Jesus Creed
Chicagoland got blitzed by some nasty winds this week
Elaine Storkey‘s excellent piece on Katherine Clark Kroeger’s support of women: “With the sudden death of Catherine Clark Kroeger on February 14, evangelicalism lost one of its most admired biblical scholars. At age 85, Kroeger was still lecturing and researching at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts. Her love for the Scriptures, quick mind, and linguistic abilities made her an entertaining communicator and reliable exegete; she memorized entire biblical narratives and could recall them on demand. That she left manuscripts unfinished compounds our loss.”
Christine Scheller was at the KJB celebration at the American Bible Society and wrote this piece about it: “While there are plenty of places to celebrate a special anniversary right here at the Jersey Shore, for one as monumental as the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, a trip into New York City to see On Eagles’ Wings at the Museum of Biblical Art (MOBIA) is just the thing. The exhibit features a number of historic manuscripts, including a 1611 first folio edition of the bible and a 1440 New Testament. It also includes a collection of breathtaking paintings (my photos don’t do them justice) that contemporary artist Makoto Fujimura created to illustrate a Crossway Books commemorative edition of The Four Holy Gospels.”
Jamie Arpin Ricci reflects on what godly manliness looks like. What do you think of this?
Richard Mouw on the “not proven” option — ranging from Casey Anthony to annihilationism. Well, here’s Mark Galli’s question and Chan’s answer: “In your book you seem agnostic as to whether hell is a conscious eternal torment or annihilation. That was one of the things I was a little surprised by: the language. I would definitely have to say that if I leaned a certain direction I would lean toward the conscious torment that’s eternal. But I couldn’t say I’m sure of that, because there are some passages that really seem to emphasize a destruction. And then I look in history and find that’s not really a strange view. There are some good, godly men—and maybe even the majority—that seem to take the annihilation view. I was surprised because all I was brought up with was conscious torment. And I see that. I see that in Scripture and I would lean more that way but, I’m not ready to say okay I know it’s this one. So say here “Here are a couple of views.” I don’t even remember if I wrote that I lean towards that, but maybe it comes across.”
Better read this one, but first get ready.
Pastors and pride, by Mark Galli: “Translate that into church life, and we find that American churches exalt and isolate their leaders almost by design. Our ambitious churches lust after size—American churches don’t feel good about themselves unless they are growing. We justify church growth with spiritual language—concern for the lost and so forth. But much of the time, it’s American institutional self-esteem that is on the line. This is an audacious and unprovable statement, I grant, but given human nature (the way motives become terribly mixed in that desperately wicked human heart) and personal experience, I will stick to it.”
Derek Leman on the Paraclete. JR Woodward reflects on how to know your gift.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OhXITR7zAk
Meanderings in the News
1. John Walker Lindh: his father speaks up and out about how his son has been treated. This is a long, long piece but is worth reading.
2. Gath: “Diggers at Gath have also found shards preserving names similar to Goliath — an Indo-European name, not a Semitic one of the kind that would have been used by the local Canaanites or Israelites. These finds show the Philistines indeed used such names and suggest that this detail, too, might be drawn from an accurate picture of their society. The findings at the site support the idea that the Goliath story faithfully reflects something of the geopolitical reality of the period, Maeir said — the often violent interaction of the powerful Philistines of Gath with the kings of Jerusalem in the frontier zone between them. “It doesn’t mean that we’re one day going to find a skull with a hole in its head from the stone that David slung at him, but it nevertheless tells that this reflects a cultural milieu that was actually there at the time,” Maeir said.
3. Gary Gutting, on logic and the political battle over the economy: “The argument could be pursued much further, but this is enough for my purpose, which is not to argue about the budget but to reflect on difficulties involved in arguing from the facts. The key point is that both Taylor’s argument and that of his critics were based on established facts. Moreover, in each case, the facts did support the conclusions Taylor and his critics were arguing for. There was no flaw in their logical moves from premises to conclusions. How, then, could there be something wrong with their arguments? The answer lies in a crucial distinction between deductive and inductive reasoning. In a deduction (e.g., all humans are mortal; Socrates is human; therefore, Socrates is mortal), the truth of the premises logically requires the truth of the conclusion. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Adding further premises that might seem relevant to the conclusion (e.g., Socrates is very young and there will be major medical advances before Socrates reaches old age) will make no difference to the conclusion.
In an inductive argument (e.g., Most humans do not live for 100 years; Socrates is human; therefore, Socrates will not live for 100 years), the premises only make the conclusion probable. As a result, adding further premises can alter the force of the argument. For example, if Socrates is 99 years old and in very good health, it is probable that he will live to be 100. As is inevitable in almost all discussions of complicated political topics, Taylor and his critics are employing inductive arguments. Therefore, their reasoning is open to question simply by adducing further relevant facts such as pointing out the aging of our population and increases in medical costs, or noting that there could be serious reform of the structure of our welfare system. Even a strong argument from purely factual premises is open to refutation unless we are assured that it has taken account of all relevant facts. Realistically, of course, we can never be sure that we have taken account of all relevant facts, especially with an issue as complex as a national budget. But a good inductive argument requires getting as close as we can to this ideal. (Even if we achieved this ideal, we might, as noted in my previous discussion of Medicare, try to reinterpret the facts in light of fundamental convictions.)
Speaking of the economy: “NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Buffeted by high taxes, strict regulations and uncertain state budgets, a growing number of California companies are seeking friendlier business environments outside of the Golden State.And governors around the country, smelling blood in the water, have stepped up their courtship of California companies. Officials in states like Florida, Texas, Arizona and Utah are telling California firms how business-friendly they are in comparison.”
4. Victor Davis Hanson gets after President Obama for his demagoguery: “Demagoguery, at its best, requires good oratory and charisma — which is why Jimmy Carter was such a dismal failure at it, despite his half-hearted demonization of three-martini lunches and private yachts at a time of a record misery index that saw high unemployment, out-of-control inflation, and usurious interest rates, coupled with a neutralist foreign policy that had led to Russians in Afghanistan, Communist takeovers in Central America, and American hostages in Teheran. Carter’s mock-serious delivery was so droll, his presence so wooden, that his fist-pounding against “them” turned into caricature. Under a more skilled practitioner such as Barack Obama, the arts of demagoguery have become somewhat more refined in our time, but they nevertheless follow the same old patterns…”
5. Farhad Manjoo on the new best light bulb ever: “When I drove to the offices of a start-up called Switch Lighting last week, I wasn’t expecting much. A company representative had promised to show me something amazing—an alternative light bulb that uses a fraction of the energy of a traditional incandescent bulb and lasts 20 times as long, but that plugs into a standard socket and produces the same warm, yellowish, comforting glow that we’re all used to seeing when we flip the switch. … Over 20 years, you’ll have spent a total of about $142 for the incandescent bulbs (for electricity and replacement bulbs) and less than $50 for Switch’s 60-watt bulb.” [Anyone know about this one?]
6. The light bulb fiasco: “NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — The so-called light bulb ban, set to begin in 2012, has become a rallying point for conservatives, libertarians, and various free-market activists who deride what they see as unnecessary government interference in the marketplace. A bill calling for light bulbs to become gradually more efficient beginning in 2012 and ending in 2020 — what critics are calling a ban — passed in 2007 with bipartisan support and was signed into law by then-President George W. Bush.”
7. Stanley Fish on a book questioning tenure: “The first is the increasing tendency, on the part of students, legislators, administrators and some faculty members, to view higher education in vocational terms and to link questions of curriculum and funding to the realization of career goals. The second is the debate about academic freedom: what is it, who should have it, should anyone have it? What Riley does is take the standard rationale for academic freedom seriously and then argue that the ascendancy of vocationalism, in combination with other factors she names, undermines that rationale and leaves very few college teachers in need of, or deserving of, academic freedom.”
8. Paul Farmer, updating his stuff on Haiti.
9. James Scudamore, on Cuba: “I came to Havana because the word on the international version of Radio Bemba has been that Cuba is changing, and that the process has been gathering pace since Fidel’s younger brother Raúl took over as president in 2008. I wanted to see if the change was palpable—and if so, whether it was happening quickly enough to satisfy the people, and slowly enough to remain under control.”
10. Get those teens to dinner table: “As children become teenagers, it may be more challenging to regularly include them in family meals, but doing so is key to heading off such problems as eating disorders, obesity, and inadequate nutrition in adolescence, said Barbara Fiese, a University of Illinois professor of human development and family studies and director of the U of I’s Family Resiliency Center.”
Meanderings in Sports
Usain Bolt: “He is, as far as we can tell, the fastest human who’s ever lived — in 2009, at a race in Berlin, he ran the 100-meter dash is 9.58 seconds. This translates to an average speed of just over 23 mph (with a top speed closer to 30 mph). His ’09 performance in Germany was .11 quicker than the 9.69 he ran at the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the fattest chunk ever taken off a world record at that distance. Considering the unadulterated simplicity of his vocation and the historic magnitude of his dominance, it’s easy to argue that Bolt has been the world’s greatest athlete of the past five years. And yet there’s an even easier argument to make than that one: Within the next 10 years, Bolt’s achievements as a sprinter will be completely annihilated.”
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In