Award-Winning Brew?

I made an IPA (India Pale Ale) last month that I was planning on entering into the local Athens homebrew club's first competition. Was. Just my luck, I make great beer after great beer and just when I want to put it to the test, it doesn't turn out the way I wanted. Don't get me wrong, it's a good beer. I'm just not sure it's competition material. The longer it sits, the better it's gotten, though, so maybe I'll enter it all the same. Worth a shot, no?

Philosophy Lectures

A couple of events in the past few days got me thinking about the potential impact whatever meager philosophical knowledge I've managed to accumulate over the years could have outside the classroom. One of them, the more significant of the two, sparked some mental coals that were fired up in my mind a while back by other events and ruminations but that have since grown cold.

One of the while-back events was a talk I gave for the worldview lecture series that UGA's RUF started. I don't know if it was what they wanted, but in my preparation I ran across a talk given by Alvin Plantinga, a well-reknowned philosopher who also happens to be a Reformed Christian, who suggested that as Christian philosophers we should seek to use our gifts (whatever they may be) to serve the Christian community. Not long prior to this, the associate pastor of my church asked if I'd be willing to do a semester-long series of philosophy lectures for those among the congregation who might be interested. Not having any idea what I'd do for such a thing, I put it on the back burner. Actually, I think I took it off the stove. I've thought some about it since then, but it usually gets interrupted by more immediately pressing things like lectures for classes, exam grading, and online poker.

This afternoon I was talking with Carrie about a course on the history of Christian thought that she's taking in the religion department from a professor who keeps bringing up philosophical background to many of the theological positions they are discussing. Not having a philosophy background, or having forgotten things that she once learned, we talked about it a bit and I gave her some things to read. We mainly talked about some of the major philosophical background to much of what was going on in theology during the Middle Ages. Then it struck me: maybe THAT'S what I could do a lecture series on. As Reformed, we consistently turn to the theologians of the 16th century as authorities and guides to how we think about theology. First part: trace the major philosophical influences from the Greeks through the late Middle Ages/early Enlightenment period. Second part: trace the major philosophical developments from the Enlightenment to today, noting how 16th century thought could inform responses to these developments. In fact, a couple of months ago a friend from church suggested something very close to this for a lecture series. Not knowing how much longer I'll be in Athens, perhaps I'll do it next semester.

The second recent event was an email from a former student. She's on the committee of a new, and the only, residential college at UGA (basically, a group of students that want to beef up their college experience) that sets up something they call the Dean's Tea Lecture series. Well, she wants me to come give a talk at one of their dean's teas. Should I do it? Who knows, it might be fun. What do I talk about? Beats me. "Talk about anything you want," her words. Not much guidance there. Talk about philosophy? About "Lost"? How about "Lost" and philosophy? That'd be pretty cool, no? Or how to play AKs from the small blind when you're short-stacked at a five person table with a raise and re-raise in front of you? Nah, probably not. It should probably be something with a significant degree of intellectual stimulation and an (somewhat) academic context. For some reason I'm leaning toward some sort of cultural application--movies, books, TV shows. Would that be a waste of their time (and, therefore, mine)? Philosophy and Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, how his Christian philosophy is reflected in his work? Give me some ideas, people.

"Mom, Tell Me How Smart I Am"

I gave an exam in one of my honors classes today. One of my students walks in and tells me how she had to call her mom last night for needed moral support in anticipation of the exam. Sweet. Perhaps I'm not losing my edge after all...

I think I'm losing my professorial edge.

Every spring and fall that I have taught thus far, I have managed to fend off the frequent, numerous, and annoying suggestion to conduct class outside. Until this week. This week, I had class outside TWICE. On Tuesday, we had class on the patio at an ice cream shop downtown (The Marble Slab or something of the sort); yesterday, we congregated on the grass in front of my building. What changed my mind about mixing the great outdoors with a learning experience? For the past week, it's been FREEZING in the classroom where I have these classes and, frankly, on beautiful days like the ones we've been having this week, my students don't need to do a lot of convincing to get me to trade a cold spot in an old moderately lit room for a sunny spot on the lawn.

Freedom of the Tortured Soul

When I read those psalms of David where he appeals to the LORD for deliverance from his pursuers, I often overlook their application to my own life. I mean, when am I ever pursued by enemies hounding me as David was? While not intending to engage in purely "spiritual" exegesis here, the fact is that sin is an enemy that loves to pursue and hound me at every turn, and it is all too easy, in a real and yet ultimately perverted sense, to want to be caught by it but to resent and despise the capture. In these times, the soul is enslaved by sin as master and is tortured by the tension it brings.

In these times it is hard for me to grasp (existentially, rather than intellectually) Paul's teaching in Romans 6 and 7 about what is true of us in union with Christ (the "indicative") and what he urges us to do in response (the "imperative"). In Christ we have been united with him in the likeness of his death,

knowing this, that our old self was crucified with him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin. (6:5-7)

Even so, consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to god in Christ Jesus.... For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace. (6:11, 14)

and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. (6:18)

Yet, in the midst of these truths, Paul urges us to not be under the mastery of sin.

Therefore do not let sin reign in your moral body that you should obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness.... (6:12, 13)

There must be, then, some sense in which we are already free from the bondage of sin but not yet completely free of its power, or else why include the imperatives to be slaves of righteousness rather than slaves of unrighteousness (6:18)? Indeed, Paul himself gives a clear picture of the redeemed soul tortured by sin:

For that which I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. (7:15)

For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the wishing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish. (7:18-19)

I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? (7:21-24)

There is, of course, an answer: "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (7:25) It is a good answer. It is the only answer. But it is often difficult to experience this freedom, this victory, in one's life when pursued daily --and daily captured -- by sin. In addition to being reminded of Paul's answer, how can it be applied to our lives? It is all too easy to feel alone to work out how the law of the mind wrestles with the law of the flesh.

My pastor is in the midst of a long series on the Holy Spirit, and it has been nice to be reminded that the Person of the Spirit applies the work of Christ in our lives. Reading on in Romans,

However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. (8:9)

for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live. For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. (8:13, 14)

And in the same way the Spirit also helps in our weakness.... (8:26)

Although it is easy for me to act as if I am left to fight off the enemy on my own, that simply is not true. It is not part of the indicative, because the Spirit is there to lead me in the imperatives. Just as David entreated the LORD to be his deliverer, so we must entreat the Spirit to be ours on a daily basis. We must not only look to the work of Christ; we must also look to the work of the Spirit in applying the work of Christ to our lives.

The Idiot Box Confessional

Okay, so I watch Project Runway. But it's not my fault. (Denial.) Alisha made me watch it after Lost. I can't be held responsible for my actions. That being said, I suspect it's a toss-up between Michael and Jeffrey. Laura may be in line for another breakdown, and Uli has a one-track I-live-in-hot-weather design mind. Granted, Jeffrey finds it hard to break out of his edgy style, but he's shown more promise than Uli (or Laura, for that matter). Although Michael hasn't won as many as Jeffrey, he has consistently impressed the judges in each performance. I'm looking for Michael to win this season, if only because Jeffrey is portrayed as such a jerk on the show.

The other week I got caught up in a marathon of VH1's Tommy Lee Goes To College. I know, I know, but would I watch it if it weren't interesting? Probably, but it was still pretty interesting. Watching him struggle through chemistry reminded me of the C's I got in that stinkin' class. And seeing him in the Nebraska marching band outfit trying to march and play quads at the same time: priceless.

Another silly "reality" show that I find captivating and hilarious is A&E's Gene Simmons Family Jewels. His son is absolutely hysterical and all of them together are a riot. Apparently Gene and "wife" Shannon Tweed have been together and rearing two kids for 20+ years, but Gene refuses to marry her. He continues to hold true to his rock 'n' roll ideology, publicly surrounding himself with beautiful young women at every opportunity, and attempting to instill the same ideology in his son, who doesn't seem as gung-ho about it as Gene. Thankfully. I fault him for the ideology, but he shows a rarely seen and purposeful consistency between his beliefs and his life.

I am fascinated by magicians' performances and love to see the crazy and amazing things they come up with. I got to see Penn & Teller in Athens years ago and was floored by the creativity of their stunts. I have been incredibly fascinated by the street magic of A&E's Criss Angel Mindfreak. This guy is a performance artist to the end, is a lot of fun to watch, and does some amazing tricks. Of course, they might not be that amazing to someone who can figure out how he does them, but I ain't one of those people.

Lost. October 6. I can't wait!

Pictures Old and New

Mom sent me some old pics of my dad and his brother, and I used one to add to a couple of others you've already seen for this little montage. The top one is my dad and his older brother (1943) -- you know the other two.

Engrish

Thinking about Leeroy Jenkins got me thinking of other internet phenomena, like "All your base are belong to us" (from a Japanese video game--you can see the opening scene here), which got me thinking about Engrish in general, which took me to the clothing section of Engrish.com, which really made me laugh a lot. I'm thinking of getting the Cookie t-shirt:

IT GATHERS WITH ALL, AND HAS A PARTY.
THE TIME OF THE SNACK IS HAPPY.

Indeed. There's at least 6 months' worth of Quotes of the Day waiting for release.

One thing is for certain, I never couldn't get a lot of clothes shopping done in Japan...

Darth Weirdo, et al.

So, I'm walking downtown this afternoon, turn the corner heading for the Arch(es), and what do I see? Some guy with an acoustic guitar wearing a purple cape, a Darth Vader helmet that looked like it was made of cardboard and aluminum foil, matching shiny shoulder pieces, and a pair of Chuck Taylors. What the heck.

And what are all of these little black spots on the sidewalks? Gum? It's gotta be something that would stick to the concrete, but there are an awful lot of these spots. Has that much gum been consumed? Perhaps it's not a lot of gum, given the traffic that the sidewalks take, but I just don't see that many people chewing it. Maybe I should get some samples and send them to a lab.

I keep forgetting to mention that I've been making whole wheat bread using Mitch's bread machine. It's turned out really good so far, but it goes bad too quickly. No preservatives and all. Guess I'll have to keep it in the freezer, but I'm scared of freezer burn. Freezer burn vs. mold--that's a tough one. The last loaf I made was a scrumptious whole wheat and oatmeal bread. Mmmmm!

Speaking of the kitchen, I bought a $40 8-inch chef knife the other week. I was just so tired of not being able to keep a sharp blade on the cheap-piece-of-junk that I'd been using, though I wasn't so tired of it that I was going to pay $100 for a knife. I just hope I don't damage it when I sharpen it. That would really stink.

Leeeerrroooooy Jeeeeennkiiiiiins!

Jeff showed me this clip a while back. It had me crying from laughing so hard then; it does now. For any of you who have ever played a multi-player computer game, especially if you've played one over the internet, this is choice stuff. Instead of posting the video, I'll send you to the Warcraft Leeroy Jenkins site, where you can check it out.

According to this Wikipedia article, the video was admittedly staged. But that didn't stop it from becoming the internet meme it did. What makes it so timeless is how it reflects the serious study that a group of people could give to something like a video game--tactics, strategy, planning--and our (probably largely correct) picture of pasty-white geeks sitting around computer consoles with headsets on in hour number five of online play. And, then, there's Leeroy Jenkins. "Let's do this." Less talking and more action. A character in a game, but a battle cry against those who spend half their days in front of the game. A classic contrast between one who plans for an action to such an extent that the planning itself prevents the action it is intended to produce and one who acts with insufficient planning or preparation, letting the chips fall where they may.

This became such an internet meme, it even made it on a "Jeopardy!" question:

"Why Aren't There Any Girls For You To Marry?"

A couple of Sundays ago, as I walked through the church doors I was greeted by the big smile and big hug of a five-year-old friend of mine. We stood there in silence for a second, she plays with my bowtie, then she asks in typical five-year-old fashion: "Mr. Bryan, why aren't there any girls for you to marry?"

Now, the thing about this question is that I like it a lot better than the usual, "Why aren't you married yet?" This latter question is more uncomfortable because it puts the spotlight on you. It suggests that you don't have your act together. Or that you haven't asked enough girls out. That you are like this, that you haven't done that.

The first question, on the other hand, takes some of the spotlight and shines it outside of you. It focuses more on the immediate environment rather than on the individual operating in that environment. Of course, the spotlight is never completely off of you, you're not ever in the clear. But, then, you don't feel like a total loser, either.

Now, I'm not suggesting that she was right to put it that way. I just liked it better. It didn't make me wince. Or go home and ball up in a fetal position in the corner.

Pimp My Blog

Well, I got tired of the old format, so I changed it up. The code for this template is much easier to work with. Plus it's got a bit of a cleaner look. But I can't figure out how to make those dumb embedded videos smaller. I'll probably just delete them, since they don't work that well anyhow.

More changes to come...as soon as I finish grading and watching whatever is left of the Georgia-South Carolina game.

Frame On Worship

I've been reading John Frame's (shorter, so I hear) book on worship, Worship in Spirit and Truth. In the midsection of the book, he discusses the RPW and develops some ideas about the worship service over against what he calls the (English) Puritan view.

Certainly, the regulative principle should not be used, as some have used it, to enforce traditionalism in worship. Both in Scripture and in church history, the regulative principle has been a powerful weapon against the imposition of human traditions in the worship of God....

Certainly the regulative principle is a charter of freedom, not a burdensome bondage. The regulative principle sets us free from human traditions, to worship God his way. It limits our choices the way a fish is limited to its watery habitat. When we break out of those limits, we discover death awaiting us, not freedom. To deny the regulative principle is to rebel against our loving Creator and then, paradoxically, to find ourselves in miserable bondage to human dogmatism.

In the remainder of this book, ... I shall present the regulative principle as one that sets us free, within limits, to worship God in the language of our own time, to seek those applications of God's commandments which most edify worshipers in our contemporary cultures. (45-46)*

So far, so good. Frame has caught some flak for this book, so I want here to make clear that he is quite serious about following Scripture regarding what our worship should be like. In the chapters that follow, however, he says things that I'm not so sure about.

He consistently contrasts his application of the RPW with what he takes to be the "minimalist" Puritan view and its narrow interpretation of the RPW. For instance, discussing the parts of the worship service, he claims that the Puritan view offers no scriptural warrant for them since there is no particular, specific place where scripture lists the parts of the worship service.

If a particular practice accords with the regulative principle, surely, it must follow a more specific scriptural command than, say, 1 Corinthians 14:26.... The regulative principle, [the Puritans] held, requires us to find biblical warrant for each of these elements.... The most serious problem [with this approach] is that ... Scripture nowhere divides worship up into a series of independent "elements," each requiring independent scriptural justification. (52-53)

Certainly [the New Testament] gives us no list of elements in the technical sense of Puritan theology--actions requiring specific scriptural authorization, as opposed to circumstances or applications that do not. (54)

I think Frame here is (or, at the very best, in danger of) setting up a strawman (i.e., a distorted, easily knocked down position) of the Puritan perspective. What's more, he doesn't cite any place where this Puritan view is supposedly advanced. That's probably because he will not easily find it. And if he does, I suspect (from what albeit limited reading I've done on it) that it will nevertheless be a minority Puritan position.

Okay, enough of what he says about other positions. What about his? One principle he gets a lot of hermeneutical mileage out of is the notion of the intelligibility of the worship service and frequently cites 1 Cor. 14 as proof-text.

...worship should be intelligible. It should be understandable to the worshipers, and even to non-Christian visitors (1 Cor. 14, especially vv. 24-25). And intelligibility requires contemporaneity. When churches use archaic language and follow practices that are little understood today, they compromise that biblical principle. (67)

Intelligibility? No problem. That it requires contemporaneity? It depends on what you mean. If contemporaneity refers to the first part of the conjunction that follows ("When church use archaic language"), I can see the point. In another place, he mentions the churches use of Latin. If this is what he means by "archaic," fine. Even if he means the "thees" and "thous," I can see the point. But if it refers to the second part ("follow practices that are little understood today"), I'm not so sure. One thing I like about our session is that during the service there is often an attempt to instruct us on why we are engaging in such-and-such element of the service. Why we do what we do in the order in which we do it might be little understood, but there is a good reason for it and we ought to be instructed in that.

To be fair to Frame, he comments: "Most of the historic practices of the church are quite intelligible and can be stated in contemporary language" (67). If this is all he's getting at, contemporaneity in a broad sense, I'm on board. But as is evident later on, it's not all he's getting at. In the context of intelligibility, he says:

Content [of the worship service] is communicated through body language, style, the choice of popular rather than technical terms, well-known musical styles, etc. All in all, it seems to me that the relevant considerations favor an informal service with a friendly, welcoming atmosphere and contemporary styles in language and music.... Determining the most intelligible form of worship requires us to ask what people in a particular culture most easily listen to and understand.... (83-84, my emphasis)

This is what he's getting at. He uses his "intelligibility requires contemporaneity" principle to defend the use of popular styles of worship, styles that appeal to contemporary culture. (For instance, he says that "if the church takes this principle seriously, it will necessarily encourage changes in musical styles and language in order to communicate with new generations" [117].) This is not contemporaneity in a broad sense but in a rather narrow sense. He does add that "we are not asking that question to satisfy anybody's taste; we are asking it so that we may be more faithful in communicating God's word clearly" (84). Okay, but does a drum set communicate God's word more clearly than a piano? Do praise choruses communicate more clearly than the psalms? I sincerely doubt it. But his use of his principle leads him to answer Yes to these questions. The style of worship will also affect the content of what is communicated, not just the way in which it is communicated. It is far from clear to me that a praise band will communicate the fact that we are entering the presence of Almighty God to give him praise and receive his grace in the sacrafice of ourselves.

Of course, this assumes a particular goal and context of worship that Frame shares but that he doesn't seem to think is paramount.

But we should avoid slavish imitation of older practices without attention to the matter of communication. To say this is merely to call us back to our fundamental task, which Jesus set forth in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20)--the task of discipling, baptizing, and teaching all nations. That divine mandate, rather than any human traditions, must ultimately guide our decisions about the order of worship. (67, my emphasis)

Here I just have to disagree with Frame. Is the Great Commission a mandate of the church? Of course it is. Should it be the mandate that guides our decisions about worship? I don't think so. I am much more inclined to agree with Meyers when he says that the worship is primarily a matter of covenant renewal, not of evangelizing the nations. More specifically, he suggests that the goal of the worship service is the Lord's Supper, a meal signifying our intimate communion with God in Christ. Its trajectory is not outsiders but insiders, those who have been redeemed by the Blood. Does this mean there is no evangelical aspect to worship? Not in the least. But it is not what should be the ultimate guide as to what worship is or how it should be done. To put it in Aristotelian terms, evangelization is a subordinate goal, not the final goal, of worship.

This post is already getting long enough, but there is one more thing that I think is related to the communication issue. Commenting on what he calls the "reenactment of redemption" liturgy ("a certain order of worship: the forgiveness of sin, consecration of the forgiven sinner through the ministry of the word, fellowship with God in the Lord's Supper" [68]), Frame says that

worship arranged around the same thematic structure week after week can easily lose its power to communicate the freshness of God's truth. And it is difficult within that structure (though, of course, not impossible) to find ways of emphasizing other biblical themes, such as the reality of God and his attributes, the deity and humanity of Christ, the Resurrection, the doctrines of calling, adoption, and sanctification, stewardship of possessions, sexual purity, and so on.

Furthermore, an important theological point is obscured by the reenactment liturgy. That is that redemption is in the past, accomplished once for all. The reenactment liturgy somewhat obscures the fact that we enter worship, not as lost sinners confronting a wrathful God, but as "saints" (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2, etc.). (68)

Once again, the point of worship is key. Is it to preserve the "freshness of God's word"? Is it to teach theological doctrines? No. Again, I take these to be subordinate goals of worship. Such a "reenactment liturgy" is precisely what Meyers (and, from what I understand, Michael Horton does something similar) argues for in his covenant renewal view. (Perhaps I'll get a chance to say more about that sometime.) The reality of God and his attributes come into play in the call to worship the King of kings and Lord of lords. The deity and humanity of Christ and his resurrection are presented to us in material form in the Lord's Supper. The doctrines of adoption, sanctification, and that we come before God as saints saved by the blood of Christ are explicit in the corporate confession of our sins. The stewardship of possessions is emphasized in the giving of our tithes and offerings. There is a logical progression to the service because there is a logical progression to coming before our LORD and Savior.

Frame's conclusion is not to do away with the elements of a "reenactment liturgy" but instead to change up the order. For instance:

Why, for example, should we not begin a service in praise to the risen Christ, and then at a later point recall that he was raised for the sake of our justification, our forgiveness of sins?... Why should we not begin with a sermon about God as the Creator of all things, then sing praises to his greatness and his love for his sinful creatures? (71)

If the point of worship is to simply have these elements (or at least some of them) as part of our service, then there is really no reason not to implement his suggestions. Once again, then, determining the point of worship is central. Can the progression of a "reenactment liturgy," repeated week after week, lose its power for us? Well, we can lose sight of its significance, just as we can lose sight of the significance of the Lord's Supper. Does this mean that we should partake of the Supper on a quarterly instead of weekly basis? Absolutely not. Rather, we should train our hearts to dive into the significance of our worship, including the way in which it is ordered. As we enter into our corporate worship of God, we should be reminded in its very order and progression of who God is, who we are, the basis upon which we can enter boldly into his presence, and the comfort of communing with him.

* Although I've left stuff out, in each case I think what remains accurately reflects what Frame is getting at.

Fuzzy Blue Slippers

My wonderful mom scanned and emailed some old pics of Colin and me. Here's the one I referred to in an earlier post:

Now, are these boys cute or what?

I included this one, because some of you might recognize that green lazyboy. Yep, it's the one I've had in my apartments for the past 10 years. It still rocks*.

* pun intended