 pages) and been quite happy with it. But I opted for his book in the New Testament Theology series, The Theology of the Book of Revelation. What I love about Bauckham (again, similar to Wright) is that you can learn how to do exegesis/theology while you read his books. Packed into 164 pages are discussions on the high Christology of Revelation (the sharing of divine titles and worship between the One who sits on the throne and the Lamb as evidence of this), the importance of God as Creator for the book ("Where faith in God the Creator wanes, so inevitably does hope for resurrection, let alone the new creation of all things. It is the God who is the Alpha who will also be the Omega." p51), a great discussion on true victory as depicted in Revelation (faithful witness through suffering and death), and so on. As I am currently teaching Revelation I continually find myself refering to Bauckham to make clear what I often find muddled.

Without a doubt my favorite book in NT studies is Gordon Fee's magesterial tome, God's Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. In this book, Fee discusses (in great depth) every instance where Paul mentions or alludes to the Holy Spirit. He covers grammatical issues, theological issues, contextual problems and so on with great clarity. This book is over 900 pages (!), but can be read in portions (although if you want to read it cover to cover I'm sure you'll still learn a lot). He pulls his exegetical discussions together at the end with a helpful synthesis of Paul's view of the Holy Spirit. One of the distinctive contributions Fee makes to this discussion is his insistence that the Holy Spirit was an experienced reality to Paul and his churches. In other words, there were actual manifestations of the Spirit's power and presence (see 1 Corinthians 14 and Galatians 3:5). While Fee comes from a Penecostal background, he does have some differing views from this tradition. Most notably is the view that all Christians are full of the Spirit from the moment of conversion. In Paul's mind, there is no such thing as a non-Spirit filled Christian, those terms are contradictory (see Romans 8:9 and the assumption that his readers all have the Spirit in Galatians 3:1-5 and 5:22-25).

Easter service comedy

2007-04-08T15:33:00.000-04:00

This morning in church our pastor gave a childrens sermon, which is always a treat. After he had gathered all the kids of the church around him, he asked them what was special about Easter.

A little boy, William, age 3, yells out, "new underpants!"

once again, 5.5 random things

2007-04-06T20:45:00.001-04:00

5.5: This post is dedicated to Sarasota, Florida. Though you are hot, you were a pleasure to visit.

5: Well, the Sox have started out 2-2, with 1 great pitching performance (Dice-K), 2 good pitching performances (Beckett and Wakefield, who lost due to a lack of offense), and 1 horrible one from Curt Schilling, who thinks he deserves a $13 million dollar extension for next year, despite the fact that he's only getting older (at an age when this is not helpful) and his numbers have dropped each year he's been here. Obviously it's early, but you have to wonder about him. Plus, he has a blog now, how cliche is that!

4: Boston is hardly a hotbed for college sports, but the city paid more attention to this year's basketball tournament than probably any in recent memory (including ones where Boston College actually had a chance to make some waves). This is due to the Celtics' deplorable record, ensuring that they will not pick worse than number 5 in this year's draft. My fear is that they'll buy into the hype and draft Joakim Noah from Florida. He's done well in college, and I'm always fond of picking proven winners, but he'll never be more than a good bench player in the pros. He can play some defense, can rebound, and will out-hustle anyone on the floor. But he can't shoot, at all, and I'm not convinced he'll be able to cover power forwards in the NBA (can you picture him covering Duncan, Garnett or Brand?).

3: Speaking of drafts, you may get a kick out of this, courtesy of Tim Challies.

2: I'm ready for a weather change here in Boston. I've always loved the cold, and I always will. But I think living in an apartment with no heat this year (yes, that's right, no heat all winter) has finally taken its toll, well, that and being in Florida last week where I could wear shorts all day long and not have to worry about it. Besides, it's baseball season, it's time to be outside playing and watching games, not bundling up. I think I'm getting soft in my old age.

1: Well folks, it's Good Friday. Easter is my favorite holiday of the year. I pray that you all relish in the grace that God has given us. Take time to meditate on the single greatest act of love and power this world has ever, and will ever, witness. Praise God for the death and resurrection of His Son!

2007 Boston Red Sox: preseason thoughts

2007-03-26T20:31:00.000-04:00

Before I head to the sunny shores of Gulf Coast Florida for a short vacation, I thought I'd share some thoughts I have on the upcoming season for the Boston Red Sox. I think there's plenty of reason to be excited, but there are always a number of question marks. Without further ado, here you go:

Infield:

Catcher- There is the mainstay of the franchise at catcher, Jason Varitek. With him you'll know that you'll get some decent offense and the best gamecaller in baseball.

3B & 1B- We know that the corners will provide slightly better than average offense with Mike Lowell and Kevin Youkilis. Lowell is excellent defensively as long as he stays healthy, and Youkilis turned out to be better than anyone thought he would be. I'd still like to have more offense from the first base position, but it's not like he's a lame duck.

2B & SS- As far as the middle infield we've gone from Gonzalez-Loretta to Lugo-Pedroia. That's a serious downgrade defensively (especially losing Gonzalez at shortstop), but an upgrade offensively. I personally think they'll miss Gonzalez more than the management thinks, he is a one-of-a-kind talent at shortstop. The advantage is that Lugo is much better offensively. But I have to wonder if the Sox have strayed from the attitude that helped them win the World Series in 2004 when they traded offense for great defensive players. I guess we'll find out. Pedroia is dreadful offensively, but we can hope that his short time in the big leagues in September (when he basically took a dump at the plate) was an aberration. I have a feeling that he won't be the starting second basemen by the middle of the season, with veteran Alex Cora starting or a trade bringing in another veteran. We'll see.

DH- I guess I'll throw in David Ortiz here, but nothing more needs to be said about him. He's the best clutch hitter in baseball. Of everyone on this team, he's the least of our worries. Expect another MVP caliber season out of him.

Outfield:

Leftfield- Manny Ramirez. Drama. Occasional laziness. Fake injuries. Guaranteed production from one of the best hitters in baseball. I'll take it.

Centerfield- Coco Crisp had a very disappointing first season with the BoSox, largely due to injuries. Many here in Boston were crying for his departure at the season's end, but I think he's worth more time. He's got tons of talent (he's so fast!), and even though he throws like a girl he helps in the field. His offense was down last year, but it's hard to hit when you play with a broken finger. I'm hoping for a healthy and productive season and a trip back up to the top of the order for Coco.

Rightfield- We let Trot Nixon, our beloved rightfielder, go because of his constant injury problems, giving up his $6 million dollar salary. Instead, we picked up JD Drew and his 8 career trips to the disabled list (!) for $14 million. That's $14 million a year for 5 years for a man who has been incredibly average his entire career. He has 8 more trips to the disabled list than trips to the all-star game. And you'll remember that I wrote just 2 sentences ago that he's been on the DL 8 times. I'd rather give the full time position to Wily Mo Pena and his lower salary and see what happens.

Starting Pitching:

It's interesting, folks up here in Boston are raving about the starting pitching. It certainly has the names, here's the rotation as it stands today:

1- Curt Schilling
2- Josh Beckett
3- Daisuke Matsuzaka
4- Tim Wakefield
5- Kyle Snyder/Julian Tavares

That looks good, there's no doubt. But Schilling is only getting older, and despite his own claims of feeling like he'll do great, there's no reason to think that his decline will stop suddenly. That's not to say he'll be awful, but he won't be great. Beckett had a disappointing year last year, but he's young and full of talent. Matsuzaka is a bit of a wild card, he could be incredible, he could be incredibly average. I think he'll do well, 15-17 wins sounds about right, which is great for a #3 starter. All in all, this has the potential to be the best starting rotation in the American League.

Bullpen:

With Jonathan Papelbon moving into the closer role the bullpen is blostered enormously. While I think Papelbon is better off being a starter in the long run, for this season the team is helped more by him being a closer. That frees Timlin, Pineiro, Donnelly, and crew to play the set up roles and provide stability. In one day this bullpen went from shakey to very good with Papelbon's move. My guess is that they'll add another arm to the bullpen, either through a trade or with John Lester's return from cancer coming in a couple months (he could end up in the starting rotation, which would mean one of the #5's mentioned above moving into the bullpen).

So here's my prediction: 99-63, narrowly winning the American League East over the Yankees. And of course I'm predicting they'll win the World Series. This time it doesn't feel like a stretch.

one last plug

2007-03-03T07:48:00.000-05:00

I've done this a few times, but this is the last time, I promise. My good friend, Brian, has made his blogging return. In his first post back he quotes AC/DC. In his second post he tackles the Documentary Hypothesis. That is a sign of a good blogger. I'm glad you're back, B-Funk Marchizzle, I hope you stay. I've added a link to the right.

Notions of New Nomenclature: Saul to Paul

2007-03-01T16:11:00.001-05:00

One of the perplexing changes that occur in the Bible is the sudden switch from Saul of Tarsus being known as Paul. From his introduction in Acts 7:58 he was simply known as Saul, the once persecutor turned preacher of Christ. Seemingly out of nowhere in Acts 13:9 we read, "Then Saul, who was also called Paul..." and from then on he is always refered to as Paul. By the time of his earliest letter (which I take to be Galatians) he only refers to himself as Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles.

There have been a number of suggestions for this change. The one that most of us probably heard over the years is that Paul changed his name when he became a Christian, presumably because the association with Saul, the rejected king who disobeyed God and attempted to murder David, was no longer a favorable one (as if it would be any more favorable for a Jewish person). One book even states, "Jesus changes Saul's name to Paul" (137), which is a bewildering statement considering Jesus' role in the name change is never spelled out by any biblical writer (or even suggested).

Perhaps my prefered suggestion is that Paul, being a Roman citizen, actually would have had 3 names including his ethnic name (Saul, his Jewish name) and a more Romanized name, in this case, Paul. You can find this in a couple places, I always recommend Craig Keener's Biblical Background Commentary on the NT for this type of info. This would lend us to think that Paul strategically begins to go by his Roman name as he ministers more and more to Gentiles (and it might not be a coincidence that Sergius Paulus is mentioned in Acts 13 as well, perhaps Paul was hoping to garner some favor). Obviously one could go by two names, Peter is known as Cephas (Aramaic) and Peter (Greek) in the NT (though he is not a Roman citizen, and these are nicknames anyway, remember his name is actually Simon); but it is understandable why Paul made this decision.

But today I ran across an article by one of my former professors, Sean McDonough, in the summer edition of the Journal of Biblical Literature. He makes another suggestion that I find intriguing, though perhaps not convincing. He notes how Paul, as he begins preaching in 13:16, gives a "history of Israel" in sermonic form (not unlike Stephen in Acts 7) and includes a reference to Saul in vv21-22, the only time he is mentioned in the entire NT (I believe). McDonough suggests that this is an odd thing to mention (there are more important characters left out of his sermon), but believes it gives us a clue to why Saul begins to go by "Paul."

King Saul was a man of great physical stature, one who commanded respect merely at the sight of him. But his character did not match his imposing size, making him a goat more than a hero in the biblical story. Saul of Tarsus had a different goal in mind (who wouldn't?), and opted not to be associated with one of great physical presence, so he adopted Paulus as his name. Paulus is a Latin name meaning "small." It was a fairly common name in the ancient world. In switching his name, Paul was declaring that he was not going to be a physically dominating man, but a "small" man (in the eyes of the world). Of course, if 2 Corinthians 10:10 ("in person he is unimpressive") refers to his small stature, he may not have had a choice.

At any rate, I'm not really convinced this is what Paul had in mind, I still think the second option mentioned is preferable. Both the latter 2 are better than the first, which has little biblical evidence to commend it. I guess I lean towards the second simply because the biblical writers, including Paul, don't make a big deal out of the name change, so we probably shouldn't either (unless Luke was being really subtle). Instead, if there is a reasonable suggestion based on solid (historical) evidence that would have made sense to the original readers, that's the one I'll choose. If anyone is still reading this blog, I'd love to hear what you think.

assumptions & arguments: early Christian beliefs in 1 Corinthians

2007-02-26T16:23:00.000-05:00

Sometimes it takes being sick to help us realize what is truly important, like blogging. Okay, that's a bunch of crud, but I since I've called out of work (or called in, which do you say?) I have the time to write something. In fact, I may write two somethings if I have time. Anyway, it's been over 3 weeks since I last blogged, even my own mother was making fun of me the other day for it.

I'm just beginning to teach 1 Corinthians in a class for my church and I'm really excited. One thing I notice about this letter of Paul is how it gives us a clue into the life of the early church that we might not otherwise have if the Corinthians weren't so screwed up. For instance, there is no other book in the NT where it clearly states that the earliest Christians regularly observed the Lord's Supper. True, we have mentioning of breaking bread in homes in Acts 2:46 which may well refer to this, "tasting the heavenly gift" in Hebrews 6 is another possibility; there may be more, these were just off the top of my head. But I'm not sure we would have strong NT evidence without 1 Corinthians (side note: take a moment and read 1 Cor 11:17-34 and note in what ways most of us do not observe the Lord's Supper in the manner Paul instructs here).

What I find more interesting, however, is not the controversial points, but those points which Paul assumes he and his readers agree to. The common ground they share gives us a great clue as to what the earliest Christians believed and practiced. For instance, even with a largely Gentile congregation Paul refers to the OT Scriptures in a way that assumes they know what he's talking about. Even if they don't have the background Paul does, they know enough that Paul feels comfortable using them (I'm assuming, of course, that Paul is knowledgable of their Scriptural comprehension and not overshooting).

You'll also see how Paul, in 8:6, weaves Jesus into the Shema (from Deuteronomy 6:4-5), which is quite a strong statement of Jesus' divinity coming from the pen of a Jew. Again, he doesn't argue this point, he assumes the readers accept it already. In fact, he so strongly assumes its acceptance he uses as a building block for his argument. This indicates that the divinity of Jesus was already considered standard doctrine very early (scholars Larry Hurtado and Richard Bauckham have argued this at length).

One last thing I noticed is the reference to Jesus' earthly life that Paul makes in 1 Cor 11:23-25. It is a common criticism of more liberal scholars to claim that Paul really didn't know much, if anything, about Jesus' life on earth, otherwise Paul would refer to it more often. Here, Paul, while discussing the Lord's Supper, quotes from Jesus. He even puts it within a context- "on the night he was betrayed" (v23). Paul is clearly aware of the tradition of Jesus' betrayal and feasting with His disciples and assumes the Corinthians are as well. Is it unreasonable to imagine that Paul discussed these things with them when he was present and preaching the gospel? These are the foundational aspects of Pauline Christianity, we are reading the problems that arise in living out the gospel (this goes for 1 Corinthians, Galatians and most other Pauline letters).

My point is this: if you want to get an accurate look at the earliest Christian beliefs and practices, sometimes the best thing you can do is read what is assumed rather than what is argued. Since these letters were written to address specific situations at specific times we ought to excuse Paul for not writing a systematic theology textbook (no, not even Romans counts). Like a good pastor he is trying to right the ship where it has gone off course. He uses the gospel, the Jesus tradition and his previous teachings to lay the foundation, but spends most of his time arguing the implications of these things in the life of his churches.

dealing with writer's block

2007-02-03T11:02:00.000-05:00

Well, it's been a while since I've posted anything, even longer since I've posted anything of any substance. Instead, I will direct you to what is now my favorite comic strip. My sister e-mailed me a link a while back to Dinosaur Comics, a comic strip where only the text changes, never the pictures. I find it hilarious, though it is certainly not for everyone. Case in point, read this and decide if you like it or not (this is the particular comic my sister sent to me). If not, Dinosaur Comics might not be for you, though I think you should check out more of them.

While I'm here, check out Elijah Teague's first report card, given to him by his father, Bruce. I think he did pretty well for a newbie. And for more baby stuff, see Matt & Pam's latest post (better check it out, they only come about twice a year) about their baby. This is what happens when your friends are pregnant or new parents, you end up filling your blog with baby stuff. I need a life.

The Day of Reckoning: Patriots-Colts, postgame thoughts

2007-01-22T21:27:00.000-05:00

There is no worse feeling as a sports fan than watching your team collapse and lose a big game. I should know, I'm a Red Sox fan. And no matter how many times it happens, you never get used to it. I never really thought the Patriots of this decade would hurt me like the Sox have time and time again. A comeback story is always fun, unless you were rooting for Ivan Drago or something. In this case, I was. Here are some quick thoughts.

People I'd Like To Blame:

1. Reche Caldwell- two dropped passes in crucial situations. The worst was when the Colts forgot to cover him. The Pats should have scored a touchdown, instead they settled for the field goal. That's a 4-point difference. How many points did they lose by? 4.

2. Bill Belicheck- how is it possible that he had a terrific game plan in the 1st half, but didn't come up with something better in the 2nd? And Corey Dillon getting only 1 carry in the 2nd half? I realize he ain't what he used to be, but that's ridiculous.

3. The refs- sounds cheap, and it is. They really blew the roughing the passer call on Banta Cain, which put Indy on the 12 to win the game. But, in the end, it really doesn't matter, the Pats probably would have lost anyway.

4. The linebackers- can we please cover somebody? Please?

5. Bill Belicheck- wait, I'm not done with him yet. I think it's about time he learns that he can't just plug anybody in a position and expect to win. Eric Alexander playing linebacker on the must crucial stand of the season?!?!?! Are you kidding me?!?!?! Who is he? No, seriously, who is he? You only get so many chances to win Super Bowls, you shouldn't try to squeeze by like the Patriots have done the last 2 years.

Ultimately, though, this game wasn't about the Patriots blowing an 18-point lead, to focus on that is to take away credit from Peyton Manning and the Colts. Manning has always had the reputation of blowing the big game, and it looked like he was well on his way in the 1st half. His interception to Asante Samuel was telegraphed the whole way, and when he took the delay of game penalty on his own 5 it looked like he was completely shell shocked. Then he comes out in the 2nd half, abandons the long ball for the short game and leads his team to victory. The Colts scored on 4 consecutive drives in the 2nd half against the #2 defense in the NFL. He deserves credit for beating the Patriots in an important game, something many thought he'd never do. I hope he goes on to win the Super Bowl against the Bears, then returns to form next year and loses to New England. He deserves it.

another football post: Pats-Colts, this Sunday

2007-01-19T05:04:00.000-05:00

Imagine a team with a star quarterback. Now imagine that this team has played the last two games with him playing poorly, and I mean poorly. Now imagine that this team has a defense without many Pro Bowlers, but who have played the last two games with tenacity and grit. This team has won both of those games despite the quarterback because the defense stepped up and played big.

What scares me is that this describes both the Patriots and the Colts, but perhaps the Colts moreso than the Pats. What scares me is that this is the formula the Pats have used over and over again throughout this decade, and they've won 3 Super Bowls. Contrast that with the Peyton Manning-led Colts, who won because their quarterback would feast on inferior defenses and his defense was just good enough to hold on. That formula never works. But for the last two games the Colts have won even though Manning has played poorly; they've won because the defense was able to shut down the opposing team. This has been a hallmark of Patriots football, now the Colts are trying for their version.

It's funny how the human mind works. Last week the Pats were the heavy underdogs, and I convinced myself they would win (and I was right, in case you forgot). This week the Pats might still be underdogs (largely because of the national media's collective mancrush on Peyton Manning), but many give them a good shot at winning. And I find myself finding reasons why this will be the year the Colts finally beat the Pats in a game that matters. I think years of being a Red Sox fan and watching them lose so often has conditioned me to think this way (it's funny how winning a World Series hasn't changed that too much).

But, I've decided to be more brave and actually attempt a real pick. Instead of expecting to lose and celebrating at the joy of winning, I've opted to expect what I think will really happen. I may not be successful, but I'll give it a whirl. So with that in mind, here are some thoughts:

The Colts defense has been playing well, but it's easy to overstate their effort. This past Sunday was against the Baltimore Ravens, who own one of the worst offenses in football. When you're entire offense is built around a way-past-his-prime quarterback, a decent tight end and a decent running back, well, you're in trouble. And their playoff opener was against the Kansas City Chiefs, a team coached by Herm Edwards. We Patriots fans know Herm well from his days with the New York Jets. I'm not sure Herm could have coached a worse game, it was a gift to the Colts, quite frankly. But, you can't hold that against the Colts defense. You can only play the teams you're scheduled to play, and they've beaten them. That's all you can do.

The Colts clearly have an advantage in the kicking game, where they now have Adam Vinatieri, the great former Patriots kicker. He's the greatest clutch kicker in football history, whereas we have a rookie kicker. Let's hope this doesn't come down to field goals.

I find it funny how many people in the national media are claiming that this is "Peyton Manning's time". In fact, a sports show here in Boston got a lot of mileage out of it, and I tend to agree with them. Since when does that pass as in-depth analysis? "Why will the Colts win this game? Because it's Peyton's time." Does that make sense? Does this work in any other realm of life (other than the Oscars)? Does it work on Wall Street? What about in your job? School? What about dating, does it work there? Wait, nevermind.

On the flip side, maybe the fact that Peyton is able to win despite playing poorly is a sign of things changing. Oddly enough, if he had sprung for 5 touchdown passes over the last two games I would be less worried, because it would mean to me that he's just the same old Peyton. But he's taken a page out of Tom Brady's playbook- play crappy football for a while, put together a drive or two when it matters. Brady's won 3 Super Bowls. Doesn't necessarily make much sense, but it scares me a bit.

As for the Patriots, they'll have to run the ball well. Looking back 2 years ago, most thought the Patriots would lose to the Colts in the playoffs, but the Pats introduced them to Clock Killin' Corey Dillon. It would be nice to see Dillon run the ball down their throats like old times.

The front 7 for New England will have to get pressure on Manning and be able to stop the run without help from the secondary. The Colts have great receivers, as well as a good tight end, so the defensive backfield will have their hands full. In fact, I think New the Patriots will have to cheat with a linebacker dropping back, which may mean there are only 6 guys playing up front, especially if Rodney Harrison is out again.

The biggest advantage the Patriots have is the coaching. Belicheck has consistently come up with game plans to confuse Manning. I realize that the Colts have won the last 2 regular season matchups, but there were major injury problems last year and this year the Pats have improved tremendously since they played earlier in the season. Some may call this a cop-out, I call it truth. In football, more than any other sport, coaching counts, advantage New England.

So here is my call for this Sunday, subject to deletion if I'm wrong:

Colts- 24
Patriots- 31

where I come from

2007-01-17T18:52:00.000-05:00

I hope you don't mind if I interrupt my series of boring football posts to ask you to read something I found absolutely fascinating. I've mentioned Jeremy's blog (and I'm sure you'll remember that Jeremy is my second cousin) a few times, but today he posted something completely different from what I've thrown in your direction before.

If genealogies interest you at all (or even if they don't), take a look at his latest post, entitled Pierce Ancestry, and see a bit of my family background. And by "a bit" I mean a whole lot. We've got Roman Emperors, a Catholic saint, a Shakespearean character, Charlemagne, soldiers, but no baseball players (as far as I know). It's fascinating. Like Jeremy, I don't think it means too much if you've got wonderful people or scoundrels in your bloodline, it doesn't really affect today much. But it is interesting to see how it works out.

Jeremy and I start crossing paths with our great-grandfather, Walter R. Pierce (b. 1876). His son, Walter (b. 1909) was my grandfather, who fathered my father, Donald (b. 1948- yeah, I just told everyone how old my father is, sorry pops). This genealogy is patrilineal, so it doesn't follow the women (though a few of note sneak in), that would be an interesting study as well. But, for now we'll give poor Jeremy a break, he's a busy man.

postgame thoughts on Pats & Chargers

2007-01-16T22:03:00.000-05:00

I found a couple things ironic about this past Sunday's game. One, Marty Schottenheimer, head coach of San Diego, has been blasted for years for being a poor playoff coach. The charge (which is accurate, in my opinion) is that he becomes overly conservative in his offensive play calling- he runs too much and throws too many short passes to his running backs rather than trying to move the ball downfield. I find it ironic that part of the reason he lost this game was that he went away from that very thing. In the 4th quarter, with a lead, he should have been handing the ball off or throwing swing passes and short tosses to Tomlinson on almost every play, at least until New England could prove they could stop him with any sort of consistency (which they probably never would have done). Marty went away from his favorite method of run, run, halfback flare (ad naseum) and it may have cost him the game. With 4:30 left in the game and a tie score, he runs once with Tomlinson and throws twice to an overmatched receiving corps, both incomplete (thanks to mostly incompetent receivers). It wasn't the only thing that lost it for them, but it was part of it. Some will note that Roosevelt Colvin's interception was on a little toss to Tomlinson, but I'll counter with the fact that it was not a designed play, but rather a safety valve (which ultimately proved not so safe).

Two, I find the complaining on the part of the Chargers about the excessive celebration by New England to be comical. Mind you, I think the celebrations of some of the Patriots were stupid, but I can't feel bad for a team with someone known for a certain dance that he does after plays, even those he isn't a part of (I'm talking about the steroid abuser, Shawne Merriman). Listen, if you're going to dance after every stupid play, be prepared for the other team to do the same when they come into your home stadium and upset you. It's as simple as that. Grow up. With that said, I would have prefered the Pats not done anything. I'd rather one of the established veterans (Bruschi, for example) simply point out after the game that the Patriots don't talk trash and celebrate prematurely, rather they save their dancing for the Super Bowl victory parade. Nothing like the old timers pointing out the foolishness of the young punks. That would have been better revenge, in my opinion.

Lastly, I find it interesting that most "experts" said that the Patriots would have to play their best game in order to beat San Diego, when in fact the Patriots played quite poorly and still won. Here's the bottom line: you cannot give Tom Brady a chance to beat you in the 4th quarter. He will beat you, you can bet on it (in fact, many do).

A couple other notes:

Sometime in the 4th quarter a person in my viewing crew pointed out that we hadn't heard Asante Samuel's name all night. Samuel is the best cornerback on the Patriots, he tied for the league lead in interceptions and is considered their biggest (if not only) big play threat on defense. Here's the thing, with cornerbacks it's often better that you don't hear their name. If you do, there's a good chance it's because they're getting beat by the wide receiver. There have only been a handful of great corners who could tie up an entire half of the field on their own (Ty Law and Champ Bailey come to mind). Samuel is not one of those corners. He takes chances, when he succeeds he looks great, when he fails it usually means points for the other team. I'd rather not hear his name sometimes, it means his man isn't getting open and the quarterback won't dare throw it his way. It's a sign of respect.

Brady was downright awful at points on Sunday. Yet, he pulled together a great drive at the end of the 1st half, and pulled himself together after an interception (turned fumble recovery thanks to Troy Brown) to lead the game winning drive. He looked like the Brady of 5 years ago, the one I would call the "best bad quarterback in the league" or the "worst great quarterback in the league" depending on my mood. Back then he would look bad for an extended period of time, but then put together something amazing to win the game. In the Pats 1st Super Bowl win he didn't really play that well (look at his numbers sometime), but he commanded the game winning drive with the clock working against him. I'll take that any day.

I think there is one play that stands out to me as defining these two teams. In the 4th quarter Brady throws an awful pass on 4th down which gets intercepted by Marlon McRee, San Deigo's safety, who then tries to run with it but is stripped by veteran receiver Troy Brown ("veteran" in this case is a euphemism for "ancient"), which is recovered by New England, who go on to score the game winning field goal. Here is why this defines the two teams: McRee showed no game awareness, he should have dropped the ball rather than intercept it, giving his team the ball at the Patriots line of scrimmage rather than downfield. Brown on the other hand showed tremendous awareness and went for the ball, which was carelessly held by McRee. The Pats were a smarter, grittier team than the Chargers, and that's why they won.

I'll check back in with some thoughts before the Pats-Colts game this Sunday. Eventually we'll get back to eternal matters on this blog, until I hope you stick around. Thanks for indulging me.

Is there hope for the Patriots this Sunday?

2007-01-11T05:29:00.000-05:00

The Patriots are the team of the decade, and will be until the end of the decade even if they don't win another Super Bowl (the chances of anyone catching their 3 Super Bowls are pretty slim). However, they are not the same Patriots that beat the Rams, Panthers and Eagles. They are older and slower, they've lost some key guys and replaced them with lesser quality players. The Chargers, on the other hand, are the team on the rise. They have an impressive young quarterback (Philip Rivers), a steroid abusing stud linebacker (Shawne Merriman), one of the best tight ends in football (Antonio Gates) and the best player in the game (LaDainian Tomlinson).

Some of the things to worry about for the Patriots:

1- they have a lot of trouble with speed rushers, and Merriman is as fast as he is strong, which is saying a lot considering he's a steroid user (and no, this isn't a baseless accusation, for those who don't know he served a 4-game suspension already this year for failing the drug test);

2- they have no one to cover Gates, unless Harrison comes back but even then he'll be injured;

3- Harrison is hurt, he's their best tackler in the secondary (if not the whole team) and a great leader;

4- I'm worried about the Pats ability to stop the run on the outside, while they have the best defensive line in the league and I think they'll do okay against the run up the middle, their outside linebackers (Colvin and Banta Cain), while very fast, are not exactly the world's best run stoppers, and middle linebacker Bruschi has slowed down a ton;

5- Tomlinson is awesome. Whether he's running or receiving, he cannot be stopped. The Patriots have no one who will be able to keep up with him. He is hands down the best player in football, a player I love to watch, just not when he's playing my team.

Way back on Jan 3, on this very blog, I wrote that the Pats would get bounced in the second round. But I'm going optimistic these days, it's time to find the silver lining in the dark cloud, to note the half-fulledness of the cup, to ignore the dog poop on my shoe and keep walking in the sunshine. Here are some reasons why we Patriots fans can have hope that we'll pull off the upset this Sunday:

1- Belicheck is a proven winner in the post season, while San Diego head coach Marty Shottenheimer has proven himself to be a bust in the playoffs time and time again, big advantage to the Patriots;

2- we have Tom Brady, who stopped doing Gap ads and broke up with his movie star girlfriend for such a time as this;

3- Rivers is playing his first game as starting QB in the playoffs, I figure we'll have about 2 quarters to take advantage of this before he finally settles down;

4- as noted, our defensive line is the best in the league, which means if our corners play up enough to slow down the outside speed of San Diego we might be able to quasi-contain their running game (but not stop it), it'll help if Harrison is back;

5- Merriman is a steroid user who has been given a free pass by the media, but my mom always said "cheaters never prosper" and my mom is never wrong;

6- my playoff beard worked well for us this past Sunday, I'm not afraid to skip shaving or trimming it as long as I feel it'll help, remember, I'm the guy who wore the same shirt through the Red Sox historic run in 2004.

So there you have it, I'm sure your outlook on this game is as rosey as mine now that you've seen my airtight case for Patriots superiority. Am I a homer? Absolutely and unashamedly. If I were to step back into the shoes of a non-Pats fan would I pick them to win? Probably not, though I do think they have a better shot than some think. So here is my prediction, bravely written in stone (or on a blog that can be changed or deleted at any time, whatever):

Chargers- 27
Patriots- 30

That Better Be Played at My Funeral

2007-01-07T20:58:00.000-05:00

Back in my student days I took a class called Pastoral Ministry. It was a class on the ins-and-outs of pastoral ministry, one of the most practical classes I've ever had. One type of assignment given was to plan out various types of services (funerals, weddings, baptisms, etc), complete with music, sermon and so on. That, of course, got me thinking about how I would like for these services to run in my life. Thus was the beginning stages of something I mentioned way back in the early days of the Hymn of the Week posts: my "That Better Be Played at My Funeral" list.

Some may say it's a bit morbid that I have my funeral planned out. Truthfully, I don't have the entire thing worked out, and have no intentions to do so, but I do have most of the music picked out. I guess I'm just trying to make someone else's life a little easier down the road. Plus, I think it's easier than having a "That Better Be Played at My Wedding" list because that'll probably get shot down when that day comes. I can't be selfish at my wedding, but I can at least attempt to have my funeral go my way (though I'll be dead, I'll be watching).

So here are the hymns that I want played at my funeral, subject to change. In no particular order:

It Is Well With My Soul- this is a no-brainer, what a tremendous song and appropriate for dealing with death and grief (in my top 3 hymns, by the way). I actually could have told you I wanted this sung at my funeral back in my teenage years when we sang this at a funeral for a young boy who had died. Powerful.

Jesus, I Come- I love this hymn so much it was the inaugural Hymn of the Week post, check it out here (also in my top 3 hymns).

Great is Thy Faithfulness- God's faithfulness is something I've experienced and learned in my life, I'd like it to be a theme until the end.

Be Thou My Vision- this one has rapidly moved up my favorites list, I wouldn't mind this being sung at my wedding, too.

Doxology- "Praise God from Whom all blessings flow", I'm a big fan of this ending a service of any kind. So simple, so powerful.

How Great Thou Art- my favorite hymn ever. This is the only song to do double duty on my That Better Be Played at My Wedding list (this would be my one request, well, also that the recessional be Take Me Out to the Ballgame, but I don't expect to win that battle). I haven't put this on a Hymn of the Week post yet, but I will, someday.

You'll notice that my top 3 favorite hymns on here, but there are some other that I love that probably wouldn't fit (All Creatures of our God and King, for example). I haven't blogged about all of these, just It Is Well, Jesus I Come and Be Thou My Vision. This might seem like a lot, but let me warn you that I haven't even started to list out Keith Green songs, so if you attend my funeral, expect to do a lot of singing.

So why such an emphasis on singing, especially these hymns? I'll give you three reasons. First is what I like to call the Charles Wesley Corollary, or what my roommate Jonathan calls the Hymns-Spirit Theorem, which made its public debut on my Be Thou My Vision post. Here is what I wrote then:

Actually, this is a good time to unveil something Jonathan and I discovered a while back. We've found that the power of the Spirit evident in any given meeting is proportional to the quality and quantity of hymns that are sung. I stress quality because one How Great Thou Art is worth at least a dozen renditions of When the Roll Is Called Up Yonder. Maybe we should call this the Charles Wesley Corollary. I'll get back to you on that.

I think I have to play a little loose with the definition of "corollary" in order to make this work, but I'll work on that later. I just like the way it sounds.

Two, I choose these hymns based on my thoughts I gave in my post what would you do if I sang out of tune..., which talked about the role of worship through song within the Church. I'll let you read that at your leisure, but I will say that I think it was the best post/discussion we've had on this blog.

Three, many people come to a funeral to honor and celebrate the life of the deceased person. I suppose that's fine, we should honor the saints who've gone before us and learn from their lives. But when I look at my life I see a life riddled with my own sin and pride. There is little to celebrate that has come from me (and I'm not attempting false modesty here). What I do see, however, is the grace of God through and through. I see blessings beyond number, I see forgiveness that has been thrown my way, I see freedom and joy that I do not deserve. At my funeral I don't want to be talked up or praised (nor should I be so presumptuous to think this would happen). I have one simple request: celebrate the goodness of the Lord. Because whatever is good and praiseworthy in my life owes itself to the goodness of our God. Praise God from whom all blessings flow.

still yet another 5.5 random things

2007-01-03T17:48:00.000-05:00

5.5: This post is dedicated to the unknown and fortunate person who picked up the $20 bill I accidentally left at the supermarket. Lesson learned: don't talk on the phone while doing the self-check out at the grocery store.

5: The BruceandMorgans have a new blog, complete with pictures of their new son, Elijah, who made his blog of danny debut a couple weeks back. It's just getting off the ground, so be sure to check it out when you get a chance.

4: Okay, so this Boise State upset over Oklahoma may be the greatest game ever played (with all due respect to Vince Young and the '05-'06 Texas Longhorns and Doug Flutie and the '84 Boston College Eagles). Unfortunately, I didn't stay up to watch it. After all, I've always disliked Boise State for playing on a blue field. That just isn't right. However, any team that is willing to run a Hook-and-Lateral and a Statue of Liberty in crucial points at the end of the game (the first to tie the game and send it into overtime, the second was a 2-point conversion to win in overtime) is okay in my book. Seriously, you don't even try that stuff in video games, and to pull it off to win a major bowl game (the first major bowl in Boise State history), well, that earns you the right to play on a blue field for a while. You need to watch the highlights of this game, trust me. Check out them here in a format that is broken down by quarters and the overtime period. You owe it to yourself to watch at least the 4th quarter and the overtime.

3: When you get a minute (actually 2 and a half) watch the trailer to the upcoming movie, Amazing Grace, which comes out in February. It's about William Wilberforce, who fought successfully against the slave trade in England. Let's just say I'll be hiding a few kleenex in my pocket. You know, in case I suddenly have heretofore unknown allergies kick in.

2: New Testament scholar Ben Witherington offered some of his thoughts on the passing of former President Gerald Ford. His mentioning of Ford's son, Mike, as a former Gordon-Conwell student reminded me of a story I heard about him in school. As Witherington notes, Mike Ford always had 2 Secret Service agents with him at all times, following him wherever he went. Apparently the other students had nicknamed these 2 agents "Goodness" and "Mercy" after Psalm 23:6.

1: The Patriots begin their playoff run on Sunday against the hated Jets. Honestly, I'm not sure the Pats will get past the second round (not that the first round is a given considering how Mangini outcoached Belichek in their last meeting). The Pats just don't have enough weapons on either side of the ball. Don't get me wrong, they have some great players: Brady is the best QB in the league (even in this off year I'd take him over anyone come playoff time), Seymour is the best defensive lineman in football, and there are a couple other good ones. But they can't score consistently enough, and their defense doesn't create as many scoring opportunities for the offense as they once did. I'm afraid my Pats will get bounced in the second round again this year. Here's hoping I'm wrong.

New Year's Resolutions

2006-12-29T05:25:00.000-05:00

I'm very much against making New Year's resolutions. The way I see, there's no need to wait until January 1 to make one, but then again, I'm a boring guy with no sense of adventure. Even that's besides the point, the bottom line is that most of us, myself included, rarely keep them. So, this year I decided to accept the fact I never keep my resolutions and embrace failure. Here you go:

1. Gain weight. This whole eating healthy and getting exercise thing is completely over-rated. I figure with a lot of hard work and strict accountability, I could be pushing 4 bills by Thanksgiving and make a good stretch run into 2008. Ben & Jerry's, here I come.

2. Start drinking, smoking and swearing. I know most of you look at my life and think, "you know, I've never seen Danny stumble around in a drunken stupor- that could be fun", or "he could really use black lungs" or"what Danny needs is a little more vulgarity." Well, let me say, "I hear you." Maybe I'll even step it up and get a tatoo that I'll regret for years to come.

3. Vote democrat. Tax & spend, that's my new motto.

4. Get fired from my job. The way I see it, if we all work, the folks at the unemployment office will be out of jobs. So, I'll take one for the team and keep them busy. That's just the kind of guy I am.

5. Watch more NASCAR. There's nothing better than sitting on your butt for 4 hours watching a bunch of rednecks turning left.

6. Become a Calvinist. Hey, it's predestined.

Well, there you have it, a few resolutions for 2007. I hope you take the time to celebrate my failure with me.

Is it a compliment? Episode II

2006-12-28T17:11:00.000-05:00

Welcome back to "Is it a compliment?" where we give you a statement that someone has recently said to Danny and you try to tell if it's a compliment. We'd like to give special mention to this week's runner-up, one of Danny's coworkers who said to him "You're only 27! I didn't think it was possible to get that ugly in only 27 years!"

This episode's potential compliment will probably reveal more about your take on a certain popular Christian book than anything else. Without further ado, let's play!

"You're so wild at heart."

Grammatical Poetry

2006-12-20T17:42:00.000-05:00

To an infinitive split, some say it's debatable
I find it to still be an offense berate-able

Hymn of the Week: Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing

2006-12-19T19:53:00.001-05:00

Ah, the return of my favorite part of blogging, the Hymn of the Week. It's been a while, and it seems like I always promise this will happen more regularly, so this time I won't even promise that. Anyway, this week's hymn is a great one, a personal favorite of one of my readers (maybe more than one, actually). It's written by Robert Robinson, here are the lyrics.

Come Thou Fount of every blessing
Tune my heart to sing Thy grace;
Streams of mercy, never ceasing,
Call for songs of loudest praise
Teach me some melodious sonnet,
Sung by flaming tongues above.
Praise the mount! I'm fixed upon it,
Mount of God's unchanging love.

Here I raise my Ebenezer;
Hither by Thy help I'm come;
And I hope, by Thy good pleasure,
Safely to arrive at home.
Jesus sought me when a stranger,
Wandering from the fold of God;
He, to rescue me from danger,
Interposed His precious blood.

O to grace how great a debtor
Daily I'm constrained to be!
Let that grace now like a fetter,
Bind my wandering heart to Thee.
Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it,
Prone to leave the God I love;
Here's my heart, O take and seal it,
Seal it for Thy courts above.

We sang this song in church this past Sunday, but there were some differences in lyrics. The version we sang had "Name" instead of "Mount" at the end of the first verse, it changed the first couple lines of the second verse and used a different word for "interposed." I presume these changes were intentional on the part of whoever rewrote it. The first change may have happened because of our poor understanding of metonymy, which is a figure of speech that takes a noun and uses it in place of a related noun (such as "The White House issued a statement", whereas "The White House" issued no statement, rather the President or his officials did). The second change was probably meant to avoid using the confusing (to us) "Ebenezer", but I think it's an opportunity to do some teaching on the meaning of the word (I'll let you look it up). I'm sure the third change was to avoid the word "interpose", which is hardly everyday language.

Anyway, this is a great song, I love some of the imagery: our hearts being tuned to sing of God's grace (you musicians should understand this even better than I), the pervasive theme of our wandering and God's rescue, and our hearts being fettered by God's grace. This is a song that deserves to be contemplated as much as sung, in my opinion. And I hope you do just that, I look forward to your thoughts.

Rebirth & Birth

2006-12-16T17:38:00.000-05:00

You may have already noticed, but I've made a couple more changes to the blog of danny. I switched to Blogger Beta, which is a better version of blogger. It allows me to spruce up the old blog without having to learn html, which I appreciate. So, you'll notice a few changes to the right. First, I added a picture with my profile. I'm not necessarily trying to make any statements about myself with that picture, although I'm sure one of you pop psychologists will begin to dig deep into my psyche and find out the truth. I think it's a funny little deal, so I put it up here for your amusement.

Second, the archives list has a new feature, it allows you to see how many posts I throw out every month. Mind you, this is completely useless information, which makes it right up my alley. You'll noticed I popped out only 1 in June. I think this was for two reasons: I was out of the country for part of that month, and my one post that month was fairly involved. I can't be expected to go crazy like that too much.

Third, you'll notice I have added a "What I've Been Reading" section, complete with pictures of the books for you visual folks. At some point I'll get around to commenting on these books, and I could probably add some more, but this will give you the idea. You'll also notice I have added a "What I've Been Hearing" section, complete with pictures of the cds for you visual folks. Again, I could add more, but this is good enough for now.

My hope is that I can make this blog more attractive without having to up the quality of posting. That would be far too much work for me, so I'll settle for appearances instead. Newer is better, right?

Speaking of newer, this rebirth of the blog comes on the heals of making a new friend, Elijah. I had an interesting phone conversation with him on Thursday morning at about 6:20am. It went somethng like this:

me: Hi, Elijah.

Elijah: Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

I guess I can't blame him; after 9 months of floating around in a sac of fluid with plugs up his nose, you can't expect him to be too happy or comfortable in only 1 hour and 20 minutes. Blessings to Bruce & Morgan upon the birth of their first child, who came in screaming on December 14 at 4:59am, a healthy 7lbs 8oz and 21 inches long. May the Lord continue to bless your family.

Greater than the Great One: Bobby Orr

2006-12-11T18:45:00.000-05:00

John Buccigross of ESPN has a quick interview with an author of a new book about Bobby Orr, in which he talks a bit about the Gretzky-Orr debate. Many, especially those with little to no knowledge of hockey history, assume Gretzky is the best hockey player ever, after all, he is called "The Great One." But there are numerous reasons to doubt this, #1 being Bobby Orr. That isn't to say that if you know enough about hockey you'll suddenly become enlightened and think Gretzky is nothing compared to Orr, men who have forgotten more hockey than I know will disagree with me.

Mind you, hockey is the sport I know least about of the 4 major sports (for non-Americans, that's baseball, football, basketball and hockey, though many wouldn't include hockey and keep the list to 3), though I still know more than probably 95% of the population. I suppose it's because I never played it. I know baseball the best, probably because I played baseball for years. And I know quite a bit about football and a decent amount about basketball, both sports I played a lot when I was younger. But hockey I never really played. I blame my father (who is probably reading this) since he never taught me how to ice skate despite being a fine young hockey player himself. He'll probably blame the US Navy for keeping him away from home so much. And the Navy will probably blame the now-defunct Soviet Union for forcing our government's hand into the Cold War, causing them to beef up the military, especially submarines, which in turn caused men like my father to go out to sea and partake in international underwater espionage (which he will neither confirm nor deny, he takes that oath very seriously, which is a shame, because I bet he's got some good stories). The point is this: I don't know hockey as well as I would like because of the Russians. Stinkin' Communists. The Iron Curtain falls and we still feel the effects almost 2 decades later.

Anyway, here's the deal about Bobby Orr: he changed the way hockey was played. He was one of the first, if not the first, great scoring defenseman. There have been other great scorers who played defense, but almost all of them give up some defense for the sake of offense. Those who watched Bobby Orr play, and even more importantly, those who played with and against him, insist that Orr was one of those rare players who played both sides with equal greatness. And his numbers bear that out, but I'll spare you. Wait, allow me just one stat. There is a stat in hockey that attempts to calculate how well your team scores when you are on the ice compared to how much the other team scores when you are on the ice. This stat is known as "Plus/Minus." If your team scores when you are on the ice, you add one to your total. If the other team scores, you take off one. Orr has the single season record at +124! That means his team scored 124 more goals than they gave up when he was on the ice (I believe this stat counts only when the teams are at even strength, someone may be able to verify). His career +/- per game is .91, the next closest guy is Larry Robinson at .53.

I remember back in college when ESPN came out with their 50 Greatest Athletes list and the shock that Orr was listed somewhere in the 30's (if I remember correctly). I chalk that up to a tendency to downplay hockey within the American sports scene, and I can understand that. But in the 30's! This is the man who singlehandedly changed the game! That has to count for something.

I'm not just saying that flippantly, either. In my opinion, if you want to compare athletes from different sports and list the greatest you should use to basic criteria: how they dominated their sport and how the sport was different after they left. The first one is included for obvious reasons. The second is included because it helps bridge the gap between sports. It's hard to look at Chamberlain's single season scoring record and Peyton Manning's record for touchdown passes and compare the two. But you can compare how they stacked up against those around them (the domination factor) and how they each changed their respective sport. Chamberlain paved the way for great big men (though still second fiddle to the great Bill Russell) and Manning, well, hasn't changed much of anything- advantage Chamberlain. I think it also helps those in sports where individual domination is more difficult (football, for example).

This is why I thought Babe Ruth should have been listed over Michael Jordan as #1. Ruth dominated his sport like no one else (at times hitting more homeruns than any other team in the league) and the sport of baseball changed forever after him. Jordan was certainly dominant (6 championships), but I can't honestly say he changed the sport. Sure, basketball is more marketable, and he's still the most well known basketball player in the world. But the sport itself hasn't changed. There were players who played his style before him (Dr J, for example) and plenty after, and even though none approach his greatness, it doesn't exactly make him unique.

All this to say, Bobby Orr 1) dominated his sport and 2) changed it forever. Gretzky may have him beat on #1, but not #2. Gretzky is like Jordan, he basically perfected an existing style of play. There were others like him before he came along and some more after. Granted, none are as good, but they're still a lot like him. There is only one Bobby Orr. Many have tried, all have failed.

Is it a compliment?

2006-12-06T16:29:00.000-05:00

I've decided to add a little game to the blog to spice things up a little bit. If I could get sound, I'd even give it a theme song, but alas, we'll each have to write our own. I was inspired last night by talking with Andrew and Matt for a few minutes. Somehow the topic of our blogs came up (as if it's not dorky enough that we have them, now we talk about them with each other) and Matt said something to me that I'm not sure whether or not it is a compliment. So you tell me, here it is:

"Reading your blog is like drinking whipped egg."

Larry Legend: at 50

2006-12-05T16:24:00.000-05:00

Hey, just wanted to let all 2 of you know that Bill Simmons has posted an older column of his in honor of Larry Bird's 50th birthday. It's a great read from a good sports writer who grew up watching Bird in person. Read it quick, it's probably only going to be available for a few days unless you have one of those stupid ESPN subscriptions. Check it out.

Emerging into Better Interpreters

2006-11-29T20:03:00.000-05:00

I read a great post a few days ago (and am just now getting around to posting about it) at Scot McKnight's blog jesuscreed.org. McKnight is an NT scholar but has interests that range beyond the academic. He writes often about the Emergent Movement, mostly favorable. For those who aren't familiar with the Emergent Movement I recommend you check out some of the links on McKnights page. At its best, those who are considered "emergent" or "emerging" are socially aware/active believers who emphasize the necessity of community in the Church's life, doctrine, evangelism and mission and provide a necessary corrective to evangelicalism. At its worst, they are theologically negligent, doctrinally evasive and just plain condescending. This, of course, is merely my opinion based on my interactions and readings. I tend to think that many, if not most, fit within the first category rather than the second.

McKnight's post is a letter largely addressing the issue that I've seen pop up periodically in the thoughts and writings of emergents: shouldn't we be more concerned with following Jesus and his teachings than with Paul? Many emergents think that the Church (especially evangelicals) has paid a disproportionate amount of attention to Paul rather than Jesus. Here is McKnight's paragraph explaining the issue with his reader:

Your point seemed to favor one idea: that Jesus is not only “the first one we need to go to” (which your friend advocates) but (what you think) the “only one we really need. After all,” you ask, “what else do we really need besides Jesus’ teaching?” Besides, you observe, Paul’s “so abstract and theoretical and all his stuff about justification doesn’t really make sense to any of us.”

I encourage you to read McKnight's post, it was thoughtful, generous and insightful. My response would probably not be any of these things.

McKnight's conversation partner reflects a common understanding within the Emergent Movement. That is, we should be what some have called "red letter Christians" who avoid the common trap of "reading Jesus through the lens of Paul." This line of thought concerns me (which should be no surprise for those who know me well), I guess for two main reasons.

One, this strikes me as awfully arrogant. What makes us think we can interpret Jesus better than Paul? I mean, wasn't Paul a Jew who lived in the same time frame as Jesus? Wasn't he the one who encountered the risen Christ and had his life radically transformed? Wasn't he the one who risked his life to preach the good news of this Savior to the entire world, and ultimately faced his death because of this? How arrogant would I be to think that I can understand and apply Jesus' teachings better than Paul?

Two, there seems to be a fundamental problem with hermeneutics here (by "hermeneutics" I mean the process of applying an ancient text to today, the basic question is "how do we get from there to here?"). Because we don't grasp the first issue (how Paul applies Jesus' teachings), we don't grasp how to apply Paul. If we studied Paul and asked the questions "how?" (how does Paul apply Jesus?) and "why?" (why does Paul apply it in this way?) we might have a clue to following Jesus' teachings. It seems to me that Paul would be a great case study for us. While our contexts are certainly different, there are striking similarities that could give us a clue how to preach the gospel faithfullly in our context. Both contexts (Paul's and ours) are pluralistic, socially diverse, economically diverse, morally loose, and so on. (It's interesting to note that Jesus ministered in a monotheistic and morally stringent- to the point of legalism in some cases- atmosphere. That doesn't sound too much like modern day America, does it?)

I think this is what bothers me when McKnight's reader says that "all his [Paul's] stuff about justification doesn’t really make sense to any of us." It was this doctrine that Paul used to defend the right of Gentiles to fellowship with Jews. It wasn't abstract or theoretical. It was practical. Justification by faith meant that Gentiles could eat with Jews (making the reverse true as well), worship with Jews, etc, without having to become "Jews" (circumcision being the most obvious issue). It doesn't get much more practical than that. Given that emergents are so concerned with equality between classes/races/cultures/etc (one of their most admirable qualities), justification should be emphasized in their circles, not diminished. I think the movement would be much more powerful and productive if it would spend more time reflecting on these things.