Chris
Things I’ve linked recently:
-
I don't know that I have an immediate use for a new version control system, but this tutorial is full of awesome… worth reading just for the fun of it.
Things I’ve linked recently:
-
"Theology finds its power to silence scripture (and people) from this claim to its standing as objective truth. But while objective truth exists, we can always only at best approximate it. The challenge for theology is not only to confess this in word but to live like it in deed: to treat itself as provisional, always subject to change and development and correction."
Good summary from Dr. Kirk.
-
Statistics FTW!
These are my links for 2010-03-10:
-
"This is the classic inversion of sola scriptura: no longer do we really want you to do what the Reformers did (read your Bible), we want you instead to read and memorize what they said after they had read their Bibles."
-
A great XKCD.
I have learned much over the past several years from brothers and sisters of the Reformed theological persuasion. I love and respect them deeply. But the good Dr. Daniel J. R. Kirk today puts his finger on a point which has provided me some unease in my conversations with my Reformed brethren, saying it, as usual, more succinctly than I could.
Quoth Daniel:
Doctrine Good. Stories Bad. That’s the mini-theme of this month’s Christianity Today.
I begin with the most egregious offense. There’s a short inset on p. 26, snipped from a book by J. I. Packer and Gary A. Parrett (Grounded in the Gospel; Baker, 2010) entitled, “The Lost Art of Catechesis.” The point? Back in the old days, folks used to have to learn their theology. That waned for a bit, but was revived in all its glory in the Reformation. Doctrine. The church has to learn its doctrine.
When did this all go astray between then and now? When Sunday Schools entrusted instruction to lay people and rather than teaching people theology substituted “instilling of familiarity (or shall we say, perhaps, over-familiarity) with Bible stories” (26).
Daniel, though, strongly disagrees, and he hammers it home here:
This is the classic inversion of sola scriptura: no longer do we really want you to do what the Reformers did (read your Bible), we want you instead to read and memorize what they said after they had read their Bibles.
And that is the unease I’ve always had w/ the Reformed types. So often when asked a question, they don’t respond w/ Scripture, but rather with a quote from one of the Confessions or with a paragraph from Calvin or Edwards or Spurgeon or Packer.
I know, I know, those Confessions are a distillation of the church’s understanding of the whole Scripture over the years, and useful as a doctrinal reference and as a safeguard against taking any single Scripture passage wildly out of context. But Dr. Kirk makes a great point here: our first priority and focus should be to the Scripture, and the Confessions and Institutes need to come later.
I’d love to hear from some of my Reformed buddies on this one. And yeah, I’m afraid what I might be in for when they pile on. 
Laura announced last night that she was going to make some “inventions”. She had a bag full of assorted building materials that included two wiki sticks, a cup with a crazy curved straw, a plastic flute, an empty McDonald’s Apple Pie box, some crayons, and a pencil.
She first decided she needed to invent a “Zipperump-a-Zoo Catcher”. Being a good little engineer, she had to have plans drawn first:
 |
| From 2010-03-08 |
You can see that it’s even carefully titled “Z C”, since she wasn’t sure of the correct spelling of Zipperump-a-Zoo.
She’s happy to explain the plans to you, too:
 |
| From 2010-03-08 |
Then it’s time to build.
 |
| From 2010-03-08 |
As any good engineer knows, sometimes half the trick is keeping the troublemakers out of your project:
 |
| From 2010-03-08 |
Getting close to done:
 |
| From 2010-03-08 |
Success!
 |
| From 2010-03-08 |
Very happy.
 |
| From 2010-03-08 |
Kottke linked earlier this afternoon to a nifty site where they’ve taken some famous movie quotes and represented them pictorially.
Very cool, but the quote that immediately sprang to my mind wasn’t among them, so I decided to get in on the fun and create it here.
- We have high temperatures in the 50’s forecast for this week. Incredibly thankful for spring to be making an appearance.
- Stayed up too late watching the Oscars last night. Have watched only two of the films nominated across all categories: District 9 and Star Trek. One of these days I’ll catch up on some of the others. Very little time for watching movies these days.
- Star Trek is the last movie I’ve watched in a theater. Before that I think it was The Dark Knight the year before. At least that gives us lots of choices to watch on DVD.
- Three day work week for me this week. Then on Thursday we road trip to Indiana. Becky and the girls will drop me off in Indianapolis where I’ll hang out/ride along with Andy Osenga for a couple days while he plays some house shows.
- Becky and the girls will head up an hour north of Indy to visit some friends who moved there from CR last year. Everyone is pretty darn excited about it.
- Have the details lined up for Andy O to play a “house show” at Brewed Awakenings in CR on Monday, April 19th. Hope to get the “official” confirmation from Andy this week so I can start publicity in earnest.
A follow-on to yesterday’s post about the superiority of ‘O Canada’:
I was not surprised to read that there are official lyrics in both English and French for the anthem. I was surprised a bit, though, at the stark difference in the message of the two versions.
First, the familiar English version:
O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide, O Canada,
We stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
But compare that with this English translation of the French lyrics:
O Canada!
Land of our ancestors,
Thy brow is wreathed with a glorious
garland of flowers.
As is thy arm ready to wield the sword,
So also is it ready to carry the cross.
Thy history is an epic
Of the most brilliant exploits.
Thy valour steeped in faith
Will protect our homes and our rights
Will protect our homes and our rights.
A very different flavor to those, eh? An “arm ready to wield the sword”, but also “ready to carry the cross”. And rather than the English version standing on guard for the country, the French version stands in protection of “our homes and our rights”.
Fascinating how they’ve chosen to keep the tune and meter the same between both versions, and accepted the inevitable difference in lyrical content.
Watching the winter Olympics over the past two weeks, I caught at least a few of the medal ceremonies, including at least a couple (including the one after the amazing hockey game yesterday) where the Canadian anthem was played. Each time I was struck with the same thought, which I finally voiced on Twitter yesterday: that the Canadian national anthem is highly superior to ours. One friend expressed the same thought, but another quickly disagreed. So, let me offer a few thoughts in defense of my assertion.
Reasons that ‘O Canada‘ is superior to ‘The Star-Spangled Banner‘
- Singability. The purpose of a national anthem is to be sung, right? ‘O Canada’ has a nice, singable melody, and a total range of just one octave, suitable to most voices. ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’, on the other hand, has a range of an octave and a fifth, which is a range typically only well-handled by professional singers. Live performances should be opportunities for national pride, however, when the US anthem is involved, they are more often adventures in vocal torture.
- Inspiring Language. ‘The True North strong and free.’ What a marvelous turn of phrase. And who can fail to be moved when singing “God keep our land glorious and free”? The Star Spangled Banner is just about a flag, with the bit about the country being sort of tacked on at the end.
- Using words that people actually are familiar with. With exception, perhaps, of the old English “thy” and “thee”, “O Canada” is composed entirely of words that one might use in everyday writing or conversation. “The Star Spangled Banner”, by comparison? Spangled. Perilous. Ramparts. Gallantly. Ugh.
- Actually mentioning the name of the country. “O Canada”: 4 mentions, not counting the title. “The Star Spangled Banner”: 0.
- Not beginning and ending with a question. Questions typically belong in plaintive, whiny songs, not broad anthems. Starting off “O say can you see?” and ending with “O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave?”, while presumably intended as rhetorical flourishes, doesn’t impart the same sort of solidarity as “O Canada, we stand on guard for Thee”.
Sadly, any attempt to change the US anthem at this point would only result in choosing something worse. “God Bless America” is too overtly theistic to get official sanction; “America the Beautiful” has many of the same issues as the current anthem (hard to sing, odd words). There are occasional odd choices proposed, too, similarly troublesome. For instance, Woody Guthrie’s “This Land Is Your Land”: written by a communist sympathizer. And who wants to hear a folksy protest song played at the beginning of every sporting event and solemn political occasion?
Being a loyal American I will continue to honor my country by standing when the national anthem is played. But I will at the same time regret that our inferior anthem ensures that we will never have a scene like the one that played out in the Canadian hockey arena yesterday, with 18,000 victorious fans singing the anthem at the top of their lungs.
Recommending blogs to follow is a risky proposition. The fact that I enjoy reading these blogs enough to recommend them undoubtedly says more about me than it does about the blogs themselves. Nevertheless, two blogs have emerged recently that I have found quite enjoyable and worth my time; depending on your interests, you might find them worthwhile as well.
First up is Storied Theology, written by J. R. Daniel Kirk. Dr. Kirk is an assistant professor of New Testament at Fuller Theological Seminary. I first got pointed to him by online friend Mark Traphagen, and I owe Mark a beer or two for that recommendation alone. I’ve linked him here a few times already, including his thoughts on mixed martial arts and a couple times on his series on authenticity.
Reading a blog like Dr. Kirk’s (can I call you Daniel?) reminds me why I at times think it’d be fun to attend seminary at some point; the level of discussion is stretching but not incomprehensible to this layman. Fortunately blogs like Dr. Kirk’s provide a window into that world and an opportunity for discussion even for this engineer in Iowa. Worth reading.
My other recommendation for today is something completely different: Abraham Piper’s new blog Downhill Both Ways. Presented as “Views and vignettes from South Minneapolis”, Piper observes, thinks, and reports on his urban neighborhood, all the while proving that he is as adept in writing long-form as he is in short form.
I first encountered Abraham’s writing on his short-form blog, Twenty-Two Words, where he pithily comments on the world in posts of exactly, well, twenty-two words in length. When he noted on Twitter that he was starting a new blog, I wasn’t sure what to expect… but I’ve been quite taken with it. There’s something strangely appealing about late-night walks through a big city, and Abraham’s superb writing captures it beautifully. For starters, read his “Why I Now Buy Cigarettes” and “Jumping Trains”.
Check these guys out and let me know what you think. Any new blogs you’re reading and would like to share?