In response to my earlier post commending Frederica Mathewes-Green’s “Let’s Have More Teen Pregancy,” which advocated for earlier marriage and child-bearing than is the norm today in these United States, A. Nonymous commented (in part), “I can agree with most of her statements; however, she doesn't address how to reverse the situation in an increasingly secular culture.”
That’s certainly true, in one sense. In my opinion, though, “practical steps for change” aren’t all that necessary. In a climate such as ours today, Mathewes-Green does a great service by pointing out that the status quo need not be the status quo, that things have been done differently and humanity survived. Simply believing people can marry and have children in their late teens without disaster would be a quite nice start to reversing the present situation.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
A question for every father
From The Road, page 196: “Do you think that your fathers are watching? That they weigh you in their ledgerbook? Against what?”
Cormac McCarthy’s answer in the midst of postapocalyptic despair: “There is no book and your fathers are dead in the ground.”
He’s right; it’s a question I keep asking myself. But I’m wrong to strive to measure up to my fathers, since I, rather, am called to imitate Christ. I must fail in their ledgerbook’s accounting, but Christ’s Spirit enables me, by grace, to haltingly imitate his self-sacrifice in the offering up of myself in the service of my fathers’ descendents.
And of course, McCarthy’s answer is wrong (although I suspect he knows that). Romans 8:33-34: “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. ”
Cormac McCarthy’s answer in the midst of postapocalyptic despair: “There is no book and your fathers are dead in the ground.”
He’s right; it’s a question I keep asking myself. But I’m wrong to strive to measure up to my fathers, since I, rather, am called to imitate Christ. I must fail in their ledgerbook’s accounting, but Christ’s Spirit enables me, by grace, to haltingly imitate his self-sacrifice in the offering up of myself in the service of my fathers’ descendents.
And of course, McCarthy’s answer is wrong (although I suspect he knows that). Romans 8:33-34: “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. ”
On spam filters
I maintain a web-based e-mail address exclusively for our congregation’s website and SermonAudio page in order to protect my main e-mail address from spammers. And in fact, most of what comes to that first address is spam, generated by programs that troll the webernet for e-mail addresses. Accordingly, I set the spam filters pretty high. However, of late I’ve noticed that some legitimate e-mails have been consigned to the spam folder, which has made me wonder whether others haven’t been allowed to make even that cut. Consequently, I’ve had to step down the spam filters a bit so I can still be contacted through our congregation’s websites.
I bring this up because I have a number of friends who are strongly against illegal immigration, but separate that issue from legal immigration. In fact, many believe the federal government should remove the barriers immigrants face to get permanent visas to they can work in the United States. Unfortunately, the two issues cannot be so easily separated.
Illegal immigration is not simply a matter of people coming up through the U.S.-Mexico border without visas. As I understand it, the majority of illegal immigrants in the U.S. entered the country by other means, such as with illegitimate paperwork or by overstaying tourist visas. In order to prevent these forms of illegal immigration, the government must require those applying for visas to prove they have income or legitimate employment or will not bring over their families but return to their home country after they’ve completed their studies.
That is, the policy goal of clamping down on illegal immigration inevitably leads to turning away citizens of other nations whose intentions are entirely pure and are attempting to stay in our country legally. If we want people to be able to immigrate to the United States more easily, we will have to accept a certain level of illegal immigration.
I bring this up because I have a number of friends who are strongly against illegal immigration, but separate that issue from legal immigration. In fact, many believe the federal government should remove the barriers immigrants face to get permanent visas to they can work in the United States. Unfortunately, the two issues cannot be so easily separated.
Illegal immigration is not simply a matter of people coming up through the U.S.-Mexico border without visas. As I understand it, the majority of illegal immigrants in the U.S. entered the country by other means, such as with illegitimate paperwork or by overstaying tourist visas. In order to prevent these forms of illegal immigration, the government must require those applying for visas to prove they have income or legitimate employment or will not bring over their families but return to their home country after they’ve completed their studies.
That is, the policy goal of clamping down on illegal immigration inevitably leads to turning away citizens of other nations whose intentions are entirely pure and are attempting to stay in our country legally. If we want people to be able to immigrate to the United States more easily, we will have to accept a certain level of illegal immigration.
First thoughts on "The Road"
I’ve been avoiding The Road pretty much since it was first published. Although a great admirer of Cormac McCarthy, as the father of two small boys I thought a novel about a man and his young son wandering a postapocalyptic landscape would tap directly into the “wake up screaming” center of my cerebral cortex. But a few months ago a friend insisted I borrow his copy, and after getting through the stack of comic books and the-American-Republic-is-long-gone-and-never-coming-back literature on my nightstand, I started reading it. 87 pages in, I have this to say:
1) Boy oh boy, can Cormac McCarthy write. His prose is spare, but florid; the best description I’ve ever heard of it is “like Ernest Hemingway and William Faulkner, but at the same time.” From a lesser writer, his style would be ridiculous; but McCarthy is our great American master, and every word is carefully considered, serving a purpose (and sometimes I think that purpose is to build my vocabulary). I’m compelled as much by how he writes as with the story he’s writing. However, while I can live without quotation marks (the American literati’s union has apparently forbidden their use), I always find the absence of apostrophes jarring (although a few seem to have sneaked in past the proofreader).
2) My fears about reading this book were dead on. This story is every father’s worst nightmare; that plus McCarthy’s gripping prose adds up to a reading experience not unlike waking up from a bad dream and then trying to fall back asleep in order to continue it.
3) McCarthy has this much right: the essence of true manhood is being a husband and father, and the essence of those roles is a willingness to kill, but more centrally to die, for one’s family.
1) Boy oh boy, can Cormac McCarthy write. His prose is spare, but florid; the best description I’ve ever heard of it is “like Ernest Hemingway and William Faulkner, but at the same time.” From a lesser writer, his style would be ridiculous; but McCarthy is our great American master, and every word is carefully considered, serving a purpose (and sometimes I think that purpose is to build my vocabulary). I’m compelled as much by how he writes as with the story he’s writing. However, while I can live without quotation marks (the American literati’s union has apparently forbidden their use), I always find the absence of apostrophes jarring (although a few seem to have sneaked in past the proofreader).
2) My fears about reading this book were dead on. This story is every father’s worst nightmare; that plus McCarthy’s gripping prose adds up to a reading experience not unlike waking up from a bad dream and then trying to fall back asleep in order to continue it.
3) McCarthy has this much right: the essence of true manhood is being a husband and father, and the essence of those roles is a willingness to kill, but more centrally to die, for one’s family.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
The real problem with praise music
I listened to a wide-ranging interview with D.G. Hart conducted by Mark Dever of Capitol Hill Baptist Church while translating Proverbs 7 this afternoon. Hart made the observation that his real objection to praise music is not so much the songs themselves as the liturgies in which they are imbedded; that is, most would be pretty much okay in the context of a traditional Protestant service, serving particular functions and alternating with Scripture readings, offerings, confessions, and so forth. Instead, (and this is just me talking) they usually are found in evangelical services whose "liturgies" consist of about a half hour of music followed by an inspirational lecture.
In other words, modern worship music is about as bad and as good as worship music has ever been at any given point in Church history. Protestant liturgy, however, is at perhaps its lowest point since preachers abandoned Latin in the pulpits.
In other words, modern worship music is about as bad and as good as worship music has ever been at any given point in Church history. Protestant liturgy, however, is at perhaps its lowest point since preachers abandoned Latin in the pulpits.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The Lord's soul
The Hebrew text of Proverbs 6:16 is quite clear: there are seven things which are abominations to the Lord's soul. The text is not in dispute: there are no other manuscripts with variant readings, nor is there any tradition of reading the Hebrew text in a different way. However, every English version I've consulted, including the "allegedly literal" ones, read that they are abominations "to Him."
Why? Is there some theological nicety here I'm just too dumb to grasp? Or is this another case of "the KJV guys did it that way, so we will too"?
Why? Is there some theological nicety here I'm just too dumb to grasp? Or is this another case of "the KJV guys did it that way, so we will too"?
Once again, unable to entertain the possibility of an upside
On the one hand, I'm glad to hear Biblica (formerly the International Bible Society) plans to let Today's New International Version quietly slip into oblivion. On the other, I can't help but suspect its concomitant decision to revise the New International Version means the TNIV's crimes against established translation practice and English grammar will continue to be perpetuated under a different label.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)