Forgetfulness is not an excuse. It is a confession.

I forgot to put on deodorant this morning after my shower. It wouldn't have been so bad if I weren't walking to class in the 90+ degree heat and humidity of NE Georgia. Thankfully, I put on a clean shirt for class, which masked the stinkiness. I'm at home now, roundtrip from campus, and the mask is now off.

Twice during the last couple of weeks or so I caught myself in potentially embarrassing public situations with my fly zipper down. Once was after class--the zipper must've been down for at least an hour while I was lecturing. The other time was at Miriam's wedding--I noticed it on the way to the refreshments and deftly fixed the situation while pouring a glass of ice cold water.

This past weekend Kathryn and I went down to Thomasville (GA) for Miriam's wedding and then over to Graceville (FL) to see her grandparents and (for me) more family. We spent a wonderful Friday night in Macon with Stephen and Christian (and kids), where Kathryn and Christian graciously put up with my and Stephen's shenanigans. It's been a long time since we've seen each other, so we replayed much of the silliness that we stored up during the two years we were roommates. Then down to Thomasville Saturday morning for perhaps the shortest wedding I've ever been to--and I've been to (and in) a lot. But, I'm not complaining, for waiting on the other side of the ceremony was some good Georgia BBQ.

That pig looked--and tasted--mighty fine.

Some shenanigans (yes, I'm using that word a lot in this post) from Gina (above) and Val (below) at the reception. It was nice having the old Mellow Mushroom crowd back together again (sans Oren and Jenny, sadly).

Miriam and Meredith

What's that Thomas up to, anyway?

The Beautiful Bride

But, as far as I'm concerned, not to be matched in beauty to this lovely lady!

After the reception, it was off to Graceville. We took the highways rather than the interstate, but I must have been thinking interstate 'cause I got me a speeding ticket once we hit FL. The trooper was nice enough to write the ticket for the minimum speed (I'll omit how much over the limit I was going), which brought down the price a good bit. But points will still go on my license, which will likely up my insurance premium. I'm thinking traffic school is a good option at this point. But apart from that unfortunate snafu, we had a wonderful visit with everyone.

Oh, yeah, I hadn't mentioned that Kathryn got back from Ethiopia safe and sound. Well, she did. And she got me this cool mug and some yummy Ethiopian coffee to go in it!

Goodbye Mr. Waldheim

Kurt Waldheim died today. Honestly, this doesn't really hold much significance for me except that the only reason I know who Kurt Waldheim was is because of Lou Reed's "Good Evening Mr. Waldheim" from the New York album, which I haven't listened to in quite a long time.

A Blessed Union? Part II

Mapping Out Biblical Language

The PCA report claims that FV is contradictory to the Westminster Standards and (thus?) “strikes at the system of doctrine contained in them” (II.D., p. 2224, lines 37-38). The report acknowledges that “it is certainly possible to say more than our Confession does about biblical truth, but this should not necessitate a denial of the vitals of our faith” (Preface, p. 2203, lines 10-11). The “vitals of our faith” as referring to the Standards is not problematic in the report, since they acknowledge that scripture takes precedence over the Standards. I take the committee to mean here that the Standards are vital to the faith of the PCA as a denomination that holds to them as a faithful exposition of scripture and as a doctrinal guide. I’m not sure what else it could mean without elevating them over scripture.

The report only argues that FV is contradictory to the Standards; it does not argue that FV is contradictory to scripture. But the implication is there implicitly, even if the committee does not mean to or is not intending to draw the implication.

1. FV is contradictory to the Standards.
2. The Standards represent a faithful exposition of scripture.
3. Any faithful exposition of scripture should not (will not?) contradict another faithful exposition of scripture.
4. Therefore, FV is not a faithful exposition of scripture.

Premise (2) is qualified by the committee when they say that more could be said about scripture than the Confession says, which I take to be an acknowledgement that another faithful reading of scripture is possible. Premise (3) really isn’t all that problematic, either, especially given a sufficiently strong reading of contradiction. It seems reasonable to demand that a faithful exposition not be denied by another faithful exposition; if that were the case, either one of the expositions is problematic and not really a faithful exposition or scripture itself is problematic in allowing for contradictory faithful expositions. If, for the purposes of considering the legitimacy of the claim, we assume that the expositions are indeed faithful, we are forced to conclude that scripture is problematic. But that is not an option, so the claim seems to be a reasonable one.

The problem with the argument, and with the report, is premise (1). On a sufficiently strong reading of contradiction, FV would have to be an outright denial of the teaching of the Standards. For instance, if the standards said that the elect cannot fall away from their election and FV said that the elect can fall away from their election, and “elect” and “election” had the same meaning, this would be a contradiction. We need that middle part for the contradiction to hold; otherwise, we just have a difference between the two views—a considerably weaker relation than contradiction and, importantly, one that at least allows for the possibility of compatibility.

It is this lack of common reference and context that prevents the committee from making good on their conclusions about FV and the Standards. When discussing election, for example, the report claims that

The 1646 chapter title “God’s eternal decree” emphasizes the unitary and comprehensive nature of God’s divine plan. Thus views which juxtapose “election from the standpoint of the covenant” with the Standard’s decretal view of election, offering this as an alternative and superior way of thing about (e.g.) the visible church, the sacraments and assurance are not only forsaking the language of the Standards, but undermining its theology. (I.D, p. 2212, lines 27-31, emphasis added)

The “thus” bothers me. Just because the views are different, which is all they have established, while possibly amounting to a juxtaposition, does not amount to a forsaking or undermining. It would only if the decretal view of election were denied by the covenantal view, which would happen only if election were being understood in the same way, which it isn’t. The whole point is that the language of election is used differently (at some points) by the biblical authors than the Standards have it; this fact alone blocks an inference to FV being contradictory to or destructive of the Standards’ systematic theology. The FV account of election is an alternative way of understanding biblical language, and it may or may not be taken as a superior way of understanding it; the report has that much right. But this doesn’t automatically make it a denial of decretal election. Given that the FV guys consistently insist that they personally do not deny decretal election, I think they are smart enough to not let such a denial make its way into FV theology. (But perhaps I’m being overly charitable here.)

The next paragraph in the report:

Moreover, to affirm the Standards, and then redefine the terms used in the Standards, is not to affirm the Standards. For example, to affirm the decretal view of election, and then to say that the Bible teaches that the elect may fall from their election, is to set the Bible over against the Standards. The committee holds that by receiving and adopting the Westminster Standards as containing the system of doctrine taught in Scripture, we are saying that the terms used in the Confession faithfully represent what is taught in Scripture. (I.D., p. 2212, lines 33-38)

Ah, I thought I’d heard enough about people “redefining” terms when N. T. Wright was all the controversy rage. Nope. If by “redefine” we mean “add to the definition of,” then, yes, there is redefinition going on. This is not what the committee means by “redefine,” but this is all that is going on. Another minor point: isn’t there some important sense (but not one intended by the committee) in which we ought to “set the Bible over against the Standards”? Sure, “the terms used in the Confession faithfully represent what is taught in Scripture,” but it is not exhaustive in its representation. The Standards do not contain the doctrine taught in Scripture. The committee acknowledges as much when they say in the Preface of the report that much more can be said of scripture than the Confession includes. When FV says that the Bible teaches that the elect may fall from their election, the are not using the terms as the Confession uses them, though they are using terms that the Confession uses. The “elect” are viewed from the ground-level, historical, covenantal perspective as those in covenant with God: those who have been baptized in Christ, adopted into His family, joined to His Body of which He is the Head, and living faithfully in light of covenantal obligations.

Returning to Horton’s relief-map analogy from a previous post, is there a way of overlaying the decretal atlas map onto the covenantal topographical map? In other words, is there a way of describing and understanding God’s work from two different yet compatible perspectives? A term can have different meanings yet have the same reference: “philosophy professor” and “Colin’s brother” have the same reference, namely, me (for the purposes of this example, we will overlook the likely fact that these phrases might also refer to someone other than me), but they mean different things because of the context within which they most appropriately belong (e.g., work context and family context). They refer to the same thing but signify different things, and it is by virtue of their reference that they are not contradictory but compatible. Could it be the case that the term “election” as used by systematic theology and “election” as used by biblical theology has the same reference and yet signifies different things? If so, they would be different by virtue of their signification and yet compatible by virtue of their common reference.

If such an overlay were possible, we should expect it to look a little bit weird. Sometimes FV looks a little bit weird. That’s because it’s asking us to change the perspective to which we’ve grown accustomed. But I’m not yet convinced that this perspective amounts to a denial of other perspectives.

A Blessed Union?

In the wake of much of the controversy that has been surrounding this “Federal Vision theology” business for the last several years and in anticipation of the PCA report on said “theology” to be discussed at this year’s General Assembly, I have once again returned to read the dusty books on my shelf and some of what is being passed around the internet. Although I’ve read and thought a fair bit about many of these issues, I haven’t yet attained that level of diligence and discipline to document the results that some of my more precocious brothers have done. Nonetheless, reading over the GA Committee report has me going back to some previous thoughts on the subject, a distinction I made there, and what all of this has to do with biblical and systematic theology.

The report is clear that the committee believes their (questionable, in my mind) interpretation of the Federal Vision (FV) guys is contradictory to the Westminster Standards. This passage is representative (substituting “covenant and election” with other issues discussed in the report):

But it is evident that the version of covenant and election taught by the NPP [New Perspective on Paul] and FV is incompatible with the views of the Westminster Standards. In fact, these two approaches to covenant and election are not complementary ways of looking at the biblical data, but irreconcilably contradictory alternative accounts of the biblical data. (p. 2212, lines 21-25)

In my previous thoughts on FV, I suggested that the difference between what they are saying and what their critics think they are saying hinges on the difference between a human-historical perspective of these theological themes and an eternal-decretal (“God’s eye”) perspective of them. The FV guys are speaking (for the most part) from within the context of the former; their critics, the latter. I think that this distinction can be mapped pretty faithfully onto the difference between biblical (covenantal) theology and systematic theology. What I take FV to be doing, though not explicitly as far as I know, is to try to understand biblical language in an historical, covenantal theological way. What I take the Westminster Standards to be doing is to understand biblical language in a decretal, systematic theological way. And, to the committee, ne’er the twain shall meet.

What I suggest is that we see the FV controversy as a symptom of deeper pathology in our theological system. The sometimes schizophrenic way in which we treat biblical theology and systematics in the same departments in our seminaries is nothing new, and our failure to adequately integrate the two approaches to scripture is to me the subtext behind what has been going on for years regarding NPP and FV (though, as a subtext, it won’t explain without remainder all aspects of the controversies). In so far as the biblical data is in view for both approaches, and in so far as FV makes use of systematic theological terminology, I see FV as at attempt to integrate biblical theology and systematics, to address terminology that has long been the province of systematics from a covenantal perspective.

One of the reasons that I think this integration is what FV is doing is that they repeatedly (ad nauseum it sometimes seems) stress that they are not saying anything contradictory to the deliverances of systematics. But, they are saying something different from the way we’re used to hearing them. This gives us pause, as well it ought, but rather than get out the pitchforks and firebrands we ought to charitably understand whether the two are different yet compatible.

I wonder, for instance, what they would think of the kind of integration I am talking about that Michael Horton is doing in Covenant and Eschatology. Horton recognizes the tension between biblical theology and systematics—the fragmented nature of the former, vies for superiority, failure to see the two as interrelated. Covenant and Eschatology is his attempt to lay out a roadmap for bringing the two together (among other aims).

No more concrete category can unite history and eschatology, the individual and the community, divine and human agency, than the scriptures’ own method of contextualization: the covenant. (16)

Furthermore, a biblical-theological understanding of covenant ties things together in a systematic theology whose relations are often strained: ecclesiology (the context of the covenant), theology proper (the covenant maker), anthropology (the covenant partner), christology (the covenant mediator), soteriology (the covenant blessings), eschatology (the covenant’s consummation). (17)

Far from displacing christology or a particular doctrine, such as justification, from centrality, “covenant” becomes the context in which such crucial and definitive doctrines find their fullest force. (18)

“Covenant” could be elaborated in a biblical-theological manner, by tracing the specific arrangements throughout redemptive history, and it could developed systematically by organizing the material in their thematic relations. Thus, for instance, this federal union with Christ could become the paradigm within which one could relate election, justification, sanctification, adoption, and glorification. In both biblical theology and systematic theology, the dialectic of whole and parts, never resting on one or the other, is always generating greater refinement as well as scope. (240)

This approach exchanges the one-dimensional map for a relief map, with raised peaks and indented valleys. It is theology not from a “God’s-eye” perspective, but from down on the ground, where one is never quite sure what looms over the horizon of the next mountain range until one arrives there. To be sure, there are directions, prophetic anticipations of what one will find, but the fulfillment always surpasses expectations. Thus, redemptive history cannot be reduced to a single picture, a unity without diversity…. But while relief maps are helpful for some tasks, one-dimensional freeway and street maps are helpful for others. Biblical and systematic theology keep each other in check, in the all-important effort to avoid both enthusiasm and dogmatism. Far, then, from the model which Professor Lindbeck has indentified as “cognitive-propositionalist,” Vos argues, “The Bible is not a dogmatic handbook but a historical book full of dramatic interest.” (241)

In order to forestall charges of guilt by association, I am not suggesting that FV and Horton are in the same camp. I don’t know if they are. For instance, I suspect that they are employing the covenantal framework in a different way to systematic-theological categories. But I also suspect (and it is little more than a suspicion at this point) that their overall approaches have important, deep similarities. They both reject an abstract-propositional approach to scripture (most often reflected in systematic theology) as the only or dominant one. They both focus on the historical-redemptive, covenantal thrust of scripture and its relevance to understanding systematic-theological categories. How this has been worked out practically (thus far) for both is different, but I wonder if they are nonetheless compatible in more than just the general ways I have suggested.

Daniel sent along some nice pics from his wedding day. Here are a few, the selection being heavily biased in favor of my nephews.


The photographer took a bunch of pictures of Caleb, who seemed to take readily to the camera. The cigar picture (above) is simply hilarious.

Happy little Nathan during the service.

I'm not sure what facial expression I'm putting on, but I really like this picture.

And, of course, the obligatory silly picture of silly guys doing silly guy things. Never fear: no liquids were actually spilled during this photo.

Fitted Sheets Are From The Devil

Okay, so maybe that's putting it a bit too strongly. But, good grief, I can't stand folding them. I can't even stand the thought of folding them. Just writing about folding them gives me the willies. Just writing about thinking about folding them makes me want to sit down and compose myself. Honestly, the prospect of folding fitted sheets is what keeps my sheets on the bed a week longer than they ought to be.

I've got a fitted sheet laying (or lying? No, sheets don't lie, they lay) laughing at me from atop my made bed. (Yes, mom, I made my bed today. Aren't you proud of your son--and of yourself?) What do I do to tame this raucous monster, this corner-bunched pile of unmanageable fabric? I do what anyone with an internet connection would do: I Google it.*
And I find these supposedly helpful directions:

Difficulty: Easy
Time Required: 5 minutes

1. Slip your hand into 2 top corners of the sheet.
2. With one hand inside each of the top 2 corners, fold the sheet (right sides together). Slip each of the top corners into one of the bottom corners.
3. Lay sheet on bed or table. Arrange and fold the corners neatly. Turn in selvage edges enough to make 4 straight sides.
4. Fold in half, then in half again. (All four corners will be stacked together, and sheet will be in a long strip.
5. Then fold the long strip in half, then in half (or thirds, depending on the size of the sheet) again to make a square.
6. Sheet should be a compact, neat square.
7. Smooth and place on shelf.

Difficulty: Easy. Time Required: 5 minutes. So far, so good. But then I get to Step 1. What do I do? Do I put one hand into both of the top two corners, or do I put one hand into one of the top corners and the other hand into the other top corner? It takes me nearly five minutes to figure out what the heck this step is requiring of me. I decide to go to Step 2 for clarification, and, lo! I get it: apparently, I'm supposed to put one hand into two corners. But how do I do that, at least without already folding it with right sides together? What appear to be distinct directions seem to me to be describing the same action. And, per Step 3, what in the world is a selvage edge?! Sheesh, I'm not going to satisfy my curiosity by looking that up on the internet.

But I soldier on, only to find another incomprehensible command (at least to this practically-impaired philosopher) in Step 2: slip each of the top corners that at the moment possess my hand into one of the bottom corners. Huh? What about the other bottom corner? Well, they're supposedly together at this point, so I guess it doesn't matter which one I choose. But if I put them into a bottom corner, the ends won't be lined up, will they? Was I supposed to have the sheet inside out the whole time? Do I have to start over now? It's taken me 20 minutes just to figure out what I'm being asked to do. Ack! Martha Stewart, HELP!

Well, here's what Martha has to say:

1. Hold the sheet widthwise and point your index fingers into the corners of the sheet.
2. Bring your fingertips together and match them exactly.
3. Turn one of the sheet corners over the other.
4. Put the sheet on a flat surface.
5. Turn the corners on the bottom over.
6. Fold the sheet into a rectangle.
7. Continue to fold until the sheet is the size you want it to be.

So, with Step 1, do I point (I'm guessing this means "put") my index fingers into all of the corners, or just the top corners? Well, since I've only got two index fingers, I'll go with the latter. Step 2, no problem. But Step 3: which corners is she referring to, here? And what does it mean to turn a corner over another if, per Step 2, they're already together? Do I stuff one inside the other? I'm outta here.

Now, I have to admit, at this point I haven't actually attempted to carry out these directions. I've only conceptualized them, turned them around in my head, played them as a movie in my brain. But males are supposed to be good at conceptualizing the manipulation of objects in space. What's the deal? Well, the manipulation of objects in space presupposes, at some level, adequate familiarity and experience with said objects, so perhaps I haven't had the requisite experience of fooling around with fitted sheets. I'll accept that.

But, I'm not satisfied. So, I continue my search and find a set of directions that, for whatever reason, make sense to me in both the abstract and in practice:

Difficulty: Easy

1. Wash and dry your sheets before folding and storing them.
2. Remove sheets from dryer while they are still warm so that they do not wrinkle. If the sheets are already cool, put them back in the dryer with a moist cloth for a couple of minutes.
3. Put your right hand in the right top corner of the sheet, and fold the left top corner of the sheet over your right hand.
4. Keep holding the sheet with your right hand and gather up a bottom corner, folding it over the right hand as well.
5. Take the remaining corner and fold it over your right hand. Fold the sheet into a square, then continue folding in half until you have reached the desired size.

Skipping Steps 1 and 2 (because I've already got them covered, not because I'm in the habit of folding dirty sheets), and already jaded by the difficulty level stated by the first set of directions, I find some clear (to me) directions. "Keep holding the sheet with your right hand...." Yes! I can conceptualize that. That makes sense. I know what to do with the sheet and with what hand to do it. I try it. It's working! I improvise, inserting Step 3 of the first set of directions and Step 4 of Martha's into Step 5 of the present ones, and I'm golden, Pony Boy.

Thank you, Google. Thank you.

* My students would eat me for breakfast if they knew I used "Google" as a verb.

Some excerpts from Chapter 11 of 100 Semesters...

In fact, there were many reasons my peers abandoned their Ph.D. work. Sometimes a combination of forces obstructed--momentarily or permanently--the writing of the dissertation. The lethargy born of several years of a seedy life darkened by the prospect of poverty was the first impediment.A kind of envy was another: of other people our age who went to school and would become doctors and lawyers, to wind up happily living in the suburbs or in townhouses. We seemed to progress only to the next ordeal. (114-115)

Envy. Between that and poverty, it's perhaps the more dangerous of the two, for it prevents one from taking joy from and being content where he is and in what he is doing--always looking elsewhere, always reaching for something else, never satisfied or content. (To be sure, one can be content and yet look and reach, but one cannot be unsatisfied or discontent and not wish for greener pastures--which, by the way, also have cow patties in them.)

But before I [finished the dissertation], I knew that I had to find a job teaching English at a college or university. In those halcyon days, a few years before the iron gates clanged shut and the job market for the humanities became the hugely depressing spectacle it is today, many departments were looking to enlarge their rosters of assistant professors. Colleges and universities had money, and the arts and humanities still enjoyed the considerable prestige that today they have seen ebb away. (117)

Ahhh, feels good having a Ph.D. in the humanities, don't it?

Off To Save The World

At least, that's the plan! Kathryn left yesterday on a missions trip to Ethiopia for two weeks to work with a medical team in the capital, Addis Ababa. Although I selfishly didn't want to see her go, God desires to see the nations come to him, to bring the world under his healing wings, and it is my prayerful hope that her team will be part of the ordinary means that God uses to bring about his extraordinary ends. May he bring healing to those dealing with HIV/AIDS through them and may his word be planted in their hearts! And I hope that it is far enough away from Somalia and high enough on the plateau to keep her away from trouble!

Feel free to play around with the map below. You can click on the markers, zoom in and out anywhere on the map, and drag the map to change the center location. Pretty darn cool, actually.