Word of the Day To Return (I Hope)

I am going to try to start up Word of the Day again (not that it really started last time...). I figure since this site is named for this feature, the feature ought to be there...And in honor of this hopeful return:

Word of the Day: ἐλπίς (elpis - hope, expectation)

BDAG gives it the definition "the looking forward to something with some reason for confidence respecting fulfillment." It seems to me as a casual English user that hope and expectation have different meanings in English. Hope (μὲν) is more of a wish or desire that has no reasonable chance or at least a very small one of actually being fulfilled. Expectation (δὲ) has a decent chance of being fulfilled.

Thus, if you really wanted a nice new Lego set for Christmas but your parents have made no mention of it and have in fact hinted at socks and underwear, you might hope for Legos but expect socks. Now, if you wandered into their room while they were gone and find a way to look on the top shelf (obviously for pure reasons) and just so happen to see a Lego set, you would no longer hope for Legos, you would expect Legos. There is now a basis for your desire.

The Greek word, at least when used by Christian authors, has the same connotations as the English 'expectation.' Our hopes in Christ are not unfounded, but have a basis in his death and resurrection, and the faithfulness with which God has interacted with his covenant people throughout history. Particularly, we have a basis that Christ will certainly return, judge the living and the dead, and consummate the marriage with the Church even though it has been 2000 years since he left.

A Review: Billy

Billy by William Paul McKay & Ken Abraham
Billy is a (somewhat fictionalized?) biography of Billy Graham’s start as a evangelist, his interactions with Charles Templeton, who was at one time an evangelist and eventually renounced his faith, and the struggle of faith to which these interactions led. The biographical information is framed by a story of an interview with the aged Templeton.
I see there being two parts to a book review: the writing and the message. Concerning the writing, this book was not outstanding, but it was not awful. The writing at the beginning was slow and weak. It seemed much like the way some of my papers start out, a writer’s block exercise. Once the authors, however, got into the book, any imperfections in the writing faded to the background, and the story took over. One concern I have is where the line between truth and fiction is. The back cover says this book is “based on the remarkable true story.” I am not an expert on the life of Billy Graham but from what I could find, the major events mentioned are all correct. I am assuming that the conversations for the most part have been fictionalized. Fictionalized does not mean bad though. The authors have crafted a wonderful story of love of God, romance, doubt, and a strengthened love of God. One minor problem was on pages 57 and 62, the authors mention the Greek word for sin. They, however, use the word metanoia which happens to not be the Greek word for sin but for repentence. The Greek word for sin is hamartia. It could be possible that they were trying to show the greenness of the young Billy Graham at his first preaching engagement, but since they don’t point out the correct word, I doubt it.
The message of the story was thought-provoking. The contrast between the questioning of Billy Graham which leads to faith and the questioning of Charles Templeton which leads to apostasy offers much to think about and is something that many people need to consider. I know I have doubts and how I deal with these doubts influences how my faith grows. Charles Templeton’s problem was his lack of theological basis. Without that, attacks on faith aren’t blocked by anything; they can just come in and take over. Billy Graham didn’t have much training but he had some, and that bit he had gave him something to stand upon. But more importantly, he clung to God through his doubts. His example in that is encouraging; God can guide us through doubts.
The strangest thing that the authors did was toward the end of the book when Billy Graham was wrestling in prayer about his view of the Bible. The authors add in the forces of Heaven and Hell battling over Billy Graham’s soul. It felt a bit contrived. Also, while they did portray Satan as being on a leash (something that it seems many Christians don’t realize anymore), they also put God on a leash saying that God could not do anything to influence Billy Graham except keep Satan at bay (well, I should say angelic forces, not God, because God does not partake in this struggle). I disagree with the theology of this section, but there are a lot of Christians whose view of theology I disagree with, but they still have something to offer that I can learn from. And, this book offers a portrayal of two faiths, one that dies and one that survives, and we can learn from that.

What is Life?

One of my friends posted this letter by James Dobson as though he were a Christian writing from the 2012 where Obama gets elected (Note: unless you are an extreme conservative who confuses Christianity with the Republican party, this will really annoy you). I don't have any real desire to critique the letter here; I think its own absurdity accomplishes that. However, I found this rebuttal which mentioned something very interesting.

In our current political culture, the phrase "Pro-Life" only refers to abortion. There is something seriously flawed with that. Why is abortion the only Life issue? The author of the rebuttal says:

"You make a mistake when you assume that younger Christians don't care as much as you about the sanctity of life. They do care--very much--but they have a more consistent ethic of life. Both broader and deeper, it is inclusive of abortion, but also of the many other assaults on human life and dignity. For the new generation, poverty, hunger, and disease are also life issues; creation care is a life issue; genocide, torture, the death penalty, and human rights are life issues; war is a life issue. What happens to poor children after they are born is also a life issue."

That is a statement I can stand behind. Abortion is very important, but you can't chase after that, claiming you are "Pro-Life" when you let so many other die. The last line of that quote is especially true. What use is it to save a baby's life if we shove it out on the streets as soon as it is born, neglected by its drug-addicted parents, barely getting enough food. That isn't "Pro-Life."

I am not saying that abortion should be allowed, but we should make sure we actually care about Life as a whole, instead of just in the womb.

Concerning the Greek Verb

As a student of the Greek language, I read and am taught things that make sense, but I often wonder: Was this really how the original speakers thought about their language? For instance, I am reading Basics of Verbal Aspect in Biblical Greek by Constantine Campbell. He argues that Greek verbs do not have tense (past, present, future, perfect) contained in the words themselves. Only when the verbs are in a context that calls for tense do the verbs show tense. What the verbs do have is aspect, i.e. how the action is viewed, and remoteness, i.e. how close the viewer is to the action. While I am not trying to reproduce his book here and so this might not make much sense, it really does make a lot of linguistic sense to me. The scheme fits well.

However, is this how the Greeks viewed their verbs? Well, at least according to one of their grammarians, Dionysios Thrax, not really. He says (my translation), "There are three times: present, past (having gone by), and future (about to be). The past has four different sections: imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, and aorist. There are three relationships between these: present to imperfect, perfect to pluperfect, aorist to future" (the original). He views the verbs more in terms of time (though, that last line is interesting...I might return to that sometime).

The next question is whether or not the Greeks' own view is important. If someone calls all trees trees without recognizing the distinction between the different types of trees, he isn't completely wrong but he lacks the botanical sophistication to point the distinctions out. Or maybe a better example might be the difference between an interior decorator and a normal guy. To the normal guy there is just green, maybe a dark and a light green, but green nonetheless. To the interior decorator, though, there is forest green, jade green, emerald green, sea green (I am a normal guy; those were the only crayons I could think of). The interior decorator has an increased sophistication when dealing with colors.

So maybe, the Ancient Greek grammarians lacked the needed sophistication to recognize what was truly occuring in their language. Maybe they only saw the verbs in context and, therefore, drew conclusions only from the context, which usually showed tense, but they did not have the linguistic sophistication that we have now to look at unaffected meanings.

We have two views (there are other views out there as well). One uses modern linguistic tools to examine what authors have written and considers what might be occurring in the text. The other is looking at the language from within but without the current linguistic tools and discussions.

Which is correct?

A Taste of Church Politics

I have been experiencing church politics lately. At the church I grew up in, I was too far removed from anything to see what goes on, but at my current church, I have had my eyes opened. We have been in the process of finding a new pastor. We brought in a really good guy for the interim position that has preached very biblically, and as a result, most of the church loves him. Notice the word "most." There are a couple in the church who...I can't say they are Arminian....how about Anti-Calvinist? I don't know that they have a really good idea why they believe what they believe because they never seem to bring up their points and support them.

Our interim pastor, on whom the church will vote in a couple weeks, is a Calvinist, but he is well-spoken and biblically grounded, loving man. I find myself likewise in the Reformed tradition, but I don't think that a pastor's ability as a pastor is hindered by their position on this matter. If a pastor was recommended that was an Arminian who preached the Bible faithfully, being true to the text, wrestled honestly with what the Bible says and still came out as an Arminian, then by all means, let him preach. But for this couple, I don't think it matters how biblical someone is as long as they are not Calvinist.

We had a business meeting last night. One of the couple brought up the pastor's view of free will. He has been going through systematic theology and started last week on the Providence of God. The one who asked the question wanted to hear the rest of the discussion before she voted (It won't be until the night of the voting that he can continue the Systematic theology). That wouldn't have been so bad except he has never been silent on his views. Last Sunday, he preached a wonderful sermon on the kingship of Christ, and his views came out. Several other times, it has been brought up. There was no question for any other member in the church as to what he believed.

It was actually amazing because the whole church, mostly not we younger Reformed guys but the older members, stood up for the pastor and said that he has stated his views and basically, we have been given all the information on this topic to make a decision. To see people think through things and be open-minded and greatly-loving solid preaching is a wonderful thing.

Food. Fridays. Fathers.

I love it when my roommates get food from family. It means I get food.

Also, Fridays always start out at bad days but somehow I end up enjoying them.

I mostly don't mind turning into my father except for the fact that he always falls asleep when he reads. I am starting to do that. I have too much reading I want to do in life to have that characteristic.

The Jesus of Invitation Hymns

Here is a John Donne sonnet I was introduced my Freshman year in Written Comp II:

Batter my heart, three-person'd God ; for you
As yet but knock ; breathe, shine, and seek to mend ;
That I may rise, and stand, o'erthrow me, and bend
Your force, to break, blow, burn, and make me new.
I, like an usurp'd town, to another due,
Labour to admit you, but O, to no end.
Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captived, and proves weak or untrue.
Yet dearly I love you, and would be loved fain,
But am betroth'd unto your enemy ;
Divorce me, untie, or break that knot again,
Take me to you, imprison me, for I,
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.

I thought of this again after we sang The Savior Is Waiting at church last night:

The Savior is waiting to enter your heart,
Why don’t you let Him come in?
There’s nothing in this world to keep you apart,
What is your answer to Him?

Refrain: Time after time he has waited before,
And now He is waiting again
To see if you’re willing to open the door,
O, how He wants to come in.

If you’ll take one step t’ward the Savior, my friend,
You’ll find His arms open wide;
Receive him, and all of your darkness will end,
Within your heart He’ll abide.

These two things paint two completely different pictures of our Savior. John Donne shows God violently taking us out of our bondage to sin. He uses a couple of strong images: a town that has usurped against the rightful ruler and an unwanted betrothal to the desired man's enemy. Donne desires God to restore the rightful rule to the town and reclaim him from the marriage. The Savior Is Waiting displays Jesus standing outside our hearts hoping that we might open the door. He wants to come in but he is powerless to do anything about it. Time after time, he has waited and so far you have said no, but he is still waiting, hoping fingers crossed that this time you might say yes. That song hurts my heart. On the other hand, Donne's poem causes me to rejoice. How amazing it is that God has rescued us from sin.