Pete's Blog

Taken from Mark Dever's Nine Marks of a Healthy Church (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2000):

Yes, in 1 Corinthians Paul uses the expression "carnal Christian." He writes, "Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly ["carnal," KJV]—mere infants in Christ" (1 Cor. 3:1). But who are these people? Are these carnal Christians a "middle category" of people who have Jesus in their life but not on the throne? It sounds like a strange idea, doesn't it? On the one hand, you've got Christians who have Christ as Lord, with Him on the throne. Then, on the other side, you have non-Christians. But, it is argued, you also have this interesting middle category where Christ really is in the person's life but He's not on the throne. These are the "carnal" Christians. Well, that's one way you could read this verse.

I think a more natural way to read the verse is that Paul is shaming his readers by speaking of these self-confessed Christians as worldly. In calling them "worldly" or "carnal," Paul is intentionally using an oxymoron. An oxymoron is the joining of two words not meant to go together. In that sense, a carnal Christian would be like hot ice. It's just not supposed to make any sense. By writing in these terms, Paul is basically telling his readers, "Get off the fence! You are living differently than you are professing. You cannot do that. Those horses go in opposite directions—so jump on one or the other!" That's what Paul is saying. (p. 217)

That having been said, the best treatment of the filling of the Spirit that I know of is found in Dr. Andreas Kostenberger's article entitled, What Does It Mean To Be Filled With The Spirit?: A Biblical Investigation. Given that the Holy Spirit is God, and His filling is the ministry He does in our lives, Christians should not be ignorant on this subject. I recommend this article for all Christians.

I know that at least one of my readers is so anti-gun that if I talk about guns long enough around him, he will become violent, throwing whatever is within reach at me. Perhaps this is why he is anti-gun: not so much for the sake of others not having guns, but so that he'll never be allowed a gun. Anyway, despite knowing my audience, when I saw this picture on Dan Phillips' blog, I couldn't resist reposting it here.

To add some seriousness to the mix, listen to this well thought out Sunday school class on why guns are good.

This is an interesting perspective from John MacArthur:

[M]any contemporary Christians are engrossed in a mad quest for instant gratification, obsessed with earthly comfort, and shackled to this present world. I remember a time when the focus was on future hope and people wanted to hear a message about heaven, prophecy, or eschatology. These are not popular topics today because our minds are so set on the present, not the future. Unlike the Thessalonian believers who longed for Christ's return and the glories of heaven (1 Thess. 1:9-10), many of us have settled into this life quite comfortably. (p. 158, Our Sufficiency in Christ: Three Deadly Influences That Undermine Your Spiritual Life. Word Publishing, Dallas, 1991.)

Hopefully it's obvious that the Bible should be read in context. I was listening to a talk yesterday, and the speaker said that he once had a Bible Promise Calendar (I'm guessing one of those calendars where you tear the page for each day, and have a promise each day). One of the promises was Luke 4: 7: "If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours." It was a bad choice. I'll let the reader figure out the problem.

I'm not trying to say that women can't do it, while men can. No, God created us in His image to be respected, not objectified through lust. But as far back as I can remember, TV's always promoted men lusting, but now it's swinging 'round to women too. C'est dommage. Tsk, tsk, Bell.

Though I think the cessation of tongues speaking cannot be defended biblically, I am very wary of it in public worship. Here's a good paragraph from Mark Dever's book Nine Marks of a Healthy Church that gives a good glimpse at what Paul was thinking in 1 Corinthians:

The most obvious teaching on the purpose of spiritual gifts is found in 1 Corinthians 14. Look particularly at 14:4, which is very often misunderstood: "He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church." Some take this as a neutral statement, as if Paul is merely commenting that there are two different kinds of good edification—if you want self-edification, you should seek to speak in tongues or pray in tongues; if you want church edification, then you should seek to prophesy. But I don't think that's what Paul means here. Look at 14:1. He encourages these Christians to desire especially the gift of prophesy. Then down in verse 12, he says, "Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church." Then down in verse 19 he says, "But in the church I would rather speak five intelligible words to instruct others than ten thousand words in a tongue." Paul is saying that you have to be able to understand something in order to be edified by it. Intelligibility is necessary for edifying the church! And that, he says, is the goal of spiritual gifts. (p. 234)

A beautiful excerpt from Why We Love the Church (by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck, published by Moody Publishers, Chicago, 2009):

I am sick of books about community, so I'm hesitant to write about it in this space. I've learned that community rarely feels like that mountaintop experience in college, in the dorms, at midnight, when you and your buddies are confessing your sins, talking about girls, and perhaps talking about God and solving the church's problems over cold pizza. That situation is tailor-made for community because you're all the same, and you're all stuck there with nothing else to do. It's easy to love your friends in college because they're all basically like you. Community becomes much harder when there's something on the line—like my time, my money, my ideals, my precious opinions, my ego, and my privacy.

That said, community is people arranging to pay each others' bills when times get tough. It means arranging to grocery shop for someone when that someone suddenly has to be the primary caregiver to their sick spouse all day. It means spending time with your disabled family member or friend who is rapidly declining in health, when that time isn't fun, rewarding, or especially productive. And it's about those friends staying friends with us through our cynicism and sometimes bitterness. (pp. 193-194)

It's a good read. The tone of the book is polemical, so some of the readers of my blog won't like it, but it seeks to set straight those who would dare slander my Saviour's dear bride.

Don't jump to conclusions. I'm not going to be polemical.

Deuteronomy 25:11 is a funny verse when you read it in different translations. The ESV translates it, "When men fight with one another and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts." I italicized "private parts" because when you look at how different modern translations give us this verse, they all sound pretty much the same until it gets to talking about a guy's junk.

It's "private parts" in the ESV, the NIV, the Amplified Bible, and the CEV. It's "genitals" in the NASB, the HCSB, the NKJV, and the Message. The NLT translates it "testicles" and my favourite English translation (i.e., the one that most obscures the meaning of the word, thus being the funniest) is from our not-so-modern translation the KJV, which renders the word, "the secrets."

To add to the interesting translations, in French, the verse is translated « Lorsque des hommes se querelleront ensemble, l'un avec l'autre, si la femme de l'un s'approche pour délivrer son mari de la main de celui qui le frappe, si elle avance la main et saisit ce dernier par les parties honteuses » (Louis Segond). Take my word for it, it means the same thing as the English versions. Except this version's translation of a guy's junk is different; « honteuse » is the French adjective for shameful, or disgraced, or ashamed.

At first it appeared this was a huge sociological suggestion at how the French viewed sex (i.e., as it being shameful), but it turns out the word actually literally means "that excites shame" in the Hebrew. This made me wish that I knew something about Hebrew, but I don't, so I can't go any further in inferring what this implies about Jewish thought concerning sex and its goodness.

It's still funny, though, that the KJV translates a man's genitals as "the secrets."

A few days back, the Quote of the Day was, "Computer games don't affect kids, I mean if Pac Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive music" (Marcus Brigstocke). Pretty interesting considering that's how a few decades in the 1900s looked.

Anyway, a friend commented,

Well everyone knows that with the advent of Tetris, children's rooms were notably more organized and tidy. Also, a similar effect can be seen with Pokémon. PETA had to introduce an entire new propaganda unit to stop people from shoving squirrels into tennis balls.

Actually that last one doesn't sound like that bad of an idea. "I choose you SQUIRRFUR!" "SQUIRRFUR uses RABIES." "RABIES is super effective." "LITTLE JOHNNY is dead."

If you have Pokémon experience, I'm sure you enjoyed this little section.

--

For more laughter, today's daily Dilbert comic was awesome. Check it out.

Taken from Christopher Adsit's Personal Disciplemaking: A Step-By-Step Guide for Leading a Christian From New Birth to Maturity (Orlando, Florida: Campus Crusade for Christ, 1996):

From time to time while I was in college, a bunch of us would fan out and knock on doors in our building, just to see if we could find anyone interested in talking about the gospel. In my early days as a witnessing Christian, I was a wee bit off in both my motivation and approach. I was definitely interested in seeing people come to know Christ, but I was equally interested in the chase, the debate, the intellectual give-and-take; seeing the foe weakened as he had to relinquish a point; myself emerging the victor after a titanic battle, the walls around us bloody with rhetoric, philosophies, quotes and logic.

The zenith of my misplaced zeal was my (now embarrassing) practice of making up Scripture. If a fellow's argument backed me into a corner, I'd simply invent a "biblical" statement (complete with chapter and verse) that facilitated my escape. It's too bad no one ever asked me to show it to them in the Bible - it would have ended that folly in a hurry! (p. 39)

What a fun story! He goes on to make the point that it's God's job to convert people, it was only his job to tell them the Truth.

I have some somewhat original material coming up for the blog in the next few weeks, but for now you'll have to be satisfied with me completely ripping off Dr. John Currid's blog:

One of the requirements to attend Spurgeon's college was a recommendation from the applicant's pastor. Spurgeon tells one story of a pastoral recommendation:

"I had a curious experience with one applicant. His pastor had given him an open letter, warmly commending him to me as a man called to the ministry; but, in another communication, sent to me by post, the minister wrote that the young man was not at all likely ever to become a preacher, and that he had only written the recommendation because the candidate's father was his chief deacon, and he feared to offend him by telling him the truth. I felt that it was quite unjust to put upon me the onus of refusing the young man; so, when he arrived, I gave him the epistle I had received, and left him and his father to settle the matter with their pastor in the best way they could"

This is hilarious!

Seriously, read his blog every time it comes out. What a gold mine!

A really, really amateur review. And it's long. Be warned. (At least I had fun writing it.)

Mona Lisa Smile (2003), directed by Mike Newell, with Julia Roberts, Kirsten Dunst, Julia Stiles, Maggie Gyllenhaal and others, acting in it.

I want to write something about this movie, because it really made me think. But first off, what motivated me to watch it: When it came out back in 2003 (before I was a Christian), I thought that it had such a long cast of well known actresses that it must be worth watching. But I never got around to it. Then, this week it appeared as one of the 99¢ rentals of the week on iTunes. So I decided to not miss the opportunity.

I can't make any analysis of the acting. There have been many times in the past where I've heard that someone's acting was terrible, and I thought it was fine (e.g., Hayden Christensen in Attack of the Clones), and other times where I've heard that someone's acting was fantastic and again, I thought it was (just) fine (e.g., Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind). The only time that I am confident in my evaluation of some acting, is when I think it's bad. If I think it's bad, it's definitely bad. Suffice it to say, the acting in Mona Lisa Smile was fine.

As a brief synopsis, Katherine Ann Watson (played by Julia Roberts) moved from California to Massachusetts (I think it was never explicitly stated that it was in Massachusetts, but there was a reference that made it seem to me that Harvard was nearby, but I could be completely wrong on this whole parenthetical note) to teach at a women's college named Wellesley. It's a school that was designed to enable women to be able to get a degree while they wait to get married and become house wives. Wellesley was highly traditional and tremendously scared to be challenged on its convictions.

Miss Watson moved to Massachusetts (I'm going to take for granted from now on that it is Massachusetts, but feel free to correct me) to teach history of art at the school. When she got there, though, she started challenging the status quo of all the students expecting to get married and give up any independence in order to serve their husbands.

That's it for the synopsis. Sorry for not being a better storyteller. Watch the movie if you're curious.

I'm going to start with the bad stuff because I want to get it over with and get to the good stuff. The fact that I am stating some bad things about the movie does not mean I disliked it. On the contrary, the movie had me nearly going to pull my hair out a few times, but mostly I felt really entrenched in thought (that's a good thing, in my mind).

The bad: The movie has this feel to it that sex is okay, regardless of relationship status, as long as two people consent, and that the only people who save sex for marriage are prudes.

Second, the liberal/progressive Katherine Watson's philosophy was challenged at every turn by Betty Warren (eventually Betty Jones when she marries Spencer Jones; she was played by Kirsten Dunst). What was bad about this was that it was not a good counterpoint. Miss Warren's arguments were always weaker than they could have been. It felt like the movie was setting up a straw man in Betty Warren to make it appear balanced.

That's it for the bad. Now for the good.

The movie challenged misogyny. Men are not women's rulers. Men do not have a right to cheat on their wives, much less to cheat on them and then cover it up with no consequence. I was happy that Miss Watson fought for women's rights.

Next: One of my two favourite scenes in the movie happened when Betty Warren was viciously attacking Giselle Levy (played by Maggie Gyllenhaal), calling her a prostitute in a variety of ways. (Miss Levy was very promiscuous in the movie and Betty Warren, for whatever reason, held it against her.) As this verbal assault progressed, Giselle approached Betty. Everything, from our past experience, to the look on Giselle's face, to the pace of the music, suggested that Giselle was going to hit Betty for causing her so much pain. But the most unexpected thing happens: grace.

Instead of slapping, punching, kicking or hair pulling, Giselle embraces Betty in a sisterly hug. Giselle had the wisdom to see that Betty was acting so harshly out of pain (Betty was typically harsh, but in this scene it appeared she wanted to cause pain in another). It was amazing. It was like grace was something you could touch. It was something to aspire to. Giselle did the exact opposite of what Betty deserved. It was God-like. "While we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Rm. 5:8).

The other fantastic scene was a dialogue between Joan Brandwyn (played by Julia Stiles) and Miss Watson. Miss Watson had tried to convince Miss Brandwyn to go to law school, but instead, the latter decided to become a stay-at-home wife. This dialogue takes place shortly after Miss Watson's discovery of this decision. It's worth quoting the whole dialogue here:

Katherine Watson: There are seven law schools within 45 minutes of Philadelphia. You can study and get dinner on the table by 5:00.
Joan Brandwyn: It's too late.
Katherine Watson: No, some of them accept late admissions! Now, I was upset at first, I can tell you that. When Tommy came to me at the dance and told me he was accepted to Penn, I thought, 'Oh God, her fate is sealed! She's worked so hard, how can she throw it all away?' But then I realized you won't have to! You can bake your cake and eat it too! It's just wonderful!
Joan Brandwyn: We're married. We eloped over the weekend. Turned out he was petrified of a bit ceremony, so we did a sort of spur-of-the-moment thing. Very romantic.
[Katherine is stunned]
Joan Brandwyn: It was my choice, not to go. He would have supported it.
Katherine Watson: But you don't have to choose!
Joan Brandwyn: No, I have to. I want a home, I want a family! That's not something I'll sacrifice.
Katherine Watson: No one's asking you to sacrifice that, Joan. I just want you to understand that you can do both.
Joan Brandwyn: Do you think I'll wake up one morning and regret not being a lawyer?
Katherine Watson: Yes, I'm afraid that you will.
Joan Brandwyn: Not as much as I'd regret not having a family, not being there to raise them. I know exactly what I'm doing and it doesn't make me any less smart. This must seem terrible to you.
Katherine Watson: I didn't say that.
Joan Brandwyn: Sure you did. You always do. You stand in class and tell us to look beyond the image, but you don't. To you a housewife is someone who sold her soul for a center hall colonial. She has no depth, no intellect, no interests. You're the one who said I could do anything I wanted. This is what I want.

Miss Brandwyn's comments here were very important (as this dialogue evidences, she was married at this point, so she was technically Mrs. Donegal, but throughout the majority of the movie she was yet unmarried, so she remains with the name "Miss Brandwyn" in my review). Miss Watson's feminism was far more extreme than I think is healthy by biblical standards. Yet, I don't hold this against the movie because of this dialogue. Miss Brandwyn does a fantastic job of pointing out just how patronizing Miss Watson really was.

The whole movie Watson was trying to say that it was bad for women to be expected to be house wives. But Miss Brandwyn boldly stated that there was nothing wrong with a woman desiring to stay at home and manage her household. I appreciated that she showed how Miss Watson was trying to get other women to live her vision of womanhood, instead of fighting genuinely for women's freedom.

I appreciated that the movie did not portray Katherine Watson as perfect. It made her more real. If she had been perfect, she would have been easier to attack.

For example, at the beginning of the movie, Bill Dunbar (played by Dominic West) is hitting on her and when he finds out that she has a boyfriend he says that if he were her boyfriend, he'd never have let her get away. Her response was that he wouldn't have a say in the matter. When I heard that I began questioning what sort of relationship she was in. As I understand it, a relationship should develop with each invested party taking the other into consideration. Anyway, I thought that Katherine Watson's lifestyle was what the movie was suggesting was right for women to live by, but she wasn't perfect, so I can't conclude decisively that she was the filmmakers' model woman.

[Spoiler in the following paragraph.]

Upon further consideration of this, there were many different women seeking different lifestyles throughout the movie. There was a lesbian (I haven't talked about her in this review), a smart, competent woman who chose to be a stay-at-home wife (i.e., Miss Brandwyn), a woman who got a divorce (i.e., Miss Warren), and, of course, a progressive liberal feminist (i.e., Miss Watson). Given this array, I need to conclude that the filmmakers' thesis was to genuinely endorse any decision an individual woman makes, and that she shouldn't feel pressure from anyone to fit into a specific mould.

Obviously to a certain extent I take issue with this thesis. Namely, I do not condone divorce or homosexuality or the putting off of marriage. That said, I certainly agree with the thesis that all people (yes, I'm extending the thesis to all women and men) should make their own decisions (but here I'm going to modify the given thesis)—within the framework of biblical principles, of course—and not necessarily do what is expected of them.

At the very least, the movie will get you thinking about these things. Very interesting. Do I think everyone should watch it? No. But it's worth watching, nonetheless.

"Susan, Eve's Daughter," said Father Christmas. "These are for you," and he handed her a bow and a quiver full of arrows and a little ivory horn. "You must use the bow only in great need," he said, "for I do not mean you to fight in the battle. It does not easily miss. And when you put this horn to your lips and blow it, then, wherever you are, I think help of some kind will come to you."

Last of all he said, "Lucy, Eve's Daughter," and Lucy came forward. He gave her a little bottle of what looked like glass (but people said afterwards that it was made of diamond) and a small dagger. "In this bottle," he said, "there is a cordial made of the juice of one of the fire-flowers that grow in the mountains of the sun. If you or any of your friends is hurt, a few drops of this restore them. And the dagger is to defend yourself at a great need. For you also are not to be in the battle."

"Why, sir?" said Lucy. "I think—I don't know—but I think I could be brave enough."

"That's not the point," he said. "But battles are ugly when women fight. . . ."

-C. S. Lewis, The Chronicles of Narnia, p. 160. This is a single volume of all seven books, published by Harper Collins. It is from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, chapter 10.

I don't really have any comment on this one. I do find it interesting that he included this bit (which is not to say at all that I disagree with the sentiment). I wonder whether Great Britain in the Second World War had some controversy going on over women going into combat.

There isn't a Bible verse to point to that explicitly says that only men are to go into battle. But when you read the OT, it's only men who are sent to fight.

On this subject, Mohler has written,

From a Christian perspective, the concern about women in combat goes far beyond the pollsters' questions. If we truly believe that God created men and women for different but complementary roles and shows his glory in the faithfulness of men as primary protectors and women as primary nurturers, the entry of women into combat roles is an open rejection of God's purpose. As military historians document, every society throughout history has normalized the military service of men. Though women have known combat in isolated cases throughout history, the fact that such cases are rare is the exception that proves the rule. This wisdom is part of general revelation and thus the moral wisdom shared by virtually all cultures.

When women are injected into combat, the dignity of women is undermined. In the extreme conditions of combat, women are exposed to the very worst that human beings can do and a physical violence that exceeds the imagination. There is no shortage of arguments against this practice. Biological arguments document differences of physical strength and stamina. Psychological arguments consider not only the psychological profile of women in combat but the difference the presence of women makes on men fighting alongside them. Sociological arguments and economic considerations focus on the costs of women in combat roles. These arguments are important, but not ultimate.

It's neat that when I was public school kid, we had to read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Hopefully that'll keep happening and kids will keep being exposed to Lewis' Christian worldview.

--

I do concede that Jael found herself in combat engaged (Jd. 4), but she wasn't sent into battle. Are there any other examples of women in combat in the Bible?

On the way to Jerusalem he was passing along between Samaria and Galilee. And as he entered a village, he was met by ten lepers, who stood at a distance and lifted up their voices, saying, "Jesus, Master, have mercy on us." When he saw them he said to them, "Go and show yourselves to the priests." And as they went they were cleansed. Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice; and he fell on his face at Jesus' feet, giving him thanks. Now he was a Samaritan. Then Jesus answered, "Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine? Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?" And he said to him, "Rise and go your way; your faith has made you well." (Lk. 17:11-19)

I would be so bold as to guess that all the readers of my blog have heard this story before (and if not all then certainly most). It's always nice seeing new things in the Bible that you didn't notice before. I wish that I were smart enough or observant enough to have come up with this on my own, but I make no claim of originality for the following thought:

After the one leper returns (v. 15) he bows down to Jesus (v. 16). When I imagine a scene where a subject goes to his king, he bows down, then the king immediately invites him to rise. Jesus didn't in this case. While the cleansed-leper was bowing Jesus pondered, "Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine? Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?" Only after pondering this out loud did Jesus then invite the man to rise.

I heard this in a lecture by Dr. Daniel Doriani, former professor at Covenant Theological Seminary (he's now a pastor), in his course on the gospels, which can be found on iTunes U. Dr. Doriani's point was that Jesus had no problem being bowed down to. He was comfortable with it. He truly thought He was worthy of worship.

My warm thanks go out to Kibonge for his help with this entry.

As most readers of this blog probably know, I'm traditional. My default is to keep the way we've always done something unless there's a reason to do otherwise, as opposed to defaulting to do something new unless there's a reason to keep the old ways.

Having this default, now that most Christians seem to be disillusioned with the word "religion" it got me thinking about why that is, considering that, in itself, it's a perfectly good word.

To begin with, I recognize that people aren't throwing out the perfectly good word "religion" in its original meaning, but are actually throwing out the word that our society associates with other meanings. Here are the two ways that I hear "religion" used in a negative way:

1. Ritualism and legalism. (Kibonge was really helpful with this. I hadn't identified the association between religion and ritualism before, but as soon as he mentioned it, I was in complete agreement. Very insightful.) In doing evangelism I've heard loads of people say that they're spiritual but not religious. Interesting. I think they're saying that they're not going through the rituals of an organized religion in order to practice their spirituality. When John MacArthur criticises "religious people" in his sermons, he's talking about Mormons, Catholics and pew warmers who think that going to a weekly worship service will help them get into a good afterlife.
   
2. Pharisaism. (In my experience, people have often used the word "legalism" where I think they mean "pharisaism.") In the gospels, the Pharisees were adding rules to the Law. In fact, they were breaking the Law in doing so, "You shall not add to the word that I command you" (Dt. 4:2). When I hear someone like Mark Driscoll use the word "religion," or more often, "religious people," he's talking about people who add unbiblical rules to people's lives. An example of who Driscoll would be talking about would be American fundamentalists. They have rules like you're not allowed to dance, smoke, go to movies, play cards, listen to John Piper sermons, etc.
   

Finally, I'd like to talk about good religion. The origin of the word "religion" etymologically comes from the Latin word "religio." That word breaks into two components: "re" which means again and "lig" which means to bind or to tie. So "religion" means to reconnect (i.e., with God). That's exactly what Christianity is. Humanity is fallen, and through Jesus, we're reconnected with God.

Also, in defense of the word "religion" being good, consider that James uses it in such a way that implies that religion is good. "If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world" (Jm. 1:26, 27).

This is not to say that either Mac or Driscoll are wrong in their usages. Language evolves. For example, consider the expression, "used to," as in, "It used to be summer." If you use the original meanings of each of these words' original meanings, the sentence is nonsensical. But it's come into our language. Likewise, the word "religion" has evolved in its meaning.

But, I think as Christians we should remember the original meaning. If for no other reason, because James does, and we don't have a better word for it yet in English.

--

I'm not done posting on Narnia yet. I really shouldn't make promises on my blog.

Anyway, I think this little quote can't hurt this post, even though it's unrelated:

"That's the worst of girls," said Edmund to Peter and the Dwarf. "They never carry a map in their heads."

"That's because our heads have something inside them," said Lucy.

-C. S. Lewis, The Chronicles of Narnia, p. 370. This is a single volume of all seven books, published by Harper Collins. It is from Prince Caspian, chapter 9.