
First Sunday in Advent
It seems that we are stumbling down the same path.
Have you considered what constitutes "The Church"? Rome claims it is behind a city and office, Constantinople claims the history and unity of Bishops, Cantebury claims ... well, Cantebury, and Protestants claim Doctrine.
Frankly, I see the points in all. I also see Newman's point. I do hold to a, sort of, prima scriptura where I take the reading of the Scriptures and the majority tradition of Church History.
However, this question of what defines "The Church" is a sticky one. Perhaps it is simply a philosophical question from the viewpoint of a linguist. What makes a true "American". One residing within these borders recognized by the US gov't, or someone who truly holds to the ideals and foundations of this nation. I think there are some in the former group who are not in the latter, vise versa, and some who are in both ... i.e., three camps.
I really haven't reconciled this. I don't think that I could walk from the fellowship of Redeemer (that is, the church or any of her plants should we move closer to one: I do hold to a parish view) in we were to stay in Austin, but when I come to the thought of moving, I'm frightened.
Do I seek to find a church which is "biblical" (what does that mean?) Where I and my family can hear the gospel preached and commune with God? Where I can serve and be served?
US President George Bush is "totally at odds" with his media image, Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell said today.Maybe, just perhaps, some Americans could rethink their opinion of our president? Maybe a particular Lutheran wife who feels called to the ministry of reconciliation? Just a thought.
Mr Campbell, an opponent of the war with Iraq, spoke out on the ePolitix website about his discussions with the President during the state visit.
He said that they discussed directly issues such as Iraq, the Middle East, Guantanamo Bay, Kyoto and trade sanctions.
"He is personally extremely engaging. He has a well-developed sense of humour, is self-deprecating and when he engages in a discussion with you he is warm and concentrates directly on you.
"He looks you straight in the eye and tells you exactly what he thinks."
Mr Campbell, stressing that the President was "totally at odds" with his media image, went on: "I was not persuaded by what he said, but I was most certainly surprised at the extent to which the caricature of him was inaccurate.'
What do you call someone who knows three languages: trilingualWell, it the midst of reading an article about this Pro-9/11 toy being sold on the streets of Gaza and Ramallah, I noticed an interesting comment: [T]he attacks ... were seen as a victory for Palestinians. Oddly enough, Palestinian spokesmen deny this (in English). But Palestinian media (in Arabic) says otherwise. Perhaps if we took the time to learn foreign languages, particularly those used by our enemies, we'd be better off. However, this usually isn't a popular tactic. Go to any academic German department, read the history of their department. It will always talk about the department closing down during WWII because we didn't want German taught in American schools. What a stupid response.
What do you call someone who knows two languages: bilingual
What do you call someone who knows one language: an American
SANTO DOMINGO, Dominican Republic -- If Sammy Sosa had a vote for the NL MVP, he would've picked Albert Pujols over Barry Bonds.
"Bonds had good numbers and has a name in the game, but Pujols deserved the award more than anybody," the Chicago Cubs star told The Associated Press on Wednesday night after returning home to the Dominican Republic.
Bonds got 28 of 32 first-place votes and 426 total points from the Baseball Writers' Association of America in results announced Tuesday.
Bonds hit .341 with 45 home runs and 90 RBI. The San Francisco outfielder became the only player to win three consecutive MVP awards, winning his sixth overall.
Pujols finished second, receiving three first-place votes and 303 total points.
The St. Louis slugger's .359 average led the majors and he had 43 home runs and 124 RBI. Sosa said his countryman's accomplishments overshadowed those of Bonds and others.
"No player in the National League stood out more than Pujols in 2003," Sosa said.
This homecoming is special for Sosa because baseball commissioner Bud Selig and other Cubs players will hold a celebration Saturday to honor Sosa for becoming the first Hispanic player to reach 500 homers.
Sosa, who turned 35 on Nov. 12, hit 40 homers this year. His total of 539 puts him 10th on the career list.
What a load of crock. Okay, Cork-ey. Sure Pujols had a better BA than Bonds, but his homers were fewer. As for the RBI's, well, let's see Pujols RBIs number when pitchers stop pitching to him. Bonds is the most feared player in the game. Bonds also carried an entire team, which was supposed to be in a "reloading" year after their WS lost. The Cardinals were supposed to be "kickin' butt and takin' names." In the end, it looks like the Cards were kickin' their own and looking for names of new players.
Like him or hate him, when the game is on the line, you either want him on your team ... or you walk him. Now that is valuable.
Example: Augustine was a fricken genius and the Catholics and Orthodox need to take him more seriously.
At which point, you would need to write an essay taking some sort of position, supporting it, answering potential counter-arguments, etc...
In the second essay, you are presented with an argument of about two or three paragraphs. It usually has something to do with graduate school, being a graduate school exam. Here you are to critic the argument, take note of strong and weak points, evaluate the logic.
Both of these essays are out of 6 points. If you download the PowerPrep software the ETS gives you, they have a section with examples of each type of paper, from 0 (poor) to 6 (highest). Then, the two scores are averaged. Since this requires real graders, you have to wait a few weeks to receive the scores. My arrived today. I received a perfect 6.0, scoring the 95th percentile. This made me feel A LOT better. Like I actually got something out of the GRE, besides a humbling courtesy of the Verbal and Math sections.
Obedience, Scripture says, is better than sacrifice. By analogy, moral purity is better than ritual purity. This analogy plays a big role in the gospels.
Then, I wonder, should those disgruntled with the ECUSA look past the ritual unpurity -- in their eyes -- of the Catholic Church in favor of Rome's moral purity -- or at least their willingless to call sin "sin" and do something about it?
Second, this post:
Jim Jordan suggests that Daniel 2-7, written in Aramaic, is a fulfillment of the promise/threat of tongues (from Isaiah), and that this passage authorizes translation of Scripture into various languages. Which leads to several thoughts:
1) As Jordan points out, translation was not done until the intertestamental period, and is still not done by Muslims. Refusal to translate seems to be particularly connected with old world/old covenant systems (like Islam). The written word is kept close, hidden away, but with the coming of the new covenant the written word is spread abroad in many languages. This fits with the characterization of the post-exilic period as an "ecumenical age," the age of the oikoumene.
2) The postmodern suspicion or critique of translation seems to be a reversion to a pre-Pentecostal mentality. For instance: The linguistic tribalism celebrated by Stanley Fish and other postmodern theorists. As I noted in an earlier post, Babel has become a dominant postmodern metaphor; which is to say, the reversal of Pentecost is a key postmodern theme. Social and linguistic fragmentation is inevitable when the Spirit withdraws, for the Spirit is the one who marries one to another.
For the first time, I think I'm in disagreement with Dr. Leithart, or maybe only Jordan. While I think that translations are permissable and perhaps helpful, I think that working from the original language is best and I do have grave suspicions about translations. When you work with a translation, you are interacting with a translator, not the text or original writer. The more I read of Paul's letters the more I think that most translations miss a tremendous amount. Even the "scholarly" NRSV is crap. In reading the Greek or Latin (for other church writers, e.g., Augustine), you can see the words which become weighty theological terms. Also, what authority does a translation have? In regards to Jordan's point of Daniel 2-7 being written in Aramaic, what's the point? And the NT was written in Greek ... ooh. Maybe this means we won't live Hebraic, covenantal lifestyles, but I don't see how a portions of scripture being written in different languages is a mandate for translations?
Last month I was scheduled to lecture at The Art House in Nashville, the home and studio of Charlie and Andi Peacock. My flight arrived earlier than necessary so I could spend some time with them, but that was not to be. The young woman who met me at the airport flew down the highway, because she had to get me to The Art House in 30 minutes since that was when Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion, would be shown. He would be there to answer questions and solicit feedback on the film.
Yes, I did shake hands with Mel Gibson, and no, I do not usually have such experiences. And yes, I enjoyed it. Meeting Gibson, I mean. The Passion, in contrast, though a remarkable film, is not exactly enjoyable.
The copy we were shown is unfinished, but that isn't what I'm referring to. Gibson explained that editing still needed to be done. Some of the color needed retouching, the sound track was incomplete, and special effects had to be added. This actually made the viewing more enjoyable to me, since it was the first time I viewed a film before the final editing had been done.
Nor when I say it was not exactly enjoyable am I referring to the charge that The Passion is anti-Semitic. It is not.
Nor do I mean that it is not artful. On the contrary, The Passion sets a new standard for depictions of Christ in the arts. Only in the paintings of Ed Knippers have I experienced as powerful an artistic expression of the crucifixion.
The Passion is not exactly enjoyable because it so truthful about the cross.
The film opens with Jesus' arrest in the Garden, after wrestling in prayer over the task his Father has set before him. Like an unblinking eye, the camera forces us to watch, moment by agonizing moment, the torture Christ endured on our behalf. This is not the first flogging I have watched on the scree. The whipping that the character played by Denzel Washinton endured in Glory, for example, remains seared in my memory. But there the camera blinked. We saw a few lashes, and then to our relief the camera panned away. In The Passion the lashing went on, and on, the Roman soldiers wearing themselves out in the effort, and then on some more. LIke we were there.
I have warned more than once in these pages that Christians today tend to sentimentalize the faith. We brush over embarrassing parts of Scripture, and speak of the cost of salvation lightly. Sentimentalizing the gospel is to gut it of its power, its relevance, and its attractiveness. Before the final credits of The Passion rolled I was filled with a deep horror about how I have sentimentalized the cross and what my Savior went through so he could be my elder brother. It was hard to pay attention to the discussion that followed.
Mr Gibson said that his goal in making the film was to help people feel regret. "We don't feel enough regret," he said.
I can't speak for the others in The Art House that afternoon, but this is one reviewer for whom that goal was realized. And though it wasn't exactly enjoyable, I am more grateful than I can possibly express.