Geoff's Miscellany

George Lakoff writes about pretty much everything because he writes about the fundamentally metaphorical nature of human thought. I've read two of his books and when I was in the local university library today I noticed three of his other books:

1. Moral politics : how liberals and conservatives think

2. Philosophy in the flesh : the embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought

3. Where mathematics comes from : how the embodied mind brings mathematics into being

In the past, I wrote about Roger Olson's mistake in interpreting what it means for God to be good. I made the point with classical theism in mind, which is called so because it was held by older theologians. Anyhow, Olson makes this point:

Here’s what I mean—to be specific. What ordinary lay Christian, just reading his or her Bible, without the help of any of the standard conservative evangelical systematic theologies, would ever arrive at the doctrines of divine simplicity, immutability, or impassibility as articulated by those systematic theologians (e.g., “without body, parts or passions” as the Westminster Confession has it)? Without body, okay. But without parts or passions? The average reader of Hosea, for example, gets the image of God as passionate. While “parts” isn’t exactly the best term for the persons of the Trinity, a biblical reader will probably think of God as complex and dynamic being rather than as “simple substance.”

One of my favorite poets is George Herbert.

One of the most important spiritual disciplines is practicing God's presence (in the sense of calling God and the things pertaining to him to mind throughout the day).

Thus, one of my greatest delights is this poem:

The Elixir

TEach me, my God and King,
        In all things thee to see,
And what I do in any thing,
        To do it as for thee:
        Not rudely, as a beast,
        To runne into an action;
But still to make thee prepossest,
        And give it his perfection.

In a previous post I proposed the gospel message (or the kerygmatic traditions) as the center of New Testament theology, not as a theme but as the historical reality behind the rhetoric and theological reasoning found in our New Testament. Now I propose a helpful distinction within the New Testament itself:

Gospel Saying vs Gospel Describing

In our New Testaments we have the four gospels, the sermons in Acts, and the brief allusions to the gospel's actual content in Paul's letters. But we also have sections wherein the gospel is not referred to by name, but is nevertheless the referent.

One gets the impression in the vigor of youth, that growing up is a restless evil and filled with meaningless trivialities. And while certain versions of growing up like growing weak-willed, being obsessed with sports, or having an unhappy marriage really are silly and should be avoided, other parts really aren't all that bad. It's almost as if, in the absence of certain evils that destroy the beauty of life for many around the world, that growing up is wonderful.

I propose that at the center of New Testament Theology, descriptively, lies the gospel about Jesus.

This means that though the gospel message is expressed differently among the NT authors or even is not mentioned by name in some books, it is the controlling narrative or central notion of all of the books in the New Testament. Here's how it looks:

1. The four gospels are the gospel of the early church in biographical format.
2. Acts is a summary of how the apostles spread the gospel of Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit. Also, Acts contains several sermons that follow the same outline as the four gospels (despite how weird John is).
3. The epistles and the apocalypse are all, in some way, a call to show fidelity to the message of Jesus and his apostles.

This has several advantages:

Last night we held my great-grandfather's memorial service. Here's his obituary.

He made it to 101. I got to officiate the service, though his Catholic funeral will be held this morning.

We had time for members of the family and community to express their fond memories, but I asked especially for stories of Grandfather's service to others after a reading from Mark 10. He had a tendency to keep his service to others quiet. A legend even circulated in my youth, that turned out to be true, that he gave land to the school system, but didn't want the school named after him so he deeded it to a friend in secret so that he wouldn't be named. His friend spilled the beans, but it was a noble effort.

http://avery-reflectivejourney.blogspot.com/2014/08/re-thinking-ordinary.html

Here's my favorite bit:

I’ve had to re-think how I view the Christian life and one thing I’ve had to admit to myself is that my desire to do big things and have an impact was driven in large part by the desire to feel significant. And the motivation to feel important and significant is drawn towards words like radical and runs from words like ordinary. The desire to make an impact might have more to do with boosting my self-esteem than it does with calling or vocation or long-term commitment. It’s not that these desires are wrong. They are wired into all of us.

Have you ever said aloud, “Oh, I wish I could remember that special quote!” Or perhaps instead, “Who made that three point argument?” Or perhaps, “What was the last line of that poem I otherwise memorized?” Well, if that’s you, then this post is on me. Or this post is for you.

Copia or a commonplace book which is essentially a notebook of aphorisms, quotes, poems, paragraphs, etc that you maintain for the express purposes future writing and research. I prefer to organize mine topically. The topics include almost anything. Seriously, things like “the purpose of Paul’s letter to the Romans,” “Misunderstandings of Statistics in Science Journals,” “funny tweets,” “lines from novels,” etc. The quotes can be as complicated or simple as you wish, but the point is that any idea, paragraph, or quip you wish to ponder, utilize for research, or quote is all in one place. I even put the source under each one in Turabian format. It’s like an annotated bibliography for your life. I would even recommend putting your own thoughts about the quote underneath the quote in bold. This way you also have a pithy version of a story for illustrative purposes.

Jim West, in a post I cannot find, says that the two presuppositions for understanding the gospels aright are:

1. Jesus was God in the Flesh
2. Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi.

I've been reflecting upon these. Whatever you think of Jim West (I think he's from outer space, some think he is as timeless as the moon and stars, and others think he's fairly eccentric), I think he's got this right. More in the future.