D-Blog meta repository

Gummby demanded that I open up a thread to discuss the goings-on at D-blog.

This is it -- you people know I can't say no to Gummby.

What all gospels have in common

In this post, you will find how the mind of me, the blogger you came here to observe, really thinks about things. Some of you will be revolted, and others will walk away sort of giddy like a 14-year-old who has just had his first half-beer.

Alert Reader "Jude" linked us to a NYT story which he thought was good fodder for our on-going tirade against Global Warming, and superficially, it is. Nice work, Jude.

But in that story is this interesting piece of columnizing, and read it carefully:

“I don’t think of myself predicting things,” [Freeman Dyson] says. “I’m expressing possibilities. Things that could happen. To a large extent it’s a question of how badly people want them to. The purpose of thinking about the future is not to predict it but to raise people’s hopes.”

You know: you get brilliant things said by brilliant people all the time. In fact, in this day and age when almost every word muttered is somehow replayed in some media or other, there is so much brilliance out there that it's like Syndrome's wicked plan to subvert the world of Supers: when everybody is brilliant, it's just another way of saying that nobody is brilliant.

And Freeman Dyson is one of those people that, as they say, you only read about in newspapers. Freeman John Dyson FRS (born December 15, 1923) is a British-born American theoretical physicist and mathematician, famous for his work in quantum field theory, solid-state physics, and nuclear engineering. He is a lifelong opponent of nationalism and a proponent of nuclear disarmament and international cooperation. Dyson is a member of the Board of Sponsors of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

But think about what Dyson is saying here -- the underlined part especially. The purpose of thinking about the future is not to predict it but to raise people's hopes.

If you want insight into the human condition, people, and what it is we can do to actually deliver the Gospel, think about what Dyson says here. What he is saying here, in considering the world, is that the world is what it is -- but when we think about it, we have to think about it in such a way that it results in hope for the future. You see: this is what all alleged "gospels" have in common: they give people hope for the future.

And they have this in common because, frankly, they are imitating the actual Gospel, the actual good news which is good tidings of great joy to all the people. The problem we Christians have is that we have completely lost sight of this fact. When we are considering the future with people, our vision ought to be full of hope.

This is why I have such a love for our post-millennial brethren: they get this. I mean, they are not building bunkers because Christ is going to return to a burned-out ash and make all things new inspite of us Christians and the rest of the sinners we didn't evangelize: they want to live for Christ, knowing that to die is gain.

So somehow, get this part of the Gospel into what you're talking about out there. The Gospel is given to us in part that we might raise people's hopes about the future..

I forgot to mention: Freeman Dyson is a practicing Christian. Are you?

A beef about study bibles

During the release last year of the ESV Study Bible, I made some randy comments about my opinion of study bibles – and because I didn’t want to be seen as a hater, I held back my thoughts on study bibles until after the hoopla had settled down.

You know what? Lots of people own study bibles. Lots of people own concordances. Lots of people own commentaries. LOTS. So if you own any of these devices, I say good on you – learn to use them wisely and so be it.

But here’s the truth: most of the people who own these things don’t really know how to use them. And for many people, my experience is that all that extra paper and ink gets in the way of actually reading the Bible itself. If you add half-again the volume of the actual Bible to the Bible, and nobody was reading the Bible itself before you added all that other stuff, why would they read the Bible-plus-stuff afterwards?

My 2-bit opinion is that people substitute a study bible for bible study – and let me be as specific as possible about this. Often people will buy a “study bible” for a new believer, or an older teen, and hand it off to them as if that’s all they need – go and make yourself a disciple now.

But that’s not actually the Great Commission, is it? The Great Commission is, “Go, therefore and make disciples.” That means somehow you personally have to get involved with somebody to help them grow in the faith.

So my beef with Study Bibles in general – not the ESV specifically, but as it resides in the universe of Christian publishing among similar items – is that they usually are an inadequate replacement for actual study and discipleship. And like much of Christian publishing, they are unintentionally-harmful to the local church and to believers because they stand in the way of real fellowship, discipleship, and the building of a local community which God has established and ordained to glorify himself.

I am sure that’s more than you wanted to know. Now back to work with you.

pure spite

Hey -- somehow I'm not officially a Southern Baptist Blogger anymore (Tony Kummer is apparently the Csar of such things, and I am shamed to be what I am), but the fix is in.

Go to this page and do one of two things:

[1] vote for iMonk if you're a Sanjaya-should-have-won kinda blog reader.

-or-

[2] vote for Timmy Brister is you are truly reformed and don't want to be banned for a decade from commenting on this blog and/or teamPyro.

No pressure.

return of the DebateBlog

Phil Perkins has apparently thought better of, um, whatever it was he was doing before, but Pastor Stuart Wood has offered to open up a discussion at DebateBlog regarding the issue of Limited Atonement.

After some bartering over the thesis statement, I will defend the following thesis:

For someone to say that the doctrine of limited atonement changes the definition of the Gospel is nonsense.

I am sure it will be interesting -- he's apparently a converted Lutheran who thinks Luther never taught limited atonement.

Desperate housewives

It has probably been months since I have posted anything of real substance here, yet there you all are -- still coming back for the community.

I think that's the sign of success. This blog is habit-forming.

I ain't got what it takes

I wanna be a rock star
But, I ain't got what it takes
The drive and the determination
And the lucky breaks
I wanna be a rock star
But, I ain't got the face
I wanna be a rock star
But, I ain't got what it takes

Seeing my face up on the TV
Hearing my songs on the radio
People waiting all day in line to see me
Doing my pose for Rolling Stone

Well, it's alright, yeah it's alright

Living lifestyles of the rich and famous
Turning all heads in the music scene
Flying in my own jet plane to Vegas
Riding in a big black limousine

Well, it's alright, yeah it's alright

No, I ain't got nothing
But, to you I'm something
Something so much more

chaos theory is my hero

You'd think, given its liberal bent, Wisconson would be that last place we'd get a demystification note of news from. But it turns out that chaos theory proves there's no such thing as global warming.

That's even better than the other link everybody and his mother sent me about global hurricane activity.

Quantum Morality

Consider this:



Now consider this: at what point does one take this theory of all things seriously and determine to make moral judgments based on it?

It seems to me that while this description of things may be factually true -- or true insofar as we can establish the facts regarding things too small to actually see -- it has no relevance to what we actually have to do between getting up in the morning and going back to bed at night.

Discuss.

Stop asking me

I gave kudos to iMonk for getting pretty much global recognition for his "death of Evangelicalism" piece, right? So credit where credit's due and all that.

Many of you have e-mailed me to ask, "yeah, but what do you think about the essay?" Look: I'm not going to take the bait. The truth is that Michael and I get along pretty good as long as we don't talk about things we blog about, and I'm really intent on keeping it that way as I have no free time to speak of.

That said, here's what Doug Wilson thinks about that essay, and I would endorse without comment Doug's affirmations and denials.

The problem is not that there's too much conservatism: it's that there's a lot of unfounded, flabby conservatism running around with plastic fishes attached to it rather than a robust, young, and dangerous conservatism riding around on the fat, noisy Harley which is the Gospel.