#107 Interesting Links XII

First of all, Alastair has a post called The Denominational Church that everyone regardless of their denomination needs to read. This is an important post for all of us and has generated a lot of discussion around the blogosphere. It was written in the wake of the rash decision by the PCA General Assembly to generalize two theologies, blend them into one, and then get together a bunch of people who haven't looked into the issue to well to quickly vote them down as heresy.

There's an article over at Time.com about a group of prostitutes in Nairobi who are immune to HIV. Perhaps you've heard the story before as they've been studying this group of women for a while now but I thought it was worth a look to remind us that there is something physical and scientific out there that can stop HIV. We just don't know how to harness it yet. But with all the advances in genetic engineering, perhaps we are getting closer to being able to replicate the protein that scientists think is preventing HIV in these women

I've added a couple of new blogs to my sidebar. Blog and Mablog is by Douglas Wilson, an author and editors of Credenda Agenda. The Stuff of Earth is by Michael Pahl who blogs on New Testament studies, theology, and hockey.

Over at Even the Devils Believe there is a great post on fat people and so-called Christian diets. Chris points to Kate Harding's post over at Shakesville on this phenomena. He also highlights some of her critical points which may surprise you.

While I am completely with Antonin Scalia on the issue of abortion, Andrew Sullivan points us to the justice's use of Jack Bauer and the show 24 as support for a legal argument on the issue of torture. What has this world come to? I fear that if Rudy Giuliani gets paired with this guy then we will officially be living in George Orwell's world.

Now somebody tell me this next link is a joke. Apparently, Alexi Lalas, the general manager of the Los Angeles Galaxy MLS team has declared that "...if you took a helicopter and grabbed a bunch of MLS players and took them to the perceived best league in the world they wouldn't miss a beat and the fans wouldn't notice any drop in quality.'' Granted the guy knows a hell of a lot more about soccer than I do, but I think he's clearly just out for publicity with a stupid comment like that.

#106 Theological Confessions

In light of Peter Leithart & Ben Myers posting of their theological confessions, here are a few of my own:

I confess: I think John Calvin's Institutes & J.I. Packer's Knowing God are highly overrated.

I confess: I hope Ron Paul becomes our president. I know this probably won't happen. I like Barak Obama & Mike Huckabee but they both scare me a bit. Paul seems to be the only candidate that truly gets what America is about.

I confess: I hide the covers of my theology books when I read them on the train to work and hope no one asks me what I'm reading. When asked I struggle to come up with an explanation.

I confess: I can't get past the Caananite genocide. I can't reconcile that god of Israel with the god of Jesus Christ.

I confess: I never (hardly ever anyway) pray

I confess: I fear for the salvation of my (future) children

I confess: I was glad when Jerry Falwell died. I can't wait for Pat Robertson to do the same.

I confess: I wish I was an expert biblical archaeologist searching for the presumably thousands of lost letters of Paul, although I'm terrified at the thought of finding a new gospel.

I confess: I had a psychosomatic reaction (my heart jumped & blood rushed into my head) when I saw the headline that the supposed tomb of Jesus had been found. I know this sounds stupid now, but I didn't know this hoax had been first discovered several years ago and the headline was clearly going for a reaction. But that would've certainly destroyed my Christianity and probably my life.

I confess: The concept espoused in the popular-level book Bold Love by counselor Dan Allender and OT scholar Tremper Longman is perhaps the single most important idea in my entire life, be it theologically, politically, or in my relationships. For those of you who have never heard of it, think of Miroslav Volf's Exclusion & Embrace or Martin Buber's I and Thou.

I confess: I take comfort when I hear the guy from The Killers sing "When you can't hold on, when you can't hold on...............................Hold on."

I confess: The Amish way of life appeals to me.

I confess: I faked speaking in tongues around the age of 8 and faked being "slain in the spirit" around the age of 12. Neither was an attempt at deceit. Both were an attempt by me to take a first step of faith hoping that God would step in and take over. He didn't.

#105 My Favorite Films

As a follow up to the last post about which of the AFI top 100 I've seen, here is a post of my favorite films of all time. These are in order, starting with most favorite (#1) and the list will expand as I see more must-see movies. I make no claims to being any kind of expert and you probably find a lot of my choices silly, especially my #1 favorite of all time. But that's why this isn't a "greatest of all time" list but a "my personal favorite" list, the films I personally enjoy the most, so far. If you haven't noticed by all the lists I've posted on this blog that I'm obsessive compulsive then by now it should be clear.

1. Crimson Tide (1995)
2. Braveheart (1995)
3. Band of Brothers (2001)
4. Crash (2004)
5. Life is Beautiful (1997)
6. Almost Famous (2000)
7. Love Actually (2003)
8. The Sandlot (1993)
9. Dances with Wolves (1990)
10. Last of the Mohicans (1992)
11. Cave Dwellers - MST3K version (1984)
12. A Few Good Men (1992)
13. A Beautiful Mind (2001)
14. The Princess Bride (1987)
15. Robin Hood - The cartoon (1973)
16. Swiss Family Robinson (1960)
17. Charlotte's Web (1973)
18. An American Tail (1986)
19. Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure (1989)
20. Twelve Angry Men (1957)
21. Fight Club (1999)
22. Jarhead (2005)
23. School of Rock (2003)
24. American History X (1998)
25. What's Eating Gilbert Grape (1993)
26. Seven (1995)
27. Cool Runnings (1993)
28. Forrest Gump (1994)
29. Hot Shots Part Duex (1993)
30. Ace Ventura (1994)
31. Mad City (1997)
32. Into the Wild (2007)
33. V for Vendetta (2006)
34. Willow (1988)
35. On the Waterfront (1954)
36. A Time to Kill (1996)
37. Dead Poets Society (1989)
38. O Brother Where Art Thou (2000)
39. Ken Burns: Civil War (1990)
40. Full Metal Jacket (1987)
41. The Nutty Professor (1996)
42. The Passion (2004)
43. Groundhog Day (1993)
44. Apocalypto (2006)
45. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
46. Office Space (1999)
47. Dazed and Confused (1993)
48. Once (2006)
49. The Constant Gardener (2005)
50. Ken Burns: Baseball (1994)
51. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)
52. Fargo (1996)
53. Tombstone (1993)
54. Bottle Rocket (1996)
55. Moulin Rouge (2001)
56. Gross Pointe Blank (1997)
57. Shawshank Redemption (1994)
58. The Terminal (2004)
59. Garden State (2004)
60. Elizabethtown (2005)
61. The Game (1997)

#104 AFI Top 100 Movies

The American Film Institute has released their list of the top 100 American films of all time as voted on by actors, directors, film critics, etc. ten years after releasing this list for the first time. As I glanced at the list I was thinking that I was way behind at first until I counted and When I originally posted this, I had seen more than a quarter, 27, of them, including 5 out of the top 10. I'm putting the ones I've seen in bold and this will be a continually updated post as I'm adding some of the others to my Blockbuster online queue. The next post will be my personal favorite films of all time list. Does anybody have any recommendations for which of the non-bolded movies I should see next?

1. "Citizen Kane," 1941.
2. "The Godfather," 1972.
3. "Casablanca," 1942.
4. "Raging Bull," 1980.
5. "Singin' in the Rain," 1952.
6. "Gone With the Wind," 1939.
7. "Lawrence of Arabia," 1962.
8. "Schindler's List," 1993.
9. "Vertigo," 1958.
10. "The Wizard of Oz," 1939.
11. "City Lights," 1931.
12. "The Searchers," 1956.
13. "Star Wars," 1977.
14. "Psycho," 1960.
15. "2001: A Space Odyssey," 1968.
16. "Sunset Blvd.", 1950.
17. "The Graduate," 1967.
18. "The General," 1927.
19. "On the Waterfront," 1954.
20. "It's a Wonderful Life," 1946.
21. "Chinatown," 1974.
22. "Some Like It Hot," 1959.
23. "The Grapes of Wrath," 1940.
24. "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial," 1982.
25. "To Kill a Mockingbird," 1962.
26. "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," 1939.
27. "High Noon," 1952.
28. "All About Eve," 1950.
29. "Double Indemnity," 1944.
30. "Apocalypse Now," 1979.
31. "The Maltese Falcon," 1941.
32. "The Godfather Part II," 1974.
33. "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," 1975.
34. "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs," 1937.
35. "Annie Hall," 1977.
36. "The Bridge on the River Kwai," 1957.
37. "The Best Years of Our Lives," 1946.
38. "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre," 1948.
39. "Dr. Strangelove," 1964.
40. "The Sound of Music," 1965.
41. "King Kong," 1933.
42. "Bonnie and Clyde," 1967.
43. "Midnight Cowboy," 1969.
44. "The Philadelphia Story," 1940.
45. "Shane," 1953.
46. "It Happened One Night," 1934.
47. "A Streetcar Named Desire," 1951.
48. "Rear Window," 1954.
49. "Intolerance," 1916.
50. "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring," 2001.
51. "West Side Story," 1961.
52. "Taxi Driver," 1976.
53. "The Deer Hunter," 1978.
54. "M-A-S-H," 1970.
55. "North by Northwest," 1959.
56. "Jaws," 1975.
57. "Rocky," 1976.
58. "The Gold Rush," 1925.
59. "Nashville," 1975.
60. "Duck Soup," 1933.
61. "Sullivan's Travels," 1941.
62. "American Graffiti," 1973.
63. "Cabaret," 1972.
64. "Network," 1976.
65. "The African Queen," 1951.
66. "Raiders of the Lost Ark," 1981.
67. "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?", 1966.
68. "Unforgiven," 1992.
69. "Tootsie," 1982.
70. "A Clockwork Orange," 1971.
71. "Saving Private Ryan," 1998.
72. "The Shawshank Redemption," 1994.
73. "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," 1969.
74. "The Silence of the Lambs," 1991.
75. "In the Heat of the Night," 1967.
76. "Forrest Gump," 1994.
77. "All the President's Men," 1976.
78. "Modern Times," 1936.
79. "The Wild Bunch," 1969.
80. "The Apartment, 1960.
81. "Spartacus," 1960.
82. "Sunrise," 1927.
83. "Titanic," 1997.
84. "Easy Rider," 1969.
85. "A Night at the Opera," 1935.
86. "Platoon," 1986.
87. "12 Angry Men," 1957.
88. "Bringing Up Baby," 1938.
89. "The Sixth Sense," 1999.
90. "Swing Time," 1936.
91. "Sophie's Choice," 1982.
92. "Goodfellas," 1990.
93. "The French Connection," 1971.
94. "Pulp Fiction," 1994.
95. "The Last Picture Show," 1971.
96. "Do the Right Thing," 1989.
97. "Blade Runner," 1982.
98. "Yankee Doodle Dandy," 1942.
99. "Toy Story," 1995.
100. "Ben-Hur," 1959.

#103 Jesus Asks Hamlet's Question

All four gospels record the mockery of Jesus by the Roman guard as he was being held shortly before his crucifixion. Matthew, Mark and John record that they specifically ridiculed his claim to kingship as a crown of thorns was placed on his head which they then beat against with a reed. In Luke they scoff at his claim to be able to prophesy by telling them who is hitting him as he is blindfolded. At one point during the M, M, & J stories the guards kneel down to Jesus in jest to point out the silliness of his royal claims. It is at that point that I start to wonder what went through his mind as he looked down at the top of the head of the kneeling man. His thought might have gone something like this:

To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them. To die, to sleep --
No more -- and by a sleep to say we end
The heartache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to. 'Tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep;
To sleep, perchance to dream. Ay, there's the rub,
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause. There's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th' oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of disprized love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th' unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered country from whose bourn
No traveler returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others we know not of?
Thus conscience makes cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their current turn awry
And lose the name of action.

Now their are clearly major differences between Hamlet's speech and what we would imagine was going through Jesus' head at the time (other than thorns, that is). One being that Hamlet is essentially contemplating suicide in his soliloquy, something that Jesus was not considering. Second, Hamlet explains man's reasoning for why they keep from taking their own lives, i.e. they are afraid of the afterlife. It is doubtful that this went through Jesus' head either.

But I think that's where the differences end and the major similarity begins. Both are faced with a basic question faced at the outset: suffer evil or oppose it. Suffer the outrageous fortune that is our lot in life and go on living or end the heartache that has sadly become synonymous with what it means to be human but pay with your life. That is the question.

Jesus acted out his answer but not in a way anyone expected. His answer to Hamlet's timeless question? Both. For Hamlet, as with most of our thinking, these two choices are mutually exclusive. You either give into abuse, evil and violence and become the sacrificial lamb or you stand against evil and violently defeat it through force.

Jesus uniquely combined the two. By heaping the abuse of the world upon himself he utterly defeated evil. By suffering troubles he ended them. By suffering "the whips and scorns of time" not to mention the physical whips and scorns he conquered these troubles, this violence, the evil, heartache, shocks, and the injustice. The "pale cast of thought" may have been there in the mind of Jesus but in this "great enterprise of pitch and moment" he maintained resolve and was decisive while not settling for either of Hamlet's alternatives.

To be clear, in the paragraph above I take the term sin to be nearly synonymous with words like evil, abuse, suffering and other descriptors for what ails mankind. This is because I believe the latter are the direct result of the former. Whatever you believe about the interpretation of Genesis 1-3, literal or figurative, it is clear that the theological point that is being made in either case is that the suffering of mankind is caused by sin past or present.

The reverse, I think, is also true. That is, sin has no power if it does not manifest itself in evil. Of course, that is completely hypothetical as sin will always manifest itself in evil. But my point is that the two go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other.

The reason I bring this issue of terminology up is that lately I've noticed some discussions arising regarding atonement and how exactly it was accomplished by Jesus. The essential debate is between two camps although there are other views that receive less warm acceptance in conservative circles.

One group wants to emphasize that what was heaped on Jesus at the cross was sin and thus the wrath of God was satisfied. This view is today generally called the Penal Substitution Theory and is said to have been first fully articulated by Anselm in the 11th century. The other group wants to emphasize that Jesus exposed himself to evil on the cross and by rising again defeated evil's greatest weapon, death. This view is generally called the Christus Victor Theory and Gustaf Aulen most famously expounded this view in a 1931 book of the same name.

Now to the outsider, it may seem like these two groups are merely mincing words and perhaps they are. After all, this is a very specific theological argument that is usually confined to seminaries and publications. Based on what I've said above regarding the inextricable link between the concepts of sin and evil, I'd like to hold that both are true. But what I'd like to do and what exegesis will allow me to do are two entirely different things. So I will save further exploration and explanation for future posts. For now, I think that a recognition of the interdependency of sin and evil can begin to show us the way forward. What do you think?

#102 Your Own Personal Jesus

According to Google Analytics, most people come to this site by way of searching for the lyrics to the song Your Own Personal Jesus. Though this blog is not about that song in particular, I hate seeing all those people come here only to turn away in instant disappointment that they will need to find answer to their questions elsewhere. So in light of that, here is a post with all the information you ever wanted to know about the song including the lyrics. Of course, you could read the Wikipedia article, but I know you just want the important information and the juiciest tidbits. Please leave me comments with anything else you know that I don't.

First of all, a quick note about why I've co-opted this song for my blog title. There is a famous quote from Father George Tyrrell in response to Adolf von Harnack which is always mentioned in any historical Jesus debate:

"The Christ that Harnack sees, looking back through nineteen centuries of Catholic darkness, is only the reflection of a Liberal Protestant face, seen at the bottom of a deep well."

Though Harnack applied this specifically to one man, I think the general principle applies to every man to this day, not the least of which is myself. To a certain degree, when any of us look back to try to discover who Jesus was, we project our modern day assumptions and, in a sense, ourselves onto that picture. What we don't realize is that we end up constructing a Jesus who is very much like us, whether that be 21st century American Baptists or 16th century German Lutherans and not so much like the 1st century Palestinian Jew that he was.

In short, he becomes your own personal Jesus. I made this the title of my blog to remind me throughout the course of my life that as I am reaching back to discover who Jesus was and is, part of what I see will be the real thing and part will be my own personal Jesus. In those instances when I reach the former I will have succeeded. But until we no longer "know in part and prophesy in part" every part will be my own personal Jesus.

Interestingly enough, this was never the original meaning of the song.

The song was originally released as a single on August 29, 1989 by the band Depeche Mode before appearing on their 1990 album Violator. According to Wikipedia, "The song itself was inspired by the book 'Elvis and Me' by Priscilla Presley. According to songwriter Martin Gore, 'It's a song about being a Jesus for somebody else, someone to give you hope and care. It's about how Elvis was her man and her mentor and how often that happens in love relationships; how everybody's heart is like a god in some way, and that's not a very balanced view of someone, is it?'"

In only 15 years since it's release the song has been covered by numerous notables including Tori Amos, Marilyn Manson, and Johnny Cash and many others less notable. Knowing these artists, you can only imagine that each had very different meanings than each other, different meanings than Depeche Mode, and different meanings than my own described above. Statistically speaking, you might say that the standard deviation of meanings for this song for the bands that covered it is one of the highest of any song. It has been listed by Rolling Stone magazine as #368 on its list of the 500 greatest songs of all time and was voted as one of the 100 greatest songs ever by Q magazine.

And now for the lyrics themselves.

Your own personal Jesus
Someone to hear your prayers
Someone who cares
Your own personal Jesus
Someone to hear your prayers
Someone who's there

Feeling unknown
And you're all alone
Flesh and bone
By the telephone
Lift up the receiver
I'll make you a believer

Take second best
Put me to the test
Things on your chest
You need to confess
I will deliver
You know I'm a forgiver

Reach out and touch faith
Reach out and touch faith

Your own personal Jesus...

Feeling unknown
And you're all alone
Flesh and bone
By the telephone
Lift up the receiver
I'll make you a believer

I will deliver
You know I'm a forgiver

Reach out and touch faith

Your own personal Jesus...

Reach out and touch faith

#101 Blog Renewal

As you can tell by the numbering scheme I achieve an utterly unimportant milestone with my last post by making it to 100. Though I originally intended to write every day I did not realize how much mental effort and time was required in this endeavor. Since I started blogging not quite 2 years ago I've posted on average a little over once a week, sometimes more sometimes less.

So as I start my next batch of 100 posts I want to take a moment to pause and refocus my efforts, redefine what this blog is about and highlight some of the changes and features that will be made down the road. If you enjoy reading the blog, please leave me a comment. Otherwise, any type of feedback on any of my individual posts is always appreciated.

This blog was originally meant to be about me and God for me and God. I didn't actually intend for anyone to ever read it in real time. But I always wondered how cool it would be if I could read my grandparents or their ancestors thoughts on God. So with my descendants in mind, I hoped that what I've written on this blog would be read in the future.

But I've been helped a lot along the way by the few comments I've received on my posts along the way which have sharpened my thinking and am hopeful that more will come. The only way I see of drawing more visitors is to become a resource for people looking for the best information in the vast sea that is the internet. There are so many articles, blog posts, books, etc. running around the internet and while each person is free to read whatever they want I often feel like I want a generous filter to point out the best of the best for those who are strapped for time.

Therefore, I'll be refocusing my blog around becoming such a resource. I'll continue to do some of the same things I've always been doing such as the Interesting Links posts on things I find around the net and the Quotes posts that highlights the best of my reading. But I'm also planning on redoing my labels to make them more useful. In addition I'm going to add a new series of posts to the blog called Letters to Theologians. In these posts I will directly address the authors I that are on my reading list. There is way to much criticism and misunderstanding of writers going around not only the blogosphere but also the real world and if we truly cared to engage in the actual debate rather than setting up a straw man, we would address the authors directly. This is what I will try to do though they themselves will probably not be listening as many of them are long since dead.

So without further adieu, here begins the second chapter of Your Own Personal Jesus. Please bookmark this page, stop by often and comment unabashedly. Hopefully this blog helps you in some small way as it has helped me.

#100 Quotes VIII

"It's common today to state that the atomic bombing of Japan was obviously justified, on the grounds that the alternative would have been an invasion that had to be much worse. But at the time it was not so clear. The bulk of Japan's army was no threat to American forces: it was sequestered up in China, with American submarines keeping it from crossing to the home islands, and the great weight of Russia's army looming above, able to destroy it once a sufficient buildup had occurred. Japan's industry had largely been burned out. Early in 1945, U.S. strategic bombers had been assigned the task of destroying thirty to sixty large and small cities. By August, they had burned out fifty-eight of them.

Douglas MacArthur, who had run much of the Pacific campaign, didn't expect an invasion would be needed; Admiral Leahy, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was later adamant that there had been no need for an atomic bomb; Curtis LeMay, the head of the strategic bombing force, agreed. Even Eisenhower, who'd had no qualms about killing thousands of opponents when it was necessary to safeguard his troops, was strongly hostile to it, as he explained at the time to Henry Stimson, the elderly secretary of war: 'I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon. Well... the old gentleman got furious.'"

-- From David Bodanis book E = MC2: A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation.

#99 Review of Bold Love

What does it mean to "honor" a wicked parent? How do you love an abusive person without opening yourself up to more damage? What happens when you can't forgive and forget?

With a few exceptions, I generally write reviews of books I like which means I'm somewhat biasing the overall Amazon rankings. But let me say that of all the books I like or love, none has influenced my life more than Dan Allender's Bold Love. I say life because it has impacted so many areas from my relationships to my politics to my theology to my marriage. The book is about what it really means to love someone, anyone from the love of your life to an abuser to your greatest enemy. The crux of the message is that love is not forgive and forget attitude but rather one that admits the pain and hurt that has been caused and confronts it. But the purpose of the confrontation is really the key to the book. The purpose is not to cover your bases or get it off your chest to enable to move on and have closure. What was revolutionary to me at the time of reading was that it pointed me back to the object of love, the other. It solidified the fact that evil committed against you must be admitted and the accuser must be confronted. This is difficult and thus the "Bold" in the title. But the underlying belief is that no person is beyond saving. No person is beyond to hope of reconciliation.

The authors are Christians. Dan Allender is a counselor with many years of experience. Tremper Longman is a top-notch Old Testament Scholar who writes one of the chapters in the book himself and assists in writing the rest. Why bring an Bible scholar into a discussion of interpersonal relationships? Because their model for reconciliation is God's reconciliation with man. The sin that man commits against God did not disqualify us from being loved, it just made the task more bold. First of all, God calls a spade a spade. He does not deny the sin committed or the gravity of the consequences. He does not just forgive and look the other way. Rather, Jesus, or better to use the name Emmanuel in this context, dove right into the mess and sought after those who had abused God through their disobedience. He never gave up. He was tenacious always believing that reconciliation was possible. He interceded for his killers saying, "Father, forgive them."

The argument is that this should be our impetus for boldly going after those who have sexually, physically, verbally, or mentally abused us, whether fathers or mothers or former friends or outright enemies. God did not give up on creation. He sought after it at great expense to himself. This is what it means to love. This is what it means to love your enemies. The importance that the book places on admitting the evil that was done along with the hope that no one is beyond the reach of reconciliation is what has impacted my mind so much in so many different areas.

If you're interested in this topic in general I also recommend the following:

Exclusion and Embrace by Miroslav Volf - Award-winning book I've seen recommend by theologians/biblical scholars. (Author is a Christian theologian)
The End of Memory by Miroslav Volf - The latest offering from Volf and has been receiving rave reviews. (Same as above)
I and Thou by Martin Buber - Becoming somewhat of a modern day classic on the subject and I've also seen this recommended in theological circles. (Author is a Jewish philosopher)

Here is a summary outline of Bold Love which follows a wartime motif:

Section 1: The Battlefield of the Heart
This is the most theologically oriented section as it introduces the problem and describes the motivation to love based on what God has done.

Section 2: Strategy for the War of Love
This section is the meat of the book as it describes the steps toward reconciliation. First there is a passionate hope and hunger for restoration. Second, we mercifully revoke revenge and as we are reminded of our brokenness and how God hoped and hungered for restoration with us. Third, introduces us to the art of confronting the enemy.

Section 3: Combat for the Soul
This section takes the principals in the first two parts of the book and applies them practically to three different types of people who may have caused hurt in our lives. First, there is a chapter on loving an evil person, subtitled Siege Warfare. Specifically this is about sexual, physical, verbal, or mental abusers. Second, there is a chapter on loving a fool, subtitled Guerrilla Warfare. This is about people who carelessly cause great damage to another's soul. Third, there is a chapter on loving a normal sinner, subtitled Athletic Competition. This is the type of hurt you may deal with from most people on a daily basis.

If you liked this review, please go vote for it as helpful on Amazon.

#98 Ranking the Debaters

After watching both presidential debates here are my rankings based on how each candidate did in each debate along with one word that comes to mind when I think of them. This has nothing to do with how each candidate was fairing in the polls going into the debate. Nor has it anything to do with how I feel about each candidate although I'm sure my biases had a subconscious effect. This is simply how I thought they fared this past Sunday (Democrats) and Tuesday (Republicans) with #1 being the top debater in each party.

Sunday's Democratic Debate

1. John Edwards (Polished)
2. Joe Biden (Loud)
3. Chris Dodd (Comfortable)
4. Hillary Clinton (Robot)
5. Barak Obama (Nervous)
6. Dennis Kucinich (Kooky)
7. Bill Richardson (Repetitive)
8. Mike Gravel (Crazy)

Tuesday's Republican Debate

1. Duncan Hunter (Solid)
2. John McCain (Elder)
3. Ron Paul (Jefferson)
4. Mike Huckabee (Warm)
5. Mitt Romney (Plastic)
6. Rudy Giuliani (Orwell)
7. Tommy Thompson (Bumbling)
8. Jim Gilmore (Unsure)
9. Sam Brownback (Stoned)
10. Tom Tancredo (Angry)

#97 Imus & Sheffield

If you haven't heard Gary Sheffield's comments yet on why there are less black's in baseball now, check it out at ESPN.com. His quote is as follows:

"I called it years ago. What I called is that you're going to see more black faces, but there ain't no English going to be coming out. … [It's about] being able to tell [Latin players] what to do -- being able to control them. Where I'm from, you can't control us. You might get a guy to do it that way for a while because he wants to benefit, but in the end, he is going to go back to being who he is. And that's a person that you're going to talk to with respect, you're going to talk to like a man. These are the things my race demands. So, if you're equally good as this Latin player, guess who's going to get sent home? I know a lot of players that are home now can outplay a lot of these guys."

I'm surprised that there isn't more controversy surrounding this quote and I'll tell you why. First let's look at the example of Don Imus. While it's true that Imus was fired because of racially sensitive comments he made on the air for CBS radio, people make racially sensitive comments all the time and don't fired. This is not to pass judgment on whether what Imus did was wrong or not. In fact, for the sake of argument, let's assume Imus was wrong and should've been fired.

But more importantly, Imus was fired because he was a public figure representing CBS news. In light of this, let's also assume Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton did the right thing by bringing him down. Now I'm not going to question the motives of CBS as the laws of the land are hire-at-will and they have every right to make their own personnel decisions. So I think we can wrap the Imus case in a neat little bow, let that story go quietly into the night and say "c'est la vie" because everyone did what was in their own best interests and that is the beauty of capitalism, i.e. greed.

That is, until the Sheffield story hit the newswire. What does Sheffield have in common with Imus? Only the two most important factors I mentioned above. One, he made racially sensitive remarks, this time against Latino athletes, and two, he is a public figure representing the Detroit Tigers and Major League Baseball. Now Sheffield can say what he wants and the Detroit Tigers and Major League Baseball can give him a raise for all I care. Once again, that is the beauty of capitalism, i.e. self-centeredness.

However, I cannot cut Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton the same slack. They have not raised the same kind of campaign against Sheffield that they did against Imus. Why not? Well, I think we all know the answer to that. Now a business can act two-faced if it so desires and hire one and fire another for the same racially sensitive remarks. Need I say it a third time? I will... that is the beauty of capitalism, i.e. double standards.

But Jackson and Sharpton claim to be moral authorities, especially when it comes to issues of race. As John Kincaid asked on ESPN radio's affiliate 680 The Fan in Atlanta, where is the Rainbow/Push coalition now? Why are not Sharpton and Jackson applying the pressure to the Detroit Tigers and Major League baseball with the same tenacity with which they brought down Imus. This is not the Black/Push coalition. Jackson's organization is supposed to represent minorities of all color. And as I have argued, we have essentially the same situation here. Faced with the facts, Sharpton and Jackson are showing their true colors.

#96 Interesting Links XI

There are two new blogs out there that deserve mentioning. One is Andreas Kostenberger's Biblical Foundations. Kostenberger is a professor of New Testament at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina. Though he posts somewhat sporadically, when he does we are treated to quality reviews and analysis of the Christianosphere. I'm coining a new word there by the way.

The other is Sacra Doctrine written by Joel Garver, assistant professor of philosophy at La Salle University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Lately he has written about the virtue of hope, Leslie Newbigin on election, the religious right, and most interestingly, he has put together a quality summary of the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) study report on NPP (The New Perspective on Paul), FV (The Federal Vision), and AAT (Auburn Avenue Theology) that will be presented to the General Assembly in Memphis, Tennessee one week from now.

Meanwhile, Garver has posted a response letter from several PCA pastors and elders with concerns about the study report who "believe that it would be premature and unwise to ratify this report as it now stands." While I'm not really familiar with FV and AAT, I do know a bit about NPP and am assuming there are probably some items blown out of proportion in the study report. Interestingly, the first signer of the response is a man by the name of Vito Aiuto, a PCA pastor who happens to be one of Sufjan Stevens best friends according to Wikipedia. What a small 6-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon-ish sort of world we live in!

A more thorough, and in fact exhaustive, response to the study report is 30 Reasons Why it Would be Unwise for the PCA General Assembly to Adopt the Federal Vision Study Report and Its Recommendations written by PCA minister Jeffrey Meyers.

Coincidentally, Alistair has posted a response by N.T. Wright (one of the main voices in the NPP discussion) to his critics. Having read A LOT of Wright and several critiques of him I can see that the particular critic has clearly not taken the time to understand Wright. You can criticize all you want, but make sure you hear it from the horses mouth first instead of creating a caricature.

Kim Fabricius speaks the truth when he gives us ten reasons why baseball is God's game. I would have to say football is right up there. But for me, it's like loving one child more than the other. I can't play favorites.

And finally. Americans always talk about how the cause of third world poverty is due to corruption. What a bunch of poorly read hypocrites we are. We are just as corrupt as the rest of them and at the same time, we are the richest country in the entire world. See what I mean. Can it be made any more clear. It doesn't matter what party they are in. Politicians are slime. They are the worst humanity has to offer.

#95 Quotes VII

“To suggest that the way the church receives the word determines what God is saying and doing in the Bible is to wreak havoc with the economy of divine discourse”

-- Kevin Vanhoozer quoting from his own highly regarded book, The Drama of Doctrine, in his quality response to a quality review of the book by Andreas Kostenberger. The review by Kostenberger can be found here. The response by Vanhoozer can be found here. The book itself can be found here.