Postmode

This video was interesting, especially in its observation about liberal versus conservative views of the role of government in charity.

Distilled essence: Conservatives are more generous with their own money; liberals are more generous with everybody else’s money. Socialism is government-sanctioned thievery, people.

I didn’t know until today that Abraham Piper (son of John Piper) has his own personal blog. I’m reading through the archives (not a long task, as every post is only 22 words long, I think - given the name “Twenty-Two Words”; see here). I’m very interested in the concise manner in which Abraham makes his points.

His thoughts from his post on March 27th (”Jargon is a whip to beat away the masses.”) brought to mind something that William Zinsser says in his book On Writing Well:

During the 1960s the president of my university wrote a letter to mollify the alumni after a spell of campus unrest. “You are probably aware,” he began, “that we have been experiencing very considerable potentially explosive expressions of dissatisfaction on issues only partially related.” He meant that the students had been hassling them about different things. I was far more upset by the president’s English than by the students’ potentially explosive expressions of dissatisfaction. I would have preferred the presidential approach taken by Franklin D. Roosevelt when he tried to convert into English his own government’s memos, such as this blackout order of 1942:

“Such preparations shall be made as will completely obscure all Federal and non-Federal buildings occupied by the Federal government during an air raid for any period of time from visibility by reason of internal or external illumination.”

“Tell them,” Roosevelt said, “that in buildings where they have to keep the work going to put something across the windows.”

On Writing Well, p. 7

Abraham also found this excellent video (couldn’t embed, so you’ll have to visit the link to watch). He wasn’t sure whether this was satire or legit; I will make no claims to enlightenment on this matter either. In either case, watch and laugh.

David Hoos has posted some excellent thoughts on documentaries and Ben Stein’s new movie, Expelled, on his blog, The Waterspout. Do recommend the read. [Link]

excerpt

While I think it’s neat that some I.D. sympathizers have gone and made themselves a movie, and one that is getting a decent exposure and release, I can’t help but wonder why they chose the style they did. Ben Stein is acting like Michael Moore in Expelled. He’s playing David against an academic Goliath. No doubt that is the idea behind it but frankly that worries me. If we truly believe we have the stronger case as I.D. folks, then why resort to a pathos heavy documentary?

- David Hoos, “No Moore, No Less” on The Waterspout Blog

Read the rest here.

On his blog, Peter Leithart posted an article from Biblical Horizons (not available on the Biblical Horizons website) on what is going on in Jude 9. I very much enjoyed it, and he did a great job of tying Jude 9 into the context of the rest of scripture.

From the post…
Jude 9 raises several difficulties (though not insuperable difficulties) for conservative commentators. The event that Jude recounts does not seem to be drawn from the Old Testament, and most scholars claim, based on statements of Clement of Alexandria and Origen, that Jude borrowed this story from the Assumption of Moses, an apocryphal work. If true, this raises the question of the status of apocryphal literature in general. We can, of course, defend the inerrancy of the canonical Scriptures even if this is the case. The Spirit, after all, might have led Jude to refer to this story, even though it came from a noncanonical book. But questions continue to nag at us. Is the story historical? Or, does Jude quote from a popular legend simply to support his theological point?

Link: http://www.leithart.com/2008/04/07/michaels-dispute/

I never knew there was actually a history to church signs. In fact, I think I probably thought they just suddenly randomly popped into existence. One week the signs existeth not, and lo, the Lord spake, and all of a sudden signage appeareth.

The Slate sideshow goes through the brief history of church signage and how it developed into the full-bodied word puns we get to laugh at (derisively or not) today as we drive by in our moving cubicle with windows up and AC on, protected from the God germs.

The one thing that struck me about this photo essay is the perceived disunity in the church that the author sees. His writing is rife with references to marketing and phrases not unlike “pulling the people into the church with the hottest item.” It isn’t just perceived disunity though. Some churches really do have this marketing mindset, like they’re in a marketing battle to the death with the other churches in town - and I think it is not an exaggeration to say that some pastors of churches see themselves in this way, as the lead spokesperson of their just-now-getting-it, recently-hip megachurch-hit-sensation - $19.95, but only if you call now and take advantage of this extraordinary offer!

The church lacks unity in its approach to life and culture. The small-town pastors with a flock of 50 get discouraged because they think that nothing is happening; the megachurch pastors thank themselves for blessing themselves with so many followers of themselves. Etcetera. It goes on and on. Few follow a consistent ethic of Christian love and unity, which translated into real life would look like this: people understanding and really grasping that the church exists for the glory of God, not a political movement that has warped and twisted his public image for its benefit, not a personal philosophy of love-is-God, not for the sappy emotional rhetoric of rich televangelists, not for the dreams of a “senile benevolence” (C.S. Lewis: see here) that looks on with a happy smile when we ignore him, or dumbly doesn’t get the fact that the joke is on him.

Needless to say, the church should not be the way it currently is. It’s a good thing culture hasn’t given up on picking our flaws out yet. The moment the culture stops doing this is the moment that reformation in the area of gospel and culture goes along at a VERY slow pace. We would not have so many opportunities to remind ourselves of the flawed ecclesiological presuppositions underlying the church’s dismal disunity today were it not for culture.