LINK: The Unbound Bible

The Unbound Bible at Biola
http://unbound.biola.edu/

Michael Spencer (The Internet Monk), "Seven Observations for Parents"

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/seven-observations-for-parents-and-the-best-of-ims-parenting-posts

Seven Observations For Parents (And the Best of IM's Parenting Posts)

So in no particular order, here's some of my own observations on parenting that ought to be full blown IM posts. But my kids are grown. You people figure it out on your own. (jn)

1. You want to produce a happy, healthy, productive, well-balanced human being. If, in your urgency to produce a religious child, you produce a distorted child, you've not been a good parent. The end doesn't justify the means in Christian parenting.

Sometimes I hear things Christian parents do (hot sauce on the tongue was the last one) and I have to wonder at what point we gave ourselves permission to think like this. We aren't training dogs here. It's a whole different matter. This is someone made in God's image. There are no buttons and levers.

2. All sorts of things in parenting have no relationship whatsoever to any book you'll read or seminar you'll attend. Parenting isn't some mystery that can be taught be experts. When you hear an ad for someone telling you they can make your kid into a near perfect child if you'll only buy/attend their thing, you're being taken for a ride on your insecurities. Relax. (Go to Number 3)

You're going to mess up, screw up and make mistakes. Your family isn't going to be that !$#$! picture on your church web site. Look at families in the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Read what Jesus said about families. This is where sin shows up. It's where we fail and get forgiven. It's where we get to be human and hurtful, but still belong.

A family can't survive everything. There are limits, but determine that mistakes won't be covered up and real life will be the canvas on which this picture is painted.

3. Show up, be there, be present, don't leave, be predictable, be stable, be a presence. That's not all of parenting, but it's a lot. All kinds of people turned out really well, not because they were raised by little parenting geniuses, but because they were raised by people who were THERE in their lives. They came home. They made breakfast. They put them in bed. They didn't chase their own hobbies and dreams at the expense of their kids. They were just there, for the kids, on schedule, like rocks and mountains. They came up like the sun every morning. They may not have been interesting or overly gifted. They may have not been creative. They may have made thousands of mistakes, but they were THERE.

That is huge, people.

4. Turn off the damned television (and attendant electronic devices.) Yes, that's "damned" for those of you monitoring me for the local authorities. Spell it right. Turn the thing off and read to your kids. Get some animals. Ride bikes. Go hiking. Plant a garden. Buy a telescope. Get dolls. Get action figures. Go on weekend drives. Learn history. Go to ball games. Just decrease the television time.

I am NOT saying get rid of it. I think that's a mistake as well, but you have to understand that at this point every parent is going to be under assault to use television, DVDs, the internet, the ipod, the way to keep your kids out of your hair. And that's the problem. Not so much the content- which is an obvious problem- but the fact that I hear all kinds of parents basically say "Just get the kids watching something so we can do something else." You'll never totally avoid, this, but it's insidious, and it is part of a culture wide program to turn your kid into nothing more than one of those human batteries in the Matrix, otherwise known as a passive part of the consumer culture.

Resist the surrender to the culture on this one. Save your kids and yourself from its temptations. Use it to further your goals, not to do your job.

5. The family dinner table. At all costs. As much as possible. No matter what the resistance. No matter how much coordination it takes. It is, always was and always will be, the key to good family life. Talking around that table is very important. More important than church, I promise.

6. Consider seriously the wisdom of putting your children into a large church program that separates them from you into children's worship. I believe this is the worst thing evangelicals have done in the last 50 years. Other than a very modest extended session for very small children, you should be fearful of making your children the passive participants in programs that set them in front of big screens, DVDs, stages, etc. The demise of evangelicalism is the result of specialized programing. It has very limited usefulness.

7. Loving your children is not the same as you being happy. Loving your children will mean getting into places where you are unhappy, and then asking what does it mean to love that child.

Christian parents have a tendency to say that when they feel good about their child, then the child is being loved. Be careful of that road. Many Christian parents are willing to produce a child who is shallow, phony and manipulative towards them in order to get what they want from that child. Children will, as teenagers especially, give you what you want and buy into nothing you are selling. They will do this to survive having you as a parent. Then when they are away from you, they will sell that strategy and become whatever they really are, which may scare the _________ out of you.

You have to love the real child, and you need to get started with that as soon as possible. Your child's individuality is your business. It's your job to love them as a unique individual. A school or a church or a group of friends will never accept individuality in the same measure that you do. They can't. Life doesn't work that way.

But I am determined that even though I could name you a decent list of things that I wish were different about my children, I will NOT go there. I will love them as unique individuals, and I will be in their corner when NO ONE ELSE IS. I'm not talking about approving or endorsing. Not at all. If my children take a wrong road, I'll say so and I'll lament. But I will not give up on my child over a tattoo or smoking or a change of schools or a change of plans or even rejecting my politics or faith. Some of these things might devastate me, but this isn't about me being happy. It's about loving a person in the one role that God has given me.

Minimalist vs. Maximalist from the B-Hebrew list

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2006-June/028805.html

----- Original Message ----- 
 From: "JAMES CHRISTIAN READ" <JCR128 at student.apu.ac.uk>
To: <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
  Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 2:19 AM
Subject: [b-hebrew] minimalist/maximalist


> At the risk of sounding like the only ignorant one around
> here, what exactly is a minimalist or a maximalist?
  
Dear James,

In very broad terms, a minimalist is someone who thinks that the Bible is of 
minimal value in reconstructing the "real" history of Iron Age Israel, and 
that any "facts" stated by the Bible that are not specifically corroborated 
  by archaeological and/or epigraphic evidence should be considered suspect. 
This view is generally based on: a. the ideological/theological/literary 
character of the biblical text, b. the uncertainty about the process of 
  transmission of the text and its sources, and c. a view of the Bible as 
having been composed very late, making its preserving a lot of authentic 
information very unlikely.
In the same very broad terms, a maximalist is one who considers the Bible to 
  be of great value in reconstructing the "real" history of Iron Age Israel, 
basically that any "facts" stated by the Bible can be considered to 
represent "history", unless either very unlikely or unless specifically 
  disproved by archaeological and/or epigraphic evidence. This view is 
generally based on: a. the view that many of the books of the Bible were 
originally written much closer to the events that they describe, making it 
  more likely that they preserve real historical memories, b. a view that the 
biblical story, at least in general terms, is basically consistent with both 
the known outlines of the history and culture of the Ancient Near East and 
  of the archaeological evidence, and c. a view that the biblical story, at 
least in general terms, is also internally consistent and logical.
I do make a distinction between this type of "maximalist", who does 
  recognize that a lot of the details of biblical history are NOT corroborated 
by archaeological and/or epigraphic evidence and DOES recognize the 
ideological/theological/literary character of the biblical text, and what I 
  would call "fundamentalists", who, whether they admit it or not, base their 
belief in the historicity of the Bible on their religious faith.
Obviously, there is a lot of ground in between. The most extreme minimalists 
  claim that the Bible is a Hellenistic composition with (almost) no 
historical value, and that the entire "history" of Israel, from the 
patriarchs, through the exodus, the conquest, the monarchy and the exile and 
  restoration, never happened, at least not in any way close to the way the 
Bible describes it. The Bible is a Hellenistic-period Jewish manifesto, 
written in order to justify the Jews' conquest of "Palestine".
  Less extreme minimalists realize that a lot of what the Bible says about the 
later monarchy is corroborated by archaeological and epigraphic evidence, 
which shows that the writers, whatever their ideology might have been, did 
  make use of archival sources from the pre-exilic period. The descriptions of 
the "golden age" of Joshua, David and Solomon, however, are mostly myth.
The most extreme maximalists (remember, I'm not including 
  religiously-motivated fundamentalists) consider the patriarchal narratives, 
the exodus, the conquest and all the rest to be based on "historical 
memories", even if many of the specifics have become garbled. Less extreme, 
  is the view that the patriarchs and exodus, and maybe the conquest, are 
"foundation myths", but that the story of the foundation of the Israelite 
state, the united monarchy and later history, are indeed based on archival 
  sources and historical memories, all the while not ignoring the 
ideological/theological/literary character of the biblical text.

The "hot" debate between the two camps over the past few decades has been 
  the United Monarchy - history of myth? But this is largely a matter of fads. 
Often, the views which were once considered minimalist later become 
maximalist - then the pendulum swings back.

Hope that helped.
  
Yigal Levin

Add to reader

http://evangelicalcatholicity.wordpress.com/
http://thebasilica.wordpress.com/
http://www.geneveith.com/
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/
http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/
http://www.internetmonk.com/
http://jesusshaped.wordpress.com/
http://inhabitatiodei.wordpress.com/
http://cruciality.wordpress.com/
http://narrativeandontology.blogspot.com/
http://disruptivegrace.blogspot.com/
http://www.jesustheradicalpastor.com/
http://zoommatics.furiousthinking.org/
http://sacramentalpiety.wordpress.com/

TO DO: Google Reader

http://www.google.com/reader

LINK: Presbyterian/Reformed denominational stats

LINK: http://www.tateville.com/churches.html

What was wrong with Preaching in 1980... and Today

http://jamesdurham.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/what-is-wrong-with-preaching-today/

What is Wrong with Preaching Today?

In 1980 the President of Westminster Theological Seminary sent a letter to various senior pastors/theologians asking for their views on what were "ten serious failures of the Christian pulpit."  One of the respondents was John R. de Witt then of Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson.  His response was also published in the Banner of Truth Magazine (210, March 1981).  A number of the points he raised are of vital importance and as relevant today as they were in 1980.

De Witt's first observation is that "the pre-eminent failing in the evangelical pulpit is a misunderstanding of the nature of preaching."  His point here is that many preachers fail to recognise that the preacher is not to speak his own words - in the act of preaching he stands as an ambassador of Christ and should be speaking Christ's words.  De Witt explains, "If we regard the sermon as the vehicle through which the Lord Jesus himself speaks - if, that is today, we hold that preaching in the biblical sense of the word is the principal means by which God addresses himself to sinners - this conviction cannot help but exercise a transforming influence on what we who are ministers do in the pulpit, and on how we do it."  To me Dr de Witt's observation here strikes a real cord.

De Witt's second point is that he had observed "a want [lack] of ministerial earnestness"  Few preached "as never sure to preach again, and as a dying man to dying men."  The causes he identified were a false view that everyone in the congregation is saved, a failure to hold together "in tension" the truths of divine sovereignty and human responsibility, and the influence of the spirit of the age "with its tendency to undervalue the awful consequences of sin and impenitence."  Again, I can only say that De Witt's observation is true.

The fourth point De Witt covers (I'm not going through each of his points) is a lack of "warm, pointed, applicatory preaching" perhaps due to an over emphasis on the redemptive-historical approach to scripture [not the principle itself].  Again as someone who has spent a lot of time reading old Reformed/Puritan sermons one of the main differences that jumps out at you is the sheer volume of application relative to modern sermons.  Good, helpful, edifying application is hard work, much harder than giving a "lecture" but it is surely central to any biblical conception of preaching.

Related to the area of application De Witt's seventh point is that "in many Reformed churches preaching is insufficiently direct."  Perhaps, de Witt posits, this is due to ministers assuming everyone before them is saved and therefore don't need the direct preaching of the gospel.  For de Witt this is simply wrong.  "The gospel should be preached regularly to every congregation.  Covenant children must be told what their own covenant position means for them … They have to know they dare not take their position for granted.  Those born in Christian families are to come to Christ.  My own great homiletics teacher, Dr Henry Blast, used to tell us that we were to assume nothing with respect to the spiritual situation in our congregations.  And the longer I live and the more I preach the greater is the degree of my agreement with him."

De Witt's eleventh point (yes he overran!) is the demise of the "prophetic element in preaching."  By this he meant the demise of the authority of the pulpit.  He stated "I grow weary as I think about the number of times, for example, when I have heard a minister beginning his sermon by saying there was something he wanted to 'share' with us from the Word of God.  I believe that the word 'share' in this context is singularly inappropriate."  Instead of sharing "The minister must come from God, bearing God's message, speaking God's Word, standing in a sense even in God's place, addressing us with that which in no way rests on his own authority.  The minister is a herald, and his sermon is that Word which he speaks in behalf of the One who sent him.  That, after all, is the meaning of the word 'to preach'.  The relational, psycologizing, soul-bearing so-called preaching of the present time is in no way reflective of the biblical concept of the sermon."

De Witt also highlights helpfully the need to pay attention to the form or aesthetic quality of the sermon, the importance of appropriate illustrations, how the general decay in classical learning is harming the pulpit, how congregations often push ministers to spend their time on other things detracting from the great work of preaching, and the necessity of a minister to be godly.  All helpful but I don't have time to comment on them here.

So it suffices to say that I think de Witt is substantially correct in his analysis.  And if anything I would imagine in the intervening 30 years things have got worse not better.  But there is no cause for despair - there are still many who are workmen who have no need to be ashamed, who rightly divide the word of truth.  And the Lord of the harvest is able to send many more into his harvest field.

How to Learn Biblical Hebrew

http://awilum.com/?page_id=693
Prepared by Charles Halton

How to Learn Hebrew

How to Have a Successful First Semester

1. Have a good attitude.

a. Learning Hebrew can be hard at times, but it is rewarding—find joy in your studies.
b. You are fluent in at least one language already. Therefore you have proven that you have the ability to learn languages—no excuses.

2. Do not fall behind in your studies.

a. At the pace that first year Hebrew moves, if you fall behind it will be hard to catch back up again.
b. Learn the vocabulary of each chapter well—it will bite you later if you don't.
c. Learn everything thoroughly unless I specifically tell you otherwise.

3. Studying consistently is much better than studying in large blocs once or twice a week.

a. Pick a specific time and place each and every day (besides Sundays) that is specifically designated as your Hebrew study time and place. Design your schedule around this time, not the other way around.

Ideal Study Sequence While at Seminary

1. First Semester—Alphabet, nouns, strong verbs, preliminary syntax, vocab.
2. Second Semester—Weak verbs, intermediate syntax, simple readings, vocab.
3. Rapid Reading—Read Hebrew narrative, nail down vocab.
4. Hebrew Composition—English to Hebrew, accents, advanced syntax, vocab.
5. Narrative Exegesis
6. Poetry Exegesis

How to Prepare for a Lifetime of Studying the Old Testament in Hebrew

1. Learn Hebrew vocabulary well. It will be very frustrating and you will likely give up if you don't. Recommended resource: George M. Landes, Building Your Biblical Hebrew Vocabulary, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
2. Get to the point while you are at Seminary where you do your daily devotional reading in Hebrew.
3. Do not read the Bible out of BibleWorks. Only use it when you are stuck and don't know how to read a specific word or phrase or when you are doing searches.
4. Read a Hebrew grammar once every year.
5. Read Hebrew in a group. Get to know at least one person, possibly another pastor in the area, who is willing to meet with you weekly or biweekly to read Hebrew together.
6. Preach half of your sermons and teach half of your lessons out of the Old Testament. Prepare your sermons and lessons from the Hebrew text.
7. Complete your study of the text before you look at commentaries or helps.
8. Understand why a translation(s) rendered your passage of study the way it did.
9. Use solid commentaries that deal with the Hebrew text. Eschew preaching commentaries for textual study.
10. Follow at least one high-level academic journal that includes Old Testament studies. Get a subscription or find a local library that carries them. For examples see the links to journals on awilum.com.

Michael Spencer, "God Doesn't Offer Explanations" [Beware asking "Why?"]

http://jesusshaped.wordpress.com/2008/10/05/god-doesnt-offer-explanations/

God doesn't offer explanations

October 5, 2008 by Michael

The problem with theological types- like yours truly- is they think that God has explained himself. In the Bible. In Jonathan Edwards. In the Lutheran Confessions. In the CRCC. In the latest Piper book. In the ESV Study Bible notes. Somewhere.

The fact is God doesn't explain himself.

Romans isn't God explaining himself in your life. There's some "big picture" stuff there, and you'll do much better if you realize that "big picture" explanations are what God is interested in. But if you want explanations for why you have no friends, or why you seem to fail the harder you work or why your daughter became a Hindu, you aren't going to get those explanations.

And you must especially beware of people who pretend to have explanations for you. Churches are full of these people, usually at the pulpit end or in the academic section. They have a favorite book or a DVD presentation that gets right to the explanation for your family's troubles or your business failure, and what you should do now.

It's a lot of hogwash. The Bible is what God is going to tell us about his interaction with this world leading up to and into Jesus. It's a very subjective kind of book, with much more to say about the experiences we have than the answers we need.

In fact, Jesus explains one parable, and actually makes a lot of demands. Job repeatedly wants an explanation, but he's not going to get one other than "Where were you? Were you there?" (Very Ken Hamm.)

The answers we give each other suck. The answers in the Bible are big, generic and can't be fit into the map of your life as specifically as you want. God wants us to trust who he is, what he's done for us in Jesus and what he promises to finish doing. Along the way, he has some good advice and specific commands, but not many answers to the mysteries of life that torment us.

Believe in the God of the Bible, and have lots of questions of "Why?"…..You're probably going to get tired of hearing things like "Everything God does he does for our good" or "God allows evil so that good will come from it." God's not sitting in a booth playing fortune teller or shrink for a nickle.

He's God. His goal is that we trust him, and live the best lives we can based on that trust. A significant part of that kind of life is moving past the "Whys."

In the TBS movie "Abraham," God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son. Abraham goes out and screams "Why?"

In the Bible, that never happens. Maybe it did, but the Bible never mentions it. Hebrews says Abraham took Isaac to be sacrificed convinced by God's previous promise that he and the boy would, somehow, return.

Abraham took that all the way, never pausing to say "Why?" along the way. When Isaac asked where was the sacrifice, Abraham didn't get smart and say "Good question." He said "God will provide a lamb."

God doesn't give explanations very often. He's working for a bigger result- faith and trust in who he is and what he's done for us- and will do- in Jesus.

That's the life. I need to get busy living it, because every moment I'm shouting "Why?" I"m wasting my breath.

The New Perspective on Paul

The New Perspective on Paul is, in my opinion, a very difficult issue to get a handle on. To study this issue it is necessary to become familiar with the alien world of academic New Testament studies, which can be like learning a foreign language. To understand where the New Perspective came from, it is necessary also to gain some understanding of the history of New Testament studies over the last century. Moreover, there is not just one New Perspective, but there are various schools of thought under the umbrella of the term "New Perspective."

 

Below are links to some articles that I feel provide a fairly decent, basic understanding of the New Perspective, first in its own terms, and then from a Reformed Perspective.

 

Mark Mattison, a proponent of the New Perspective on Paul, has written an essay summarizing the New Perspective, which can be found at http://www.thepaulpage.com/Summary.html. It is helpful to read the position of a proponent in their own words, instead of merely learning about a position as you read a criticism of it. Mattison runs "The Paul Page" where the summary is found. It is a very helpful website that is something of a clearinghouse for any and all items related to the New Perspective, both for and against. Indeed, if you find an article somewhere that is not listed on the website, e-mail Mattison, and he'll add a link.

 

Kim Riddlebarger's essay "Reformed Confessionalism and the New Perspective on Paul" is helpful. Riddlebarger is a professor of Theology at Westminster Seminary in California, and he also helps pastor the church which Michael Horton serves at:

http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/theological-essays/New%20Perspective%20on%20Paul%20revised%202006.pdf.

 

Doug Green, an Old Testament professor at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, wrote a balanced essay that discusses both pros and cons of the New Perspective as articulated by N.T. Wright: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Green_Westminster_Seminary_Perspective.pdf.

 

There is, of course, the PCA Study Committee report on the Federal Vision controversy and the New Perspective, which can be found at www.pcahistory.org/pca/07-fvreport.pdf. Unfortunately, the simple fact that this report covers both the Federal Vision controversy and the New Perspective may make it seem that the two are related, which I don't think is true at all. Nevertheless, this report gives the guidelines for how these issues are to be understood in the PCA.