Pete's Blog

No effort whatsoever was made to ensure historical reliability of this story. The societal conditions in this story are purely there for the sake of advancing the moral of the story, not for advocating a certain societal hierarchy or suppression of opportunities for some.

Wade Crawford was a boy who was picked on for many of his early school years. His father was severely injured in a farming accident when he was young. It was difficult for his mother to find work, as women didn't have many opportunities back in those days. But the community knew what had happened to Mr. Crawford and compassionately gave her a position at the school. (It was very fortunate that Mrs. Crawford came from a wealthy background so she had the rare chance of being well educated and a woman, so she was actually qualified to teach.)

This didn't make it easy on Wade. It was bad enough that he was teased regularly for his father not working, but he was also teased for being the teacher's son. He hated it. He would go home crying from school, so his father would ask what was going on, but would be of little help. So when Mrs. Crawford would arrive home later from school, Mr. Crawford would tell her that Wade was upset, and she would go see him.

She would try to console him, saying, "You don't deserve this; it's not your fault."

Sometimes Wade would retort, "Mom, how can everyone be so mean to me? I don't understand why there isn't anyone who helps me."

"They're not all against you. They're scared of becoming the new targets. So they go along with the crowd. I'm sure that most of them would be good kids if you got to know them apart from the group as a whole."

"I wish someone were mean to them so they could know how it feels."

"Wade, you have such a good heart. I know you don't mean that. When you see someone hurting, though, remember how you feel now and try to help him. Someday you can be a hero if you help someone else. Don't be like those followers who stand with a crowd doing the wrong thing."

"Not now, Mom," he said in protest to her soothe-and-teach combination.

"Wade," she replied sternly. "I know you're hurting, but it's really important to remember that everything happens for a reason. So use this tough time to learn to stand up to bullies."

"I know, Mom. I will. Could we stop talking about this now?"

Wade really did take the lesson to heart, though. He would come to the realization that people broke into two categories, the bullies and the bullied. He wanted to stand for the bullies bullied (Updated).

With his father out of the picture for working on the farm, that put him and his three brothers on the front lines of doing what they could. So it was natural that they were always the strongest boys for their respective ages. And with his mother teaching, Wade had also developed a strong mind. He decided to practice law. He became very competent at his profession.

One day along his career, Frank, the owner and sole employee of an apple orchard came to him asking for his help. Frank (short for François), explained that he and Mrs. Kurt, a lady who had a stand in the local market selling pies, had reached a disagreement. His friends seemed to be doing very well, one had bought a new horse, another had taken his wife on a long voyage to visit England, and another had just acquired a field where he was planning on planting a vineyard. Seeing his friends' advancements, he thought that it might be time to raise the prices on his apples. Mrs. Kurt, who was his main customer, said that if he raised his prices, she would go to another orchard, since he wasn't the only one in the business.

Frank and Wade were friends so the former knew the latter's background, thus he appealed to Wade's sentiment, "We'd been in business this long, and this is how she reacts when I act on behalf of my business? It unfair. She's treating me like I'm disposable and insignificant. If I lose her, how will I provide for my family?" Strangely, Wade was persuaded by this. He saw Mrs. Kurt as the bully, and Frank and as the bullied.

He went to Mrs. Kurt and, using all the gimmicks he'd learned in his profession to be persuasive, he informed her that breaking business with Frank would result in significant legal repercussions. To add to the deception Frank had over Wade, Mrs. Kurt believed Wade. And she sought out the apples that Frank was selling, indeed, at the higher price, for fear of the punishment of not so doing.

--

I'm a poor writer so I suspect many of the details of the story don't seem plausible. For example, how could Wade be manipulated so easily, and how could Mrs. Kurt be so easily duped? And isn't it typical in stories for the person who's picked on in the beginning to be the protagonist in the end? I'm not deluded to think that the contents of this fiction are believable. But the essence of it is happening in our contemporary society with a twist.

The market price for manual labour is below what the workers' unions deem reasonable. So, with the protection of the provincial government, they threaten their employers. For example, if workers go on strike, an employer is not allowed to dismiss those workers and hire new ones. Imagine Frank had said that he wouldn't sell Mrs. Kurt any apples until she paid a higher price per pound of apples, and she wasn't allowed to go to any of the other orchards because of the sway of Wade Crawford. That's so unfair. It is likewise with unions getting the government to take their side against their employers and management. It's an unfair fight when it's the government plus the union versus the employer. In the end, the customer loses because prices go up, adjusting for the union's demands.

This has been fun. I think Mondays will become Sequences Day on my blog.

Anyway, the follow are the first twenty terms of a sequence:

1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 4, 6, 1, 5, 10, 1, 6, 15, 20, 1, 7, 21, 35, . . .

Same idea as the past two days. Describe the pattern of the sequence. Once you figure out the pattern, help me out with the behaviour of the mystical curve of best fit for this sequence at infinity. Is it infinity, or does it not exist? The derivative of the mystical curve of best fit, at infinity, like the function itself, is either infinite or does not exist.

If you use a search engine, please don't submit it in the comments. If it hasn't been solved at the time, Thursday I'll post a hint in the comments section, and Friday, I'll post in the comments section the solution.

If you ask a polar question (i.e., a yes/no question), I will probably answer it if it relates to this sequence.

Since the previous one was solved so quickly, I figured I'd put up a new one. Here are the first ten terms of a sequence.

1, 3, 7, 12, 18, 26, 35, 45, 56, 69, . . .

Same idea as yesterday, describe the pattern of the sequence. Also, since I'm not stating it this time, what would the magical curve of best fit for this one do at infinity? What would its limit be? What would its derivative's limit be?

If you use a search engine, please don't submit it in the comments. Thursday night, I'll post in the comments section the solution.

If you ask a polar question (i.e., a yes/no question), I will probably answer it if it relates to this sequence.

The following is a list of the first 106 (hint: note, not the first 100) terms of a sequence, {a(n)}.

1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12, 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 15, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 16, 17, 17, 17, 17, 17, 17, 17, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 18, 19, 19, 19, 19, 19, 19, 19, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 20, 21, 21, 21, 21, 21, 21, 21, 21, . . .

The pattern this sequence employs, if it is to contain each of the positive integers, must take on the form above, with no variation. However, if you were to deviate slightly, and neglect that rule, the sequence would be constructed purely on how you define a(1).

Three possibly interesting, yet useless, characteristics:

• The sequence is non-decreasing, that is, a(k)≤ a(k+1).
  
• The limit of the sequence at infinity is infinity, that is, lim_n→∞a(n)=∞.
  
• The sequences flatten as it approaches infinity, that is, in calculus speak, if a magical, continuous curve of best-fit could be drawn for the sequence, its derivative would be zero at infinity, lim_x→∞f'(x)=0, where f(x) is the function of the magical curve of best fit.
  

Describe the pattern of the sequence.

If you use a search engine, please don't submit it in the comments. Tomorrow, if no one's solved it, I'll post in the comments section a sequence that follows the same pattern, but not following the strict rule of containing all of the positive integers. I think you'll find it helpful. Wednesday night, I'll post in the comments section the solution.

If you ask a polar question (i.e., a yes/no question), I will probably answer it if it relates to this sequence.

I love math.

From Blog and Mablog:

[F]eminism, far from liberating women to compete with men on a level playing field, has actually resulted in a removal of many ancient constraints that provided protection for women—protection from one another. Feminism has not liberated women to get in there to race with the big dogs. But it has succeeded in multiplying the cat fights. Women don't compete with men. But they can be prevailed upon to compete with other women, in the presence of men, for the approval of men, or for the men themselves.

I took the quote out of context, though, it does speak for itself. Read the whole thing.

The proposal of the quote seems both logical and plausible, but not infallible. I can imagine a feminist saying, "That's simply not true." Anyway, I wonder about its validity. Plus, it was written by a man.

--

Doug Wilson, the author of Blog and Mablog, one of my favourite blogs, among other things, writes interesting narratives, they're parables. That's where this quote came from. He's a pastor, a professor, and an apologist. He did a series of debates with Christopher Hitchens (here's the only one with free audio that I know of, three parts: 1, 2, 3, and there's a transcript of all some of their written back and forth).

I am a conservative. As such, I am capitalistic in my thinking, though not a complete libertarian capitalist. Following are some of the truths which make me lean in such a direction. It is a quick list. I might think of others at another point.

1. Capitalism promotes wealth distribution based on merit.
   
2. Labour and natural resources are not the only economic resources in calculations of merit (e.g., a good idea can be very valuable, yet not cost a person a nickel).
   
3. Economics is not a zero-sum game.
   
4. A higher price in one (geographic) place (e.g., in one country) over another (e.g., the higher cost of medical care in the US over Canada, ignoring that the provinces catch the bill in Canada for its citizens) does not imply inefficiencies in the former.
   
5. Money not spent on consumption (e.g., what Bill Gates didn't spend in a year back when he was pulling in an income), and corporate profits are still productive, and can cause economic growth which includes job creation.
   
6. When the economy hurts, most feel it, rich and poor. (Refer to 3.)
   
7. Taxing the rich disproportionately to the rest of the population is a disincentive for working hard. (Refer to 1.)
   
8. The economy has a natural way of setting prices and wages: supply and demand.
   
9. When the government intervenes (e.g., minimum wages, price fixing typically taking the form of ceilings, subsidizing an industry) it creates inequalities which cause the economy to unnaturally shift, distributing wealth where the government deems fit, not where it is merited.
   
10. Government programs (e.g., running a war, universal healthcare, Universities), whether they're good or bad, do not maximize economic productivity. (This one needs a clarification. I haven't looked into this, but many economists have argued that WWII ended the Great Depression. I've never heard someone dissent from this conclusion. Government programs spend money. So they naturally stimulate the economy. The problem is that the government needs to make an assessment of where to spend the money. Individuals are better at making that decision than the government, which is I why I am a proponent of tax cuts across the board to handouts.)
    
11. Capitalism provides an incentive for people to work hard and give their all, while giving natural consequences for laziness and idleness.
    

Some further considerations. As stated above, I'm not a complete capitalist, in fact, I'm a Christian (surprise, surprise) and that has significant implications on the way I think about economics and politics. I know that there are drawbacks to capitalism. I will list some.

1. Since an economy produces maximum human employment when consumption is high, it can tend to promote consumerism, where people store up treasures on earth, blinding them from the greater treasures in heaven found in Christ.
   
2. Capitalism relies on the self-interest of individuals to keep the economy rolling, which can lead to self-absorption and self-obsession, and thus, neglect for other individuals.
   
3. People, though all created in the image of God, are not created equally able to earn wealth, for example, a mentally handicapped person has much less capacity to produce wealth than the average person, yet he should still be provided for, being an image bearer of God. (Actually it's really interesting to think about how God's image is reflected in someone who isn't able to think and communicate above a three-year-old's ability. Maybe it's the way that they are fascinated by everything. Maybe it's the way they are gentler than others. Any other ideas?)
   
4. Capitalism can easily give people an unnatural measure of success and a life well lived. People are on earth to glorify God, not inherently to make money.
   
5. Capitalism has no natural way of punishing immorality (e.g., murder, stealing, racism), so several government programs are necessary, in my mind, such as police departments, prisons and, more abstractly, a government to make law.
   
6. Self-interest could cause a person to live with a scarcity mentality, so his consumption would be lower than it could be, and if every individual behaved in this way, the whole economy would slow down, causing unemployment and poor wealth creation. (This is why WWII was effective at ending the Great Depression. It forced consumption where not enough was happening. I am willing to concede that a government stimulus package can work, but it depends on the situation.)
   
7. If an individual is rightly following his own self-interest, he would realize that having children, and taking care of a child once one is born, is disadvantageous, so capitalism is not able to naturally provide for children. (The question of how much the government should intervene, going against the parents' will, in a child's life is debateable, but I think in certain cases it's necessary. I will blog about this sometime in the near future.)
   

When all has been said and done, there are still two more reasons to go for a more capitalistic system than a more socialistic system for a country's economic policy. First, whether or not you have public healthcare (e.g., in Canada) or private healthcare (e.g., in the U.S.), or high taxes (e.g., France) or low taxes (e.g., the Caymen Islands), as long as people are choosing where to apply for work, where they're going to spend their money, what brand of shoes to buy, the economy is fundamentally capitalistic. There may be more or less socialistic intervention, but the fundamentals are capitalistic. Authoritarian communism failed in the U.S.S.R. and is being marginalized in China (every year I end up reading at least one article saying that China is becoming more and more capitalistic). Like Churchill saying, "democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time," capitalism, while it has some dangerous implications, is the only winner so far. (See the YouTube video below.)

Second, an economic system which is more capitalistic, as opposed to less, by implication minimizes the size of the government. In Christianity, we acknowledge that people are sinful, and whenever power is concentrated in certain institutions (e.g., governments) or individuals (e.g., dictators) dangerous outcomes may occur. Have you read 1^st and 2^nd Kings? It's something to consider, at least.

In terms of resources, the only one that immediately jumps to mind that I would recommend is a talk by Wayne Grudem on Why Do Poor Nations Remain Poor? There is also a handout to go along with it. Grudem also wrote a book on the issue called, Business for the Glory of God.

I guess upon second thought I think of a YouTube video that Justin Taylor showed on his blog a few days ago by Milton Friedman. Friedman's a libertarian and he's not a Christian (I'd argue that the two are mutually incompatible). Nevertheless, he and I would have a ton in common to talk about if we were in a room together. His mannerism reminds me of one of my math profs at Carleton, Professor Sam Melkonian. Here's a video of him talking about the benefit of applying capitalistic principles in economic policy:

A paedobaptist is one who says that the baptism of children is legitimate. In my experience, it's not very common in Canadian evangelicalism. It's more common in the US than it is here, especially among Calvinists.

They make many arguments, but I really only find two compelling. One is the origin of infant baptism. If the NT is thoroughly credobaptistic (i.e., the conviction of believer's baptism), where did infant baptism come from, especially since we have records of infant baptism going back to the mid-second century? This isn't the argument I want to challenge, but to direct a word against it, if the early Church were struggling as much as it was on justification by faith alone, the deity of Christ, the supposed eternal virginity of Mary, and other things in Scripture, it's no surprise they erred on baptism.

The other is the connection of circumcision and baptism. That is, the paedobaptist would argue, if children were circumcised in Israel, and since "you were circumcised . . . having been buried with him in baptism" (Co. 2:11-12), i.e., baptism is New Covenant circumcision, children should be baptized. I don't want to deal exhaustively with this one either, but here's a word about this argument: Do paedobaptists baptize their children on the eighth day? Do they only baptize boys? No. Yes, there's continuity between baptism and circumcision, but even the paedobaptist must acknowledge there's also discontinuity.

Also, paedobaptists say that the Lord's Supper corresponds to the Passover (at least reformed paedobaptists do). The whole family, children and all, ate the Passover meal in Israel. But who's allowed to eat the Lord's Supper? Only believers. So it would seem logical that the rites the Israelites practiced that correspond to New Covenant ordinances are reserved for the Church, believers only. But, I've now spent more time on this than I wanted to.

The objection that paedobaptists make to credobaptists that I want to deal with here is another argument from history. They say that children have been baptized for centuries and that only baptizing adults is a (relatively) new invention. I at one time found this argument convincing. Thinking upon it recently, though, I realized the poverty of the argument. For I would say back to them that their view of baptism is a relatively new invention as well.

In the NT, in Catholic teachings, in Luther's writings, and now in credobaptists' theology, a baptized person is always a saved person (or, at least someone thought to be saved). The Catholics believed that baptism saved its recipients. And Luther was simultaneously a paedobaptist and a credobaptist. He said that baptism was a sign of the faith of a person, but indeed, he baptized babies. Seem inconsistent? Almost. He believed in infant faith.

Their position is no less historically novel than the credobaptist's is. In fact, before Luther's day ended, there were Anabaptists (the historical root of the modern day Mennonites, surprisingly, not the modern day Baptists) he was responding to who were practicing what he and the Catholics called re-baptism (Anabaptists are re-baptists since the prefix "ana" is Greek for again). So there's as much historical precedence for credobaptism as paedobaptism.

This isn't a positive argument for credobaptism. In fact, only the connection between the Passover meal and circumcision with the Lord's Supper and baptism that I pointed out here is a positive argument for credobaptism. The others are answers to arguments that paedobaptists make. For a positive statement, read Piper on baptism. For other resources, read this blog interview between Justin Taylor and Steve Wellum on the relationship between baptism and the covenants (long, but so helpful). Also, listen to the three part (1, 2 and 3) debate between Tom Schreiner (credo) and David VanDrunen (paedo).

If you're interested here's a list of contemporary figures and their stance on baptism:

• Credobaptists:
  
  • Mark Dever;
    
  • Al Mohler;
    
  • John Piper;
    
  • John MacArthur;
    
  • Wayne Grudem;
    
  • C.J. Mahaney;
    
  • Mark Driscoll;
    
• Paedobaptists:
  
  • R.C. Sproul;
    
  • Ligon Duncan;
    
  • J.I. Packer;
    
  • Tim Keller;
    
  • Sinclair Ferguson;
    
  • John Stott;
    
  • Derek Thomas.
    

Perhaps, also of interest, here is the position of some historical figures (thus demonstrating my limited knowledge of Church history):

• Augustine (paedo);
  
• Anselm (paedo);
  
• Aquinas (paedo);
  
• John Calvin (paedo);
  
• Huldrich Zwingli (paedo);
  
• John Owen (paedo);
  
• Richard Baxter (paedo);
  
• John Bunyan (credo);
  
• Jonathan Edwards (paedo);
  
• Charles Finney (paedo);
  
• George Whitefield (paedo);
  
• J. Gresham Machen (paedo);
  
• D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (credo);
  
• William Carey (credo);
  
• Adoniram Judson (credo).

I wonder how long I could convincingly pretend to be colour blind.

I doubt I could for very long pretend to be deaf, physically disabled or completely blind (remember the challenge it was for Ziyi Zhang, in House of Flying Daggers?), but pretending to be colour blind might be doable. I wonder what fumbles would be the first give aways.

Maybe you've seen it already, but a new article has been released criticizing the ministry of Pastor Mark Driscoll. It rides on the heels of a column that Pastor John MacArthur wrote a while back, sometime in 2006 (one of the biggest problems with MacArthur's ministry's website is that none of the resources have dates on them). I don't want to quote much from either of these. By and large, I don't think they're helpful. They're primarily arguments from authority, that is, they pronounce judgment, maybe state a Bible verse, and then leave their word in the lap of the reader, not explaining why what Pastor Driscoll is doing is wrong.

For example, in the article I mention, Mrs. Cathy Mickels' article, her primary accusation against Driscoll is that he talks about sex. The whole time I was reading her article, I was wondering, Why does she have a problem with him talking about sex if the Bible talks about sex? It was true, he does talk about sex, but there's nothing wrong with that. That's why I don't want to quote too much from them.

At the same time, I find myself hesitant to endorse Driscoll, mostly because of the contempt he shows for his opponents, and the quantity of humour that he uses, from the pulpit. That said, I find it really easy to see faults in people, while looking past their strengths. And I certainly do that with Driscoll. So, I'm going to try to do the exact opposite hear by sharing what I respect in him.

He's frequently being praised for being theologically conservative, and I could join in that choir, talking about how the four doctrines I used to most enjoy talking about (baptism, spiritual gifts, God's sovereignty and gender) he and I would agree on—which I do greatly appreciate, but I want to point out another strength of his which goes less spoken.

The things that Driscoll is being criticized for are things that he thinks aren't forbidden in the Bible, which others might. He sees no evidence in Scripture that humour is wrong, so he tells lots of jokes from the pulpit. He sees Jesus insulting the Pharisees, so he openly mocks his critics and opponents from his pulpit (to be fair, I've never heard him do it by name). That said, he has an amazing confidence in the sufficiency of the Scriptures alone. If the Bible doesn't say it's wrong, it ain't wrong. We don't need tradition or culture to tell us what's right and wrong, or to tell us about God. Only the Bible has authority to speak on God, faith and practice.

I'll give an example. The Southern Baptists, whom Driscoll frequently praises, in most corners of their ministry have a vow of temperance (abstinence from alcohol). Driscoll says that since Jesus made wine, he's going to feel free to drink.

Another example. Many reformed pastors (e.g., Mohler, Piper) speak of not making pictures or paintings of Jesus because it borders on violating the Second Commandment, not to make an image of God (Ex. 20:4-6). Driscoll on the other hand, has worn T-shirts with Jesus' face on the front, saying that since God did have a face at one point, it's not blasphemy to try to capture that face in art.

Agree or disagree, Driscoll's example shows that the Scriptures are enough. That Truth changes everything. It means that you don't need to worry about whether it's wrong to have a vacation. You don't need to wonder whether you're sinning by taking two days off per week instead of one. Driscoll does a fantastic job of making that clear. He understands the relationship between the sufficiency of Scripture and the believer's freedom in Christ. I admire his desire to do only what the Bible tells him to do.

--

The title of this entry is not meant to imply that I am less of a sinner than Driscoll. I'm certain the opposite is true. But, as I'm sure he'd agree, he's also a sinner. In this post I'm trying to not focus on where I disagree with Driscoll, thus seeing the good in the sinner.

Update: There's been a bit of controversy on this post in the comments section, particularly over my assertion that Dr. MacArthur's column is largely an argument from authority. So please refer to the comments. If I haven't already, I will soon respond.

Update: I scratched off a chunk of the entry because it was unfair. See the comments for why this came about.

C.J. Mahaney asked Dr. Wayne Grudem a few questions and posted them with Grudem's answers (it's four parts: 1, 2, 3 and 4). One of the questions that Mahaney asked was what area of ministry Grudem was typically most tempted to feel discouraged in. At the end of his answer (I think this was the question that Grudem gave the longest answer to), he told this story (it's in the fourth part):

One event that still puzzles me concerns my book Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth (2004). I had been involved in the controversies over biblical manhood and womanhood for over 20 years at that point, and during that time I had compiled a list of 118 objections that egalitarians (evangelical feminists) had made to the biblical teachings on men's and women's roles in marriage and the church. I then researched and wrote detailed answers to those objections, and added a number of appendices that could not easily be found anywhere else, key documents on the controversy over men's and women's roles. Many evangelical leaders gave strong endorsements to the book.

I had hoped the book would provide a final answer to the manhood/womanhood controversy in the evangelical world, but instead I don't think it had much impact or visibility, due to some mistakes that were made so that it was not sent out for review to influential journals, and I didn't find this out until over a year later, when it was too late for reviews. I believe that God is still sovereign, and in his wise providence he will yet use this for good, but I don't understand it at this point. I leave it in the Lord's hands.

I'm very familiar with the book, so I know how significant it is for the book not to have been peer-reviewed. I remember listening to him talk about the book in 2003 with Mark Dever and sound very excited about it almost being done (though I only listened to the interview for the first time within the past year since I wasn't even a Christian when they had the interview). The book's free online and I refer to it whenever I have a question about the gender controversy going on within evangelicalism. It's super readable, and though scholarly, totally accessible to readers of all brands and types. Imagine working months and months, and years and years on something, and then seeing nothing come of it. I thank God that Dr. Grudem found enough encouragement in Romans 8:28 to go on.

I pray that I learn that when things don't go as I plan, that God is still sovereign, and that He means it for my good.

(HT: Justin Taylor)

Kim Riddlebarger (a guy, not a girl), a pastor who's best known (which is a relative statement since relatively few know him) for his work studying eschatology, in particular, defending amillennialism, wrote a funny blog entry today. He comments that Rick Warren has released some new Purpose Driven materials, and quotes Warren as saying that they arrived just in time for the financial crisis for people to find hope in the tough times. Dr. Riddlebarger then implies that it's a money grab.

Anyway, Riddlebarger satirises Warren's announcement, writing an ad for his own books. There's one line in there which I think is hilarious. Here's an excerpt from the satire, and I've emphasized the parts which contribute to his great line:

In these days of economic uncertainty, a proper view of the end-times is a must. To help you navigate these perilous times the Riddleblog reminds you of the two books written by its proprietor. If these uncertain times have you worrying about your job, retirement savings, and 401K, you need to buy both my books (multiple copies to give to all your friends and family) which will help you know what is going on, and will also ensure that I don't have to worry about these things. [Emphasis and hyperlink added.]

If you read the full post, you'll notice that Dr. Riddlebarger comes down very hard on Rick Warren. Just so you know that I wouldn't drink Jim Jones' kool-aid (i.e., that I don't automatically believe or agree with everything certain people say), I'd like to point out that Dr. Riddlebarger's approach doesn't seem to demonstrate Christian love. Rick Warren might have a low view of repentance (at least in application, probably not in word) and he might have a differing view of God's sovereignty than my own, but I don't have any reason to doubt that he's genuinely interested in the salvation of lost souls through his materials. If Dr. Riddlebarger does, he doesn't present it in this post. I think that he should give Warren the benefit of the doubt. (I made my thoughts aware on his blog post.)

--

I highly recommend a lecture that Dr. Riddlebarger delivered where he gives a couple of the best arguments for amillennialism. He also runs through a few of the objections that come up from this system. The lecture's about an hour long and then there's about ten minute's worth of questions and answers. He starts off with a long introduction, talking about the dangers of dispensationalism, the existence of popular dispensationalist materials and scholarly dispensationalist materials, his own books, and other stuff. It's good, maybe a bit repetitive, but if you only want to hear him talk about amillennialism, start at 23:43.

An anagram is a word or phrase formed by reordering the letters of another word or phrase. Here are some neat ones I found on a website:

1. Dormitory ↔ Dirty Room;
   
2. Listen ↔ Silent;
   
3. Astronomers ↔ Moon starers;
   
4. George Bush ↔ He bugs Gore.
   

There are others, but they're not quite as good.

Hemant Mehta (whom I've referenced once before on my blog) posted yesterday about prayer happening at President-elect Obama's inauguration. He started off saying:

A couple weeks ago, Barack Obama picked Rick Warren to deliver his Inauguration's invocation prayer. The gay community was (rightfully) mad. At the same time, Obama announced that Rev. Joseph Lowery would give the benediction prayer. Lowery is a little better on gay issues, but he still opposes gay marriage.

Atheists were mad that prayer was being used in the inauguration in the first place: Why was he mixing church and state? (We even filed a lawsuit.)

Then, later in the post wrote:

What's the problem?

There shouldn't be prayer at these government gatherings in the first place.

Many are public events funded by taxpayer money. They should be free of religion.

He concluded the post urging his readers to donate money to atheist organizations.

First, as I've said before on this blog, I don't think it's inconsistent to let religion inform your sense of morality in a democracy. It's a democracy so the people should choose people who will accurately represent them. So, obviously I don't have a problem with God-language, prayer or religious overtones occurring in official government proceedings and documents. That said, I still wanted to make a simple case for why religious elements are not logically inappropriate in a government that has a separation of church and state. So I commented,

You said there's no place for religion. Why's there a place for no religion (i.e., atheism), then? Government should function on a type of charitable pluralism, not a secularism where everyone is so scared of controversy that they cannot even ask what religion another person is.

The reality is that there are many religions. Assuming that atheism is true, and running government as though it were (i.e., devoid of God-reference), does not solve the problem. (Just as assuming Christianity is true, which I think is accurate, and christianizing government would not work either.)

Basically my method is that whenever a freethinker (i.e., an atheist) says there should be no God-language in a democratic government, I want to respond back, "How would you take it if I said, 'There should only be God-language'? Or, to phrase it another way, 'There should be no non-God-language—atheist-language' (since atheism means no God). Are you trying to force your worldview on me, now?" I got mixed reactions.

First, "Government should be free of interference from all religions. Atheism is no more a religion than science is a religion." Again, how is this different from a theist saying there should be no interference from atheists? The logic of this rebuttal is inconsistent.

Next, someone quoted this from my comment: "Why's there a place for no religion (i.e., atheism), then?" And asked, "Do you even know what you're saying? I sure don't." Fun, fun.

The last one that was obviously directed at me said,

Pete: we're not trying to add atheism to the ceremonies, we're trying to disentangle them from religion entirely. I'd be just as annoyed if the ceremony were anti-religious as I am that it is pro-religious.

The goal is neutrality.

This person seems to think that the only way to stay neutral is to have no religion. Hmm, if an individual has no religion by decision, what is he? An atheist! He seems to say that the only way a government proceeding would be atheistic would be if it were anti-theistic (opposed to God, or, more specifically, opposed to theism, belief in God). He said, "we're not trying to add atheism to the ceremonies, . . . I'd be just as annoyed if the ceremony were anti-religious. . ."

Those are my quick rebuttals. I published more comments on Hemant Mehta's blog post which essentially give these responses.

All-in-all, I don't know why it's an issue. If a Jew were to pray at the inauguration it simply would not affect me. Rick Warren praying at Mr. Obama's inauguration, in their minds, shouldn't affect them, since they believe it has no true impact.

Lastly, Jefferson said that there should be a wall of separation between church and state. This same man had no problem reading Scripture (from his softened bible) at government proceedings. No one actually knows today exactly what he meant when he said that there should be a wall of separation, but it seems pretty obvious to most, that he wanted to protect the government from becoming the wing of a church.

A final word: Listen to Mohler talk about charitable pluralism and the following Q & A time.

Reading a verse in the Psalms has brought me back to thinking about Bible translation. Psalm 51:4 in the ESV reads,

If you take it at face value, the verse says that David sinned so that God would be cleared (or vindicated or justified) in His judgment. That doesn't sound like a plausible interpretation to me.

Another version, the New English Translation Bible (hereafter referred to as the NET Bible), translates it

This at least is understandable and compatible with my understanding of an unchanging, omnipotent, sovereign God (which I think the Scriptures teach). Of course, the second part in this version is a paraphrase:

The Hebrew term לְמַעַן (lÿma'an) normally indicates purpose ("in order that"), but here it introduces a logical consequence of the preceding statement. (Taking the clause as indicating purpose here would yield a theologically preposterous idea – the psalmist purposely sinned so that God's justice might be vindicated!) For other examples of לְמַעַן indicating result, see 2 Kgs 22:17; Jer 27:15; Amos 2:7 . . . (A translator's note on this verse from the NET Bible)

That's a helpful note. So the ESV accurately translates what the Hebrew actually says and the NET Bible translates what the Hebrew actually means. Being able to get both provides a compelling reason to read multiple translations when doing Bible study.

I don't know anything about Hebrew, so I'm going to assume that the NET Bible's right for paraphrasing the second part of the Hebrew that way, especially since that's how Paul applies the verse in Romans 3:4. But what if we didn't have Paul interpreting it for us? The NET note says that term "normally indicates" [emphasis added] purpose. And they deduce that in this case it doesn't indicate purpose because it would be theologically incompatible. As soon as I read this, I thought back to something Piper'd written:

The following meditation comes from my devotional lingering over Psalm 96:7. All the modern versions translate it, "Ascribe to the Lord...strength" (ESV, NIV, NASB). Only the KJV renders it with the literal, "Give unto the Lord...strength."

There's nothing unusual about this Hebrew word "give" (yahab). It's used over sixty times in the Old Testament in all the ordinary ways the word give is used.

The word ascribe in Psalm 96:7 is an interpretation. It's a paraphrase. It's a good interpretation, I think, but, as with all paraphrases, it short circuits our reflection.

When you read the NET Bible for Psalm 96:7, the use of "ascribe" instead of "give" isn't even mentioned in the notes.

I think this is the main reason why I advocate literal translations. It's easy enough to use explicit language to give the immediate meaning of a passage, but it runs the risk of covering over a deeper meaning the author had invested in his original choice of words.

Here's an illustration: The replacement of the words referring to a dead person sleeping in the Old Testament. Consider, for example, 1 Kings 2:10: "Then David slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David" [ESV, cf. NASB, KJV]. The NIV and HCSB (i.e., the Holman Christian Standard Bible, one of Mohler's three recommended translations) use "rested" instead of "slept," the NLT (i.e., the New Living Translation) uses "died," and the NET Bible uses "passed away." All of these obviously convey the same immediate meaning: He's dead! But Grudem once made an interesting comment: He said that when the Bible talks about dead people who are said to be sleeping, it is foreshadowing resurrection.

You might think that "rest" carries the same connotations as "sleeping." It's true that it can, but in this case, I think the translations are using "rest" like you would for any inanimate object. E.g., "The fork rested in its spot." By not using the word "sleep" the implication of one day waking is veiled. The literal translations keep the Old Testament type intact.

Given that example, I want to go back to my question of how does the translator decide when to keep the author's original wording, and when does he change the wording because it's incompatible with his views. For example, John 11:3-6 reads,

So the sisters sent word to Jesus, "Lord, the one you love is sick."

When he heard this, Jesus said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified through it." Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. Yet when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days. [NIV, emphasis added]

But verse 6 literally reads, "So, when he heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was" [ESV, cf. NASB] (though I don't know anything about Greek, Piper pointed this out, and I trust his scholarship, and also, the NET Bible and the HCSB translate it "so").

Jesus found out that Lazarus was dying, so He didn't move, in order to let Lazarus die, that He may be glorified. But you don't get that right away from the reading of the NIV. The NIV doesn't leave it clear, for whatever reason, that Jesus stayed behind because of what Mary and Martha had told him.

This is my case for why a literal translation is best to be the first Bible you go to. But I also think that using multiple translations has a place. The way I balance it is by first lingering on the words of the literal translation and then, when I'm stumped, I'll go to the paraphrase. If I go too quickly to the paraphrase I'll jump too quickly to the immediate meaning it provides and ignore any underlying implications in the wording. At the same time, I still don't usually get it. Maybe fifty years from now I'll start making the connections that men like Piper and Mohler make.