I was surprised by one of those moments yesterday that filled me with a sense of fresh awe for the power of the gospel. I had asked my roommate for a ride to work, since my car was in the shop, and I so invited him to stay with me there, so I could introduce him to the campus and what all goes on at the International Linguistics Center. He really enjoyed the media and museum we share with visitors, but I feared he would become bored later in the afternoon. So I said he was free to take a walk. A half hour later I went looking for him, fearing he might be lost or causing other people to say, "My I help you?" every where he went.
I entered into the Welcome Center where we had first gone, and to my surprise he was helping the staff set up the orientation room by carrying two chairs, one under each arm. Now, my roommate Keith is a very kind person, so I should not be surprised. But he is also partially crippled on the right side of his body. I rarely see him do anything with his right arm. If there is someone who might expect to always be served, he is one of those people. But here I find him finding ways to serve others. A man who is physically less than most men, doing what what most men do not and demonstrating a strength that few men possess. Simply glorious! I was as proud as if he were my own son (though older in years much less in the faith); proud of Christ in him.
"Someone who can safely/kindly lead me. Someone who is laid back and has a sense of humor... And especially someone who knows the word more than I do..." An excerpt from a personal profile of young lady who is new to the Presbyterian Church in America, coming from the pentecostal to baptist route. What follows is our dual to date.
Me: So, what would you like to argue about first? Van Til vs. Sproul's apologetics? Paedo-communion? Amil vs. Postmil? Redemptive historical vs. Theonomic? You pick. I'm game. (Just kidding... halfway :)
(A number of weeks later...White pushes pawn two spaces.)
Paedo communion: um , nope, I believe it to be heresy. Truely wrong. Do you believe otherwise?
(Taking my time to contemplate my first strategic line of defense: Black responds with pawn.)
If baptized children are members of the body of Christ ("of such is the kingdom"), then shouldn't we recognize them to be united to Him in the faith until they prove otherwise?
(A few weeks later. White answers with another pawn.)
no, because there is a curse that we place on their heads if they are not. It would be better to have a milstone tied around our necks and to be thrown into the sea. Plus, we are not saying they are the elect- we are saynig they are a part of the cov. community. Esau- apart of the cov community, but hated by God.
(Black advances knight.)
Election is in God's court; no less covenant. God chose to confirm his covenant with Isaac, not Ishmael, yet Ishmael was also circumcised even after Isaac's line was chosen as covenant successor(Gen 17). By your reasoning, it would be best to delay baptism until we make sure our children to be elect. For surely it would be better to die unfaithful as a non-covenant member than as a covenant breaker bringing the curses of Hebrews 6 and 10:29ff! But the covenant is given precisely so that we might NOT fear. His covenant graces are given so *that* we might "make our calling and election sure" (cf. Heb 6:9, 10:39). All covenant members are thus are called to continue to walk by faith in his promises preached to us in our baptism, availing ourselves to the means of grace he has established for our growth. Did Christ say, "this is the meal for my elect only", or did he say "this is blood of the covenant" shed for you? Did Christ bar Judas from the table (whom he knew not to be ultimately elect)? No, he offered himself to Judas in grace and love, and Judas disgraced his grace. He profaned the blood of the covenant and outraged the Spirit of grace. Even so, we are to press on with the surety of "better things that belong to salvation." That hope is for us and our children.
...match to be continued.
My impression is that in Book One, the narrator has a very prominent and distinct personality shown through his account of the history of the Karamazov family. The character of the narrator is a human observer to the events surrounding the family, firmly situated from the perspective of one who has lived in the same town, though I don't remember if he ever discloses being personally related to anyone. He admits having limited knowledge of the story that he describes, at least a historical fact. For instance, "Why Ivan Fyodorovitch had come amongst us I remember asking myself at the the time with a certain uneasiness" (I, chapter 3). The impression is that the narrator maintains a dominantly human personality. He does most of the talking and describing of things, bringing in direct quotations to support his opinions of a character in focus. The only dialogue I can remember is in fourth chapter where Fyodor asks Alyosha about whether hell has a ceiling.
In contrast, Book Two, seems to consist almost entirely in dialogue and direct speech, making the events seem more inceptive/progressive (alive) and less aoristic/historical (artifact). As a result, the personality of the narrator seems relatively withdrawn, allowing him to take more of an omnipresent and omniscient role, describing even the hidden thoughts, intentions, and feelings of characters as the events unfold, especially in the case of Miusov. "Now, I know myself, I am annoyed, I shall lose my temper and begin to quarrel--and lower myself and my ideas," he reflected. (II, Chapter 1) And again, "As he uttered the last word of his tirade, Miusov completely recovered his self-complacency, and all traces of his former irritation disappeared. He fully and sincerely loved humanity again (II, Chapter 8)."
I wonder if this inverse role between the personality of narrator and the personality of the characters known through dialogue is a common narrative phenomenon in fiction literature. Is it simply something that naturally arises from the nature of the genre, a reflex that writers must put extra effort to control if they want to consisently maintain the personality of the narrators voice? In any case, I think Dostoevsky's interplay between narrator's voice and the full and immediate voice given to those being narrative only heightens the intriguing psychological complexity and suspense of the drama. [I also can't help wonder if there is something in this relationship that is being utilized as a rhetorical strategy by the Divine author of Scripture in his employment of human authors. (Not to mention the present station of Christ in heaven applying the living perfections resulting from his personal presence on earth.)]
Reading Book One and Two as a rhetorical unit in light of this shift, almost gives the impression that the eyes and ears of the narrator are located within the domain of the monastery itself, since that is the setting of Book Two, where the action first comes "alive". The narrator's place of permanent residency, his "home", as far as we can tell at this point in the story, is the monastery. And so the historical perspective of Book One is told from the perspective of one who firstly identifies with this local monastlc order. I wonder if Dostoevsky will develop the character of the narrator through the rest of the book?
You've heard about it. You've had good intentions to finish it in the past. Perhaps you'd like to read it over again.
Join us: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BrothersK/
Have you ever noticed bumper stickers that give you something to chew on?
Here are three that have stuck with me and have challenged me for different reasons. How do they affect you? What worldviews do they express? For the ones with which you disagree write a response in the form of a bumper sticker.
1) Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
2) Militant Agnostic: I don't know and neither do you!
3) Dear Lord, please help me be the person my dog thinks I am.
I kicked off the new year by making my room more a room with room. Today, I picked up a computer desk from Best Buy and hung a Van Gogh painting my mom got for me a few years ago. I redressed my bed (that I received last Christmas) into a new comforter and sheet set (that I received this Christmas). I assembled a 5 shelf bookcase which I bought from Walmart with a gift card, and unpacked and reshelved several of my seminary books. I arranged my bookshelves so they are easier to access. Then I set aside a few books I intend on reading next:
Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul by Richard B. Hays
Double Lives, Second Chances: The Cinema of Krysztof Kieslowski by Annette Insdorf
Let the Nations be Glad! The Supremacy of God in Missions by John Piper
Writing with Style: Conversations on the art of writing by John R. Trimble
The Auburn Avenue Theology -- Pros & Cons: Debating the Federal Vision (in preparation for the annual AAPC Jan 9-11, 2006).
On order: Christ the Lord by Anne Rice (who used to write vampire novels); The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky, for an upcoming book study/discussion group.
I'm currently reading The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright.
Other endeavors:
1) Purchase a new Dell laptop (considering the Inspiron XPS M140). My 4.5 year old Toshiba Satellite Pro 6100 is wearing out, and seems too slow to run the linguistics software I'm developing with SIL. I've also had trouble doing video editing on my laptop since it doesn't have native firewire or USB 2.0. Furthermore, my laptop is out of warranty. The IT group where I work can do warranty service for Dell laptops, so that's worth the convenience. I've replaced my current laptop three times under warranty!
2) Take swing-dance lessons. Hey, maybe I can learn how to really sweep a girl off her feet! Asking a girl to swing dance is, afterall, a complex social engagement, not too unlike asking a girl to marry.
3) Learn how to play chess, strategically. People complain I take too long to move. I'd like to be able to beat them quicker so they don't have to suffer so long. :) Actually, I hope that improving chess in relation to time can be a character building experience, an exercise in decision making. I have a friend from church who thinks chess applies to everyday life in many practical ways.
4) Learn to speak another language. Okay, so I admit that I took Spanish in highschool so that I would not have to take it in college. But now I really want to learn other languages. I can read basic Ancient Greek and Hebrew. And I have been practicing reading Scripture aloud twice a week which has helped a little. I would especially like to learn German, since several important theology and philosophy books are in German, not too mention music and film. A number of my friends can speak it. But I think it would be best to pick up Spanish. I live in a largely Hispanic neighborhood. Good opportunity to practice.
How easy it is to take a "they are the ones missing out" attitude towards those who express lack of interest. Isn't that what we like to hear from our friends to whom we submit our "progress reports" on prospective significant others? We all want to maintain personal dignity and self-worth. Something to give us confidence to move forward, to be vindicated even from the most subjective kind of [d]evaluations.
The fact is, I am simply not good enough for anyone. Neither is anyone good enough for me. But each will be blessed even as we are made a blessing in God's giving. Our confidence, both for finding and keeping, is that it is all by His grace and promise. Not in our own self-worth.