A Fantastic New Blog

I'm really impressed with the lineup they've gathered over at The Conservative Philosopher. That's going to become an every day visit for me! Check it out!

A Good Story Recommendation

Brandon at Siris is posting the text of "The Lotus," which is a short story of his. I was take with it immediately, so I thought I'd link the first installment. I may link the other two whenever he posts them. I highly recommend it.

A Haiku Mourning the Steelers AFC Championship Loss

My Steelers have lost
Cruel gambler's fallacy!
I thought they were due

On The King James Only Controversy

Recently I wrote a review of Dr. James R. White's book The King James Only Controversy for a class at Tri-State Bible College (see "ministry links"). White does a good job of putting the arguments of the King James Only crowd to bed. For those of you not familiar with the movement, the basic idea is that the King James is the true word of God, and some even hold that the translators were inspired so even if they made "mistakes" it was really the Holy Spirit restoring the original text (disclaimer: only a minority of KJV Only folks believe this). I don't know how prevalent this belief is elsewhere, but where I live it has a relatively strong presence, so the book is pertinent. If you want to familiarize yourself with this issue, then I highly recommend this book. My full review for my class follows.



Defending the Word of God is one of the most important tasks a Christian can undertake in today’s world. We are faced with attacks from within and without that purport to give us the “truth about the Bible.” Atheists tell us that the Bible is nothing more than the work of men. Cultists tell us it is good, but we need their literature to interpret it for us. Even some who call themselves Christians hedge on the inerrancy of the word, but I suppose it makes sense that the Bible should be one of Satan’s primary targets. It is, after all, one of God’s most powerful weapons (Eph. 6:17; Heb. 4:12).

This all-important desire to defend the Word of God is, I think, the impetus behind the “King James Only” movement. While the motivation is pure, the movement itself is riddled with logical holes, lacking in Biblical foundation, and its proponents often lack the Christian love we should have for one another.

In his book, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations, Dr. James R. White subjects the KJV Only movement to a withering critique in a thorough, rational, and winsome style. He first writes a short history of Bible translation from Jerome to today. Interestingly, Jerome received criticism from no less than Augustine himself for undertaking a new translation of the Scriptures, though not for the same reasons as the worst parts of the KJV Only movement. Fast forward a few centuries and White shows us that Desiderius Erasmus, the father of the Textus Receptus from which the King James was translated, was heavily criticized for departing from none other than Jerome’s Vulgate. I’m sure Jerome would have understood Erasmus’ frustration.

White then assesses the arguments given by the ‘heavy hitters’ of the KJV Only movement (Peter Ruckman, D.A. Waite, Gail Riplinger, etc.). They assert that modern translations have changed the Bible in order to dilute important theological truths such as the deity of Christ. White points out that their arguments are circular in that they see any departure from the translation of the King James as a deletion (or addition in some rare cases) to the very Word of God. They assume from the outset that the King James Version is the standard by which all translations should be judged, sometimes raising it to inspired status. Peter Ruckman, for instance, advocates throwing out Greek lexicons if they contain definitions different from the King James.

The King James Only Controversy does quite a good job at explaining why certain passages have been translated differently or omitted altogether. White shows that there is no “New Age conspiracy” as Gail Riplinger would have us believe. He also denounces the character assassination of godly men attempted by members of this movement without doing the same to the KJV only crowd, so he is to be applauded for that. Also much appreciated is his concise explanation of Granville Sharp’s Rule, which I had heard referenced but never understood until reading the late chapters of The King James Only Controversy.

As for myself, I fully agree with White’s assessment of the KJV Only controversy. The position is foolish and inconsistent. It unwittingly gives shelter to those critics of Christianity who believe that the only way one can remain a Christian is to completely reject critical thinking. Then the rest of us have to deal with the damage caused. I look forward to the day when it goes the way of “the Vulgate Only controversy.

On the Inspirational Book Section

Recently I was taking a stroll through a big-name Christian Book store. This is something I rarely do (mainly because I can only stand the presence of books by T.D. Jakes or Juanita Bynum for so long), but I was desperate to find a copy of Nancy Pearcy's Total Truth. I did find Total Truth, and much to my surprise, I found a number of important Christian works on another shelf (collected sermons of Jonathan Edwards, Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis and others). As you can imagine, I was thrilled. I bought five books and made sure to compliment the manager on their new "Christian Classics" section. I hope it grows to more that a couple of chest-high bookcases.

This set me to thinking. I usually buy my books in Borders at the local mall (and had indeed tried to find Total Truth there first). I'm sure many of you have noticed this, but many Christian books are listed in the "inspirational book" section in places like Borders. I've always detested the label "inspirational." What does that even mean? Very often it means "mushy-headed feel good books." I'm sorry, but I flatly refuse to be inspired by any book that has "Chicken Soup" in the title.

There are two terrible possibilities about Christian books in inspirational book sections. One, a more tough minded reader might be prejudiced against a good book when it is placed in that section. I know this is the case with me. I tend dismiss out of hand any book that is jammed in that catch all of a section. The second and more terrifying option is that the aforementioned Christian book may actually belong beside the various "Chicken Soups."

That our books can be funnelled into the same category as "Chicken Soup" is a sure sign that we Christians are not using our "noodles."


ps: Let this post-script serve as an apology for the horrible pun above!

Learning How to Read

I'm officially excited. Very soon I will begin reading Mortimer Adler's classic How to Read a Book. A number of people I respect have said that it was very useful and/or influential for them. I'm looking forward to it because my current reading habits leave something to be desired. I retain things fairly well but not because I work at it or have a good method. It's just always been a minor talent of mine.

I tend to read in what I consider to be an American consumerist kind of way. I read like someone in a hurry eats a Big Mac. In other words, I cram as much into as little space as possible. Obviously this does not maximize my ability to understand the content of the book. Hopefully How to Read a Book will help me learn a method that can slow me down and read in a way that is conducive to mastering the material.

Now excuse me while I finish the last 50 pages of Scientific Creationism...

The Huntington Apologetics Team

Hey, I just wanted to make a quick post about the new blog I'm participating in. It's called the Huntington Apologetics Team (the HAT) and we are going to post answers to some basic apologetic questions and current issues in Christianity. We'll probably start slow, but I hope everyone will stop by.

The HAT is the official apologetics team of Living Hope Bible Church in Huntington, WV. We want to do our part in restoring a vibrant life of the mind to God's Church. Check it out!

Sports, War and ESPN Radio

During the noon hour yesterday I was driving about town, on a dual mission to pick up some medicine for my wife and lull my older son to sleep in the SUV. As is sometimes the case, I was listening to ESPN radio. Around that time of day Colin Cowherd is on. Usually Cowherd isn't funny enough for me to give an extended listen, but I suppose I was feeling "sports-talky" because I didn't change the station or pop in a CD.

Cowherd was having an argument with his listeners over the nature of pro atheletes. In his opinion pro atheletes are entertainers and so if we hold them to a different standard of behavior than we hold actors or rock stars we are being hypocritical. I agree that pro atheletes are nothing more than entertainers, but the topic got me thinking: why do we hold pro atheletes to the aforementioned different standard? My conclusion has to do with the different "traditions" actors, rock stars, and atheletes fall into.

Actors and rock stars fall into an artistic tradition. In this tradition pushing the envelope is a part of the package. Rock and roll especially was weaned on rebellion. Acting has been a haven for the odd and/or immoral for centuries. We expect actors and rock stars to follow in this tradition. For many this is one of the main factors for becoming an actor/rock star.

On the other hand, sports fall into a militaristic tradition. Think about it: How many war metaphors are used in describing athletic achievement? Atheletes are considered heroes in the vein of ancient warriors. Warfare now is far removed from us in America (thankfully) and even when we see broadcasts of battles all we see are rolling tanks, flying planes and firing rockets. We never see and rarely hear of the heroics of warriors in battle. Additionally, war is thankfully more rare than it was in the ancient past. It also relies less on the physical abilities of individual combatants. In order to replace these combatants in the popular mind, we choose our atheletes. I suppose it's because the physical "battle" that sports entail.

We hold Kobe Bryant to a higher standard because deep down we want him to be Hector, running out in defense of Troy. Brett Favre with his 200 straight starts under center is the invincible Achilles (if his career ends with an ankle injury don't blame me). Culturally we seem to need these heroes, and we need them to be legendary.

Am I arguing that we should look to atheletes to be examples for our children? Not necessarily. We should evaluate atheletes the same way we would examine any other potential hero. We would probably be better off if we could just get past the need to hero-worship others, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Every culture needs myth, and the world of sport is one of our most fertile and accessible gardens.

A Confused Kind of Christian

Somebody told me there was a revolution on in Christianity. Being that I'm a product of that famous revolution that happened 'round about 1776 I decided to see if this new revolution was worth joining. I managed to get my hands on a copy of Brian D. McLaren's book A New Kind of Christian, which is apparently the first in a series of books that advocates a shift from 'Modern Christianity' to 'Postmodern Christianity' (this shift is the aforementioned revolution). I read the book relatively slowly, taking notes and trying to see what McLaren had in mind. After reading ANKoC I must say that his vision is not exactly clear (I've been told he is more clear in his subsequent books). I'll explain as we go on.

The book opens with a frustrated pastor who befriends a high school science teacher named 'Neo.' Neo is the postmodern Christian hero of the book, and he introduces the pastor to new way of ministering. Supposedly the Modern Era epistemology that includes pigeon-holing, dissecting God in the name of theology, and reading the Bible as an answer key in the back of text book is out of touch with where the culture is going and if we are going to continue to minister we need to take the postmodern turn.

I find it interesting that almost all of the problems McLaren pointed out I have pointed out to others in the past (and McLaren would certainly put me in the modernist camp). I agree that we do pigeon-hole things and try to make difficult things too black and white. I agree that in the pursuit of theology we often lose emotional connection with God (though I wonder what McLaren would say about me, since my most intense emotional experiences in recent years have come in my theology classes). Again, I agree that the Bible is not to be read as a cheap and easy answer book. What I never heard McLaren state is a compelling reason to go postmodern. The closest thing I read was that this is where our culture was heading, which reminds me less of the early church and more of those who kowtowed to the logical positivists in the early 20th Century. I suspect that postmodernism is going to meet a fate similar to that of logical positivism. Neither are tenable.

McLaren also has the tendency to waver back and forth between epistemologies, grabbing Modern concepts whenever it suits him. His idea of theology involves asking questions like "if God is like this, what would the universe be like?" Funny, it seems to me that many of my 'modern' compatriots are asking this question and that others have been asking it for centuries! This very question is the sort of question that gave rise to science! It seems that McLaren comes perilously close to 'dissecting God' who supposedly can't be studied (p. 161).

As I read I kept waiting for a 'postmodern bombshell' that could readily identify where McLaren was coming from, but I never got it. I never read phrases like "reality is a construct of our language" although he did come close on page 162 when he was talking about his 'dream seminary.' "We'd help students construct their own models of reality..." he said, but added "...their model isn't reality." But McLaren, through Neo, never says if he believes we can get at reality at all.

There were some good things in the book, such as Neo's recommendation that the Church become more involved in the community and that people should stop 'head-hunting' in evangelism. I particularly liked the comment about how viewing someone as a project takes the friendship out of 'friendship evangelism'. We can adapt culturally to those who have a postmodern bent, but embracing it would be just as much a mistake as fully embracing modernism. It's maddening that McLaren seems so happy to dive head first into this new epistemology while criticizing those who dove headfirst into the last one.

The sad fact of the matter is that postmodernism as a philosophy is a dying paradigm. It will certainly have its adherents for the next half-century or so, but ultimately it will not survive because God has built rationality into us. Finding truth is far too important to humans, even postmodern ones like Neo.

Does God Care What Shirt You Wear?

The following is a short book report written for my Pastoral Theology class.

Every day Christians from all over the world wonder, “What is God’s will for my life?” The pursuit for the will of God can be maddening at times, and downright depressing at others. This is why many Christian leaders have undertaken the task of clearly laying out the way to understand God’s leading. Gary Friesen’s Decision Making and the Will of God is just such a book, but, like a good novel, it has a twist.
In the beginning of the book Friesen uses a character, Pastor Bill Thompson, to present what he calls the ‘traditional view’ of discovering God’s will. According to Friesen the so-called traditional view presents to us God’s threefold will: the sovereign will, the moral will, and the individual will. The sovereign will includes everything that God has unilaterally decreed to come to pass. God’s moral will is presented in the Bible. “Moral will” means everything that is accordance with God’s character. For instance, it is God’s moral will that we read His word, but He does not override our wills to make us do so. The individual will of God is God’s specific will for each individual. Again, He does not force every individual into his perfect will (that would make it His sovereign will).
Finding God’s individual will is what frustrates many Christians. Through Pastor Thompson, Friesen explains how to find said individual will via the traditional view. There are supposedly seven signs that lead the Christian to God’s individual will. First is the Bible, then an inner witness, personal desires, circumstances, mature counsel, common sense, and special guidance. Special guidance, however, was more for men like the Apostles and Prophets. We don’t hear from God in the same way today.
The traditional view has the advantage of “feeling right” to a great many Christians today, but Friesen holds that the traditional view is hopelessly flawed. This is the ‘twist’ of Decision Making and the Will of God. For him the traditional view is a non-starter. He demonstrates that the scriptural evidence marshaled in its support is usually interpreted wrongly.
Another major problem, according to Friesen, is that there is no such thing as an ‘individual will’ for every Christian. Rather, there is much room for freedom within God’s moral will. This means that all those Christians who hold the traditional view are basically chasing rainbows that will only move further and further away as they grasp at them. This is indeed a frustrating state.
Friesen goes on to demonstrate the untrustworthy nature of the guideposts used to find God’s individual will. Many people play fast and loose with Biblical texts as they apply them to their own situations without consideration for what the author originally meant. The internal witness is easily twisted to fit with one’s own desires regardless of God’s will. Circumstances, mature counsel and common sense are given so many qualifications they are rendered nearly useless in decision-making. Another key criticism is the abandonment of the traditional view in the little decisions of every day life. According to Friesen if proponents of the traditional view want to be consistent they should seek God’s will for what shirt they should wear that day.
On Friesen’s view (the ‘wisdom view’) all God wants us to do is to make decisions that fit within the framework of His moral will. Not only does this relieve a great deal of stress, but it also provides great motivation for Bible study. How can we know the moral will of God if we have not read the book in which He reveals that will? Our task as Christians is to make sure we are making the most wise, godly decision as is possible.
Tradition is a powerful thing. Humans often resist giving up tradition because it has the sense of propriety and rightness, since our parents and grandparents believed it. That is why it is so remarkable when someone can come along and fully dismantle a tradition, which is what Friesen has done in my opinion.
Friesen first removes the scriptural foundation for the traditional view and then provides a strong base for the wisdom view. A close reading of Scripture reveals that the “still small voice” heard by Elijah was still an audible voice, not some ambiguous inner prompting. There is nowhere in Scripture that such a prompting can be shown to exist.
I am now fully convinced that the traditional view of God’s individual will for our lives is a false paradigm. Instead we are to live by the precepts outlined in Scripture. I fear that many Christians, in trying to comply with the traditional view, have put themselves in the bondage of superstition. Though we may not ever be rich, or we may suffer from some terrible disease we can be sure that if we follow the moral principles He has given, God will take good care of us.

Top 10 Melancholy Songs of ALL TIME!!!

I've been mulling this post over for a few days. I'm a big fan of melancholy music, and in the spirit of all of the countdown shows that have permeated the airwaves lately I thought I'd compile a list of the top ten melancholy songs of all time. Of course, by all time I mean this century and the last, and mostly the second half of the last, and by top ten I mean my favorites. I haven't settled on a definitive list yet and am soliciting contributions from my fellow melancholics. Here are my candidates so far in no particular order.

1. Walk Away Renee- The Left Banke
2. Everybody's Talkin'- Harry Nilsson
3. Adia- Sarah McClachlan
4. Twilight- Elliot Smith
5. What'll I Do?- Written by Irving Berlin
6. Oh Girl- Chi-Lites
7. Linger- The Cranberries
8. And now the pick everyone's sure to hate, You Were Meant for Me- Jewel

As you can see the list is far from complete, and who knows which of these will make the final top 10? Post some suggestions and we'll see what we come up with. I've already had suggested: Silent Lucidity by Queensryche, Cat's in the Cradle by Harry Chapin Carpenter Montgomery and Gentry, Candle In the Wind (1987 Live Version - Not the Butchered Princess Di rewrite), Look Away - Chicago.

Instapundit, Abortion and Duty to Rescue

Instapundit made an interesting post yesterday regarding abortion. He was responding to Jonah Goldberg's observations about the treatment of Abortion on TV (in dramas and sitcoms, not news shows). The basic idea of Goldberg's piece was that the characters who consider abortions never have them and then their babies are suddenly transformed by the power of that choice into full-fledged human beings from the lumps of cells they once were. This is where Instapundit comes in.

Using the 'duty to rescue' scenario as a guide, he comes up with a formula as to how he can support abortion rights and still advocate punishment for mothers who take drugs or drink while pregnant. He sums up his idea thusly: "decide not to have the abortion, and assume the duty to avoid dangerous behavior." Legally, one thing that has been pointed out to me is that the parent/child relationship imposes a new set of duties on the parties. I have a duty to rescue my son if he is drowning, so the analogy to the 'duty to rescue' scenario is flawed.

Another interesting question has to do with the legal status of the fetus itself. If at the time of the action by the mother (let's say she uses crack) the fetus does not have legal status as a person how can she be held responsible for harm done to that fetus at any point? She can be punished for using illegal drugs, but how can the law punish her for harming a person that was not even a person (legally) at the time of the act? I'm no expert, but I think the law regarding the personhood of the fetus is a bit of a mixed bag. Some laws favor personhood, some laws (i.e. abortion laws) reject it. Perhaps the pro-life community should put more of a focus on this aspect of the abortion debate.

Explaining my Absence

It's been a long time since I posted and fewer people have been coming for visits so I thought I'd explain myself. Election day was doubly good for me with the George W. Bush victory and the birth of my second son, Leo. He was 10 lbs. 4 Oz. and 21 1/2 inches long. Both mother and baby are doing quite well. I'm really surprised at how quickly my wife has rebounded. It's a real blessing. Anyway, after a few weeks off I'm back and I hope to start blogging a bit more. I should have one coming on some interesting things Instapundit says on the topic of abortion.

By the way, I've also been working on a novel for National Novel writing month, aka Nanowrimo. Once it's finished, it's guaranteed to be an Oprah Winfrey book of the month. I'll make millions I tell you! MILLIONS!!!

Elliot Smith: A Year Has Passed

It's been just over a year since one of the best songwriters I've ever encountered died. On October 21, 2003 Elliot Smith died of two stab wounds to the chest. I've never heard whether the death was finally ruled a suicide or a murder. Elliot was one of those tragic characters we see every so often in the world, and I suppose that's why he captivates me (and many others) so much. He had so much talent, but he was so fragile. His earliest songs were simple, often just Elliot and his guitar, but they had such emotional depth it is impossible for me to listen to them and be unmoved.

I am saddened not only by Elliot's death, but by the fact that I didn't become a real fan of his until after his passing. Just recently I was in Borders with my wife, bragging on Elliot's music when I noticed a book with him on the cover. I showed it to my wife and began reading the dust jacket. I was more than dismayed to see that Elliot had died the previous year. WHY do so many of the most brilliant people die so young? Is it the price they pay?

I am well aware of the tendency of people to romanticize the fallen, and I know that I'm doing that in Elliot's case. But it somehow seems appropriate because his situation was so tragic. Just when he was coming out of his drug-addled lifestyle, just as what was to be his last project was taking shape, he is cut down. I think the aforementioned CD, From a Basement On the Hill, will win even more fans. I listened to the preview on MTV.com and I think the CD is one the most creative, touching pieces of music I've heard in a long time.

Elliot, I'm sorry I never got the chance to fully appreciate you while you were with us. You are missed.

Jacques Derrida Dies

I orignally had a post here joking about Derrida's passing, but after reading this post by John Depoe I had a change of heart. The state of one's soul is no laughing matter.

Pro-Lifers for Kerry!?!?

I was talking to my wife last night when she dropped a bombshell on me: three people whose judgment I (at least partially) trusted are voting for John Kerry. These three people are conservative folks, and I think they are pro-life as well.

I don't get angry easily, but I when my wife told me the news I was furious. How could a pro-lifer vote for John Kerry? He has acknowldeged that he will do nothing to stem the tide of abortion in America. To him opposition is a religious matter that should not have an effect on public policy. To me (and to most pro-lifers) it is murder. Abortion is the single most important moral issue in America today. How can these people give their vote to someone who is not on their side regarding abortion?

I haven't spoken with them, but there are a few answers I predict they might give. Remember, these arguments assume the people in question are pro-lifers.

1) They like Kerry's economic policy better. To put it bluntly, this makes me sick. Since when did it become acceptable to place our bank accounts over the lives of the innocent? I would vote for a pro-life communist (if there ever was such an animal) before I would vote for a pro-abortion capitalist.

2) Bush is equally guilty of killing innocents when soldiers die in Iraq. This is dead wrong. Whenever someone signs up for the military it must be with the understanding that we could go to war at any time, whether said war is just or unjust. This doesn't justify soldiers dying in an unjust war, but those who enlist must know coming in that the possibility exists. In abortion the child has no choice in or knowldege of its own fate, therefore abortion is the worse of the two and must take precedence.

3) Bush is equally guilty of killing innocents when children die as casualties of his war. This is a modified version of the previous argument. I begin by pointing out that many terrorists have used children as shields in their campaigns, such as the Chechen rebels. Beyond that, it is a sad fact that children do die as casualties of war. However, there is a difference between children accidentally dying in missile strikes and the intentional killing of a child by an abortionist. Neither are good; the latter is far worse.

4) Kerry is better on other moral issues. First, I'd be curious as to what moral issue Kerry is better on, but I'll let that slide. Second, I'd ask if any of these moral issues have to do with the murder of innocent human beings. If not (perhaps they deal instead with the quality of life), then they must take a back seat.

I'm sure there are other answers these people will give me, or perhaps they will just try to avoid the topic. It doesn't matter, because they'll probably get an ear full from me if the topic comes up anyway. Pardon me, I have to go scream at the top of my lungs.

Why Should I Watch the Debates?

I suppose it's the duty of every conscientious blogger to comment on last night's Presidential debate. In light of that, here's my commentary: I didn't watch it. Nor will I watch the other debates. I know folks who are always watching debates and speeches on television as though the President (or John Kerry or whomever) is going to say something new. Why should we expect that? If you give the news a passing glance or here a candidate speak once you'll already know their 'talking points.' Why put yourself through it again?

The only thing, I think, that changes voters' opinions about candidates is how they personally come across. If Kerry comes across as arrogant or smarmy he loses points. If Bush comes across as stupid he loses points. I don't remember who said it, but it's a good quote: "In politics today the make-up man is more important than the speech writer." I already know who I'm voting for and why. No sound bite or make-up man is going to change my mind.

Marshall Beats Miami (OH)

I've been out for a while, but I wanted to get the ball rolling again with a post celebrating Marshall University's victory over the Miami University Redhawks. The final score was 33-25, but I think that Marshall turned in a more dominant performance than that. The Redhawks had a good game plan early, which allowed them to turn in a decent rushing performance, especially in the first half. The Marshall defense, however, tightened up. Marshall's D-linemen were in Miami's backfield all night. Jonathan Goddard (DE) harrassed Miami's QB Josh Betts to the tune of 4 sacks, 2 fumbles and a couple of QB pressures for interceptions.

Marshall's offense looked a little better, but I'm wondering if we'll ever hit on all cylinders. We should get back RB Ahmad Bradshaw next week, so that will be a big help. He's a true freshman and he is going to be a lot of fun to watch for the next few years. I'll post more on weightier subjects soon.

How to Name a Bar

A bar called 'Banana Joe's Island Party' recently opened in my hometown. My reaction was: whatever. I'm not a bar kind of guy. The interesting part is this: Next door another bar opens. This one's called 'Pineapple Tom's Peninsula Bash'. My brother and I thought that was pretty humorous so we decided that we would name our own (fictitious) bar on that model, and I thought it might be fun if everyone who visits this blog would contribute a bar name on the fruit/person's name/geographical phenomenon/festive event model. Ours was: "Cumquat Moishe's Isthmus Cotillion." Now everyone must participate or else I'll feel ridiculous.

Belated Thanks

Some thanks are in order, I think, for all those who have added me to their blogrolls. So, without further ado, thanks to: Fides Quaerens Intellectum, White Poet Warlord, Yankee from Mississippi, Maverick Philosopher and Siris.

Thanks also to those who have linked any of my posts to their sites, like Philosophy Et Cetera, Under the Sun and several of those who added me to their blogroll. You guys are great!!