I’ve run across quite a few good technology related posts lately. Rather than trying to comment on them all individually, I decided just to gather them in one roundup. Here you go.
- Digitizd comments on The Feeling of Reading a Book.
There’s something, something I can’t explain, about the way a book feels to hold and read that no digital version can match.
- A new report suggests that cell phone use affects our brain, we just don’t know how.
A study published in tomorrow’s issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association confirms what researchers have long suspected: that long conversations on cellphones affect parts of your brain. Trouble is, not even the study’s authors, the National Institute of Health, know how the calls affect you.
- A Boston.com article discusses five new feelings produced by the internet.
There are some pretty specific feelings that can only happen in the Internet age, as a consequence of it. Or, at least, as a consequence of our angst about it, in the shadow of the self-obsession it facilitates, even encourages.
- A Slate.com article comments on why I Hate My iPad. And, here’s a follow-up article with some of the reader responses.
Now I just feel annoyed, having spent $600 on a device that hasn’t done anything to improve my life. A salad spinner would have been a better investment, and I don’t even eat that much salad.
- And, here’s a compilation of people talking about the internet before people really knew what the internet was.
You can now access full audio and video from the recent Desiring God Conference, The Powerful Life of the Praying Pastor.
Kevin DeYoung put out a call recently for comments on what books have most influenced his readers. After 326 comments, he’s compiled a list of their 10 Most Influential Books. And, since his readership comprises mostly the Young, Restless, and Reformed crowd, it provides an interesting snapshot into which books are influencing this group. (DeYoung recognizes that this is far from a definitive list. But it’s interesting nonetheless.)
- John Piper, Desiring God
- Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology
- J.I. Packer, Knowing God
- C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
- John Piper, Don’t Waste Your Life
- R.C. Sproul, Holiness of God
- Jerry Bridges, Disciplines of Grace
- C.J. Mahaney, Cross-Centered Life
- Mark Driscoll and Gary Breshears, Doctrine
- (tie). R.C. Sproul, Chosen by God; John Piper, God is the Gospel; Joshua Harris, Dug Down Deep; Francis Chan, Crazy Love; David Platt, Radical
No real surprise to see John Piper, J.I. Packer, and R.C. Sproul well represented. And, it was nice to see that C.S. Lewis is still on the table despite the fact that he comes from a rather different perspective on quite a few issues. But, I was a bit surprised to see Doctrine by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Bresehars on the list since it really hasn’t been out all that long.
Of these books, the only ones that have really been all that influential for me are (in order) Lewis’ Mere Christianity, Packer’s Knowing God, and Piper’s Desiring God, which I read as a seminary student and was (I think) the first Piper book I ever read. I’ve read most of the others, but none of them have really left their mark in the same way.
Here’s a powerful video on what it means to be “unreached” by the Gospel.
- Michael Patton reflects on “closet doctrines” – those doctrines we believe but prefer not to admit to non-Christians.
Closet doctrines are those doctrines that we might believe, but we hide, especially to those for whom Christian truth is a novelty. In short, they are those beliefs that we are somewhat embarrassed by.
- Kevin DeYoung comments on the importance of the affections in Piper, Edwards and the Reformers.
the experiential nature of faith, the spiritual mark of delight in God, and the expectation of pervasive joy are not the inventions of John Piper. Nor are they owing only to the influence of Edwards and the Great Awakening. They go back to the Reformers themselves.
- Tyler Kenney expresses concern about how evangelicals read the OT.
What am I getting at? I am concerned that evangelicals, by and large, approach the OT with an unbiblical dependency on the NT. Since the NT is newer revelation and offers a more developed view of God’s redeeming purposes, it becomes the key by which we “unlock” the meaning of what has come before it. There is no overt discrimination against the OT, just a lack of deep engagement with it as meaningful, relevant revelation in its own right.
- Joel Watts links to an article by Mirsolav Volf on whether monotheism engenders violence.
- There are some good book reviews out today. Larry Hurtado reviews James McGrath’s The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in its Jewish Context; Diglot reviews Walter Brueggemann’s An Unsettling God – The Heart of the Hebrew Bible; and Jason Goroncy reviews David Gibson’s Reading the Decree: Exegesis, Election, and Christology in Calvin and Barth.
- And, here’s an interesting list of 10 movies stuck in development hell. Hollywood definitely needs to get some of these taken care of. I don’t care if they ever make a movie about Halo, but Ender’s Game would be fabulous and The Sandman is long overdue.
I’ve been interested in the debate that Wright and Piper have been engaging in over the “New Perspective” (or at least Wright’s version of it). After reading Piper’s book, The Future of Justification, I thought it was only fair to read Wright’s response called Justification. In this book Wright reminded me of Mike Tyson in the infamous Evander Holyfield fight with that whole “ear incident.” What has been one of the most highly charged polemical books I have read in a long time, Wright simply comes out swinging. Not because he thinks he is losing, but because for nine rounds he feels as if he has been misunderstood, mischaracterized, misquoted, and misrepresented. I cannot blame him for coming out and defending his name, and more importantly, his orthodoxy and love for the cross and resurrection of Jesus as the only source of saving faith sinful humanity has to go to find redemption. The book is well written, and I would contend, the clearest presentation of what Wright has been trying to say. That being said, I still find his argumentation unconvincing.
He begins by typecasting himself as the loyal friend who is attempting to explain to another that the sun does not revolve around the earth. He likens adherents of the “old perspective” to those that would rather cling to tradition that to undertake a “fresh” reading of Paul that might jostle the cart of Pauline theological assumptions that have been held since the reformation. He asserts that those who are attacking him are simply not listening to what he, or for that matter Paul, are saying. He also likens himself to Luther and Calvin who, against the ecclesiological norm of their day, bucked the system in order to render a right reading of Scripture. He is surprised to find so many in the reformed tradition taking him to task for the doing the very thing that their heroes did five-hundred years ago. He goes on to say that the theological framework in which Paul has been interpreted is simply not sufficient. There is too much emphasis placed on individual redemption and not the redemption of the world. There is almost no talk of the Spirit’s role in many present concept of justification. Most importantly for Wright, theologians and pastors are not reading Paul correctly because of a bias that will not fit with their preconceived notions of the law, justification, and Judaism. He argues that if we silence what Paul actually said so that we can feel better about our theological conclusions, we are silencing Scripture and missing out on the beauty of God’s word.
He goes on to defend several of his assertions. First, Wright corrects a misunderstanding of Judaism and the law. He claims that the law was never the means by which people got saved. For Wright, the Jews were never asking this question. The more important question in the Jewish community was, “How do we know who is part of the covenant community of Abraham?” The law provided certain boundary markers to tell who was in the covenant community. This means that we have mischaracterized the Judaism of Paul’s day. He also speaks of justification, as the “status” given that one is right standing with God, and a member of God’s covenant family. Here Wright speaks of the law-court setting in which the declaration of the Judge in favor of the plaintiff only gives a status, not the actual substance of righteousness. There is no change in the moral character of the one who is justified by God. This is one of the main points in Wright’s argument for which he attempts to defend exegetically in the second part of his book. The question that Wright never answers, however, is whether or not believers ever actually get righteousness, or just a status? If we do actually get righteousness, where does it come from? His silence may be his answer. However, Wright never addresses this in his book, but simply says that imputation is not to be found anywhere in Paul. Something I think he drastically overstates. I found some of his exegesis here; especially with 2 Cor. 5:21 to be lacking. He places 5:21 inside of the larger framework of Paul defending his authority as an apostle, and as 5:19-21 as Paul’s explanation of what he is preaching with the authority of an apostle. This however, does not necessitate the exegetical gymnastics he does to make verse 21 speak of Paul as “embodying God’s covenant faithfulness.” The change is unnecessary, and is stretching. Wright also begins to unpack the role of works inside of Pauline theology. It is at this point that I feel Wright did some of his best work. Up until I read chapter eight it appeared that, for all his counter claims that he was not trying to “sneak works in the back door,” that that was in fact what he was doing. In chapter eight he unpacked all of the passages where Paul joins “works” to the eschatological judgment and asks the question, “How do you explain these verses?” He appeals to the necessity of the Spirit in the life of the believer, as well as the believer’s responsibility to live a life in the power the Spirit provides. At this point, I’m not sure that Wright is saying anything much different from the reformation, but as trying to elevate the role of Spirit-empowered works to its proper seat. This was an area in which I was most critical of Wright, but which I feel he defended well. I’m not completely satisfied as of yet, but have shifted.
The book is a great read. There are still questions that I wish Wright would attempt to answer. Although the water still isn’t as clear as I would like, some of the silt appears to be settling. If you have read Piper’s book, this should be the next one you pick up.
Earlier today I posted a link to a video of John Piper discussing whether pastors should get PhDs. That video has begun to make its way around the blogosphere and has prompted a really thoughtful response (both appreciative and critical) from Dane Ortlund. Nick Norelli has also weighed in with a brief comment in favor of Piper’s overall take on the subject. I’d encourage you to watch the video, and then I’d like to hear what you think. I’d also be interested to know if you think that his arguments extend to Th.M. programs as well.
You’ve probably heard by now that John Piper is taking a leave of absence from his church and all speaking/writing engagements. Unfortunately, this means that he will no longer be one of the plenary speakers at this year’s national ETS conference, the theme of which is “Justification by Faith.” That is unfortunate since N.T. Wright will be one of the other plenary speakers and it would have been fun to have both of them involved.
But, ETS has announced that Tom Schreiner will be stepping in to take Piper’s place. What do you think? Tom has written extensively on the subject, but I’m not personally familiar with most of his books. Do you think he’s a good replacement for Piper? If you were on the nominating committee, is there anyone that you would have suggested instead?