Barring my faulty memory (and if I’m not lazy) I want to post prayers on Monday from all over Church History and then throughout the modern day, and then my own. This one was adapted by John Wesley and is in the Book of Offices of the British Methodist Church. It’s a prayer that actually makes me nervous to pray so I placed the Amen in parenthesis not in some weird magical sense but just because.
I am no longer my own, but thine.
Put me to what thou wilt, rank me with whom thou wilt.
Put me to doing, put me to suffering.
Let me be employed for thee or laid aside for thee,
exalted for thee or brought low for thee.
Let me be full, let me be empty.
Let me have all things, let me have nothing.
I freely and heartily yield all things to thy pleasure and disposal.
And now, O glorious and blessed God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
thou art mine, and I am thine.
So be it.
And the covenant which I have made on earth,
let it be ratified in heaven.
Like an old yenta, a designer is often found matchmaking design projects and fonts. With so many designs, the designer ensures they have access to as many possible matches as possible.
But that doesn’t always work out. After all, the designer, like the yenta, has a certain vision of the ideal font matches. They don’t even think about it; for some reason, a certain font just feels—until you look back and see a matching trend.
So these posts are to display, ogle, applaud, examine and objectify fonts that have crept out of my dreams and onto my designs. Go ahead: fontasize about Impact.
On Fridays, I enjoy wading into the deep end of the pool to try treading the deep waters of philosophy. I’m a woefully amateur swimmer and I have no doubt that an occasional philosophical lifeguard will dive into my then muddied waters to pull me back into the tepid kiddie section, but for now I wade on. In this post, I’m not much considering a question as much as sharing a chart.
There’s the age old question about abstract objects (like the color red, or the number seven, or the property of Good) whereby philosophers wonder if they are real existing Somewhere or if they are merely convenient names for these ideas we’ve come up with. When studying these things, I’ve seen some connections in them, and in theories of how-we-know-what-we-know and I created this chart. It helped me think some of the things out, though any true philosopher would likely laugh at it pointing out the multitude of displayed stupidity. Fear of displaying my stupidity has never stopped me from displaying my stupidity in the past, and I doubt it will in the future. Here’s the chart but please, make sure to click on it to see it biggie sized.
Occasionally I like to link to some random stuff and call it “links n’ junk” but I have two sites here that are so not in the junk sphere that I couldn’t properly label this post in that way.
First, we have Designers & Books which describes itself as:
devoted to publishing lists of books that esteemed members of the design community identify as personally important, meaningful, and formative—books that have shaped their values, their worldview, and their ideas about design.
That’s pretty flipping interesting while simultaneously wrapped in nicely designed site:
Then we have a site by my buddy Matthew which I’ve linked to earlier but just need to bring up often: Stretchbook. He describes it as “a collection of creative exercise” and “where ideas go to work out”.
Regarding Genesis 1 and 2, I’ve often heard an offhanded and basically unsubstantiated comment to divert attention away from creation and evolutionary debates. Indeed, reading my own blog, you might see a variation of that very comment when I discuss conclusions from the text: the emphasis is not on the What or the How as much as the Who.
That is still true. The text is emphasizing the person of Elohim over the celestial objects, over the waters, over mankind—but some have used that very real main point to detract from the fact that the text does actual contain “what” and some “how” in it as well. Yes the text says that the Who is Elohim but it also expressly says What He did (he created) and how (by speaking).
And yet, even while heavily emphasizing a Who these same people often come up with an alternate What and an extra-biblical How. It’ is not that God is creating—that occurs in verse one—they might say, it’s that He’s assigning roles for his created temple (indicated by the word “rest”). So they’ll read the English word “Let” and “Make” and they see assignment as in “Make me a King” or “Make me the Art Director for this job”. The person isn’t being created into a King or an artist but they’re being assigned to that role. And, they’ll add, the text is absolutely silent on the process (begging the question, methinks): Science—God’s second book of revelation—tells us how all things were made.
Now the assigning of roles might apply in some of the days (The fourth day for example and the assigning of roles to the lights to govern; the sixth day and the assigning of people to govern over the earth) but what role is there being assigned to light in verse 3? The passage says it was dark then God said “Let there be light” and then there was light—that’s no assigning at all but creation (it wasn’t there—now it was).Same thing with the vegetation. God doesn’t merely assign the role of Earth as vegetation producer; rather he says it and it happens (and it was so…the earth brought forth vegetation Gen 1:11).
And it really doesn’t even take into account the fact that there is no “Let” before the “there be” in this passage in the sense of assigning roles whatsoever. What it says is “Be” which as a divine utterance that brings things into being. This even applies in Gen 1:14 where we see the words “Be Lights”. So even if you hop down to verse 20 where one might try to argue heavily that the waters produced these creatures, we see that God creates all of them just as he created the heavens and the earth in verse 1 and 2.
Now as to the how (if it was an evolutionary process or not) I think it’s pretty safe to say that the passage doesn’t tell us that the creatures in the waters came about by divine selection and mutation. In the verses that matter (v 26) the verb bara (to create) which might mean made-from-pre-existent material is used, but also we see, another word coming to the fore (barak to bless) which indicates an obvious alliteration. The text is actually pretty clear that God created the creatures following after their own kind, from lesser creatures (crawling things) to the greater creatures (moon, stars, man).
Lastly, this idea of the word “rest” automatically indicating God entering into his temple needs to be examined but that’s outside of the scope of this post.
Barring my faulty memory (and if I’m not lazy) I want to post prayers on Monday from all over Church History and then throughout the modern day, and then my own. This one comes from Fr. Terry Gensemer found here at the Circle of Prayer site.
O God of Beginnings, You are the Creator of all life. As we begin this week, be near us as we unite with our Pre-born brothers and sisters who are scheduled for death. May you by your Holy Spirit and by the voice of your church lead your people to rescue from death the innocent children and bring those who participate in their death to true repentance that they may taste of your goodness and mercy; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
On my iPhone (it’s really an iPod Touch but it’s annoying calling it an iPod Touch and it sounds slightly perverse calling it an iTouch and with the right applications and microphone it is essentially the same device sans camera so I’ll continue calling it an iPhone for any future posts though I don’t technically own one) I have a document that I reference when I’m out and about reading Scripture. It contains some themes that shoot right through Scripture, from beginning to end, and which all are tied up to the Gospel and eventually are the very things that God is culminating. Of course, the ideas aren’t original. My thinking was influenced by DA Carson, Dwight Pentacost, even John Piper and NT Wright (if you believe it).
In the list you might notice I’m missing some things like “Shepherd” or “Davidic King” but that’s because I think those tie into Man and his position under God. I didn’t mention Israel, though it is surely a major theme but I’ve subsumed it under People of God—but I don’t feel quite right about that. I might still put them under their own number—not sure.
I’ve noticed that some make a mistake of taking one of the themes of Scripture and making it the central focus of the Gospel (the good news). For example, NT Wright loves to make the Gospel all about the Kingdom. Piper loves to make the Gospel all about God (even has a book called God is the Gospel). So on. I think that to say the main theme of the Gospel is any one of these things is seriously mistaken and ignores the breadth of what God is accomplishing. Also, I think some would like to remove some of these things as being tied to the Gospel. So, one might argue that Creation is central to the Gospel and Sin is merely a side issue: that is mistaken. The Gospel necessarily deals with both of those (and other) things but I won’t argue the point beyond listing the themes from my iPhone here sans scripture:
- God (all that He implies)
- His Kingdom
- Man (and his Position)
- Marriage / Relationship
- Bondage (might bundle up with sin, possibly)
- Life – Healing – Salvation
- Death – Sickness – Suffering
- Promise / Covenant
- Sacrifice / Blood
- Holiness (and the levels Holy-Clean-Unclean-Profane)
- Light / Glory / Dark / Shadow
- Joy (Wine?)
- Temple / Tabernacle
- People of God
- Food / Eating (Bread)
No, I haven’t quit blogging. Yes, I still have the Christian Carnival database. Yes, it still has been going on. Yes, more articles are coming.
I’m just in the process of doing some backend stuff that necessitates me not updating the mysql database. That’s just geek talk for: Stay Tuned for your Regularly Scheduled Programming.