Tuesday, September 30, 2003
Sunday, September 28, 2003
No More Group
It seemed cool that all our blog posts could be emailed to a listserv, but it didn't work really well. Anyhow, maybe there will be a decent use for it in the future, as for now, there isn't. C'est la vie.
If Rick Can Do It, So Can I
Surely a man who teaches the objectivity of the covenant must be a heretic.
Who Spaketh Thus:
To those for whom it is not clear, I do not think this man is/was a heretic, I meant it with a sarcastic tone.
----------------------
* My note: when my Late Antiquity professor refers to whether one was a Christian or not: say, Constantine or Augustine, she refers to their baptism or lack thereof.
Who Spaketh Thus:
The word gentleman originally meant something recognisable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came a people who said -- so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully -- "Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behaviour? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentlman than John?" They meant well. To be honourable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. but it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is "a gentleman" becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A "nice" meal only means a meal the speaker likes.) A gentleman, once it has been spiritualised and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. [*] It has been spoiled for that purpose.
Now if once we allow people to start spiritualising and refining, or as they might say "deepening," the sense of the word Christian, it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone. It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense. And obviously a word which we can never apply is not going to be a very useful word. As for the unbelievers, they will no doubt cheerfully use the word in the refined sense. It will become in their mouths simply a term of praise. In calling anyone a Christian they will mean that they think him a good man. But that way of using the word will be no enrichment of the language, for we already have the word good. Meanwhile, the word Christian will have been spoiled for any really useful purpose it might have served.
We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name Christians was first given at Antioch (Acts xi. 26) to "the disciples," to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were "far closer to the spirit of Christ" than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological, or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.
To those for whom it is not clear, I do not think this man is/was a heretic, I meant it with a sarcastic tone.
----------------------
* My note: when my Late Antiquity professor refers to whether one was a Christian or not: say, Constantine or Augustine, she refers to their baptism or lack thereof.
Saturday, September 27, 2003
More Thoughts on a Tale of Two Subcultures
Obviously, I am not a huge fan of Jerry B. Jenkins. I make fun of the Left Behind books just as much as the next girl. However, Aaron Rench's "interview" with Jenkins in C/A left a bitter taste in my mouth, overall. I take particular exception to his comment about "the Philip Yanceys and the Marvin Olaskys and the John Pipers." This summer, I was forced to read a Philip Yancey book for school, What's So Amazing About Grace? It was, hands down, the best contemporary book I read this summer. (For the record, I read several Canon Press books too.) For the most part, contemporary uber-Reformed books say what I've already heard several times and thought about in depth. I read them going, "Uh-huh. Yeah, brother. Amen." It's only when I take half a step outside of the comfort zone of uber-Reformed books to books from other ages and other traditions that I am challenged to think and apply my faith in new ways.
I'm not about to cancel my subscription to C/A. In fact, I just updated our address so I can get it sooner. However, it's a shame I can't leave it out on my coffee table. I'd hate for my brothers and sisters from other traditions of Christianity to read it and realize just how pompous and vain Reformed Christians can sometimes be. This year, the chapel theme at the school I teach at is "one another" and we've been focusing on loving one another thus far. They will know we are Christians by our love. I think the objectivity of the covenant means we've got to love even those who grate our nerves and perpetuate wrong doctrine. Even those we consider "bad" Christians are Christians nonetheless.
I'm not about to cancel my subscription to C/A. In fact, I just updated our address so I can get it sooner. However, it's a shame I can't leave it out on my coffee table. I'd hate for my brothers and sisters from other traditions of Christianity to read it and realize just how pompous and vain Reformed Christians can sometimes be. This year, the chapel theme at the school I teach at is "one another" and we've been focusing on loving one another thus far. They will know we are Christians by our love. I think the objectivity of the covenant means we've got to love even those who grate our nerves and perpetuate wrong doctrine. Even those we consider "bad" Christians are Christians nonetheless.
A Tale of Two Subcultures
It was the End Times, it was the Cretan Times ...
In the recent C/A, Aaron Rench has a mock interview with Jerry B. Jenkins, but if you were naive, you wouldn't have realized it. No where in the article does Rench mention the fact that the interview is a joke; actually, quite the contrary, the first line is: "C/A's Aaron Rench recently posed these questions to Jerry B. Jenkins ... " However, this point is neither here nor there, but only in the realm of bad taste.
What is amusing is Rench's caricature of Jenkins, the "owner of the Christian Writers Guild." Rench "asks" Jenkins what -- yes, I know, he should have asked "who" -- are his three favorite pre-20th century writers. Jenkins replies with Tom Aquinas, Herm Melvill, and Al Dumas -- referring to each as a contempory.
Then, later in the "interview", Jenkins refers to Philip Yancey, Marvin Olasky*, and John Piper as the guys "with much more gray matter" than he, as the ones who are capable of answering the question: "Do the basic realities of the Trinity and the Incarnation have any affect on Christian culture?"
The point Rench is trying to make, if I may be so bold to assume that he actually has one and that I can approximate it, is that evangelical culture has ditched the ancient wisdom of our faith and latched onto contemporary leaders as the be all and end all of theological matters.
However, I wonder if they have ever considered the reformed, uber-covenantal, subculture which only reads Doug Wilson, Peter Leithart, and any other person who happens to be published by Canon Press? Also, while it's good to read Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas, it is also good to remember their vocation of strengthening the catholic, kata holos, according to the whole, faith: today that faith includes our evangelic bretheren for whom Christianity was first preached by the big-tent revivalists. Perhaps he'll get into that in next month's "interview" with Peter Leithart.
-------------------------
* In the spirit of full discloser, Marvin Olasky is one of my elders. While I don't necessarily agree with everything he has either said, done, or written; I do respect him as my elder.
In the recent C/A, Aaron Rench has a mock interview with Jerry B. Jenkins, but if you were naive, you wouldn't have realized it. No where in the article does Rench mention the fact that the interview is a joke; actually, quite the contrary, the first line is: "C/A's Aaron Rench recently posed these questions to Jerry B. Jenkins ... " However, this point is neither here nor there, but only in the realm of bad taste.
What is amusing is Rench's caricature of Jenkins, the "owner of the Christian Writers Guild." Rench "asks" Jenkins what -- yes, I know, he should have asked "who" -- are his three favorite pre-20th century writers. Jenkins replies with Tom Aquinas, Herm Melvill, and Al Dumas -- referring to each as a contempory.
Then, later in the "interview", Jenkins refers to Philip Yancey, Marvin Olasky*, and John Piper as the guys "with much more gray matter" than he, as the ones who are capable of answering the question: "Do the basic realities of the Trinity and the Incarnation have any affect on Christian culture?"
The point Rench is trying to make, if I may be so bold to assume that he actually has one and that I can approximate it, is that evangelical culture has ditched the ancient wisdom of our faith and latched onto contemporary leaders as the be all and end all of theological matters.
However, I wonder if they have ever considered the reformed, uber-covenantal, subculture which only reads Doug Wilson, Peter Leithart, and any other person who happens to be published by Canon Press? Also, while it's good to read Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas, it is also good to remember their vocation of strengthening the catholic, kata holos, according to the whole, faith: today that faith includes our evangelic bretheren for whom Christianity was first preached by the big-tent revivalists. Perhaps he'll get into that in next month's "interview" with Peter Leithart.
-------------------------
* In the spirit of full discloser, Marvin Olasky is one of my elders. While I don't necessarily agree with everything he has either said, done, or written; I do respect him as my elder.
Week's End
I haven't slept well in weeks and insomnia is making me cranky and unbearable. Therefore, I am going to take some time to rejoice in the good of this week.
Good:
+ My classroom is getting real walls somewhere in the future.
+ Mike and I managed to share a car all week wonderfully.
+ I traded one tasty plate of leftover chicken-artichoke-mushroom-parmesean stuff and rice and green beans for a pint of Blue Bell. It's always a pleasure to feed friends, especially when they give you Blue Bell!
+ My mom forwarded mail, including the latest C/A.
+ I get to teach a unit for the middle school girls' PE class on soccer starting Monday.
+ One of my students made me a pretty bracelet.
Good:
+ My classroom is getting real walls somewhere in the future.
+ Mike and I managed to share a car all week wonderfully.
+ I traded one tasty plate of leftover chicken-artichoke-mushroom-parmesean stuff and rice and green beans for a pint of Blue Bell. It's always a pleasure to feed friends, especially when they give you Blue Bell!
+ My mom forwarded mail, including the latest C/A.
+ I get to teach a unit for the middle school girls' PE class on soccer starting Monday.
+ One of my students made me a pretty bracelet.
Thursday, September 25, 2003
Catholic Apologetics
One technique in Catholic Apologetics that frustrates me is the appeal to apostolic succession. It usually goes something like this, "Jesus gave the keys to Peter, and Peter passed them down through his office to future Popes." While I'm not against appealing to to Tradition, this technique hinges on us both agreeing to the question of "Faithful Transmission", which in the case of Catholicism, I don't buy.
This came up again when I was reading Tertullian's Proscription Against Heresy. Tertullian, writting in the late second century, maybe could make a case for faithful tranmission as the degrees from Jesus to the Church leaders of his time is able to be counted on one hand. However, I don't think such a claim can be made today, 2000 years removed from the genesis. If any Catholic apologetist disagrees, he should consider the popular game Telephone.
Yet, perhaps someone appeals to the Holy Spirit. God, by his grace, has somehow altered events so that the Roman Catholic church has made no errors in areas of serious doctrine. I find that hard to believe and without warrant. Why do we force such a position on God? What warrant do we have? Even if you want to limit the giving of the keys just to Peter and I'll even grant that "on this rock" could refer to Peter, but even doing all this there is nothing necessitating that the giving of the keys will continue past Peter or that the Church which Jesus refers to is the defined, established Roman Catholic Church, as opposed to any visible body of God's people.
Okay, I really must go and study now.
This came up again when I was reading Tertullian's Proscription Against Heresy. Tertullian, writting in the late second century, maybe could make a case for faithful tranmission as the degrees from Jesus to the Church leaders of his time is able to be counted on one hand. However, I don't think such a claim can be made today, 2000 years removed from the genesis. If any Catholic apologetist disagrees, he should consider the popular game Telephone.
Yet, perhaps someone appeals to the Holy Spirit. God, by his grace, has somehow altered events so that the Roman Catholic church has made no errors in areas of serious doctrine. I find that hard to believe and without warrant. Why do we force such a position on God? What warrant do we have? Even if you want to limit the giving of the keys just to Peter and I'll even grant that "on this rock" could refer to Peter, but even doing all this there is nothing necessitating that the giving of the keys will continue past Peter or that the Church which Jesus refers to is the defined, established Roman Catholic Church, as opposed to any visible body of God's people.
Okay, I really must go and study now.
Future Things, part 2
In regards to a recent post concerning graduate schools ... and Sora's comment, I should probably also add that I'm considering applying for teaching posts at some of the Classical Christian high schools, who may actually appreciate a teacher than can teach ancient history / language / literature -- it is highly unlikely to find a public school which would consider my field an important component in the education of a child.
So, my first consideration is here in Austin. There are really two schools I would consider. Regents and City School; however, both have issues. Some "things" have been happening at Regents in past years, and I really don't know about them or how they would affect me, yet it is something I must examine. Second, City School doesn't really have a high school. It doesn't really have an middle school. Actually, this year they have: a pre-K, K, 1/2, 3/4, 5/6, 7/8. It has grown in popularity and has a goal of doubling each year. It is almost certain that next year they will have two pre-K and Kindergarten classes. As for the high school, I was told that the goal is to plant many elementary/middle schools around the city (think Catholic perish-like) and have them feed into one central high school (think cathedral). Since they barely have one elementary/middle school, yet alone many, the high school will be some distance in the future. Though, it could work out if I convinced those at UT to allow me to stick around for an MA only, perhaps by then they might be ready.
Other than Austin, when I look out I want to find somewhere with a good church, and preferably close to some segment of our family. The good church / good school criteria somewhat rules out Northern California, since there are some good churches in that area, but not any decent Christian schools. When I think of Northern California christian schools, I am reminded of schools that are more of fall out shelters following the explosion of the D-bomb, id est, Darwin. These schools are more like shelters where students can be protected from such ideas, but never hearing them. I don't think this is a wise approach to covenant education -- then again, these people don't think in terms of "covenants".
Another good spot would be Monroe, LA: good church, good people, and -- from what Kristen tells me -- there is a good school there as well. I don't really know much about the school situation in Monroe, so that is one thing I'll have to look into, or just ask my wife -- who seems to know infinitely more than I do when it comes to this inner Reformed cliche around the country.
Probably one of the best spots would be back in Kristen's home -- the triangle area of North Carolina. North Carolina is so beautiful, and if I miss it I know that she must miss it. Her former church is there in Cary, there is a good school there, which the church with which the church is involved. The school isn't under the oversight of the church there in Cary, so I pray that the issues that have plagued Regents don't do the same to this school.
In summary: considering highschools in: Austin, Monroe, and Cary.
However, why am I considering high schools at all? Well, it really depends on whether I get into graduate schools and, if I do, how much they are willing to offer me. Being a Nonresident here at UT has been very expensive; so has getting married and various other things. Hence, I'm trying to eradicate all my debt and get intogood better financial standing before we have children so we can provide well for them, buy a house, etc... It seems that debt is taken for granted in education. It probably isn't as bad in liberal arts as it is in, say, Law or Medicine, but liberal arts grads don't have lucrative, high-paying careers to look forward to. Our highest ambition is probably a professorship, or transfering into a Law or Med program. Yet, schools seem to expect students to take out loans and carry them along in their grad programs, finally paying them off when they are paid professors. However, doing this is very difficult if you come from a community of people who consider debt to be one of the worst evils, yet it is taken for granted in our culture where you buy a car, pay it off, and then must either buy a new car (with new payments) or pay near monthly payments to keep your old car in good condition. Even then, car companies discontinue models that are "too good".
Ideally, I would like to go off to graduate school, be able to afford to go to school and not have Kristen work. She may work, if she so chooses or help out their church or whatever, but I don't want to be in a situation where she has to work.
I should probably go and study for my Latin Prose / Composition exam, which is Friday at noon. You can go ahead and pray for me, if one is so incline.
So, my first consideration is here in Austin. There are really two schools I would consider. Regents and City School; however, both have issues. Some "things" have been happening at Regents in past years, and I really don't know about them or how they would affect me, yet it is something I must examine. Second, City School doesn't really have a high school. It doesn't really have an middle school. Actually, this year they have: a pre-K, K, 1/2, 3/4, 5/6, 7/8. It has grown in popularity and has a goal of doubling each year. It is almost certain that next year they will have two pre-K and Kindergarten classes. As for the high school, I was told that the goal is to plant many elementary/middle schools around the city (think Catholic perish-like) and have them feed into one central high school (think cathedral). Since they barely have one elementary/middle school, yet alone many, the high school will be some distance in the future. Though, it could work out if I convinced those at UT to allow me to stick around for an MA only, perhaps by then they might be ready.
Other than Austin, when I look out I want to find somewhere with a good church, and preferably close to some segment of our family. The good church / good school criteria somewhat rules out Northern California, since there are some good churches in that area, but not any decent Christian schools. When I think of Northern California christian schools, I am reminded of schools that are more of fall out shelters following the explosion of the D-bomb, id est, Darwin. These schools are more like shelters where students can be protected from such ideas, but never hearing them. I don't think this is a wise approach to covenant education -- then again, these people don't think in terms of "covenants".
Another good spot would be Monroe, LA: good church, good people, and -- from what Kristen tells me -- there is a good school there as well. I don't really know much about the school situation in Monroe, so that is one thing I'll have to look into, or just ask my wife -- who seems to know infinitely more than I do when it comes to this inner Reformed cliche around the country.
Probably one of the best spots would be back in Kristen's home -- the triangle area of North Carolina. North Carolina is so beautiful, and if I miss it I know that she must miss it. Her former church is there in Cary, there is a good school there, which the church with which the church is involved. The school isn't under the oversight of the church there in Cary, so I pray that the issues that have plagued Regents don't do the same to this school.
In summary: considering highschools in: Austin, Monroe, and Cary.
However, why am I considering high schools at all? Well, it really depends on whether I get into graduate schools and, if I do, how much they are willing to offer me. Being a Nonresident here at UT has been very expensive; so has getting married and various other things. Hence, I'm trying to eradicate all my debt and get into
Ideally, I would like to go off to graduate school, be able to afford to go to school and not have Kristen work. She may work, if she so chooses or help out their church or whatever, but I don't want to be in a situation where she has to work.
I should probably go and study for my Latin Prose / Composition exam, which is Friday at noon. You can go ahead and pray for me, if one is so incline.
Wednesday, September 24, 2003
More About Blue Bell
A few weeks ago, that SoCal classics genius known as WayneO graced our presence for dinner. He offered to bring wine and I asked if he would mind picking up some Cookies & Cream Blue Bell instead. About a minute later I got back the reply: "What's Blue Bell?*" Needless to say, Wayne is now fully initiated and keeps his very own half-gallon in the freezer. Way to go, WayneO!
* If you are clueless too, Blue Bell is hands down the world's best ice cream. If you are wondering if I am just really opinionated, ask any Texan.
* If you are clueless too, Blue Bell is hands down the world's best ice cream. If you are wondering if I am just really opinionated, ask any Texan.
Inspiration
Today, I think I discovered the inspiration for creamsicles experimenting with dessert:
Homemade Vanilla Blue Bell with Triple Sec. mmmm mmmm good.
Homemade Vanilla Blue Bell with Triple Sec. mmmm mmmm good.
INTJ
| INTJ - "Scientist". Most self-confident and pragmatic of all the types. Decisions come very easily. A builder of systems and the applier of theoretical models. 1% of the total population. |
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
Regarding Graduate School
When it comes to graduate schools, I have a few options before me. I'll be applying to:
Colorado (M.A. Classics -- studying Church History in Late Antiquity, particularly Roman North Africa, and the problem of heresy/orthodoxy; hopefully, move on to Princeton, etc.)
Indiana (MA/PhD Classics -- studying Classical Mythology and Comparative Mythology. They have a "minor" one can do in PhD programs that focuses on mythology. I'm interested in comparative mythology and the understanding of myths. I think my ideas are along the same lines as Tolkien and Lewis, but I haven't studied it completely. I'd be working on classical mythology (greek/latin) and germanic (old english / norse / german), with some suppliments from other cultures: finnish, old french, mesopotamian / near eastern)
Yale/Chicago/Harvard/Emory Divinity: (MDiv/MTS -- here I would want to start my theological training and move into a PhD program in Religious Studies or Classics. I would be studying NT and early Christianity. I don't know how enthused I am about this field as of late. Though I do find it interesting, and worthwhile -- the Christian presence in this field is notably lacking. NT Wright is the most conservative, christian, scholar in this field ... and he is not always the most orthodox.)
Covenant / Westminster (MDIV -- I always keep these open. Talking with Kristen, we really don't think that I'm called to the "gospel ministry"; however, we do recognize our own finiteness and fallibility. We think that while I may serve well as an elder or deacon in the future, a "minister" is probably not the best spot for me. Acknowledging both preceeding sentences, I'll trust whatever wisdom my elders have to offer.)
With regards to graduate school, these are really where I'm thinking. I will probably also submit an application to UT, but my Classics dept. will only let me stay for a Master's if no one else accepts me. Also, graduate school is not the be-all and end-all of my life. It is our desire, where Kristen and I feel called. We both think that we would fair well with me as a professor, giving Kristen the opportunity to stay at home, take care of kids, and serve the church as she is able. This being said, I could decide to go and teach highschool here in Austin, or at a number of "Classical - Christian" schools, and be perfectly happy. I've been tutoring one of Matt's former students, along with his younger brother, and I've enjoyed it. I don't think that I could teach introductory or intermediate Latin all my life, but if I were offered a high school teaching position consisting of Classical History / Literature and the possibility of some upper level reading courses, I would be tempted.
Anyhow, my students have arrived.
Colorado (M.A. Classics -- studying Church History in Late Antiquity, particularly Roman North Africa, and the problem of heresy/orthodoxy; hopefully, move on to Princeton, etc.)
Indiana (MA/PhD Classics -- studying Classical Mythology and Comparative Mythology. They have a "minor" one can do in PhD programs that focuses on mythology. I'm interested in comparative mythology and the understanding of myths. I think my ideas are along the same lines as Tolkien and Lewis, but I haven't studied it completely. I'd be working on classical mythology (greek/latin) and germanic (old english / norse / german), with some suppliments from other cultures: finnish, old french, mesopotamian / near eastern)
Yale/Chicago/Harvard/Emory Divinity: (MDiv/MTS -- here I would want to start my theological training and move into a PhD program in Religious Studies or Classics. I would be studying NT and early Christianity. I don't know how enthused I am about this field as of late. Though I do find it interesting, and worthwhile -- the Christian presence in this field is notably lacking. NT Wright is the most conservative, christian, scholar in this field ... and he is not always the most orthodox.)
Covenant / Westminster (MDIV -- I always keep these open. Talking with Kristen, we really don't think that I'm called to the "gospel ministry"; however, we do recognize our own finiteness and fallibility. We think that while I may serve well as an elder or deacon in the future, a "minister" is probably not the best spot for me. Acknowledging both preceeding sentences, I'll trust whatever wisdom my elders have to offer.)
With regards to graduate school, these are really where I'm thinking. I will probably also submit an application to UT, but my Classics dept. will only let me stay for a Master's if no one else accepts me. Also, graduate school is not the be-all and end-all of my life. It is our desire, where Kristen and I feel called. We both think that we would fair well with me as a professor, giving Kristen the opportunity to stay at home, take care of kids, and serve the church as she is able. This being said, I could decide to go and teach highschool here in Austin, or at a number of "Classical - Christian" schools, and be perfectly happy. I've been tutoring one of Matt's former students, along with his younger brother, and I've enjoyed it. I don't think that I could teach introductory or intermediate Latin all my life, but if I were offered a high school teaching position consisting of Classical History / Literature and the possibility of some upper level reading courses, I would be tempted.
Anyhow, my students have arrived.